Design Philosophy

[Elsidar]

In looking for ways to spread the word about e20, I stumbled across a post on enWorld that called the e20 project "just another fantasy heartbreaker." Google pointed me to this essay by Ron Edwards.

He describes problems he has with certain indie RPGs that do little more than re-package D&D with a whole mess of house rules and call it a new game;

(By "house rules," I mean patch rules - fixing a problem by adding correcters, rather than proceeding from base principles.)

Rather than starting from square one and building something better from scratch, the games Edwards writes about just tack on extra complexity or additional math to force the numbers to look the way the writers wanted. Further, some of these games also take mechanics and rules from other games, adapt them to the core D&D mechanic, and call them "innovation."

However, despite the unoriginality for which Edwards criticizes these games, he also finds some really great ideas in each system, ideas that show true creativity that are bogged down by the broader problems and never get noticed.

The basic notion is that nearly all of the listed games have one great idea buried in them somewhere. It's perhaps the central point of this essay - that yes, these games are not "only" AD&D knockoffs and hodgepodges of house rules. They are indeed the products of actual play, love for the medium, and determined creativity. That's why they break my heart, because the nuggets are so buried and bemired within all the painful material I listed above.

Edwards goes on to say the following:

My frustration with these real and impressive innovations is this: why not center the game specifically around the actual innovation, playing to the strength as it were? Dawnfire at least does so with its Flow in setting terms, but the true power of the bullshitting system is still buried under a huge formal spell list, not to mention the overwhelming mass of D&D-based assumptions and imitations (the creature list in this game is embarassingly derivative, for instance). Of Gods and Men tries to do it with its Divine Power Cards, but they get quickly outweighed by the "traditional" magic system; the far more sophisticated system in Darkurthe: Legends is similarly presented as secondary. Speaking strictly as a practioner, if the innovations in magic system of any of the five games listed above had been dusted off and made the core of a powerful Premise (of whatever GNS category), the game would have been a triumph of role-playing power and quite possibly extremely influential.

This is the key point I think the e20 system needs to remember. What are we truly innovating? What are our most creative elements of this new game? What really sets us apart as a true evolution of the d20 system, rather than a bunch of math patches? The best example of this that I can think of right now is Gary's enhancement system. Now granted, I understand that the focus of the project is not to simply collect houserules and compile them into a document that seems to be coherent, and there's plenty of material that Gary has already written that he hasn't released to us, but I think we need to keep a broader scope in mind when talking about designing talents, enhancements, feats, and metagame content, especially when we try to model all of the myriad abilities iconic characters display in any genre we decide to highlight in the book (characters like Drizz't, Superman, Batman, Spider Man, Harry Dresden, Harry Potter, Luke Skywalker, Mega Man, and so on and so on).

Another important element to keep in mind, especially with e20's goal of genre-neutrality, is the presentation of the game rules themselves. In particular;

That's a mere detail, however, compared with the other evidence that AD&D, vintage Numero Uno, provided not only the model, but the only model for these games' design - to the extent of defining the very act of role-playing.
<snip>
Consider: each of these games is alike regarding the act of role-playing itself. The point of play is being an adventurer who grows very powerful and might die at any time, and all context and judgment and outcomes are the exclusive province of this guy called the GM (or whatever), case closed. They precisely parallel what AD&D role-playing evolved into during the early 1980s. Each of these games is clearly written by a GM who would very much like all the players simply to shut up and play their characters without interfering with "what's really happening." They are Social Contract time bombs.

I think it is crucial for us to make sure the rules we design are not only able to cross any genre a GM and his players want, but also be adaptable or at least non-intrusive to their style of play and be presented as such. It's important to show that any type of gameplay can be accommodated by e20, be it Gamist, Simulationist (at least to the degree we settle on), or Narrativist. That, coupled with the mechanical creativity, will set e20 apart as a system all on its own. With this project, having seized my creative interest and energy like no other in just the past week, I would love to see this happen.

[GMSarli]

Outstanding post! I'll have some comments in a bit, but I have some errands to run. Anyone else want to chime in on how to avoid e20 becoming a "heartbreaker"?

[JaredGaume]

So far this is where I see the design philosophy going (I may be horribly off base ):

* d20 core model (i.e. roll d20, add modifiers, compare to target)

* Skill based combat (an innovative approach, very different from BAB)

* Enhancements - best line I have on these is basically an award you earn, kinda like getting a Longsword +1 but you get to use with all Longswords.

* Non-linear experience/level growth


So far we are assuming similarities with other d20 properties (d20M, SWSE, D&D 3.0/3.5/4.0). But as the above points show, we may be moving past that.

I would like to see perhaps:

* a Talent based magic system, significantly different than what has been done before.

* "Selectable" features for character development decisions, rather than forced features. So far it looks like this is where we are headed, but remains to be seen.

... and other ideas that aren't coming to mind right at the moment.

[Shawn Burke]

Yeah I don't think Edward's comments really apply, from what I've seen pretty much redoing everything from the ground up.

[JaredGaume]

True that. But being aware of the problem can hopefully sharpen the result, rather than "copy and paste" stuff that didn't seem too important or worth the time to consider.

[GMSarli]

True that. But being aware of the problem can hopefully sharpen the result, rather than "copy and paste" stuff that didn't seem too important or worth the time to consider.

Precisely.

Honestly, this part of Elsidar's post hits the nail on the head so well I think I'm going to frame it and hang it above my desk:

This is the key point I think the e20 system needs to remember. What are we truly innovating? What are our most creative elements of this new game? What really sets us apart as a true evolution of the d20 system, rather than a bunch of math patches?

And this part, too, really highlights a critical point:

I think it is crucial for us to make sure the rules we design are not only able to cross any genre a GM and his players want, but also be adaptable or at least non-intrusive to their style of play and be presented as such. It's important to show that any type of gameplay can be accommodated by e20, be it Gamist, Simulationist (at least to the degree we settle on), or Narrativist. That, coupled with the mechanical creativity, will set e20 apart as a system all on its own.

This is absolutely correct, and it's something to keep in mind not only in terms of how the manuscript reads but also in writing mechanics that are modular and flexible enough to handle drastically different styles of play.

With this project, having seized my creative interest and energy like no other in just the past week, I would love to see this happen.

Glad to see I'm not the only one who's become utterly absorbed by the discussions here.

Seriously, as much work as I had done before opening this project to the public, the tempo and energy has been absolutely staggering since I set of the forums. One of the most common criticisms I see for this project is that it will be "design by committee" and therefore an inherently flawed design. My hunch was that this wouldn't be true, and the discussions so far tell me that my hunch is correct: If things are even half this productive for the rest of the project, the final product will be amazing.

[Stacie_GmrGrl]

True that. But being aware of the problem can hopefully sharpen the result, rather than "copy and paste" stuff that didn't seem too important or worth the time to consider.

Precisely.

Honestly, this part of Elsidar's post hits the nail on the head so well I think I'm going to frame it and hang it above my desk:

This is the key point I think the e20 system needs to remember. What are we truly innovating? What are our most creative elements of this new game? What really sets us apart as a true evolution of the d20 system, rather than a bunch of math patches?

And this part, too, really highlights a critical point:

I think it is crucial for us to make sure the rules we design are not only able to cross any genre a GM and his players want, but also be adaptable or at least non-intrusive to their style of play and be presented as such. It's important to show that any type of gameplay can be accommodated by e20, be it Gamist, Simulationist (at least to the degree we settle on), or Narrativist. That, coupled with the mechanical creativity, will set e20 apart as a system all on its own.

This is absolutely correct, and it's something to keep in mind not only in terms of how the manuscript reads but also in writing mechanics that are modular and flexible enough to handle drastically different styles of play.

With this project, having seized my creative interest and energy like no other in just the past week, I would love to see this happen.

Glad to see I'm not the only one who's become utterly absorbed by the discussions here.

Seriously, as much work as I had done before opening this project to the public, the tempo and energy has been absolutely staggering since I set of the forums. One of the most common criticisms I see for this project is that it will be "design by committee" and therefore an inherently flawed design. My hunch was that this wouldn't be true, and the discussions so far tell me that my hunch is correct: If things are even half this productive for the rest of the project, the final product will be amazing.

Honey, if you get this off the ground in March not only will we all be excited but I think the tempo of our excitement in pulling this off and producing a truly outstanding game will not just be the same as it is now but multiplied tenfold than it is now. I haven't been this excited about a rpg ever. I've always wanted to help in the design of a new rpg, and if this happens then you'll have helped me achieve it.

And I think your Enhancement idea can be the real start of the evolution of the game that we can all come up with and have a part in helping you design... Just about everything, talents, feats, spells, powers, if you look at it, is an Enhancement for a character. This is your evolution. Call this women's intuition, and we are never wrong

[valetutto]

*looks around*
It WILL succeed.
Trust me, I...know things.
*vanishes*

[Elsidar]

I think it is crucial for us to make sure the rules we design are not only able to cross any genre a GM and his players want, but also be adaptable or at least non-intrusive to their style of play and be presented as such. It's important to show that any type of gameplay can be accommodated by e20, be it Gamist, Simulationist (at least to the degree we settle on), or Narrativist. That, coupled with the mechanical creativity, will set e20 apart as a system all on its own.

This is absolutely correct, and it's something to keep in mind not only in terms of how the manuscript reads but also in writing mechanics that are modular and flexible enough to handle drastically different styles of play.

Thanks, Gary.

Now, just this morning I found yet another essay by Ron Edwards, titled System Does Matter.

The main point he brings up here is a matter of focus:

Here I suggest that RPG system design cannot meet all three outlooks at once. For example, how long does it take to resolve a game action in real time? The simulationist accepts delay as long as it enhances accuracy; the narrativist hates delay; the gamist only accepts delay or complex methods if they can be exploited. Or, what constitutes success? The narrativist demands a resolution be dramatic, but the gamist wants to know who came out better off than the next guy. Or, how should player-character effectiveness be "balanced"? The narrativist doesn't care, the simulationist wants it to reflect the game-world's social system, and the gamist simply demands a fair playing field.

One of the biggest problems I observe in RPG systems is that they often try to satisfy all three outlooks at once. The result, sadly, is a guarantee that almost any player will be irritated by some aspect of the system during play. GMs' time is then devoted, as in the Herbie example, to throwing out the aspects that don't accord for a particular group. A "good" GM becomes defined as someone who can do this well - but why not eliminate this laborious step and permit a (for example) Gamist GM to use a Gamist game, getting straight to the point? I suggest that building the system specifically to accord with one of these outlooks is the first priority of RPG design.

If we try to please everybody with the same rules, we're bound to get bogged down in conflicts between fundamental playstyles. I think e20 should have a definite default focus of one of these outlooks (most likely Gamist, as d20 has traditionally been), but we shouldn't be afraid of offering optional rule replacements/augmentations in key places to appeal to the Simulationist or Narrative player.

Edwards says that building the system for just one outlook is the first priority, and I agree, insofar as we should make solid mechanics for our default outlook, and only then try to create sidebars or an "optional rules" chapter for adapting the system for Narrative or Simulationist play. While we write the default outlook, however, we'll have to keep an eye out for situations where variant rules could come in and change the way the game plays; that'll make modularity much easier. Even then, we should tackle the other outlooks one at a time.

Genre-neutrality will almost necessarily require adapting the rules to many different playstyles, but I think it'll be better to build "alternate" rules after we get a solid foundation for them. If focusing on our default outlook means that we run out of time for alternate rules, there's nothing stopping us from continuing to design the variants and releasing them later.

EDIT:
Edwards just keeps writing...
From "More Fantasy Heartbreakers," a more recent essay:

But I'd like to get a little more abstract about that. Even aside from industry and promotion considerations, I think these games are doomed through a conceptual tautology: you can't do D&D fantasy, regardless of how streamlined or "more logical" your rules are, without being directly measured by the defining feature, which is to say, D&D itself. In other words, the game design is trapped - the less like D&D it becomes in function and content, the further it moves from its goals, to "fix D&D." And the more it stays with its goals, the more D&D compares favorably with it.

It's agonizing to see and, despite my best intentions, these games are not easy to get people to play for purposes of review and promotion.

So what to do with them? If anything? I'd like to develop some kind of tracking or ongoing analysis of Fantasy Heartbreakers which permits people arriving at the Forge to get a solid, well-articulated introduction to them, as a preventative measure if possible. Suggestions toward that goal or constructive alternatives are definitely welcome.

This statement gives me pause. I've never attempted to design a whole game before, whether from scratch or based off of an existing system, but I wonder how I would tell the difference between a new game system that attempts to "fix" an older one, or one that's simply the product of the older system "remastered" with better writing and ideas (i.e.: an evolution of the game)?

Maybe Edwards is just being a bit of a downer; the games he's writing about in these essays do seem quite derivative. I don't think we'll fall into the traps he talks about so long as we have a clear view of our purposes in writing e20. I think the goals of this project should be explicitly written out so we can make sure we're not going to run into contradictions of purpose or write ourselves into a corner.

[Stacie_GmrGrl]

My last posts in the Core Classes thread diverged off into design philosophy some and I should have said it here, but what is it that we are trying to achieve here with e20? It's being advertised as the next stage in the evolution of the d20 system. That's what I'm getting from it.

IMO, to be the next evolution in the game we have to think more outside the box and come up with something, while it may appear similar, that will be new and exciting. Classes, Talent, Feats, Saves, classes pertaining to each ability score, all been done before. Enhancements is definately one step in the right direction, but it, by itself, isn't enough. Having the different Modules to make it more universal and modular, is a step in the right direction, as that provides GMs more options to come up with unique settings as setting building blocks. And the last thing we want to imply in the core rules is that the game is best with one genre but ok with the rest.

So lets think outside the box, shift your paradigm some, and look at things from a wildly different view point and see the possibilities. We still have over a month before real development would begin so why not toss in some crazy ideas.

My new Crazy Idea, use the Aspects system from Spirit of the Century and tie that into our characters, something that would truly define who we are, maybe give us a bonus in certain situations, and also provide the GM with a hook on how to use those Aspects against the player, and if he does, then he could maybe get bonus xp or something. Or he could tie in his Aspects with Action Points and use Action Points in an entirely new and exciting way. Maybe change their name, but use something like that...that's never really been done in a d20 game yet.

[JaredGaume]

[Southern Preacher] "Amen sister, amen." [/Southern Preacher]

[Stacie_GmrGrl]

[Southern Preacher] "Amen sister, amen." [/Southern Preacher]

Aww thank you.... I feel blessed now.

[Jimmy Plamondon]

The Spirit of the Century Aspect system is awesome IMO. It is as much a role playing tool as it is a game mechanic.

Maybe something along those lines might be included with that enhancement system thing...?

But again, I feel like this would be the "narrativist" approach to the game. It is true that we must find which niche this game must be good at or risk having it being good at nothing...

I tend to agree that the "gamist" approach should be the default one. But we should add stuff from other schools of thoughts, maybe in a section for alternate rules. I think I am pretty much a narrativist myself, so I would like to see more of those optional rules to enhance actual role play, creativity and storytelling.

[Stacie_GmrGrl]

The Spirit of the Century Aspect system is awesome IMO. It is as much a role playing tool as it is a game mechanic.

Maybe something along those lines might be included with that enhancement system thing...?

But again, I feel like this would be the "narrativist" approach to the game. It is true that we must find which niche this game must be good at or risk having it being good at nothing...

I tend to agree that the "gamist" approach should be the default one. But we should add stuff from other schools of thoughts, maybe in a section for alternate rules. I think I am pretty much a narrativist myself, so I would like to see more of those optional rules to enhance actual role play, creativity and storytelling.

I'm not one to attribute anything to "gamist" or "narrativist" because those are limitations in scope to me, and limitations in thought. The niche is that, to most, this is just another d20 OGL game, and we have to prove them wrong, or they won't even buy it, so our niche is that we have to expand outside this niche or this game is doomed. I have no clue if that made any sense But that is the argument so many have given as a voice of opposition, that this is just another d20 OGL game.

Maybe there needs more Narrativist Aspects built into the game, and it can still be very Gamist. Whatever those terms really mean. /shrug

Can you explain them to me, so I may have a better undestanding of what it is I'm actually talking about?

[JaredGaume]

Short version:

Gamist: likes rules and a fair approach, "I'm rolling dice and playing a game."

Simulationist: really likes rules, wants to simulate real life. It may not be fair, but its accurate.

Narrativist: not too keen on rules, more interested in telling a story.

[Stacie_GmrGrl]

Ok, then after reading the short version, I say get rid of the GNS notions altogether and not even think about them and don't pigeon hole this game into any one of the three and let this game just happen as it evolves into what it will become.

[GMSarli]

According to Ron Edwards, you can't satisfy all three approaches simultaneously; you can satisfy two.

I imagine he conceptualizes it like the "cost, time, quality" trade-off paradigm: You can get something cheap quickly, but it will be crappy; you can get something cheap of high quality, but it will take time; you can get something of high quality quickly, but it'll cost you. (Picture it as a triangle with each attribute at one vertex; any given side can be connected to two of the vertices, but not all three.)

In Edwards's paradigm, then, a game can be simulationist and gamist; gamist and narrativist; or narrativist and simulationist. You could make the argument that 3.0/3.5 is simulationist/gamist (fairly self-evident) and that 4E is gamist/narrativist (e.g. players make magic item "wish lists," quests are an integral part of XP, etc.), for example.

You could also extend from Edwards's paradigm that any game that doesn't satisfy two of these needs isn't a very good game. To compare to the "cost, time, quality" trade-off, if something was fast but expensive and of poor quality, then you didn't get a good value.


Personally, I'm not certain that Edwards's paradigm is necessarily the best one for this situation. That's one of the problems with any paradigm; it's a series of mental shortcuts (schemata) that allow you to quickly abstract specific and detailed information so that you can make a judgment call while being cheap in terms of effort applied. But if it's "quick" and "cheap," what would the paradigm tell you about its own quality?

Another way to conceptualize competing game needs is by treating it as a two-dimensional plane with two axes: One axis is simulationist vs. gamist, and the other is narrativist vs. operativist. (I'm inventing the "operativist" term to represent the idea of the players being the operative force behind the plot rather than following a GM-driven narrative, a.k.a. a "sandbox game.") In this typology, any given game is located somewhere on that plane; similarly, any given player has perferences located somewhere on that plane. Presumably, one will enjoy a game that is fairly similar to your preferences; the less similar it is, the less you will like it, and at some point it becomes sufficiently dissimilar that you won't play at all.

In this paradigm, it might be possible to satisfy more than two needs -- it all depends on the tolerance level of individual players and where preferences are concentrated. Just as a thought experiment, let's imagine that each of the three gamer types that Edwards mentions -- simulationist, gamist, and narrativist -- are located at the vertices of an equilateral triangle on our game preferences plane. If we take it as a given that tolerance radii are large enough that it's possible to satisfy the preferences of any two gamer types (i.e. meeting at the midpoint of one of the sides of the triangle), then tolerance radii need be only 16% larger for all three to overlap in the center of the triangle.


In short, the whole simulationist, gamist, and narrativist thing might not be as black-and-white as it sounds. If anything, I'd give e20 good odds of beating the curve -- we're shooting for a modular, plug-and-play rule set, and that is going to make it a lot easier for it to appeal to a broader set of players than a less flexible system might.

[Elsidar]

Well, color me blue and call me shoes, 'cause I'm swayed.

(I deeply apologize to humanity.)

Those are some good points, Gary. Your arguments are very reassuring. Thanks for letting us know you've thought about all of this so much.

[JaredGaume]

I just wanted to throw this out there in thinking about the Simulationist/Gamist/Narrativist thinking.

Take Hit Points, for example.

Simulationist
Hit points represent getting hit. The more you get hit, the worse off you are. More accurately, hit points are locations that get hit (head, torso, arms, legs, etc...). When you get hit it can be grazing, injuring, disabling, severing, or death (i.e. head/heart shot).
Regardless of level, you should be under the same threat of injury/death from any attack. Level and experience improve your chances of hitting or avoiding being hit and expands your options. But a level 1 character is still a threat to a level 20 character, if he can keep up or hit his mark. Furthermore, a trained level 1 character may even be equal to or even more of a threat than an untrained level 20 character.
Levels may be more a measure of professional development than any innate bonus to skill or ability (for example an officer recruit as opposed to a full fledged general).
The simulationist cares a lot about the implications of getting hit, and tracks realistic injuries and rates of healing.

Gamist
Hit points represent your ability to function, while you have hit points you can function. When you run out of hit points you are disabled, and are either out or act in a dimished capacity.
Texturing of reserves, fatigue, injuries, wounds, conditions, massive damage threshold, etc... aren't about being realistic, more about what is fair play or "simulating" what is "realistic". Indeed the Gamist may toggle between some, none, or all possible hit point texturing.
Level is a big predictor of survivability. High level characters tend to have a lot more hit points than low level characters. A level 1 character is likely not even able to participate in the same combat encounters as even a level 8 character, much less a higher level character. Even assuming a "flat" power curve where a level 1 character can hit higher level characters, the lower relative hit points will largely reduce them to being a "1-hit wonder".
The gamist approach is what most of us are familiar with when it comes to D&D, d20M, SWSE, and so on. (previously made points)

Narrativist
Assuming the narrativist even cares about hit points, they tend to see them as a dramatic toggle. When you run out of hit points, you are merely knocked out of the scene, you may or may not actually be injured, dying, or dead.
Any implications of being hit or being reduced to 0 or fewer hit points is a dramatic point. Unless the GM says "You have a gaping wound in your chest" you are more or less fine. Injuries and death are there for dramatic effect, not because you were somehow "unlucky".
A narrativist may actually enjoy using a condition track more than hit points since the drama of saying you are fatigued, injured, bleeding out, or some other statement of condition is more interesting than saying "I have 10 hit points left".
The rules tend to be a lot more loose when it comes to combat, since the goal is dramatic or narrative tension rather than trying to simulate anything realistic.
The narrativist cares more about where the story is going, and less about who is living, injured, or dying, unless that is part of where the story is going.


Using the above examples, I do wonder how you can build a system that incorporates all 3 without being completely unweildly and needlessly complex (ends up "simulationist" by default).
I think it is decisions like this that will make or break the game.

Do date it seems we are going more with a "gamist" hit point model than a "simulationist" or "narrativist". We can throw in or tone down the "realistic" bits to hew more "simulationist" or "narrativist" but without being either, really.

At least this is how I am understanding Ron Edwards arguments and criticisms.

[jazzencat]

Perhaps it would be a good time to actually hammer out what exactly e20 should be. Right now the stated goals seem to be a little vague, and it seems that a fair number of proposed mechanics on this forum are more like patches of the existing d20 system rather than an evolution of the paradigm. Which paradigms of the d20 are good to keep and how much should maybe be designed with an eye towards being an entirely new paradigm?

[Stacie_GmrGrl]

My suspicions is that Gary will tell us more specifics... once he knows for sure that he will get enough funding for the project, and for now let us justs brainstorm the hell out of this Right now he's getting a bunch of ideas and he's just waiting till the time is right to spring to us all his ideas he has...what he has given us is just the tip of the ice berg, so to speak, right Mr. Sarli?

Maybe one of us will say something, or he's lettinng us come together without to much influence on his own, and from there we form a consensus where we all agree on different things... or we all just bicker and argue like a bunch of school girls, and since i was one I have had practice in this department And then we agree on things...

[jazzencat]

My suspicions is that Gary will tell us more specifics... once he knows for sure that he will get enough funding for the project, and for now let us justs brainstorm the hell out of this Right now he's getting a bunch of ideas and he's just waiting till the time is right to spring to us all his ideas he has...what he has given us is just the tip of the ice berg, so to speak, right Mr. Sarli?

Maybe one of us will say something, or he's lettinng us come together without to much influence on his own, and from there we form a consensus where we all agree on different things... or we all just bicker and argue like a bunch of school girls, and since i was one I have had practice in this department And then we agree on things...

Fair enough. ^,^ If this is a brainstorming session, lets really think outside of the box of what is usually expected of a d20 system, get really whacky... see what happens.

[Stacie_GmrGrl]

My suspicions is that Gary will tell us more specifics... once he knows for sure that he will get enough funding for the project, and for now let us justs brainstorm the hell out of this Right now he's getting a bunch of ideas and he's just waiting till the time is right to spring to us all his ideas he has...what he has given us is just the tip of the ice berg, so to speak, right Mr. Sarli?

Maybe one of us will say something, or he's lettinng us come together without to much influence on his own, and from there we form a consensus where we all agree on different things... or we all just bicker and argue like a bunch of school girls, and since i was one I have had practice in this department And then we agree on things...

Fair enough. ^,^ If this is a brainstorming session, lets really think outside of the box of what is usually expected of a d20 system, get really whacky... see what happens.

Oh I'm just getting started on thinking whacky honey We can really make this game kick a whole lot of a** by coming up with far out there ideas, then take what we know, rebuild the system from the ground up, around the coolness of SWSE and what that game achieved, and make it our own, with Gary as our leader.

[jazzencat]

My suspicions is that Gary will tell us more specifics... once he knows for sure that he will get enough funding for the project, and for now let us justs brainstorm the hell out of this Right now he's getting a bunch of ideas and he's just waiting till the time is right to spring to us all his ideas he has...what he has given us is just the tip of the ice berg, so to speak, right Mr. Sarli?

Maybe one of us will say something, or he's lettinng us come together without to much influence on his own, and from there we form a consensus where we all agree on different things... or we all just bicker and argue like a bunch of school girls, and since i was one I have had practice in this department And then we agree on things...

Fair enough. ^,^ If this is a brainstorming session, lets really think outside of the box of what is usually expected of a d20 system, get really whacky... see what happens.

Oh I'm just getting started on thinking whacky honey We can really make this game kick a whole lot of a** by coming up with far out there ideas, then take what we know, rebuild the system from the ground up, around the coolness of SWSE and what that game achieved, and make it our own, with Gary as our leader.

Oh good, and here I was worried I was going to be the only insane one on the board who wants to toss out and otherwise mangle beyond recognition the d20 tropes we have all come to know and love/hate ^,~

As a starting point for this: what is the minimal core of the d20 system? I take it is the resolution mechanic. stat + d20 vs target number, roll over system, yes?

Make this a meta-system for RPG not a system. e20 is a system for building systems. It's the box of Lego bricks (I'm going to keep using that one) to build anything we want it to. An RPG toolkit. Now that I have expressed this lofty philosophy, I have no clue about the specifics of achieving it.

[GMSarli]

Make this a meta-system for RPG not a system. e20 is a system for building systems. It's the box of Lego bricks (I'm going to keep using that one) to build anything we want it to. An RPG toolkit.

That's catchy -- it's exactly what I have in mind, but that's a really good way to describe it. Sure, it's pre-assembled for one basic style of game and it can theoretically be run straight out of the box, but it's meant to be put together with modules that fit the different genre-specific tropes you need for your campaign.

[Stacie_GmrGrl]

Make this a meta-system for RPG not a system. e20 is a system for building systems. It's the box of Lego bricks (I'm going to keep using that one) to build anything we want it to. An RPG toolkit.

That's catchy -- it's exactly what I have in mind, but that's a really good way to describe it. Sure, it's pre-assembled for one basic style of game and it can theoretically be run straight out of the box, but it's meant to be put together with modules that fit the different genre-specific tropes you need for your campaign.

See, he loves us.

[Stacie_GmrGrl]

Do we need Fortitude, Reflex, and Will Defenses??? or can we do something better than this?

[jazzencat]

Do we need Fortitude, Reflex, and Will Defenses??? or can we do something better than this?

Aw hell, just replace Constitution with Fortitude as a stat. Fort and Will defense are checks against Fortitude stat, Reflex is check against Dexterity.

What about a Power/Finesse/Resistance stat division for the different areas like World of Darkness has? Granted they have 9 stats instead of 6, but it could be adapted to the d20 6-stat variant. Or we could completely toss the 6-stat variant out the window and use something else entirely like a dynamic attribute system
(A Dirty World has this, 3 areas, 2 opposing stats per area).

One possible variant:
Physical, Mental, Social + 1
Physical: Strength/Dexterity
Mental: Intelligence/Wisdom
Social: Presence/Manipulation
and Fortitude

We have 6 stats with a Power/Finesse division and the extra Fortitude which represents a character's overall resilience both mental, physical and social to adversity and so forth. You could even allow modifiers for the different areas. Say a base Fortitude stat of 10, Physical -1, Mental +3, Social +1. This would represent a character with a lower tolerance for physical hardship, but is very resilient to mental challenges, and somewhat to social adversity.

A Dirty World has these 3 major pairs. Each pair as 2 related pairs as well: Cunning/Patience with Generosity/Selfishness and Demonstration/Observation, Vigor/Grace with Patience/Wrath and Endurance/Defiance, Understanding/Persuasion with Purity/Corruption and Honesty/Deceit. Each has 5 dots and they are all fluid so during the course of a battle a character's Patience might degenerate and their Wrath increases making them go berserk, and gain damage bonuses, but be less capable of thinking tactically...

[Stacie_GmrGrl]

How crunchy do we want this game? By this, I mean, do we want the game to have a heavy reliance on the minuteness of miniatures or should we think more outside the box on this as well? Because reliance on Miniatures is one of the most common complaints a lot of people have about the game. Most people like using them, but a lot of people don't like the reliance that some games seem to impose, so here's a thought...

Making combat more simple, how about treating Ranges as more Abstract. Here's one idea:
Personal
Point Blank
Short
Medium
Long
Extreme

We have these ranges... ok.

Let's say that two opposing forces start out at Medium Range in a combat. A single move action can move a person one Range Increment, so a person can go from Medium to Short (or a Range of one shift). Let's say another person also moves closer. Since they both moved closer, now they are at Point Blank range. One shoots his pistol. Shooting a Pistol at Point Blank range is a +2 modifier, make the roll, compare on chart, if you hit, do damage.

Melee combat can only be done at Personal range. A double move is moving two Range Increments. A Full Move is 4 Range increments.

So instead of having to keep track of all the little, minute, small details of every little thing, its a bit more simple with this idea.

Just a thought in something that I've noticed...if there is a way to we don't need Miniatures, I think that would help also. I don't see us having a Minaitures line up for this game.

[bone_naga]

I like the idea but rather than make that part of the core combat system I would suggest entering that in a sidebar as an optional way to handle combat for people that don't want to use miniatures. That way they can run it the way they like, but the players who really like minis won't see that aspect of the game suffer.

[JaredGaume]

Some years ago I wrote up an RPG system as a way to vent some frustration with role-playing games in general. It was based out of the observation that an RPG is often just an excuse to bullshit. Cheat dice rolls, character advancement, plot, everything really. This only took two pages to write and was always just for personal amusement and was never meant to see the light of day. For what it's worth:


Bullshit RPG

Premise: The players always cheat. So instead of trying to fight it with book-fulls of rules, just concede the fight. Your players can do anything they want and can conceive of. You do not use dice or any other hard rules. For structure, this is the only document you need.

Setting
Whatever setting you want to play (fantasy, modern, sci-fi, stupidity, whatever...), this is just flavor, it otherwise doesn’t matter.

Narrator
You are the one who sets the stage for the players to act on. It is a foregone conclusion the players will win, so don’t even try to beat them. If they lose, it’s because the players were stupid, not because the scene was too hard to overcome.

Player
You are the one who plays the game. The narrator gives you a scene, and it is up to you to figure out how to win it.


Resolution System
Bullshit: anything you try, you win/succeed, period.


Taking Turns
Everyone takes their turn in order. You may use any method you want to establish order (flip a coin, rock-paper-scissors, alphabetical, player to the left, etc...). Follow this turn sequence:

First: The narrator sets the stage, describes the scene, who is in it, and what needs to happen to end it. The narrator chooses whether or not to let a scene actor do something. Whatever the narrator says happens, happens.

Second: The first player gets to act. Declare what you want to do, and that happens.

Third: The narrator goes again; he chooses a new scene actor and has them do something. Whatever the narrator says happens, happens.

Fourth: The next player gets to act. Declare what you want to do, and that happens.

Fifth: Repeat steps the Third and Fourth until the end is declared.

End: The scene ends when the ending conditions are met. Combat, for example, ends when one side is defeated. The narrator decides when the scene has reached its end.


Player Characters
It is assumed that as a player you were going to cheat and make the most awesomest/winningest character ever, level doesn't matter. So you did that, all we care about is a few key points:

Durability: One of only three numeric values we care about. Any time you lose, i.e. someone does something to you, you lose some of your durability. When your durability reaches 0, you are no longer an actor in the scene. Another player might be able to bring you back into the action.

Move: Actually we don’t care where your character is in the scene. Your move value is both how far away you are from the next nearest character, and how easily you can reach a distant character.

Action: This is two parts, first is your action number, and second is the kind of action you perform. Honestly we don’t care if you are acting with a sword, gun, your unbelievable good looks, or tiddley winks. This is just a measure of your effectiveness. There are three kinds of actions, you are assumed to use your best action, but you can use any of them.
Best Action: This is your best action number; get it from your character choices (see below). You may choose any action to be your best action, even if it isn’t your best possible score.
Any Action: If you perform any action that isn’t your best action, the action value is assumed to be 1.
Strike: You take action against a single target. You subtract your target’s move value from your move value and add this to your action number. If you are slow, your target is more likely to get away from you, so you do less damage. When you take action you may add any number of durability points to “pump” up your strike value.
Ranged: You take action against a single target. You don’t care how far away your target is, you can just hit them. You may add your Move points to your action, but this reduces your move score until your next turn. The more time you take to aim the better your action, but the more vulnerable you become.
Area: You take action against an area. All targets with a move score less than your area action value take 1 point of damage. You may add Move points to increase your action radius or increase your damage, but not both at the same time. If you use Move points to improve your area action, this reduces your move score until your next turn. You can affect a large number of actors at one time, but the more effective you become you also increase your vulnerability.

Key Attribute: This is the concept you have built your character around. Your key attribute sets your base score values.
Smart: You are knowledgeable and capable. Durability 5, Move 1, Area 2, Ranged 1, Strike 1.
Strong: You are physically powerful. Durability 15, Move 0, Area 1, Ranged 1, Strike 3.
Fast: You are fast in mind and body. Durability 10, Move 3, Area 1, Ranged 2, Strike 1.

Core Design: This is the class or role you have envisioned for your character. Honestly we don’t care if you are a wizard, warlock, champion, basketball player, or basket case.
Blaster: You stay at range and pump up your effectiveness. Durability +5, Move +2, Ranged +1.
Bruiser: You crank up the damage output. Durability +10, Move +0, Strike +2
Master: You control a larger area. Durability +5, move +1, Area +2
Tank: Slow, but honestly, you are just about unstoppable. Durability +15, Move +0, Strike +1.

Main Talent: This is what you are good at; when you take action you also get the benefit of your main talent.
Defender: You lose 1 less durability when you are acted on.
Healer: Choose an ally; restore 2 points of your ally’s durability.
Restoration: When you act; restore 2 points of your durability.
Striker: When you act, choose one of your target(s); reduce their durability by 1 more point.
Stunner: The target(s) of your action must remove stun as their action before they may act again.


Narrative Characters
Unlike player characters, we don’t really care very much about the narrator’s characters. The Narrator may give his actors any names he wants and can give talents to increase their threat level. The Narrator chooses to populate his scene with the following:
Mooks (any number, but lots of them): Durability 1, Move 2, Strike 1
Toughs (a few): Durability 20, Move 0, Strike 4
Lurks (a few): Durability 15, Move 4, Ranged 2
Splats (a few): Durability 10, Move 3, Area 2
Bosses (only 1): Durability 50, Move 2, Strike 3, Stunner


Stuff: You can have as much, little, or no stuff as you want (money, items, vehicles, widgets, bongos, etc...). It has no bearing on the game. The Narrator may have plot related stuff; he will decide how it is relevant.

[jazzencat]

Well, since e20 is supposed to be genre-neutral and flexible enough that a GM can run pretty much anything (d20 GURPS-idea?), why don't we start by tossing out talents, feats, classes, and the 6-attribute score system, the saves and randomized damage. Essentially stop thinking about adapting this from SWSE, that from d20M, tweak this HP system or that HP system. Start from the base of the d20 mechanic: number + modifier + d20 roll vs an arbitrary target number. Roll over you succeed, roll under you fail. That's the base. Elements that every RPG system has in common: attributes, either scores or dice, some way of tracking damage to the character (be it HP or wound tracking), skills, and a combat abstraction. What "blocks" do we need to put together feats or skills, spells and psi or super powers? Most RPGs also have a randomization system.

[bone_naga]

While I don't think we need to tie ourselves down to any particular mechanic just because of how Saga, d20M, 4e, etc does it, I do think we should try to keep the game as familiar as possible for players of these systems because they are the target audience. I think we can easily scrap things on a case by case basis, but let's not get rid of the entire system. Besides, you do that and you run the risk of throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

[Stacie_GmrGrl]

What this game needs is a Universal Core to its dice mechanic, and then everything resolves from that.

Currently it sort of does have this... roll d20 + Ability mod + modifiers... roll over, succeed, roll under, fail.

But with this, So far Skills have always had their own DC charts. Combat has had its own DC charts for things, or different combat modifiers affect things differently. Some effect the Attack roll, some effect the Defenders AC. Within combat are subsystems that don't mesh well with the core so far... Turn Undead is a perfect example of a subsystem that doesn't use the d20 core rule.

My idea in the other thread, while more radical a shift than maybe what some people are used to, solves all of this and puts everything, and I mean EVERYTHING, on the same page, using the same core mechanic, basing it all on the same Success Result table, and all conditional modifiers effect the person making the Action Roll.

What's the difference between having a condition that effects the Attack roll by -2, or have a condition that improves the Defendrs AC by +4... that +4 should be a -4 to the Attack Roll. It's the same exact thing, only simpler. This way, any and all modifiers to any roll all effect the person doing the Action.

[jazzencat]

What this game needs is a Universal Core to its dice mechanic, and then everything resolves from that.

Currently it sort of does have this... roll d20 + Ability mod + modifiers... roll over, succeed, roll under, fail.

But with this, So far Skills have always had their own DC charts. Combat has had its own DC charts for things, or different combat modifiers affect things differently. Some effect the Attack roll, some effect the Defenders AC. Within combat are subsystems that don't mesh well with the core so far... Turn Undead is a perfect example of a subsystem that doesn't use the d20 core rule.

My idea in the other thread, while more radical a shift than maybe what some people are used to, solves all of this and puts everything, and I mean EVERYTHING, on the same page, using the same core mechanic, basing it all on the same Success Result table, and all conditional modifiers effect the person making the Action Roll.

What's the difference between having a condition that effects the Attack roll by -2, or have a condition that improves the Defendrs AC by +4... that +4 should be a -4 to the Attack Roll. It's the same exact thing, only simpler. This way, any and all modifiers to any roll all effect the person doing the Action.

Yeah, this makes a lot of sense. It's not unlike ORE's or Storyteller's mechanic (modifiers either add or remove dice from the pool), the mods are always applied to the one rolling. For a minute I was worried I was the only radical here who wanted to toss everything except the fundamental particles of d20 and start making our elements, protons, electrons and neutrons from the ground up.

[Stacie_GmrGrl]

Yeah, this makes a lot of sense. It's not unlike ORE's or Storyteller's mechanic (modifiers either add or remove dice from the pool), the mods are always applied to the one rolling. For a minute I was worried I was the only radical here who wanted to toss everything except the fundamental particles of d20 and start making our elements, protons, electrons and neutrons from the ground up.

I love ORE's system (quite honestly its my favorite right now as it does so much in one roll, but that's not for here)...

When he advertised this game as the next evolution in d20 gaming, he painted a target on his head, especially if he gets the money for the project... he will have to release something that is truly evolved, truly different, and yet fundamentally plays more or less the same. For this to work, everything from the ground up will have to be looked at.

What he needs is a solid, Core mechanic that works across the board and will work for everything..,. not most things, not just for magic or different powers... he needs it to work for everything. This is what has to be done.

It has to be superior to the previous decade's result track...somebody rolls d20, compares to DC. Up until my proposition, the results of just about every action is either "you succeed" or "you fail" and that's it. ONLY in combat is there a Critical Hit system, and its cumbersome at best. Why not give other types of actions a Critical system and Fumble system as well.

There has never been a system in d20 that had a prebuilt system for varying degrees of Success. Critical hits were a lucky blow at best. Having a built in system for varying degrees of success would really seperate this game from all the others... no longer would it be just "you succeed" and "you fail." Now it could have different results...
somebody gets an Average Result, that's your base Success. You get a Good Result, its your base success plus something better.
You get a Excellent Success, its even better.
You get a Superb Success, well, that's your Critical Success.

Applying this idea across the board so it will work for everything, now Skills, Spells and other Powers, Combat Maneuvers, different Weapons can have more unique applications if we want, Talents, everything can be worked with a Core idea like this in mind.

You want to improve d20, I'm giving you what you need to enhance it. We have to seperate ourselves from the rest, improve on it, and make it flat out better. Or else when this game comes out, its going to bomb and be considered "just anotherr d20/OGL game" and that's not something I don't think we want.

[jazzencat]

Yeah, this makes a lot of sense. It's not unlike ORE's or Storyteller's mechanic (modifiers either add or remove dice from the pool), the mods are always applied to the one rolling. For a minute I was worried I was the only radical here who wanted to toss everything except the fundamental particles of d20 and start making our elements, protons, electrons and neutrons from the ground up.

I love ORE's system (quite honestly its my favorite right now as it does so much in one roll, but that's not for here)...

When he advertised this game as the next evolution in d20 gaming, he painted a target on his head, especially if he gets the money for the project... he will have to release something that is truly evolved, truly different, and yet fundamentally plays more or less the same. For this to work, everything from the ground up will have to be looked at.

What he needs is a solid, Core mechanic that works across the board and will work for everything..,. not most things, not just for magic or different powers... he needs it to work for everything. This is what has to be done.

It has to be superior to the previous decade's result track...somebody rolls d20, compares to DC. Up until my proposition, the results of just about every action is either "you succeed" or "you fail" and that's it. ONLY in combat is there a Critical Hit system, and its cumbersome at best. Why not give other types of actions a Critical system and Fumble system as well.

There has never been a system in d20 that had a prebuilt system for varying degrees of Success. Critical hits were a lucky blow at best. Having a built in system for varying degrees of success would really seperate this game from all the others... no longer would it be just "you succeed" and "you fail." Now it could have different results...
somebody gets an Average Result, that's your base Success. You get a Good Result, its your base success plus something better.
You get a Excellent Success, its even better.
You get a Superb Success, well, that's your Critical Success.

Applying this idea across the board so it will work for everything, now Skills, Spells and other Powers, Combat Maneuvers, different Weapons can have more unique applications if we want, Talents, everything can be worked with a Core idea like this in mind.

You want to improve d20, I'm giving you what you need to enhance it. We have to seperate ourselves from the rest, improve on it, and make it flat out better. Or else when this game comes out, its going to bomb and be considered "just anotherr d20/OGL game" and that's not something I don't think we want.

What was the term? d20 Heartbreaker? That would be rather a let-down. I think maybe this needs it's own thread though. Let's get Radical!

[Stacie_GmrGrl]

Different than my other post...

Do we want to come at this game with the idea of keeping everything tied to Ability Scores or do we want to divorce some aspects of the game from Ability Scores, ala, like Mutants and Masterminds divorcing combat and/or skills (I can't remember if skills are still tied to it or not) from the ability score modifiers? Or do we keep this the same?

I can see both sides to the argument on this...

Side A: Our natural aptitude should play a factor in our overall abiities to do things...
Side B: Yea, but just because somebody is Powerful and has a High Strength doesn't mean they are good at fighting, as raw Power of a person doesn't = good combat skill in melee.

Which way should we look at this game?

[jazzencat]

Different than my other post...

Do we want to come at this game with the idea of keeping everything tied to Ability Scores or do we want to divorce some aspects of the game from Ability Scores, ala, like Mutants and Masterminds divorcing combat and/or skills (I can't remember if skills are still tied to it or not) from the ability score modifiers? Or do we keep this the same?

I can see both sides to the argument on this...

Side A: Our natural aptitude should play a factor in our overall abiities to do things...
Side B: Yea, but just because somebody is Powerful and has a High Strength doesn't mean they are good at fighting, as raw Power of a person doesn't = good combat skill in melee.

Which way should we look at this game?

Set up the base mechanic to handle either variant. That was kind of the idea behind the Lego analogies I have been using. You have the blocks and you can put them together either tying skill to attributes or not. I tend towards the side of training and technique matter more than raw aptitude, lots of brawn means little if you don't have the skill to not telegraph your punches and can't make full use of the physics involved. Sure being powerful helps with boxing, but it should only play a tangential role. Attribute only factors in on the check not purchasing the skill. Base skill isn't Attribute -n it's its own score. But when you throw the punch, your Str mod can factor into the damage value.

[Elsidar]

There's an increasing problem I've been noticing in recent days on these forums where people are trying to propose systems of actions or whole extra sets of mechanics from radically different games that simply cannot be modeled by The Core Mechanic. I think it bears reiterating the purpose of the e20 system:

The goal of the "e20: System Evolved" project is to create a new rules system that supports any genre. Though it uses the SRD and the OGL as a starting point, it is a complete revision meant to address the rules issues that have been found over the past decade.

It's time more people kept this in mind when proposing new ideas; the purpose of this project is to bring about a natural evolution of the existing d20 rules in a genre-neutral, extra-flexible format. We're supposed to be polishing rough edges off of current rules, and shoring up places where the game didn't make much sense. It is counterproductive to this project to either replace huge sections of d20 rules or staple on extra mechanics that can't fit our basic model from some other existing game, or from older editions of D&D; anything that they are proposed to "fix" likely wasn't an issue to begin with, and simply seem like an attempt to add in pieces from a different game that you'd rather be playing.

[Stacie_GmrGrl]

The way I kind of read it, and forgive me, is that when he is saying a new system that is an evolution of the old, that means, to me, reexamine everything from the ground up, don't leave any rock unturned, don't ignore any leaf willowing in the wind... examine everything, twist it, turn it, and see if its something worth keeping or not. There are no Sacred Cows, there are no exceptions.

That's what it means to me. /shrug

I'm bringing in ideas that are outside the box because d20 needs it... when he advertised this game, and advertised the next evolution of the system, that's actually pretty damn huge. It's time to go back over ten years of game play, find out what the most common complaints were and have been, fix them from the ground up.

If something has worked, but something else can be better, then make it better, even if what worked wasn't broken. That's what evolution is, to improve and make better over the previous. And sometimes you have to demolish something to rework it and make it better.

My biggest gripes of the d20 system and since day are Difficulty Classes, Armor Class, Feats, and its over reliance on miniatures as a game aid. Well, Feats were nice at first, but then another book comes out, and another, and another, and soon you have 3,000 Feats and only will get seven to ten feat choices... That's a design flaw in the game, or a design flaw in implementation. And its one of the most common complaints with the d20 system. Overabundance of Feats.

Why do we need Feats in this game just because they've been used for the last ten years when we can use our Enhancement idea, which can easily incorporate Feats into it, plus do a whole lot more? Just because they have been used, doesn't mean we have to.

Think about future book reviews... a person sitting down with e20, what are they going to look at? What's different, what's changed, how is this book going to be the next evolution with the d20 system? If they see NO Feats, that's an omg moment. Their jaw will drop to the floor, they'll be wondering if they are looking at a d20 game or if this is really something new. They will take notice. If we replace it with a more versatile, more modular Enhancement system, well, their jaw will drop. Getting rid of Bab with combat skills, their jaw will drop. Having 6 core classes that can run the range from level 1 to 20 without needing Advanced or Prestige Classes, their jaw will drop some.

We want a jaw dropping bombshell waiting for them when they open the book. We want them to take notice, and we want them to enjoy it at the same time.

To me, DC's are archaic. Terminology alone, they should be called Target Numbers, because that's what your doing, trying to match or exceed a target number to succeed. The system works, but it could be better and improved. How do you improve it? You have to simplify it somehow. How well do you do when you succeed? Right now there is no in game mechanic to determine just how good something is that you can pull off...you either succeed or fail. GMs have to basically come up with a description which works, but if we can put in an actual, real in game benefit to measure levels of success, well, one its different, and two, that's an improvement, and three, it seperates our game from the last ten years.

I don't care how its improved. I don't care if its Easy DC = 5, AVerage DC = 10, Challenging DC = 15, Hard DC = 20 and then have a system where:
Result is >= DC, do (Average) basic effect
Result is 5 over DC, do (Good) improved effect
Result is 10 over DC, do (Excellent) even better effect
Result is 15 over DC, do (Superior) Critical effect

I can live with this. If somebody is Climbing up a somewhat slanted hill and its pouring rain outside, to me, I can judge that as a Challenging check, have them roll. If they roll a 25, that's 10 over, an Excellent result, they moved their speed instead of quarter their speed like an Average check would have been or they don't lose their defense to attacks if they are in a combat situation.

Being a totally Modular, Universal system that works for any genre will get their jaw to drop.

We want their jaw to drop, am I right? For that to happen, well, the game has to change from how it's been for 10 years. 10 years is a lot of baggage and a lot of history to live up to. But it can be done.

The very last thing we would want is for somebody to pick up a book that says on the cover: E20 - System Evolved. To look through the book, see just about everything they have seen for ten years, and put it back on the shelf because its pretty much the same...maybe a cosmetic change here or there, but overall, its just the same. Same Ability scores, same overall class structure, same feats, same use of talents, same overall combat system. Sure, maybe it has a different magic system, and maybe its a bit more modular, but overall, it has all these same elements. Final verdict: It's just another OGL d20 game. Back on the shelf it goes for most people.

Sure, I've proposed a wide variety of wacked out ideas, some I'm passionate about, some I just put out to get a feeler, and so far, for the most part, many of you want to keep this version of the game pretty much the same with a few cosmetic changes and upgrades, but a few cosmetic upgrades is NOT an evolution. An evolution was going from 2nd edition AD&D to 3.0 D&D. That was a true evolution from what once was to something that, at the time, made peoples jaws drop. Do you think they stayed inside the D&D box that had been created over the previous 20 plus years of D&D when they made 3.0?

This can be the same thing, you just have to think outside the d20 box that's been established for the last ten years. Who says that just because its a d20 game it has to have Feats? Who says that just because its a d20 game it has to have Classes? Who says that just because its a d20 game it has to keep to the same Ability Traits?

So far, that's the way d20 games have been designed...they have to have feats, they have to have classes, and they have to keep to the same Ability traits... and no one pushes the envelope. I say, for this game, we do keep classes, because classes are freaking cool...but feats are optional. Even the six ability scores, if you really think about what they really do for the game from a design philosophy, should have different names for some of them.

But, to evolve the game, we have to push the envelope. Break down the walls and go outside the box.

its up to you guys though...if you want to make another d20 game with some improvements, then lets make that game. But it won't live up to the ideal of what could be potentially possible.

[Elsidar]

I'm bringing in ideas that are outside the box because d20 needs it... when he advertised this game, and advertised the next evolution of the system, that's actually pretty damn huge. It's time to go back over ten years of game play, find out what the most common complaints were and have been, fix them from the ground up.

If something has worked, but something else can be better, then make it better, even if what worked wasn't broken. That's what evolution is, to improve and make better over the previous. And sometimes you have to demolish something to rework it and make it better.

Not... really. In fact, the elements of any new edition of an RPG that get the most complaints are the elements that were changed when they didn't need to be. If we go "fixing" things that were never broken, the label of "evolution" will smack of pretentiousness.

My biggest gripes of the d20 system and since day are Difficulty Classes, Armor Class, Feats, and its over reliance on miniatures as a game aid. Well, Feats were nice at first, but then another book comes out, and another, and another, and soon you have 3,000 Feats and only will get seven to ten feat choices... That's a design flaw in the game, or a design flaw in implementation. And its one of the most common complaints with the d20 system. Overabundance of Feats.

Why do we need Feats in this game just because they've been used for the last ten years when we can use our Enhancement idea, which can easily incorporate Feats into it, plus do a whole lot more? Just because they have been used, doesn't mean we have to.

That's a gripe I've held about d20 and it's ilk as well. The more feats that get written, the more feats players will want. It was particularly heinous in D&D 3.x when a character only ever got 7 feats out of 100's of choices, but preventing that from happening is a matter of reigning in our desire to think "Gee, there could be a really good feat for X" when there are abilities/feats/enhancements that already do X.

The problem with merging Enhancements with Feats and making them one in the same, however, is that Feats are meant to be gained during character progression. Enhancements are specifically designed to be obtained outside the scope of character advancement, and as such, can be designed to provide a much wider scope of effects than Feats can.

However, I doubt there'd be much of a problem if you "crafted" enhancements that simply gave you access to, or effects similar to a feat, and loaded your character down with them, if you go on a feat-reading binge and decide you want them all.

(Enhancements that grant access to feats reminds me of how Spycraft handled "downtime training" (or whatever they called it). Between missions, characters could spend experience points to buy feats outside of the normal feat progression from leveling. Since spending XP totally sucks, it'd make sense to let spending in-game finances on feat-replicating Enhancements fill a similar role.)

To me, DC's are archaic. Terminology alone, they should be called Target Numbers, because that's what your doing, trying to match or exceed a target number to succeed. The system works, but it could be better and improved. How do you improve it? You have to simplify it somehow. How well do you do when you succeed? Right now there is no in game mechanic to determine just how good something is that you can pull off...you either succeed or fail. GMs have to basically come up with a description which works, but if we can put in an actual, real in game benefit to measure levels of success, well, one its different, and two, that's an improvement, and three, it seperates our game from the last ten years.

I don't care how its improved. I don't care if its Easy DC = 5, AVerage DC = 10, Challenging DC = 15, Hard DC = 20 and then have a system where:
Result is >= DC, do (Average) basic effect
Result is 5 over DC, do (Good) improved effect
Result is 10 over DC, do (Excellent) even better effect
Result is 15 over DC, do (Superior) Critical effect

I can live with this. If somebody is Climbing up a somewhat slanted hill and its pouring rain outside, to me, I can judge that as a Challenging check, have them roll. If they roll a 25, that's 10 over, an Excellent result, they moved their speed instead of quarter their speed like an Average check would have been or they don't lose their defense to attacks if they are in a combat situation.

Being a totally Modular, Universal system that works for any genre will get their jaw to drop.

The problem with this idea is twofold.

1) You're not really changing anything; Calling DCs by a different name doesn't change what they are; it's the number your d20 roll + modifiers has to meet or beat. If you make a "universal" scale with static numbers, the GM will have to apply penalties to actions that are more difficult than anything out of the ordinary. Not only does penalizing checks feel like a major downer on players heavily invested in their skills, but it adds an extra step in the process of determining success.

2) If you want degrees of success, then all that's really necessary is a paragraph or two in the GameMastering section to give GMs a few examples of how to handle wildly successful roles. Whether you've got charts detailing degrees of success or not (and please, no, no more charts...), it's ultimately up to the GM anyway to decide what happens based on your roll. Degrees of success are often best handled by the GM's interpretation of the current situation, circumstances, and environment as well as how high you rolled that Athletics check. If we want to help GMs out and give them some examples of how to reward players who consistently roll absurdly high, then it'll have to be an example of how to improvise such effects. Trying to make them an integral part of the core game will take that creative power away from the GM and could potentially introduce a whole mess of balance issues between skills, since success in climbing a rope is different from success in repairing a car, which is different from success in trying to shiv someone in the kidneys.

The very last thing we would want is for somebody to pick up a book that says on the cover: E20 - System Evolved. To look through the book, see just about everything they have seen for ten years, and put it back on the shelf because its pretty much the same...maybe a cosmetic change here or there, but overall, its just the same. Same Ability scores, same overall class structure, same feats, same use of talents, same overall combat system. Sure, maybe it has a different magic system, and maybe its a bit more modular, but overall, it has all these same elements. Final verdict: It's just another OGL d20 game. Back on the shelf it goes for most people.

Sure, I've proposed a wide variety of wacked out ideas, some I'm passionate about, some I just put out to get a feeler, and so far, for the most part, many of you want to keep this version of the game pretty much the same with a few cosmetic changes and upgrades, but a few cosmetic upgrades is NOT an evolution. An evolution was going from 2nd edition AD&D to 3.0 D&D. That was a true evolution from what once was to something that, at the time, made peoples jaws drop. Do you think they stayed inside the D&D box that had been created over the previous 20 plus years of D&D when they made 3.0?

This can be the same thing, you just have to think outside the d20 box that's been established for the last ten years. Who says that just because its a d20 game it has to have Feats? Who says that just because its a d20 game it has to have Classes? Who says that just because its a d20 game it has to keep to the same Ability Traits?

So far, that's the way d20 games have been designed...they have to have feats, they have to have classes, and they have to keep to the same Ability traits... and no one pushes the envelope. I say, for this game, we do keep classes, because classes are freaking cool...but feats are optional. Even the six ability scores, if you really think about what they really do for the game from a design philosophy, should have different names for some of them.

But, to evolve the game, we have to push the envelope. Break down the walls and go outside the box.

its up to you guys though...if you want to make another d20 game with some improvements, then lets make that game. But it won't live up to the ideal of what could be potentially possible.

It is true that a lot of things changed between 2nd Ed and 3rd Ed. THAC0 and AC got turned upside down, and became Attack Bonus and, well, AC, but AC went up now. Non-weapon proficiencies became Skills and Feats (no, really. Check out this list of the non-weapon proficiencies from AD&D 2nd Edition; a whole bunch of them are names of feats found in D&D 3.0). Experience point progression was standardized for all classes, and class levels became modular entities, allowing for easy and intuitive multi-classing.

The purpose of these changes, however, was to make the game easier for newer players to pick up, easier for players to create and customize the characters they wanted to play, and to streamline and standardize combat, skills, and other action resolution. As we move forward with this project, we have to keep those goals close at heart; changing or discarding things simply because they've been around for a long time isn't going to make the game easier for players to understand, and won't necessarily make the game more able to create the characters that players want to play. That was the purpose of the d20 system at it's inception, and we should strive to keep the essence of the d20 system central to our design process.

[Stacie_GmrGrl]

I guarantee if the overall structure is kept the same (Feats, Classes, Talents, Ability Scores, overall look and feel in design), then this will be seen and viewed as just another d20/OGL game, and thats the primary reason why most people are NOT getting on here to help, because thats what they are expecting to happen.

This will not be d20 evolved. This will just turn out to be just another game, and it will bomb.

But, hey, if we are going to stick within the Expected Mold of what is Assumed to be Mandatory for a d20 game, then I guess we can make it the best Traditional d20 game ever... but it won't be an Evolution. And it won't make peoples jaw drop. And it won't do anything new. It will be just a continuation of the same old stuff just rehashed in a new, shiny package, but it will NOT be an evolved system.

So, if we are going to stick with Traditions, then that's what this game will do. And then what is the real point of doing this game in the first place. Might as well go play Pathfinder, or d20 Star Wars, or just about any other OGL/d20 game produced in the last DECADE... if we aren't going to offer anything truly new in game design or do anything to take the game outside expectations, than there is NO POINT in doing in this.

But, if that's what you guys want, then I guess I'll wrap my head back into the d20 traditionalist way of thinking, or do my best, and go from there.

If traditionalists got their way eleven years ago, 3rd edition D&D would have just been a small change from 2nd edition AD&D, and we wouldn't be here. So why be keep to traditions?

[jazzencat]

Make this a meta-system for RPG not a system. e20 is a system for building systems. It's the box of Lego bricks (I'm going to keep using that one) to build anything we want it to. An RPG toolkit.

That's catchy -- it's exactly what I have in mind, but that's a really good way to describe it. Sure, it's pre-assembled for one basic style of game and it can theoretically be run straight out of the box, but it's meant to be put together with modules that fit the different genre-specific tropes you need for your campaign.

Is this what we want to crate with e20? If this is the goal to make e20 like a bucket of Lego bricks then we need to approach it differently than fixing or tweaking tables and feats or hit points.

I'm bringing in ideas that are outside the box because d20 needs it... when he advertised this game, and advertised the next evolution of the system, that's actually pretty damn huge. It's time to go back over ten years of game play, find out what the most common complaints were and have been, fix them from the ground up.

If something has worked, but something else can be better, then make it better, even if what worked wasn't broken. That's what evolution is, to improve and make better over the previous. And sometimes you have to demolish something to rework it and make it better.

Not... really. In fact, the elements of any new edition of an RPG that get the most complaints are the elements that were changed when they didn't need to be. If we go "fixing" things that were never broken, the label of "evolution" will smack of pretentiousness.

Gary opened that door when he called it e20 system evolved. If this is to be to d20 what a bucket of Lego bricks is to a Playmobile model, then we should be getting far more radical and start by taking the core of the d20 mechanic and going from there: d20+number compared to a number. Can work as roll over or roll under, but having levels, classes, feats like D&D or d20M or SWSE are just a few possible things you can build with the d20 mechanism.

My biggest gripes of the d20 system and since day are Difficulty Classes, Armor Class, Feats, and its over reliance on miniatures as a game aid. Well, Feats were nice at first, but then another book comes out, and another, and another, and soon you have 3,000 Feats and only will get seven to ten feat choices... That's a design flaw in the game, or a design flaw in implementation. And its one of the most common complaints with the d20 system. Overabundance of Feats.

Why do we need Feats in this game just because they've been used for the last ten years when we can use our Enhancement idea, which can easily incorporate Feats into it, plus do a whole lot more? Just because they have been used, doesn't mean we have to.

That's a gripe I've held about d20 and it's ilk as well. The more feats that get written, the more feats players will want. It was particularly heinous in D&D 3.x when a character only ever got 7 feats out of 100's of choices, but preventing that from happening is a matter of reigning in our desire to think "Gee, there could be a really good feat for X" when there are abilities/feats/enhancements that already do X.

The problem with merging Enhancements with Feats and making them one in the same, however, is that Feats are meant to be gained during character progression. Enhancements are specifically designed to be obtained outside the scope of character advancement, and as such, can be designed to provide a much wider scope of effects than Feats can.

However, I doubt there'd be much of a problem if you "crafted" enhancements that simply gave you access to, or effects similar to a feat, and loaded your character down with them, if you go on a feat-reading binge and decide you want them all.

(Enhancements that grant access to feats reminds me of how Spycraft handled "downtime training" (or whatever they called it). Between missions, characters could spend experience points to buy feats outside of the normal feat progression from leveling. Since spending XP totally sucks, it'd make sense to let spending in-game finances on feat-replicating Enhancements fill a similar role.)

Crafting enhancements or feats is a good way to go, at least provide a system that allows this. But feats are not the only way to put those fundamental system-blocks together either. It can be used as an example for how to use e20 and at the same time allow many other ways of doing things.

To me, DC's are archaic. Terminology alone, they should be called Target Numbers, because that's what your doing, trying to match or exceed a target number to succeed. The system works, but it could be better and improved. How do you improve it? You have to simplify it somehow. How well do you do when you succeed? Right now there is no in game mechanic to determine just how good something is that you can pull off...you either succeed or fail. GMs have to basically come up with a description which works, but if we can put in an actual, real in game benefit to measure levels of success, well, one its different, and two, that's an improvement, and three, it seperates our game from the last ten years.

I don't care how its improved. I don't care if its Easy DC = 5, AVerage DC = 10, Challenging DC = 15, Hard DC = 20 and then have a system where:
Result is >= DC, do (Average) basic effect
Result is 5 over DC, do (Good) improved effect
Result is 10 over DC, do (Excellent) even better effect
Result is 15 over DC, do (Superior) Critical effect

I can live with this. If somebody is Climbing up a somewhat slanted hill and its pouring rain outside, to me, I can judge that as a Challenging check, have them roll. If they roll a 25, that's 10 over, an Excellent result, they moved their speed instead of quarter their speed like an Average check would have been or they don't lose their defense to attacks if they are in a combat situation.

Being a totally Modular, Universal system that works for any genre will get their jaw to drop.

The problem with this idea is twofold.

1) You're not really changing anything; Calling DCs by a different name doesn't change what they are; it's the number your d20 roll + modifiers has to meet or beat. If you make a "universal" scale with static numbers, the GM will have to apply penalties to actions that are more difficult than anything out of the ordinary. Not only does penalizing checks feel like a major downer on players heavily invested in their skills, but it adds an extra step in the process of determining success.

2) If you want degrees of success, then all that's really necessary is a paragraph or two in the GameMastering section to give GMs a few examples of how to handle wildly successful roles. Whether you've got charts detailing degrees of success or not (and please, no, no more charts...), it's ultimately up to the GM anyway to decide what happens based on your roll. Degrees of success are often best handled by the GM's interpretation of the current situation, circumstances, and environment as well as how high you rolled that Athletics check. If we want to help GMs out and give them some examples of how to reward players who consistently roll absurdly high, then it'll have to be an example of how to improvise such effects. Trying to make them an integral part of the core game will take that creative power away from the GM and could potentially introduce a whole mess of balance issues between skills, since success in climbing a rope is different from success in repairing a car, which is different from success in trying to shiv someone in the kidneys.

This is something that again should be a possibility when building a system but not necessary. Some will just use success/fail when rolling against a target, others want more detail. Instead of codifying it into rules, give people the tools to create that variant or not.

The very last thing we would want is for somebody to pick up a book that says on the cover: E20 - System Evolved. To look through the book, see just about everything they have seen for ten years, and put it back on the shelf because its pretty much the same...maybe a cosmetic change here or there, but overall, its just the same. Same Ability scores, same overall class structure, same feats, same use of talents, same overall combat system. Sure, maybe it has a different magic system, and maybe its a bit more modular, but overall, it has all these same elements. Final verdict: It's just another OGL d20 game. Back on the shelf it goes for most people.

Sure, I've proposed a wide variety of wacked out ideas, some I'm passionate about, some I just put out to get a feeler, and so far, for the most part, many of you want to keep this version of the game pretty much the same with a few cosmetic changes and upgrades, but a few cosmetic upgrades is NOT an evolution. An evolution was going from 2nd edition AD&D to 3.0 D&D. That was a true evolution from what once was to something that, at the time, made peoples jaws drop. Do you think they stayed inside the D&D box that had been created over the previous 20 plus years of D&D when they made 3.0?

This can be the same thing, you just have to think outside the d20 box that's been established for the last ten years. Who says that just because its a d20 game it has to have Feats? Who says that just because its a d20 game it has to have Classes? Who says that just because its a d20 game it has to keep to the same Ability Traits?

So far, that's the way d20 games have been designed...they have to have feats, they have to have classes, and they have to keep to the same Ability traits... and no one pushes the envelope. I say, for this game, we do keep classes, because classes are freaking cool...but feats are optional. Even the six ability scores, if you really think about what they really do for the game from a design philosophy, should have different names for some of them.

But, to evolve the game, we have to push the envelope. Break down the walls and go outside the box.

its up to you guys though...if you want to make another d20 game with some improvements, then lets make that game. But it won't live up to the ideal of what could be potentially possible.

It is true that a lot of things changed between 2nd Ed and 3rd Ed. THAC0 and AC got turned upside down, and became Attack Bonus and, well, AC, but AC went up now. Non-weapon proficiencies became Skills and Feats (no, really. Check out this list of the non-weapon proficiencies from AD&D 2nd Edition; a whole bunch of them are names of feats found in D&D 3.0). Experience point progression was standardized for all classes, and class levels became modular entities, allowing for easy and intuitive multi-classing.

The purpose of these changes, however, was to make the game easier for newer players to pick up, easier for players to create and customize the characters they wanted to play, and to streamline and standardize combat, skills, and other action resolution. As we move forward with this project, we have to keep those goals close at heart; changing or discarding things simply because they've been around for a long time isn't going to make the game easier for players to understand, and won't necessarily make the game more able to create the characters that players want to play. That was the purpose of the d20 system at it's inception, and we should strive to keep the essence of the d20 system central to our design process.

Again what are we trying for? A metasystem for building systems or just another RPG? If we are going for the latter then, yeah just alter, tweak the parts that are too compartmentalised and mesh the elements better. But then what you get is more akin to a d20 patch than what Gary stated that he wanted to create a tool-kit for making d20 games, the meta-system using the d20 mechanic as the base. If you want to make the tool-kit then recoginse that feats talents, levels, classes are just a few of the many directions that we can go. Or I can just take D&D and make some hacks and turn it to a space game, type up my changes and give them to my players as PDFs. But then again I and Stacie my be gunning for the revolutionary approach instead, and fueling it by looking at what components make feats classes and RPGs in general? How could they be identified and presented so that the configuration is up to the individual?

[Stacie_GmrGrl]

With the Feats, Talents, and Enhancements (which we don't have all the full details of yet)...and with Classes and hit points and all that...

How can we make this game so it simplifies higher level games (levels 10 to 20) so its not a chore for GMs to run and for players to play? That is one of the more common gripes about most d20 games, that at a certain level its just to cumbersome and its more work with prep time, npc generation, encounter generation, etc...

Whats a way to simplify d20 so higher level play is faster, more fun, and having combats not take three hours per combat?

[Elsidar]

Make this a meta-system for RPG not a system. e20 is a system for building systems. It's the box of Lego bricks (I'm going to keep using that one) to build anything we want it to. An RPG toolkit.

That's catchy -- it's exactly what I have in mind, but that's a really good way to describe it. Sure, it's pre-assembled for one basic style of game and it can theoretically be run straight out of the box, but it's meant to be put together with modules that fit the different genre-specific tropes you need for your campaign.

Is this what we want to crate with e20? If this is the goal to make e20 like a bucket of Lego bricks then we need to approach it differently than fixing or tweaking tables and feats or hit points.

The Lego analogy is understandable, but making an internally consistent gaming system with plug-and-play modules for modifying mood/setting/genre is not the same as writing a book to help people make their own game system. Our primary purpose is to make a game; the variant rules, extra talents and feats, and other such additions to modify mood/setting/genre should come after a solid foundation is established.

Further, your interpretation of Gary's quote there is overly broad. The modules that he's mentioning here are the means to represent different genres within the same system through minimal mechanical change. You can switch from Fantasy to Modern to Space Opera by changing which Feats and Talents are available to the characters. You can change the level of heroism in the game by altering the amount of Reserve Hitpoints, how often the characters gain injuries or fatigue, and how easily they can recover their reserves and hitpoints. By making any of these changes, you can drastically alter the feel and environment of the game, and none of the mechanics have changed.

That being said, there may well be room in the book for a chapter on variant mechanics, or sidebars spread throughout to discuss alternate rules. The alternate rules that you propose, however, run counter to the purposes of the d20 system, namely, making character creation more flexible and customizable, and making gameplay flow more easily. By trying to change the default rules of the system to mechanics that are confusing and troublesome to use, you're moving away from the foundation of the d20 system itself.

Gary opened that door when he called it e20 system evolved.

Let me stop you right there. "Evolution" is not simply changing anything you please about something, it's about letting the strongest features of something come to the forefront while the weakest features die. New features can be introduced at the same time, but they must be on par with the strong, surviving features of this system. There's a reason that Classes, Levels, Skills, Feats, and Class Features (represented by Talents in this game) have lasted so long in the d20 system. They work, and they are the solid foundation of d20.

Instead, by naming this project after the "d20" name, Gary has promised that the game will bear some resemblance to d20 products of the past; those strong features that I mentioned above will still be there in the final version of this game because they work, and have worked very well over the life of d20; all we're doing to them is standardizing their definitions, and changing them to work within the context of Gary's system. Without these elements, the game ceases to be "d20"; the system is more than just the Core Mechanic. Any game can use a 20-sided die to resolve actions, but without the basics of the d20 system, which are the six Ability Scores, Levels, Classes and Class Features, Skills and Feats. Their presence is critical if we're going to be advertising this system as even related to d20 in the first place.

That's a gripe I've held about d20 and it's ilk as well. The more feats that get written, the more feats players will want. It was particularly heinous in D&D 3.x when a character only ever got 7 feats out of 100's of choices, but preventing that from happening is a matter of reigning in our desire to think "Gee, there could be a really good feat for X" when there are abilities/feats/enhancements that already do X.

The problem with merging Enhancements with Feats and making them one in the same, however, is that Feats are meant to be gained during character progression. Enhancements are specifically designed to be obtained outside the scope of character advancement, and as such, can be designed to provide a much wider scope of effects than Feats can.

However, I doubt there'd be much of a problem if you "crafted" enhancements that simply gave you access to, or effects similar to a feat, and loaded your character down with them, if you go on a feat-reading binge and decide you want them all.

(Enhancements that grant access to feats reminds me of how Spycraft handled "downtime training" (or whatever they called it). Between missions, characters could spend experience points to buy feats outside of the normal feat progression from leveling. Since spending XP totally sucks, it'd make sense to let spending in-game finances on feat-replicating Enhancements fill a similar role.)

Crafting enhancements or feats is a good way to go, at least provide a system that allows this. But feats are not the only way to put those fundamental system-blocks together either. It can be used as an example for how to use e20 and at the same time allow many other ways of doing things.

That is what I described, somewhat. I certainly hope that Gary's enhancement rules involve a method for creating custom enhancements, even enhancements that grant access to a feat.

This is something that again should be a possibility when building a system but not necessary. Some will just use success/fail when rolling against a target, others want more detail. Instead of codifying it into rules, give people the tools to create that variant or not.

The part I emphasized is exactly what I described in that last post. It's up to the DM to describe how success is achieved regardless of whether there are examples for degrees of success, but those degrees should not be mechanically defined or mandated.

Again what are we trying for? A metasystem for building systems or just another RPG? If we are going for the latter then, yeah just alter, tweak the parts that are too compartmentalised and mesh the elements better. But then what you get is more akin to a d20 patch than what Gary stated that he wanted to create a tool-kit for making d20 games, the meta-system using the d20 mechanic as the base. If you want to make the tool-kit then recoginse that feats talents, levels, classes are just a few of the many directions that we can go. Or I can just take D&D and make some hacks and turn it to a space game, type up my changes and give them to my players as PDFs. But then again I and Stacie my be gunning for the revolutionary approach instead, and fueling it by looking at what components make feats classes and RPGs in general? How could they be identified and presented so that the configuration is up to the individual?

Unequivocally, we are making a game. Specifically, we are making a game based on, and a refinement of, the d20 System. Our system will have pieces of it that can be modified for genre (Talents and Feats available), realism (hit point values, ability score generation), and setting (More Talent and Feat availability, as well as how and what Enhancements might represent).

That being said, that doesn't mean that there's no room for variant rules. While refining the foundation of d20, I have said before that we should keep an eye out for places where alternate rule systems might be possible to accommodate non-gamist playstyles so that we might fill up a chapter of alternate rules, so long as they still make the game flexible and streamlined for those playstyles as well.

[Elsidar]

With the Feats, Talents, and Enhancements (which we don't have all the full details of yet)...and with Classes and hit points and all that...

How can we make this game so it simplifies higher level games (levels 10 to 20) so its not a chore for GMs to run and for players to play? That is one of the more common gripes about most d20 games, that at a certain level its just to cumbersome and its more work with prep time, npc generation, encounter generation, etc...

Whats a way to simplify d20 so higher level play is faster, more fun, and having combats not take three hours per combat?

Good question. So long as damage and hitpoints are calibrated appropriately, the length of time combat takes mostly boils down to how long it takes for a player to decide what he wants to do and how long it takes to resolve those actions. I'm a big fan of lots of choices in combat and other encounters, so I think it's really important to make sure that any choice a character might make is well defined in its effects and its resolution.

Star Wars Saga Edition did this well with the Force Powers and some of the simpler "active" talents that the game featured. No matter how open-ended the effects in talents might be (what with utility uses for combat powers, hopefully), there should be at least one explicitly defined effect that anybody with a given talent can try to perform without having to hunt for it in the text; a quick glance over the character sheet when tension mounts should give you a good idea of what your capabilities are.

[bone_naga]

I see a lot of talk about Lego blocks and plug and play modules, which is great, believe me I'm not trying to downplay that at all. However, as we throw all sorts of ideas out there, I think it is important that we provide a coherent game system right out the box. To use the Lego analogy, we have a blueprint already there, but we also have extra pieces that people can use to change or even rebuild the system as they see fit. This sounds almost the same, but I think it's more important to have a modular system than it is to have a bunch of modular pieces that can build a system. Some people will really appreciate all the extra modules, and they will tweak the system to their heart's content. However, some people just want to open a book and be able to play the game. They don't want to have to build the system. I think that's important to keep in mind.

The other thing to consider here is playtesting. No matter how extensively a system is playtested, something always slips through the cracks. It just happens. However, the more modules we create, the harder it is to gauge and test their interaction with each other. Now again, I'm not saying modularity is a bad idea, and I realize that right now we're just throwing around ideas. When it comes time to actually start putting this together, though, we need to remain aware of that and not let our ambitions outreach our capabilities. We need to create the best product possible, and that means everything needs to be tested and we need to understand how all possible combinations of rules interact with each other. We might fill several books with great ideas, but if they don't work well together then we have failed at the task of providing the best product to the customer.

Just food for thought when this project starts moving into the later phases of design.

[jazzencat]

Let me stop you right there. "Evolution" is not simply changing anything you please about something, it's about letting the strongest features of something come to the forefront while the weakest features die. New features can be introduced at the same time, but they must be on par with the strong, surviving features of this system. There's a reason that Classes, Levels, Skills, Feats, and Class Features (represented by Talents in this game) have lasted so long in the d20 system. They work, and they are the solid foundation of d20.

True. I was more of a "revolutionary" than an "evolutionary" process designer. My reason for this was, in part, to see what comes out in terms of useful ideas or modifications of the current strong points, as well as taking the interesting challenge of designing a meta-system from the ground up and see what we can do with it. I never expected all or even most of my ideas to end up in the final product, but I figured we might as well examine things way outside the box or envelope, who knows we find something useful. So yes, I interpreted things broadly and radically. I guess we are talking about the type of evolution that gave a moth population darker colouration during the Industrial Revolution or one type of finch a short beak and the other a long one. I was having fun going for a "change fins into hands with opposable thumbs" type evolutionary leap, of fish into humans without going through the intermediate steps. It seemed like fun.

[GMSarli]

Let me stop you right there. "Evolution" is not simply changing anything you please about something, it's about letting the strongest features of something come to the forefront while the weakest features die. New features can be introduced at the same time, but they must be on par with the strong, surviving features of this system. There's a reason that Classes, Levels, Skills, Feats, and Class Features (represented by Talents in this game) have lasted so long in the d20 system. They work, and they are the solid foundation of d20.

QFT.

It is absolutely critical that we keep in mind what "evolution" means. It's a process wherein those traits that work are selected for, and those that don't are selected against. Over time, Australopithecus africanus evolves into Homo habilus evolves into Homo sapiens (obviously leaving out a lot of intermediary steps). We're most certainly not trying to turn a crocodile into a horse.

Using the evolution analogy, 3.5, True20, Pathfinder, Saga edition, and 4E are all clear evolutionary descendants of the original 3.0 rules -- but they're clearly changing in different ways and to different degrees. I want e20 to be as big an evolutionary step as 4E is, but I want it to be a step more adaptable direction. If 3.0/3.5 is Australopithecus, then I feel that Pathfinder is Australopithecus garhi (the most evolved version of the Australopithecines), True20 is Paranthropus (an evolutionary offshoot, but ultimately a dead end), Saga edition is Homo erectus. 4E is a clear step forward into Homo sapiens, but they're Homo sapiens neanderthalensis (Neanderthals, an over-specialized evolutionary dead end that couldn't adapt to different climates very well); I want e20 to be Homo sapiens sapiens (modern humans, adaptable to any environment).

One of the reasons I used the word "evolution" to describe this process is that the basic d20 structure has been around for 10 years; given this, we have a lot of play experience -- probably hundreds of thousands if not millions of hours of games -- to draw on. We see what works, we've identified a lot of possible solutions, and the idea is to ask what things need to change based on all that experience. But if we ditch all the core concepts in d20, those lessons lose a lot of their value because we won't be able to apply that experience very easily. All the time we've spent playing d20 games doesn't tell us as much about GURPS or Savage Worlds as it does about d20.

We obviously don't want this to be "just another d20 game," and I think the changes I've already proposed have gone a long way toward that end. But we have to make sure we're not ditching ideas just because we want to try something different; instead, we should be ditching things because we've identified structural weaknesses therein and we have a better alternative to implement.

True. I was more of a "revolutionary" than an "evolutionary" process designer. My reason for this was, in part, to see what comes out in terms of useful ideas or modifications of the current strong points, as well as taking the interesting challenge of designing a meta-system from the ground up and see what we can do with it. I never expected all or even most of my ideas to end up in the final product, but I figured we might as well examine things way outside the box or envelope, who knows we find something useful. So yes, I interpreted things broadly and radically. I guess we are talking about the type of evolution that gave a moth population darker colouration during the Industrial Revolution or one type of finch a short beak and the other a long one. I was having fun going for a "change fins into hands with opposable thumbs" type evolutionary leap, of fish into humans without going through the intermediate steps. It seemed like fun.

I appreciate proposing some radical ideas -- it helps us all to think outside the box. I think the main thing we have to avoid is thinking that we have to make radical changes to everything in order to justify the project. Radical changes where needed, definitely! But not to everything.