Campaign Building Blocks: General Musings

[Ragnarok]

Currently, I am kicking around ideas for a dark, low fantasy setting that I will hopefully have the opportunity to GM in the vaguely distant future. I am trying to think of the best way to create my game world, and my idea at present is to sort of break things down into modular units to develop. Things like magic, nations, and races would be over-arching, and there would be a few broad plot threads weaving in and out, but specific towns or area-specific encounters would be mostly self contained within a geographic area. The actions of the PCs determine the outcome of the events happening in the "cell," and that in turn could cascade into broader, more impacting events.

For example, there is a small frontier town on the outskirts of Generic Empire's borders. There is a tribe of Token Barbarians vying for power with the outpost. The PCs are sort of dropped in without forcing them to take either side, but character backgrounds will play some part in deciding this. Depending on their actions, either the outpost of Generic Empire or the Token Barbarians will come out on top. Either result will cascade into either Imperial momentum or a renewed Barbarian counteroffensive, driving the tone and consequences of the next adventures.

For each 'cell," there would be a predetermined list of "miniadventures," each with some sort of power consequence. So, if the PCs rescue a lost detachment of legionnaires then that will tip the balance in the favor of the Empire in a coming armed conflict. Or maybe the PCs help the Barbarians raid Imperial resource caravans, weakening the local fort for a future assault. There would also be some other predetermined factors in each cell, such as terrain, typical weather, animal types, etc. There would also be "hidden areas," places that sharp and perceptive PCs will pick up on and discover, that contain more powerful items or something of the sort that increases THEIR personal power and influence.

So, I guess this format is more like a video game than anything else. Naturally, I am hesitant to come up with too many rigid outcomes, because I wouldn't want to be too limiting or railroading at all. Of course, it's difficult to anticipate PCs' actions.

Some of this may seem common sense, but the last game I ran was very geographically unrestricted and very freeform. Mostly, I'm just wanting to provide plenty of rich, dependable detail without limiting the PCs too much. Winging it is fine to a certain point, but I'm afraid that improvising too much leeches game quality.

So, for those more experienced GMs out there, what has been your experience with these formats? Is what I'm describing too much work given the unpredictable nature of PCs, or is it good to have a bunch of contingency options written out and planned beforehand? And would you, as a hypothetical potential player, be interested in a game like this?

Thanks in advance.

[AlHazred]

Before every session, write down your thoughts on a single topic related to the game world, common knowledge from the player characters' perspectives. Cheese a different one every time, perhaps based on the biggest real world news topic you heard that day: political entities, religious organizations and movements, hatwear of the last century, whatever strikes your fancy. Try not to go over a single side of a sheet of paper on any one thing. Over the course of the campaign, you'll see your ideas develop and flourish as the PCs incorporate them into gameplay without you having to do all the work. Plus, you don't have to do all the work at once.

Choose a different shtick for every action scene. Every combat doesn't have to be a masterpiece of the unexpected, but try to incorporate at least one well-described "impossible" situation in each part of the adventure (leg of the quest, stage of the mission, etc.) A battle on a crazily-tilting floor, breaking into a castle floating in the air, enemies that "break" when struck into dozens of tinier versions of themselves, and so on. At the beginning of the week, think about one particular bit (if you get more, write them down for later; ask on the boards for them if you can't come up with one) and consider its ramifications. Don't worry about the points for now, just come up with something visually interesting and cool to describe, that you think your players will like and remember. By the end of the campaign it won't have these kinds of moments:

"It's Melchior."
"Who?"
"The guy we fought for the thing. With the stuff. The thing!"
"Was that back on Christmas?"
Instead it'll be more like this:

"It's Melchior."
"Who?"
"The guy with the fireballs that had screaming skulls inside them."
"Right! Did we ever figure out if those actually were the Damned of Hell that he was pulling out and throwing at us? I've still potentially got some murderer charring my jacket and I don't want to clean it off and be disrespectful of the dead."

[Nolgroth]

I hope that anything I have to say will help.

For me, designing the adventure process is less about long-term planning and more about the stories I want to tell. The actions of the players dictate, in no small way, how that story ends up getting told. The most difficult, single hurdle I have to face on a week to week basis is creating the NPC stats.

Your cell idea is similar to my episode concept. Containing a story in itself and yet contributing to the overarching campaign in some meaningful way. Honestly, it is a time honored tradition what with chapters in books, books in series and all of that. The "hidden adventures" within a cell sounds like a potentially very fun idea. As a GM, I have considered that method. In the end, I have set up "landmarks" that, if the characters visit them or seek them out, then the adventure leans around those particular sites or events.

Free-form versus structured. There is a balance to be found in there. Each group's balance is different. Our current group in Colonial HERO (soon to be renamed) and my previous group (Gemini Ascendant) have two very different balances, styles, and tones. Part of that is the different genre, but part of that is the unique blend of personalities that make up a gaming group. Point is, no matter how much you build beforehand, be prepared to wing it at all times. For me, having a "cast" of NPC write-ups (generic and individual) and some vague story ideas is all I really need. I present the premise and watch how the players take it. I then adapt the adventure to best suit the way the group is going. I am not a fan of plot/GM timetables. For me, it is a storytelling experience. The timetable is exactly what I need it to be. There are exceptions to this of course. Mainly when the players have been made aware of a limited window of time in which to do something. If they wander off then the window closes and there are usually some consequences.

As a potential player, I see nothing wrong with the overall concept. I would probably need to know more about the setting, power levels, and all that. It sounds intriguing and potentially quite fun. Dealing with political fallout is always a nice way to kick off a campaign.

[Manic Typist]

I've been toying with the idea of creating a dossier template for NPCs, that I can use to help me evaluate how they will respond to what is going on.

How intelligent is this individual? Will he/she do research on the PCs before attacking them? Extensive planning?

Provide a few hypothetical examples perhaps, of how they would respond to certain things (fly into a blind rage, retreat and regroup, etc).

Then when the PCs do something, I could quickly glance at the outline of the NPC's personality and decide from there rather than have to pause and say "Huh. How would this guy respond to a personal challenge?"

[Savinien]

It is really up to you, My Man. Everybody has the option of doing it differently, but I guess that isn't much help in this instance.

I've done it both ways and in my games, I feel they go a bit better when I have a stronger grasp of the plot of the story. There isn't as much 'errant roaming' of the pcs as the players float around trying to figure out what to do next. Like Nol says, it has a lot to do with the group your running. Some players like being able to drive the story more than others. You as the GM need to figure out what that group dynamic is and play to it.

In that vein, it might help to know what sort of group you'll be running. I hope I get to play in the game!

[Ragnarok]

Thanks for the feedback.

I think the best thing for me would probably be to develop the cells, but leave it open-ended enough to where the PCs can pursue their goals however they wish, there is just a limited way in which the various NPCs will react to them. That way I won't have to either railroad or try to have a boatload of contingency plans that may or may not be valid when the time comes.
'
My next task will be to decide what the over-arching things are. Then, I can move onto where and how I want the campaign to start, and start building the introductory cell. I'll do that over the next few weeks and reveal it as a prototype for public scrutiny.

In the meantime, for kicks and giggles, what are some unique ways to kick off a game? I'd like to stay away from the standard tavern start or a prefabricated adventuring group, unless the character histories dictate such a group.

Much work to do....

P.S. - Just to give everyone an idea of the tone; it will be dark, low fantasy with a fair amount of grim and gritty moments with sprinklings of magic. The idea is to make magic a reasonably uncommon, exquisite spice rather than the bread and butter. Very limited non-human options, if at all. CP totals will be somewhat low; probably around a little over 100 or so. Veteran soldiers will be able to give the PCs a run for their money, and the Royal Guard will probably be able to trounce them handily in a fair fight (what a silly concept, fair fights...). Teamwork, coordination, and communication should be the keys to achieve things that the PCs could normally not do otherwise.

Strong possibility of post-apocalyptic plague scenario.

[Rapier]

I started with a rough idea about the United States. I've really liked Mel Odom's breakdown of the US in FREELancers. I borrowed the concept of the US breaking up into member states similar to how the EU is organised. I then broke out the country in some member states and brainstormed an idea about how what I wanted would come to happen.

Once I started describing (in broad strokes) how people perceived the member states, I was off and running with ideas. I began to think about what kind of fantastic creatures I could populate the world with, and figured a way to work that into the settings.

Then I realised that now that I've got this foundation a lot of the things (like magic) start to fall into place. I didn't really have to try and decide how magic was going to work in the setting as I just had to realise that I had already worked it out in my head. It's hard to describe but filling in some of the foundation pieces led me to a cohesive world theory that included things like magic.

I've also found that sometimes it helps to take a break and forget about it for a while. Come back and read through everything. Sometimes it sparks new ideas or changes in how things work.

[lensman]

Currently, I am kicking around ideas for a dark, low fantasy setting that I will hopefully have the opportunity to GM in the vaguely distant future. I am trying to think of the best way to create my game world, and my idea at present is to sort of break things down into modular units to develop. Things like magic, nations, and races would be over-arching, and there would be a few broad plot threads weaving in and out, but specific towns or area-specific encounters would be mostly self contained within a geographic area. The actions of the PCs determine the outcome of the events happening in the "cell," and that in turn could cascade into broader, more impacting events.

For example, there is a small frontier town on the outskirts of Generic Empire's borders. There is a tribe of Token Barbarians vying for power with the outpost. The PCs are sort of dropped in without forcing them to take either side, but character backgrounds will play some part in deciding this. Depending on their actions, either the outpost of Generic Empire or the Token Barbarians will come out on top. Either result will cascade into either Imperial momentum or a renewed Barbarian counteroffensive, driving the tone and consequences of the next adventures.

For each 'cell," there would be a predetermined list of "miniadventures," each with some sort of power consequence. So, if the PCs rescue a lost detachment of legionnaires then that will tip the balance in the favor of the Empire in a coming armed conflict. Or maybe the PCs help the Barbarians raid Imperial resource caravans, weakening the local fort for a future assault. There would also be some other predetermined factors in each cell, such as terrain, typical weather, animal types, etc. There would also be "hidden areas," places that sharp and perceptive PCs will pick up on and discover, that contain more powerful items or something of the sort that increases THEIR personal power and influence.

So, I guess this format is more like a video game than anything else. Naturally, I am hesitant to come up with too many rigid outcomes, because I wouldn't want to be too limiting or railroading at all. Of course, it's difficult to anticipate PCs' actions.

Some of this may seem common sense, but the last game I ran was very geographically unrestricted and very freeform. Mostly, I'm just wanting to provide plenty of rich, dependable detail without limiting the PCs too much. Winging it is fine to a certain point, but I'm afraid that improvising too much leeches game quality.

So, for those more experienced GMs out there, what has been your experience with these formats? Is what I'm describing too much work given the unpredictable nature of PCs, or is it good to have a bunch of contingency options written out and planned beforehand? And would you, as a hypothetical potential player, be interested in a game like this?

Thanks in advance.

This method is entirely workable and reasobnable. GM's are responsible for many thing, having a framework or cells in order to organize strata of political, economic and personal drives is necessary. The skill involved is blending these cells with story arcs and following the literary practice of conflict, rising action, climax.

Short answer, yes.
Long answer, it is worth the work to build a bunch of cells or contingency options because you never known what will appeal or draw player attention. It helps to flesh out ideas for the campaign or certain areas of the campaign, that themselves are building blocks for the entire campaign.

And speaking for myself, you have gold in the idea of a dark, low fantasy game. If you are looking for a player let me know, I would join in a heartbeat.

[AmadanNaBriona]

Pretty similar to how I usually set up for a campaign, and I find it works pretty well.
It's a good compromise between free form and preplotted, and the cell structure lets you play around with the cells flowchart style, which can be an especially large aid when your players do something unexpected and throw you for a loop.

[Ragnarok]

Alright, so I'm currently working on cultures, the magic system, and the Plague (which is sort of a catastrophic apocalyptic event that happened just before campaign start).

My problem right now is trying to figure out how to do playable "races." My current idea is to have a short list of human cultures available to play, each with a specific and unique culture. I'm torn whether or not to incorporate "racial" package deals. For example, Sea Barbarians would have small bonuses to CON, STR, or PD, while citizens of the more civilized kingdom in the area would have small bonuses to INT or specific skills, or something of the like. On one hand, it does lend a certain uniqueness and the idea of a "race." On the other hand, I don't want to limit the players too much in character creation.

So, what would you favor more? Cultural package deals or a more freeform character creation option?

[lensman]

Cultural packages are a real strength to a campaign.

My problem with Racial packages, they seem only to make a difference at the margins. Is it worth writing up a Racial package deal that gives
+2 STR, -1 DEX, +2 CON, -2 INT.

Player characters are generally far beyond the mean so th e work is just to give a sense for the general populous. I would argue that a long list of increased and decreased stats, with changes to Stat max and min by a few points here and there, a difference in Skill caps or when stat max kicks in, is just not worth the keystrokes.
Distinctive Looks for Races to offset a Cultural packs deal.

Now Cultural packages are a great indicator of difference.

Ideas I have heard of, the creation of a skill that is only available to those in the culture.
So for a culture that is steeped in Romance, create a custom skill much like in Chivalry and Sorcery. Perhaps Analyze, Social skills
For a culture rife with politics, an Analyze or a Resistence to Persuation or Conversation.
For those cultures based on warfare, Damage Negation when in units or only when Raidng enemy lands

[Ragnarok]

I am somewhat wary of package deals also in that they might have a tendency to discourage original concepts. For example, if I wanted to create a character of the central kingdom who is really athletic, I might be tempted to pick the sea barbarians instead because that's already part of the figured cost, and I could have more flexibility to do whatever I wanted with the extra points elsewhere. It stinks a little of powergaming I suppose, but for some people it's more about cost-effectiveness.

Personally, I like package deals. I think they make character creation simpler for both the player and GM.

I guess what I really need is just feedback with HEROdom's personal preferences so I can guage potential success.

Keep it coming, please!

[Nolgroth]

Package deals are good for creating a cohesive character construction process. I say go with them.

[bigbywolfe]

Instead of regular Package Deals/Templates for "races" you could just make a list averages as guidelines, since the players will probably exceed "average" anyway. So instead of a “Barbarian Package Deal” with +3 STR, +3 CON, -2 INT, et cetera, just state that Barbarians have an “average” STR and CON of 13, but don’t tend to be particularly bright and often lack social skills. If a character wants to play a particularly smart Barbarian he can buy his INT up, but he should probably still be a little stronger than the other cultures averages, unless being weaker is part of his character’s background. People from the Center City of Empire X tend to have many social skills, but often lack physical prowess unless they come from a family of knights. If someone’s concept is to have a character from the city who is particularly athletic he can buy his stats up just like anyone else, but he should also have a good understanding of the Bureaucratic elements of the city, unless he just doesn’t fit in there and that’s why he’s venturing out in the world. You can have generic guidelines like that and the players can still create the character they want to play.

Also, keep in mind that Package Deals aren’t actually “deals”. They don’t save any points. That’s part of why they changed the name to Templates in 6E. There’s no point giving Barbarians -2 INT or City Fops -2 CON, because the player will just buy the characteristic back up to where they want it to be. (Unless those minuses would affect the max amount the character could have in a stat).

[Ragnarok]

Ok, here's what I've come up with:

1) Campaign Standards and Power Level (This is based closely off of Nolgroth's current game. Credit goes to him)

100 CP/25 Disads
CHAR Range: 5-13 (BODY starts at 10 to avoid random fatalities. The cost of PRE is 2 points per 1 PRE)
Speed: 2-3
CV: 2-5
DC: 2-9
Def/rDef: 4-8/2-5
Active Points: 10-45
Skill Points: 10-50
Skill Roll: 8-/13-

- Luck Chit system, as utilized by Manic Typist in our last DC game, to help survivability.

2) Magic System (Inspired by KillerShrike's Vancian system)

-"Sorcery" pools with a predefined amount of active points per pool "level"
- Pool brackets must be purchased in progressive order
- Number of known spells is determined by [(PRE/5) +4]
- Progressively decreasing activation roll that burns END/STUN/BODY in that order by predetermined values (so if the caster had 1 STUN left, and cast a spell, the spell would burn through the rest of his STUN, and then BODY)
- New spells require a successful INT roll to learn

3) Character Creation

- Four available playable cultures (all Human)

1) Kingdom of Aiur (name's a bit of a recycle here from my last game, but I love it so)
2) Forest Barbarians (based on Roman Era Germanic tribes)
3) Sea Barbarians (based roughly upon the Old Norse, also a bit of a recycle)
4) Desert Nomads (Trying to avoid the stereotypical Arab flavor here)

- Cultural package deals (Mostly skills or knowledge based, some physicals)

4) The Plague

Symptoms
Day 1. Fever, chills, nausea
Day 2. General pallor, hardening of features
Day 3. Vomiting blood, skin turns a greyish color
Day 4. Eyes become a hollow white, respiratory difficulties
Day 5. Skin retracts, bones harden
Day 6. Death





This is still a work in progress, so a lot of the character creation stuff needs more work. I think I'm pretty happy with the power level. Most of what I need help on is writing out the magic system so it makes sense. Most of what I have now is just conceptual, and I'd like to work it out on paper.

Thoughts? Comments? Suggestions?

[lensman]

- Number of known spells is determined by [(PRE/5) +4]

Should that be INT not PRE?

[Ragnarok]

- Number of known spells is determined by [(PRE/5) +4]

Should that be INT not PRE?

Nope, PRE. PRE in this game would be....your capacity to handle the spells. You could find a scroll with new spells on it, but you must pass a PRE roll to learn it. So, the more PRE you have, the higher capacity you have to handle the spells. Intelligence doesn't really have much to do with casting at all.

[Steve]

Going back to plotting, one thing that can greatly change the feel of a campaign is whether or not you are following the Sorting Algorithm Of Evil (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/SortingAlgorithmOfEvil) in your setting. In other words, villains must appear in strictly ascending order by menace. If you don't do it, it sends a different vibe for the feel of the campaign, and it makes players more cautious (and possibly more willing to talk to villainous NPCs).

[Lezentauw]

Ok, here's what I've come up with:

1) Campaign Standards and Power Level (This is based closely off of Nolgroth's current game. Credit goes to him)

100 CP/25 Disads
CHAR Range: 8-13 (start at 5, must be bought to at least 8. GM freebie +5 BODY so it starts at 10 to avoid random fatalities)
Speed: 2-3
CV: 2-5
DC: 2-9
Def/rDef: 4-8/2-5
Active Points: 10-45
Skill Points: 10-50
Skill Roll: 8-/13-


Something that I have thought of, is there a need to start everyone at 5, and then make them buy up to 8? Why not just have everyone start at 8 from the start, and give them 20 less points to spend?



- Luck Chit system, as utilized by Manic Typist in our last DC game, to help survivability.


I think a Chit/Karma system has some potential, though I have not used one in Hero.



2) Magic System (Inspired by KillerShrike's Vancian system)

-"Sorcery" pools with a predefined amount of active points per pool "level"
- Pool brackets must be purchased in progressive order
- Number of known spells is determined by [(PRE/5) +4]
- Progressively decreasing activation roll that burns END/STUN/BODY in that order by predetermined values (so if the caster had 1 STUN left, and cast a spell, the spell would burn through the rest of his STUN, and then BODY)
- New spells require a successful PRE roll to learn


Wondering why Presence is being used to determine how many spells can be learned, when Int seems like a more natural fit...

Perhaps it could be Int to learn, and Pre to cast?

[bigbywolfe]

I could see using PRE for spell casting if that's what you want. Personally I like EGO for that sort of thing if INT isn't going to be used. It gives EGO a bit more to do in a campaign that may lack a lot of mental powers and since I see EGO as a better representation of willpower or force of will or whatnot I think it's fitting. Just a thought.

[Ragnarok]

I could see using PRE for spell casting if that's what you want. Personally I like EGO for that sort of thing if INT isn't going to be used. It gives EGO a bit more to do in a campaign that may lack a lot of mental powers and since I see EGO as a better representation of willpower or force of will or whatnot I think it's fitting. Just a thought.

I like that idea better than INT. Though, part of my original idea included the visual aspect of spellcasting. A caster in this setting is pretty obvious, and can easily be identified just looking at them. So, the more powerful of a spellcaster you are, the more impressive you look. Hence the PRE.

[Ragnarok]

Going back to plotting, one thing that can greatly change the feel of a campaign is whether or not you are following the Sorting Algorithm Of Evil (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/SortingAlgorithmOfEvil) in your setting. In other words, villains must appear in strictly ascending order by menace. If you don't do it, it sends a different vibe for the feel of the campaign, and it makes players more cautious (and possibly more willing to talk to villainous NPCs).

Yeah, I intend to have powerful things lurking around. I just have to be super careful to make it obvious how powerful it is before the PCs try picking a fight.

[bigbywolfe]

I like that idea better than INT. Though, part of my original idea included the visual aspect of spellcasting. A caster in this setting is pretty obvious, and can easily be identified just looking at them. So, the more powerful of a spellcaster you are, the more impressive you look. Hence the PRE.

That's an interesting take. I like it, but would have to see how it plays out.

[Cancer]

Nope, PRE. PRE in this game would be....your capacity to handle the spells. You could find a scroll with new spells on it, but you must pass a PRE roll to learn it. So, the more PRE you have, the higher capacity you have to handle the spells. Intelligence doesn't really have much to do with casting at all.

So is there any reason at all for anyone to have INT more than 8? It sounds to me like you're hard-wiring INT as being everyone's dump stat.

[Ragnarok]

So is there any reason at all for anyone to have INT more than 8? It sounds to me like you're hard-wiring INT as being everyone's dump stat.

INT is important for your perception roll and several important skills. Therefore, any sort of espionage, inventor, alchemist, or scout type of character would want a high INT. Puzzles, ciphers, and general problem-solving are good things to have INT for as well.

Or had you not considered that? Oh, and I don't believe in "dump stats."

[Cancer]

Well, I've been in campaigns where, as it worked out, INT and INT-based skills weren't worth much. Playing an INT specialist scholar-detective type was ... unrewarding. In effect, the character turned into a coin-operated Clue-O-Mat who was pulled out of the backdrop when a puzzle was trotted out, and got stowed away for the other 90+% of the playing time since he didn't take the combat optimization. The presence of an INT-based magic system makes for a form of insurance against that in a campaign from the point of view of a player who's had that experience.

[Ragnarok]

Well, I've been in campaigns where, as it worked out, INT and INT-based skills weren't worth much. Playing an INT specialist scholar-detective type was ... unrewarding. In effect, the character turned into a coin-operated Clue-O-Mat who was pulled out of the backdrop when a puzzle was trotted out, and got stowed away for the other 90+% of the playing time since he didn't take the combat optimization. The presence of an INT-based magic system makes for a form of insurance against that in a campaign from the point of view of a player who's had that experience.

Several thoughts here...

1) It sounds like your GM didn't really know how to handle INT-based characters. Especially if you (or whoever it was) was uninvolved in combat. That's just poor GMing, and not a fault in the concept.
2) It sounds like the tone of your game didn't favor INT-based characters in the first place. There are certainly ways to integrate INT junkies into combat, but...90% combat? Sounds like a mismatch.
3) The only reason having INT as the spellcasting characteristic would help is if the player wanted to be a detective/spy caster. In your example, the only advantage of having INT would be to cast, regardless of espionage character concepts. If that player doesn't want to be a caster, then it doesn't matter at all what the casting characteristic is anyway.

More and more it seems that your post was motivated by a singular bad experience in a game that clearly did not allow for the balanced use of INT. Sorry, but that's hardly enough to motivate me to dump my initial concept.

[Lezentauw]

I could see using PRE for spell casting if that's what you want. Personally I like EGO for that sort of thing if INT isn't going to be used. It gives EGO a bit more to do in a campaign that may lack a lot of mental powers and since I see EGO as a better representation of willpower or force of will or whatnot I think it's fitting. Just a thought.

The magic system I have created, I use Int to represent the knowledge and learning the spells. Then I used Ego to actually cast the spells, like as wolfe stated, it does have a better representation of willpower

[Ragnarok]

The magic system I have created, I use Int to represent the knowledge and learning the spells. Then I used Ego to actually cast the spells, like as wolfe stated, it does have a better representation of willpower

For the learning, I guess I could see INT. But in my setting, casting has nothing to do with how smart you are, it's just how well you're able to manipulate the powers. Ideally, I want a system in place that ties in the casting stat with being impressive, and also rewards players with a high casting stat with more spells.

Casters should be really intimidating and impressive people. That screams PRE to me.

[Nolgroth]

Re: Magic. I've always seen EGO as mental toughness akin to BODY. I've always seen PRE as the projection of will power in much the same way as STR is the projection of physical power. As to how spells are learned, it all depends on the special effect of how spells are cast. Complex formula with precisely memorized steps? INT is your stat. Intuitively projecting force of will? EGO or PRE. Again, I prefer PRE as the representation of how you project your will. EGO is how tough you mentally. Just my $0.02.

Re: Worthiness of INT as a non-Magic stat. I use INT for a lot of things. Not the least of which as the "default" to Deduction. Deduction is the general skill I use for recall and memory. So when a player "looks" at me (hard to do online but you get the idea) and asks, "This person seems familiar. Did we run into them in an earlier adventure?" I answer with "Roll a Deduction check." If they choose, they can use INT (with a -2 penalty) instead. Usually only used if Deduction is at the Everyman level. Same thing with recalling numbers (phone numbers, launch codes, coordinates, etc) that they hear and do not have the ability to write down. For that purpose alone, INT is a valuable stat.

RE: Starting Stats. I can see where you got the "start at 5, buy to 8" by looking at my guidelines. I actually intended to have a starting range of 5-15, with most people being in the 8-15 range. Sorry about the confusion that may have caused.

[Ragnarok]

1) Yay, somebody who agrees with me!
2) Definitely. For an INT-heavy player, I would also try to make sure that something cool is achieved in the campaign that only that character could do. That way, they cease becoming a plot progression vending machine. So yeah, INT is definitely valuable.
3) No worries. I went back and fixed the stat guidelines to make it 5-15. I think I'll drop CP down to 90 though, to keep them on par with a skilled Legionnaire. I've also changed it so that you must pass an INT roll to learn a new spell, but PRE is still the determiner of how many spells you can have.

[Daltwisney]

I too have been working on a magic system for a local FTF game (actually 2 systems, but they are very similar in 75% of the details). I am actually trying to incorporate all 3 'mental' stats into the system. Due to campaign underpinnings (some of my players read these boards) I can't provide some of the 'why' details, but the basics are as follows:

1) EGO is willpower, the higher your EGO, the higher your capacity for magic. Thus EGO controls how many 'spell slots' you can have.
2) INT is mental agility, and still governs the learning and casting of spells. Spells are highly complex formulae, and the more precisely and quickly you can invoke these, the more power your spells will have.
3) PRE is projection of will. It effects the power of cast spells, but in a static manner. All spells have a PRE Min, and exceeding that PRE Min will raise the power level of the spell. Conversely, having a PRE lower than the PRE Min makes the spell more likely to fail, as it imposes penalties to the INT-based Magic Roll.

Most spells are built at minimum DC, and improved through PRE > PRE Min, and successes on the Magic Roll. If a Spell is built at above minimum DC, the value of the PRE Min (which is a Limitation) drops for each increase in DC. There is also an AP Cap (I think it is 30 atm, but is not finalized).

Spells slots in one system represent 'memorized' or stored portions of spells, in the other, they govern the maximum number of different spells that can be in a character's pool at one time. Both systems use a VPP to 'hold' ready spells and one uses an END Battery to represent Mana, or casting reserves.

I guess the point of this is that I think your PRE based system will work just fine, and if that is what makes the most sense to you as you envision Magic working in your game, then it is the correct path.

[Lezentauw]

I will have to say, that this is the first time that I have ran into a Stat min for spells. It is not a bad way of doing things to increase the power of the default spell. I am still kind of leaning towards the Enhanced Success and Reduced Success options in APG for RSR.

I do like how you are using 3 stats for Magic Dalt. It is an interesting way to incorporate 3 stats, and yet use the default INT as the casting characteristic.

[Daltwisney]

I stole the PRE Min idea from Nolgroth (no idea where he got it)

I wanted to make all 3 stats have some effect without making it overly complex, and it adds a little variety. You can have a limited capability for magic (low ego), yet have powerful spells (high Magic Roll, high PRE), or conversely, a versatile selection of spells (high Ego), with less power (lower PRE or Magic Roll), and everyone's favorite, the pocket Nuke (High Ego, High PRE, High Magic Roll, yet can't lift a loaf of bread).

Just need to balance the starting points so there is no clear overall advantage to Magic vs Melee. (Situational Advantages are fine, of course)

One other note, since I have 3 ways to add damage (PRE, Casting Successes, CSLs), I created another Limitation - Effect Cap, which scales in value by how much you can improve the spells base effect. (Most spells are not PC created, and many have Limitations which a point-conscious player might not take - for example, why add an Effect Cap if the spell will still cost 1 point?)

[Ragnarok]

Interesting. Let me know when you've come up with the finished product.

[Nolgroth]

While I am sure I am not the only person to ever use PRE minimum, I do not think there is a specific example of where I got it. I simply equate PRE to STR in utility. They share the same mechanic for doing "damage" (Normal attack, Presence attack) after all. Makes sense that PRE would be useful for determining hard line requirements for spells in the same way that STR does for weapons. I have taken it a bit further, so that PRE adds to all spells. In Geoffrey's case (character, now retired in my current campaign) I have not seen any overt abuse. Spells that do damage are still limited to the campaign maximum for DC (before PRE adds).

In retrospect, maybe making PRE Adds to Effect an Advantage between +1/4 and +1/2 might be appropriate, as I have it affect all spells. On the other hand, PRE for the purpose of spell casting, costs END. Maybe a +1/4 Advantage applied to the individual spell might be good on the balance.

[Daltwisney]

In retrospect, maybe making PRE Adds to Effect an Advantage between +1/4 and +1/2 might be appropriate, as I have it affect all spells. On the other hand, PRE for the purpose of spell casting, costs END. Maybe a +1/4 Advantage applied to the individual spell might be good on the balance.

If it is an across the board thing I wouldn't bother making it an Advantage. (Unless you need to boost the AP of Spells for some reason)
Rather, I would make a Limitation (PRE does not add to Effect). This would parallel the HKA and STR Does Not Add To Damage and (in my mind anyways) be more intuitive. The cases where it might come up in your game are slim: mostly fixed effects, like Invis or Desolid, or any spells you might allow to be built above the 1 DC threshold, but not improved.

[Daltwisney]

Interesting. Let me know when you've come up with the finished product.
Not quite finished (well, not polished anyways), but ready for me to run a one-off playtest with my local group.

2 files attached, the first is the 'rules' portion, the second contains some spell builds (on pages 2-4).

Notes:


Several Spells (mostly those with fixed effect) have both "PRE Min Does Not Add To Effect" and "Effect Cap +0 DC". In theory, one could build a Spell that can have its effect increased by CSLs or Spell-Casting Successes, but not PRE, so both options are valid. In the case of fixed effect Spells, the apparent 'double-dipping' is acceptable to me as a matter of consistency (All Spells have a PRE Min and an Effect Cap).
None of the Spells listed have the "Requires A Skill Roll (-1/5 AP) Limitation listed, mainly because I originally built them in a VPP and had the Limitation on the VPP. The only Spell whose cost changed was "Invisibility", which gained a point outside the VPP. I will remedy this later.
The Defense Spell "Jabarrah's Flaming Freedom" left out some notes, mainly that it is a Damage Shield that does not add to the character's attacks, but only affects Entangles and persons grabbing the character.
None of the Spells list their Active Cost. It is there in HD, just not output in the "Spell Book". I have an additional sheet to be filled out with memorized spells that includes both the Spell-casting modifier and the 'points' for +1 DC.
I did not include the base VPP or End Battery, both of which are tailorable by the player as far as points go. The END Battery has a Recovery (usually) equal to the total END, which only activates after 4 hours of relatively undisturbed sleep or meditation.
Most of the game setting is not finished yet, but just as a point of reference, most human society is pantheistic, there are many 'gods', but none grant power to their followers ala the 'typical' D&D Cleric archetype. Priests MAY be spell-casters if their chosen deity permits, but they learn magic the same as anyone else.
I am probably increasing the initial "spells known" to 10 instead of 6, to increase variety, and because I ended up with a whole lot more sample spells than I thought I was going to.

Comments and questions welcome.

EDIT: I just noticed that both the PRE Min and Effect Cap Advantage/Limitations are screwed up. The values appear correct, but the descriptions are all whacked. I'll have to check them in the HD file tomorrow and figure out what happened.

EDIT: Fixed. The character I exported them from wasn't built with the correct template, so it garbled the info from the Prefab, which was.