Well i like pathfinder myself, if only my group could find a new gm/dm

Yeah, my fiance is a big supporter of Pathfinder. While 4E is easier/faster than Pathfinder, in this case, I don't think 4E manages to be better than Pathfinder. However, when you look at games like Munchkin, the game system doesn't have to be complicated or hard to be a ton of fun with a lot of variety/neat things that can happen, so I think the developers are hoping for something like that: a fast easy system that doesn't compromise richness/depth.

For me, I think easier and faster isn't necessarily better. You could develop a game that depended solely on pass/fail (a coin flip) for everything. For contests, flip a coin until someone doesn't get heads. It's easy, straightforward, doesn't require any number crunching, and is very quick to learn.

Yet it's boring.

The other side isn't necessarily good either. A system too complex is a barrier in and of itself that makes it nearly impossible to play. DnD suffers from that quite a bit--there's a table for everything, and I still have yet to memorize all the rules and special cases, etc.

Don't gut character creation too much. If that's an issue, the developers can very easily write a web app that will do the number crunching on the fly. Keep that interesting enough to have individual and unique characters, but focus on those elements rather than numbers

So my answer: consistency is the most important thing to focus on. If a GM (or player) can predict how a rule will work or how numbers will crunch, etc, then that's a good thing. The less one-offs or exceptions to a principle, the better. I like the Storytelling system for that reason. No matter what's going on, you're rolling d10s and looking for 8+; the harder the task, the more successes needed. There are exceptions, of course, and certain actions should be penalized or handled in certain ways, but there isn't a table look up.

Numerera does something similar where the difficulty of the task sets the target number to get on a d20. 30 is godlike, or something, where 3 is easy (not sure if those are the actual tiers).

*nods* I agree. The mention of DnD being arguably too complicated is the same one they've brought up - what if you have friends over (some of which have never played any kind of PnP) and you want to play a quick one-night session? They want the game to be super easy to pick up, with super fast character creation - no having to slog through "Ugh, what class am I? Those have what saving throws? And how many spells am I allowed per day? What if I take feat #37? Feat #92?" *two hours of explanation and character building later*...

Admittedly, I don't know much about their system at the moment other than it's a d10 system, designed to be fast and easy (although it involves "THAC0 light", apparently, which seems directly opposed to their goal of "fast/easy/approachable/won't scare off new players"), and won't have such punishing RNG or number crunching as DnD (eg. critical fails aren't so critical). Was just bringing up their goals as a game for discussion to see what people thought :)

And yeah, I think the idea behind Pathfinder/DND is like, being an OCD nerd's delight, but still have a thoroughly worked out system that WORKS - you can homerule as much as the DM/party likes, whatever makes the game most fun. But having been a new player, and seeing other new players struggle (even with 4E, which is easy mode in my opinion), I know it can be daunting to begin with.

I agree with Ivashin - simplicity does not always equal good. If the system is too simple, then most likely character customization is going to take a hit. If the system is too complex, the speed of play is most likely going to take a hit. So it depends on what you want - it's hard to have both (I actually think DnD did pretty good with the depth of customization they offer versus the relative simplicity of their rulesystem. Have a look at Shadowrun, it's a complete nightmare in that regard).

I think there simply isn't "a" good system - just systems that are adapted to a group of players and some that aren't. Depending on what you want to do and who you want to play with, a system might be better than another. For beginners, there are very simple yet effective systems - I've played systems where you simply draw a character from a set of ready-made, where each action is always simply 3d6 + skill (even with attacks - you roll 2 red d6 with a green d6, it's your attack roll (3d6) + your damage roll if you hit (2 red d6)), and character progression is either a +2 in a skill or one of 5 tailor-made feats for the character. Rules hold in 2 pages, you can start playing in 20 minutes tops. Simple, but without any real depth - if you want more, you take another system.

As a player, I love my character customization. I love spending hours trying to make something crazy viable, just setting wild constraints or trying to fit weird RPs ("What if my character could only cast Magic Missile?"). If you take that away, I won't like it - I dislike "simplified" or "skill-based" rule systems in general because of that; you can't really give your own "touch" to your character - two "stealthy" characters will look mostly the same on paper. I want to be able to do something crazy and make it work somehow - that's what I like in DnD 3.5, and what I felt was lost in DD4.

Right now I'm testing a d20 skill-based rule system, Alternity. Despite being skill-based, I love that system, because it's extremely flexible - you can use it as a very simple, entry-level system - or you can take it and make something very deep out of it. You have a base that works very well and upon which you can add and build whatever you want - the system itself gives a plethora of additional rules and modules you can use or simply ignore; it allows you to tailor your system to your audience, and it simply does the job. It doesn't have the depth of customization DnD 3.5 has, but it actually gives you the tool to do that yourself - you've got so many open points and flexible rules that you could customize it yourself without much trouble. And as a DM, it also allows you to deal with any situation in a quick and efficient way - if you don't want to spend 10 minutes looking up a rule you forgot, you have plenty of tools to just emulate it the way you want, without breaking the flow of the game.

(If you're interested, you can always have a look at the "Fast Play" version of the rules - it's free! - [ Players: http://www.alternityrpg.net/downloa.....lay_Player.pdf ], [DM: http://www.alternityrpg.net/downloa.....DarkMatter.pdf ]; and if you want to check how simple or complex you can choose the rules to be, have a look at the Space Combat system [ http://www.alternityrpg.net/downloa.....s/Warships.pdf ] - it goes from "narrative combat" to "3D combat with vectors").

To answer your question: as a somewhat long-term player, I would not want simplicity for the sake of simplicity. I don't like complex systems, but I need my character customization. If you can achieve a good depth of customization while keeping the rules on a level that allows fast play (no more than 20 seconds per player), then you got my vote.

(And I derped on the link to the Fastplay rules for DM - it's http://www.alternityrpg.net/downloa.....Gamemaster.pdf ; the one I linked above is for Dark*Matter, a modern noir settings for Alternity (a la Secret World). But it also shows what you can do with the rules - there are a few "addons" to the game that were created simply by using the tools provided in the rules and building custom content, much like modding a game).

Thanks for the great input!

I'm sort of with you. I don't know how they intend to balance simplicity with customization/flavour. For a while, they were discussing minimizing rolling entirely (one of the developers HATES being screwed by random chance, "my swordsmaster should not be able to miss some random mob"), and while having a number of unique races, I believe they're going to have races statistically identical ("I shouldn't be shoehorned into taking a race I don't want because I want to play a specific style character"), which I'm also on the fence about. While it's great leaving things up and open to gamers, if you "simplify" the game enough, you're eventually going to be left with, "Let's sit around and play make-believe." with only bare-bones rules making it just passably a "game".

Obviously it won't go that far, but I think you know what I mean. Alternatively, you can simplify the game in a manner that saps potential creativity and customizability away from the player (like 4E vs 3.5E), which is also not necessarily good.

And yeah, I agree - I don't actually think 3.5/Pathfinder DnD (and especially 4E) to be terribly complex. You don't need to know all the rules, but they're there if you ever DO need them and don't want to make up your own. But yeah, they're aiming for something faster/easier than 4E, I think, but with the customizability of 3.5E. Not sure how they're gonna do it, though!

As for target player base, they seem to be aiming at "any/all fantasy/tabletop gamer", including those who aren't normally PnPers. Female gamers, MMOers, etc. From what I've heard, they want Endless Realms to be more approachable for these types of players than, for example, DnD, which they consider to be not terribly beginner or female friendly. So I think they're aiming for an ideal balance, again, between players that just want to play and players that want to roleplay.

Depth of DD3.5 but even more simpler than DD4 seems quite an ambitious and optimistic objective to me; they're going to have a very hard time hitting that :<

I hear their complains, but it's actually hard to build around them. If you play with die, sooner or later you're going to be "lucky" or "unlucky", sometimes during longer periods of time. It can be very frustrating and damaging for the RP of your character (I once had a character fail to close and lock a simple gate twice in a row in a Star Wars game - two natural 1 in a row. Half an hour ago she had told the group she was an experienced technician/hacker ...). There are ways to work around those unlucky events ("Action Points" to add extra die, "Resolve Points" to automatically succeed, etc.), but if you want them to go away entirely, then you need to build your system on something else than die (e.g. Action Cards).

To have statistically identical races is also roleplay-damaging. Why should the Ogre have the same base Strength than the Halfling? That's just silly. If you're going to play a barbarian elf, you know you're going to have a hard time - but that's normal, and it can make for great roleplay moments. If you say you're shoe-horned in playing a certain race, you're talking about min-maxing - why are you bringing that up in a system whose aim is to be simple? If you try to fight min-maxing, you'll only end up damaging roleplay instead because you'll be taking flavour away from the game. I don't care if my Ogre is dumber than average and he's having a hard time being an efficient caster because of that, but I will care if my Ogre Barbarian has the same strength than the next Barbarian Halfling - that's just inconceivable.

I always say that balance is mainly in the hands of the players - it's up to the group to build characters which perform more or less the same among eachother, to avoid having a min-maxer crushing every challenge or a slacker who can't hit an elephant with a fireball. In DD it's very easy to create overpowered characters - but if you let it ruin your game, it's the players'/DM's fault, not the system's. Of course you need to keep overall balance in mind when designing rules and classes so as not to make anything unusable, but I don't think trying to fit everything in a tightly controlled mathematical model should be a priority; I actually believe it'll make for a pretty boring system (and it's coming from someone who loves fitting everything in a mathematical model).

Another challenge I see with this is that their target is basically "everyone". You can't please everyone. You can make a system that is accessible to everyone - but that doesn't make it a system enjoyable by everyone. Make it too simple and you'll drive off experienced players because it lacks flavour. Make it too complex and you'll drive off beginners because they don't want to read 200 pages of rules before playing. That's why I was mentioning Alternity - it's a very flexible system that allows you to introduce new players to the game in 2 pages of rules, while allowing you to dig deeper and deeper to add more depth and complexity to the game even simply as time goes on. If their aim is a system that can be played like that, I believe Alternity can give them some inspirational ideas on how to achieve it.

Fantasy Craft takes care of RNG problems fairly well. They have a currency called Action Dice that can be spent to boost rolls or activate criticals, etc.

The GM gets them as well, so if you roll a that dreaded 1, the GM must decide if it's worst burning their own action die to activate. If it's not activated, it's considered a regular failure.

It's a fun system where the races are mostly balanced. They have an approach when designing races that certain benefits are worth certain points while some penalties are necessary, etc. For example, +2 dex might be worth 3 points, but +2 any stat costs 5. +1 con is 1 point while -1 con is -2 points. (I'm making the numbers up.)

In fact, Fantasy Craft is probably the best d20 system I've played that is fantasy based. My chief complaint about it is that it tries to create a "cinematic" roleplay experience where your character does awesome things awesomely. It's not to say that it's easy or forgiving, but just that the rules are designed to encourage ridiculous "HERO!" play instead of realistic. I find it far more interesting to RP a character that's a nobody that gets lucky on occasion, but otherwise has to watch his step than to play the stereotypical hero.

My favorite system (that I've played) is Call of Cthulu. I like that the characters are average and if they make dumb choices, they will die. It's the main reason why I think I would like the Storyteller system if I ever actually found a group to play in.

As far as game design goes, it's important to design everything relative to each other. Do your best to have a universal standard of assessment, between classes, between races, etc. If done well, you can get really interesting things without unbalancing. Again, I'll point to Fantasy Craft where any character is viable unless you go out of your way to gimp it (for instance, playing a drake lancer. Drakes are a large beast race. Lancers are horse riders.)

If you want an idea of good game design, take a look at chess. You can explain the rules to someone in maybe 10 minutes, but the depth of the game is huge.

League of Legends is another good game to look at. While they do get things wrong, they have principles that govern the choices they make (such as, is this mechanic fun and meaninful?).

As far as rules go, consistency and predictability in how the rules are constructed. Basically, rules have templates they follow, so a player only really needs to learn the templates before understanding the rules themselves.

As far as design goes, principles are needed. You need a "language" of comparison so you can assess one item in a set to another, even if they're wildly different. In addition to that, the values of the language can't be arbitrary. You can't have a lvl 1 spell that causes an earthquake be worth the same as a sword manuever that allows the character to parry one basic attack (DnD 3.5 really, really, really suffers from this problem). Principles can be anything from "each race should be useful" to "each class gets 5pts of skills/spells at lvl1".

A well-designed....framework, shall we say, can create an amazing game that's easy to pick up yet very complex when you get right down to it.

"Depth of DD3.5 but even more simpler than DD4 seems quite an ambitious and optimistic objective"

Yeah. I don't have a whole lot of experience with alternate systems besides d20 and the bare-bones explanation of d6/d10 systems to me (no actual firsthand experience), so I'm not sure how feasible it is. But yeah, it does seem like in order to make things easier, you have to simplify/remove complexity, and if you remove complexity, you remove the ability for players to customize and have their unique RP ideas come to life. Sure, in a coin-flipping system you could shield bash or hit with a club or punch in the face, but if, in the game, you play it EXACTLY the same, it's not REALLY reflected in the game, it's relying on the player to inject it artificially in their head. So yeah, I wonder how they'll go about doing it.

Heh, maybe because my fiance has had extreme run-ins with bad luck (sounds superstitious), but he actually appreciates/enjoys critical successes and failures. Have you ever just been standing or walking normally, only to have yourself randomly lose your balance or trip on nothing? Or be holding a glass or something, just to randomly somehow drop the thing? Real life 1s happen, and he likes that sometimes stupid shit can happen in game, too. It's ridiculous, but realistic, in a backwards sort of way.

*nods* I tried to argue that races MUST MEAN SOMETHING in the actual gameplay, not just flavour in the players' heads. I'm not a developer, but I really had to give my piece there. I think they are going to give races "racial abilities" or something, one or two spells or abilities or skill bonuses unique to their race, but not something as "game changing" as base stat differences. Just enough to ideally give flavour and have some meaning in the game, but not forcing people to min/max.

I actually don't mind imbalance in a game, although it depends on the DM and the campaign as well as player dispositions. Sometimes it makes sense to have some disparity in a group, but other times too much ruins the game experience or results in players having less fun.

"their target is basically "everyone". You can't please everyone." I've brought up this problem, too. They are angling to be more female-friendly and beginner-friendly, however, and I think the fact that the developers are huge MMO/MOBA players will also influence their design style/marketing, so while they say they are aiming to please everyone, I do think in practice the appeal will lie more in beginners, casuals, and MMO players who want to dip their feet in the PnP world. But this is me just guessing at this point. Again, very early in development, and I'm not exactly privy to a lot of the stuff that goes on, so this is sort of just hearsay.

Thanks again for the reference to Alternity, I'll pass it along :)

Sounds awesome. Our group is always looking for new games to play.

I'm afraid it'll be a while :( The game only recently started development, so it'll probably at least be another year or two.

Thats fine. I kinda figured but hey, at least the creatures are going to look awesome ^_^

Thanks <3

I think it's a grand goal. Personally there are some times when I want a simpler system- that's when I reach for something like World of Darkness but there isn't really a good substitute among fantasy PnP that I've found. On the other hand, I've found that simpler systems can become frustrating in their inflexibility, especially at low levels.

All the same, I look forward to hearing/seeing more about it!

*nods* Well, it is a d10 system, so maybe it'll be the WoD fantasy substitute you've been looking for! I think they were aiming for variety and customizability found in things like DnD3.5/Pathfinder, so hopefully it'll be a good balance between simple, yet versatile!

to me spending 6 -12 or more hours on making characters is what some times i wish was a little faster and easier though once you got it down for most games it only take about 1-4 hours and i just wish it was faster to do. i think i have spent more time making characters for table top RPGs then playing them

*chuckles* I know what you mean, although I actually really enjoy character creation :b To be fair, USING THE SAME SYSTEM, we generated characters at a rate of about 2 per hour in one campaign (it was high mortality, so had to come up with a starting pool of PCs), while other times, we spent 4 hours each just on one character.

Fast character creation is totally possible, even with more complicated systems, just a bit harder :b Ironically, some of the quick character concepts we came up with ended up being way more fun, with surprising depth, than characters that we had spent the more usual 1-3 hours on.

Faster play is great, especially for new players - that's part of why I loved 4e, as it streamlined everything in the game but it had some major downfalls like the fact that you couldn't really vary characters mechanically, at all. Other issues were that everything felt so generic between the classes as your abilities' special effects were the only real variations as far as working pieces of the game was concerned. Now this got better with time, but the core materials (Player's Handbooks I, II, III) didn't feel like they could really go on their own, especially not for certain classes who never got nice variants. The saddest part of the story is that while they largely balanced the game seeing as your average Wizard isn't radically superior to your average Fighter it lost a lot of charm.

You didn't have a lot of character customization, you just cookie cutter'd everything and could never make a bad choice. Some options were superior, but your character didn't really suffer for bad ones either; most of the time you couldn't notice a big improvement or different. Everything was so marginal.

Race selection was another issue, you (or at least I did) felt locked into the common tropes. Luckily a lot of the fun ones made it through, but not all.

Then there's 3.5e...

3.5e is where things get mechanically complex and diluted from the start and no semblance of balance has ever been truly achieved. If you don't have magic and are a mundane like a Rogue or a Fighter, you're going to start sucking once magic gets more common. Now, some cool mechanics like psionics and Incarnum evolved to make more mundane-like classes viable, but most of the time the only classes that really evolved and got better were the ones already good; almost every book gave casters some new option at little price, and mundanes got mostly useless options (the plethora of Fighter alternate class features).

While a good number were niche and or bad, some absurd gems got stuck in there too. Did the Druid really need an awesome prestige class like Moonspeaker? Did Wizards really need Incantatrix? Were Clerics hurting so bad for Divine Oracle? I get a lot of it is story and lore of that book, but the game never seemed to balance newer material against the older, and the only real book that came out to help the mundanes basically invalidated a bunch of your core classes. Now don't get me wrong, Tome of Battle is one of the greatest martial buffs in the game, but that's sad that Fighter, Rogue, Monk and Ranger are all just dip classes for anything.

I'm all about the Min/Max element of making a character work; digging through these hundreds of PDFs and researching material to make a concept work. Why? Because a lot of cool concepts don't... because the system is broken at its base level and has a ton of hold overs and poor design choices. Some options, no matter how cool, just aren't good and take way too much effort to fix; Two-Weapon Fighting and ranged combat for example.

Developing a new system from the start is a great solution, but it needs to have some major considerations like established goals.

It can't be too easy to the point that its difficulty is readily learned by children and that they can't go wrong with any choice they make; there's no benefit to being a smart, creative player or someone who plans out a character. It also can't be too complex or convoluted because people will just play other games. The reason I say it can't be too easy is because it won't be taken seriously, and it can't be too complex because you already have more intricate systems like d20, GURPS, and a few others.

The real middle ground I think that they can settle on is making a base system that's like Lego bricks; you can plug in new components to the old ones and they all play nice. The simple rule set has room for new additions later - after it's been play tested and abuse proofed. Why was 3.5e so unbalanced? People didn't try to push the game's limits in development, and what new material they did write they didn't check against old material (Dragon Magazine being notorious for this). For example, why play your regular Barbarian when you can play a Spirit Lion Totem Whirling Frenzy Wolf Totem Barbarian at level 1, too? The latter is radically superior in every right just because he took some good alternate class features.

Hell, even making their base system "setting, time period, and magic-less" at its core lets you re-purpose it; have rules for that, because all you did was take out these other rules. That said, avoid rules chaining where you have to read, step by step, a set of different rules to discern one thing. Example? Grapple, Disarm, Trip, etc in 3.5e. Just bake those rules into combat actions.

So modularization and building off of existing material is crucial as is examining existing material. It avoids issues like why doesn't the Combat Expertise feat work like Power Attack? Why is the Dodge feat so bad? Why does Whirlwind Attack have a huge, nonsensical feat chain? Why do mundanes need so many feats to just do the basics?

Then comes rules clarity issues, which the system needs to handle at a base level, not just in "specific trumps general", because things get weird... fast. Sure you can't write rules and examples for everything, but core elements need explanation and simplicity. Look at the huge rules for things like Wild Shape, Polymorph, Alternate Form, etc - they're completely silly and out of hand because the concept was so broken from the start.

We also have a lot of cool ideas that work really weird like the Bloodlines option from Unearthed Arcana. It does weird, poorly explained stuff with your levels like advance certain features but not at the same time, making it incredibly powerful for certain classes that make use of those mechanics, but those who don't have no reason to care - at all. Level Adjustments for playing powerful races? Why is there no formula to determine these? Some templates are stupid good (Saintly, Phrenic, Feral, etc), and others are absolute garbage for their cost most of the time like Half-Dragon or Lycanthrope.

In summary my biggest points are these:

- Make the game simple enough that reading the rules, once, twice, maybe three times gets the point across.
- Make the rules simple and straight forward, give examples, and find conflicts and give resolutions first; avoid errata if you can.
- Make the game have valid balance between opposing elements like martial prowess and magic. This is hard to do, but the answer comes down to don't always have might make right or magic is always the solution.
- Make the option for newer material to be added in at a later date and function on the same level as older material. Power creep is a major issue; it's a nuclear arms race with every book it seems.
- Make it so that of something's broken, include it in this major update (like a Player's Handbook II or Dungeon Master's Guide II), not small, supplementary material where it's glossed over.
- Make play testing test every element and every tier of play. Low level play, medium, high level, low magic settings, high magic settings, no magic, psionics only, etc. Have people try to break the game before it's released.

The game already has the advantage of looking like it's new, unique and fun, and with new rules it can avoid the pitfalls of the past.

Sure I rambled a lot, but I love pen and paper, table top games, and I love making a fun, balanced, creative environment. It's why I love 3.5e for what it does well, and why I love 4e for what it does well.

"Make play testing test every element and every tier of play. Low level play, medium, high level, low magic settings, high magic settings, no magic, psionics only, etc. Have people try to break the game before it's released."

I know for sure this is a thing. The developers are big MMO/MOBA players, and at least one of them is a huge competitive min/maxer, to the point of almost wanting to take dice-rolling out entirely (because my level 10 swordsmaster should ALWAYS bloody well hit another creature at his level, damnit!). They're making races statistically identical so that people who want the flavour of "orc" or "halfing" don't have to suffer that negative to charisma or strength, so min-maxers specifically won't be punished or limited in their choices.

That's a relief to hear. I remember that was a huge failing on Wizards of the Coast's failings based on a lot of the accounts I've read, where they just didn't test everything, hence why 4e was pretty extensively tested.

Yeah, understandable a master of a weapon shouldn't miss much (that was such an issue that Tome of Battle had like five things to get re-rolls, guaranteed hits, etc), random dice explosions are good and bad. Some randomness is good, but compensation should be in practice; Fighter types rolling twice for attacks, etc.

I'm sort of for and against having statistically identical races. I don't see how a Halfling can be as strong as an Orc, or how an Elf can be just as agile and dextrous as a Human. I suppose racial bonuses to skills, weapons, etc, would compensate.

I think that they are more making racial abilities (think how WoW does it http://www.wowwiki.com/Racial_trait ) than statistical differences. Something that imparts flavour, but won't force class/race combinations to the same degree as D&D/Pathfinder-type games often do (if you're a min/maxer, anyway - I, for instance, don't have too much of a problem with this).

In fact, we recently played a "gimped" campaign. We randomly rolled about 40 characters in a high-casualty game, which were then randomly assigned, most of which were retarded, and found that the gimpier the character, the more fun we tended to have. I had a character with an 18 Dex but all other stats 10. A friend had a character with a 16 Cha, but an 8 Con and 8 Str. And right now, we're getting ready to start a campaign, and our usual min-maxer has actually opted for the more-interesting half-orc rather than the "smarter" race choice, just for interest, and another friend is picking goblin, even though it's landing him a 6 Cha when another race would balance out his stats a bit more. Haha, I'm sort of proud of them :b Meanwhile, I'm rolling an actually fairly statistically strong character, but voluntarily giving her a -2 to Fort and a phobia that gives her a -2 to all rolls whenever she's around her fear, purely for flavour, and without any balancing statistical benefits :b I think you and I differ in that respect - you seem to want to make a custom character concept as powerful as possible, whereas I just want to make an interesting character, even if it means something like a 5 Intelligence, or running terrified from combat every time a gnoll shows up, haha.

Anyway...

Going back to races, they're not using the usual fantasy trope races. There will be a human race, but there's also going to be a beast race, a plant race, a neko race, and a race I'm not even really sure how to describe offhand :b At least, I think that's approximately where we are - it's still in development so I haven't really looked over it much. So in this sense I don't think it will be as IC-breaking to have the races statistically identical.

As long as Every Man For Himself (or D&D's equivalent, Iron Heart Surge) aren't included, that's already a positive start - hah.

Admittedly I do optimize the hell out of a character concept for maximum effect within it; something about all that optimization fit them - Asher Tybalt perhaps being the absolutely most successful in terms of that - and made them more memorable characters. Not to say low (or not at all) optimized characters aren't, but it led to some pretty entertaining character moments. My current builds are of an unnamed Tiger Ardent, an unnamed Panther Swordsage, and an actually good and playable Animal player character that's 100% rules legal with no Dungeon Master fiat and, at most, has a +1 LA.

I've thought about doing a super casual game (the current game I'm running is sort of a setting I have recently built and just testing out stuff like E6 rules, Elite and Boss templates, two new classes, and mechanical switches and various nerfs) but with randomly generated states and a nearly no-magic setting. Perhaps even the 3.5e Rogue version (where casting classes can only be 2/3rds your HD among other things) on top of it too. Perhaps even in a modern setting (using stuff lifted from the d20 Modern SRD despite how busted that is on its own).

Provided each race feels and plays different and has a better match (of course not best) for each class, there's hope.

Heh, don't mistake us - our randomly generated gimp characters were for a entirely serious campaign that lasted several months :b And our stats are ALWAYS randomly generated, and hit dice always rolled (my gimpy Dex character rolled a 1 or 2 every time she levelled for her hit die XD) But yeah, just sounds like we run really different games. We have two players who are really driven by min/maxing, though - one mostly just for optimizaion, while the other does it by trying to exploit every single loophole in the game, if not by outright cheating XD

We usually play games with complete randomization (stats, hit points, etc), but I can't stand it and it forces me to optimize even more hard core (as I feel obligated to basically be running at near one-hundred percent every game, especially to compensate for players doing dumb stuff). I try to avoid abusing rules errors or loops (for fun, try grappling as a Feral template creature and watch monsters get insta-gibbed half the time), but getting the most bang for my buck.

On my side as DMing though we did 32 point buy, starting hit points equal max dice value plus one plus Constitution modifier; all hit points after (from levels) use the Elite template rules I wrote of half max dice value, plus one, plus Constitution modifier. I also introduced modified Maximum Damage Threshold rules, using the formula of ten plus one-half level plus Constitution modifier (and then a penalty of minus two for each step smaller than Medium, or plus two for each size above Medium), with Elites getting a passive plus four bonus.

This works out really well with average mooks being easy to take out (they only get half their hit die value) while Elites are pretty scary. Especially when Elite units get three bonus feats and unique 4e/Tome of Battle style abilities and often have a +1 weapon of some sort (as well as armor) when everyone else has masterwork at absolute best.

Other changes included Minimum Damage Rules (Damage Resistance negates all damage below its value, but successful hits will always, at bare minimum, inflict 1 damage) and making monsters use combat tactics based off Intelligence. For example, trained mercenaries and two Elites using an L-shaped ambush (which nearly wiped the party).

Overall, it's worked really well. It's punished the classical foolish behavior they're known (always playing pranks, harassing important people, ignoring weight penalties, etc) for and made them act tactically and like their characters' lives matter for once; they're even actually using things people never pay attention to most the time like dropping prone when the sniper they can't see is taking shots at them from hundreds of feet away with a greatbow or paying attention to which way the wind blows so they can use scent, or gearing up appropriately for the weather.

"making monsters use combat tactics based off Intelligence."

I really like that. It's something not enough DMs really do - playing the monster IC. Casey and I have talked about stuff like that, and, for instance, we're worried about our 6-Cha goblin player :b He imagines his character is just really ugly, but we try to explain to him, "Dude, charisma isn't just your looks." It's your impression, your way with people, your social intelligence. You might not RP it, but a CHA 4 character, for instance, is probably going around just inherently being offensive, farting or smelling or accidentally insulting/offending/disgusting people just by looking at them wrong :b

I had never played Shadowrun before, but we picked up the game on Steam, and we really liked the Etiquette system, in which different etiquettes become available to you depending on your charisma. Etiquettes are basically kind of like specific forms of Streetwise/bluff/knowledge, in which you know the ins and outs of certain types of people (gangsters, government officials, the average joe, police/security/guard organizations, etc.) and how to fit in with them, and emulate their behaviour. We always kinda lamented that in a lot of games, CHA ends up taking the back seat where players assume that, so long as they're not the party face or a class that requires it in combat, they can dump their worst stat in there with no negative effect, but I think having some more engaging stuff like an etiquette system might encourage it to be paid more attention to. I also like the idea of having a particularly high or low CHA luck roll, where just by being extra charismatic, or extra uncharismatic, there's a chance of a variety of things happening to you, just by being around others. Getting hit on or offered free services for high-charisma characters, or being chased out of town, refused service, or outright assaulted for low-charisma characters. Stuff like that I think is kinda cool :b

I always feel bad for Charisma as a stat, but it reminds me of a major issue in D&D, and that's the issue of characters and classes being MAD (or Multiple Attribute Dependent). The two biggest offenders are the Paladin and the Monk; the Paladin needs Strength for melee (which is half his forte), Constitution for hit points and the mightily important Fortitude save, Wisdom for the significantly important Will saves and spell casting and Charisma for Turn Undead; the Monk needs his Strength for damage (unless you go the Weapon Finesse or Intuitive Attack route), Dexterity for AC (and to a lesser extent, Reflex saves), Constitution for hit points (and the much more Fortitude save, seeing as Reflex is the worst of all saves), Wisdom for Will (most important defense), some Monk features (namely his AC bonus).

And as most optimizers go, everyone pretty much says "Only dip Paladin (or Monk) for X many levels." and or says "Just play a Crusader (or Swordsage and be better." Fighter isn't much better off either!

That's in huge contrast to classes like a Wizard, Cleric or Druid (even Sorcerers) who can get away with ignoring everything but their primary casting stat (although it helps out that a Cleric has good Charisma for Turn Undead or Divine Meta Magic) and Constitution - Druids and Wizards are the biggest offenders primarily because both can ditch their physical scores (Wild Shape and Polymorph respectively). Dexterity is the only mildly useful one out of them, and that's just for the Initiative bonus and tiny help to their poor Reflex and AC.

It's one of those Catch 22 situations; sure making Charisma more important as a stat mechanically lessens it status as the dump stat, but at the same time, some classes already have enough design flaws. Charisma's real saving grace, I'd say, is for classes with Use Magic Device (or Use Psionic Device) - that alone makes it worthwhile (outside of Handle Animal abuse).

I definitely support the roleplaying element, and my players are sort of learning that (I'm not nearly as good as an actor as I am a writer, so it's harder to express NPC and worldly reactions relative to it) that not every woman with Charisma 13+ has an unusually voluptuous form, for example. One of the NPCs with them right now has a Charisma score of 14 - and she's a monster, but the group adores her because she's basically on the same playing field as them and I treat her like a character rather than a random important NPC (or worse, 99% of DMNPCs ever encountered). They went from mocking and teasing her (outside game to me, including asking questions about her Charisma score) to actually even being legitimately interested in her story and plight.

Again, I'm glad you get to experience stuff like that (to an even larger extent) where Charisma isn't just a "hotness stat" - that makes life way more exciting.

I've been playing World of Darkness (Changeling) This is really my first Table Top.
I have a little D&D experience.
I am all for details and a slower paced game. Less is more.

Good to know :) How are you liking the creativity/versatility of WoD's system? I've very little experience with it. Some RPers seem to LOVE it, but others find that while it's good for RP, it's only because the rules aren't complicated enough to accommodate actual mechanical changes (ie. you can RP all you want, but the game mechanics stay the same) and therefore don't like it.

Hum.. it has a different feel. I barely have any table top experience. Like you stated it seems to be straight forward.
Some of the skills seem to be lacking... I'm having a little trouble really building a character... but that may change over time.
I seem to be more of a fan of D&D. But I have barley played it... I will just have to see what happens.

I'm for, and against. Some RP's do well with simpler mechanics, as those kinda don't do "anything else".
Like, Dragon Age is one of those. It's simple, fast, yet have a little depth to it. You don't just end up with a pile of "generic cleave path fighter #17". Granted, there will almost always be a "best choice" in those games. But usually it's not a too overwhelming need for it. And people can play what they like instead.

It can go too bland however in some cases. Like Mutants and Masterminds. Before you had a bunch of skill points and a ton of skills. Now they just clumped it together in the "Fallout" level of "Science" and "Technology", literally having anyone that knows how a toaster works like, potentially capable of building a tank, and anyone that knows math, potentially capable of how a nuclear reactor works. Kinda reaches the PP'd monk in 3.5's style. "What? I need to make a fortitude save? I'll just roll my wisdom! - Attack check? I'll just roll my wisdom! - Knowledge? Wisdom! - A tumble check? Wisdom! Straight check? Wisdom!". If you go down to basically one check for EVERYTHING, you might as well play Noire (I think it is) where you just roll some dice, and then based on who rolled the highest, stuff happens.

"you might as well play Noire (I think it is) where you just roll some dice, and then based on who rolled the highest, stuff happens."

Hah, sounds terrible :b

I don't mind some amount of "Attack check? Roll wisdom!" weird crap if it's made to work thematically with the character/class build. There's an interesting new class called Investigator coming out for Pathfinder, and you can spend rounds studying the enemy, which then lets you apply temporary bonuses in combat against those enemies. It makes a lot more sense than just saying, "Apply your Intelligence modifier instead of its regular modifier to everything you do" :b

It's actually really interesting to what I've heard. It provides a big meaty bone, all you need to flesh it out to a steak... or something... I could not come up with a synonym for that xD

And yeah, some amount can be interesting and add flavour, but streamline too much and you just get a pile of "generic cleavepath fighter #17" because everyone can do everything, one just does it with a moustache. (more or less)
Stuff like that seems logical though, and rather flavour-y. Can say though, the monk thing: You could more or less basically get to a "okay, everything you do fail at all but a 20, and everything I do only fail on a 1... also, I have 3 re-rolls per turn. Have fun.

I'm for a game system that doesn't have you managing 30 different sets of stat variants, to minimize the confusion factor when you start to get things like base stat decreases, negative levels, etc. Spending a full night trying to figure out how your character's stats work with your class, feats, traits and skills isn't really fun if you're just getting into the game, it kind of is the one drawback of pencil and paper games.

However where it triumphs other games is variation, at least I overcame some of those problems with some games of DnD, World of Darkness and perhaps Pathfinder if I could get a decent steady group. It allows for creative imagination of what you want your character to be, not just by his/her class, but by the techniques. It's one of those games that permits you to make something like throwing daggers with explosive rune triggers on them. Books on Arctic ecosystems who's freshly cracked pages hits reader with 3d4 worth of freezing damage because of a sudden burst of frigid air blast from the book. Where you can hone bones into spikes and turn a simple cantrip like mage hand into a projectile attack because there's no specification about the speed in which you telepathically move objects. These things are why pencil and paper games are fun.

Yeah, that latter paragraph <333 Where the game gives you enough that you really are practically limited only by your own imagination and creativity. Why my fiance was so offended by 4E - no utility spells or rituals or flavour abilities really at all to speak of, save for a weak token gesture, and nothing that promotes players to really use these. It's a very streamlined, MMO-like experience. Normal encounter? Spam move 1, maybe occasionally use move 2 and 3. Boss? Same as encounters, but pop dailies. The creativity in it is just... not the same. I mean, yeah, you can make up your own stuff, but I like to work within the given framework of a game, otherwise you're really just sitting around playing group make-believe, and not so much playing a game. I'd rather have a "bloated" game that you can conveniently ignore the bits you don't care about than a "starved" one.

I'm glad I never tried making a mage in 4E, but I also noticed all your attacks were, as you said, based on skills set inside of the character parameters. It lost so much of the finesse and luster of making up your own methods of attack that it did make combat boring, it throws out the unorthodox in favor of a staged 'special attack.' I didn't feel much sense of accomplishment when I tried 4E as I did all the other games. The explosive daggers I would've liked to try, the book was something the DM made and left in an abandoned tower. The ranger thought my kitsune character was his animal companion, but whenever battle breaks out I shift backstab an enemy while everyone else is distracted. When the books were introduced I stole three different ones when everyone else was moving on and in the midst of battle I would shift, open one with the pages facing the enemy and they'll take said 3d4 damage.

But I'm getting off topic, the game can be faster as long as it's without sacrificing content. If it rewards creativity instead of sticking to extremely strict defined rules of abilities, it has my vote.

I think one of its primary goals is to provide a versatile system and tools with which, if players want, they can easily create custom skills, races, classes and monsters.

Please tell me they're using some kind of "magic-point" system for spells; JACK VANCE CAN BURN IN HELLLLLLL!!!

I don't know, I'm afraid :b