"e20: System Evolved" Roleplaying Game Core Rulebook

[Flobby]

It sounds great to me. Actually it in some ways it is more like what I thought 4E would be (Not bashing 4E! big fan) kind. I'm pledging and hope it gets of the ground!

 

[prom]

One d20 roll to hit and do damage, a brilliant idea. Check it out at the link below.

GMSarli Games • View topic - Semi-radical idea for handling damage

 

[Stacie GmrGrl]

And finally no base attack bonus... having an actual combat skills system will be reallly refreshing and it won't be reliant on a flat bonus based on class and character level. It will be pretty sweet

 

[Roman]

Interestingly enough, although it has long been on the cusp of happening, I just recently started creating my own RPG, so the issue of RPG design is definitely fresh on my mind. It sure is an interesting way to create an RPG you have there, I will grant you that! That said it's design goals seem to be contrary to what I am looking for, so I will have to decline participation. It seems that most RPGs these days aim for stream-lining and simplification to achieve greater speed of play and cinematic outcomes, whereas my desire is for more detail and an enhanced degree of realism (needless to say, though, it still must remain playable...).

Of course, I have no illusions that my RPG/approach would find a wider audience, so mine will remain a hobby project intended to allow me to have fun doing game design and with the target audience being myself and my gaming group.

 

[Stacie GmrGrl]

I think one thing that would be neat, and I've seen this done in other rpgs out there, is design e20 with the notion of having Basic Rules and Advanced Rules.

Basic Rules would be those simple rules that make the game fast and furious, maybe abstract in nature so the players and GMs who don't want a lot of details can play using these rules. Gridless rules would go here. Base flat damage would go here.

Then, adding Advanced Rules on top of it, in a plug in play fashion, for more Detailed rules. This can be where options for things like Bleeding, Knockdown, Trip, Grappling, Tactical movement (more grid-like rules), Hit locations, anything that takes the game beyond the simple to the advanced. Rolling dice for damage would go here.

I think something like this would be really neat to work into the game.

 

[prom]

Interestingly enough, although it has long been on the cusp of happening, I just recently started creating my own RPG, so the issue of RPG design is definitely fresh on my mind. It sure is an interesting way to create an RPG you have there, I will grant you that! That said it's design goals seem to be contrary to what I am looking for, so I will have to decline participation. It seems that most RPGs these days aim for stream-lining and simplification to achieve greater speed of play and cinematic outcomes, whereas my desire is for more detail and an enhanced degree of realism (needless to say, though, it still must remain playable...).

Of course, I have no illusions that my RPG/approach would find a wider audience, so mine will remain a hobby project intended to allow me to have fun doing game design and with the target audience being myself and my gaming group.

That's fair enough. Your right, rules have been heading toward simple designs to run the game faster. This is a goal of e20, as I understand it. There has been alot of discussion around rule variants, and Gary wrote alot of optional rules for the saga rpg that could be inserted with no trouble. I can see something like that being available in e20, but I can't be completely sure.

 

[Stacie GmrGrl]

One thing that would be neat, and in the interest of modularity, is if the rules were written with Basic and Advanced Rules in mind.

Basic for the simple, more abstract elements of the game, rules that don't delve far into the tactical elements of the game, that aren't very realistic or detailed.

Advanced Rules for the tactical aspects of the game: tactical movement, gritty realism, hit locations, more combat options that require more detail, possibly rules for bloodloss, more advanced versions of grappling, tripping, things like that. This would be a set of rules that add on top of the Basic rules, providing things that, while maybe making some things last longer, they also provide a more gritty or tactical experience.

idk if i'm explaining it right, but something like this would be pretty neat to work on.

 

[Roman]

I think one thing that would be neat, and I've seen this done in other rpgs out there, is design e20 with the notion of having Basic Rules and Advanced Rules.

Basic Rules would be those simple rules that make the game fast and furious, maybe abstract in nature so the players and GMs who don't want a lot of details can play using these rules. Gridless rules would go here. Base flat damage would go here.

Then, adding Advanced Rules on top of it, in a plug in play fashion, for more Detailed rules. This can be where options for things like Bleeding, Knockdown, Trip, Grappling, Tactical movement (more grid-like rules), Hit locations, anything that takes the game beyond the simple to the advanced. Rolling dice for damage would go here.

I think something like this would be really neat to work into the game.

One thing that would be neat, and in the interest of modularity, is if the rules were written with Basic and Advanced Rules in mind.

Basic for the simple, more abstract elements of the game, rules that don't delve far into the tactical elements of the game, that aren't very realistic or detailed.

Advanced Rules for the tactical aspects of the game: tactical movement, gritty realism, hit locations, more combat options that require more detail, possibly rules for bloodloss, more advanced versions of grappling, tripping, things like that. This would be a set of rules that add on top of the Basic rules, providing things that, while maybe making some things last longer, they also provide a more gritty or tactical experience.

idk if i'm explaining it right, but something like this would be pretty neat to work on.

Hello Stacie Gamer Girl,

You are right, having Basic and modular Advanced rules can help cater to more types of gamers, but it significantly expands the scope of any design project, you have to design while keeping in mind that various combinations of rules can be used and then to playtest those rule-combinations.

The simpler approach of making a game that tries to do both within a unitary ruleset, on the other hand, is likely to run into problems. A game needs to have clear design goals of what it wants to accomplish, lest it tries to become all things to all people and does not satisfy anybody. That's not to say that some things cannot be made both simpler and more realistic, or more balanced and more flavorful, simultaneously, but oftentimes it comes to a tradeoff between the two and which way the designer will lean in making calls affects the type of game that it will produce.

I can afford less rigour in setting goals than a project seeking to produce a book, since I am just making it for myself, but here is how I would tend to make the calls if it came to tradeoffs between issues:

Class/Race/Character Balance versus Mechanical Differentiation/Uniqueness/Flavor: Leaning towards mechanical differentiation...
Simulation/Detail versus Game Speed/Simplicity: Leaning towards simulation/detail...
Realism versus Cinematics: Leaning towards realism at lower levels, but cinematic heroism at higher levels... (plus, of course, magic breaks realism...)

Games have been more or less moving in the opposite direction for a while now and so is e20. I can certainly understand that - speed of play, super-balance and cinematic gameplay are worthy goals to strive for and it seems for the vast majority of gamers they are preferable to the other things on my sample list of design calls, or so I would assume, as those companies making these games have surely done their market research and wouldn't be moving in that direction if that weren't where the market lay.

 

[Roman]

That's fair enough. Your right, rules have been heading toward simple designs to run the game faster. This is a goal of e20, as I understand it.

Right, and e20 is in good company here, since the tendency now appears to be to make games with that design goal. Given that, it is likely that the market for those types of games is much larger than the alternative, though it also means that e20 will face more competition than if it moved in the opposite direction. Taking d20/OGL/3.Xe as a starting point, 4E, True 20, Castles & Crusades have all moved in that direction, as has Pathfinder (and as will be likely for the possible Pathfinderized Modern game) though to a much lesser degree. Of course, the smaller slice of the bigger market is likely still much larger than the larger slice of the smaller, opposite-direction market would be.

 

[prom]

From what Gary has indicated so far, he isn't looking to make a ruleset that keeps everyone happy. He is listening to what people have to say, but looking at the reality of running a game. I personally don't like optional rules unless the system is broken. Star Wars Saga never turned out the way it should have, due to page restrictions. My guess is that Gary is trying to get a book printed that does what was always intended and pitching it to a wide market. Not a silly thing to do.

Gary in the past has put out optional rules for Saga, if large numbers of people have seen problems with it. But I can't see that happening in the core rulebook, maybe as a supplement?