Would like some feedback on my homebrew system, Fortitude is Magic.

eeldip

Registered User
Validated User
#11
and one more quick comment: i think you need a skill for BOAST. i went to model my favorite character THE GREAT AND POWERFUL TRIXIE, and her main skill is missing! also you need a smoke bomb under initial equipment.
 

eeldip

Registered User
Validated User
#12
Boast also works for one of my other favorite character... IRON WILL!!!!

(i love the auto embed in the new board)

 

Hituro

Eager Critmouse
Validated User
#13
I just want to make it clear that I am in no way against derived stats. Having a bonus/modifier that is calculated from your main stat and then using that, works fine for me — whether it is a "Half Stat", "Quarter Stat", "INTx5" (like Call of Cthulhu), "Int Bonus" (like D&D) or whatever. It was the abbreviated terms "HStat" and "QStat" I was objecting to, as well as "Rel. Mod". These terms just serve to make what you are talking about more obscure. Players will have to look them up. They will need reminding. You can just fix that by choosing to always use the full, non-abbreviated, term, and by choosing terms that are easier to recognise without looking up.

My instinct would be to rename "Quarter Stat" as "Bonus", so you can have "Strength Bonus" written on the character sheet. You use quarter stats a lot and half stats less, so you can just use "Strength Bonus x 2" when you need "Half Stat". That also lets you use "Three-Quarter Stat" without having to invent another piece of terminology.
 
#14
and one more quick comment: i think you need a skill for BOAST. i went to model my favorite character THE GREAT AND POWERFUL TRIXIE, and her main skill is missing! also you need a smoke bomb under initial equipment.
Oh yes! That would be a great (and powerful) skill to add! Basically like intimidate in D&D, I would gather. And smoke bomb, that can easily be added. Any skill/spells and equipment/weapons etc you think of, send my way :)
Thank you!
 
#15
I just want to make it clear that I am in no way against derived stats. Having a bonus/modifier that is calculated from your main stat and then using that, works fine for me — whether it is a "Half Stat", "Quarter Stat", "INTx5" (like Call of Cthulhu), "Int Bonus" (like D&D) or whatever. It was the abbreviated terms "HStat" and "QStat" I was objecting to, as well as "Rel. Mod". These terms just serve to make what you are talking about more obscure. Players will have to look them up. They will need reminding. You can just fix that by choosing to always use the full, non-abbreviated, term, and by choosing terms that are easier to recognise without looking up.

My instinct would be to rename "Quarter Stat" as "Bonus", so you can have "Strength Bonus" written on the character sheet. You use quarter stats a lot and half stats less, so you can just use "Strength Bonus x 2" when you need "Half Stat". That also lets you use "Three-Quarter Stat" without having to invent another piece of terminology.

So Bonus, instead of QStr and QInt and whatnot? I actually worry that might make it hard for new players to understand, but I can see what I can do. Once a player sees quarter strength and QStr together it should be obvious, I would have thought. Also, it is Rel Stat and that literally means Relative Stat (the one be compared to) so I am at a loss of what else I should call it; Test Stat maybe? (Also, Qstats are used a lot early in game, later "level" stuff will be Hstats, then full stats for over powered characters. I dont know if having bonus, 2x bonus and 4x bonus would be a good idea or not, but as you said it does open up for a 3x bonus (Three Quarters Stat or TQStat ;) ). Anyways, you have given me some stuff to think on.

Also, I would like some replies to some of the other questions I asked you about before, such as a system without levels and I had a few other questions of things you brought up in your first post. I want to pick your brain when it comes to those. Thanks for the response, hope to hear more about some of the other questions I had from your first reply.
 

Hituro

Eager Critmouse
Validated User
#16
Hmm yes, the idea that may not have come across is that for things that are not AC-tested (such as climbing a wall) the difficulty would be given in plain language, and the players would be able to figure out roughly what a "steep and slick" wall ended up as for a GM modifier. I don't know if I like telling the players "This wall has a difficulty of 3", I prefer plain language. I am curious as to how you handle giving out such "insider" information such as specific difficulties.
I've always been a fan of both, i.e. systems that say "Steep and slick (DC12)". The problem with only ever using natural language is that it removes system mastery. A player can no longer make an intelligent trade-off like "Well it would be worth taking 5 damage to activate my 'superclimb' because it might make this wall climbable" if they don't know the numbers.

That's not to say that plenty of systems don't just do the same — i.e. make the player's guess, or work from incomplete information — but like I said, it suits an adversarial system better. It can promote bad GM'ing and bad feeling too: "I rolled under my Strength! Take that! Oh no, you failed because of my SECRET MODIFIER! (cackles)". With a trusted and trusting group I suppose it is okay, but I might balk at it with unfamiliar people. Not sure I've seen roll under with hidden info before actually.

The real reason for the roll-under system was because I was playing with the ideas of higher die sides for some enemies, and had a concern that my system would not be able to scale beyond 9th or so level
That's actually the reason I've generally abandoned roll-under for most systems myself, because it naturally caps at whatever the size of the dice is. You end up in a situation where, if you have increasing stats, you always have to slap modifiers on the roll, or they always succeed. Always succeeding may be bad, but always having your roll modified doesn't feel good either. With a DC based system you can always raise the DC.

However, if you like roll under, I'd keep it, just apply 5E's lessons about bounded accuracy. Make it hard or impossible to significantly increase the character Stats, so that there is always a chance of failure. If you use a points based system of some sort, with pyramidal costs for stats, for example, then increasing past a certain point becomes almost impossible. Then, to represent increasing power, give players re-rolls, or let them use more than one dice at once. Alternatively follow the FATE model where, for the most part, characters get broader as they increase in experience, rather than better (i.e. more skills and powers, rather than higher numbers).

(I have seriously considered not having levels in the system, I added them in the last few months. Any suggestions on how to handle a system with no levels, but where they can systematically learn new abilities? I was thinking of using exp more like "school credits" that could be spent getting special training to improve some stat, or get a new spell or skill). Any thoughts on that path
I've played as many points based systems as level based ones, and I prefer points based (or a hybrid, like points with occasional level/rank bonuses). Points allow for a steady, gradual, improvement, without the massive jumps of a level system, and they allow for far more customisation. You can have a session where you give out a single point, or ones where you give out big rewards. Points also let you tinker with your stats curve. If you make it very expensive to raise a stat, people can do it if they want, but they may just do other things — like buying extra dice (if you go with a system like that).

The downside of points are obvious: you have to take much more care to balance your powers, players will buy the best ones if there are obvious choices; you will have players hitting 'power-ups' at different points, depending on what they were saving up for; you can create 'trap choices' by mistake — powers that aren't worth buying but look like they might be.

I would agree with you... And would have, as I included the d24 and d30 stuff in case the system didnt scale well (turns out I was wrong about that, but I digress), BUT when the characters encountered a giant dragon that was chained down and started fighting it, they thought things were easy. I ended up rolling that the dragon got partially free from the chains, and then handed them a d24 to do the rolls. Their eyes lit up! Like, "Ok stuff got real!" kind of a reaction. So they will be in the game as an optional rule set (I also gave the players a scroll that gives one player "d24 protection" for a full day, which is fun to play with. Necessary? No. Fun? Hell YEAH! (oh and when the dragon got completely free, they needed to roll a d30. Dont worry, they were victorious.)
No no, its a cool idea. Especially if you get rid of the hidden bonuses. If it is always "Roll Under" but you add in more dice, then you can really have fun. Like, imagine it was like this:
  • Normal Roll = Roll Under on d20
  • Skilled roll with time (e.g. picking a lock with no pressure) = Roll under on 2d20 (pick lowest)
  • Harder rolls add more dice, eg. Roll Under on d20+d6
  • Really dangerous foes change that to a d24 or a d30!
  • Use character points to buy extra dice, so you get 2 dice (pick lowest), but that could still be 2d30, or 2d20+d6 (or 3d20 for skilled with time)
Yes, that turns it into a dice pool system, but that's usually a good way of flattening the result curve of your dice system.

The reason for Qstats and HStats is to prevent having to have tables for bonuses.)
That's what I meant about browsing a larger selection of systems. It's been a long while since most systems had tables. Usually systems now are dice pools (no bonuses), or the bonus = the stat, or the bonus is easy maths (e.g. 5E's +1 / 2 points of stat). No tables.
 
Top Bottom