The Gaming Den

Stop me if you've heard this one before: I'm working on a Fantasy Heartbreaker.

What I'm going for is a rules-lite, mythic high fantasy game in the vein of higher level D&D and Exalted. That is, a superhero game in a ren fair outfit.

The system is based primarily on a hybridization of concepts from Cortex+ and Savage Worlds. The goal is to make the game largely descriptive, with just enough tactical meat to ensure that the GM doesn't have to pull EVERYTHING out of his ass.

More specifically the roll and keep dice pool resolution of Cortex+, along with the world building rules, static target numbers and modifiers of SW.

TASK RESOLUTION

The basic concept is that characters are defined by 4 primary categories of traits: Attributes (your inborn qualities), Skills (stuff you learn to do), Distinctions (stuff that is absolutely unique to each character; player defined qualities) and Talents (special FX like spells, powers, etc.). Each of these traits is rated by die step...that is from d4 - d12.

Task resolution is based around characters taking one die from each category to construct their dice pool. They roll the pool and choose the two highest dice and add those two together, comparing the result against a target value to determine success/failure.

The part where I'm stuck is on defining Attributes and Skills.

ATTRIBUTES

As for Attributes, I'm debating between a list of 3 (Prowess, Cunning, Will) or 4 (Might, Grace, Cunning, Will).

Prowess, Cunning and Will (essentially Body, Mind and Spirit) are lighter and more agile than the other 4. Also, these three qualities each map to vital derived stats, so none are really a dump stat.

Might, Grace, Cunning and Will are more comprehensive and concisely defined than the other list. This manages to differentiate between Strength and Finesse. Also, 4 attributes is still pretty light.

SKILLS

Here, I am debating between a short list of 8 and an even shorter list of 5.

The 8 skills consist of:

Combat (Fighting, weapons, tactics, siegecraft, etc.)
Magic (Channeling, sensing, manipulating, analyzing metaphysical forces)
Athletics (Acrobatics, running, jumping, climbing, etc.)
Artifice (Crafting, art, alchemy, engineering, etc.)
Diplomacy (Law, etiquette, politics, heraldry, mercantile, etc.)
Lore (History, legends, mathematics, ancient languages etc.)
Subterfuge (Deception, larceny, stealth, sabotage, underworld, etc.)
Wilderness (Survival, pathfinding, hunting, foraging, animals, herbalism, etc.)

This list, while not comprehensive, has most of the major areas covered and is each skill is well defined and differentiated. The problem is that this game is very explicitly about punching Yog Sothoth in the dick and not about sewing the princess' wedding dress, so some skills are clearly more valuable than the others.

The shorter list:

Combat (fighty punch stab)
Magic (finger wigglin' strategerie)
Exploration (climbing, sneaking, lockpicking, etc.)
Social (talky stuff, also law, etiquette, bartering, so forth)
Lore (Knowing or learning stuff about stuff)

Is based more on ROLES than individual skills. They are more nebulous and lack differentiation, however each does one pretty clear thing.

Distinctions, those qualities that are defined by players, can help further define skills. A character with the "Dwarfish Dungeon Commando" distinction is better at certain things falling under the purview of say exploration, or subterfuge than a character with the "Grizzled Sailor" distinction or the "International Art Thief" distinction.

The 5 skill system lends more value to the player defined qualities than the 8 skill system, I feel.

Anyway...I'm looking for input on what to do so I can move forward. I have most of the game committed to writing, but I have yet to hammer down exactly what I want to do with these particular elements.

Any input here would be welcome.

Unless you can think of viable combinations of stats and skills that are equal for each stat and each skill, 5 is not the way to go.

Actually, I've already decided to go with 4 Attributes x 5 skills.

The 5 skills: combat, magic, exploration, social, and lore (or something very close to them) are meant to represent roles or jobs that each player can have. Character creation will be set up to allow for characters to have some skill in all areas (if even a d4).

Also distinctions, which are player defined qualities, are added into dice pools where applicable. These will further define skills, as someone with the "woodsman" distinction will be good at different areas of the Exploration skill than someone with the "dungeoneer" distinction.

These types of systems tend to make players want to game the system a bit, because they will be coming up with specious ways to apply their "medieval dental technician" to social rolls, but that's precisely what I intend to happen. I want players engaging the system on that level.

Lore sounds like it doesn't do much. Traditionally everything you can do with a Knowledge or Lore skill is either:

• a poor substitute for using metagame knowledge (and if there's a game where players don't use metagame knowledge, I ain't seen it)
• irrelevant, because the DM needed you to know X for the game to progress so you're going to learn X even if you fail the roll or don't even have the skill.
• entirely MTP, because it lets you know things about homebrew elements of the world and thus all the TNs and results are pulled out of the DM's ass.

Lore is fine on a long list with lots of little flavor abilities, but I don't think it makes the cut for a list of 5 with Combat and Magic. I could be sold on the idea if you had some weird archetype you were trying to support (like a Sage who makes "Lore" roles to do things in other areas of the game). If not I vote cut it and put Artifice back in.

ModelCitizen wrote:Lore sounds like it doesn't do much. Traditionally everything you can do with a Knowledge or Lore skill is either:

• a poor substitute for using metagame knowledge (and if there's a game where players don't use metagame knowledge, I ain't seen it)
• irrelevant, because the DM needed you to know X for the game to progress so you're going to learn X even if you fail the roll or don't even have the skill.
• entirely MTP, because it lets you know things about homebrew elements of the world and thus all the TNs and results are pulled out of the DM's ass.

Lore is fine on a long list with lots of little flavor abilities, but I don't think it makes the cut for a list of 5 with Combat and Magic. I could be sold on the idea if you had some weird archetype you were trying to support (like a Sage who makes "Lore" roles to do things in other areas of the game). If not I vote cut it and put Artifice back in.

That is a very good point.

Lore is really only good for giving the GM an excuse to info dump on players, making it essentially a valve for expository wankery.

It would come in handy for challenges like puzzle monsters, wherein payers have to figure out a very specific weakness for a monster...however knowing that werewolves are vulnerable to silver is of limited utility in a game about shoryuken-ing monsters into the sun.

Also, I'm ardently opposed to players solving puzzles with dice rolls. What's the point of having puzzles if they all have the same answer?

I think I'll revise the skill list again, and fold knowledge into each:

Combat (knowing weapons and tactics)
Magic (knowing magic and mystery)
Exploration (knowing places and how to get around)
Social (knowing etiquette, society and people)
Artifice (knowing how to build, tinker and sabotage)

And yes...this is absolutely supposed to look like the action menu for a 90's console RPG.