Your Harebrained Ideas?

[Emberashh]

Something that occurred to me while reading this is how will expansion work? It seems like classes, professions, and bloodlines are obvious expansion points. I assume the skill list itself is fairly closed, but is there space for more skill perks (or would that unbalance or dilute things)? I also assume that adding a new archetype would require updating bloodlines with appropriate ability chains. Would that preclude adding classes, or can they fall under one of the existing archetypes?

My thinking is any sort of expansion to Skills would be rooted in increasing the Skill caps beyond 30. Taking it up to 50 would be clean, and give a lot of room, but I think it'd be the maximum I could take it due to how Energies are derived.

Classes, Bloodlines and Professions, yeah, those will be pretty easy. I actually already have a stockpile of subclass concepts I'm not putting in the base rules, and I'm already of a mind to introduce a 7th Class archtype (Civilians), and I would have already if I didn't decide on Professions as a simpler baseline for the idea. The Civilian archtype if I ever use it would be elevated Civilians; kind of a Great Man Theory thing, except it actually makes sense in context. Haven't fully explored it, but I do know one of the Civilian classes would be the Statesman (Stateswoman?). Basically, fantasy JFK/Lincoln. Preferably without the whole head being blown off parts.

 

[kenada]

My thinking is any sort of expansion to Skills would be rooted in increasing the Skill caps beyond 30. Taking it up to 50 would be clean, and give a lot of room, but I think it'd be the maximum I could take it due to how Energies are derived.

Is there an SP cap? Post #39 seemed to be discussing one. If there is, and if skills were allowed to go higher, I assume that would need also to be raised. Wouldn’t raising the cap have implications for multiclassing?

Classes, Bloodlines and Professions, yeah, those will be pretty easy. I actually already have a stockpile of subclass concepts I'm not putting in the base rules, and I'm already of a mind to introduce a 7th Class archtype (Civilians), and I would have already if I didn't decide on Professions as a simpler baseline for the idea. The Civilian archtype if I ever use it would be elevated Civilians; kind of a Great Man Theory thing, except it actually makes sense in context. Haven't fully explored it, but I do know one of the Civilian classes would be the Statesman (Stateswoman?). Basically, fantasy JFK/Lincoln.

Is there an archetype for non-combat classes? For example, the thief¹ seems like it should be a non-combat class even though it’s popularly associated in gaming with combat abilities like backstab and sneak attack. Or is the idea that classes primarily provide combat capabilities, and you get your non-combat abilities from your profession and perks?

I also wanted to ask about psionics, but I think you’ve discussed them before. I assume they’d fall under one of the five caster archetypes. Civilian as described seems like an unusual archetype for a fantasy RPG. What is the expected dynamic when one is in a party? Is the scope of the system effectively anything in a fantasy setting?

---

1: The thief class is an expert in my homebrew system. Neither it nor the expert group have combat traits. If you want combat capabilities beyond your proficiencies, you need to spend EXP on combat specialities.

 

[Emberashh]

Is there an SP cap? Post #39 seemed to be discussing one. If there is, and if skills were allowed to go higher, I assume that would need also to be raised. Wouldn’t raising the cap have implications for multiclassing?

Yep! If that decision is made the SP cap would shift with the Skills. I'd have to run the math, but my gut tells me that'd be fine as it'd shift the max to 3.5 Classes, which would be fine in that context where you're nearly doubling the default Stat progression.

I think it would also come with 20 more levels of Class content across the board as well; just to give mono-class a competitive edge so they can stick with it all the way to the end.

Suffice it to say it would be a pretty huge and far reaching expansion of the game, which I think is a good way to think about it. Splatbooks to me kinda feel like the DLC of the TTRPG world, and I'd like to avoid that. Having an actual expansion where everything gets touched and modified would be a stronger product in my mind given the norms in the hobby.

Is there an archetype for non-combat classes?

That would be what Civilians would be about (mostly).

For example, the thief¹ seems like it should be a non-combat class even though it’s popularly associated in gaming with combat abilities like backstab and sneak attack

The Thief is represented through my take on the Rogue, as a subclass called the Ravager. It goes down the classic DND Thief tropes (Backstabs, climb shear walls, etc), but flips the magic item trope. Ravagers will develop an immunity to Cursed items, and will be able to use them against their enemies. (Which synergizes well with Warlocks and Necromancers, who could make them Cursed equipment)

Or is the idea that classes primarily provide combat capabilities, and you get your non-combat abilities from your profession and perks?

Classes do both. Very intentional that every Class touches every other aspect of the game in some way. Some more than others where appropriate, but even the Civilians, who'd be mostly non-combative, would still have ways to contribute even directly during fights.

I also wanted to ask about psionics, but I think you’ve discussed them before. I assume they’d fall under one of the five caster archetypes

Psionics are a class archtype actually. The full 6 is Martials, Mages, Summoners, Psionics, Nature and Divine. The latter 4 hybridize with either Martials or Mages.

So for Psions, the 3 main ones are Disciples (non Kungfu Monks), Mystics, and Bards. And then there's the Hedge Mage (shapeshifter class; nature psion) and the Pilgrim (divine; this might actually become a Civilian and I'll come up with something else, but Im waiting until I get there to make that decision).

Disciples naturally hybridize with Martials, as would the Pilgrim if it sticks around, and Mystics and Hedge Mages with Mages. Bards would do both.

Civilian as described seems like an unusual archetype for a fantasy RPG. What is the expected dynamic when one is in a party? Is the scope of the system effectively anything in a fantasy setting?

Indeed. The way they'd play would really shine during Domain play, but during normal Adventuring they'd have a couple different modes. The Statesman for example I'm envisioning as both the Nation builder and a Warfare oriented class, so their contribution would be as a Leadership role for hirelings and such. Won't be as good at it as the Warrior (nor the Commander subclass for the Warrior) but will be well and viable.

Others would either integrate as pure support roles (Crafters would probably be the second one; where I'd be inclined to give a take on the Artificer), or could even be played "remote" meaning they'd never actually be there for conventional adventure, so their contributions would actually be similar to the Flashback mechanics from BITD, though suitably less abstracted and much less quantum. Think flexible, but not solve alls.

Is the scope of the system effectively anything in a fantasy setting?

Kinda the dirty secret of the game is that its basically gamifying the mythic eras of Lord of the Rings lore, though my own setting diverges pretty heavily.

So not so much kitchen sink, but I'm trying to capture the full scope of epic fantasy.

 

[kenada]

Yep! If that decision is made the SP cap would shift with the Skills. I'd have to run the math, but my gut tells me that'd be fine as it'd shift the max to 3.5 Classes, which would be fine in that context where you're nearly doubling the default Stat progression.

I think it would also come with 20 more levels of Class content across the board as well; just to give mono-class a competitive edge so they can stick with it all the way to the end.

Suffice it to say it would be a pretty huge and far reaching expansion of the game, which I think is a good way to think about it. Splatbooks to me kinda feel like the DLC of the TTRPG world, and I'd like to avoid that. Having an actual expansion where everything gets touched and modified would be a stronger product in my mind given the norms in the hobby.

Does that mean homebrew is discouraged, or is it more that you want to focus mainly on bigger expansions?

The Thief is represented through my take on the Rogue, as a subclass called the Ravager. It goes down the classic DND Thief tropes (Backstabs, climb shear walls, etc), but flips the magic item trope. Ravagers will develop an immunity to Cursed items, and will be able to use them against their enemies. (Which synergizes well with Warlocks and Necromancers, who could make them Cursed equipment)

To be honest, that doesn’t sound very evocative of a “thief” to me. If I were looking for something that embodied the Gray Mouser or a character who was interested in stealing lots of loot, I probably wouldn’t expect to find it under “ravager”. However, I’m not exactly a fan of the “rogue” in post-AD&D editions of D&D either, so maybe my perspective is out of alignment with others’ expectations.

Classes do both. Very intentional that every Class touches every other aspect of the game in some way. Some more than others where appropriate, but even the Civilians, who'd be mostly non-combative, would still have ways to contribute even directly during fights.

Is that to support single-classed characters? Otherwise, it seems like one way of supporting characters with capabilities in multiple areas would be through multiclassing.

Psionics are a class archtype actually. The full 6 is Martials, Mages, Summoners, Psionics, Nature and Divine. The latter 4 hybridize with either Martials or Mages.


So for Psions, the 3 main ones are Disciples (non Kungfu Monks), Mystics, and Bards. And then there's the Hedge Mage (shapeshifter class; nature psion) and the Pilgrim (divine; this might actually become a Civilian and I'll come up with something else, but Im waiting until I get there to make that decision).

Disciples naturally hybridize with Martials, as would the Pilgrim if it sticks around, and Mystics and Hedge Mages with Mages. Bards would do both.

Oh. Post #37 has the list as Martials, Mages, Summoners, Mystics, Divine, and Nature.

Indeed. The way they'd play would really shine during Domain play, but during normal Adventuring they'd have a couple different modes. The Statesman for example I'm envisioning as both the Nation builder and a Warfare oriented class, so their contribution would be as a Leadership role for hirelings and such. Won't be as good at it as the Warrior (nor the Commander subclass for the Warrior) but will be well and viable.

Others would either integrate as pure support roles (Crafters would probably be the second one; where I'd be inclined to give a take on the Artificer), or could even be played "remote" meaning they'd never actually be there for conventional adventure, so their contributions would actually be similar to the Flashback mechanics from BITD, though suitably less abstracted and much less quantum. Think flexible, but not solve alls.

How common is Domain play? Are PCs expected to lead armies and scale out their influence (and not just their levels)? It’s something that gets brought up in the context of old-school play as the natural progression after adventuring, but I feel skeptical about how much it really gets done.

And I say that while running a campaign in my homebrew system where the PCs are constructing a settlement and could use soldiers to help them with their problems (as was considered when dealing with their stirge problem). There is (or will be) a way to price out the cost of construction and rules for clearing hexes, but those build on the existing project, hireling, and hex exploration subsystems.

Kinda the dirty secret of the game is that its basically gamifying the mythic eras of Lord of the Rings lore, though my own setting diverges pretty heavily.

So not so much kitchen sink, but I'm trying to capture the full scope of epic fantasy.

The question about focus was more about what the overall play loop of a campaign is expected to look like. Given that gamified mythic era of LotR setting, what kinds of campaigns are expected to be played in it. It seems like it’s trying to be open-ended in what you can do. You may start as adventurers, but then you may end up running a business or taking over the neighboring kingdom; and all of those would be considered part of the scope.

 

[Emberashh]

Does that mean homebrew is discouraged, or is it more that you want to focus mainly on bigger expansions?

Id say neither discouraged nor encouraged. If people are interested enough in the game to want to homebrew, they don't really need my permission or blessing.

I do plan on being very transparent as far as how content is written and valued, because I personally don't like how many games just leave swaths of information on how they were created to be reverse engineered, if there was ever a process at all. Which is also important, if not vital, given how big an emphasis I put on integration.

Definitely will take a bit more effort to homebrew new mechanical additions than a lot of games, but as far as other content like your own worlds or even just reflavors of the Classes/etc those will be easy and heavily encouraged.

The game does assume a default setting; much like how I consistently refer to my own game to explain my ideas on game design, the game will refer to its default setting to contextualize what it does mechanically, but won't be too intrinsically tied to it in most instances.

Probably the biggest sticking point would be how magic works and is balanced and integrated, and the Survival aspects, but thats why those are parts Ive taken special care to make as non-abrasive as possible.

To be honest, that doesn’t sound very evocative of a “thief” to me. If I were looking for something that embodied the Gray Mouser or a character who was interested in stealing lots of loot, I probably wouldn’t expect to find it under “ravager”. However, I’m not exactly a fan of the “rogue” in post-AD&D editions of D&D either, so maybe my perspective is out of alignment with others’ expectations.

The Ravager makes more sense in the context of the Rogue base it pairs with. I actually covered it in the mind dump topic I made: Clicky

A lots changed since then, but most of the base ideas are still there.

But I also subscribe to the idea that went into why some didn't consider the Thief a good addition to DND. Ie that it made basic things everyone should be able to do class exclusives. Thats why I reimagined the Rogue to be more in-line with what I imagined a Rogue was before I ever got exposed to DNDs ideas on them, and then built out from there.

And indeed, its why skills like Stealth or Sleight of Hand are not only accessible by everyone, but indeed required to be practiced in order for Martial types to reach their potential.

Oh. Post #37 has the list as Martials, Mages, Summoners, Mystics, Divine, and Nature

Yeah officially they're called Mystics, but I usually just use Psionics when discussing the game like Im doing here just so its clear what I'm talking about.

Is that to support single-classed characters? Otherwise, it seems like one way of supporting characters with capabilities in multiple areas would be through multiclassing.

Its actually just to avoid the same pratfalls a lot of DNDlikes make by having classes that only do one or two things and then nothing else other than the scant basic stuff.

How common is Domain play?

Thats up to the players. Ideally, if you're trying to push for the "default experience", you'd be working on them from the start as you develop your Campsite(s) into Settlements and Settlements into conventional Domains (not to mention Strongholds). But Domains go beyond just nation building; businesses and organizations are also Domains, even Religions. You could plant the seeds of these whenever you want, and they'll grow with you, and even if you decide on it late, you'll have a lot of means to catch up with someone who started at level 0.

The vision is for the Party, no matter which way each member goes on their individual Domains (including rejecting them), to become the Alliance, and so the Alliance acts as a larger in scope shift in the basic gameplay loop.

For example, Rogues would have a class exclusive Domain they can develop that's generically called "The Company". Whether this is a band of Duelist mercenaries, a Pirate crew, an Assassin's Guild or a Criminal syndicate (all lining up with the 4 Rogue subclasses), or something else entirely, is up to that Rogue to decide, but mechanically they'd provide much of the same functions the Rogue does, but on a larger scale.

If the Alliance decides to make war on a neighboring Kingdom, the Company could be utilized to scout out and destabilize them, its members and individual parties acting as a fast moving, stealthy disruptors, just like Rogues act as stealthy, fast moving disruptors.

Its all part of a concept for high level, post progression gameplay to keep the game going even after you max your characters to whatever degree you care to. Its all stuff that, when I was running 5e or the non-mangled version of DCC, I'd be homebrewing in extensively to keep the dream going, because starting over was such a drag.

It’s something that gets brought up in the context of old-school play as the natural progression after adventuring, but I feel skeptical about how much it really gets done.

Ah, I may have misunderstood the question lol. From my perspective, its an always thing but that was my group. I personally think a lot of the reason it falls out of favor is just because its never really fully realized properly.

Need only look at Bastions in 1DND for an example of that. Its intriguing enough in concept, but its anemic and may as well not be there.

But then you can look at stuff like ACKS and its not only just a big pile of crunch minutia, but doesn't manage to follow through on its own good ideas very well.

Even really good examples like An Echo, Resounding, while good for what it is, especially if paired with Crawfords other material, is still steeped in really old styles of doing these kinds of mechanics, and those as unfortunate as it is have a limited appeal.

Now my own take at this stage only exists as a hodgepodge of scattered homebrew and conceptual design, but my intent is to combat these issues directly so as to avoid them, without having to force people to do it as a shortcut to design viability.

It'll be difficult, but I'm confident at this point, especially after finally catching my white whale with Exploration; that was the single biggest design hurdle I've been facing ever since I started GMing, so if I managed to catch that, I can set my eyes on the proverbial bigger fish .

There is (or will be) a way to price out the cost of construction and rules for clearing hexes, but those build on the existing project, hireling, and hex exploration subsystems.

I've often said that many people in the tabletop design space have an uncalled for prejudice against video game design; I recently learned I may have been holding one against board games, as I had one literally solve a big design problem I had, as well as clarify what I was actually making. (Traversal is going to be very interesting in my game)

In a lot of ways, I imagine the overall Domain play is going to feel very similar to a mix of Civilization, Bannerlord, and a couple different board games I've been introduced to recently. Its still going to have its own feel, especially after I get my integration mitts into it to really blend it well, but thats where a lot of concepts came from when I did it as homebrew, and are still coming from as I consider what all it needs to support.

It seems like it’s trying to be open-ended in what you can do. You may start as adventurers, but then you may end up running a business or taking over the neighboring kingdom; and all of those would be considered part of the scope.

Pretty much, yeah. Its a true sandbox in every sense of the word, as thats how I always ran my games and its what I ultimately always prefer in any kind of game I play.

Especially because lately I've taken a rather huge shine to the concept of Story Machines, which I believe you were the one who lead me to that term. It was what I already thought, after all, and with more words to describe it and actualize it I'm really committing to building one.

Incidentally, on that note, have you ever heard of or played Wildermyth? That game kinda solved the Emergent Storytelling question, at least within its scope anyway. Really incredible gem I never heard of until a week ago lol, been playing it ever since.

 

[kenada]

I do plan on being very transparent as far as how content is written and valued, because I personally don't like how many games just leave swaths of information on how they were created to be reverse engineered, if there was ever a process at all. Which is also important, if not vital, given how big an emphasis I put on integration.

I’d like to include commentary and essays along with my homebrew system explaining what I did and why. It shouldn’t be a mystery why something is done the way it is.

The game does assume a default setting; much like how I consistently refer to my own game to explain my ideas on game design, the game will refer to its default setting to contextualize what it does mechanically, but won't be too intrinsically tied to it in most instances.

My homebrew system also assumes a particular default setting. It has some implications for the system that I plan to discuss in the commentary.

The Ravager makes more sense in the context of the Rogue base it pairs with. I actually covered it in the mind dump topic I made: Clicky

A lots changed since then, but most of the base ideas are still there.

Thanks. I read through it. Having it as a rogue subclass makes a bit more sense, though the thief connection seems limited to some abilities that D&D thief classes traditionally have had.

But I also subscribe to the idea that went into why some didn't consider the Thief a good addition to DND. Ie that it made basic things everyone should be able to do class exclusives. Thats why I reimagined the Rogue to be more in-line with what I imagined a Rogue was before I ever got exposed to DNDs ideas on them, and then built out from there.

And indeed, its why skills like Stealth or Sleight of Hand are not only accessible by everyone, but indeed required to be practiced in order for Martial types to reach their potential.

It seems like your system shouldn’t have that problem because people can use Improvise Action to improvise thief things while playing a non-thief (sub)classes.

Yeah officially they're called Mystics, but I usually just use Psionics when discussing the game like Im doing here just so its clear what I'm talking about.

You also listed a Mystic class (along with Disciple and Bard plus Hedge Mage and Pilgrim). Is that the only archetype that also has a class with the same name? (If I’m confused about it, then players might be as well.)

Its actually just to avoid the same pratfalls a lot of DNDlikes make by having classes that only do one or two things and then nothing else other than the scant basic stuff.

Some games don’t do what we want out of a system. That’s why I’m doing a homebrew system in the first place. I realized there were certain things I wanted that the games I was running weren’t offering, and I got tired of trying to force them to what I wanted.

Thats up to the players. Ideally, if you're trying to push for the "default experience", you'd be working on them from the start as you develop your Campsite(s) into Settlements and Settlements into conventional Domains (not to mention Strongholds). But Domains go beyond just nation building; businesses and organizations are also Domains, even Religions. You could plant the seeds of these whenever you want, and they'll grow with you, and even if you decide on it late, you'll have a lot of means to catch up with someone who started at level 0.

The vision is for the Party, no matter which way each member goes on their individual Domains (including rejecting them), to become the Alliance, and so the Alliance acts as a larger in scope shift in the basic gameplay loop.

For example, Rogues would have a class exclusive Domain they can develop that's generically called "The Company". Whether this is a band of Duelist mercenaries, a Pirate crew, an Assassin's Guild or a Criminal syndicate (all lining up with the 4 Rogue subclasses), or something else entirely, is up to that Rogue to decide, but mechanically they'd provide much of the same functions the Rogue does, but on a larger scale.

If the Alliance decides to make war on a neighboring Kingdom, the Company could be utilized to scout out and destabilize them, its members and individual parties acting as a fast moving, stealthy disruptors, just like Rogues act as stealthy, fast moving disruptors.

Its all part of a concept for high level, post progression gameplay to keep the game going even after you max your characters to whatever degree you care to. Its all stuff that, when I was running 5e or the non-mangled version of DCC, I'd be homebrewing in extensively to keep the dream going, because starting over was such a drag.

Ah, so Domain play is not being used in the usual sense. It’s more generic (an organization, business, etc).

Ah, I may have misunderstood the question lol. From my perspective, its an always thing but that was my group. I personally think a lot of the reason it falls out of favor is just because its never really fully realized properly.

Need only look at Bastions in 1DND for an example of that. Its intriguing enough in concept, but its anemic and may as well not be there.

But then you can look at stuff like ACKS and its not only just a big pile of crunch minutia, but doesn't manage to follow through on its own good ideas very well.

Even really good examples like An Echo, Resounding, while good for what it is, especially if paired with Crawfords other material, is still steeped in really old styles of doing these kinds of mechanics, and those as unfortunate as it is have a limited appeal.

Now my own take at this stage only exists as a hodgepodge of scattered homebrew and conceptual design, but my intent is to combat these issues directly so as to avoid them, without having to force people to do it as a shortcut to design viability.

It'll be difficult, but I'm confident at this point, especially after finally catching my white whale with Exploration; that was the single biggest design hurdle I've been facing ever since I started GMing, so if I managed to catch that, I can set my eyes on the proverbial bigger fish .

I was understanding it in the usual sense in tabletop RPGs where the PCs would beyond simple adventuring to exercising greater influence over the world. It’s like how fighters are supposedly balanced in older editions because they get a title and an army. My skepticism comes from high level play experiences where you’re pretty much just going into (fancier) dungeons and killing (bigger) monsters for (more valuable) loot.

I've often said that many people in the tabletop design space have an uncalled for prejudice against video game design; I recently learned I may have been holding one against board games, as I had one literally solve a big design problem I had, as well as clarify what I was actually making. (Traversal is going to be very interesting in my game)

In a lot of ways, I imagine the overall Domain play is going to feel very similar to a mix of Civilization, Bannerlord, and a couple different board games I've been introduced to recently. Its still going to have its own feel, especially after I get my integration mitts into it to really blend it well, but thats where a lot of concepts came from when I did it as homebrew, and are still coming from as I consider what all it needs to support.

I’m having trouble connecting this with my statement about my homebrew system.

My goal is to keep the core small. I have an informal target of 16 pages A5 (or about four pages in common RPG size) for the players’ rules. That doesn’t include class information, gear lists, rules for the referee, etc. I don’t want a bunch of subsystems for things that can be built on top of the core and emerge organically in play.

That’s what happened when the PCs acquired a settlement. They found a deed in some treasure and decided to use it to stake a claim. The settlement was ruined, so they hired an engineer to oversee construction. The construction itself is just (very, very many) clocks that are completed at the regular interval for working on a project. When it’s done, it will have the buildings they chose to build (barracks, main manor, housing for NPCs affiliated with them, farms they hope to use to entice settlers, etc).

Some of those goals will require making the hex where the settlement exists more safe by clearing it, which is itself another clock used to track progress against taking care of threats they’ve identified. They’ve take care of two (a medusa and a gorgon, and a stirge nest). There’s only one left. When the clock is filled, they’ll have successfully cleared the hex, transforming it from wilderness to frontier (and reducing its danger modifier). I expect there will be another clock representing reverting back to wilderness they’ll have to prevent from filling.

A lot of this stuff is still WIP. I expect it’ll end up in the rules for referees or a separate reference section because all the players need to know about are the basic mechanics (checks, hexes and danger, projects). Even if the referee is following a particular procedure (what some could call “domain play” though I’m probably not going to call it that), the specifics of how it is implemented and resolved are based on procedures that should be familiar to the players. It’s the same for crafting.

For crafting, you have a progress clock, a durability clock, and a quality clock. If progress is filled, you succeed. If quality is also filled, the item is HQ. If the durability clock empties, you fail. Durability goes down as you work on the item and can be further decreased as consequences. You can also work specifically to restore it. Crafting checks happen at the same interval as project work (being effectively projects in themselves). Items are also made from materials, which may themselves have to be processed (and HQ materials give you a bonus).

Pretty much, yeah. Its a true sandbox in every sense of the word, as thats how I always ran my games and its what I ultimately always prefer in any kind of game I play.

Especially because lately I've taken a rather huge shine to the concept of Story Machines, which I believe you were the one who lead me to that term. It was what I already thought, after all, and with more words to describe it and actualize it I'm really committing to building one.

I describe my campaigns as sandbox-like, but I don’t really view that as the point. My homebrew system requires the players to state a campaign goal at the start of a campaign. That helps give them direction (even if the road taken is quite windy), but it also means it’s theoretically possible to “lose”.

Incidentally, on that note, have you ever heard of or played Wildermyth? That game kinda solved the Emergent Storytelling question, at least within its scope anyway. Really incredible gem I never heard of until a week ago lol, been playing it ever since.

No, I haven’t. The last game I finished was DELTARUNE (chapters 1 and 2 since the others aren’t out yet), then I started playing through the Super Mario RPG remake. Also still playing FFXIV. I’ve been playing (more or less) since ARR launched ten years ago ….

 

[pemerton]

That’s what happened when the PCs acquired a settlement. They found a deed in some treasure and decided to use it to stake a claim. The settlement was ruined, so they hired an engineer to oversee construction. The construction itself is just (very, very many) clocks that are completed at the regular interval for working on a project. When it’s done, it will have the buildings they chose to build (barracks, main manor, housing for NPCs affiliated with them, farms they hope to use to entice settlers, etc).

Some of those goals will require making the hex where the settlement exists more safe by clearing it, which is itself another clock used to track progress against taking care of threats they’ve identified. They’ve take care of two (a medusa and a gorgon, and a stirge nest). There’s only one left. When the clock is filled, they’ll have successfully cleared the hex, transforming it from wilderness to frontier (and reducing its danger modifier). I expect there will be another clock representing reverting back to wilderness they’ll have to prevent from filling.

On paper, the Torchbearer system for this seems interesting and playable.

Rather than clocks, the "currency" is camp checks - various construction projects require a certain number of checks, together with specified skill tests, to complete. And when the requisite constructions have taken place, the PCs' camp turns into one of the settlement types in the game (eg the PCs have established a Religious Bastion, or a Borderland Fortress, or whatever).

 

[kenada]

On paper, the Torchbearer system for this seems interesting and playable.

Rather than clocks, the "currency" is camp checks - various construction projects require a certain number of checks, together with specified skill tests, to complete. And when the requisite constructions have taken place, the PCs' camp turns into one of the settlement types in the game (eg the PCs have established a Religious Bastion, or a Borderland Fortress, or whatever).

When I played in @Manbearcat’s torchbearer game, we got to the point of establishing an actual base camp, though I don’t think we got to do much with it because the game went on hiatus after that. I don’t recall spending checks on stuff though. I know we’d set out with a caravan of donkeys and NPCs hired to help us set it up.

One of the constraints I have with my homebrew system is that time is handled concretely, so abstractions need to play nicely with that. I’m using clocks currently because they’re amenable to being checked at regular intervals (e.g., weekly). Plus, they play nicely with the dice mechanics (degrees of success).

There’s definitely some Torchbearer influence (though some is indirect):

• Recall experiences using Wisdom is similar to wises, though that’s more of a case of convergent evolution;
• Inventory management is grid based, inspired by the way Torchbearer makes inventory compelling;
• Having a camp procedure with structured play (albeit done differently from Torchbearer); and
• Equip phase, being a generalization of declare spells and melee movement before initiative in B/X, but inspired by my experience playing Torchbearer.

 

[Emberashh]

Having it as a rogue subclass makes a bit more sense, though the thief connection seems limited to some abilities that D&D thief classes traditionally have had.

Hence the name

I think anyone can be a thief, so tying those tropes up into one subclass would be a bit of a drag.

You also listed a Mystic class (along with Disciple and Bard plus Hedge Mage and Pilgrim). Is that the only archetype that also has a class with the same name? (If I’m confused about it, then players might be as well.)

It is indeed, however, the class archtypes aren't actually relevant to anything as far as the name goes; unless you're talking the overall meta, you'd be engaging with the individual classes, and if you are talking meta, then the plural would be the distinction, or doing as I do and just saying psionics.

Ah, so Domain play is not being used in the usual sense. It’s more generic (an organization, business, etc)

Yes and no; the usual sense is there, in full, its just elaborated beyond that.

My skepticism comes from high level play experiences where you’re pretty much just going into (fancier) dungeons and killing (bigger) monsters for (more valuable) loot.

Sure enough. Thats a big reason for all the systems I use, particularly Exploration. Even if there isn't anything strictly new in terms of gameplay to consume, a new continent, or even a brand new world, would make up for a lot. A sort of new game+ type experience.