I've been trying to come up with a decent set of mechanics for a pen n' paper RPG of my own for quite a while now, and I think I've settled on the basic idea of how the game will work. What I want to know is, first of all, if the ideas I list below will appeal to a significant part of the gaming community, and second of all, if there are any suggestions that can be offered by the community to improve on those ideas. Anyway, here goes.
A Brief explanation of some of the rules:
Show
1. Unlike DnD, where your character can only become better at fixed intervals (known as levels, as you all know), players will be able to spend experience points on individual improvements to their characters. This can be in the form of increasing an attribute, a skill, etc. or in the form of benefits (my game's equivalent of Feats, Merits, Talents, or whatever else a game system calls it) that provide specific advancements to your character. Levels will still be in place, but the mechanical impact of levels on characters will be much lower (only affecting a little bit by level HP and AP, the latter of which will be explained later, as well as a few other small things). Levels will mostly be there to determine how difficult the tasks the GM provides will be.
2. In order to determine whether or not a character succeeds at something (such as an attack), the player will roll percentile dice. In order to succeed, the result must be lower than the Maximum Success Rating (MaSR for short), and in certain situations, higher than a Minimum Success Rating (MiSR for short). The MaSR will represent the character's mastery of a certain action, and will usually be determined by the sum of two traits of a character (such as an attribute or skill), along with other modifiers. The MiSR will represent the difficulty of a particular task, as well as resistance to the character's success (such as the quality of a lock being picked, or an opponent's ability to dodge).
3. In the case of weapon attacks, the amount of damage dealt will be equal to the damage die of the weapon, multiplied by the strength of the character and then divided by 10. So, for example, your character has a strength in the 30's, and hits with an attack using a weapon with a damage die of 1d8. The player would then roll 3d8, and the result would be the damage dealt. Further modifiers would also add fixed bonuses to damage, as well.
4. Instead of classes that stay with a character for all eternity and define what a character can and can't do forever, characters will be able to buy "professions," sort of like mini-classes from which they can buy benefits only accessible from characters who have that profession. A character can have as many professions and benefits from professions as he or she can afford - speaking of which, characters will use a seperate pool of experience points, called Professional Experience Points, to buy professions and their benefits. There will be both general benefits and benefits that can only be bought through a profession.
5. Spells will be cast using Arcane Points, or AP, kind of like Psionic Power Points in 3.5, or like MP in Final Fantasy. There will be at least three "tiers" of general spellcasting: Sorcery, or uncontrolled magic used by novices in magic who more often than not hurt themselves as a result of their lack of control; Wizardry, the name for magic that a mage has learned to control, and as a result has a much lesser chance of backfiring; and Ritualism, the most powerful and hardest to learn form of magic which can affect things on a grand scale. In addition to the main tiers of spellcasting, there will also be schools of magic focusing on particular effects created by magic, as well as Pact Mages, my system's equivalent of Divine Characters and Warlocks. Similarly to weapon attacks, damage from spells will rely on the spell's damage die, multiplied by the Knowledge attribute (or other attributes, depending on the type of magic), and again, divided by 10. Flavor-wise, Magic will be kind of like a tool composed of energy; in addition to knowing how to use the tool, you also need to know how to create the effects desired. For example, in order to cast a fireball spell, your character would need to know enough about physics and chemistry to know how things burn, and then your character would also have to know how to use magical energy to create a fire that would be hurled at his or her enemies.
6. The number of things a character can do per turn are determined by "actions," which represent how fast a character is. The more actions you have, the more your character can do. There will be three types of actions: Physical actions, used for physical attacks and otherwise using one's body; Cognitive Actions, used for mental things like casting spells, making knowledge checks, and talking; and Move Actions, for moving around. The number of actions you have will be determined by the attributes that pertain to those actions. There will also be Physical and Cognitive Reactions, for things such as trying to defend yourself and making the equivalent of opportunity actions.
2. In order to determine whether or not a character succeeds at something (such as an attack), the player will roll percentile dice. In order to succeed, the result must be lower than the Maximum Success Rating (MaSR for short), and in certain situations, higher than a Minimum Success Rating (MiSR for short). The MaSR will represent the character's mastery of a certain action, and will usually be determined by the sum of two traits of a character (such as an attribute or skill), along with other modifiers. The MiSR will represent the difficulty of a particular task, as well as resistance to the character's success (such as the quality of a lock being picked, or an opponent's ability to dodge).
3. In the case of weapon attacks, the amount of damage dealt will be equal to the damage die of the weapon, multiplied by the strength of the character and then divided by 10. So, for example, your character has a strength in the 30's, and hits with an attack using a weapon with a damage die of 1d8. The player would then roll 3d8, and the result would be the damage dealt. Further modifiers would also add fixed bonuses to damage, as well.
4. Instead of classes that stay with a character for all eternity and define what a character can and can't do forever, characters will be able to buy "professions," sort of like mini-classes from which they can buy benefits only accessible from characters who have that profession. A character can have as many professions and benefits from professions as he or she can afford - speaking of which, characters will use a seperate pool of experience points, called Professional Experience Points, to buy professions and their benefits. There will be both general benefits and benefits that can only be bought through a profession.
5. Spells will be cast using Arcane Points, or AP, kind of like Psionic Power Points in 3.5, or like MP in Final Fantasy. There will be at least three "tiers" of general spellcasting: Sorcery, or uncontrolled magic used by novices in magic who more often than not hurt themselves as a result of their lack of control; Wizardry, the name for magic that a mage has learned to control, and as a result has a much lesser chance of backfiring; and Ritualism, the most powerful and hardest to learn form of magic which can affect things on a grand scale. In addition to the main tiers of spellcasting, there will also be schools of magic focusing on particular effects created by magic, as well as Pact Mages, my system's equivalent of Divine Characters and Warlocks. Similarly to weapon attacks, damage from spells will rely on the spell's damage die, multiplied by the Knowledge attribute (or other attributes, depending on the type of magic), and again, divided by 10. Flavor-wise, Magic will be kind of like a tool composed of energy; in addition to knowing how to use the tool, you also need to know how to create the effects desired. For example, in order to cast a fireball spell, your character would need to know enough about physics and chemistry to know how things burn, and then your character would also have to know how to use magical energy to create a fire that would be hurled at his or her enemies.
6. The number of things a character can do per turn are determined by "actions," which represent how fast a character is. The more actions you have, the more your character can do. There will be three types of actions: Physical actions, used for physical attacks and otherwise using one's body; Cognitive Actions, used for mental things like casting spells, making knowledge checks, and talking; and Move Actions, for moving around. The number of actions you have will be determined by the attributes that pertain to those actions. There will also be Physical and Cognitive Reactions, for things such as trying to defend yourself and making the equivalent of opportunity actions.
Consider:
Savage Worlds skills. Represented by dice, so improving a skill improves a chance of success, but marginally more and more useful at higher levels (d4->d6 is a bigger leap than d10->d12), anyone can roll a 1 on the die.
White wolf's die pool system. Throw a handfull of d10s. Characters with more aptitude get more dice. Count the number that are above 7. Pretty simple to total and players get the satisfaction of rolling gobs of dice.
Savage Worlds damage. Important characters have effectively 4 hit points and only 4 hit points. Damage has to exceed a threshold for characters to take damage. A higher threshhold represents tougher and/or armored characters.
White Wolf's damage system. Similar to above, low number of hit points, these are based on how many attack succeeses get past the defender's defense roll and how many damage successes get past the defender's soak roll. More dice on the soak roll represent tougher opponents.
Both of these systems are thoroughly tested and can provide a more visceral feel to combat over hit point racing, and they're simpler to boot. You don't have to use the entire system, but the basic mechanics may be more fitting for what you're after.
Too much math for a game system. Try researching some other systems to give you better ideas for mechanics.
Consider:
Savage Worlds skills. Represented by dice, so improving a skill improves a chance of success, but marginally more and more useful at higher levels (d4->d6 is a bigger leap than d10->d12), anyone can roll a 1 on the die.
White wolf's die pool system. Throw a handfull of d10s. Characters with more aptitude get more dice. Count the number that are above 7. Pretty simple to total and players get the satisfaction of rolling gobs of dice.
Savage Worlds damage. Important characters have effectively 4 hit points and only 4 hit points. Damage has to exceed a threshold for characters to take damage. A higher threshhold represents tougher and/or armored characters.
White Wolf's damage system. Similar to above, low number of hit points, these are based on how many attack succeeses get past the defender's defense roll and how many damage successes get past the defender's soak roll. More dice on the soak roll represent tougher opponents.
Both of these systems are thoroughly tested and can provide a more visceral feel to combat over hit point racing, and they're simpler to boot. You don't have to use the entire system, but the basic mechanics may be more fitting for what you're after.
Thanks for the advice. I have been considering the amount of math required to run this game, and I have tried to make it easier by allowing pre-calculations (basically giving spaces on the character sheet to calculate everything beforehand). Also, as far as the MaSR versus the MiSR, I was thinking that the person taking an action would be the one to keep track of the MaSR, and the person whom the action is being taken against, if any, would keep track of the MiSR. Given these clarifications, would they be adequate to reduce the mathematical strain on the system, or would I still need to completely abandon the system altogether in favor of a more math-lite system? I've already integrated the percentile system into a lot of player options, but if it needs to be done, it needs to be done.
I think, but I am not sure, that the Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay and Warhammer 40k Roleplay systems give precedent for the percentile system I've been using so far, because they also use a percentile dice system, but I've only been able to find a small amount of material for each such system, which I haven't had much of a chance to read. I have had the opportunity to play a small amount of Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay, but due to time constraints and the lack of seriousness of my fellow players, I don't think I learned much, and it was several years ago at that. I'll have to review those systems.
I have some experience with White Wolf's system, but it seems that the Die Pool system only gives an incredibly marginal benefit for having higher skills or attributes, and even then, if 1's are counted toward exceptional failures, a higher amount of training in whatever a character is doing has a (albeit very marginal) chance to make them worse off. The former is okay for a game such as World of Darkness where you're playing ordinary people, but my game will be focused on heroes facing extraordinary odds in epic quests. The latter, however, is not something I would want.
I do have a small Savage Worlds book. I'm not sure, given the book's size, how well it would cover what I would need, but when I get the chance, I'll just have to read it and find out!
Once again, thank you for the advice.
Ars Magica, for example, uses d10 (with an interesting exploding mechanic) + Attribute + skill (And, when casting magic, there are two skills added)
Gurps uses 3d6, roll under your skill (which is modifier onto an attribute) to succeed.
Also, understand that one of the best changes from 2nd edition D&D to 3rd edition was replacing THAC0. Functionally it was the same, but it was less math intensive.
That said, I rather hated Warhammer's mechanics. I've been told that I did it wrong, but none of our party's characters had better than a 45% in any skills and there were a lot of skills to focus on and the advancement was just weird. The system seemed to make little use of the finer detail percentage could offer, with chunks of 1-4% not existing outside of character creation. Additionally, d100 suffers from the same problems that D&D does in terms of the flat probability of the random factor, which makes bonuses to the roll incredibly valuable at every stage, which strongly encourages extremely focused characters.
Taking a second look at your MASR and MISR (Let's call it MASIR because that's cool, nevermind that it doesn't work as an acronym) mechanics, a few critiques:
1. Roll low, but not too low. This isn't terribly intuitive. Roll low can work, but with this system there's no instant excitement of, "Holy crap, that's a good roll!" Instead you get, "I hope that's a success, let me consult this chart first..."
2. You could accomplish the exact same thing by making it d100 + bonus and having a target number based on the difficulty of the task. If, say, 60% is the starting point for your character and the MISR for a simple task is 10%, then you could have player roll 1d100+60 versus a TN of 110. This isn't exactly the same probability wise, but it's much simpler. Unless you allow 110% MASR to reduce the MISR, in which case it is exactly the same.
3. There's no room for maragin of success. This is a big part of many other games and helps to make those really good rolls feel that much better.
4. As mentioned above, d100 is a flat curve and it suffers from a lot of the same complaints leveled against D&D's flat probability system. There's no diminishing returns on stacking bonuses, just an abrupt cutoff where a bonus works or it doesn't (such as +8 to hit compared to +9 to hit versus an AC of 10).
Keep in mind, most games can have their mechanics summed up into a paragraph or two! If they can't, then I don't have high hopes for it.
Only a paragraph or two? I don't think I've ever played a game that could be adequately explained with only one or two paragraphs! Then again, I'm a guy who likes to be thorough.
That said, I rather hated Warhammer's mechanics. I've been told that I did it wrong, but none of our party's characters had better than a 45% in any skills and there were a lot of skills to focus on and the advancement was just weird. The system seemed to make little use of the finer detail percentage could offer, with chunks of 1-4% not existing outside of character creation. Additionally, d100 suffers from the same problems that D&D does in terms of the flat probability of the random factor, which makes bonuses to the roll incredibly valuable at every stage, which strongly encourages extremely focused characters.
Well, with the current system, assuming I don't change it (and with the problems you list below, it's likely that I will), it only has the problem of extremely focused characters at low levels, in theory anyway; I've made a character using a starting amount of 100 XP/PXP (which, in the system I'm using, is much less than it sounds) and I've managed to make it relatively effective in combat for quite a few levels beyond that with only the beginning stats, with the plan being that further XP gained through encounters would be put to use in rounding the character out. The idea is that the character should be good at what they're specialized in from the beginning; a focused character at 100 XP/PXP should be able to defeat, or at least stand a chance at beating, a character with a different focus at 1000 or more XP/PXP in a duel of the first character's focus.
In fact, I intended it to be that way. One of the problems I've had with systems such as DnD is that, for example, a level 1 Fighter in DnD 4.0 could probably lose in a melee fight against a level 11 Wizard. With such a great amount of benefits being given per level, such as bonuses to defenses, accuracy, HP, and so on and so forth, the fighter wouldn't be able to hit the Wizard as often as you would think he should, given the fact that flavorwise, a Wizard would have spent most of his life stufying magic, and would have had little time to practice hitting things with a staff and not being hit with a sword in melee range. Granted, the levels 1 and 11 in the above example are completely arbitrary, and someone could probably easily figure out a way to have the level 1 Fighter beat the level 11 Wizard, but you get my point, right?
Taking a second look at your MASR and MISR (Let's call it MASIR because that's cool, nevermind that it doesn't work as an acronym) mechanics, a few critiques:
1. Roll low, but not too low. This isn't terribly intuitive. Roll low can work, but with this system there's no instant excitement of, "Holy crap, that's a good roll!" Instead you get, "I hope that's a success, let me consult this chart first..."
I haven't thought about that, I admit. What I HAVE thought about, though, was how irritating it would be with the current system I have in place that would allow characters to expend reactions (see my first post) to enhance their defenses. The way I have it now, the defenses are such that on their own, at low levels, a character's defense against any particular attack would be anywhere from 5% to 15%, depending on the character's stats. Since that would seem quite marginal at best, I at first thought it would be a good idea to allow a character to spend reactions, representing them making an active effort in defending themselves, to multiply their defenses.
What I later realized was that, not only would higher-leveled characters be able to easily simply ignore at least one attack per round that way, but it would also be extremely irritating to have to declare before every attack against you whether or not you're going to spend a reaction, and if so how many, in an effort to prevent being hit. This, combined with the issue of the lack of an ability to determine right off the bat whether or not a roll is good or not, practically begs for the system to be changed.
A little explanation before going on to the next one, though... The reason I wanted the MaSR and the MiSR to work the way it currently does in general is so that the players would only have to keep track of their own MaSR's and MiSR's, and the GM his or her own. Basically, the person making a check would make a roll, and if they roll below their MaSR, they would ask the target of the check how the roll compares to the target's MiSR. If the roll is above the target's MiSR, the action being attempted succeeds.
2. You could accomplish the exact same thing by making it d100 + bonus and having a target number based on the difficulty of the task. If, say, 60% is the starting point for your character and the MISR for a simple task is 10%, then you could have player roll 1d100+60 versus a TN of 110. This isn't exactly the same probability wise, but it's much simpler. Unless you allow 110% MASR to reduce the MISR, in which case it is exactly the same.
Except for that last sentence, I understand what you're saying completely. Basically, it'll be a lot like the d20 system, except with higher numbers. At first, I thought that I had a problem with that, but for the life of me I can't remember what the problem was.
3. There's no room for maragin of success. This is a big part of many other games and helps to make those really good rolls feel that much better.
What do you mean? Are you talking about critical hits? The system, as it is, has rules for crits; I just haven't explained them yet. A crit would basically be a roll within a certain range of the MaSR of the check. It would just be a little more work to determine if a check critted than with the d20 system, due to constantly having to check the MaSR.
4. As mentioned above, d100 is a flat curve and it suffers from a lot of the same complaints leveled against D&D's flat probability system. There's no diminishing returns on stacking bonuses, just an abrupt cutoff where a bonus works or it doesn't (such as +8 to hit compared to +9 to hit versus an AC of 10).
I have no idea how that would be fixed. I mean, the only systems I've played where that wasn't a problem are systems where the likelihood of you succeeding is directly related to the effects of your success, such as the d10 system you mentioned.
Action economy does not sound like a good thing. 3.5 did things fairly well with free/swift/move/standard actions. You get one of each, except free actions which are free. Swift actions are fairly rare, so don't have much of an impact except on more advanced play. When asking players to attack twice or use an action to defend, many will crunch the numbers and find the optimal choice and leave the more casual players in the dust.
I can't even really see any benefit for MASIR. High difficulty tasks are put out of reach of novices, which is the same thing as a 1d100+40 versus a TN of 150. Yet even experts will have trouble with high difficulty tasks such as the MISR dictates they're going to fail so often regardless of their skill. The d100 and expressing traits as percentages may be attractive in reducing the power gap between experienced and novice characters, but this can be done in other ways.
Maragin of success is related to critical hits, but not quite the same thing. D&D uses a very simple, "You fail, you succeed, you succeed well." Other systems allow for additional levels of success. Perhaps the maragin of success adds directly to damage (ala Battletech). This MASIR system may allow for critical hits, but it would add an additional layer of complexity on top of the, "roll low, but not too low" scheme, and putting additional levels of success would be a nightmare.
I summed up the core mechanics of several system into single sentences, much less having to do paragraphs. Sure, there's a lot more detail to the system than that, but most of that detail governs how characters are built and some of the options that can be taken in combat or rules to manage more complicated tasks. The core mechanics are still often pretty simple, and they should be! If I hand someone that has no experience a sheet and say, "Alright, tell me what you're doing. Great, I need you to roll a d20 and add your attack bonus" which was pre-calculated for them on the sheet, I just got someone into the game on a moment's notice. It's very obvious that they want to get a high number since they're adding a bonus to it. Compare this to having to explain MASR and MISR.
I guess I just like to be overly thorough. I don't think I ever would have been able to sum up the d20 system the way you did.
Action economy does not sound like a good thing. 3.5 did things fairly well with free/swift/move/standard actions. You get one of each, except free actions which are free. Swift actions are fairly rare, so don't have much of an impact except on more advanced play. When asking players to attack twice or use an action to defend, many will crunch the numbers and find the optimal choice and leave the more casual players in the dust.
Well, that's not quite what I was talking about with the action system. Actions and reactions, for example, would be separate; you wouldn't be able to exchange one for the other unless you had a specific benefit that said you could, and even then, I'm thinking of not including that benefit.
Basically, the main reason I went with a number of actions divided into Physical, Cognitive, and Move Actions was to properly simulate the amount of time and effort going into different actions; for example, it goes without saying that it takes less time and effort to stab with a dagger than it does to smash with a gigantic hammer.
The second biggest reason is regarding move actions; specifically, instead of having one move action that allowed you to move up to a set distance, you would instead have a number of move actions that each only allowed you to move one square normally (2 squares running, half a square shifting); this would allow you to move a small distance, attack, and move another small distance, instead of feeling like you've partially wasted movement by spending your one move action to move only a couple of squares in order to enter melee range with an enemy.
Finally, I did it this way in order to allow for more synergy with hybrid spellcaster/warrior characters. Granted, there will be a rule in place that will give you a disadvantage for using both physical and cognitive actions in the same turn, but there will be a (rather expensive and hard-to-get) benefit that will negate that.
I can't even really see any benefit for MASIR. High difficulty tasks are put out of reach of novices, which is the same thing as a 1d100+40 versus a TN of 150. Yet even experts will have trouble with high difficulty tasks such as the MISR dictates they're going to fail so often regardless of their skill. The d100 and expressing traits as percentages may be attractive in reducing the power gap between experienced and novice characters, but this can be done in other ways.
I was thinking that it would be better to allow a novice a shadow of a hope in succeeding with, say, attacking an enemy or something like that. But also, to make things more realistic, I'm thinking that things that require specific training in order to do would only be accessible by people who spend points to increase their skill with those things; for example, it's possible that a highly dextrous person could simply have never learned how to pick locks. In order to simulate this, the Locks skill would be something you'd need to spend XP on in order to use it at all. Such would not be the case for everything, of course, but only for a few select checks.
As far as the difficulty of actions for experts goes, I've already decided a long time ago that, for regular tasks such as hitting an enemy, the MiSR would rarely exceed 25, and never exceed 40. If there was an MiSR of 40 attached to a regular task, it would be the equivalent of something you'd expect a level 30 DnD character to do. For the most difficult tasks in the entire game, such as obtaining complete enlightenment and learning the one true meaning of life, the universe, and everything, the MiSR would be allowed to go as high as 80 or 90, and at that, you'd need to spend a really long time to perform the task. Like, an in-game year or so, for that example. Over the course of this conversation, I've also decided that it would be most unwise to allow reactions to increase one's defenses in any significant way, thus keeping with the restrictions on MiSR stated earlier in this paragraph. That is, of course, assuming I stick with the current system, which I may not.
Also, keep in mind that the existence of an MiSR would imply resistance to the completion of a task; any action supposed to be easy or routine would not have an MiSR, and so an expert would have little to worry about.
Maragin of success is related to critical hits, but not quite the same thing. D&D uses a very simple, "You fail, you succeed, you succeed well." Other systems allow for additional levels of success. Perhaps the maragin of success adds directly to damage (ala Battletech). This MASIR system may allow for critical hits, but it would add an additional layer of complexity on top of the, "roll low, but not too low" scheme, and putting additional levels of success would be a nightmare.
This, I think I understand, and your argument against the "roll low, but not too low" mechanic remains quite valid. I'm not yet sure what I'm going to do to fix it, though. As far as your suggestion favoring the "d100 + (modifier)" mechanic, you yourself reminded me of the flaw that I had mentioned forgetting earlier when you stated "High difficulty tasks are put out of reach of novices, which is the same thing as a 1d100+40 versus a TN of 150." That is, I think it would be much easier for me, as the designer of the game, to create a system where nothing reasonable is put out of reach of anyone, and only those really, truly exceptional tasks are put out of anyone's reach entirely if I didn't adopt a system resembling "d100 + (modifier)". I'm not saying for sure that I'm sticking with the MASIR system, as you have called it; quite contrary, the more you explain, the more I realize it's probably going to be replaced with a better system. The problem is finding that better system.
However, I've found other systems that do more of what I want. In Savage Worlds, for example, a novice fighter with an exploding d4 can still get lucky and land a good hit on the more experienced fighter with a parry of 10 (which is kinda like an AC of 22 or so). And then get a whole bunch of aces on the damage and put them down instantly. It's rare, but entirely possible! This means a party of fresh adventurers could, with luck and planning, take down that nasty beholder. And the experienced adventurers could be in trouble if they're caught by surprise by 10 kobolds! This helps me as a story teller keep the challenges more believable as the PCs don't go from having to be humble to being gods in two different encounters, and they feel more like people in a world. They don't have to run around and level up before they fight the big bad, that is silly and never happens in fiction. No, they can tackle him right away! Just need to gather enough allies and plan very carefully. And perhaps have a touch of luck on their side.
If I ever get to develop the MMORPG I want, I'll have the game set up to use 1d(skill) versus 1d(task level), and if the player wins they succeed. This provides a nice bell curve for skill, as well as giving experts a chance to fail (bad luck can happen to anyone) and giving novices a chance to succeed (seredepity can happen to anyone). This system is not entirely suited for tabletop given the relatively small number of dice available, but it can work just fine with a computer.
I think this may be what is bothering you and why you sought to develop your own system.
Actually, to go a little off-topic for a post or two, the reason I want to develop my own system is the same reason most people do most things: Money. It just so happens that my plan is a bit more convoluted than it probably should be.
You see, the idea for this system actually started out as an idea for a video game, which is unfortunate because I have next to no computer programming skills. I hope that I will be able to develop and eventually sell this Pen and Paper game in order to supplement the money that I will spend on college, so that I can learn how to program and make the video game that this system is based on. The video game will hopefully bring in enough money for me to not only live with a degree of comfort for a while, but also buy a second trip to college, during which I'll hopefully learn even more about computers and technology in general, and then maybe make a contribution to the world that isn't just about games. Despite my depressing view of humanity (don't ask; I know I'm already going off-topic, but I want this off-topic conversation to be temporary), I would still like to be a philanthropist (perhaps it's because of my depressing view of humanity that I have such aspirations; maybe I can help make humanity less despicable!) and make a meaningful contribution to the well-being of the world. Not to diminish the importance of entertainment, mind you, but the playing of games isn't going to end world hunger/overthrow tyranny/make space travel affordable/whatever else needs to be done.
So basically I'm going to use this game to fund my future as someone using another game to fund my further future as a philanthropic hero of sorts.
Going back to the subject of the game itself, I'm sorry I forgot to mention this before, but a friend of mine and I are going to be playtesting a short and simple battle between the character I mentioned having made and an enemy I haven't made yet. It will be on Saturday of this week, unless I can meet with him sooner, and hopefully we'll be able to see what works and what doesn't work so far. Maybe we'll have some insight I haven't had yet that can further contribute to the development of this system.
And finally, I really do appreciate your help. I know you haven't told me this, so I could be completely wrong in my idea of what kind of impression I'm making, but I know I can seem a bit stubborn sometimes regarding the ideas of others. I just want you to know that your input is very valuable to me and to the development of my system, and any further help you may provide will be appreciated.
Actually, to go a little off-topic for a post or two, the reason I want to develop my own system is the same reason most people do most things: Money.
No offense, but this may be a terrible idea. There's tons of games out there, finding mechanics to suit ones tastes isn't the problem. Building a community and collecting a decent line of followup products is what helps to make an RPG successful. The first is generally competing in a saturated market. The second requires a lot more than a new rulebook! If money is your motivator, you may want to reconsider writing a book for an existing system.
Actually, to go a little off-topic for a post or two, the reason I want to develop my own system is the same reason most people do most things: Money.
No offense, but this may be a terrible idea. There's tons of games out there, finding mechanics to suit ones tastes isn't the problem. Building a community and collecting a decent line of followup products is what helps to make an RPG successful. The first is generally competing in a saturated market. The second requires a lot more than a new rulebook! If money is your motivator, you may want to reconsider writing a book for an existing system.
First of all, it'll be more than just a single rulebook, that's for sure. I probably won't even release the core rulebook until I have at least three supplements already completed. Second of all, none of the games I've ever heard of have mechanics that would be able to properly reflect the flavor of what would happen in my game; there will, of course, be elements in my game that have been done before, but I haven't yet heard of a game that implements them in the same way or with the same goal as I've planned. Third of all, I'm not expecting to become a millionaire off of this; I'd consider myself lucky if the game sells anywhere outside my state and a couple of nearby states. Fourth of all, money may be my primary motivator, but I think I'll have fun along the way.
I appreciate your concern - I really do - but for a rather long time, I had only two plans for what would possibly happen in my life: either I'd go along with this plan of making money for college and such, or my life would eventually hit rock bottom, and I'd gather the will to end it all. Only recently has my life started to look up in any way enough for me to make a third plan, but by now I've already invested enough effort into this game that I don't want to back down from finishing it, even if I'm likely to fail. And if and when it's finished, I'll sell however much of it I can, and hope that it won't be at a loss.
The playtest of the system last Friday (not Saturday) with my friend went exceedingly and, I must admit, quite surprisingly well. Granted, it only involved one player character and a limited amount of material, but things are looking good so far. There were only a few minor concerns over some specific rules, but the MaSR/MiSR system wasn't nearly as bad or complex as it sounded from the objections voiced so far. It was found out, through testing, that not only could a hit, miss, or crit be determined quite quickly, but it was easy to get the "good roll excitement" that was supposedly missing (a "good roll," for the levels we playtested, basically meant a roll in the 30's range).
One of the problems my friend mentioned involved size and how that should influence things such as stealth checks, the character's ability to dodge, and so forth. So far, the only thing size usually influences is mobility. Characters start at size 0 (for an average adult human), and add or subtract based on their race and whatnot. Their size is then added to (or subtracted from) their Agility modifier to determine the amount of move actions a character has per turn, thus giving an obvious advantage to larger characters. I'm thinking so far that large characters would suffer penalties to their Stealth skill, their Dodging defense, and squeezing and balancing, and small characters would get bonuses to those same things.