Post/Author/DateTime	Post
crazy_monkey1956 10-05-07, 12:43 PM	This is a directed discussion for determining what game system we'd like to base our shared world project on. A directed discussion just means that we will stay on topic as much as possible, and I will gently remind us to stay on topic if we start veering off. I'm hoping to have a duration on this discussion of one week. In that time, let's get the following question answered. What Game System do we want to use for our shared world? Options: 1. D&D Advantages: Well known, a plethora of supplemental material to play with, a baseline setting assumption to start with. Disadvantages: Non-OGL (anything we use from a D&D supplement, for the most part, can't be shared outside of normal usage...in other words, some legal concerns to research), 4th Edition (any rules work we do now will be rendered obsolete if we want to stay current) 2. OGL D20 Advantages: Essentially D&D with the serial numbers filed off, more "tinker" room to create something unique, free rules set. Disadvantages: In order to keep it OGL we'd need to carefully monitor what we allow in, no outside supplementary material beyond the SRD and the open content portions of Unearthed Arcana (and possibly the D20 Modern SRD). 3. OGL D20 Kitchen Sink Advantages: Everything we can think of has a place somewhere in the world, freedom to include content from just about anything. Disadvantages: Legal concerns again, utter massiveness of the project itself. 4. Other Options Advantages: Spotlight on something other than D20. Disadvantages: Lack of familiarity for a lot of players (including me). 5. Something we cook up Advantages: Uniquely ours-both the world and the rules. Disadvantages: Essentially two projects (rules and world), a ton more work for relatively minimal payoff. For this topic, please discuss any advantages or disadvantages I may have missed, put forth your preference and why, suggest additional options (option 4), and/or debate the merits and flaws of each system.
Forgotten_Warrior 10-05-07, 03:08 PM	I would like to use the D&D system. 4e won't be coming out for a while, and it may be possible for us to convert from 3.5 to 4. Most of the players would also be more familiar with this system. I don't really know much about legal concerns.
Ascened_Xan 10-05-07, 04:02 PM	I say we use DND, it will be easy to convert to 4th edition and who knows, perahps will get lucky like the guy who created the gran history of the realms and get contracted.
Jrichards 10-05-07, 04:17 PM	I have the most love for D&D, and so it seems the people in this community do as well, that's where I cast my vote.
Lynx_The_one 10-05-07, 05:00 PM	I think either D&D or open GL
Antioch 10-05-07, 05:02 PM	D&D.
Mistress_of_Mockery 10-05-07, 05:50 PM	I will vote for the Dungeons and Dragons system as well, even if it is just core. I think it would be better if it's core, as we can make our own stuff. I'd be glad to help on this.
Jrichards 10-05-07, 05:54 PM	I will vote for the Dungeons and Dragons system as well, even if it is just core. I think it would be better if it's core, as we can make our own stuff. I'd be glad to help on this. Core is 100% fine by me! although it's good to alter or add to rules, i think the main focus, as it usually is, should be on the story side of things. (not to say it wasn't going to be anyway)
crazy_monkey1956 10-05-07, 06:02 PM	Now that a few people have voiced their opinions, I'm going to pop in with mine. I think I'd like to try out an OGL setting, using the SRD and some elements of Unearthed Arcana. Reason being, it allows us to break out of some of the D&Disms and explore other fantasy tropes and genres. It will also actually be easier to convert to 4th edition if we throw out some of the 3rd edition elements that we already know won't be in 4th or have been altered in 4th.
Ascened_Xan 10-05-07, 06:26 PM	Now that a few people have voiced their opinions, I'm going to pop in with mine. I think I'd like to try out an OGL setting, using the SRD and some elements of Unearthed Arcana. Reason being, it allows us to break out of some of the D&Disms and explore other fantasy tropes and genres. It will also actually be easier to convert to 4th edition if we throw out some of the 3rd edition elements that we already know won't be in 4th or have been altered in 4th. In second hought I agree with him.I mean I think that core is all we will use.
Jrichards 10-05-07, 06:38 PM	This is true. And I remember in the early days of 3.0 when sword and sorcery was released, I bought their books and there was some really interesting stuff in it, but it wasn't well-received by others in my group, and I was the only one who chose to use said material. That being said, I'll accept anything D20 based, with preference being on D&D, then probably OGL, since it's basically the same minus some in-grown flavour.
bootmobile 10-05-07, 07:41 PM	While I am certainly not opposed to D&D I think going D&D or even d20 ogl is missing an opportunity to create a unique game experience available only on these boards. My number one choice would be to create unique d20 rules for a Medieval fantasy game that shares a great deal with (ie steals a lot from) the ogl. It would still be a very D&D game. In fact it would hopefully be convertible to D&D, so that if someone wanted to use the setting but run it as straight D&D they could without too much trouble. All the D&D elements would be there, we would just approach them from a different angle. The idea I have for this would be largely inspired by (stolen from) Mutants and Masterminds for its approach to character creation and from SWSE for its more dynamic combat. I disagree with CM in the original post when he says that this option would cause a lot of work with little benefit. It certainly would be a lot of extra work but I think it would pay off in that we would have a truly unique D&D playing experience available on these boards. There are a lot of things in other d20 games that people are fans of and would like to bring into their D&D experience. If we have that to offer here we could end drawing more people to play here. There are plenty of D&D settings and people will continue to use them on this pbp board, if we are going to put the work in to offer something unique why not make it truly unique? All that said I will admit that if I am addicted to world building then I am both addicted to and obsessed with rule design. :D
crazy_monkey1956 10-05-07, 07:45 PM	bootmobile's suggestion actually synchs with what I had in mind. Not a new system necessarily, just taking what's available in the SRD and OGL sources like Unearthed Arcana and creating our own unique hybrid from the existing options and variants. I'm not familiar with Mutants & Masterminds or Star Wars Saga, however.
Forgotten_Warrior 10-05-07, 07:48 PM	I don't think this would be spamming. What is OGL? I've been reading D&D books for a while now, but I don't know what OGL stands for.
Jrichards 10-05-07, 07:50 PM	i wonder if someone will beat me to the punch but there's a basic amount of info from the D20 (D&D) system (most of it) that anyone can use as a basis to create their own material with without being attacked legally for stealing it
crazy_monkey1956 10-05-07, 07:52 PM	I don't think this would be spamming. What is OGL? I've been reading D&D books for a while now, but I don't know what OGL stands for. Open Game License. It is the legal agreement under which the SRD (System Reference Document) which contains the essentials of the D&D rules without most of the fluff, can be used by any entity to produce a product. The OGL is what allows the existence of 3rd party D20 products not produced by WotC.
Forgotten_Warrior 10-05-07, 07:57 PM	I just had an idea. Why don't we each design a town ourselves? We would have to make sure that each town could translate to the rules of the others, but I think we could pull it off. A famous primate gets to design the capitol city...
crazy_monkey1956 10-05-07, 07:59 PM	Good idea, but let's table that for now. We'll cover more specific details like those in later discussions.
Jrichards 10-05-07, 08:04 PM	hmm yeah i'm writing all my ideas down so when the chance comes, i can bring them up.
bootmobile 10-05-07, 09:27 PM	bootmobile's suggestion actually synchs with what I had in mind. Not a new system necessarily, just taking what's available in the SRD and OGL sources like Unearthed Arcana and creating our own unique hybrid from the existing options and variants. I'm not familiar with Mutants & Masterminds or Star Wars Saga, however. You should check both out if you can, both are great d20 games. I'll try to quickly outline the elements of each that I would like to see us emulate. I'll say up front that some of these are likely larger divergences from D&D than I would guess you had in mind. The differences with SWSE are probably the more subtle of the two but they are the ones that would have a greater difference on actual at the table game play. -- It eliminates iterative attacks, adds a level based bonus to all damage, simplifies AoO and eliminates many causes of AoO, and makes Spring Attack feats easier to acquire. All of this to encourage characters to be mobile during combat and to eliminate the classic D&D battle scenario of squaring off and trading full attacks until someone falls. All of this also makes combat turns go by more quickly (less of a concern for pbp I'll admit). -- It classes are something of a cross between D&D and d20 Modern designs. The classes are specific like D&D (they have Jedi and soldiers for example) and not general like D20 Modern (strong, fast, etc). But like d20 Modern the classes are made up of bonus feats and talent trees. PrCs are similar with a unique ability or two and talent trees. -- It uses a condition monitor alongside of the hit point system. The condition track monitors a characters penalties due to injury and stun-like effects. -- It also does some other things that work for star wars but probably wouldn't be best for a more D&D-like game. It makes saving throws into static target numbers similar to AC and it eliminates skill ranks, replacing them with a level based bonus to all skills and an additional bonus gained by designating skills as trained or by using the skill focus feat. The element of Mutants and Masterminds I would like to mirror is its system for character creation and advancement. I expect this suggestion to be controversial but here we go. -- Character creation is based on two principles in this game, "power level" and "power points". The power level is set by the DM and sets limits on the characters attack, damage, skill, save and AC bonuses. Power points are used to "buy" the characters abilities, all of their abilities including base attack and defence bonuses, ability scores, save bonuses, skill ranks, feats and super powers (it is a supers game after all :)). -- Characters advance by earning additional power points while adventuring and spending them to improve their abilities and gain new abilities. Every so often when the DM feels the PCs have advanced far enough, the power level is raised, thus raising the upper limit for character abilities. -- To create a D&D-like version of this I would suggest that instead of spending power points on ranks of Super-Strength or Magnetic Manipulation, characters would spend power points to gain class abilities. For example, you would spend points to gain levels as a "wizard spell caster" with the power level determining the maximum caster level. Similarly, sneak attack could be bought in such a way. Like I said I expect this will be further afield than most of you would want to go, but I wanted to put it out there for consideration. The point would be to create faster more dunamic game play and to allow total character customization. One thing many people don't like about level-base games is that your character is never what you envision them to be at the start of a campaign, instead you must level them up a bit to get them to where they have the abilities needed to fit the original idea you had. But a more classic d20 would be cool too. :D
shadowmask 10-06-07, 12:01 AM	Personally, I prefer D&D-ish worlds…without the techno-gadgets of some settings/games. That being said, I would like to take the rules (OGL/SRD/etc) and build our own world from scratch. I don’t like working with rules much, although rules tweaks are ok. The best part of a game, in my opinion, comes more from the fluff and focus of the setting/story than it does from any particular rules-set. The “Kitchen Sink” idea would best fit this mold. The designers (us) will gain the freedom to tweak rules that don’t quite work for our world, to decide the hows and whys of where races are, to decide what classes fit where and why, etc. What this will net the community is a richer and more engrossing play/dm experience.
MackoUr 10-06-07, 01:02 AM	Just to continue on with Bootmobile's thoughts about MnM - I actually ran an fantasy campaign based on MnM rules (okay maybe not 'campaign', more like 'two adventures'); it worked well enough and though I allowed my players something of a free hand in character creation, they did come up with PCs that stuck closely to the DnD archetypes. Another option to consider would be using the D20 Modern SRD as a base. You could design advanced classes that would fulfill the roles of the DnD classes if you wanted them in the world.
shadowmask 10-06-07, 01:47 PM	Now that I'm awake, I can give this suggestion the attention it is due. ;) I think we should consider all suggestions, and to that end I will take bootmobile's ideas point by point and give my reasons why I think it would work/not work, etc. I'll sblock so as to save space. Hope you don't mind, bootmobile. I'm not picking on you...honest. ;) From Star Wars Saga Edition: -- It eliminates iterative attacks, adds a level based bonus to all damage, simplifies AoO and eliminates many causes of AoO, and makes Spring Attack feats easier to acquire. All of this to encourage characters to be mobile during combat and to eliminate the classic D&D battle scenario of squaring off and trading full attacks until someone falls. All of this also makes combat turns go by more quickly (less of a concern for pbp I'll admit). I like this aspect of the game. I don't know the rules, but anything that streamlines combat and gives it a "flow" conducive to storytelling is ok in my book. -- It classes are something of a cross between D&D and d20 Modern designs. The classes are specific like D&D (they have Jedi and soldiers for example) and not general like D20 Modern (strong, fast, etc). But like d20 Modern the classes are made up of bonus feats and talent trees. PrCs are similar with a unique ability or two and talent trees. I'm not too keen on talent trees. I realize the scuttlebutt is that 4e will introduce talent trees into D&D, and I'll give it a chance. It doesn't change my initial "meh" response. I just don't have a good reason for it. :P -- It uses a condition monitor alongside of the hit point system. The condition track monitors a characters penalties due to injury and stun-like effects. This I like...in theory. A character that's been beat down to single digit hit points should not be able to flail away as if (s)he hasn't been hit once. In practice, I don't like the idea. I remember the condition modifiers from oWoD, and it was a nightmare to keep track of the math. If it doesn't work this way, let me know, and I'll reconsider my stance with more information. -- It also does some other things that work for star wars but probably wouldn't be best for a more D&D-like game. It makes saving throws into static target numbers similar to AC and it eliminates skill ranks, replacing them with a level based bonus to all skills and an additional bonus gained by designating skills as trained or by using the skill focus feat. I think you're right on this one. Static target numbers for saves and eliminating skill ranks are two of the three primary reasons I have for not being particularly keen to play the game. What makes my rogue different from the rogue next door in 3.5? The skills I've bought into with skill ranks. The third reason I'm not keen on SW is that the universe is so well established I feel like I can't move. But, that's a story for another day. ;) From Mutants and Masterminds: -- Character creation is based on two principles in this game, "power level" and "power points". The power level is set by the DM and sets limits on the characters attack, damage, skill, save and AC bonuses. Power points are used to "buy" the characters abilities, all of their abilities including base attack and defence bonuses, ability scores, save bonuses, skill ranks, feats and super powers (it is a supers game after all :)). I don't like the idea that everything needs to be "bought" or is left to the roll of the dice. Again, I haven't actually gotten a look at the system, so give me more information to consider. :) -- Characters advance by earning additional power points while adventuring and spending them to improve their abilities and gain new abilities. Every so often when the DM feels the PCs have advanced far enough, the power level is raised, thus raising the upper limit for character abilities. I prefer my advancement not be at the whim of the DM. I've played with DMs whose sole rule was that they were "god" and the PCs had to deal with it. This kind of advancement is begging for that kind of abuse, and I don't want to be responsible for building a world in which it takes place. -- To create a D&D-like version of this I would suggest that instead of spending power points on ranks of Super-Strength or Magnetic Manipulation, characters would spend power points to gain class abilities. For example, you would spend points to gain levels as a "wizard spell caster" with the power level determining the maximum caster level. Similarly, sneak attack could be bought in such a way. How is this different from the standard "You've gained a level (read "gone up in power"), and you can now do better things with what you have or you can do new things? One thing many people don't like about level-base games is that your character is never what you envision them to be at the start of a campaign, instead you must level them up a bit to get them to where they have the abilities needed to fit the original idea you had. Is needing to level two or three times before "realizing" the full potential of a character concept necessarily a bad thing? I've come up with some awesome character concepts that were limited in scope for a few levels, but it allowed me to further develop and refine that concept so that it fit better in the world and with the group. I've also had to throw out concepts I loved because it became apparent within a few sessions that the concept just wouldn't work (for whatever reason). In that circumstance, it's a wee bit easier to throw out the concept because it's not fully developed yet, and the player can take what did work and run with that with a new character.
shadowmask 10-06-07, 01:52 PM	Just to continue on with Bootmobile's thoughts about MnM - I actually ran an fantasy campaign based on MnM rules (okay maybe not 'campaign', more like 'two adventures'); it worked well enough and though I allowed my players something of a free hand in character creation, they did come up with PCs that stuck closely to the DnD archetypes. Another option to consider would be using the D20 Modern SRD as a base. You could design advanced classes that would fulfill the roles of the DnD classes if you wanted them in the world. The question then becomes do we want to create a fantasy world that streamlines the fantasy archetype concepts? Or do we want to create a different kind of world with less "archetypal" restrictions? D20 Modern is fun to play. I just don't see the rules working very well in a medium or high magic capacity. Most of the fantasy I come across is very much medium/high magic in nature. If we do want to run with the d20 Modern rules, how are we going to take the expectations of how magic works and at what level into account once we begin the "nuts and bolts" of world design?
gomeztoo 10-06-07, 02:40 PM	This may be an odd question, but why do we need a system? A shared world would not necessarily mean shared rules? A shared world with no actual rules means it is a lot easier to adapt to personal preferences or game systems. After all, a shred world is mostly setting. You would only need rules for stat blocks, really, and what do we really need to know of a NPC? A race, a list of powers and a certain power level. Even certain types of magics are not hard to duplicate over the board - every game system has a fireball...
CobaltTheBlueKnight 10-06-07, 02:43 PM	Hmmm, I am all for using the OGL and UA to make a "custom" game. I am not sure what everyone else thinks about this, but how about we also add in the character classes from D20 Modern? For a campaign that is a fusion of magic and technology? Kind of like that Arcanum game. That way, when creating a character, you have to decide between playing a fighter and playing a strong character. Some editing of the skills would be in order, and I don't think you would want to include the advanced classes Mage and Acolyte, because you would get better benefit from multiclassing as a Wizard or Cleric. And you wouldnt have to meet prerequisites to do so. The thing is, you would have to alter many things from both sources to do it, and while it would create an interesting world, it might be seen as too similar to the aforementioned Arcanum game. Now, personaly, I would like to make my own system from scratch, but thats just because I am a rules gearhead. I am going to go ahead and vote for an altered DnD OGL, because it would still allow me to get my gearhead juices flowing. "Breaks out Unearthed Arcana and proceeds to burry face."
gomeztoo 10-06-07, 02:57 PM	Plus, if you wish a shared setting that is to survive for more than a year, D&D 3.5 is a bit folly...
CobaltTheBlueKnight 10-06-07, 03:05 PM	gomeztoo Plus, if you wish a shared setting that is to survive for more than a year, D&D 3.5 is a bit folly... Thats why you modify it heavily, so it will be easier to convert to 4.0. Besides, gamers are an impatient lot by nature usually, so do you think we really would want to wait around a year for 4.0 to come out?
gomeztoo 10-06-07, 03:21 PM	No, but you can make a shared world and not define rules for it. Then, when you need rules when you play, you adapt as needed. So, we can agree that the guild master of the thieves guild is a skilled man with lots of contacts and influence, a former assassin who has a few magic trinkets but no actual spell power. You can then create the stats when you need it.
crazy_monkey1956 10-06-07, 03:49 PM	No, but you can make a shared world and not define rules for it. Then, when you need rules when you play, you adapt as needed. So, we can agree that the guild master of the thieves guild is a skilled man with lots of contacts and influence, a former assassin who has a few magic trinkets but no actual spell power. You can then create the stats when you need it. Unfortunately, sometimes rules and fluff run hand in hand, and it is hard to re-envision something that has a certain "feel" in one system.
Jrichards 10-06-07, 04:50 PM	True. imagine secnd edition D&D with the non-weapon proficiency system/thief skills then come to 3.x and look at skills. much different, and make the game feel much different to me, and even make the game world feel more 'real'
bootmobile 10-06-07, 11:40 PM	Hey Shadowmask, quit picking on me! :P Don't worry Shadowmask, no offence taken. The line at the top says "discussion" after all. Which is why I am going to quickly respond to a few of your comments. :D I remember the condition modifiers from oWoD, and it was a nightmare to keep track of the math. If it doesn't work this way, let me know, and I'll reconsider my stance with more information. oWoD = original world of darkness? If so then I don't really remember how it worked in that system (it has been a long time since I played it). The SWSE is pretty easy and straight forward. When you take massive damage you move 1 step down the track. The track has five steps, each with a set single penalty to all rolls. All you have to do is know which step you are on. I think you're right on this one. Static target numbers for saves and eliminating skill ranks are two of the three primary reasons I have for not being particularly keen to play the game. What makes my rogue different from the rogue next door in 3.5? The skills I've bought into with skill ranks. The third reason I'm not keen on SW is that the universe is so well established I feel like I can't move. But, that's a story for another day. ;) These elements work for star wars but they really aren't right for most other games. I completely agree with you about feeling constricted by the setting btw. That is why I set my game in the Knights of the Old Republic era, thousands of years before the movies take place. ;) About the M&M comments: Some people love point-buy and some people hate it. Just like some people love levels and some hate them. I happen to like both and I can tell you that there is a definite lack of a good point-buy high fantasy game. My interest is to offer something uniquely appealing. But there is no arguing against person preference, so I'll move on. :) Is needing to level two or three times before "realizing" the full potential of a character concept necessarily a bad thing? I've come up with some awesome character concepts that were limited in scope for a few levels, but it allowed me to further develop and refine that concept so that it fit better in the world and with the group. I've also had to throw out concepts I loved because it became apparent within a few sessions that the concept just wouldn't work (for whatever reason). In that circumstance, it's a wee bit easier to throw out the concept because it's not fully developed yet, and the player can take what did work and run with that with a new character. Again this is mostly a question of personal tastes but let me make a few points: Just because you begin a campaign with most of your characters capabilities largely in place does not mean there is no room for advancement. Some characters in movies and books start of as novices and progress to higher power levels over the course of their adventures. Many others begin and end a story with pretty much the same set of abilities, though they are perhaps a little better at them by the end. In fact I would propose that very few characters start out at what would be the equivalent of D&D's 1st level. Most importantly it is a fact that pbp is very slow and it can take a very long time indeed to develop all the abilities you envision for your character, if ever. Being able to custom make a character to your vision is especially attractive for pbp.
bootmobile 10-06-07, 11:51 PM	By the way I am not too keen on trying to put D&D rules/classes alongside D20 Modern ones. Despite both being WotC D20 games they don't get along very well. For the amount of work it takes to get these games to play nice with each other you may as well have created a whole new ogl game. So if what we want is a D&D/d20 Modern game/setting we may as well just make an ogl alternative PHB.
Jrichards 10-06-07, 11:54 PM	By the way I am not too keen on trying to put D&D rules/classes alongside D20 Modern ones. Despite both being WotC D20 games they don't get along very well. For the amount of work it takes to get these games to play nice with each other you may as well have created a whole new ogl game. So if what we want is a D&D/d20 Modern game/setting we may as well just make an ogl alternative PHB. That idea scares my unborn children. :P
shadowmask 10-07-07, 04:21 PM	Hey Shadowmask, quit picking on me! :P Ok, just as soon as I'm done making my contribution to some of your points. ;) oWoD = original world of darkness? If so then I don't really remember how it worked in that system (it has been a long time since I played it). The SWSE is pretty easy and straight forward. When you take massive damage you move 1 step down the track. The track has five steps, each with a set single penalty to all rolls. All you have to do is know which step you are on. This sounds a lot easier than I remember oWoD (yep, old World of Darkness) being. It might not be too bad. I'll reserve judgment until I see it. Most importantly it is a fact that pbp is very slow and it can take a very long time indeed to develop all the abilities you envision for your character, if ever. Being able to custom make a character to your vision is especially attractive for pbp. This is the most pertinent (in my opinion, for what that's worth) point in your argument for using a system that allows a greater degree of costumization from the word "go." I'm still not convinced that MnM is the system, but I'm willing to learn more about it. Of course, in this instance, consensus will need to be reached, which means compromise is the game of the day. My vote is still for a d20 fantasy setting using the OGL and SRD. We can certainly add elements to it from the other game systems like those you pointed out, but the base, in my opinion, needs to have a "fantasy" feel. I like D&D the most for that.
Jrichards 10-07-07, 07:43 PM	It's funny, I'm interested in new races, but the existing classes (some of them) don't need to be changed in my eyes. I think my main thing is I don't like to mess with game balance...because I'm horrible with balance. If you guys are comfy with it it's cool. My love is for the story side of it all, so if it comes to it, I'll keep mainly out of the rules side, and ask someone else to do that part :D
Ascened_Xan 10-07-07, 07:53 PM	This is a directed discussion for determining what game system we'd like to base our shared world project on. A directed discussion just means that we will stay on topic as much as possible, and I will gently remind us to stay on topic if we start veering off. I'm hoping to have a duration on this discussion of one week. In that time, let's get the following question answered. What Game System do we want to use for our shared world? Options: 1. D&D Advantages: Well known, a plethora of supplemental material to play with, a baseline setting assumption to start with. Disadvantages: Non-OGL (anything we use from a D&D supplement, for the most part, can't be shared outside of normal usage...in other words, some legal concerns to research), 4th Edition (any rules work we do now will be rendered obsolete if we want to stay current) 2. OGL D20 Advantages: Essentially D&D with the serial numbers filed off, more "tinker" room to create something unique, free rules set. Disadvantages: In order to keep it OGL we'd need to carefully monitor what we allow in, no outside supplementary material beyond the SRD and the open content portions of Unearthed Arcana (and possibly the D20 Modern SRD). 3. OGL D20 Kitchen Sink Advantages: Everything we can think of has a place somewhere in the world, freedom to include content from just about anything. Disadvantages: Legal concerns again, utter massiveness of the project itself. 4. Other Options Advantages: Spotlight on something other than D20. Disadvantages: Lack of familiarity for a lot of players (including me). 5. Something we cook up Advantages: Uniquely ours-both the world and the rules. Disadvantages: Essentially two projects (rules and world), a ton more work for relatively minimal payoff. For this topic, please discuss any advantages or disadvantages I may have missed, put forth your preference and why, suggest additional options (option 4), and/or debate the merits and flaws of each system. I would like to make it official that I vote to have to have a OGL D20 DND style.
crazy_monkey1956 10-08-07, 02:22 PM	We seem to be approaching a potential consensus on D20 OGL, although the amount of tinkering we want to do is still being debated. I, for one, would like to keep the tinkering to a minimum, for two reasons. 1. I'd like to keep it familiar enough to new-comers that they don't have to essentially learn a whole new game system. 2. I'd like to run Exemplar using this world, as the first trial run of the setting and our rules tweaks. Let me know what you think. We're going to move on to the next topic (Design Methodology) on Thursday.
Jrichards 10-08-07, 02:24 PM	OGL sounds good to me
Ascened_Xan 10-08-07, 06:11 PM	We seem to be approaching a potential consensus on D20 OGL, although the amount of tinkering we want to do is still being debated. I, for one, would like to keep the tinkering to a minimum, for two reasons. 1. I'd like to keep it familiar enough to new-comers that they don't have to essentially learn a whole new game system. 2. I'd like to run Exemplar using this world, as the first trial run of the setting and our rules tweaks. Let me know what you think. We're going to move on to the next topic (Design Methodology) on Thursday. I agree with crazy monkey in making tinkering a mimimum.
Jrichards 10-08-07, 06:22 PM	I agree with crazy monkey in making tinkering a mimimum. seconded motion carried! *clacks gavel* wait...i'm not in charge...
CobaltTheBlueKnight 10-08-07, 09:45 PM	Here is something I know will probably not get accepted, but I am going to put it forth anyway. Gestalt character classes from Unearthed Arcana (They would fit in well conceptually with your Exemplar game CM). Mainly this is because I always wanted to play a gestalt character. You could make the player pick one class to be linked to his character, and he must take a level in that class at every level. The other class would be his choice whenever he gains a level. It would prevent them from being able to take two PrC's at once.
crazy_monkey1956 10-09-07, 12:29 PM	Here is something I know will probably not get accepted, but I am going to put it forth anyway. Gestalt character classes from Unearthed Arcana (They would fit in well conceptually with your Exemplar game CM). Mainly this is because I always wanted to play a gestalt character. You could make the player pick one class to be linked to his character, and he must take a level in that class at every level. The other class would be his choice whenever he gains a level. It would prevent them from being able to take two PrC's at once. Before deciding to run Exemplar with our group created setting, I was planning on running Exemplar with gestalt characters. That being said, gestalt complicates the game in a variety of ways. Another issue at stake here is that I'd rather mold Exemplar to fit the world rather than mold the world building project to fit Exemplar. So, I think, rather than Development Methodology, our next discussion (starting Thurdsday) will be to look at each and every option and variant available at www.d20srd.org and determine what we want to use and what we don't. I'm still against the idea of creating anything wholesale...I'd rather use what's already out there. I'd also like to limit our source material to www.d20srd.org for now. If anyone has a really good argument for including more options than that...speak up and let's hash this out before Thursday.
CobaltTheBlueKnight 10-09-07, 08:16 PM	One of the main mitigating factors of gestalt power is the fact that the character can't do two things at once. This matters most for characters with oppossing classes, like Barbarian and Wizard. You can't Rage and cast spells at the same time. This is the main way gestalt balances out. The problem is when you have a complimentary combination of classes. Monk and just about anything else is an example. Fighter and Rogue is another good example. Imagine being sneak attacked by someone with a fighter's base attack bonus. Plus the likelihood they are using a weapon they have weapon specialization with for an extra two points of damage. I am currently running something somewhat LIKE gestalt in RL at the moment, a demigod campaign. Mines a bit more powerful though, because you add everything together instead of taking the best of the two classes. That and the are Divine Rank 0 deites. Ugh, what was I thinking? So many things they are just simply immune to....
crazy_monkey1956 10-09-07, 08:18 PM	One of the main mitigating factors of gestalt power is the fact that the character can't do two things at once. This matters most for characters with oppossing classes, like Barbarian and Wizard. You can't Rage and cast spells at the same time. This is the main way gestalt balances out. The problem is when you have a complimentary combination of classes. Monk and just about anything else is an example. Fighter and Rogue is another good example. Imagine being sneak attacked by someone with a fighter's base attack bonus. Plus the likelihood they are using a weapon they have weapon specialization with for an extra two points of damage. I am currently running something somewhat LIKE gestalt in RL at the moment, a demigod campaign. Mines a bit more powerful though, because you add everything together instead of taking the best of the two classes. That and the are Divine Rank 0 deites. Ugh, what was I thinking? So many things they are just simply immune to.... I'd like to go gestalt...but do we want to make the entire setting based around that concept...because that is essentially what we would have to do.
CobaltTheBlueKnight 10-09-07, 08:31 PM	Well, it would be a way to do Exemplar without forcing all other characters in the game to use NPC classes. That way, the Exemplar PC's can still be extraordinary, but still allow the game world to be used by DM's who would prefer to do a more normal campaign with it. Players in campaigns using normal rules set in the shared game world (we really need to think of a name for the world soon) would hear about the exploits of this legendary team of adventurer's, but they might not ever meet them. Indeed, they may think they are mere exaggerations.
crazy_monkey1956 10-09-07, 08:43 PM	Well, it would be a way to do Exemplar without forcing all other characters in the game to use NPC classes. That way, the Exemplar PC's can still be extraordinary, but still allow the game world to be used by DM's who would prefer to do a more normal campaign with it. Players in campaigns using normal rules set in the shared game world (we really need to think of a name for the world soon) would hear about the exploits of this legendary team of adventurer's, but they might not ever meet them. Indeed, they may think they are mere exaggerations. Balancing the world's challenges against gestalt characters is a different beastie than balancing them against "normal" characters. One solution is to set Exemplar several "ages" before the standard "present" of the setting. Thus GMs could run their campaigns with normal characters in the present, or with gestalt characters in the Exemplar era.
CobaltTheBlueKnight 10-09-07, 08:48 PM	I like this idea. It would make what characters in the Exemplar setting do are the legends of the normal setting. Very interesting idea.
CobaltTheBlueKnight 10-10-07, 06:59 PM	Alright then, jumping into the first section on the SRD for Unearthed Arcana. Contacts. What does everyone think of this system? I think it is an interesting mechanic, but it has the potential to take away from role-playing. Why go to the trouble of impressing and befriending a NPC in order to become a contact when you can get one simply by gaining a character level. I also don't like how it penalizes multi-class characters.
crazy_monkey1956 10-10-07, 07:03 PM	Alright then, jumping into the first section on the SRD for Unearthed Arcana. Contacts. What does everyone think of this system? I think it is an interesting mechanic, but it has the potential to take away from role-playing. Why go to the trouble of impressing and befriending a NPC in order to become a contact when you can get one simply by gaining a character level. I also don't like how it penalizes multi-class characters. Contacts are not on my "like list" for UA. I prefer things like the Leadership feat and just roleplaying contacts. Granted, the Contacts system in UA puts more power in the players' hands as far as resources...but some DMs don't like that.
CobaltTheBlueKnight 10-10-07, 08:03 PM	That is a good way to handle the leadership feat. Because, lets face it, all those 1st level NPC's it gives you are worth little more in combat than cannon fodder. Its more useful to sprinkle them around the game world as NPC's whose loyalty lies with your character. The problem comes when you have a powerful PC without the leadership feat. Why don't they have contacts? Especially if they are charismatic types, like Bards. In that case it really doesn't make sense. You can't give such PC's contacts like the ones everyone else would get, because that would take away from the PC's who do have the feat. I think I prefer the old fashioned method of free-form contacts being NPC's your players have had substantial, positive contact with. When you, as the GM, decide a certain NPC has become familiar enough with, and friendly enough to the players, that NPC becomes a contact. The cohort and followers provided by the Leadership feat are an entirely different type of contact. While NPC's you have befriended might help you out in a pinch, a cohort or follower will die to protect you.
crazy_monkey1956 10-10-07, 08:14 PM	That is a good way to handle the leadership feat. Because, lets face it, all those 1st level NPC's it gives you are worth little more in combat than cannon fodder. Its more useful to sprinkle them around the game world as NPC's whose loyalty lies with your character. The problem comes when you have a powerful PC without the leadership feat. Why don't they have contacts? Especially if they are charismatic types, like Bards. In that case it really doesn't make sense. You can't give such PC's contacts like the ones everyone else would get, because that would take away from the PC's who do have the feat. I think I prefer the old fashioned method of free-form contacts being NPC's your players have had substantial, positive contact with. When you, as the GM, decide a certain NPC has become familiar enough with, and friendly enough to the players, that NPC becomes a contact. The cohort and followers provided by the Leadership feat are an entirely different type of contact. While NPC's you have befriended might help you out in a pinch, a cohort or follower will die to protect you. I think you misunderstood my intent behind the Leadership feat. I like to use the Followers gained from the feat as "retainers and guards." They're the guys you leave at home to defend the keep, if the PC has one, while the PC goes adventuring. I'm showing my D&D roots here, but followers strike me as the NPCs you associate with a character becoming "name" level and acquiring land or a keep or a thieves guild or something. Followers are what you use to populate those holdings. Contacts are an "organic" thing that come about as part of the campaign story...in my opinion.
CobaltTheBlueKnight 10-10-07, 08:33 PM	I think all players who take the leadership feat have different uses for their followers in mind. It really depends on the character. A rouge for example probably would spread his/her followers far and wide to act as eyes and ears for her. A monk might open a monastaic order and his followers are his first, and most loyal, students. Me, personally, whenever I got the leadership feat, I would start my own organization. The founding members being my followers. Anyway, I think we have gotten off-topic enough as is. Basically, unless someone can come up with a really good reason to include it, I am going to guess that Contacts gets a big red Rejected stamped on its face.
Ascened_Xan 10-10-07, 08:37 PM	I think all players who take the leadership feat have different uses for their followers in mind. It really depends on the character. A rouge for example probably would spread his/her followers far and wide to act as eyes and ears for her. A monk might open a monastaic order and his followers are his first, and most loyal, students. Me, personally, whenever I got the leadership feat, I would start my own organization. The founding members being my followers. Anyway, I think we have gotten off-topic enough as is. Basically, unless someone can come up with a really good reason to include it, I am going to guess that Contacts gets a big red Rejected stamped on its face. I think you had some pretty good reasons.
crazy_monkey1956 10-10-07, 08:51 PM	I think all players who take the leadership feat have different uses for their followers in mind. It really depends on the character. A rouge for example probably would spread his/her followers far and wide to act as eyes and ears for her. A monk might open a monastaic order and his followers are his first, and most loyal, students. Me, personally, whenever I got the leadership feat, I would start my own organization. The founding members being my followers. Anyway, I think we have gotten off-topic enough as is. Basically, unless someone can come up with a really good reason to include it, I am going to guess that Contacts gets a big red Rejected stamped on its face. Let's hold off on getting into the next tidbit until some more folks chime in, just in case someone has a compelling argument for Contacts.
Jrichards 10-11-07, 02:21 AM	Never used leadership before, but it seems a good system for those who want to keep their own small fortress/kingdom/lair/store whatever. Although the cohort system seems a little tilted to me (having a slightly less powerful NPC follow you around...) as I said, never used it.
Gandalf the White 10-11-07, 09:26 AM	Leadership is for assembling that initially small force that can grow into the forces of a keep, monks of the new monastery, etc. Cohorts work best when you have a small party to begin with say 4 or fewer PCs, they make more challenging encounters for a small party survivable. With larger parties, the inclusion of cohorts makes the DMs job of providing suitable challenges more difficult. Having never used the contacts rules, but having read them and thought them over, it seems to me that certain contacts would be organic to the campaign storyline. That said, in the character's backstory there maybe contacts the PC made before joining the campaign. An example off the top of my head being the barkeep of the PCs favorite bar in town, perhaps roughly the same generational age, who knows and likes the PC and would be willing to pass along information useful to the character in the course of their interaction in the bar. In short I see both sides of this coin, and it looks pretty from either. Gandalf
CobaltTheBlueKnight 10-11-07, 09:53 AM	Well, I suppose what we need to ask ourselves is if the Contacts system is worth making cannon for the campaign setting. I think having a contact system incorporated into the core rules of a setting would have a profound impact on the flavor of the setting. I am not sure what everyone else thinks, but the Contact system always puts me in mind of a spy game. It would be good for use in a game that relies heavily on drama, as Eberron does. Though in an action game it would make it that much easier to get into the next adventure. Not sure where to go and what to do? Go see your information contact. Does the Contact system give enough to the players and the GM to make it worth adding in? I don't think it is, rather I think it should be left an option for the individual GM whether he wants it in his game or not.
Gandalf the White 10-12-07, 08:51 AM	If the question is does it belong in the core rules, then I agree with you - it does not. However, it does have its place as a variant that a GM could introduce. Gandalf
Jrichards 10-13-07, 10:23 AM	Well, if that were our stance on everything, we would just use core and allow all variants...
CobaltTheBlueKnight 10-13-07, 07:26 PM	Well, we can't disallow a GM from using whatever variant rule he wants. Thats not what we are going about here. We are trying to decide what changes we want to make to the game system to reflect a certain feel we want the campaign to have by default. Similarly to how Eberron uses action points. They could have just made that into a variant rule, but their decision to make it core to that setting has had a profound impact of its feel.
TheWaffleKing 10-14-07, 12:36 AM	If you're using OGL, why not just contract out specialized expansions to people? for example, if cobalt was good at making balanced monsters, shadowmask was unrivaled at making extra races, and i was good enough at crafting classes, you could askeach of the three of us to create a supplement based on the part we could have the largest positive effect on. What do you think?
crazy_monkey1956 10-14-07, 10:15 AM	If you're using OGL, why not just contract out specialized expansions to people? for example, if cobalt was good at making balanced monsters, shadowmask was unrivaled at making extra races, and i was good enough at crafting classes, you could askeach of the three of us to create a supplement based on the part we could have the largest positive effect on. What do you think? The idea has merit. Going back to Cobalt's point, however, first we need to figure out what variants and "changes to core" are going to be core to our world. Action Points, for example, create a different feeling world than no action points. I'll be contributing sparsely over the next week, but starting the week after, I'm going to make a list of variants from Unearthed Arcana that I think would be good to include. Folks with access to that book may want to do the same thing.
CobaltTheBlueKnight 10-14-07, 10:30 AM	On the subject of action points, I DEFINATELY think they should be core. At the very least they fit in with the style of Exemplar, if not the world as whole. One thing I did want to offer, that is not in Unearthed Arcana, but one of my own creations, is a Shield Block(DEX) skill. Any class that has proficiency with shields has this skill as a class skill. Anytime during combat, whenever you are targeted with an attack, you may opt to make a Shield Block skill check against the attack roll or the Reflex Save DC of the attack your are being targeted with to block it. You must give up your attack of opportunity for the round to use this skill check. This way characters with ranks in the skill won't bog down combat by doing it everytime someone attacks them, or a dragon breathes fire on them, since there is a limit to the number of times you can do it. Even if you have the Combat Reflexes feat you can still probably only do it 3 or 4 times between turns. Please don't murder the idea if you don't like it, it was just a thought I had at work.
Ascened_Xan 10-14-07, 12:54 PM	I like cobaltsidea.Also I think that speacilist wizard vareins should be core and so should be totem barbarians.
crazy_monkey1956 10-14-07, 03:50 PM	I would prefer to adapt the shield block idea to a feat, based on the Parry feat. Parry works by using an attack of opportunity to make an opposed attack roll against an incoming attack. If the parry roll is higher than the attack, the attack is blocked. A shield block would work the same way, except using the shield instead of a weapon. Other feats in the chain include Riposte, which allows a followup attack after a successful parry.
bootmobile 10-14-07, 11:42 PM	I think before we can make any call on whether or not to include any one option or another we need to know what kind of setting we are trying to create and what difference we want it to have versus a typical D&D world. I can imagine settings where contacts (for example) are a great, even essential, part of most games but I can also imagine ones where contacts would be an unnecessary complication. Might I propose that we not get bogged down in deciding specific mechanical elements at this stage. We have just agreed to go forward with a OGL d20 system. Perhaps next we need to come up with the over feel and approach of the setting. To explain what I mean by approach let me use the 4 biggest D&D settings: Approach 1 (Greyhawk): Core rules set and the core rules set alone. We choose which UA options to include and which to exclude and then essentially the OGL is the entire mechanical rules set. Approach 2 (Forgotten Realms): The same as #1 except we will add a bunch our own stuff and whenever the core rules don't mesh with our new rules, we use our rules in place of the core. Approach 3 (Eberron): As with #1 we determine are basic rules set and everything in that set of rules has a place in the setting. Plus we create a bunch of our own stuff and add that in on top of the core material. Approach 4 (Dragonlance): We pick and choose which pieces of the SRD we want one by one (classes, races, feats, etc) and throw the rest out, replacing them with our own new stuff. By feel I mean we should define what the sub-genre(s) of fantasy the setting is to embody and what the overall feel of the place is supposed to be. So is the setting: high magic or low magic steampunk epic fantasy gritty low fantasy noir-ish pulp-ish asian/eastern influenced etc, etc, etc These things will help guide discussions about specific mechanical issues. Right now we are debating contacts and action points but we are doing that in a vacuum. Just my :twocents: :)
CobaltTheBlueKnight 10-15-07, 01:40 PM	CM, I like the idea for those feats, anything that makes defense more active is good in my opinion. Boot: I think you have a good point here, as I believe once we start work on the game setting, we will be constantly going back and redoing certain aspects of the game system to match the developing feel of the world. But, that is just how these things develop. The system will influence the setting and the setting will influence the system. It will be a constant back and forth until both mesh well. Right now I think we are just looking at broad concepts that don't have a huge impact on the feel of a world. Then, once work of the setting starts up, we will start adding in the ones that do change the core rules to match the feel of the game.
Jrichards 10-15-07, 10:46 PM	Yes, we have to decide on a tone/environment if we're tying the optional rules into the 'feel' of the campaign world. On one side Action points have a huge impact on the game, and so would shield block. Although I agree it should probably have been incorporated into D&D, a lot of people would argue that it's taken into account with AC, making the game simpler and allowing more focus on story and putting the onus on the DM to adjudicate when a dramatic shield block happens in combat. In my mind, it sounds like a great idea, but I've never used it so I can't say if it would bog down play or not. All in all I think it'll be as Cobalt said, where we develop the thing together organically.
CobaltTheBlueKnight 10-16-07, 03:02 PM	One of the reasons I said it should be usable in place of a reflex save is this. how many times in a fantasy movie, or novel, or game, or TV show, or artwork have you seen a fighter type pull up a shield to block a dragon's fiery breath? :P
Jrichards 10-16-07, 07:10 PM	Just pray it doesn't melt ;)
Gandalf the White 10-17-07, 09:12 AM	One of the reasons I said it should be usable in place of a reflex save is this. how many times in a fantasy movie, or novel, or game, or TV show, or artwork have you seen a fighter type pull up a shield to block a dragon's fiery breath? :P Must have been some shield, and or some hero. Some of the things we've been throwing around - action points, Parrying and Shield block rules would seem to apply to a high power world wherein the characters and the NPCs and creatures they encounter are equally a couple of cuts above the commoner. Given that, here are a few questions that will inevitably arise Is there a place for Psionics in this world? What is the source of arcane magic? What are the major religions like and or what is the source of divine magic? What are the iconic races of the world? What monsters are indiginous to the world? The answers to questions like these will tell us more about the feel of the world and more about what to include / exclude from the core rules around it. What do ya think? Gandalf
Jrichards 10-17-07, 12:13 PM	I think this directed discussion needs a bit more structure. We all have different notions as to how a world should be built, where to start, etc. But with many people, it's a bit hard to find a good place, or at least so far it would seem so. Just sayin'.
CobaltTheBlueKnight 10-17-07, 05:32 PM	What do you think about starting multiple threads? In addition to the Game System Thread, a Game Settings Thread, a World Geography Thread, and whatever else would be used. As we define one aspect, in say the Setting Thread, we can go back and make an appropriate change in the System Thread
Ascened_Xan 10-17-07, 06:36 PM	I think before we can make any call on whether or not to include any one option or another we need to know what kind of setting we are trying to create and what difference we want it to have versus a typical D&D world. I can imagine settings where contacts (for example) are a great, even essential, part of most games but I can also imagine ones where contacts would be an unnecessary complication. Might I propose that we not get bogged down in deciding specific mechanical elements at this stage. We have just agreed to go forward with a OGL d20 system. Perhaps next we need to come up with the over feel and approach of the setting. To explain what I mean by approach let me use the 4 biggest D&D settings: Approach 1 (Greyhawk): Core rules set and the core rules set alone. We choose which UA options to include and which to exclude and then essentially the OGL is the entire mechanical rules set. Approach 2 (Forgotten Realms): The same as #1 except we will add a bunch our own stuff and whenever the core rules don't mesh with our new rules, we use our rules in place of the core. Approach 3 (Eberron): As with #1 we determine are basic rules set and everything in that set of rules has a place in the setting. Plus we create a bunch of our own stuff and add that in on top of the core material. Approach 4 (Dragonlance): We pick and choose which pieces of the SRD we want one by one (classes, races, feats, etc) and throw the rest out, replacing them with our own new stuff. By feel I mean we should define what the sub-genre(s) of fantasy the setting is to embody and what the overall feel of the place is supposed to be. So is the setting: high magic or low magic steampunk epic fantasy gritty low fantasy noir-ish pulp-ish asian/eastern influenced etc, etc, etc These things will help guide discussions about specific mechanical issues. Right now we are debating contacts and action points but we are doing that in a vacuum. Just my :twocents: :) I would like to try and awnser what I want in this setting.I belive we should use a FW approach to this with adaptions of the rules form unearthed arcana and homebrew rules.As for flavor I would like it to be a a high-magoc setting.I also want to incorparate a steam-punk feel and mix it with the high magic elements of the setting in something I call a magetech setting. Also as for the asian fell im not sure about the whole world being asian-inclined but I will try to design asian-encligned countreis and kingdoms despite not owning Oreintal adventures.if anyone is intrested in helping me design some oreitaal stuff for the world please tell me.
Jrichards 10-17-07, 07:57 PM	What do you think about starting multiple threads? In addition to the Game System Thread, a Game Settings Thread, a World Geography Thread, and whatever else would be used. As we define one aspect, in say the Setting Thread, we can go back and make an appropriate change in the System Thread I think personally that we could use a whole section for this topic, but I don't know that it's possible, so I'm for that idea, since not everything will come together in proper increments, but ideas will pop up here and there on varying subjects.
crazy_monkey1956 10-20-07, 05:27 PM	I'm back. I'll be starting a new thread on Thursday with the intended purpose of ironing out what we want and don't want in terms of game mechanics. Part and parcel to that will be the discussion of how various rules lend themselves to a general "feel" of the world and campaigns run there. We will start with general systems, such as Action Points, and work our way down to specifics. See you there.
shadowmask 10-21-07, 04:25 PM	What do you think about starting multiple threads? In addition to the Game System Thread, a Game Settings Thread, a World Geography Thread, and whatever else would be used. As we define one aspect, in say the Setting Thread, we can go back and make an appropriate change in the System Thread. I think personally that we could use a whole section for this topic, but I don't know that it's possible, so I'm for that idea, since not everything will come together in proper increments, but ideas will pop up here and there on varying subjects. Something else this would allow us to do is allow all of us to concentrate our strengths. I'll use me as an example. My strength, in my not-so-humble opinion, is "fluffy" world development, such as cultures, religions, traditions, gods, etc. I'm not so great at the "rules-y" part of it. Others are much more rules-savvy than I. I can't offer a lot of advice/input on the rules beyond "I like/don't like Rule A because (insert mundane reason related to "fluff" here)." First, though, I think we should decide the "feel," per bootmobile's suggestion. This will give us a context under which to consider the rules, as well as give us a framework on which to build our world's customs, cultures, etc so as to evoke the "feel" we want.
shadowmask 10-21-07, 04:36 PM	I think before we can make any call on whether or not to include any one option or another we need to know what kind of setting we are trying to create and what difference we want it to have versus a typical D&D world. I can imagine settings where contacts (for example) are a great, even essential, part of most games but I can also imagine ones where contacts would be an unnecessary complication. Might I propose that we not get bogged down in deciding specific mechanical elements at this stage. We have just agreed to go forward with a OGL d20 system. Perhaps next we need to come up with the over feel and approach of the setting. To explain what I mean by approach let me use the 4 biggest D&D settings: Approach 1 (Greyhawk): Core rules set and the core rules set alone. We choose which UA options to include and which to exclude and then essentially the OGL is the entire mechanical rules set. Approach 2 (Forgotten Realms): The same as #1 except we will add a bunch our own stuff and whenever the core rules don't mesh with our new rules, we use our rules in place of the core. Approach 3 (Eberron): As with #1 we determine are basic rules set and everything in that set of rules has a place in the setting. Plus we create a bunch of our own stuff and add that in on top of the core material. Approach 4 (Dragonlance): We pick and choose which pieces of the SRD we want one by one (classes, races, feats, etc) and throw the rest out, replacing them with our own new stuff. By feel I mean we should define what the sub-genre(s) of fantasy the setting is to embody and what the overall feel of the place is supposed to be. So is the setting: high magic or low magic steampunk epic fantasy gritty low fantasy noir-ish pulp-ish asian/eastern influenced etc, etc, etc These things will help guide discussions about specific mechanical issues. Right now we are debating contacts and action points but we are doing that in a vacuum. Just my :twocents: :) I happen to like Approach 4 with an overall feel of high magic/high fantasy. I think that we can have areas with medium/low magic by using cultural norms/taboos, magic "source," etc as reasons why those areas are different. Less fantasy areas can also be incorporated utilizing geography or some other source of division. Any cultural influence from the real world can be decided as we consider the world's regions. I don't know a whole lot about the other genres...or if I do, I don't know that I know. ;) Of course, if I'm out-voted on either the high magic or high fantasy fronts, I would like to consider the reverse of the above scenario to create "pockets" of high magic/fantasy. :D
Novem 10-21-07, 04:47 PM	And what of Psionics?
shadowmask 10-21-07, 06:26 PM	And what of Psionics? I'm all for Psionics. I happen to enjoy Mercedes Lackey's Valdemar books a great deal, and psionic-like powers (Gifts) play a prominent role in those stories.
Novem 10-21-07, 09:08 PM	I'm all for Psionics. I happen to enjoy Mercedes Lackey's Valdemar books a great deal, and psionic-like powers (Gifts) play a prominent role in those stories. Excellent. This is going to be fun. I have another question: Are we using the SRD OGL, which is a compilation of WotC OGL products, or are we using any OGL supplements, such as the Society Mind from Dreamscarred Press?
crazy_monkey1956 10-21-07, 10:14 PM	Excellent. This is going to be fun. I have another question: Are we using the SRD OGL, which is a compilation of WotC OGL products, or are we using any OGL supplements, such as the Society Mind from Dreamscarred Press? My preference is to use the core OGL available at www.d20srd.org. Primary reason being that it is readily available and accessible to anyone who wants it. Secondary reason being that some folks, myself included, simply don't have access to much outside of that.
shadowmask 10-22-07, 12:51 AM	Excellent. This is going to be fun. I have another question: Are we using the SRD OGL, which is a compilation of WotC OGL products, or are we using any OGL supplements, such as the Society Mind from Dreamscarred Press? I second CM's vote of SRD OGL. It's what most people I've spoken with are most familiar, and it's readily accessible for free. Can't beat that. ;)
Novem 10-22-07, 11:10 PM	I second CM's vote of SRD OGL. It's what most people I've spoken with are most familiar, and it's readily accessible for free. Can't beat that. ;) Thirded. I was merely asking.
wordartist179 10-23-07, 07:38 PM	This sounds amazing. There was a recent article on wizards about world building. I don't remember exactly where it is, but I think it's somewhere around either Dungeon or Dragon magazine. Anyway, the article talked about whether to build the world first or to start with a small town or city. Building the world first doesn't necessarily affect the party because they won't have any connection to the far away lands or politics affecting those places. So, I would vote for starting small and working the way out to larger areas.
CobaltTheBlueKnight 10-23-07, 08:08 PM	Thats a very good point (fourthed, if there is such a thing, on using the OGL SRD for this) worldartist. I think we are going to be doing some of that by detailing our character's backgrounds and home towns. CM, are the NPCs going to be able to cast spells from the Adept class? I hope so, cause I don't want to face the prospect of running out of healing and having no wise man's hut to run to for a quick fix.
crazy_monkey1956 10-23-07, 08:11 PM	Thats a very good point (fourthed, if there is such a thing, on using the OGL SRD for this) worldartist. I think we are going to be doing some of that by detailing our character's backgrounds and home towns. CM, are the NPCs going to be able to cast spells from the Adept class? I hope so, cause I don't want to face the prospect of running out of healing and having no wise man's hut to run to for a quick fix. I'll answer that in the Exemplar thread as it is more pertinent there than it is here. As to top-down or bottom-up approach, there needs to be a little bit of both as this world is intended to be usable by many GMs and players and therefore needs to have a lot in it to satisfy multiple stylistic approaches. If we have only one town to begin with...a great many GMs will be left out to dry.
CobaltTheBlueKnight 10-23-07, 08:20 PM	An intersting point was raised in the suggestions thread by Novem. I've decided against many a game because they were "core only" instead of SRD only, I really want to play a Psion, and thus think that a game with at least the full SRD would be fun. Also, I've thought of another idea: "Koboldville". Think Goblintown, but with Kobolds. That is, going full SRD, thereby including psionics, will open doors for players and GMs alike. Since it is available for free, and on-line, there is really no reason to restict content to just the 3 Core books. Now, on the other hand, if we were preparing this to be easily translatable to 4e, we might want to leave out psionics, since they won't be in the first PHB. Probably. But that is an ENTIRELY different subject. Or, is it? Hmm. If we all pull our own weight, this might get done a bit before 4e comes out. Maybe we should start thinking about how to convert it at some point. But probably not yet, lets make the campaign setting, then worry about 4e, when 4e comes out. Well, I really rabbit trailed there, anyway, a second point. How are we going to treat the various monster races? I like a more realistic approach than "They're monsters, and therefor evil. Lets kill em!" To get an idea of how I would like monsters, at least some monsters treated, take a look at this web comic: Goblin Comic (http://goblinscomic.com/).
Novem 10-23-07, 08:31 PM	Thanks, Cobalt. I merely prefer playing Psions to other casters, have already gotten past my beginner "Fighters rock!" stage, and so currently have difficulty with Core Only- even my Fighters use Psionic feats. (The other classes just haven't "Inspired" me as a player) As to 4E, we could consider branching off at that point, into 3.5 and 4th Ed versions? Plus, any character of classes not supported in 4E can simply be rebuilt using 4e rules- If 4E is as great as it's rumored to be, I have no problem playing Core in it, nor will most people, I think. Say... what if we choose to make our own "4th Edition", compatible with or portable to 4E, but separate?
crazy_monkey1956 10-23-07, 09:11 PM	Thanks, Cobalt. I merely prefer playing Psions to other casters, have already gotten past my beginner "Fighters rock!" stage, and so currently have difficulty with Core Only- even my Fighters use Psionic feats. (The other classes just haven't "Inspired" me as a player) As to 4E, we could consider branching off at that point, into 3.5 and 4th Ed versions? Plus, any character of classes not supported in 4E can simply be rebuilt using 4e rules- If 4E is as great as it's rumored to be, I have no problem playing Core in it, nor will most people, I think. Say... what if we choose to make our own "4th Edition", compatible with or portable to 4E, but separate? Weeeell, a playtest report from the designers included a "psionics" flavored wizard (a psion converted to the 4e rules) played by Bruce Cordell (the king of psionics if ever there was one). So, if/when we convert to 4e, we can take that route for any psionic stuff we choose to include.
Novem 10-23-07, 09:36 PM	My thoughts exactly.
CobaltTheBlueKnight 10-23-07, 10:27 PM	The urge to include some of the improvements that are purported to be in 4e is getting quite high. Mainly the rumor (inspired by what is in SAGA, and the developers statement that they wish to make first level characters less "squishy") that 1st level characters recieve triple their max HP at first level. So a Fighter would have 30 HP + Con Mod, while a Wizard would have 12 HP +Con Mod. Right now thats the one I am most itching to incorporate.
crazy_monkey1956 10-23-07, 11:44 PM	The urge to include some of the improvements that are purported to be in 4e is getting quite high. Mainly the rumor (inspired by what is in SAGA, and the developers statement that they wish to make first level characters less "squishy") that 1st level characters recieve triple their max HP at first level. So a Fighter would have 30 HP + Con Mod, while a Wizard would have 12 HP +Con Mod. Right now thats the one I am most itching to incorporate. Without anything to balance against that, that is way out of balance with the 3.5 system. Let's keep 4e out of this until we have concrete info.
Gandalf the White 10-24-07, 08:51 AM	The urge to include some of the improvements that are purported to be in 4e is getting quite high. Mainly the rumor (inspired by what is in SAGA, and the developers statement that they wish to make first level characters less "squishy") that 1st level characters recieve triple their max HP at first level. So a Fighter would have 30 HP + Con Mod, while a Wizard would have 12 HP +Con Mod. Right now thats the one I am most itching to incorporate. Making 1st level characters less "squishy" I think revolves around whether or not the GM has done a good job of designing encounters to challenge rather than destroy characters. A friend recently forgot this rule of thumb and sent three CR 10+ encounters in a row after a 5th level party, resulting in a near TPK. I also see the above as making a first level character a kind of powerhouse that normal CR 1 and 2 encounters would hardly challenge. Like CM I would prefer to stick to the OGL as is now and alter the world to fit 4th ed. when 4th ed is available in print. Gandalf
CobaltTheBlueKnight 10-24-07, 07:37 PM	Well, the thing I have always found funny is that, under 3.5 rules, a mule is a suitable challenge for a group of 4 first level adventures. Then I looked up the mule's stats. It could kill most 1st level PC's with ease. I so need to throw an attack donkey at my PC's.
Gandalf the White 10-25-07, 08:53 AM	Well, the thing I have always found funny is that, under 3.5 rules, a donkey is a suitable challenge for a group of 4 first level adventures. Then I looked up the donkey's stats. It could kill most 1st level PC's with ease. I so need to throw an attack donkey at my PC's. And comic relief is bad, how?
CobaltTheBlueKnight 11-20-07, 12:58 PM	Ok, this might be necroposting, but this is the best thread to put this up in. From UA, spell points? I would like to use them, they make spellcasting a bit more fluid. though it does take a bit away from psionics, it does help consolidate the two systems.
crazy_monkey1956 11-20-07, 12:59 PM	Ok, this might be necroposting, but this is the best thread to put this up in. From UA, spell points? I would like to use them, they make spellcasting a bit more fluid. though it does take a bit away from psionics, it does help consolidate the two systems. That will be coming up in the Rules to Match Theme thread...it's just a bit further down the list.
Hippokrene 11-28-07, 04:34 PM	Well, we can't disallow a GM from using whatever variant rule he wants. Thats not what we are going about here. We are trying to decide what changes we want to make to the game system to reflect a certain feel we want the campaign to have by default. Similarly to how Eberron uses action points. They could have just made that into a variant rule, but their decision to make it core to that setting has had a profound impact of its feel. It seems many are interested in straight d20 SRD and Unearthed Arcana. If that's the case, why not make that the 'standard' and then create a Gleemax pbp WBP Unearthed Arcana. A set of standard rules, and a set of standardized variants meant to work well together. If you're using OGL, why not just contract out specialized expansions to people? for example, if cobalt was good at making balanced monsters, shadowmask was unrivaled at making extra races, and i was good enough at crafting classes, you could askeach of the three of us to create a supplement based on the part we could have the largest positive effect on. What do you think? Synergy. While each aspect might be good to great in isolation, they could be horrible to terrific when everything comes together. To a certain extent, we have that now, which is why you don't see too many half-orc bards, while human's gaining an extra skill point and feat, and their ability to multiclass freely looks innocuous but makes them the best choice for almost every class.
CobaltTheBlueKnight 11-28-07, 05:03 PM	human's gaining an extra skill point and feat, and their ability to multiclass freely looks innocuous but makes them the best choice for almost every class. Yes, it is sometimes quite hard to resist the lure of a bonus feat. The bonus skill points don't hurt things either. So CM, whats the next point from the UA up for dissection?
crazy_monkey1956 11-28-07, 05:38 PM	Yes, it is sometimes quite hard to resist the lure of a bonus feat. The bonus skill points don't hurt things either. So CM, whats the next point from the UA up for dissection? Tomorrow we'll be tackling Class Variants.