Microlite20 : the smallest thing in gaming

[Larcen]

Thanks for the quick responses, Rycanada. As it is I can see a VERY neat system here with the slight additions mentioned above.

Here is another cool way to view the 4 stats, including charisma (or WILL as you suggest):

STR is your physical ability to influence external things.
CHA is your mental ability to influence external things.
DEX is your physical speed and nimbleness.
INT is your mental speed and nimbleness.

It all rounds out, two physical stats and two mental!

Edit: I think I still prefer CHA (and not WILL for instance) for the same reason I prefer INT over MIND, old school flavor and familiarity.

 

[jezter6]

Hya Greywulf. Fantastic work you have done here with M20! It looks to be pretty much what I was looking for when I dropped out of my weekly 3.5 session. I was simply tired of fighting with rules (and the rules-lawyers that came with them) instead of fighting in-game challenges.

I like your core rules very much but since you seem to be open to suggestions and questions, here are some of mine:

~~~~~~~~~~

1) Redundant base Stats: You have the opportunity here to do away with a pet peeve lots of people have with D&D. Your system would be perfection if it did away with the needless double stats for each ability score. Why keep track of DEX 18 (+4), when all you really want is that +4 on your sheet? I think the base scores should be dropped once they are generated. All bonuses to the abilities in the rules should then be divided in half. Dwarves get a +1 to STR for instance. Simple and clean. (Note: keep the 4d6 method for generation though for the strong bell curve it creates)

I agree here. There's no reason to keep the numbers...they're just there to generate the stat bonus anyways. A +1 is a +1, if it's 11, 12, 13, 26, 248, whatever the number used to generate what a +1 means.

2) MIND stat: This stat should continue to be called INT I think. If not for maintaining the original D&D flavor alone, then because the 4 letter "MIND" irks me next to "STR" and "DEX".

Hehe...shorten it to MIN then. It's not just INT, it's WIS, WILL, CHA, and just about everything else.

3) Missing CHA score: I thought about it and thought about it, and I think there really is this big hole without a Charisma score. It really is a huge stat in most campaigns (esp. heroic fantasy games) and their would be a void without it. CHA would also serve to round out all the classes, each having their own prime stat. Skills would also be rounded out, each having it's own prime stat as well. Character classes can then be viewed as training in each of the areas of natural talent that a person can be born with. Those who match their natural talents with their chosen professional will do best. An intelligent mage or a dexterous rogue for instance. So having the full four stats (Str, Dex, Int, Cha) would make the four core classes, and the skill system, make more sense I think and seem more universal.

I firmly believe there should be the exact number of skills as stats. When looking over the skills from d20, I came up with 4 or 5 skill groups, although use of a certain skill can fall between groups. While I like the short/sweet m20 system and chars, I'd like to see a little better way of differentiating characters. Maybe the ability to take a -1 to say 2 specific subskills to gain a +1 to another specific subskill (ie: -1 forgery, -1 disguise, +1 bluff)

4) No negative bonuses: To make things even more simple, why not lose negative stats bonuses? The negative bonuses are based on a arbitrary human average anyway. Who says humans are always the average? How about having starting stats range from 1 to 10 (with racial bonuses), by not subtract that initial 10? To keep things balanced all DC's can then be bumped up by +5. The players would then only have to add the revelent stats straight from their PC sheets to each roll. No chance of plus this, minus that.

5) Magic Saves: I am not sure if it feels right that all magic saves are MIND +level. I think one of the skills should come into play based on the spell affect itself. The GM can decide which skill is most relevent if its not written in the spell description. In this respect dodging a fireball is not all that different than dodging a fallen rock for instance. Each spell will then be more unique, and attack spell selection can be chosen based on it's intended target's perceived weaknesses.

I'm not 100% up on C&C, but I think it ditched saves and you just use your appropriate stat modifier. I'm looking at buying it to see, but that makes more sense than having 1 stat to rule them all.

6) Class based HP dice: This is regarding the HP level bonus is +1d6 rule. What was the reasoning for not making the dice type based on class? Surely its not that complicated an addition to the rules. I have seen enough people mention that fighters are somewhat nuked with the M20 rules. Giving them a d10 again might make lots of fighters happy. And another "subpar" class, the rogue, can then get a D8 for instance. I have always viewed fighters as the brute force warriors and rogues as swashbuckling finese types anyway. Bumpin up a rogue's HD makes will make them more viable in combat. So: Fighter=d10, Rogue=d8, Cleric=d6, Mage=d6. The later two being spell casters mostly anyway.

Again, I agree. With everyone stuck at the same HP/level, there isn't much differentiation. In fact, since we're dropping front line melee guys to d6, I'm not sure they are able to face the same challenges over 10-20 levels that a d20 fighter can. If we're taking BAB, HP and such from d20 monsters, why does the fighter get dropped so bad. My guess is that since they are slightly weaker in HP, challenges get tougher and tougher at high levels (which I assume most people who play m20 don't do, but if you bring in the d20 players they will definately try).

7) Size based HP dice: This one is just a thought. How about the bonus dice type being based on the creatures size? 1d4 for small, 1d6 for med, 1d8 for large, etc. Since most PC's are medium, the 1d6 already fits. Halfings might complain however.

8) Level advancement: How does the EL rules as they stand take into consideration the party's size? 8 PCs taking on 8 NPCs should get less experience than 2 PCs in the same situation I think. Does the EL the GM assigns to each encounter already take party size into account then?

Sorry if any of this has been talked to death already in this rather lengthy thread. I have not read all of it yet. Thanks again for the cool system and keep up the great work.

Yeah, it's a cool system and has spawned many neat subsystems. I think with all these small different systems coming out, cobbling together the best of each may produce a great little system...just wish everyone would work together instead of developing so many 95% similar systems.

 

[Ry]

To me, WIL says "your mental ability to influence external things." but I'm largely indifferent to which term m20 uses, were it to be included (a good addition in my opinion).

 

[Larcen]

... I think with all these small different systems coming out, cobbling together the best of each may produce a great little system...just wish everyone would work together
instead of developing so many 95% similar systems.

It was not my intention to create another 95% system. I thought what we were discussing here were ways to improve THIS system. If this system is already "set in stone" I was not aware, so sorry.

I really have high hopes for M20 and just want it to be the best that it can be.

 

[Ry]

I sort of had the impression that I came in too late in the game to have the kind of impact on m20 that's proportional to my suggestions above (otherwise I'd be happy to ditch Rank20).

 

[jezter6]

It was not my intention to create another 95% system. I thought what we were discussing here were ways to improve THIS system. If this system is already "set in stone" I was not aware, so sorry.

I really have high hopes for M20 and just want it to be the best that it can be.

I didn't say you WERE creating another system. But thus far, I've seen 4 m20's out there. Not including Quick20 that seems to have been developed seperately. Each one has little minor differences that make it not the same, but it's based on the same engine.

What I'd like to see is just the very basics - compiled down into a single page. This page just covers the basic mechanic. Then toolkits and addons for each additional layer of rules complexity you want to add. It's almost like that, but there's a lot more 'core' rules than I'd like.

I'd like the ability to add/replace classes at will, with no necessary changes to the core rules. I'd like to plug modern rules in with no changes to the CORE.
I'd like to be able to add low/medium/high magic, each in it's own way to core without defeating the core mechanic.

This system (and it's clones) are very close. I'm going to try and do more work (and create yet ANOTHER clone to meet my needs), and will give suggestions/addons to m20 as they come.

 

[Angel Tarragon]

Any chance of compiling all of the pertinent info of this thread into a handy document for easy of searchability. I mean, this discussioin is great, but a bit unwieldly for searching purposes (24 pages ).

 

[jezter6]

I think that's what the wiki is for in greywulf's sig...it has all the things that spring out of these discussions.

 

[jmucchiello]

4) No negative bonuses: To make things even more simple, why not lose negative stats bonuses? The negative bonuses are based on a arbitrary human average anyway. Who says humans are always the average? How about having starting stats range from 1 to 10 (with racial bonuses), by not subtract that initial 10? To keep things balanced all DC's can then be bumped up by +5. The players would then only have to add the revelent stats straight from their PC sheets to each roll. No chance of plus this, minus that.

This is one of the "innovations" in my as yet unpublished {ABC}20 system. Take all the existing ability scores and Divide by 2 (then rebalance everything so that 15 is average). But my system has none of the backward compatibility with existing content requirements that M20 has so I can do that.

 

[Ry]

This is one of the "innovations" in my as yet unpublished {ABC}20 system. Take all the existing ability scores and Divide by 2 (then rebalance everything so that 15 is average). But my system has none of the backward compatibility with existing content requirements that M20 has so I can do that.

Rank20 had the same idea; I went 1-6 for PC abilities (same as -1 to +4) to get rid of the negative numbers. So I certainly agree in principle.

Actually the frightening thing is that (D&D Stat/ 2), round down would be easier to use in-game than m20's existing rule.