Hi everyone!
Sorry for the delayed response, but I only came across this thread recently. Apologies in advance for the long reply, but there are a lot of very good questions that I want to address:
I think I would need more information before backing this.
I apologize for the initial "sales pitch" having so little information about design goals -- I was afraid that over-describing it would be a turn-off for potential patrons. Also, since I plan on patrons having a huge amount of influence on the rules (even the most basic ones), I didn't want to sell someone on an idea that ends up being changed or dropped.
In retrospect, though, I should have included more detail at the beginning, so I put together a FAQ that covers a variety of design and patronage questions. Here's the design section:
Q: Is the e20 System using the Open Game License (OGL)? Will it be Open Game Content?
A: Yes, and yes. Under the terms of the OGL, all of the e20 Core Rulebook will be Open Game Content except for those sections that are product identity (as it is for any other product that uses the OGL). As such, it will be available for other publishers to use, expand, or modify as they see fit so long as they, too, follow the terms of the OGL when they do so.
Q: Is the e20 System a revision of existing d20-based Open Game Content, sort of like Pathfinder (Paizo Publishing)?
A: In my opinion, Pathfinder is a continuation of the core design philosophy found in Dungeons & Dragons 3rd edition and Dungeons & Dragons version 3.5 (hereafter "3.0/3.5"). Though it is definitely a revision, it is sufficiently similar that many characterize it as "version 3.75" of those rules.
The e20 System, in contrast, is not meant to be a revision but rather to be a thorough rebuilding and rethinking of the 3.0/3.5 rules. Though many details will be familiar -- you still have classes, levels, feats, skills, and talents seen in d20 Modern (hereafter "d20M") and Star Wars Roleplaying Game: Saga Edition (hereafter "SWSE"), among others -- the way that these mechanics work in the game is changing substantially, both in terms of how game statistics are calculated and what role they play in the game as a whole.
Q: Is the e20 System using the Game System License (GSL) of Dungeons & Dragons 4th edition?
A: No. The e20 System is not being made under the terms of the GSL, and it is not compatible with D&D 4th edition products (hereafter "4E").
However, 4E, SWSE, and other games that aren't Open Game Content (Steve Jackson's GURPS, West End Games's D6 System, White Wolf's World of Darkness games, Pinnacle's Savage Worlds, etc.) can and do provide inspiration for different approaches to the rules, design philosophy, and so forth.
Q: What inspiration have you drawn from 4E?
A: There are several different things I've liked about 4E to varying degrees, but I think I am most impressed by their approach to monster design. In my experience, many d20-based games (including 3.0/3.5 and SWSE) suffer from putting too much detail into an opponent that typically is neutralized within a few rounds of combat. Though that level of detail is certainly appropriate for player characters (who will be around for a long time, hopefully) and particularly noteworthy non-player characters (such as a major recurring villain who will be encountered many times in many different settings), it is in most cases a profound waste of effort. I would estimate that 75% (or more!) of all detail put into an opponent's stat block is never used in any given encounter.
To me, 4E's monster design rules are useful abstraction. It's not that the opponents can't or shouldn't be built with level-by-level detail -- it's just that you can approximate many of those details and end up with an opponent that produces almost identical results. I want the e20 System to work toward this same goal (albeit with a different mechanical approach) so that we can reduce the time the game master (GM) must put into writing stat blocks so more time can be put into writing adventures.
Q: Will the e20 System use classes?
A: Yes, but they are somewhat more flexible than the classes encountered in most d20-based games. The classes are based on "talent trees," somewhat similar to those used in d20M and SWSE. Though final decision aren't made until patrons (and especially senior patrons) have had a chance to provide input, the classes are most likely going to be similar to the "generic" classes found in d20M: Strong Hero, Tough Hero, Fast Hero, Smart Hero, Dedicated Hero, and Charismatic Hero.
In addition to the core talent trees for each class, additional talent trees can be added depending on the genre and setting. For example, if you are in a setting that features magic, you might have a "Wizard talent tree" added to the Smart Hero class, and in a modern setting, you might have a "Commando talent tree" added to the Tough Hero class, and so forth.
Q: How will the e20 System handle multiclassing?
A: This is best answered by making a comparison. In 3.0/3.5, if you were a 19th-level fighter who became a 1st-level wizard, it was a complete waste unless you focused on self-enhancing spells like shield or true strike. Offensive spells are virtually useless because the saving throws are almost automatic and/or the damage is so low compared to enemies of your level.
In my system, everything scales by level. So, if you are a 19th-level fighter/1st-level wizard, you'd be able to throw a 20th-level of a magic missile.
So what's the advantage of being a 20th-level fighter or a 20th-level wizard? That's where talent trees come in -- someone who stays in one class can access all the talents from that class, but someone who merely dabbles can access only the first tier. The higher-level talents aren't necessarily more powerful than lower-level talents ... they're just different, and they're exclusive to the specialist. So, a multiclass 10th-level fighter/10th-level wizard has tricks the other guy can't do (e.g. a good collection of spells to complement his fighting abilities), but the same goes for the fighter 20 (e.g. exclusive exploits the lower-level fighter hasn't learned).
Again, the power levels are comparable, and both have the same number of tricks up their sleeves -- they're just different tricks.
Q: How do e20 System class features work in comparison to 4E powers?
A: Unlike 4E powers, talents in the e20 System will be fairly varied (i.e. there will not be a firm line between "attack powers" and "utility powers").
Also unlike 4E, the e20 System uses talent trees to organize class abilities. I think this approach keeps options nicely organized along thematic lines, and that also makes it easier to compare higher-level versions of lower-level talents (something that is a bit difficult with 4E powers).
Q: How do e20 System class features work in comparison to SWSE Force powers?
A: Unlike SWSE, I don't think I want powers and the like to be an extra thing you buy with a feat (as with Force powers or starship maneuvers); I would prefer that major abilities that are central to a character's design be built into that character's class and level.
Q: How do e20 System class features work in comparison to class features in 3.0/3.5 or talents in SWSE and d20M?
Unlike class features in 3.0/3.5 or talents in SWSE and d20M, talents in the e20 System will be distinctly different from feats: Talents are active (i.e. the character activates them as a specific action); in contrast, feats are more passive, generally enhancing another action or ability. In addition, talents are not exclusive to classes, though that is where characters will get most of them.
Q: How about skills?
A: The e20 System is using skills similar to those found in 3.0/3.5, d20M, SWSE, and 4E. Unlike 3.0/3.5 and d20M, we will not be using skill points because I've found that the flexibility gained is not sufficient to offset the complexity added. Instead, skills will be "trained" or "untrained" -- much like in some of the variants in Unearthed Arcana, or in SWSE or 4E -- and skill bonuses increase as you gain levels.
Also unlike most d20-based games, skills are truly universal -- everyone can use every skill. Some skills do have "trained-only" applications, and some genres might add extra applications to existing skills, but skills are fundamentally available to everyone.
One of the biggest departures of the e20 System from earlier d20-based games is the inclusion of weapon skills. There is no longer such as thing as "weapon proficiency"; instead, each weapon group (a fairly broad category) has an associated skill; if you're trained in it, you have a higher skill modifier (which in turn is used to make attacks, etc.), just as you would with any other skill.
Finally, one concept under consideration is de-coupling skills from ability scores. A given skill might default to a particular ability score for most applications, but it could nevertheless work with a different ability score depending on the situation. For example, a character's skill with a rifle is paired with Dexterity to make an attack roll, but it might be paired with Intelligence if attempting to repair or maintain the weapon, and it might be paired with Strength if you're wielding a bayonet mounted on the barrel. (This is a more experimental concept, so the details are going to be greatly influenced by patron input.
Sorry about the length there, but I didn't want everyone to have to jump over to my site just to see my answers.
I don't know if the patronage model will work as well...this is something that could be pulled in a lot of different directions.
People can get surprisingly worked up over core mechanics.
That's one of the biggest questions I had to ask myself about this, but I decided to trust my instincts on the matter and take a chance on this sort of "grass-roots game design" working.
Think of it as a step just shy of true "crowd-sourcing" -- patrons will have a lot of input, and they'll even have the chance to submit content for the game (and to be paid for it!), but there's still an experienced gaming professional at the helm to make the tough calls. (Also, since I worked as a paid message board moderator for so many years on the WotC boards, I'm confident that I can use that experience to keep the discussions productive.)
Ultimately, I think this will make the game stronger than it could otherwise be. No matter how good your designers, you'll never have as many ideas as a whole population of gamers. (As I point out on the
e20 System front page:
An individual can have an innovation, but only a population can evolve.)
Of course it's not the same staggeringly high patronage target as Stevens' project ($75,000) but if Sarli can work "full time" for a year at $10k, more power to him.
Honestly, if I raise just $10k through this project, it would have fallen far short of what I'm hoping to achieve. $10k is the smallest amount that I felt I could finish the project with, and it would involve eating a lot of ramen noodles.
Given that I'm hoping for more but $10k is enough to physically finish it, I set that as the initial fund-raising goal -- at that point, I'd feel that I would have at least even odds of raising two or three times this much, through sales after the fact if nothing else.
Theoretically, working under the patronage model simply to raise an art budget, working in my spare time (as always-- it's a hobby) and therefore taking no profit from the project other than what I see from actual sales, I could do the same thing for a fraction of the price.
The work I've done so far on the project has been just like this. Where I diverge is that freelance work is currently my bread-and-butter, so if I were to work on this full-time, that would mean I
can't do the work that pays the bills. So, I set a very modest fund-raising goal that I felt would allow me to just
barely scrape by during the period that I'm not doing other jobs.
For reference, a 400-page book with a piece of art on every spread-- extravagant-- would need 200 illustrations. I know a few illustrators who would love to get a piece of that art order and the book would look fantastic. (Not Paizo fantastic, no-- but professional quality.)
Definitely. If I scrape by with the bare minimum in fund-raising, art will unfortunately be a lot less extravagant than I'd like -- but, fortunately, I've had lots of artists contact me to volunteer their services. (Some even said they'd work for free, but I've insisted on paying them something for their hard work -- even if they're just giving "royalty-free rights" to use an existing illustration, they're all going to get paid.)
With any luck, though, I'll raise enough before print time that I won't have to skimp on art.
I am skeptical about the "genre neutral" goal. My experience is that even games that try to remain genre neutral (say, GURPS) still have design that strongly favors certain genres, and it seems like you get a better result when you admit that, and work with the genre, rather than try to eliminate it.
This is what I was thinking also. Even though I'm always interested in exploring new mechanical ideas, I'm really not sure "genre neutral" is necessarily possible - or if it is accomplished, will it really be very exciting or fun. It may end up as a "Jack of all trades, Master of none" kind of thing. Useable, but very likely, un-exciting.
This is a legitimate concern, and you're right: It's an ambitious goal that's hard to reach.
However, I think it can be done if you go into the project with this goal in mind from the beginning ... and having a huge number of patrons looking over your shoulder, each with a slightly different favorite genre, it forces you to think about these things.
This grass-roots game design concept is ultimately an experiment to see if this can be done. If it works, great! It could help us all rethink the way that games are made. If not ... well, even if the final game isn't as flexible as we're hoping, at least we learned from the experience.
Are there really enough people to buy into this sort of thing? We have a 3rd edition professional update already (Pathfinder), and I find many other 3rd edition clones just simple rehashes. Its like people trying to publish by including their house rules in the system core.
Pretty much all of the 3rd edition clones are not worth getting as a whole. There are individual areas that they might improve, but as a whole they are not better than 3rd edition.
It seems like people that still want to play D&D who were involved with 3rd edition will A) keep playing 3rd edition B) play Pathfinder or C) go to play 4e.
These 3rd edition derivatives seem like alot of work put out for about 10 people. I understand wanting to do it as an intellectual exercise or for personal satisfaction, but to actually have it taken seriously as an independent game by the gamer population seems vastly unlikely.
That, too, is a legitimate concern, but for what it's worth, we've attracted a lot of patrons in a very short time.
Also, this project is most definitely
not a 3rd edition clone -- it really is a complete rethinking and rebuilding from the ground up. The final result should be at least as different as 4th edition, but taking things in a different direction from our common 3rd edition "ancestor."
I'm seeing this as much more for people who want a non-D&D version of d20... but also aren't satisfied with just using d20 modern/future, true20, mutants and masterminds, etc.
I imagine it's not a huge market, but you only need, what, 250 people to be on board?
That's my thinking, too. I'm hoping that the final product is a substantial improvement on existing alternatives, but obviously that's a very subjective thing.
If you have any comments or questions, let me know and I'll respond ASAP. Also, if you have the time, I would appreciate it if you'd drop by
our message boards and join the discussion there, even if you're not yet sure that you want to contribute. Getting everyone in the same room sharing their thoughts will help move the discussion forward and focus our thinking on where we've been and where we want to go.
Thanks for all your input!
