I want to run a game where the players must truly be careful when entering the dungeon. Rushing in should be a very risky experience, not the norm.

Yet despite this, I do not want it to be a pure tactics fest. I have a world and some story ideas for this and want roleplay along with the creative thinking and difficulty in getting high level characters.

I want the players to feel like reaching high level is an actual accomplishment, yet also to have enjoyed the narrative events of the game as well.

The system will either be a total creation of my own, or a heavily modified DnD 3.x depending on the players input.


SETTING
Almost 100 years ago, a great many people from many places found themselves transported to this world. However, while arable land is plentiful, many resources simply can't be found except inside one of the great pillars that climb into the sky. Even simple iron and copper must be retrieved from the pillar. The higher one goes, the better and more plentiful the materials become, but also, the more dangerous the enemies and traps.

What makes it worse, is that the dungeon is in a constant state of flux and renewal. The dungeon inside the pillar changes every week, and the monsters inside get tougher higher up but strangely are bound to specific levels and/or areas.

Thus the acquisition of materials requires expeditions into the pillar.

Magic in this setting is very common, but weak. Nearly everyone can cast simple cantrip level magic, but it is extremely rare for anyone to cast high level spells. In fact, after a certain point, the only way to increase the power of a caster is for the caster to venture into the pillar and find a special ethereal material that increases their ability to channel greater magic power. This material, called Manacite, is extremely rare and can not be transported, as anyone who touches it either physically or with their magic absorbs it and physical items, like sticks or swords simply pass through it.
This message was last edited by the user at 03:26, Tue 02 Apr 2019.

If the risks are real, you should expect character death. How do you plan to handle that?

How do you imagine that might impact the narrative you're hoping to include?

Risk often results in players taking very tentative action, or no action at all; how do you imagine this might impact the narrative?

Roleplaying and tactics are often very much at odds, because what makes sense to do in character might not make sense tactically; how do you think you'll address this?

High risk can have a tendency to encourage metagame-based cheating, which can be as frustrating for players as for GMs, since the players might feel as though they have to "play dumb" and walk their character into danger rather than being accused of cheating. Have you considered this?

>1; Introduce new characters. The story is a situation and therefore while someone needs to handle it, it doesn't need to be the same characters from beginning to end. Also, hirelings help by providing a pool of additional warm bodies if the players bring them along.

>2: I follow Alexandrian's route on this, prep situations not plots. The situation is not aimed at specific characters, thus reinforcements can be fit into things just fine.

>3: Going all out "old school" on this, means wandering monsters and perhaps monster groups actively hunting them will mean that sitting around is dangerous. Also, limited supplies will be a thing as well. The group will be facing danger anyway. Caution and patience are to be expected and will be just fine, but inaction provides no escape from danger.

>4: I find this an odd statement. Dumb characters can be entertaining, but it makes sense that they are smart enough to survive or at least to listen to teammates who can keep them alive, and if not, their death can still entertaining and spur other characters onward. Personally, I'll just see how the players handle it and respond if need to.

To me, the only time tactics and roleplay are at odds is when players try to play the rules and the rules have weak or no connection to the in-game world. For example, having minions that you treat differently from otherwise identical enemies because the rules handles them differently. Another example is players who will not think to flip a table over for cover because there are no rules for flipping over tables.

Get everyone on the right page of playing the game, not playing the rules. Everything else can be worried about as it comes.


>5: I find such things as metagaming occurs in only two cases, the first is like above when players are playing the rules instead of the game, the second is when players have knowledge their characters don't and can't keep that knowledge separate.

The latter is easily handled by playing an original story/sandbox and playing in a setting where the standard expectations are false often enough to make players question their own knowledge.

On second thought, there is a third way in which this becomes a problem that is easily remedied, and that when the gm doesn't make secret checks on behalf of the players. This leads to cases where the players know they rolled low and must have missed something. This is avoided in two ways by any decent gm, first, if failure of the check results in failure obvious to the player but not the character, then make that check secretly and without the players knowing that you made it. Second, you can also combine the check with another similar check the player does know about (such as needing a perception check to notice a hidden enemy while they are searching for a secret door. Have them roll for the search and take the result for whether they notice the enemy as well), or make the check standard such as a perception check whenever they enter room whether there is need or not.

=== ALSO ADDED SOME SETTING AND GAME DETAILS TO OP POST
This message was last edited by the user at 03:15, Tue 02 Apr 2019.

That all sounds pretty standard, so you should expect to see the standard outcomes from it. Have fun.

I have no idea what you mean by this. How would you define standard in something that has nothing even remotely standard about it (as in there is no identifiable standard in rpgs)?

And what are these standard outcomes you expect, and why do you expect them?

I mean you're doing stuff that people have done in RPGs for years. None of your wording seems all that unusual, except maybe in degree.


I expect them because you're planning doing things I've seen people try to do before. The standard outcomes are just the kinds of things a GM usually sees when doing these things, which can be good and bad, depending how one thinks of them. They're the kind of things GM advice blogs are full of. For instance, player frustraton is pretty standard; some GMs relish that, some don't. Lots of questions and clarifications are pretty standard; again some GMs (and players) go for this, others don't. I'd expect players to forget key parts of the narrative you have planned, as that's pretty standard. I don't see an upside to that, but I think some GMs make forgetfulness risky in hopes that the players will quickly learn not to forget.

I personally would expect a lot of cookie cutter and one trick characters if I were to do this.   Very few people are going to want to put the time and effort into a unique character build that's probably not going to last long enough to do any development.

You might be able to pull this off, but there are a few things to consider...

1. Players who tend to enjoy roleplaying a lot quite often aren't into character death. They want to see their character's stories develop and grow, and would rather not be cut down by a random trap or what have you. There are exceptions to this, but many will either not join at all, or get annoyed whenever their characters get torn apart by kobolds.

2. Conversely, players who love tactical, high death games tend not to get too involved in setting or roleplaying. They tend to enjoy treating the game more as a puzzle to be solved, and the same will go with character creation. Expect people to build more for efficiency than fun. Even if they do build a fun character, it won't matter if they can't make it through the grinder.

3. Consider your system carefully when making this sort of game. Something with quicker character creation, like Shadow of the Demon Lord, may be better than something like D&D 3.5, where character creation is such an intensive process that people will not respond well to losing them. What are your goals tactically? You mentioned homebrewing your own system, but what would be its nature and presentation? What sort of story are you specifically trying to tell? There are oodles of fantasy systems out there that can run a concept like this, make sure you try to find the right one.

4. With the equipment and scavenging element, what are you aiming for? Is it like Monster Hunter where the characters are trying to build better armor and weapons for themselves? Is it like Forbidden Lands or Mutant Year Zero where characters are trying to build up fortresses and settlements? Is it like Red Markets where characters are simply trying to survive? Is it purely goal oriented with players just being contracted to do a specific task in each adventure? Is it something else entirely?

5. Expect players to be extremely cautious and low-risk. If death is around every corner, people will make sure to SUPER DOUBLE TRIPLE CHECK every corner. And throw a rock. And aim for highly defensive tactics. And why wouldn't they?

That last point ceaser is exactly what I'm going for. I'm not looking for a high death rate, but I do want players to be actually careful in trying to survive instead of this modern popular idea of nearly invincible characters, and for that, the danger must be real.

I want players who are careful to survive, while those who act like this is a video game should die horribly (and preferably entertainingly). I do want players to reach higher lvl, but for them to feel like it was a significant accomplishment to do it, that was a difficult but achievable thing.

Seems like you are asking for a contradiction a bit. You do not want super tactical game, but on the other hand you are looking to punish for a misstep. If I was to join a game lime that I would insist on well defined rules and total RAW play, no House rules or only well defined ones.

The problem I have witn tnat is simple, most who are uptight about it pick "you can only do what the rules say you can do” instead of "do what you want and we’ll figure out a way to handle it.”

To me, the latter is the important point. Now I agree with well defined rules, and I'd like to think my houserules for d20 are defined well enough (the custom system needs to be played and refined, but if the players are judging possibility according to the wodld rather than mechanics, then I can handle that refining much less disruptively, if it gets noticed at all).

I very much agree with the Alexandrian when he says

This point relates quite well to this article,
https://thealexandrian.net/wor...mes/rules-vs-rulings

Truthfully, I very much like the Alexandrian, and understanding his articles on such things gives a good idea of my values as a gm (and player). Not sure if I'm as good a gm in practice yet, but that is what I work towards.

Perhaps, but you are also asking people to familiarise themselves with a rule system which will be used for only this one game. High risk, low reward.

One thing I will have to note though is that for dungeon descriptions you will have to be VERY detailed. In a play by post environment like RPoL, there is no chance to let players ask questions without excessive time being put on it. And if there are details that aren't described or specifically mentioned, it'll be hard to add them in after.

@ darut
Might be, but I'm hoping to publish someday.

@ caesar
That is true, very true.

So, there has been some questions and discussion, but how many remain interested? One thing I have noticed a lack of, is which answers folks wanted to hear, and whether anyone is interested with the answers given.

I am always up for a game with good RP, but for a game with high risks and high potential death (with little chance for resurrection or raising), that puts a damper on my enthusiasm.  I don't want to put a lot of effort into a character's backstory and interaction with other players just to have them squashed by a stone trap that we were unable to disable, one room later.

In this situation, I'd like to have multiple characters ready and waiting to go in the event of death (siblings or members of the same order or something of the sort) if this were in a more rules-heavy Pathfinder-like system, or a very simple character-creation system (like Cypher System) so I could make a new character easily.  Not that I wouldn't be cautious and fight to avoid dying, but if you're saying up-front that death is a real possibility, I'd like some character insurance so I'm not stuck starting over.

Your idea for your world looks quite intriguing indeed and something I'd be interested in playing, I'm just curious about the exact system and house rules that would be used, so I would know the upfront character-creation investment one would need to make to be prepared. :)

Agree with previous poster. Too many uncertainties to commit time to. Thank you for the offer, but no.

Being a bit of a Call of Cthulhu fan I would say that investing time to really RP a character with a full personality and then go through the pain of them dying is actually a bittersweet experience. But Call of Cthulhu is a horror game where PCS are kind of expected to die (or at least pick out a nice new straight jacket).

I don't have much experience with D&D (It was the first RPG I played but that was when I was still in my teens). What I do remember is that everyone was less concerned with role playing and more concerned with leveling up.

Maybe rather than making the traps extremely hard you could design them so that players have to co-operate fully to get past them. That kind of team work should foster good roleplay.

I'd rather not get so lethal as to kill PCs left and right, just the occasional death.

In amy case, I'll post a detailed overview of the rules I'll be using tonight or tommorrow.

However, I'll link some rules from Alexandrian I'll be using, notably the death and dying rules,
https://www.thealexandrian.net.../optional-death.html

http://thealexandrian.net/word.../save-or-die-effects
https://www.thealexandrian.net...-rules/teleport.html


Some other stuff from him that impacts my view on running a game, not so much specific rules though,
https://www.thealexandrian.net...tions/creations.html

DLH, I'd love to play a game like this. Let me know if you create one.
This message was last edited by the user at 21:38, Thu 04 Apr 2019.

That's one person. :)

I've been up 19 hours now, so the following is hardly my best writing, but since understanding the rules was a big thing, I went with the 3.x mod. Sticking with core books, though each player can ask for one thing from either the d20srd or the pfsrd, though nothing is certain till I see what you want, but I'll honestly try to work it in.

The general idea of the rules mods,
4 major facets
1) Dice. This is the 3d6 and Variable Modifiers alt rules, but with a twist. Instead of 3 same sized dice, one is a d12, one is based on your ability modifier (these adjusted to always have a positive modifier), and one is either a skill rank (for skill checks, attack rolls, etc) or a second ability modifier (for saves). Other modifiers are still static.

This also uses the "players roll the dice" variant rule, except you roll for any actions you proactively take, while I'll roll for anything that happens to you (to reduce turn around on discussions, I won't generally ask you to make a check because something happened to you, but things you actively do will be your roll instead of me rolling to beat your DCs. This mostly affects magic, but other abilities that normally call for saves will now be you rolling to beat enemy saves).

There are two new Take 10 like options, Careful and Precise. Careful lets you assume a max result on your smallest die, but it takes twice the materials and expert tools, if any, and 10 times as long. Precise takes 100 times as long, 10 times the materials, and masterwork tools, but lets lets you assume max result on your two smallest dice. (this can be used for spells, disable device, open lock, etc).

2) Advancement
The numerical power is swapped to scale on attributes or the new Power stat, and thus levels can be gained faster and expand your options without drastically increasing numerical power beyond humanity into demigods. This also allows power to be adjusted based on narrative points (like finding certain things in the dungeon, hint, hint. That said, you are unlikely to reach 10 power).

In some ways this increases power at first level (more hp, more spell slots, etc), but also makes it grow broadly rather than deeply as the game goes on (you gain access to more spells but not many more slots).

Most of it is quite simply looking at a stat instead of level for certain numbers. Sneak Attack and similar progressions go by power, while max skill ranks starts at 4 and increases by one at lvls 6, 18, 30, 48, ... (a recurring progression).

At first level you start with your int score in skill ranks, and every lvl up you gain your int modifier in skill points.

Proficiencies are now skills and bab is your skill in a weapon. Thus attacks are literally skill checks. Armor skill ranks reduce armor check penalties and spell failure chance.



3) Health and Injury
The Alexandrian's Death and Dying rules are in use except modified as following, Hit points are your "non-lethal" points. You have a number equal to your Con score plus your con modifier for each of these levels 6, 18, 30, 48, 72, ...

Non-lethal dmg simply deals hp dmg. Lethal dmg over half your con score forces a fort save, failure and you get injured taking 1 con dmg and the injury leads to some ongoing penalty effect thematically appropriate (hit location rolled randomly, effects like slowed speed, -2 to movement skills, etc). If the lethal dmg was over your con score, then injuries can be severe, such as losing a leg, taking 1d6 con dmg, etc.

Note, just as PCs are being kept "down-to-earth," so are the monsters, so dmg values won't be skyrocketing like normal. That doesn't mean they'll be weak.

The threshold of death is your con score times 1+ your con modifier. Non-lethal dmg will generally knock you out long before killing you, but lethal dmg will usually cause your con score to go down to, reducing your death threshold.


4) Magic
Magic now requires a skill check to cast, with a magic skill for each spell (spontaneous casters) or spell school/subschool (for prepped casters).

Casting a spell simply requires the correct skill check to beat a DC 5*(Spell level +1). Margin of success dictates CL of the spell.

Any spell of a spell level less than 1/2 your power stat, can be cast indefinitely per day unless fatigued or exhausted.

If fatigued, and/or out of spell slots, you can cast a spell by taking 1d4 hp damage per spell lvl.

Most general metamagic feats are usable by any caster without a feat. In all cases, metamagic feats increase the DC to cast a spell but do not otherwise raise the spell level (meaning you can metamagic your highest level spells).

The DC of your spells (now a check on your part) uses your casting check result plus power. However, you can increase the DC by upping the difficulty of the spell (basically the heighten spell feat).

Note, summoning effects are altered in flavor, require expensive foci, and require choosing specific creatures. Also, mid to high level only.
This message was last edited by the user at 13:47, Fri 05 Apr 2019.

I forgot about initiative, just what is normal for me but should be clarified.

I use initiative only in the uncommon cases where order of events is important, such as whether the cleric got bless off in time for fighter to get the +1 to hit instead of miss, of if a monster dies that round, did they make their attack or not. Thus for pbp, everyone posts when they can for that round. I roll initiative for each instance that it actually matters. This makes initiative matter less often but on those occasions it does, high dex and Improved Initiative matters more than normal.

This also means that the last player to post/take their turn can still help the others in the same round. For example, the rogue misses by 1, then the cleric player posts casting bless. Then if their initiative was high enough, the rogue might benefit and turn that miss into a hit.

If this doesn't interest anyone, I could alternatively use my own system which only a bit simpler but tailored to the gameplay I'm going for.

In reply to DarkLightHitomi (msg # 23):

It's really going to be a hard sell; because as far as I can tell, you're wanting to run a "death game".   Which doesn't really appeal to the vast majority of the player base for reasons that I've already touched upon.  As far as the system you're trying to create, I'd suggest looking at both Slayers d20 (for the rather wonky magic system) and Traveller d20 (for the health/vitality system).

That said: good luck!  ^_^

I'm not really trying for a full on "death game," I just want something where players need to actually be cautious and not run around like invincible death gods with some strange expectation of surviving and defeating everything they encounter no matter how stupid their antics. And also keep things down to earth so-to-speak.

I've never heard of those systems, I'll take a look but I actually like fiddling with systems, so I'd rather shape something to my needs over taking an existing something that isn't quite what I want.
This message was last edited by the user at 01:42, Mon 08 Apr 2019.

I was more or less with you until you put up your Dice and Advancement rules (msg 22).  I couldn't see those on the site you had posted, and I am a bit confused on how they work. Most of your adjustments make sense and don't require excessive changes to a d20 character, but those two rules sound like they make much more major changes.  Could you clarify those, please?

I am fine with having a possibility of death, as the hit point rules you've proposed make characters a little more sturdy, and the magic "save or die/save or suck" adjustments make dying from one bad roll less of an issue.  Your philosophy is clear, don't waltz in the dungeon like you're a video game character with unlimited lives, or a movie protagonist with Plot Armor, and I am very cool with that.

The dice and advancement rules are my own creations. I'll give more detail tonight, but a few notes in the meantime,

The purpose of the advancement rules is to separate out raw numerical power so it can be manipulated separate from level, for many reasons, not the least of which due to the proposed setting needing power increases separate from skill and training. It is my alternative to e6, allowing continued and even perhaps faster progression while remaining in the desired scope of play (gritty, supernatural, wuxia, demigods, etc). The idea is that you can get 100 levels and still have the limits of real world humans if power is capped right.

The dice is something I put together before and had been using when I put together the advancement rules. I could probably skip it, but if I did, I'd want to at least use the 3d6 as I never liked the swinginess of a single die. It just never occured to me to not include it if I was going homebrew anyway.

Alternate Advancement

Characters have a new stat, Power. Power represents a character's overall level of power in terms of abilities and such. Higher power means being more capable, having magic do more dmg and last longer, being harder to harm or kill, etc. Power is the scale from gritty "realism" to superheroes. Power is a flat bonus to max skill ranks, Saving throws, Caster level, and Racial Spell Resistance. Power multiplies both hitpoints and hit dice. Some abilities use Power as well, such as sneak attack.

Altered stats.
BAB is replaced entirely by the new skill Combat, which has a set of sub-skills (like knowledge, profession, etc), one for each weapon group. Any bonuses that apply to BAB in general apply to these skills instead. Obviously, attacking with a weapon requires rolling the appropriate skill. Proficiency is simply being trained in the appropriate skill. If using the skill untrained, you take the -4 penalty for being untrained. Class proficiencies designate class skills.

Saves are no longer a separate stat, instead when you roll, you add two abilities and Power. Fortitude saves get Str and Con. Reflex saves get Wis and Dex. Will saves get Wis and Cha.

Maximum skill points equals 4 plus Power for class skills. Cross class skill are 2 less than class skills.

Skill ranks cost a number of skill points equal to the rank, thus the first skill rank is 1 skill point, the second skill rank costs 2 skill points (for a total of 3 spent), etc.

Skill points are gained at a set rate separate from class. A character gets 1+Power+Int at each level after the first level. At first level, a character starts with their Int score plus Power in skillpoints.

ranks and total cost,
1=1
2=3
3=6
4=10
5=15
6=21
7=28
8=36
9=45
10=55
11=66
12=78
13=91
14=105
15=120

Hit Dice
Hit dice size is based on creature type (a d8 in the case of humanoids, 3.x rules have the hit die size for the different types and subtypes). You get a number of hit dice equal to Power.

Hit Points
A character has a number of HP equal to their Con score plus Power * (con modifier plus 6).

Spell Resistance
Spell Resistance comes in minor and greater varieties. Minor SR is 6+Power. Greater SR is 11+Power.

Alternate Dice Rolling Method
This is a combination of the 3d6 and Variable Modifiers variant rules with a twist.

In this variant a character's stats determine the size of various dice. One die is sized according to a new stat, Tier. Tier is normally a d8 for average members of civilized races. Primitives like goblins generally have a d6 instead, and animals usually have a d2 to d4. Traps and other unthinking objects, should they ever make rolls, would have no Tier die unless magically imbued to adjust to the triggering creature/circumstance. Particularly capable individuals can sometimes have a larger Tier die, and often heroic individuals gain increased die size.

Ability scores determine the second die. However, the ability score modifiers are insufficient  (negative dice and no dice for average characters slows things down quite a bit), thus die size is determined from score according to the following formula. An ability score of 1-4 has no die, while scores 5-8 has a d2, scores 9-12 are a d4, and so on, for every 4 points the die increases by 1 size (even number of sides only).

The skill ranks directly set the size of another die. Dice go up by evens only, so the number of sides a die has is twice the rank of the skill. 1 rank is d2, 2 ranks is a d4, etc.

Thus, a roll would be three dice, the tier die, an ability die, and a skill die, with static modifiers added to the result.

An example skill check.
A character with a Tier of d8, a 14 Str (a d6), and 3 ranks in Tumble with a +4 tumble bonus from a magic ring. A tumble check would therefore be a D8+D6+D6+4.

I've had questions and tentative interest, only one for certain interested party who didn't answer my pm.

So, if anyone likes this idea, pm me about it. Till then, I'll work on the next project.

Update.
I've got someone who is fine with soloing but wouldn't mind additional players. So I'm setting up the game and will link here should anyone else have an interest.

Linky,
link to another game