Headed for rune

[AeroDm]

This is true; it really comes down to what you are trying to do with your overall feel. As you know, my inclination is towards focusing on only ten "fattened" levels; where even at high level, you don't get into the real wahoo wuxia style of 3e/4e. As such, I view zones as an option alongside of traditional battlemap/minis play rather than a complete replacement. I think if the duality of this is hardcoded into the rules, you have a greater chance of balancing things. [By the way, did you see my 4 responses to zonestorming here?]
One of the primary issues with 3e is the disparity between casters and non-casters. One of my biggest issues with 4e was how they dealt with this disparity. I see a greater role and importance placed in initiative as one of several ways of balancing the ledger.

I actually decided to try a little experiment with that post. I wanted to see if I didn't chime in if it would foster more discussion. It sort of worked, I guess. I find it hard to not respond, so I intentionally haven't read them yet. I plan to respond in a couple days when I get back to working on zones.

I can sympathize about the 3e vs 4e casters. Some of the magic (heh) was definitely lost in standardizing the mechanics. Of course, the gripes about high level casters overshadowing other classes are equally valid and true, so it is a tough part of the game. My own plans are to try and sort of bridge the two. I think casters need some formalized attacks that feel magical but also let them interact in the same way as other classes. But the spirit of the game basically demands, in my opinion, that casters also have powers that let them be creative and do unforeseen things during combat. We'll see if it works.

 

[Croesus]

1. You are taking a whole lot of the complexity of the movement part out. This means you've got some room to add back in a bit of complexity to handle this aspect.

A quick cautionary comment here. As was mentioned somewhere upstream, it's much easier to start with a simple system and add complexity, but much more difficult to start with complexity and simplify it.

By attempting to tightly integrate things such as declared actions, movement, initiative, and reactions you appear to be creating a complex system that caters to one specific style of play. Perhaps you can find a way to elegantly streamline this, but based on what I've read so far, this appears to be more appropriate as an option, not a default.

Just my take so far. Not having seen a step by step example, it's difficult to be certain just how much player focus your proposals would require. Still, it has the feel of something worthy of 3E level complexity, not what the OP seems to be attempting with Rune. It also has the feel of something that would immediately turn off my particular group, which prefers a much looser style.

 

[AeroDm]

A quick cautionary comment here. As was mentioned somewhere upstream, it's much easier to start with a simple system and add complexity, but much more difficult to start with complexity and simplify it.

By attempting to tightly integrate things such as declared actions, movement, initiative, and reactions you appear to be creating a complex system that caters to one specific style of play. Perhaps you can find a way to elegantly streamline this, but based on what I've read so far, this appears to be more appropriate as an option, not a default.

Just my take so far. Not having seen a step by step example, it's difficult to be certain just how much player focus your proposals would require. Still, it has the feel of something worthy of 3E level complexity, not what the OP seems to be attempting with Rune. It also has the feel of something that would immediately turn off my particular group, which prefers a much looser style.

The 'simple, then complex' idea is what I've been referring to as favorable system assumptions (which, the more I reference it, the more I realize it is sort of a crappy name). I think I agree with you as well. I'd love to see an example in play because, in my head, it has a very distinct feel. I imagine people squinting across the table at their opponent and deciding to use Bonetti's defense (It is fitting considering the rocky terrain). Could be great, but I'm not sure.

Also, another update. My first class, the rogue.

 

[AeroDm]

A second class posted: the fighter. With two classes it should start to become more apparent how they could multiclass together and the tradeoffs that entails, but also the ways in which they can cooperate and build a tactical team.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

By attempting to tightly integrate things such as declared actions, movement, initiative, and reactions you appear to be creating a complex system that caters to one specific style of play. Perhaps you can find a way to elegantly streamline this, but based on what I've read so far, this appears to be more appropriate as an option, not a default.

Well, I'm mainly just throwing stuff out there to spark thought, the same way some of the Runeward stuff has sparked mine. If it helps, great. If not, well the counter ideas might prove useful.

But in my followup, when I said that it needed to fit with other elements, the above concern is part of what I was addressing. If something like initiative + movement integrated into one system just seems to fit, and the abstractions work with what you are otherwise trying to accomplish--then it will be streamlined. Even the options would be streamlined. You've got a simple version where "initiative" has it is normally considered is maybe one modifier to the movement roll, and that's all. Then you have other options where it has initiative-specific options.

OTOH, if you tried to force, against what you were otherwise trying to do, then even if you manage to somewhat streamline it, and not completely balk some other important goal of the movement system, it will be clunky, at best.

But I don't think something like I proposed would ever be simply an option. It only works if it fits the rest of the material elegantly. Otherwise, I'd expect a more traditional initiative system, or something like Herremann proposed, to be a better choice.

 

[AeroDm]

Well, I'm mainly just throwing stuff out there to spark thought, the same way some of the Runeward stuff has sparked mine. If it helps, great. If not, well the counter ideas might prove useful.

For sure. This update on skills started as something very different. It ended up where it is from the confluence of two different conversations--one to help someone with their homebrew system and another about what a commenter on my site didn't like about my skill system. Neither of their opinions got adopted wholesale, but both spurred different ideas I liked more than my original.

 

[AeroDm]

A follow up on skills that shows all of the math and the why/how side of the game.

 

[AeroDm]

The third class, the bard.

 

[AeroDm]

A cycling back through all of the articles and theories that got us to classes.

 

[AeroDm]

Another new class. This time it's the ranger.