The Odyssey System -- Stripped-down Hot Rod d20 rules

[Scurvy_Platypus]

Yes, the ships move at the speed of plot in fiction, but this is an rpg based on that fiction. This rpg will also involve that most dastardly cad, the gamer. Those gamers are a nasty bunch. If you give them something like you described above, they will all be Savage and Shadow. I know you will say that's the point, and I almost agree. You're forgetting the Fabulous Five and Pat. You're forgetting all the Shadow's agents. There has to be some limits otherwise the players can do anything. That's not fun. If they can make any kind of check then why team up? Sure, Savage gets a +2 to invention, and Shadow a +2 to investigation, but that's not fun.

First, I'll note that I have never seen a skill system that everybody has liked in the past 20 years of playing rpgs.

For example, people are apparently arguing over the skill system presented in Pathfinder, with some folks like it, and others wanting to stay with the default 3.5 skill system. I for one happen to strongly disike the default 3.x skill system.

Second, there was this:

Hello,

I just thought I'd add for the benefit of those that find OS's skill system too free-form that there is an optional rule for incorporating skill lists (either ported from another d20 system or one of your own creation).

Walt

So it seems like it's really not going to be a problem either way.

My point here is I see no point in taking the system far afield. The OGL comes with feats and skills. You're essentially renaming them Edges and "occupational areas of knowledge" respectively, that seems silly and wasteful to me. Why do that when the function almost identically? It doesn't make sense that you would do this unless you plan on claiming them as Product Identity. This move does make sense from a publisher's stand point, but you've already stated, and we can all see, that they're the same.

I would imagine that part of it is that whole "tone" thing. Renaming something helps to establish the overall tone and feel for what a character is and what the setting is like. It can be a subtle thing at times, but what you call something can really influence people's perceptions of it, even if mechanically it's the exact same thing.

Renaming is also helpful because it means you don't have explanations that go, "Feats in this game aren't actually like Feats in d20. Instead, a Feat in the Odyssey system [blah blah blah]".

A long time ago I discovered that if you spent all your time trying to error-trap against powergamers, you'd end up beating the joy out of a game. There's *always* gonna be some twit who doesn't get the point, and you shouldn't worry about trying to force them to be good players. Hence, I design the games I want to play, for the sort of player I prefer to have at my table. It means that I miss out on some of the "common denominator" mass-appeal money, but in the end, I like what I've done.

Thank you dear god. I really do wish that this was more common.

This is covered by varying character levels. Main heroes start at a higher level than supporting heroes --which means that their level bonuses are higher, and they have more Edges. We provide ranges, depending on what you're looking for in play style, but for an example, I'd do Doc at, say, 9th level and the rest of the Fabulous Five at 5th, with Pat at 3rd-ish.

Why team up? Differing occupations, differing Edges, differing power levels.

I'm one of those folks that's fine with actually starting a game and not doing the whole zero-to-hero thing that prevades the hobby. So starting charcters at different levels isn't a problem for me.

I do wonder though how it's going to play out in this particular case. d20 seems to be a bit twitchier in terms of having characters of different levels together. A system like Buffy handles the power difference between the Slayer and supporting heroes using Drama Points. For those that aren't familiar with them, Drama Points can be spent in game to help hit things, reduce the amount of damage taken, and other stuff. Kind of like Action Points in d20, but actually useful.

Is Odyssey going to be employing a similar mechanic to handle this sort of thing? Or is it going to be left to the realm of the individual GM to sort it out?

 

[Walt C]

I would imagine that part of it is that whole "tone" thing. Renaming something helps to establish the overall tone and feel for what a character is and what the setting is like. It can be a subtle thing at times, but what you call something can really influence people's perceptions of it, even if mechanically it's the exact same thing.

Renaming is also helpful because it means you don't have explanations that go, "Feats in this game aren't actually like Feats in d20. Instead, a Feat in the Odyssey system [blah blah blah]".

You've nailed it.

When we decided to combine feats, talents, and class features into one list, it was much easier to classify them under a new term. "Edge" fit the bill.

Walt

 

[GMSkarka]

Is Odyssey going to be employing a similar mechanic to handle this sort of thing? Or is it going to be left to the realm of the individual GM to sort it out?

There are a number of mechanics we're adding for genre emulation. For example, the Stunt Point system I mentioned above, which originally appeared in our MARS game -- and were specifically created to be, as you said, "like Action points, but actually useful."

Other emulation mechanics include: Mook rules (faceless hordes of cannon-fodder), Heroic Escapes (retconned PC deaths), and more.

 

[doghead]

OGL - Odyssey System

I haven't read the whole thread, so some of this may no longer be relevant. But based on the first post -

- No Character Classes - I like this idea conceptually. I scratched out a classless character generation system based on DrSpunji's much superior version. It used points for buying skills points, feats and class abilities from the core rules. It was a bit rough and ready, but I had about a dozen players generate characters using it, and overall, the resulting characters were really interesting.

- No class-based Saving Throws - Again, this works for me. I usually play at the shallow end of the pool, and saving throws rarely seem to play a big role in defining the characters. So yeah, something else I don't have to manage. Good.

- No Hit Points - I don't like the d20 hp (and AC) system. Generally, I use Ken Hood's GnG combat system. Everything has 25 hp's, armour works as damage reduction. It also incorporates penalties for being wounded. Another plus. I have the SWSE rules, but I can't remember exactly how the system works. Didn't make that much of an impression then.

- Perception as an Ability Score - Nah. This is one thing that would be an automatic turn off. I don't want another stat to deal with. Especially as Wisdom (as a measure of the character's ability to perceive the world clearly) works fine for me. It doesn't add anything of great value, but adds another complication to conversion.

- Stripped-down skill list, plus Training - I'm not sure on this one. As I said in the Pathfinder skill thread, my biggest problem with 3.5 skill system is the class and cross class distinction. In a classless system, one point equals one skill rank, easy. In my classless system, it cost one point to get [INT] skill points/ranks. IIRC, players tended to grab quite a few skills.

I do tend to combine Spot/Listen and MS/Hide and Climb/Balance for simplicity sake. Recently I have started using a even more simplified system for NPC's - Area of Expertise, Combat, Knowledge, Mobility, Perception, Social, Stealth. I've just started this, its a bit of a work ini progress. I use circumstance mods to adjust them as I think necessary. But overall, the skill list in 3.5 isn't that large, so for me, its not a major issue.

- SC2.0-style NPC creation - don't know this system.

I think that these are going to be interesting times for the d20 market. There are a number of alternatives to 4E out there, and more coming. To survive, a system is going to need to fight for its market share. Clearly defining what it is intended to do (and successfully doing it) will be important. Pathfinder I think is in a strong position here so long it sticks to its design principles. I also think product support is going to play a big role in whether a system survives or not.

doghead
aka thotd

 

[GMSkarka]

- Perception as an Ability Score - Nah. This is one thing that would be an automatic turn off. I don't want another stat to deal with. Especially as Wisdom (as a measure of the character's ability to perceive the world clearly) works fine for me.

For what it's worth, we've resolved our argument in this area --

We're allowing for two options: Gamemasters can use Wisdom as-is, or can split wisdom into two abilities: Perception and Will.

The default assumption for THRILLING TALES 2nd Edition (the first product released using this system), will be PER & WIL, for the genre reasons discussed earlier in the thread. The Wisdom method (and conversion between the two methods) will be included as an option in a sidebar.

 

[Scurvy_Platypus]

- SC2.0-style NPC creation - don't know this system.

I wasn't familiar with it either (Spycraft holds zero interest for me), but back in November Adamant released an NPC creation system that's apparently inspired by it. Called Foe Factory: Modern, it's a pretty solid product. So now I don't have to buy Spycraft.
http://enworld.rpgnow.com/product_info.php?products_id=51080&filters=0_0_30

In theory there's a fantasy version also, but last I heard it wasn't going to be released until after 4th Ed. *shrug* It may or may not come out, but I went ahead and picked up Foe Factory to use for my fantasy games despite it being "modern".

I've been messing around with it for my game, and so far I haven't had any problems. It's fine for NPC creation in general, a bit thin if you're looking to use it as a quickie Monster Generation/ Monster Scaling product. On the other hand, combine Foe Factory with the Grim Tales Creature Creation and you're good to go. Foe Factory will allow you to "scale" your monsters a fair degree, and the Grim Tales will provide a solid EL cost for the additional abilities.

 

[Armadillo]

This is covered by varying character levels. Main heroes start at a higher level than supporting heroes --which means that their level bonuses are higher, and they have more Edges. We provide ranges, depending on what you're looking for in play style, but for an example, I'd do Doc at, say, 9th level and the rest of the Fabulous Five at 5th, with Pat at 3rd-ish.

Interesting. Are you going to have some balancing mechanic similar to the ways that Drama Points work differently for Heroes and White Hats in Cinematic Unisystem?

 

[Scurvy_Platypus]

Interesting. Are you going to have some balancing mechanic similar to the ways that Drama Points work differently for Heroes and White Hats in Cinematic Unisystem?

Errr... I asked that question in post 91. Post 93 has his response:

There are a number of mechanics we're adding for genre emulation. For example, the Stunt Point system I mentioned above, which originally appeared in our MARS game -- and were specifically created to be, as you said, "like Action points, but actually useful."

Other emulation mechanics include: Mook rules (faceless hordes of cannon-fodder), Heroic Escapes (retconned PC deaths), and more.

 

[Tim Gray]

Given that Some Other Guys have been talking about dates recently - any updates on release plans for Odyssey?

 

[GMSkarka]

Just an update: As mentioned in this thread (where we also preview the cover art), THRILLING TALES 2nd Edition will be the first release featuring the Odyssey System.

We're currently on schedule for an early June release -- and (because we recognize that some of you might have some other purchases lined up for that period of time ), the PDF version will be absolutely FREE.

We'll be selling a print version, but for those who want the PDF (either to play some pulp action, or just to check out the Odyssey System), we'll be giving it away. Free. Gratis.