Related to the which-system-for-Game of Thrones/ASoIaF discussion, I was wondering what systems there are that support non-combat-centric play in a medievalesque fantasy environment? Are there any traditional (non-storygame) systems where a noncombatant player character is possible and viable?
Some characteristics I think would be desirable or necessary:
1. Ability to put all resources in non-combat skills/powers/abilities.
2. Ability for noncombatant PCs to be effective in play.
3. No escalating hit points.
4. Probably not level or class based?
Quote from: S'mon;662646Related to the which-system-for-Game of Thrones/ASoIaF discussion, I was wondering what systems there are that support non-combat-centric play in a medievalesque fantasy environment? Are there any traditional (non-storygame) systems where a noncombatant player character is possible and viable?
Some characteristics I think would be desirable or necessary:
1. Ability to put all resources in non-combat skills/powers/abilities.
2. Ability for noncombatant PCs to be effective in play.
3. No escalating hit points.
4. Probably not level or class based?
First i looked at the question, and though "Almost every Strorytelling System game/Game from White Wolf".
Ok, sure, Those games can be VERY combat-centric as well, but usually, a non-fighter has a good place in those games.
... And then i looked at you "criteria points", and thought "yup".
White Wolf's ST-games checks usually all boxes with ease, at least the ones i know.
I think it even holds true for "old" Werewolf, despite it being combat-centric.
And yes, they are rpgs, despite being called "storytelling games".
EDIT:
Oh, sorry, you were asking for Fantasy rpgs ...
I saw that part too late, somehow.
Although, old WoD did have something called "Dark Ages" ...
Ars Magica...?
(and 4th Edition is free (http://e23.sjgames.com/item.html?id=AG0204)!)
Well, I've found Rolemaster reduces the focus on combat. The perceived deadliness discourages it and the broad range of skills enables other activities.
I'm working on my own fantasy game right at the moment and the core rules are done though much in need of playtest. It does have leves and ascending hitpoints but the amount of damage needed to cause crippling wounds doesn't increase much and it's still pretty lethal.
The "vocations" are just skill and attribute packages so you can just say "I'm playing a knight." and get on with it if you don't want to spend your time fiddling with the points. If you want a tenth level knight you just multiply the skill points expenditures by ten. The levels are there to cap out skill development so people don't just put all of their points in a single skill. The levels are a bit soft and there are some talents that allow things like starting a level higher, owning a magic item, and allowing an additional point per level to be put into a skill.
What I do have that you might be interested in is a wide range of social skills like Insult, Provoke, Inspire, Convince, Intimidate, Ignore, and Dissemble and some rules on social relationships.
I'll have to convert it to pdf and put it up. There's some of the material in the art of game design thread but some of it is a bit dated.
http://www3.telus.net/public/uncouths/Confabulation.pdf
Quote from: S'mon;662646Some characteristics I think would be desirable or necessary:
1. Ability to put all resources in non-combat skills/powers/abilities.
2. Ability for noncombatant PCs to be effective in play.
3. No escalating hit points.
4. Probably not level or class based?
Several systems can do #1, #3 and #4. My personal choice for this would be BRP, probably via Runequest 6 for a fantasy game.
#2 in my experience is more of a GM thing than a system thing. Someone mentioned Storyteller/Storytelling/WoD; we're nearing the close of a Vampire: The Requiem chronicle and my hacktivist-turned-vampire-elder-flunky PC has yet to enter combat. But I've also played WoD (old and new) games in which my Dex 2 and Firearms 1 would get me killed in a couple of sessions.
If you consistently, repeatedly put PCs in situations in which combat is a convenient solution, the non-combatant PCs will feel disenfranchised as the combat-ready PCs will dominate the game. Again, Runequest 6 is a neat system for this because combat can (and given time, will) fuck you up real good. For additional effect, set the game in a social context in which assault and murder are serious charges with very serious consequences.
Also, make sure non-combatant PCs have something to excel at, that's relevant to the game. Our vampire coterie has a hacker, an occultist, an assassin and a biker/brawler. For an ASoIaF-like intrigue-laden low fantasy game, you might want a scholar (like the Maesters of Westeros, or even a more "traditional" magically inclined character like a sorcerer or a priest; Epimetheus, the high priest of Mitra in "The Phoenix In The Sword" is a good example), a skulker (thief, spy, whatever), and one or more noblemen (with social and/or combat skills).
Personally, I've found that for most groups you need a mechanic that forces skill diversity. Even social skills can be problematic when they go around dumping 100% of their points into them. Especially games where the designers made this the most effective strategy in the game.
Hmmm...D&D 3.0 might be more effective than I first thought...Diplomacy is pretty broken.
But no, the main thing is to have a game where combat is deadly and disabling and the same for all parties.
Quote from: David Johansen;662664But no, the main thing is to have a game where combat is deadly and disabling and the same for all parties.
Harnmaster, then.
The One Ring has quite a lot of focus on journeys and social encounters, as much as combat combined.
Ryuutama has a lot of focus on journeys and resource management.
Reign has a lot of focus on domain level play.
Mistborn, though not medieval fantasy, equates social and mental aspects of conflict as much as combat.
Quote from: S'mon;662646Related to the which-system-for-Game of Thrones/ASoIaF discussion, I was wondering what systems there are that support non-combat-centric play in a medievalesque fantasy environment? Are there any traditional (non-storygame) systems where a noncombatant player character is possible and viable?
Some characteristics I think would be desirable or necessary:
1. Ability to put all resources in non-combat skills/powers/abilities.
2. Ability for noncombatant PCs to be effective in play.
3. No escalating hit points.
4. Probably not level or class based?
I use a skill based system and some of our games are very non-combat based. Currently, we are prepping for the next online game, which is set in a large school of magic (http://celtricia.pbworks.com/w/page/57010814/Collegium%20Arcana%20Stenron%20Campaign%20Arc), and the central idea is to play the experiences of these novices as they go through life at school, improving their abilities, making friends and networking.
We've found that #3 is not an absolute, as long as the system is nuanced to make combat still dangerous, BTW.
I would also say that a level of granularity of ability growth is desirable, as it keeps the interest and allows for growth in non-combat areas. Also, if magic is part of the setting, there should be a larger amount of non-combat spells than combat versions.
The One Ring.
Runequest.
Early Dark.
Pendragon.
Ars Magica.
Chronica Feudalis.
WoD Dark Ages.
Quote from: silva;662969The One Ring.
Runequest.
Early Dark.
Pendragon.
Ars Magica.
Chronica Feudalis.
WoD Dark Ages.
good list.
You can play D&D with out much combat to be honest.
Using a 2e system I have had games focusing on investigations, burglary, politics, magical research (and magical one upmanship) and exploration.
Depends on the line between roleplay and game. As a game most fantasy rulesets put combat front and centre but if you do more roleplaying then a fantasy game can be as combat light as CoC.
I don't think its a gritty or dangerous combat system that makes the difference either, Runequest combat can be really deadly as can rolemaster but you still get people playing mostly combat games with those systems.
If I build a ruin and populate it with skeletons or orcs or goblins or whatever, the game will be combat focused. If I build a ruin and populate it with the intangiable spiritis of dead priests and put in some magical puzzles or traps or whatever then there will be less combat.
Depends on what the GM sets up and on players expectations.
Any trait-based RPG would suffice, I'd say.
Like Over the Edge or RISUS.
There is a fantasy adaption of OTE: Under the Broken Moon (http://www.rpglibrary.org/settings/thundarr/)
If this is the sort of thing you want, I'd probably suggest Pendragon.
Quote from: RPGPundit;663480If this is the sort of thing you want, I'd probably suggest Pendragon.
Pendragon looks good, but the edition I have seems focused around playing only knights, ie martial characters.
Quote from: S'mon;663781Pendragon looks good, but the edition I have seems focused around playing only knights, ie martial characters.
I'd obviously suggest RuneQuest 6 also, but there is this for BRP too: Merrie England (http://shop.cubicle7store.com/Merrie-England-The-Age-of-Eleanor)
"...Revel in the mysteries of Morris Dancing, crusade against the heathen, uncover the secrets of the Masons, oppose the unjust taxes of your absent king, or simply abuse your authority over peasants and vassals. Your imagination is the only limit!"
I'm having an interesting experience running Legend of the 5 Rings. We're going half or more of our sessions without combat, and we haven't yet had more than one a night. And that's been player driven rather than planned by me. In a couple of cases I've had NPCs try to start a fight and the players talked them down or went around.
Which surprised me a little, because based on the character options L5R looks like a combat focused game that happens to have some social mechanics. I think the ingredients are:
-combat is dangerous, giving you a sense your number's going to come up eventually if you take every opportunity for it
-human opponents. The Clans have rivalries, sometimes strong ones, but outside of the Shadowlands there aren't really any orc equivalents to kill on sight.
-well developed characters. Everyone has family, a lord, duties and obligations.
-my players. As I said, this whole thing was emergent rather than planned. I'm not sure I could have imposed this play style by fiat, and I'm not entirely sure the choice of game system is going to do it for you, though it may go a long way.
-social mechanics as an option. I'm not actually using them as much as I maybe should; if I know an NPC I'll sometimes roleplay a scene out without stopping to roll dice. But players have the option of saying "hey, I want to roll for this," and the game has a system to handle that.
Notice that largely overlaps, but doesn't duplicate your suggested list:
Quote from: S'mon;662646Some characteristics I think would be desirable or necessary:
1. Ability to put all resources in non-combat skills/powers/abilities.
2. Ability for noncombatant PCs to be effective in play.
3. No escalating hit points.
4. Probably not level or class based?
2's obviously important, but 1 is strictly optional: L5R allows focused Courtier characters, but the players I have talking their way out of combat actually have warrior characters, and can hang when they do get in a fight. 3 I would call a subset of "deadly combat," a reasonable solution but not absolutely necessary in its own right. 4, sure, L5R is basically point buy with an overlay of rank levels.
This is not to suggest L5R specifically, as it comes with its own setting baggage. But it does mean I follow the logic behind the suggestions of Rolemaster or Runequest. The game that emerges at the table may not be obvious from the game book.
I also find the PCs do better long-term when they have skills that get better as they use them, not based on artificial point-buys, and if the skills nest by category.
You should be able to get something workable out of any of the universal systems, too.
Savage Worlds comes to mind, because the way the dice mechanics work allows for anyone to be one-shot by just about any opponent.
Quote from: S'mon;662646Related to the which-system-for-Game of Thrones/ASoIaF discussion, I was wondering what systems there are that support non-combat-centric play in a medievalesque fantasy environment? Are there any traditional (non-storygame) systems where a noncombatant player character is possible and viable?
Some characteristics I think would be desirable or necessary:
1. Ability to put all resources in non-combat skills/powers/abilities.
2. Ability for noncombatant PCs to be effective in play.
3. No escalating hit points.
4. Probably not level or class based?
what term is the game? short or long term?
Quote from: LordVreeg;663878what term is the game? short or long term?
If I run it I'd be thinking of something in the 6-12 session range (fortnightly, about 3.5 hours/session). I'm about to take a break from running one of my two 4e campaigns, toying around with ideas of what to do next. After watching this season's Game of Thrones I like the idea of an intrigue/politics game, with only occasional combat. I think I'd probably want to use a fantasy world rather than Arthurian England. I'm torn between using a regular combat-centric system like (one of the simpler versions of) D&D or Dragon Warriors, vs using a skills-based system like BRP. The versions of Runequest I have (2nd & 3rd edition) are a bit too magic-centric and combat-fiddly. I also have Stormbringer though, might dig that out. Unlike Pendragon you can use it to make a wide range of characters. I was thinking more medievalesque tone rather than Swords & Sorcery, so not sure about using the Young Kingdoms, but maybe that could be slanted easily.
I disagree with the recommendation of Pendragon for a non combat-centric game. For one thing, by default all the player characters are knights. Fighting is your role, it is what you are trained and equipped to do.
Also, in the world of Pendragon, fighting means so much more than just than the application of force. As a knight you want to prove your valour, you want to serve your lord in battle. This isn't a pansy 'violence is the last resort of incompetent' culture.
Even more telling, in Pendragon, to get to truth in a dispute you don't bother with petty things like gathering evidence and questioning witnesses, you have duel. Whoever wins the duel clearly has God's favour and therefore is the innocent party.
So maybe you are not going to go room to room clearing orcs, but I can see how combat would not be central to Pendragon.
Quote from: S'mon;663900If I run it I'd be thinking of something in the 6-12 session range (fortnightly, about 3.5 hours/session). I'm about to take a break from running one of my two 4e campaigns, toying around with ideas of what to do next. After watching this season's Game of Thrones I like the idea of an intrigue/politics game, with only occasional combat. I think I'd probably want to use a fantasy world rather than Arthurian England. I'm torn between using a regular combat-centric system like (one of the simpler versions of) D&D or Dragon Warriors, vs using a skills-based system like BRP. The versions of Runequest I have (2nd & 3rd edition) are a bit too magic-centric and combat-fiddly. I also have Stormbringer though, might dig that out. Unlike Pendragon you can use it to make a wide range of characters. I was thinking more medievalesque tone rather than Swords & Sorcery, so not sure about using the Young Kingdoms, but maybe that could be slanted easily.
How much magic? how common in the setting?
Do you want them to be able to play artists and bards and councilors and assassins?
Quote from: LordVreeg;663908How much magic? how common in the setting?
Do you want them to be able to play artists and bards and councilors and assassins?
I was thinking low-magic, more Stormbringer than Runequest, and the PCs as mostly members of a noble family, maybe with some PC retainers.
Quote from: S'mon;663929I was thinking low-magic, more Stormbringer than Runequest, and the PCs as mostly members of a noble family, maybe with some PC retainers.
I like systems with lots of mundane and non-combat magic for these.
Blood/evil magic a possibility?
I think Stormbringer may be a good match, especially with the time frame you plan.
Quote from: LordVreeg;663955I like systems with lots of mundane and non-combat magic for these.
Blood/evil magic a possibility?
I think Stormbringer may be a good match, especially with the time frame you plan.
I hadn't thought at all about using Stormbringer before this thread, but I do like the idea of the PCs as the ruling House of one of the Young Kingdoms - perhaps set it right after the fall of Melnibone, with the PCs inheriting rule from their fathers who've perished to dragonfire after the sack.
Quote from: S'mon;663977I hadn't thought at all about using Stormbringer before this thread, but I do like the idea of the PCs as the ruling House of one of the Young Kingdoms - perhaps set it right after the fall of Melnibone, with the PCs inheriting rule from their fathers who've perished to dragonfire after the sack.
Not a bad idea, though I always found everyone wanting to play Melniboneans. the world of Elric was always too fantastic for my tastes (Pan Tang and the city of the screaming statues comes to mind), and you have to deal with the law/chaos issues. Will those be difficult?
Legend/RQ6 are setting neutral, and they aren't magic orientated in character mechanics - magic is an option.
Space Master separates scientists in to two categories of three each, Research Scientists and Field Scientists. So, six scientist professions. Actually, of the fourteen professions in the first edition only the three Astronaut professions are expected to be experienced in combat, and of those only the Armsman is specific to it. There are a great many skills, research, exploration and strategic game advice throughout.
That bit about Space Master out of the way, I've played many sessions of any of my favored role-play games without direct conflict. I have also had sessions of games that are not inclined to combat with plenty. I recall a friend's constant outburst of combat in his Mage the Accession campaign.
Edit: To add some specific to a middle ages inspired setting, one of my favorite different combinations that tends toward a strategic game is the pairing of the Chaosium edition of Thieves World with Traveller. Generally, I find Middle-earth to tend toward fairly limited amount of combat. Middle-earth is a model of how to develop a campaign with Rolemaster.
Quote from: S'mon;663929I was thinking low-magic, more Stormbringer than Runequest, and the PCs as mostly members of a noble family, maybe with some PC retainers.
Use Amber, cos you just described it.
Blue Rose mostly would work, except I do think it has escalating HP.
Blue Rose doesn't have escalating HP, it has wound levels.
I'm rather surprised nobody has mentioned Bruning Wheel.
Well I looked through my copy of Stormbringer, then I thought maybe Runequest-3 (which I have) sans magic might work, since I will likely want to set it in a pseudo-European milieu rather than the Young Kingdoms, probably using one of Rob Conley's 'Points of Light' settings. Then I cycled round again to Pathfinder and 4e D&D, and just not having so many fights... guess I'll be at this awhile. :)
Quote from: S'mon;664708Well I looked through my copy of Stormbringer, then I thought maybe Runequest-3 (which I have) sans magic might work, since I will likely want to set it in a pseudo-European milieu rather than the Young Kingdoms, probably using one of Rob Conley's 'Points of Light' settings. Then I cycled round again to Pathfinder and 4e D&D, and just not having so many fights... guess I'll be at this awhile. :)
There are certainly many choices.
One of the ways you have made this hard is your duration of campaign. Every comment and cross comment I am seeing I read through with that in mind.
I think you are right to stick with a skill based, and one that allows the PCs to get better in social skills as they use them, so that they will play into that direction of the game.
You know, as an even slightly focused combat game Lejendary Adventure has major issues, but the non-combat side is pretty good. It's actually an ok non-combat game, with interesting broad non-combat skills (termed Abilities under Lejendary). So, a use for that game, if you have it about.
Quote from: RPGPundit;664569Blue Rose doesn't have escalating HP, it has wound levels.
Oh yeah. Like Mutants and Masterminds. Thanks, Pundit.
Quote from: S'mon;664708Then I cycled round again to Pathfinder and 4e D&D
As you say, there is no real need to use something other than a game you already have mastery. In your next 4th edition campaign, tailor the skills and feats to the campaign. You could do this yourself without too much writing. Leave the Powers alone for the rare combat that does occur.
Alternatively, you could use other peoples' content to define the non-combat skills and feats. LibraryLass mentioned Blue Rose. Rather than pulling what you would like to use from the other aspects of that game, use True20 as a source. Pull the non-combat skills and feats, replacing some of the standard 4th skills and feats. Also, AEG produced a pretty well done Feat source book titled Feats. In particular, the Quest feats are excellent replacements for Paragon feats, in a non-combat focused game. The quest feats insure that one doesn’t overly focus on the mundane in a low combat game too.
Here is a quick run through of this for 4th D&D.
Use these two lists that combine selections from D&D 4th and True20 for the campaign's skills and heroic feats.
True20 Adventure Roleplaying (http://www.rpgnow.com/product/55402)
Skills
Acrobatics (D&D Player’s Handbook)
Arcana (D&D Player’s Handbook)
Bluff (D&D Player’s Handbook)
Concentration (True20)
Diplomacy (D&D Player’s Handbook)
Disquise (True20)
Gather Information (True20)
History (D&D Player’s Handbook)
Intimidate (D&D Player’s Handbook)
Medicine (True20)
Perception (D&D Player’s Handbook)
Religion (D&D Player’s Handbook)
Search (True20)
Sense Motive (True20)
Slieght of Hand (True20)
Stealth (D&D Player’s Handbook)
Streetwise (D&D Player’s Handbook)
Thievery (D&D Player’s Handbook)
Heroic Feats
Alertness (D&D Player’s Handbook)
Animal Empathy (True20)
Assessment(True20)
Attractive(True20)
Benefit(True20)
Challenge(True20)
Connected (True20)
Contacts (True20)
Dedicated (True20)
Durable (D&D Player’s Handbook)
Eidetic Memory (True20)
Escape Artist (D&D Player’s Handbook)
Inspire (True20)
Iron Will (True20)
Leadership (True20)
Linguist (D&D Player’s Handbook)
Light Sleeper (True20)
Low Profile (True20)
Lucky (True20)
Master Plan (True20)
Night Vision (True20)
Skill Training (D&D Player’s Handbook)
Startle (True20)
Suggestion (True20)
Talented (True20)
Taunt (True20)
Tireless (True20)
Toughness (D&D Player’s Handbook)
Track (True20)
Trackless (True20)
Trailblazer (True20)
Wealthy (True20)
Well-Informed (True20)
Replace Paragon Feats with these Quest Feats from AEG’s Feats
AEG’s Feats (http://www.rpgnow.com/product/25448)
Absolute Faith
Beyond Good and Evil
Blood Kin
Brush with Greatness
Carrier
Carte Blanche
The Chosen One
Chosen by the Gods
Cosmological Secret
Favor of the Gods
Forsaken
Glimpse into the Beyond
Honorary Nobility
Honored Enemy
Lost Soul
Master of the Field
Notoriety
Oracle’s Wisdom
Penitent
Revolutionary Figure Head
Ritual Atonement
Scourge
Souless
Soul Twin
Stronghold
Supernatural Mentor
Surety Bond
Unclean Soul
Unnatural Blessing
Vendetta
Quote from: Kuroth;664830As you say, there is no real need to use something other than a game you already have mastery.
True! Yesterday I had the inspiration to develop it as a one-shot or short campaign using Moldvay Basic D&D with very low-level demographics (nearly everyone level 1-3) - the extreme simplicity makes it easy to use for a variety of stuff, plus lethality of play at 1st level ought to work well. Attribute checks using roll under stat on d20 can be the main mechanic. Using the AD&D derived 'unconscious at 0, dead at -10' allows for a bit more longevity without increasing combat power or requiring Raise Dead be available.
For attributes I was thinking 3d6 in order, swap any two, then choose a listed Background such as Courtier, Guard Officer, Scout etc that gives +3 to a pair of stats, max 18. That way PCs should have a couple decent stats and a defined role, while most will still be fragile enough to want to avoid combat.
The game itself will use Conley's 'Southland' from Points of Light, with the PCs escorting Princess Dahaeris of the Grand Kingdom through the Westwall mountains to her forthcoming marriage at Castle Westguard, but rather than a plotted session I'm planning to throw in a bunch of NPCs, rumours, random encounters etc and see what happens.
Quote from: S'mon;665139True! Yesterday I had the inspiration to develop it as a one-shot or short campaign using Moldvay Basic D&D with very low-level demographics (nearly everyone level 1-3) - the extreme simplicity makes it easy to use for a variety of stuff, plus lethality of play at 1st level ought to work well. Attribute checks using roll under stat on d20 can be the main mechanic. Using the AD&D derived 'unconscious at 0, dead at -10' allows for a bit more longevity without increasing combat power or requiring Raise Dead be available.
For attributes I was thinking 3d6 in order, swap any two, then choose a listed Background such as Courtier, Guard Officer, Scout etc that gives +3 to a pair of stats, max 18. That way PCs should have a couple decent stats and a defined role, while most will still be fragile enough to want to avoid combat.
The game itself will use Conley's 'Southland' from Points of Light, with the PCs escorting Princess Dahaeris of the Grand Kingdom through the Westwall mountains to her forthcoming marriage at Castle Westguard, but rather than a plotted session I'm planning to throw in a bunch of NPCs, rumours, random encounters etc and see what happens.
Very good to read you chose to take your own path and modify the game to your campaign. One thing I do for AD&D games that are heavy on ability checks is to use the full value for standard checks, 2/3 value for difficult checks and 1/3 value for challenging checks. Fewer modifiers to add or subtract, with the values at the ready. It allows the higher number of these checks to progress quickly in game. Save throws can be used for a lot of non-combat scenarios too, of course. Conley's setting is a good choice, by the way.
The Dying Earth RPG certainly fits the OP's bill.
Quote from: S'mon;662646Related to the which-system-for-Game of Thrones/ASoIaF discussion, I was wondering what systems there are that support non-combat-centric play in a medievalesque fantasy environment? Are there any traditional (non-storygame) systems where a noncombatant player character is possible and viable?
Some characteristics I think would be desirable or necessary:
1. Ability to put all resources in non-combat skills/powers/abilities.
2. Ability for noncombatant PCs to be effective in play.
3. No escalating hit points.
4. Probably not level or class based?
This is exactly what i've been trying to allow for in my current game design. Glad to see i'm not the only one thinking about it.
What i'm trying to balance now is to make it so that all the normal combat stats have out of combat applications, rather than having separate statistics for non-combat, forcing players to choose between survivability and social engagement.
High Valor has a combat centric design (Valor is important.) But so too are Will and Faith.
One could play a PC who is a complete pacifist priest or quick witted character who uses those traits to overcome (most) foes. If you want to have no-combat it is easy enough switch Valor to "Daring" and go with that.
Drop some of the monsters like Myrk and stick with the more capable of intellect and cunning foes..
Nothing says you have to best a dragon with skill of arms..
So while combat is fairly central to the tales the game is based on (Beowulf, the Eddas/Sagas/etc.) You can shift gears without really much fuss.
Quote from: LibraryLass;664752Oh yeah. Like Mutants and Masterminds. Thanks, Pundit.
No problem, I'm rather familiar with Blue Rose, having run a lengthy campaign with it.
RPGPundit
Quote from: Amalgam;665297What i'm trying to balance now is to make it so that all the normal combat stats have out of combat applications, rather than having separate statistics for non-combat, forcing players to choose between survivability and social engagement.
If that is your goal wouldn't it be wiser to just do away with combat specific stats and make everything attribute checks? Making sure that each attribute has a combat application?
Quote from: Dirk Remmecke;665713If that is your goal wouldn't it be wiser to just do away with combat specific stats and make everything attribute checks? Making sure that each attribute has a combat application?
lol, allow me to rephrase:
The stats that are usually used for combat (i.e. Dex, Str, Con) are being expanded to include other purposes and written in such a way that their use may be more easily wide spread without having to resort to multiples of sub systems and side mechanics.
Basically, as of right now, everything boils down to (add stat and roll over target number) for opposed actions, and (roll under stat as target number) for unopposed actions.
It's more than just doing away with combat specific stats, it's about specifically stating in the rules that these physical/mental attributes are tools to be used in any situation while at the same time doing away with special rules like the Thief's move silently skill, or climbing, or finding traps, etc. things that SHOULD be a physical or mental attribute performable by anyone, WILL be performable by anyone. Players that want to play a Thief/Rogue will be one by their attribute scores and how they use them, not because their sheet says they are one or the rules give them arbitrary bonuses because they chose a class template.
Quote from: Amalgam;665850lol, allow me to rephrase:
The stats that are usually used for combat (i.e. Dex, Str, Con) are being expanded to include other purposes and written in such a way that their use may be more easily wide spread without having to resort to multiples of sub systems and side mechanics.
Basically, as of right now, everything boils down to (add stat and roll over target number) for opposed actions, and (roll under stat as target number) for unopposed actions.
It's more than just doing away with combat specific stats, it's about specifically stating in the rules that these physical/mental attributes are tools to be used in any situation while at the same time doing away with special rules like the Thief's move silently skill, or climbing, or finding traps, etc. things that SHOULD be a physical or mental attribute performable by anyone, WILL be performable by anyone. Players that want to play a Thief/Rogue will be one by their attribute scores and how they use them, not because their sheet says they are one or the rules give them arbitrary bonuses because they chose a class template.
I don't see the reason to do either. In a real wide open system, the appropriate attributes aid the skills they affect, whatever they may be. Basic Pottery uses Wisdom and Coordination, Basic Dance and most of the subskills use Coordination and Health, Storytelling, a subskill of Basic Bard, uses Wisdom and Charisma....hell, Basic Carnal uses Strength, Wisdom and Charisma..
The stats are tools that might help or hinder skills they are specific to. Or so I see it.
http://celtricia.pbworks.com/w/page/14956117/Skill%20Master%20spreadsheet
Surprised noone's mentioned GURPS yet...so I do! :)
Combat is fairly dangerous in that system unless a bunch of cinematic optional rules are used and there's a bunch of stuff that can be used to solve problems/overcome obstacles w/o fighting - social skills, stealth skills, spells of all sorts, superpowers of all sorts - and while the combat rules are very good, it's not really a necessity for a GURPS campaign to have lots of fighting (and the XP rules don't rely on combat).
Quote from: LordVreeg;665857I don't see the reason to do either. In a real wide open system, the appropriate attributes aid the skills they affect, whatever they may be. Basic Pottery uses Wisdom and Coordination, Basic Dance and most of the subskills use Coordination and Health, Storytelling, a subskill of Basic Bard, uses Wisdom and Charisma....hell, Basic Carnal uses Strength, Wisdom and Charisma..
The stats are tools that might help or hinder skills they are specific to. Or so I see it.
http://celtricia.pbworks.com/w/page/14956117/Skill%20Master%20spreadsheet
Judging from your response, either I seem to be explaining this poorly, or you misunderstood, but it's getting off topic so i'm not going to bother trying.
Long story short, i agree with everything you just said, and that's basically how it works in my system.
Quote from: The Ent;665865Surprised noone's mentioned GURPS yet...so I do! :)
Combat is fairly dangerous in that system unless a bunch of cinematic optional rules are used and there's a bunch of stuff that can be used to solve problems/overcome obstacles w/o fighting - social skills, stealth skills, spells of all sorts, superpowers of all sorts - and while the combat rules are very good, it's not really a necessity for a GURPS campaign to have lots of fighting (and the XP rules don't rely on combat).
Hm, I was thinking I should maybe get hold of GURPS. I'm a bit worried it might be too crunchy though.
Quote from: S'mon;665988Hm, I was thinking I should maybe get hold of GURPS. I'm a bit worried it might be too crunchy though.
It's good to learn and see, I find it too bland for my tastes. It does everything...but nothing really well.
Well today I went to Orcs' Nest and paid a bunch for (1) A Song of Ice and Fire RPG and (2) Basic Roleplaying, the fat core book. So I have a lot to read through! Thanks everyone for your advice, very helpful!
Quote from: S'mon;665988Hm, I was thinking I should maybe get hold of GURPS. I'm a bit worried it might be too crunchy though.
It's quite crunchy but mainly during chargen, unless you decide to use every goddamn combat rule possible (wich I guess you wouldn't ;)) in wich case, well, it might approach WotC era D&D (but not
quite, I'd say). Generally though it's quite easy in play.
I'm among the few (?) who prefer GURPS 4e to earlier editions, for being more streamlined etc., but even I see that it looks really horribly daunting. Seriously, that's one scary-looking game! (not in the Flame Princess way, in the "oh god the power rules look impossible to comprehend and oh god 1000 skills oh god oh god :eek:") But it's not really that horrible in play, nor in chargen once one gets it. :)
The system itself is pretty simple and intuitive in play I'd say.
That said oh yes chargen can be really really crunchy.
Quote from: LordVreegIt's good to learn and see, I find it too bland for my tastes. It does everything...but nothing really well.
The GM has to do quite a bit of work really before starting a GURPS campaign - setting a tone and atmosphere for the campaign is one of said pieces of work (others being what abilities to allow, etc etc etc, tech, etc etc etc...y'know the drill).
I looked for GURPS at the shop yesterday, but apparently you need 2 fat rule books and a genre book to play, and they only had one of the rulebooks in stock (the GM one) so I got BRP and ASoIAF instead. BRP looks pretty much ideal as a non-combat-centric generic system, though the book is awfully fat as it covers so many genres.
Quote from: S'mon;666392I looked for GURPS at the shop yesterday, but apparently you need 2 fat rule books and a genre book to play, and they only had one of the rulebooks in stock (the GM one) so I got BRP and ASoIAF instead. BRP looks pretty much ideal as a non-combat-centric generic system, though the book is awfully fat as it covers so many genres.
The two you bought are great choices with years of gaming in them. You are no longer planning on a campaign specific adaption of Basic D&D?
I'm diving back in to d100 myself for the first time since college. Ironically, the whole reason was that I wanted a low-magic, sword & sorcery fantasy game with rather more emphasis on combat, which is why I snagged the BGB, Magic World, and RQ6.
The thing I find about BRP is that although its skill system is simple and intuitive, it doesn't have the level of detail that combat does. The current iteration of BRP isn't quite as binary pass/fail as it used to be, but there's not much meat in there for giving the GM tools to interpret the results of skill rolls.
In a game that was intended to be hardcore non-combat centric, I'd be inclined to use something like Fate.
Quote from: Kuroth;666394The two you bought are great choices with years of gaming in them. You are no longer planning on a campaign specific adaption of Basic D&D?
I have a yellow folder with the stuff for that Moldvay game sitting on my chest of drawers, I may well run it initially as a one-shot in early August and see how it goes. I'll probably use bits of the A Song of Ice and Fire RPG with it - I want to use Backgrounds that give major stat bonuses on top of the traditional 3d6-in-order, and start PCs off in similar positions to the Game of Thrones main characters. Eg "Guard Commander +3 STR +3 CHA", "Royal Courtier +3 INT +3 CHA" etc.
I'm pretty burnt out just now after running 2 4e campaigns comcurrently since January, and I'm about to 'rest' one of them, so this all just 'mulling prep' of things to think over for the next few months of only GMing one fortnightly campaign, instead of two. :)
Quote from: S'mon;666501I have a yellow folder with the stuff for that Moldvay game sitting on my chest of drawers, I may well run it initially as a one-shot in early August and see how it goes. I'll probably use bits of the A Song of Ice and Fire RPG with it - I want to use Backgrounds that give major stat bonuses on top of the traditional 3d6-in-order, and start PCs off in similar positions to the Game of Thrones main characters. Eg "Guard Commander +3 STR +3 CHA", "Royal Courtier +3 INT +3 CHA" etc.
I'm pretty burnt out just now after running 2 4e campaigns comcurrently since January, and I'm about to 'rest' one of them, so this all just 'mulling prep' of things to think over for the next few months of only GMing one fortnightly campaign, instead of two. :)
This is a pretty cool idea, thanks S'mon. Obvious one but I didn't come up with it :D.
Quote from: S'mon;665139True! Yesterday I had the inspiration to develop it as a one-shot or short campaign using Moldvay Basic D&D with very low-level demographics (nearly everyone level 1-3) - the extreme simplicity makes it easy to use for a variety of stuff, plus lethality of play at 1st level ought to work well. Attribute checks using roll under stat on d20 can be the main mechanic. Using the AD&D derived 'unconscious at 0, dead at -10' allows for a bit more longevity without increasing combat power or requiring Raise Dead be available.
For attributes I was thinking 3d6 in order, swap any two, then choose a listed Background such as Courtier, Guard Officer, Scout etc that gives +3 to a pair of stats, max 18. That way PCs should have a couple decent stats and a defined role, while most will still be fragile enough to want to avoid combat.
The game itself will use Conley's 'Southland' from Points of Light, with the PCs escorting Princess Dahaeris of the Grand Kingdom through the Westwall mountains to her forthcoming marriage at Castle Westguard, but rather than a plotted session I'm planning to throw in a bunch of NPCs, rumours, random encounters etc and see what happens.
Quote from: S'mon;666501I have a yellow folder with the stuff for that Moldvay game sitting on my chest of drawers, I may well run it initially as a one-shot in early August and see how it goes. I'll probably use bits of the A Song of Ice and Fire RPG with it - I want to use Backgrounds that give major stat bonuses on top of the traditional 3d6-in-order, and start PCs off in similar positions to the Game of Thrones main characters. Eg "Guard Commander +3 STR +3 CHA", "Royal Courtier +3 INT +3 CHA" etc.
I'm pretty burnt out just now after running 2 4e campaigns comcurrently since January, and I'm about to 'rest' one of them, so this all just 'mulling prep' of things to think over for the next few months of only GMing one fortnightly campaign, instead of two. :)
It is good to read that you haven't tossed your side project.
For hit points you may want to just have them rolled like ability score 3d6 initially. Another way to look at it, since it is a first to third level campaign, the characters could use their constitution score as hit points at first level, with constitution multiplied by two for second level and constitution multiplied by three for third.
Two other things that could be condensed for the level range are spells and attack target numbers. For spells, just have the spell list available for the stated level. So, third level spells are available at third level. One could condense the entire spell list down if one wants, but it probably wouldn't fit the setting you describe. For attacks, simply add the character's level to their standard chance to hit and be sure to bring high modifier magic weapons into the game at these levels. So, a 3rd level fighter may well have a Vorbel blade or Holy Avenger. Just some thoughts along the lines you mentioned that condenses elements of higher levels into the first to third level range.
For another way to look at it, just have everyone play the level that you see that campaign, perhaps ninth. So, level describes the level of the campaign and the players draw up appropriate level characters. No other levels or experience need be used. High level at the outset would bring a lot of non-combat spells and abilities into play without further modification.
So, these are some thoughts or reminders to consider when you take up the project again.
Rock on with the d100 and Fire and Ice. Basic Role-playing has pretty obvious sources of inspiration all over role-play games. Fire and Ice can use content based upon True20 easily.
Well, that is sort of my issue.
Pcs thrive on on growth, it's one of the secrets of RPGs....will this system you are proposing allow a character to get better at persuasion by persuading, or better at detecting lies by hearing liars?
Quote from: LordVreeg;666598Well, that is sort of my issue.
Pcs thrive on on growth, it's one of the secrets of RPGs....will this system you are proposing allow a character to get better at persuasion by persuading, or better at detecting lies by hearing liars?
I think S'mon is focusing on his cool new books, but I'll add some other things along these lines. Persuasion would be a Charisma check and Detecting Lies would be a Wisdom check. One may add level as a modifier, using the difference as the total modifier. This would work particularly well in a set first to third level range campaign.
I didn't expand upon using save throws in non-combat, since my comment was long enough, but condensing save throws into the level range would also bring further aspects of leveling into the condensed range campaign. Renaming the save throws to more general terms would help for the campaign focus, and it is easy to add new save throws.
Since applying level as a description of campaign world rather than character as a campaign ruled option in AD&D or similar wasn't part of S'mon campaign concept, I don't thing I will expand upon it here with these elements.
These are all just mechanical nuances, though. I've played plenty of straight-up Gygax AD&D with encompassing non-combat adventures. Lots of investigation type campaigns and so on.... So, while I have mentioned ideas in this thread, I don't think such modifications are needed, though I have done many of these on different occasion to bring uniqueness to a campaign. I thought that I should state that clearly.
Quote from: Kuroth;666606I think S'mon is focusing on his cool new books, but I'll add some other things along these lines. Persuasion would be a Charisma check and Detecting Lies would be a Wisdom check. One may add level as a modifier, using the difference as the total modifier. This would work particularly well in a set first to third level range campaign.
I didn't expand upon using save throws in non-combat, since my comment was long enough, but condensing save throws into the level range would also bring further aspects of leveling into the condensed range campaign. Renaming the save throws to more general terms would help for the campaign focus, and it is easy to add new save throws.
Since applying level as a description of campaign world rather than character as a campaign ruled option in AD&D or similar wasn't part of S'mon campaign concept, I don't thing I will expand upon it here with these elements.
These are all just mechanical nuances, though. I've played plenty of straight-up Gygax AD&D with encompassing non-combat adventures. Lots of investigation type campaigns and so on.... So, while I have mentioned ideas in this thread, I don't think such modifications are needed, though I have done many of these on different occasion to bring uniqueness to a campaign. I thought that I should state that clearly.
agreed, agreed...
and every game is different. But I bring it up as a point of, 'focus'. When combat is a focus, PCs gain experience for slaying or defeating them.
The games I like, they gain experience for pursuading, or detecting, or portraying, etc, and if that is the focus, I know from experience the PCs will be for invested if they gain from succesfully using these abilities.
Quote from: LordVreeg;666613agreed, agreed...
and every game is different. But I bring it up as a point of, 'focus'. When combat is a focus, PCs gain experience for slaying or defeating them.
The games I like, they gain experience for pursuading, or detecting, or portraying, etc, and if that is the focus, I know from experience the PCs will be for invested if they gain from succesfully using these abilities.
No doubt about it. Players love feeling like their character is growing from in game activities whatever they may be. You do make a good point about switching the focus away from condensing or limiting level range to focusing instead on character leveling. Way back in the day, I began providing experience in AD&D for achievement in a campaign, whatever those achievements may have been. I explained it back in the day to the more the war-game side of the table as defeating/slaying problems.
Quote from: Kuroth;666619No doubt about it. Players love feeling like their character is growing from in game activities whatever they may be. You do make a good point about switching the focus away from condensing or limiting level range to focusing instead on character leveling. Way back in the day, I began providing experience in AD&D for achievement in a campaign, whatever those achievements may have been. I explained it back in the day to the more the war-game side of the table as defeating/slaying problems.
that makes sense.
i morphed from AD&D as well. I went skill based, but created a system where the pcs and NPCs keep experience in each skill. and instead of a balnket system, more advanced skills are sub skills of parent skills, sneak is the parent for backstab, backstab the prerequisite for Assassinate...
So the starnge thing is the characters become what they play. I have had so many characters change course based on what they start needing to do.
http://celtricia.pbworks.com/w/page/31274097/What%20Type%20of%20Game%20is%20GuildSchool%20Made%20For
Quote from: LordVreeg;666620that makes sense.
i morphed from AD&D as well. I went skill based, but created a system where the pcs and NPCs keep experience in each skill. and instead of a balnket system, more advanced skills are sub skills of parent skills, sneak is the parent for backstab, backstab the prerequisite for Assassinate...
So the starnge thing is the characters become what they play. I have had so many characters change course based on what they start needing to do.
http://celtricia.pbworks.com/w/page/31274097/What%20Type%20of%20Game%20is%20GuildSchool%20Made%20For
These are elements that I'm enjoying in my present Space Master campaign. If all else failed back in the day to help everyone enjoy gaining experience from a broad range of activities, I would draw the more rule focused player to the Assassin Spy Table and show how well it conforms to the Experience Point Value Table. Good old rules lawyering method of introducing elements. ha
Quote from: Kuroth;666587It is good to read that you haven’t tossed your side project.
For hit points you may want to just have them rolled like ability score 3d6 initially. Another way to look at it, since it is a first to third level campaign, the characters could use their constitution score as hit points at first level, with constitution multiplied by two for second level and constitution multiplied by three for third.
To have PCs want to avoid combat and to keep it quick & deadly, I'm using regular 1st level hit points, except you get at least half max at 1st level (d8 > min 4 hp from die, adjusted by CON mod). Most NPCs will be 'Normal Men' with 1 to 4 hp depending on role, eg a small child or old woman would have 1 hp, a mostly sedentary princess gets 2 hp, levy soldiery might have 3 hp, while the royal guardsmen have 4 hp.
But I'm using AD&D 'unconscious at 0, die at -10'; with Basic D&D damage ranges you almost never get an instant kill (even STR 18 guy with 2-handed sword maxes at 13 damage; though if he had a +1 sword he could potentially do 14 dmg and cut a 4 hp enemy soldier in half with one blow).
0 to -2 hp unconscious but stable, below -2 hp it requires a first aid WIS check or healing magic to stabilise, so characters at -8 or -9 hp will still often die.
I'm quite excited by Moldvay Basic's potential to run a game where 1st level enemies like 1 hd Orcs are scary threats, and a 3rd level Swordmaster Fighter is a holy terror. I will be house-ruling a bit on magic, eg:
1) Elves use the Cleric spell list to make them more Tolkienesque, I think I'll let them turn undead likewise - "Elves do not fear the ghosts of Men".
2) Magic-Users who start play with 'Read Magic' as their spell can begin with 1st level spell scrolls, at 50gp/scroll.
Edit: I'll award XP for non-combat stuff of course, and advancement geared to a typical Moldvay rate of 3-5 sessions/level, so most PCs would get to 2nd or 3rd level over a 6-12 session campaign.
Quote from: LordVreeg;666598Well, that is sort of my issue.
Pcs thrive on on growth, it's one of the secrets of RPGs....
I guess that's why no one ever played
Traveller.:D
IME pre-3e D&D players are fine with d20 attribute checks that don't change with level. Level becomes a measure of social status, plus whatever hit points represent - divine favour or skill at not dying.
I'm running my Moldvay Basic/Game of Thrones game on 4th August! :D
http://www.meetup.com/London-DnD/messages/boards/thread/35841432/#104476632
Quote from: S'mon;666684To have PCs want to avoid combat and to keep it quick & deadly, I'm using regular 1st level hit points, except you get at least half max at 1st level (d8 > min 4 hp from die, adjusted by CON mod). Most NPCs will be 'Normal Men' with 1 to 4 hp depending on role, eg a small child or old woman would have 1 hp, a mostly sedentary princess gets 2 hp, levy soldiery might have 3 hp, while the royal guardsmen have 4 hp.
But I'm using AD&D 'unconscious at 0, die at -10'; with Basic D&D damage ranges you almost never get an instant kill (even STR 18 guy with 2-handed sword maxes at 13 damage; though if he had a +1 sword he could potentially do 14 dmg and cut a 4 hp enemy soldier in half with one blow).
0 to -2 hp unconscious but stable, below -2 hp it requires a first aid WIS check or healing magic to stabilise, so characters at -8 or -9 hp will still often die.
I'm quite excited by Moldvay Basic's potential to run a game where 1st level enemies like 1 hd Orcs are scary threats, and a 3rd level Swordmaster Fighter is a holy terror. I will be house-ruling a bit on magic, eg:
1) Elves use the Cleric spell list to make them more Tolkienesque, I think I'll let them turn undead likewise - "Elves do not fear the ghosts of Men".
2) Magic-Users who start play with 'Read Magic' as their spell can begin with 1st level spell scrolls, at 50gp/scroll.
Edit: I'll award XP for non-combat stuff of course, and advancement geared to a typical Moldvay rate of 3-5 sessions/level, so most PCs would get to 2nd or 3rd level over a 6-12 session campaign.
Defining stages of negative hit points seems like a good ruling to support the danger of combat, while trying to provide some survivability at 1st level too, with the recoverable knock-out rule. These type of modifications are less likely to shock players too, since they are extensions of the rules that are in place, rather than whole areas of additional rulings. I have learned my lesson on doing that! ha
I figured you would have the experience aspect all set. I sometimes slack when projecting what level a group of characters may be at some future point in a campaign. I suppose I greet them as they are, with the adjustment for level a part of the impromptu element of reffing.
Something I have done in very minimalist AD&D 1 was encourage players to attempt stunts and various flourish maneuvers, with ability checks to succeed. If the character succeeded in their flourish, they would gain a bonus to hit, damage, defense, move or other action. It helps give low level characters modifiers from options dreamed up by the players. If the character didn’t manage the flourish by failing the check, the attack maneuver would proceed as normal, without a negative or positive modifier for the final action, unless there was very clear reason to apply one. So, it encourages attempts, while not generally penalizing failed attempts. So, it supported player creativity, without ignoring character luck, and it didn’t penalize characters for lack of player creativity.
Something on occasion I bring into these streamlined games are requests for players to select two contacts that the character knows in the setting world at character creation, either by a random list or purely their imagination. I found it supported the low combat or dangerous combat side of the game, since it brought a focus upon who the character knew as much as the other statistics, which is important in strategic campaigns.
In those streamlined campaigns, I also often did not include the thief class, allowing all characters to attempt thief abilities using the standard (Full), difficult (2/3), challenge (1/3) ability checks in various combinations. Alternatively, I have requested players select a number of thief abilities based upon their character’s dexterity ability at character creation. Modifying this for Moldvay’s edit, characters would select 1 thievies’ ability at dexterity 7, gaining the full list at 13.
Very cool to see you have the game lined up! I was planning for my Space Master game while writing about these D&D approaches here. Good stuff.
Quote from: S'mon;666685I guess that's why no one ever played Traveller.:D
IME pre-3e D&D players are fine with d20 attribute checks that don't change with level. Level becomes a measure of social status, plus whatever hit points represent - divine favour or skill at not dying.
well, actually, back in the day, that was actually my theory why it never totally took off. Traveller is a great game, and I ran it back in the 80s for a while, but all my pcs liked it only in short doses, due to the lack of character growth.
And I agree, since my gaming started back in the 70's, about the differences in edition and how PCs dealt with the game. But having written reams about what each edition was written and designed to do, I actually think this may be wrong.
The earliest games were written based around dungeon exploration; and then adventuring as more of a whole (with outdoors, etc), and then AD&D added more campaign level fiddly bits. This is a very simplified version, but these are the types of games these rules were written for. Pre 3e players were actually fine when the skills they were using for the type of game were playing went up by level; not just Hit Points. Gaining spells and better saves and thieving skills, etc were also gained by levels, and later sub-class stuff and then gaining men at arms, building a level and class specific demesne.
I have gone way too far into this, you understand...Vreeg's First Rule, and Corollaries. (http://celtricia.pbworks.com/w/page/60581028/Vreegs%20Rules%20of%20Setting%20and%20Game%20Design)
"Vreeg's first Rule of Setting Design,
"Make sure the ruleset you are using matches the setting and game you want to play, because the setting and game WILL eventually match the system."
Corrollary to Vreeg's First Rule.
"The amount of rules given to a certain dimension of an RPG partially dictate what kind of game the rules will create. If 80% of the rulebook is written about thieves and the underworld, the game that those rules are meant for is thieving and skullduggery. If 80% of the mechanics are based on combat, the game will revolve around combat.
Multiply this by 10 if the reward system is based in the same subject area as the proponderance of rules."
2nd Corrollary.
"Character growth is the greatest reinforcer. The syntheses of pride in achievement with improvement in the character provides over 50% of the reinforcement in playing the game. Rules that involve these factors are the most powerful in the game."
3rd Corrollary
"The rules are the physics engine of the setting, Crunch models Fluff. As rules are the interface between the setting and the player's actions, Houseruling is a constant process of creating a rule for a setting-specific event to formalize it. This is a process to be welcomed and enjoyed, as it only comes from the expansion of the players into the setting. Talk to them about it and formalize it with them if you have any doubts." I think what you are planning is good, and I agree with the feel based on what you ay with the low level focus. What are the highest level NPCs you plan on using?
Quote from: Kuroth;666695Something on occasion I bring into these streamlined games are requests for players to select two contacts that the character knows in the setting world at character creation, either by a random list or purely their imagination. I found it supported the low combat or dangerous combat side of the game, since it brought a focus upon who the character knew as much as the other statistics, which is important in strategic campaigns.
That's a good idea thanks, I may have each player create a senior NPC contact as part of character creation, although those would be left offstage. Hm, I think maybe the best think would be to let players start with Normal Man NPC retainers as permitted by their CHA, I have a pack of NPC cards from Paizo and players could select cards to represent their retainers, and name them on the back. I think that would work well to quickly generate a mini court of characters.
Quote from: LordVreeg;666715I think what you are planning is good, and I agree with the feel based on what you ay with the low level focus. What are the highest level NPCs you plan on using?
Most people level 0, exceptional NPCs 1st-3rd level, rare 'Heroes' 4th-7th level, a few legendary Super Heroes were 8th+ level. Basically B2 Keep on the Borderlands demographics.
Initially in session 1 the highest level NPCs will be 3rd level, eg the Lord of Westguard is an F3 Master Swordsmen. If it goes long-term I'm thinking the devil-worshipping BBEG Baron Victor Beldon would be 6th level and probably the highest level NPC in the campaign area. No 8th+.
While Pendragon is set up as a knight-oriented game (at least, in its later editions), I mention it because a knight actually does a lot of things in the game not directly related to combat; and because it would be (I think) quite easy to adapt to more general and non-combat-centric RPG. Particularly a socially-focused "quasi-medieval" game along the lines of the Game of Thrones setting.
My development on the Basic D&D game is going well, having great fun working off Rob Conley's baseline :D - http://asongofswords.blogspot.co.uk/
Got lots of good ideas from this forum (not just this thread) - see eg the Play Tips post. If the one-shot is not disastrous I think this definitely has potential for a shortish campaign, say 6 sessions over 12 weeks/3 months.