Modos RPG Playtest 1: the One True System

[Dethklok]

OK the first thing I have to say regarding the combat section is that the way you make a resisted d20 vs d20 roll your central mechanic is a good idea, but with the caveat that it gives you false precision and huge numbers that you then have to pull down by a factor of four when assigning degrees of success. If you rolled d6 vs d6 to begin with, not only would your numbers be more manageable, but the difference between rolls would immediately be the degree of success.

By the way, since you do have this concept of Degree of Opportunity, your game is open to a much more elegant system for dealing damage - simply use degree of success as the damage for any attack.


Next, you use take half in a way that seems problematic. You say that "there can be a lot of rolling going on" and that Modos offers a "simple solution." Unfortunately "take half" isn't simple - it's another rule patched onto the already complicated ruleset which raises its own problems: any time someone takes half, the spread of successes narrows, sometimes to the point that one character will be unhittable! D&D at least restricted take ten to when characters were safe, so that it could only be applied to routine tasks. If you followed suit, the rule would work... but it would also remain a complexity band-aid. A more elegant design wouldn't need it.

 

[Dethklok]

So I finished the combat system. While it does work, and things seem to tie together, it doesn't really reflect the way combat actually happens. Overall it's an abstract system, like most of what you're using, and for your purposes I think it's pretty close to what you want.

From this standpoint, your system is good as it is. The "three action" system I think is a particularly clever way of punishing characters for trying to fight multiple opponents at once, and while the postures seemed redundant with this at first, I get the impression that you're trying to make a system that runs without miniatures, and this offensive/defensive posture does a lot to establish positioning without the need for them.

One change suggests itself: eliminate the protection die roll. There's really no need even for initiative rolls or damage rolls. But while I could see there being some reason a person might want to roll initiative and damage all the time, the protection roll doesn't give you anything other than complexity for its own sake. Now, some games might want protection to be variable if armor covers part of the body (as when someone wears only a helmet and toga), but Modos doesn't do this. Protection in Modos is a passive effect, and giving such an effect a die roll does nothing other than slow your game down.

Now, all that said, since I do know you're becoming interested in realistic combat, I'll give you some further suggestions you can think about. I should note that I don't use any of this, and I don't mean to suggest they be used as much as give a sense of some mechanics that would make the system look more plausible.

_________________

1. Initiative

It's very easy to determine initiative realistically with a list that looks like this:

0. Spells are declared.
1. Readied missiles fire. (e.g. I aim my crossbow at the door and wait to fire.)
2. Range appropriate melee (spears from far away, shortswords from in close).
3. Range inappropriate melee and spontaneous missiles.
4. Spells are cast.


2. Attack and Parry bonuses

Weapons don't need to vary in terms of damage. They should, however, vary in terms of their usefulness on attack and defense. Some quick examples of plausible attack and defense bonuses:

Sword: +2/+2
Ax: +2/0
Spear (1h): 0/-2
Quarterstaff: 0/+2
Dagger: -2/-2
Shield: ---/+5


3. Formations

Disciplined warriors fighting in formation should all have +2 to defense rolls for each ally on either side. Only warriors in the same posture may be part of a formation. When someone is struck, he or she is knocked out of the formation and his or her allies lose one of their +2 bonuses until that character returns to the formation or the others close next turn. (Note that this makes morale a huge factor; if even one person runs, he or she will break formation and weaken the line.)

Maintaining a formation should not be easy, and some sort of soldiering or discipline roll may be required for a group to form. Having a leader using a Metaphysical oration or leadership skill would help.


_____________


So that's it, DMMike! I've focussed mainly on criticism in these reviews, but Modos isn't a bad game. Clearly there's a great deal of thought and care put into it. And there is probably a niche for it as well; I know someone who treats roleplaying games as a buffet from which to build his own game, and Modos would allow anyone like him to do that.

Good luck.

 

[GMMichael]

The skill section is really where I think your attributes show their limitations. Having abbreviations "P" "M" and "MP" is a drawback in and of itself, but sometimes it isn't clear why any of them is chosen; for instance Larceny being P rather than M, or Profession - Artist being M rather MP, both seem off.

A common thing you'll find in the game: gray areas. This is why Rule Zero is explicitly stated, and players are encouraged to create character concepts for roleplaying, before worrying about rolls. Regarding skills, while I'm tempted to put more emphasis on using a relevant ability instead of assigning them, doing so would make the game even more gray.

Larceny: I chose Physical because the skill includes several important physical-related talents: being silent, picking pockets, and sleight-of-hand. It also includes several talents that might be more Mental: hiding, lockpicking, and forgery. The difficulty, of course, is that Physical, Mental, and Metaphysical are all hopelessly intertwined, at least as far as characters are concerned.

Profession-artist: does the soul inspire art? Sure. Which would make it an MP skill. But artists also rely on training, observation, and concentration, which point toward the Mental ability. Anyone playing the game would be welcome to mod the skill, to make its relevant ability Metaphysical, which leads us to...

More, although my first thought is, "Well MODOS is modular, I should just be able to change it," it's really tough to expand the attributes on a skill-based system which ties attributes directly to skills. This triumphirate philosophy is seeded throughout the text, and if you don't like it, you're better off selecting a different game, because there is so much that needs to be altered and rewritten.

Changing relevant abilities on skills is easy. Expanding the abilities list is more complex. The simplest way to do it would be to introduce one new ability, and create new skills for it, while reassigning others, until each of your four abilities has a fairly even mix. Dividing Physical into Strength and Dexterity is more complex, because you'll slant the entire skills system toward physical applications (having two physical abilities with only one mental and one metaphysical).

Note, though, that I've divorced the abilities from the other wings of the game (namely combat and magic). For example, initiative is determined by whatever your best ability is, not Dexterity. There's no damage bonus that is tied only to Strength. You don't get more skills based on your Intelligence. You don't get bonus spells based on your Intelligence, Wisdom, Charisma, Mental, or Metaphysical.

However, each ability has its own flavor. Physical is intimately involved in combat, and is the most easily damaged ability. Mental is harder to damage, and can be used (via a skill) to repair Metaphysical, as well as extend spell durations. Metaphysical is the hardest ability to touch, but you'll be damaging it a lot if you cast spells - since MP health is used to power spells.

In the equipment section, you may want to reconsider having gold be the basic unit of coin. It was never thus in any society I have ever known; silver is a more plausible generic coinage.

Good point. Under consideration.

Your usage of variable damage isn't plausible in any sense, although I can see that gamers may be so accustomed to saying "but my two handed sword is really big so it hurts more than when I cut your throat with my dagger."

Granted, a dagger can kill just as well as a claymore, but note how damage is defined in the game; damage is more accurately described as a measurement of distance from death, than it is a measure of how many cuts and scrapes a character has. (Another roleplaying opportunity...) By the way, a dagger can benefit from the Backstab perk, while a zweihaender cannot. Additionally, if the scenario is that of a stiletto-related assassination, the GM could declare that death (well, mostly death) is determined by a one-roll contest, instead of extended conflict rules (combat), and apply bonuses based on degrees of success.

I think you should check out Dragon Warriors' spell list. Even before I knew what they did, Shadowbolt and Deathlight were spells I wanted to cast. In fact I want to cast them right now.

Cool spell names are outside the scope of this part of the project. I need a stable, flexible foundation. Great example, though. And thanks for the responses. Let me know if my replies change your perspective at all, and I'll get to your further replies soon!

 

[GMMichael]

OK the first thing I have to say regarding the combat section is that the way you make a resisted d20 vs d20 roll your central mechanic is a good idea, but with the caveat that it gives you false precision and huge numbers that you then have to pull down by a factor of four when assigning degrees of success. If you rolled d6 vs d6 to begin with, not only would your numbers be more manageable, but the difference between rolls would immediately be the degree of success.

Good points. The degrees of success rule is actually more of a guideline, and it states that degrees of success can be as little as a 1-point spread. Degrees of success (and a clarification that I need to add) are far more important in one-roll conflicts than in extended conflicts, because they provide additional information about the outcome of a conflict, which is scarce (almost by definition) in the one-roll conflict.

D6 versus d6 would be great for establishing degrees of success. However, going with a d20 allows the GM to include difficulty modifiers to one or both sides of a roll that don't add up to a full degree.

By the way, since you do have this concept of Degree of Opportunity, your game is open to a much more elegant system for dealing damage - simply use degree of success as the damage for any attack.

Great idea! If I can figure out a way to reconcile DoS, damage, and weaponry's lethality, I'll add it.

Next, you use take half in a way that seems problematic. You say that "there can be a lot of rolling going on" and that Modos offers a "simple solution." Unfortunately "take half" isn't simple - it's another rule patched onto the already complicated ruleset which raises its own problems: any time someone takes half, the spread of successes narrows, sometimes to the point that one character will be unhittable! D&D at least restricted take ten to when characters were safe, so that it could only be applied to routine tasks. If you followed suit, the rule would work... but it would also remain a complexity band-aid. A more elegant design wouldn't need it.

I'm guessing, with the unhittable character example, you're referring to a defender who is so good at Parrying that he can take 10 and still have a result higher than what the attackers can roll. If that's the case, consider that taking half represents a mediocre effort. If an enemy can carelessly defend against attackers' best efforts, those attacker should really have a better game plan. Further, don't forget that the combat system allows a finite number of defenses, so if an unhittable opponent is outnumbered 2 to 1, he'd only be able to parry most of the attacks at best.

Gotta run. Great analysis...

 

[GMMichael]

So I finished the combat system. . .Overall it's an abstract system, like most of what you're using, and for your purposes I think it's pretty close to what you want.

Great! I'm taking it to press.

One change suggests itself: eliminate the protection die roll. There's really no need even for initiative rolls or damage rolls. But while I could see there being some reason a person might want to roll initiative and damage all the time, the protection roll doesn't give you anything other than complexity for its own sake. Now, some games might want protection to be variable if armor covers part of the body (as when someone wears only a helmet and toga), but Modos doesn't do this. Protection in Modos is a passive effect, and giving such an effect a die roll does nothing other than slow your game down.

The protection roll can easily be eliminated by taking half. But I see your point: why a roll at all? Why aren't protection ratings static? And the answer, off the top of my head, goes back to my definition of damage (a distance from death measurement). To say that plate armor always reduces damage by, for example, 5, is to say that plate armor is uniformly better at preventing physical death than padded armor (maybe 2 protection). This points straight at one thing: damage is weapon injury. Which it's not (always).

Now, if the defender rolls protection instead, he can easily roll a 1, meaning that his armor universally failed to prevent any more than 1 damage to him. An unarmed attack could have rolled 4 damage, or a longsword could have rolled 8+1. So each attack has a chance to deal significant damage, regardless of how good the protection is.

Earlier in development, I had a concern that plate mail should always be more effective against a dagger than padded armor is. While unfounded, I decided to add static-bonuses to the protection ratings, so plate mail might have been d8+4 while padded armor was d4+1. Luckily, I realized that the ability to take half accomplished the same effect, while giving an important trade-off that applies to all take half decisions: taking half saves you time and guarantees your result, but you could be rolling better.

2. Attack and Parry bonuses

Weapons don't need to vary in terms of damage. They should, however, vary in terms of their usefulness on attack and defense. Some quick examples of plausible attack and defense bonuses:

Sword: +2/+2
Ax: +2/0
Spear (1h): 0/-2
Quarterstaff: 0/+2
Dagger: -2/-2
Shield: ---/+5

This speaks to me, and I've already applied the shield concept in Modos RPG. However, I'm afraid it's a slippery slope to weapon speed being added to initiative, and armor effectiveness against different weapon types, and then becoming a full-fledged combat simulation, instead of an RPG. I think the same thing (including my appreciation of it) applies to the formations mechanics that you mentioned.

 

[Dethklok]

DMMike, I don't think it would be helpful to you for me to respond to any of the replies you made. So I won't.

But I will leave you with this:

The field of statistics can be divided between Frequentists, who define probability as "the relative frequency of occurrence of an experiment's outcome when repeating the experiment," and Bayesians, who define probability as one's "degree of belief in the likelihood of an outcome."

When Bayesians are told "I have a biased coin with two sides, head and tail. If I flip it, what is the chance I will get heads?" Their reply is "50%."

When Frequentists are told "I have a biased coin with two sides, head and tail. If I flip it, what is the chance I will get heads?" Their reply is, "I can't answer that question."

This exposes an underlying limitation in pure Frequentist thought - they simply can't answer some questions. Most statisticians, being aware of this, tend not to cling dogmatically to either Bayesian or Frequentist methods, but will use either as needed.

Regarding Modos, your system is coherent, and its mechanics mesh reasonably well with one another. But you may be choosing your definitions and setting design goals in a way that serves them first, rather than maximizing gamers' enjoyment and engagement with your game. As with my other comments and advice, you will have to decide for yourself how useful this is to you.

 

[GMMichael]

[MENTION=6746469]Dethklok[/MENTION]: noted, and you're not just welcome, but invited to provide criticism on Modos RPG if you ever get the urge.

For a change of pace...Mike Mearls and I recently wrote a new Legends and Lore:

A Few Rules Updates

Michael Terlisner, with Mike Mearls

---

A s we continue to work toward the release of Modos RPG, a number of rules that you saw in the public playtest have undergone revision. Here's a quick look at some of those updates and changes.


[h=3]Exploration[/h]The exploration rules have been reworked to make them easier to use at the table. They've been conveniently left out of the v1.1 rulebook, because there's not much need to have rules on exploration. A character's passive perception is the result of taking half on a Detect contest. Your character sheet will have a space to note this, making it a value you calculate once and then use as needed.

We've also folded the basics of the exploration system into the party's marching order. As the party approaches a trap, a hidden monster, or some other threat, the GM rolls a Detect contest for the one party member who is most likely to detect it. This change eliminates tracking the party's alertness. This change will also not be included in the rules, because it adds just another rule.

We also simplified the concept of group stealth. Whenever the party wants to be sneaky, the GM rolls a Sneak contest for the character most likely to be noticed. At a slow pace, a rogue can thus attempt to hide while using an action to pick a lock or search for secret doors, simply by pairing that action with a Sneak action. If the party moves at a faster pace, each character can still attempt to hide, but must use an action to do so, as normal.

The idea of a sequence that includes checking for random encounters is bulky, and has been omitted.

Finally, we've glossed over the time it takes to complete certain actions with the exploration rules. Disarming a trap or picking a lock takes at least one action, possibly more if the lock has been assigned progress (damage) points by the General of Modos.
[h=3]Extra Actions[/h] The playtest process showed us that gaining an extra action on your turn in combat can lead to a lot of overpowered combinations. So extra actions are no longer awarded by perks, they are instead unlocked by perks as characters gain the ability scores needed for extra actions. Multiclassing cast a bright light on this issue, with PCs designing their own classes in a free-form way as they progressed in level.


Right now, we're not working with a rule that limits a character to one bonus action per turn, because characters get 3 free actions per turn, and one (unlockable) bonus action for every 5 points that an ability score is above 10.

[h=3]Character Speed and Heavy Armor[/h] We're looking at giving all the standard player character races the same speed, and allowing characters with sufficient Physical scores to offset the Physical penalties for heavy armor by virtue of simply having a Physical ability modifier. We think these ideas make sense for a few different reasons.


The speed penalty for smaller characters and dwarves doesn't exist, because while they're small, they're also quick. Or hardy. Or better described by their character concepts and Movement skill points.


When it comes to armor, we wanted heavy armor to have potential drawbacks without being overly harsh or restrictive. Heavy armor is . . . well, heavy, so making your Physical play a role in its effectiveness is intuitive. This change allows armor to be increasingly restrictive as it increasingly restricts the Physical damage that a character must avoid taking. So we've applied a 1 point Physical penalty while wearing light armor, 2 points for medium, and 3 for heavy. Other characters can still maximize their defense by wearing light armor and taking the Armor Training perk, or by using the Specialize perk for the Parry skill.

 

[GMMichael]

D&D Next Q&A: 02/07/2014

Michael Terlisner, with Rodney Thompson

---

You've got questions—we've got answers!

---

What are the benchmarks for fighters at each tier, compared to the spellcasting guidelines used in Wandering Monsters?
While James Wyatt discussed spellcasting in his latest Wandering Monsters, the other classes have similar breakpoints. For fighters, extra attacks are unlocked with bonus Physical actions, which occur at 15, 20, and 25 Physical scores. To use your bonus actions for attacking, the Quick Strike perk can be picked up at any level. A plethora of fighter-approved perks make progressing as a fighter more gradual than tier-like. For example, the Special Move perk allows a fighter to drop a point from his attack contest and add it do damage - and the player is welcome to describe this move however he likes. Or there's the Rage perk, which allows a fighter to use his Hero Points for damage, instead of just for contests. This can significantly increase a fighter's damage output, while simultaneously requiring him to roleplay more, in order to get those hero points back.

As you reach 10th level, or "epic" levels, your fighter will have at least two bonus actions per round, or up to four if sacrificing perks for ability points. If you've been diversifying those ability points, your fighter can easily branch out his skills and use those bonus actions to "cast spells." These can include spells to increase fighter survivability and the ability to cheat death, like Cure or Fog. Remember that the spells are written more in terms of game mechanics than in-game effect, so a fighter's Cast Spell (cure) could be called his "Rage" or "Second Wind."

How would you handle running a business in D&D Next? Is this something handled with the downtime mechanics?

Are you joking? Go take an accounting class.

Is 20 the hard cap on maximum ability score or can magic push it higher?

It's a soft cap, really. When an ability score hits 20, a PC would be wise to diversify into another ability. But there's no rule stopping him from spending his ability points and perks on just one ability score.

 

[GMMichael]

Modos RPG Q&A: 02/14/2014

Michael Terlisner, with Rodney Thompson

---

Y ou've got questions—we've got answers!

---

Doesn't the concentration rule effectively eliminate lower-level buff spells from a caster's repertoire once they get higher-level spells that are more effective?

Yes and no. Higher-level spells will be more effective and cost fewer metaphysical points per casting action than lower-level spells, so casters might choose to cast the more effective spells. However, lower-level spells are less difficult to cast, which means that 1) they're more likely to be cast without error and 2) they're more difficult to counter. So a caster still has good reason to know some lower-level spells.
Since all spells lasting more than one round require concentration, there is an effective cap of about three spells that a caster can maintain at one time. So concentration, as a rule, is really helping keep a handle on some of the most powerful spellcasting effects and is one of the most effective effect-stacking mechanisms we have.

Would it be possible to have a feat that would allow spellcasters to maintain concentration on two or more spells at a time?

Well, they're called "perks" in Modos RPG. And the perk, "spell maintenance," grants a caster one additional concentration (spell maintenance) action per round. Action-economy is a major tactical focus in the game, and casters are welcome to gain the ability to maintain spells at the expense of losing perks in other areas.

Do main villain type monsters have ways to shrug off completely debilitating effects?

No. That would be broken. Villain monsters have the same resources for shrugging off effects as characters do: defense skills. These are Parry (P), Concentration (M), and Willpower (MP), and like all other actions, they cannot be used if a villain spends his actions on attacks or other activities.
We’re definitely treating villain-type monsters in this regard much like we did Solo monsters in version 1.0, and we're taking a lot of what we learned in the development of those monsters over the years and applying them to the monsters in the next edition.

 

[GMMichael]

Future changes: small and large perks, chapter introductions with play examples, a revised adventure module, a short rules module (any suggestions?), emphasis on a PC's permission to narrate what his character does (from what his skills, spells, and abilities mean, to what actually happens when he takes damage).

The 1-second NPC rules currently look like this:
Pick your NPC's level
Pick your NPC's good ability (equal to 10+ level)
Pick his good skill (equal to level)
Equip and go

I'm thinking of changing to this:
Pick your NPC's level
Pick his good skill (equal to level)
All other skills get a bonus equal to half level
Disregard ability scores
Equip and go

The theory is that when a 1-second NPC is introduced, his abilities don't matter as much as his skills do. Except his abilities are needed for max damage... If an NPC gets half his level in skill points in each skill, then he is getting slightly better with each level - regardless of whether those bonuses come from ability modifiers or skill points (or perk specialization). Plus, it's really fast and easy to calculate...and somewhat balanced. An NPC who gets all of his ability points (modifier) in one ability, and puts all of his skill points in one skill turns out to be a bit of a min-maxer...brainstorm begins.

Stay tuned, because I'm due to get an AWESOME piece of cover-art from [MENTION=40857]Meatboy[/MENTION] any month now!