Microlite20 : the smallest thing in gaming

[Ry]

I didn't say you WERE creating another system. But thus far, I've seen 4 m20's out there.

FYI, Rank20's not a microlite variant (or even an OGL game); it's a homebrew converted to use a d20 as the core mechanic and change the scale to be more appealing to d20ers. Example: Agility is called DEX, the only "class" concepts I put in are Caster/Expert/Warrior, etc.

 

[kensanata]

Originally Posted by Larcen
1) Redundant base Stats
2) MIND stat should be INT
3) Missing CHA score
4) No negative bonuses
5) Magic Saves
6) Class based HP dice
7) Size based HP dice
8) Level advancement

1. I like it the way it is. My main requirement is d20 compatibility such that I can plug in monsters and NPCs from other games. I don't have a problem choosing one of WIS/INT/CHA from a monster stat block for MIND, and so that's what I do.
2. I don't think that rule elegance necessarily means improved playability. I used to think that way when I was younger. Not anymore. In my German translation I called MIND "Will", in fact, because I couldn't bother to get it exactly right, and there's no single word for "intellect" or "brains". There's something for the mind as opposed to the soul, but it is synonymous to "ghost", which sucks. If you think MIND means intelligence, then use it as that. But I'm not buying the four letter word thinking...
3. I don't think that rule elegance necessarily means improved playability. CHA is what roleplaying is for, in my game!
4. I like negative bonuses. Some mages are weak in my game, and that's ok. Plus backwards compatibility. It also allows you to use the "increase one attribute by +1 every three levels" and it allows simple poisons to work unchanged ("-1 STR/-2 STR" stuff).
5. The revised rules have a different description of magic against unwilling targets, one for physical stuff like fireballs in which case AC is the relevant DC, and one for mental stuff like charm or sleep, in which case the old 1d20 + Level is relevant. Works for me, and it's simple to boot. I guess I could get used to picking knowledge+WILL for resistance to mental stuff, because on the average, it's the same as just the level.
6. I like it the way it is. Mages & Clerics have less HP because they cast spells. It works out in the end! I'm currently trying to figure out whether fighters are truly underpowered at higher levels. I'm suspecting that applying their to-hit/damage class bonus to their AC would kind of fix that, however. I'll have to do some playtesting, first.
7. I disagree, since I don't plan to reduce HP of dwarves, for example. HP are not just physical – it's all sort of hardiness that is measured, I tell myself. And big or small monsters get changes to their to-hit and AC based on size. That's enough.
8. The current system works for me because my encounters are all challenging. Should they not be challenging because of the number of PCs, I'll wing it and give less EL. So basically I'm saying it's simpler than dividing XP and it's good enough for me. Not a strong argument, I guess, but being the conservative cold blanket that I am, let me disagree with this one as well.

Oh and I was surprised to read that CHA was such an important attribute. My players have thought CHA to be a waste for years...

 

[kensanata]

Macropedia

The Macropedia is where volunteers such as Greywulf and I collect stuff we find interesting from this thread. Unfortunately for all other people, we don't collect everything. Only what we find interesting ourselves! I guess you'll have to use the Thread tools and download a plain-text copy of the thread for easy searching. Or you can start putting the stuff you like from this discussion on the Macropedia.

--> http://home.greywulf.net/m20 <--

 

[Ry]

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

Just want to clarify one thing. When I said easier to use here, I meant both in terms of converting from older editions of D&D, and in terms of not using ugly negative numbers.

'wulf, I'm interested in writing something on the rules and why roleplaying games have them. I think that can sometimes be the most boring introductory stuff in an RPG rulebook - but I think it's boring because it's long and unhelpful. I've got an idea for something concise and helpful instead. I'd like to get your input on it first though, see if you agree with what I'm saying and if we can get something together that works well for m20.

 

[kensanata]

I'm interested in writing something on the rules and why roleplaying games have them.

As you can tell from the questions I have asked myself, I'm very interested in the design rationale of games; I think the Macropedia is an excellent place to not only collect rules and adventures and the like, but also design notes on & justifications for the rules themselves.

 

[kensanata]

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.

Then again, a reasonable set of defaults is nice to have. It all boils down to whether you think the Core should be playable without a single option/module or not. If it should be possible, then we can handwave anything that we suggest people take from the SRD – spells, equipment, weapons, armor, and even most of the race description. But since we are using a different set of attributes, we need to offer something relating the new attributes and some typical races, I think. I think of them as examples since my campaign has only human, kitsune and tanuki; no elves, dwarves, orcs, etc.

BTW that is another instance where thinking in terms of elegance and symmetry is a mistake: We could have listed more or less races – do I hear somebody asking for orcs? – and it would not have made much of a difference. Having four of them in the Core is just cute, not necessary.

 

[Pilsnerquest]

BTW that is another instance where thinking in terms of elegance and symmetry is a *mistake*

*personal preference*


Pilsnerquest

 

[Pilsnerquest]

As you can tell from the questions I have asked myself, I'm very interested in the design rationale of games; I think the Macropedia is an excellent place to not only collect rules and adventures and the like, but also design notes on & justifications for the rules themselves.

I second this idea.


Pilsner

 

[Larcen]

1. I like it the way it is. My main requirement is d20 compatibility such that I can plug in monsters and NPCs from other games. I don't have a problem choosing one of WIS/INT/CHA from a monster stat block for MIND, and so that's what I do.

If you drop the base scores its still a simple matter to plug in stuff from other games. Just dont copy over the base scores, keep only the bonuses. And I am not sure what MIND has to do with this particular point, so...

2. I don't think that rule elegance necessarily means improved playability. I used to think that way when I was younger. Not anymore. In my German translation I called MIND "Will", in fact, because I couldn't bother to get it exactly right, and there's no single word for "intellect" or "brains". There's something for the mind as opposed to the soul, but it is synonymous to "ghost", which sucks. If you think MIND means intelligence, then use it as that. But I'm not buying the four letter word thinking...

I think that keeping INT goes a long way toward maintaining the D&D Lite flavor, or D20 Lite. I am just looking at how I will go about selling this to old hands at my gaming table.
"Ok, first we drop CON and WIS. CON is now HPs, and WIS is now, uh, YOU guys."
...sounds better than...
"Ok, first we roll WIS, INT, and CHA, and all that, into something called MIND."
I can just hear it now: "Riiiiiiiight."

3. I don't think that rule elegance necessarily means improved playability. CHA is what roleplaying is for, in my game!

Not fair to your players. Just like you can't expect most people to roleplay a 20 INT properly, you shouldn't ask an introverted player to roleplay a high CHA. For that matter, can a forceful and/or likeable roleplayer in your group use a 5 CHA character to convince a whole town to follow him? I would rather let the in-game stats do the work.....with the help of roleplaying.

4. I like negative bonuses. Some mages are weak in my game, and that's ok. Plus backwards compatibility. It also allows you to use the "increase one attribute by +1 every three levels" and it allows simple poisons to work unchanged ("-1 STR/-2 STR" stuff).

I am not seeing how all positive base scores affects the level increase rules, or the poison rules. They would continue to work fine just as they are. Backwards compatibility is an issue yes, but easily solved by adding +5 to all listed DCs. And all future modules for this game can be written to take that into consideration anyway.

5. The revised rules have a different description of magic against unwilling targets, one for physical stuff like fireballs in which case AC is the relevant DC, and one for mental stuff like charm or sleep, in which case the old 1d20 + Level is relevant. Works for me, and it's simple to boot. I guess I could get used to picking knowledge+WILL for resistance to mental stuff, because on the average, it's the same as just the level.

Cool. I still want to dodge fireballs with my DEX and use my STR to free myself from a Bigby's hand spell or a Web, not a D20 + level.

6. I like it the way it is. Mages & Clerics have less HP because they cast spells. It works out in the end! I'm currently trying to figure out whether fighters are truly underpowered at higher levels. I'm suspecting that applying their to-hit/damage class bonus to their AC would kind of fix that, however. I'll have to do some playtesting, first.

I agree that the spell HP cost can balance this out. I am just suggesting that this is a good way to throw the fighters (and possibly the rogue) a bone if research proves them weaker than desired.

7. I disagree, since I don't plan to reduce HP of dwarves, for example. HP are not just physical – it's all sort of hardiness that is measured, I tell myself. And big or small monsters get changes to their to-hit and AC based on size. That's enough.

Dwarves have always been considered Medium mass-wise so no problems there giving them a d6.

8. The current system works for me because my encounters are all challenging. Should they not be challenging because of the number of PCs, I'll wing it and give less EL. So basically I'm saying it's simpler than dividing XP and it's good enough for me. Not a strong argument, I guess, but being the conservative cold blanket that I am, let me disagree with this one as well.

As DM, I will just assign the EL based on the party size to begin with. If its an EL from a module and the module suggests 4 players, and we have 8 in our party, just halve XPs, or double the monsters.

Oh and I was surprised to read that CHA was such an important attribute. My players have thought CHA to be a waste for years...

We use CHA all the time...pretty much everytime PC to NPC interaction happens where the PC wants somethign from the NPC. Look at all the skills that use CHA too. Also, using MIND to include CHA means you cant have a stupid charistmatic leader in M20...which is a shame since they seem to run rampant in real life.

 

[jmucchiello]

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

Yes, it is elegant if I can come off not sounding to haughty. Basically all DCs go up 5. Opposed die rolls are unaffected since both the attacker's and defender's "ability modifier" has gone up 5.

Making up characters is easy. You have 6s across the 6 stats, raise or lower them up or down 1:1 with a max of 9 and a min of 4. Apply racial scores.

It makes poisons and stuff much simpler. If your Str or Dex go to 0, you can't move/act. If your Int, wis or cha goes to 0, you fall into a stupor. If your Con drops to 0, you are dead. And poisons/diseases convert by halving the ability damage/drain caused.

I plan to use a "thing" encumbrance rule basically because the average human can carry about 5 (ave str = 5) not too bulky things. Bulky things take up 2 (or more) thing slots. So you have a weapon, a shield, a backpack, light armor. That's 4 things and leaves room for 1 or 2 other things. It's just the right range for dealing with equipment.

It only took 24 pages before I started to open up about my own system. I amazed I lasted that long.