Abilities

Heres another attempt to create some more variety in the game, using the excellent Song of Ice and Fire rpg. Each character is defined by 18 abilities

Agility (acrobatics, escapology, dodge, balance)
Animal Handling (riding, animal training, drive cart)
Athletics (strength, swimming, running, throwing, climbing)
Awareness (notice, empathy)
Cunning (memory, decipher, logic)
Deception (act, bluff, cheat, disguise)
Endurance (resist disease, poison, stamina)
Knowledge (education, streetwise, research)
Language (specific language)
Medicine (Diagnose, first aid, treat illness, surgery)
Persuasion (bargain, charm, seduction, intimidate, taunt)
Status (heraldry, etiquette, stewardship, tournaments)
Stealth (hide, sneak, shadowing)
Survival (track, hunt, orientation, forage)
Thievery (pick lock, sleight of hand, steal)
Trade (Specific trade or craft)
Warfare (Command, Strategy, Tactics)
Willpower (courage, dedication)

A character is also defined by one Ability based on the above:

Combat Skill (Athletics + Agility) / 2, round down, plus class bonus.

Each player then has 20 points to spend on their Abilities, plus 10 for each Rank that they start adventuring at (so a typical 5th rank starting hero has 70 points to spend), spending no more than 9 points on any one. As a guide, 1 should be considered extremely poor, 3 basic, 5 competent and 7 or more exceptional.

To succeed at a task, roll a die and add an Ability, plus any Bonuses from disciplines etc. You need to equal or beat the difficulty set by the Gm, which is between 6 and 15 (typically 10). Occasionally you may need to test against Combat Skill, in which case add 10 to this value. If you need to test Endurance or Willpower, add 20, and use your current value.

Kai Class Ability Bonuses:

Combat Skill +10, Endurance +20, Willpower +20


Sample Kai Lord character: Runedancer

Abilities:
Agility 6, Animal Handling 4, Athletics 4, Awareness 6, Cunning 6, Deception 3, Endurance 23, Knowledge 7, Persuasion 5, Stealth 5, Survival 6, Willpower 26, Status 1, Language (Giak) 3, Language (Dark Tongue) 1, Medicine 1

His Combat Skill is then calculated as (6+4)/2 equals 5, plus 10 from the Kai Lord, for a total of 15.

During the game, Runedancer, who is now 5th rank and with the Tracking discipline, is attempting to follow some tracks. The Gm decides, since its been raining, this is going to be a difficult Survival roll, setting the target number at 12. The player makes a roll, adding 6 for their Survival ability, plus another 2 for Tracking, for a total of 13. Despite the difficult conditions, Runedancer manages to find the tracks!

Willpower
In my game, Willpower is available to anyone, and represents your characters mental strength and state of mind. If they are subjected to mental onslaught, horrors or unpleasant effects, they will lose Willpower, just like Endurance for physical effects. It may even be used by some classes to fuel their abilities. If you are ever reduced to zero Willpower, you will collapse, utterly exhausted through mental anguish, and may not do anything until you have had time to recover, typically spending time in seclusion and introspection. You also gain Willpower when you achieve success, as it represents your self-esteem.

Experience Points

Each adventure, the Gm can award an experience point if the session was successful, and the players contributed well. You may use these points to increase your abilities - it costs 1 Experience point to increase any Ability by 1 point (you may not increase Combat Skill, Endurance or Willpower, however) - the maximum of any ability is still 9. Note that once the player has reached a new multiple of ten, then they can be awarded one rank increase.
 
Hello.

The Lone Wolf MPG is designed to be a rules light system. When you start adding in a bunch of additional statistics you are fundamentally changing the game.

If, as your post suggest, you prefer a more rules heavy system I would suggest that you look into finding a used copy of the D20 (also called OGL) version of the Lone Wolf game. It's design already has many of the statistics that you're wanting to add in.

Also, you could try the BESM system. It's kinda in the middle of what the MPG and the OGL game are, but the downside is that you'd have to design all the class disciplines from scratch, but it's an easy enough system to use.
 
phantomdoodler said:
Wrote some stuff...

My reply to your previous thread still stands:

http://www.mongoosepublishing.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=43831&sid=6a1bc57a582510f4a3ddc98ae0df092f

Seriously, if this level of crunch is important to you then just use another system. Legends of Anglerre, which uses the FATE system, would work well. Beyond that, there are also problems with your above system internally to itself regarding combat skill, abilities being more important/powerful than disciplines, and so on.
 
Why always jumping at the people who propose a skill system ? If you're not interested in the thread don't read it.

I play rules-light system but here between the copy-paste form other sources and and the shoddy additions I must say I'm not impressed at all by the rules.

I understand that the author may have wanted to stay true with the original gamebooks but I'm thinking that it's possible to stay true to the spirit while changing the form.

As I said elsewhere I'm not interested in running a d20 game, thank you. Since the only new products coming out are those from this game line so, I will buy them.

And I will be tinkering with the system.
 
Plageman said:
Why always jumping at the people who propose a skill system ? If you're not interested in the thread don't read it.

... Because we're entitled to give our opinions and in previous threads I've discussed such rules changes with the OP.

Plageman said:
I play rules-light system but here between the copy-paste form other sources and and the shoddy additions I must say I'm not impressed at all by the rules.

So you keep saying but then why try and amend something you appear to be so unhappy with? Why not go with a system you prefer/know? It will be less work in the long run. Or, at least be specific rather than just making sweeping catch-all statements. Start a thread to discuss*.

*See later comments, below.

Plageman said:
I understand that the author may have wanted to stay true with the original gamebooks but I'm thinking that it's possible to stay true to the spirit while changing the form.

Of course its possible, although the changes being proposed here (like the previous thread I referenced) don't do that.

Plageman said:
As I said elsewhere I'm not interested in running a d20 game, thank you. Since the only new products coming out are those from this game line so, I will buy them.

My suggestions have never been to use D20 although I appreciate others have - there are other systems out there. Buy the books like you say, the fluff is still useful for it, but take a look at other systems that you know and like...

Plageman said:
And I will be tinkering with the system.

... Go for it then. To me though, with the amount of criticism on your part it'll be more than just tinkering, which is why people suggest other systems to use. If tinkering is all you really want to do then why say things like "... shoddy additions I must say I'm not impressed at all by the rules...", which certainly seems to be a more adverse dislike than just requiring 'tinkering'. The language you're using really is inconsistent/contradictory which means that people will struggle to understand you clearly.

Take some advice from an old timer and have a look at the systems you like. You could use one of those rather than battling with a system that you seem to have issues with on a fundamental level.

I've tried to offer you advice before in other threads... I'll say it again: create something here in a new thread detailing your issues and how you'd like to change the system. Get something going for yourself and ask for suggestions/contributions. People will discuss things with you. Right now, you just appear to be bemoaning things without sharing and clearly stating what you'd like to do or at least what your goals are.
 
Random Code said:
Plageman said:
I play rules-light system but here between the copy-paste form other sources and and the shoddy additions I must say I'm not impressed at all by the rules.

So you keep saying but then why try and amend something you appear to be so unhappy with? Why not go with a system you prefer/know? It will be less work in the long run. Or, at least be specific rather than just making sweeping catch-all statements. Start a thread to discuss*.

*See later comments, below.
If you want to know I've already written a bunch of rules and, yes I will release them once I've received and read through my copy of Heroes . Let's postpone this discussion until then.
 
Plageman said:
If you want to know I've already written a bunch of rules and, yes I will release them once I've received and read through my copy of Heroes . Let's postpone this discussion until then.

Great stuff. I'm sure many people here will look forward to reading them, myself included.
 
There does seem to be a reaction against any attempt to expand the rules system presented in the rulebooks - now i do favour rules lite approaches (and i really dont like d20), so I understand the love of the simplicity of the current system. I was just offering an expansion, using one of the games i like to play. Its certainly not to everyone tastes, I appreciate that. I do love lone wolf, but i generally find that it lacks the variety of character creation in other systems, It certainly does a fine job at representing kai and the cannon classes, but if not playing with fans, I suspect character creation is little more than choosing items from a shopping lists. I think I may look to adapting other systems, offering them here, as an alternative. Whether I use the original system, they are invaluable reference material, if nothing else.
 
phantomdoodler said:
There does seem to be a reaction against any attempt to expand the rules system presented in the rulebooks.

Any attempt? ... That's pretty disingenous. When I've responded to yours (and others) suggestions I've always explained my reasons why and haven't always rejected them. Rules changes are fine when contextualised within the system but to simply 'bolt on' a sub-system that causes other problems, or reduces the importance of the central themes of the original system, is not really adding any benefit or bringing anything to the table. This is primarily why such suggestions get rejected not because of any desire to stay to the original system and not deviate.

I've made rules changes to my LW game but your suggestion above isn't, well, particularly good for reasons I've previously suggested.
 
Random Code said:
I've made rules changes to my LW game but your suggestion above isn't, well, particularly good for reasons I've previously suggested.

In the interests of building a cooperative society here on the forums, i think these kinds of comments can come across as rather Trollish. Constructive criticism is of course welcome. Anyway, in the spirit of the Kai, I think its best
we move on.
 
phantomdoodler said:
In the interests of building a cooperative society here on the forums, i think these kinds of comments can come across as rather Trollish. Constructive criticism is of course welcome.

Completely disagree. It is in no way Trollish, nor does it come across as such, and when someone states that and then use the old bait and switch 'but hey, let's move on' then that ain't gonna happen. I've been constructive with my critique (always giving reasons and examples where possible) and as a conclusion to that just said that I didn't think your suggestion was a 'particularly good' one. You state that you welcome constructive criticism. Based on your response, I'd say your reaction demonstrates otherwise.
 
Constuctive criticism invites a dialogue. So for example, not sure if that works, why not try x or y. Not - this doesnt work for reasons x, y and z. Everyone is entitled to their own opinions of course. My point is that if you dont like a rule suggestion, and you cant offer an alternative or dialogue on the subject, then I dont see the point of making a comment which dismisses the authors ideas out right.
 
phantomdoodler said:
Constuctive criticism invites a dialogue. So for example, not sure if that works, why not try x or y. Not - this doesnt work for reasons x, y and z. Everyone is entitled to their own opinions of course. My point is that if you dont like a rule suggestion, and you cant offer an alternative or dialogue on the subject, then I dont see the point of making a comment which dismisses the authors ideas out right.

Except I have offered a dialogue and advice, in my posts above. I've even linked to another thread that you started where I offered opinions, recommendations, and considerations. I've also posted similar things in other rules related threads (including alternatives). You obviously aren't reading my posts that I make here in this forum or if you are then you're ignoring them. I can't do anything about that, the problem's with you, I'm afraid.
 
I did, but I suppose this boils down to a difference of opinion regarding whether something is appropriate or not for the system. Best to agree to differ, I feel!
 
phantomdoodler said:
I suppose this boils down to a difference of opinion regarding whether something is appropriate or not for the system.

That's absolutely right. It does boil down to whether someone thinks additions/alterations are appropriate to the system. But don't try and state that I'm being trollish, unconstructive, or unhelpful just because I don't agree as that's just not correct and I feel my posting history backs me up on such an assertion.
 
I think i felt it that your language came across a little aggressive- this doesnt work, try another system etc. I am more interested in adapting the current system, because i like may aspects of it, so I shall continue to experiment and to expand upon it, until i have a system i will be happy to run.
 
phantomdoodler said:
I am more interested in adapting the current system, because i like may aspects of it, so I shall continue to experiment and to expand upon it, until i have a system i will be happy to run.

Well, what aspects do you like specifically? Such aspects may exist in other games, that already have those rules expansions (or better ones) that you're looking for.

Further to this, I think you were closer to a solution with previous threads.

For example from this thread: http://www.mongoosepublishing.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=43730

You posted:

phantomdoodler said:
My initial thoughts would be to offer different backgrounds, probably randomly determined, which provide bonuses. Something like:

Farmer: gain a +2 Bonus for any tests involving animal handling, weather lore, growing crops and carpentry.

Noble: gain a +2 Bonus for any tests involving noble pursuits, such as heraldry, courtly dancing and hawking.

Artisan: gain a +2 Bonus for any tests involving haggling, running a business, and one specific trade

And...

phantomdoodler said:
On reflection, i think a mechanic -light approach to be best. I think what I will do is encourage a dialogue with the players as to what types of characters they wish to play, using the class as a spring board for ideas. Once I have a decent grasp of the character the players wish to portray, I think I will award each player a special +2 Bonus (in addition to other bonuses) to situations where their personality and or background applies. The players wont need to record this on their character sheets, but I may make a note. To keep things balanced, each player may only apply this bonus once per session, for each 2 full Ranks they possess.

For example, Swiftfox the 5th Rank Kai Lord is described as having spent a great deal of time as a child sprinting through woods, clambering up trees and throwing stones. Twice each session Swiftfox`s player may apply a +2 bonus to any tests involving throwing, climbing or running.

Bhorngrim the 6th rank Borian Gunner is described by his player as being stubborn, hardy and with exceptionally keen senses. 3 times each session, they may add 2 to any tests involving endurance, willpower or observation.

I posted some comments in there so I won't bother to reprint them here.

The suggestions that you've made more recently, break some fundamentals regarding the system (target number scaling vs. discipline bonuses, etc), disciplines being what largely defines a character and their class from a mechanical perspective, and simply forcing homogenisation of characters. This is why people do suggest other systems as they'd give you more scope and a more improved play experience due to the expanded and supported mechanical options.

Now, it may be that you want more mechanical complexity than the comments from you that I quoted suggest but you really need to consider why you like the LW system and why you think you can't go with another system more suited to your tastes. It'd be an idea to explain this to us aswell so that we understand and can help more.
 
Well I admire your research! Essentially, I am looking for more player choice during character generation, and i feel that the choice of Disciplines, since you will end up with acquiring all of them, doesnt really help define the character. Choice of class does, but i dont believe that a player should be defined by just this.

Say a character decides that they fancy playing a street thief from Ragadorn, with thievery skills. During a theft from an evil wizard, they have picked up a couple of right handed spells - mere cantrips, but useful in the right situation.

Or, they decide to play a failed Kai Monk. Owing to their family being captured and tortured by Giaks, they decided to leave the monastery and seek out vengeance, going it alone, so to speak, possibly finding their own versions of the Kai Disciplines.

I am not sure how these concepts would fit in the game, as it stands. My style of roleplaying is always to give the player what they want (within reason), with consequences if they ask for too much... Not to give them a narrow set of choices. I would like to see a player, rather than being given the list of their 10 disciplines, being given more options to develop their skills, so that all 10th rank members of a class dont look the same.

For example:
As a Kai Lord, obviously, there are the 10 Kai Disciplines which need to be developed. But as an idea, their may be some variety. For example, a character could choose to take a Kai Discipline a second or third time, to gain additional effects. They wouldnt have such a well rounded character as a standard Kai lord, but would represent a more individual approach.

That may not be appropriate, especially with kai Lords who are rather rigid, but could be used for other classes.

My toying with a skill/attribute system was to create more variety, but admittedly, this could clash with disciplines, as pointed out.

Here is another suggestion:

Talents
Each rank, you may choose a Discipline and a Talent*. Talents are not associated with a particular class, but represent skills that your character may pick up in the course of adventuring. Each talent enables you to make a roll, which could be modified by a Discipline Bonus if it applies. If you dont have a Talent,you cannot attempt to make a roll. Talents can be taken a second time to gain further knowledge.

* You could limit this to one Talent every odd rank, so one at 1,3,5,7,9 etc, so that Disciplines are more powerful.

Talent examples:

Language I
You are familiar with the basic of a language. You must make a roll to try and understand what is being understood, and may modify this by an appropriate Discipline (Tracking etc)

Language II
If you take a language a second time, your are now fully fluent, and only need to roll, when the target is using an obscure dialect.

Lore I
You are skilled at a particular subject, and may make a roll to remember an important fact of a general nature

Lore II
You are highly knowledgeable on a subject and only need to roll when trying to determine an obscure fact.

Trade I
You are an apprentice in a particular craft or trade. You may make a roll to produce a mundane item or service.

Trade II
You are a skilled craftsman regarding a particular trade, and may make a roll to produce a quality item or service.

Trade III
You are a master craftsman, possibly a guild master. You only need to make a roll when attempting to produce an exceptionally crafted item or service.

Strong
You are muscular and powerful frame, and may add 1 damage in combat. You may also make a roll to perform acts of strength, such as lifting a heavy crate or portcullis.

You may only choose this Talent at rank 1.

Tough I, II, III
You are extremely hardy, and may increase your Endurance by 1 point each time you take this Talent.
 
I can't see anything in your post that states what aspects you actually like about the LW system. Which is fine but at the moment you're critiquing the narrow focus of the classes and how once they get to their highest rank there is no real mechanical variation to the standard class options. That's fine. It is a problem if you want more options. But...

... Fundamentally the rules don't appear to be giving you the options you require. If this isn't offset by things that you really like regarding the system (still don't know what those are) then you really are in a place where it'd be better to go for another system. Sorry to appear to labour this but there's nothing in the above post where you state what you like about the LWRPG and a lot of things that you actually don't like that are intrinsic (in my opnion) to how Joe Dever built his game world - ie, all Kai Lords progress and learn the same skills, disciplines are more important mechanically than 'mundane' skills, etc.

Do you see the problem here? You appear to be adding layers to a system where in fact other systems could do a job out of the box for you? Until I (and other readers) understand what is keeping you attached to this system then this kind of disengagement will carry on.

So, trying to work through that...

As a mechanical variation I'd suggest something from the D20 system that effectively gives a PC greater skill in the disciplines he picks at the beginning of his career as opposed to the ones at the end. That rule maintains the setting 'rule' that Kai Lords learn all disciplines but allows for a little character difference and supports the idea that some Kai are better at some disciplines than they are others.

I still think there's a fundamental problem with bringing in a skill system as described in the OP as it just moves the focus to those new skills and player's picking those to have any level of competency. In its own way it will lead to homogenisation just like high-level Kai Lords in the original system are.

Regarding the examples of background character ideas... Something more in line with the rules would be to develop your own character class for that particular idea, using disciplines from other classes as inspiration or direct usage. The system as it stands is pretty old school so classes aren't just professions - they can easily be races, social groups (nobility), etc so your ideas above could easily fit into a uniquely built class type. In this way you'd be offering the option of uniqueness but also protecting the discipline progression in other classes where other players still wanted that.

Example
Taking your failed Kai Lord... Lets say he fails when he has 4 disciplines (forgot the title of that rank). So, let the player pick those four from the Kai class and one new one from his new class, where you've defined those based on discussions with him. Now to offset that flexibility, I'd make it so that he couldn't progress his original four disciplines as he no longer has access to the support of the Kai Monastery.

The same principal could be applied to the thief character you also mentioned.

This way of doing things, creates groovy new classes but also balances their skill set with those classes already available and thus allows players to use both styles of play - ie, disciplines are still important but you're just changing them based upon the idea the player has and not bolting on a sub-system that causes its own problems.

Does all that make sense?

I think the Talent system looks fine at first glance and a lot like what you originally went with in previous threads. They aren't game breaking and still give focus to the 'disciplines' of the classes. All that you need to be careful about here is not making there usage too ubiquitous and make sure they don't steal the thunder of a particular class or specific class discipline - assuming you want to maintain those setting and system fundamentals.
 
My personal tastes make me prefer skill based games. I think that some concepts introduced in Star Wars Saga Edition and Dungeons & Dragons 4th Edition, two class based games, may offer an interesting start to add a minimalist skill system to the current rules.

However I must insist that while we can keep the changes to the current system limited, they cannot avoided completely.

The following idea is rough, unpolished and untested.

Skill list
- Acrobatics
- Athletics
- Bluff
- Craft
- Diplomacy
- Endurance
- Handle Animal
- Heal
- Insight
- Intimidate
- Linguistics
- Lore: History
- Lore: Magic
- Lore: Nature
- Lore: Religion
- Perception
- Perform
- Ride
- Stealth
- Streetwise
- Survival
- Thievery

Skill checks
When making a skill check, the character roll a dice and add half his Rank. If the character is Trained in the skill, he instead add his full Rank.

If the character has a Discipline which cover the same area of skill, he instead roll two dices and select the better result. This bonus replace the usual bonus from having a relevant Discipline.

Difficulty

Very Easy___3
Easy_______6
Moderate___9
Difficult_____12
Very Difficult_15
Challenging_18
Heroic______21
Impossible__24

Starting skills
During creation, the player get a number skills free from his class and then choses three more from the skill list.
 
Back
Top