Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 27, 2012 1:24:24 GMT -5
hmm...now that i've spouted off and rambled on, i guess i should back up and ask... what is the goal/objective/direction of developing LAW Advanced? i think i've read a post where bret mentioned that something of that sort was in the works, otherwise, i would not ask. i'm sure many would say 'to increase the depth' of the LAW system, but in what way? depth of role-playing? depth of detail? detail of characters? detail of combat? to me, the desires of 'depth of role-playing' and detail of characters walk hand-in-hand down a yellow-brick road toward the camp of LAW-RPG. when i think of some sort of LAW-RPG effort, i also envision a 'platform' upon which more traditional, GM-required modules are written. my thoughts in that area are that 'programmed adventures' are the way even GM-required modules should be written (for any system; this is one of the reasons LAW and DCG is so attractive to me)...just add some more detailed GM notes and options where appropriate. i've already blabbered about giving characters more room to grow and individualize, which seems important to a full-fledged RPG system. an additional thought on that is that it would pretty much require instituting classes with their own special feats, skills, etc. however, my favorite systems have been those that allow players of any class to learn any skill, which is a nice thing about current LAW. another aspect of making a 'platform' upon which GM-run modules could be written by anyone is that it would seem to require a compendium of base monster stats, skills, and abilities but that is sort of dependent on the desired business model/side of things. depth and detail of combat this is Camp3 (LAW-WRPG) from my point of view...and, colin, i lump you in this camp. most of the ideas i see from you are directly related to increasing or decreasing character combat power and in another thread, you seemed averse to creating 'soft classes' (i call them 'soft' when they can learn any skill of another class, not just their own). i think there are 2 paths to 'depth and detail of combat'. one path can be followed or both paths can be followed. one path is to increase the depth and detail of positional tactics. the other path is to increase depth and detail through the use of special, combat-centric skills. to me, this what feats tend to be in other systems and is related to the connotations of the word in the english language. see www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/feat ...FEAT implies strength, dexterity, or daring. this second path also aligns with depth of role-playing and character detail, which, to my mind, begs for the creation of classes. back to the positional tactic path...current LAW has as much of this as i would ever want (with the inclusion of creature sizes in terms of spaces). i would be turned off if the positional aspects of play got any more detailed or complicated. well, i hope i haven't undesirably hi-jacked or hogged this thread. i'm feeling a little self-conscious now that i've shared my one-thousand dollars and 2 cents so i'm gonna shut-up and see if anyone will encourage me to say more
|
|
|
Post by mister frau blucher on Oct 30, 2012 9:40:59 GMT -5
Hey guys,
The main impetus for creuting advanced rules is, pretty much as surmised above, to give more depth to actual combat and more depth to character building.
Over the years, our customer base has been a bit divided over the concept. Some desire more detail in their games, others love the more open nature, and adding rules that they want to to the light rules toolkit.
I swing back and forth on the topic of advanced rules. There have been requests for them, and solid arguements against them. Right now, the majority of requests that we get are to keep them as is. The simplicity appeals to people who are just starting out, to those that have gamed for a long time and want a more open system, and those who love to tinker and expand according to their own vision.
As recently as this spring I had the majority of an advanced ruleset done, but my main reservation then (and now) with going forward with it is that many of our customers have been playing our games their own way for a few years, and I hate to come out with something that says in effect "You're doing it wrong." As most of those who have followed this and similiar discussions over the years know, everybody has their own personal tweaks on the TFT system. In writing LAW, we tried to distill those old rules to their basics. To add a bunch of rules to the structure would kind of fell to me like just creating our own "fixes" for TFT, which is maybe not the best idea.
So, for the forseeable future, the core LAW rules will be tweaked on feedback - much of which has occured on these boards. We should have a new iteration done about the time of our next release, but it will not contain anything radically new, just a clean up of language and concepts.
That is where we are, and I hope it makes sense!
Bret
|
|
|
Post by klingor on Nov 1, 2012 20:01:15 GMT -5
Re dice range I agree with 1d20 instead of the 3d6 in the LAW system. Using 3d6 effectively means that any roll against a characteristic of 14 has about a 90% success rate. (An alternative of 2d10 would be just as good, possibly more so.) I found, when playing TFT/ITL, that the sense of achievement diminished when my character gained another point. I don't think that Melee/Wizard were designed with continually progressive characters in mind :- it was only when they realized that the customers liked it that it took off. To be honest, I would change all 3d6 rolls to 2d10 rolls, and use checks AGAINST skills to be vs 10+skill level. Cheers Colin
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 1, 2012 21:44:44 GMT -5
colin, thank you! you have no idea how reassuring it is to see that _you_ agree on the dice. you really surprised me with that. you put some things into words that i just couldn't find the right way to express. we still differ a little bit though. my first preference would be d20 then 2d10 but reading back over this stuff, i wonder if you had something a little different in mind with 2d10. i was thinking of a general check being between 00 and 99 (generated with 2d10) but you made me think that rolls between 00 and 18 are possible with 2d10 (just add them). which way were you thinking of? BTW: another reason i prefer d20 is because i think something like "LAW d20" has a nicer ring to it than "LAW 2d10" HMMM: the more i think about this adding the d10 together. the more i like it. you could go as far as to say "replace all references in the rules to d6 with d10"...so a normal check would be 3d10...hmm...LAW d10...ewookie mews with satisfaction
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 2, 2012 8:52:42 GMT -5
ok. i'm waffling. i'd rather not see 2d10 or 3d10 checks because i'd like to keep the d6 for damage and other things. here's my thinking...
3/DX (or ST or IQ) becomes a 1d20 roll. a 4/DX becomes a 1d20+1d6 roll. a 5/DX becomes a 1d20+2d6 roll. etc. armor tables, spells, weapon tables remain unchanged (damage still defined in d6 terms) as well as most everything else.
this 'scheme' means you really only need 2 dice: 1d20 and 1d6 (but 3d6 would be better; for a total of 4 dice)
a 2d10 scheme that still includes the d6 means you need at least 3 dice. kind of more convenient to have 3d6 but then you have 5 dice to hunt for when you need to roll.
|
|
|
Post by diocletias on Nov 2, 2012 16:02:38 GMT -5
You speak heresy but my group actually does use a d20 because the 3d6 bell curve makes everything too easy after about 13. We use 3d6=d20, 4d6=d30, 5d6=d40, etc.... We also use multi sided dice for damage. Works well for us but I wouldn't recommend it for the base game. I actually prefer the current game rules and then we can homebrew as we want. There's always the forums for alternate rules.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 2, 2012 17:19:34 GMT -5
I speak no heresy! I speak of something different and new. I would never blaspheme the holy LAW Please, sir, tell me more of your homebrew/alternate rules. Their entirety would be preferred, if the trouble is not too great. Also, please explain what thou meanest by 'd30' and 'd40'.
|
|
|
Post by diocletias on Nov 3, 2012 23:46:48 GMT -5
Same rules mostly but when rules say 3d6 we roll a 20 sided dice. If it says 4d6 we roll a 30 sided dice. (Check amazon.com to see or buy one.) If it says 5d6 we roll a 40 sided dice. (Actually a 4-sided and a 10-sided, but a 4 on the 4 sided counts as a zero unless you get a 0 on the 10 sided. Similar to how you roll percentile dice.)
Highest number is automatic miss or fumble. Lowest numbers are double and triple damage. On a d20 the 1 is triple and the 2 is double. On a d30 the 1 is triple with the 2 and 3 being double.
Simple enough it doesn't break the rest of the rules, but it definitely gives different results from the d6 bell curve. Makes it easier to calculate your percent chance for success. If you have an 8 DX and your rolling a d20 then the chance of success is 40 percent. Same DX on a d30 gives roughly a 24 percent chance.
|
|
|
Post by klingor on Nov 4, 2012 14:03:28 GMT -5
Hi, It seems that there are basically two paths - 1) totally linear cf d20 2) Bell Curve cf 3d6 2d10 The playability factor suggests that the level of the characters should be the deciding factor and that the GM could simply say 'In this module/quest/adventure, all base rolls will be 3d6/2d10/1d20 vs appropriate characteristic'. By playability, I mean that that the players will have to make successful rolls whose outcome is not automatic eg char with IQ18 instead of rolling against 3d6, will have to roll vs 2d10 or 1d20. The main problem is that the 3d6 structure is not scalable to higher-level characters. It worked for beginning characters because that was what Melee and Wizard were geared around. For better or worse, the idea took hold and TFT emerged, but it never had time to evolve (no Internet back then and certainly not a forum like this). All the best Colin
|
|
|
Post by falcon on Nov 4, 2012 16:04:41 GMT -5
I have no problem with the 3d6 roll even at higher levels of skill. If your good then your good and you will hit more times then not. I'm not a math guy but if I have to roll 5/DX (level 14) for a head shot (house rule) my chances are alot less then a 3/DX (level 14) roll for center mass. A higher skill allows me to make that head shot and have a chance to get the job done. Just make rules for aimed shots/hits, distance, cover, darkness or whatever will make it harder to hit. Now I'm thinking more along the lines of a RPG. The LAW rules are great for what they are meant for but you do need to expand them alittle for a full RPG. I've come up with and converted some simple rules and alittle over 50 Abilities to do just that though not all of them have been play tested yet. Anyway to me a RPG is a set of simple rules (like LAW) and those simple rules are expanded by breaking the same rules just enough to make things intresting but not to much or they become broken. It's a work in progress :-)
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 4, 2012 17:25:32 GMT -5
@colin there is a 3rd path...it starts off linear and then curves at higher difficulty levels. it is a path where 3/DX = 1d20 vs. DX, 4/DX = 1d20 + 1d6 vs. DX, 5/DX = 1d20 +2d6 vs. DX, etc. falconyes, any of the d20 schemes discussed so far would make your head-shot more difficult but you could adjust your head-shot rule to be 4/DX (1d20+1d6) instead.
|
|
|
Post by mister frau blucher on Nov 5, 2012 9:55:15 GMT -5
The main problem is that the 3d6 structure is not scalable to higher-level characters. It worked for beginning characters because that was what Melee and Wizard were geared around. For better or worse, the idea took hold and TFT emerged, but it never had time to evolve (no Internet back then and certainly not a forum like this). All the best Colin Hey Colin, I like the bell curve, and while I understand the arguement that 3d6 does not scale well with more powerful characters, in my experience it does. Writing Emerald Twilight was a direct test of this. The adventure is for 42 point/15 skill levels, or 150 xp, and is the highest-level adventure we have published. There are some checks that are 4 dice, but most are still 3 dice, and all the feedback we have gotten back, both in playtesting and after publication, has been very positive. No one raised any objections that it was too easy with 3d6. If anybody does, with this adventure, or another specific adventure where the 3d6 bell curve did not work because of the power level of the adventure, I really want to hear specifics. Please understand I am not arguing for its own sake or being smartypants. It is just that while I understand the idea of 3d6 breaking down, it has not happened in my experience. Maybe because it works both ways (for and against characters) or the nature of the opposition we put in higher level advantures (fighting up the side of a ziggurat against seven tough batrachians is not easy even when you have an 18 DX) but I have yet to see it break down in actual play, even while trying. Maybe 250-300 xp point characters, but I have not written or had anyone get advance that far - we will see. That being said, I can understand the desire to see a more even distribution in results. I have played and tinkered with many systems over the decades, and have no problem with anyone else doing that. Whatever makes your gaming enjoyable, by all means follow that path! Bret
|
|
|
Post by mister frau blucher on Nov 5, 2012 9:59:41 GMT -5
Same rules mostly but when rules say 3d6 we roll a 20 sided dice. If it says 4d6 we roll a 30 sided dice. (Check amazon.com to see or buy one.) If it says 5d6 we roll a 40 sided dice. (Actually a 4-sided and a 10-sided, but a 4 on the 4 sided counts as a zero unless you get a 0 on the 10 sided. Similar to how you roll percentile dice.) Highest number is automatic miss or fumble. Lowest numbers are double and triple damage. On a d20 the 1 is triple and the 2 is double. On a d30 the 1 is triple with the 2 and 3 being double. Simple enough it doesn't break the rest of the rules, but it definitely gives different results from the d6 bell curve. Makes it easier to calculate your percent chance for success. If you have an 8 DX and your rolling a d20 then the chance of success is 40 percent. Same DX on a d30 gives roughly a 24 percent chance. Hello, diocletias, Welcome to the boards! Interesting method. It seems the d40 results scale way beyond the 5d6 parallel, though. For instance a guy with an 18 IQ making a 5d6 check would succeed just over 50% of the time (17.5 average) but less than that with the d40. Still, close enough to make it interesting. Nice idea! Bret
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 5, 2012 11:51:22 GMT -5
The main problem is that the 3d6 structure is not scalable to higher-level characters. It worked for beginning characters because that was what Melee and Wizard were geared around. For better or worse, the idea took hold and TFT emerged, but it never had time to evolve (no Internet back then and certainly not a forum like this). All the best Colin Hey Colin, I like the bell curve, and while I understand the arguement that 3d6 does not scale well with more powerful characters, in my experience it does. Writing Emerald Twilight was a direct test of this. The adventure is for 42 point/15 skill levels, or 150 xp, and is the highest-level adventure we have published. There are some checks that are 4 dice, but most are still 3 dice, and all the feedback we have gotten back, both in playtesting and after publication, has been very positive. No one raised any objections that it was too easy with 3d6. If anybody does, with this adventure, or another specific adventure where the 3d6 bell curve did not work because of the power level of the adventure, I really want to hear specifics. Please understand I am not arguing for its own sake or being smartypants. It is just that while I understand the idea of 3d6 breaking down, it has not happened in my experience. Maybe because it works both ways (for and against characters) or the nature of the opposition we put in higher level advantures (fighting up the side of a ziggurat against seven tough batrachians is not easy even when you have an 18 DX) but I have yet to see it break down in actual play, even while trying. Maybe 250-300 xp point characters, but I have not written or had anyone get advance that far - we will see. That being said, I can understand the desire to see a more even distribution in results. I have played and tinkered with many systems over the decades, and have no problem with anyone else doing that. Whatever makes your gaming enjoyable, by all means follow that path! Bret so, you compensated for the curve by making a huge jump in power level or difficulty of the adventure. nothing wrong with that. if the difficulty of the adventures matches the curve of 3d6, nothing breaks. it seems like characters would pretty much have to retire or become gods after about 8 adventures, culminating with Emerald Twilight. not necessarily a bad thing. players can create new characters and run through the adventures they've already purchased. i think this all agrees with what collin said and so do I. it works great for what TFT/LAW is. for someone wanting more character depth and detail, it's not very conducive. i thought this discussion was about how to improve or create greater character depth and detail if something like a 'LAW-RPG' were ever to be created. the d20 is just an alternate strategy, if anyone ever wanted to pursue it. it actually helps characters with lower stat scores and slows down the rise in power-levels while making skill investment a little more attractive. the linear progression of power and difficulty gives players more time to fiddle with their characters and can stretch out the length of campaigns or create a larger market for lower-level to mid-level adventures. there's nothing wrong with either approach. they just have different qualities. as far as diocletias' d30 and d40 is concerned, i agree that the straight-line gets a little too steep at those levels. preserving the curve at the higher levels (with a 1d20 + Xd6 scheme) means that the market for higher-level adventures is preserved and feels very rewarding after fighting your way up the longer side of the hill.
|
|
|
Post by falcon on Nov 10, 2012 20:54:05 GMT -5
Hey All, I wanted to know what you think on a rule Im thinking would work out well that I've seen other systems use. Command Radius = IQ in hexes (inches) around a PC. Spell range is limited to inside this radius except for magic strike spells (they use bow range). This can also be used in command checks with leaders. I should also explain how I do ranges:) Range =Throwing; up to 5 yards no penalty. You are at a -1 for each yard after that. Bow; up to 10 yards no penalty. You are at a -1 for each 5 yards after that. Like I said before I'm not a math guy just a GM that likes to go with the flow so the ranges are for quick calculation during play.
|
|