Abakjud - it's interesting to me that "supplement" meant such a very, VERY different thing to me early-on than it came to mean later.  In the early days, it really felt like additional "official" material was just covering stuff that somehow got "missed", or that segments of the playing community directly said they wanted.  And yeah, groups-as-a-whole generally seemed to want it, rather than some individuals didn't care and some did. 

Of course, I find the approach you reached (supplement avoidance) emminently sane. 

Hmm... You still can't verify that the GM didn't manipulate anything with this method. If the GM knows when a particular secret roll will be made (which is usually the case), then the outcome could be statically determined without anyone noticing. Not really much better than just the basic method of hiding the rolls without the players being able to check.

Greetings.

About the class system... Since you said you don't have much experience with roleplaying other than D&D and mentioned "flexibility" as one of your goals, let me ask you this question: Have you considered abandoning classes entirely and switching to some other method to define the character abilities, such as pointbuy? I personally don't like class-based systems very much, because I feel like they are a bit unflexible compared to pointbuy.

About your stamina mechanic: Actually, some other big systems had the same idea, particularly GURPS and the dark eye. The main problem here seems to be that it feels like it was artificially glued to an existing combat system and doesn't quite "fit in", resulting in it being ignored most of the time. You might want to think about some ways to avoid that effect.

About the dice rolling: There are two factors to consider here, and they are expected value and variance. When you are in a system where you roll against a target number, then a higher expected value is always better, but a higher variance is not always worse. For example, if you succeed at a result of 3 or higher, then your chances of success with 1d10+1 (90%) is better than your chance with 1d12 (83.33%). However, if you succeed at a result of 10 or higher, then your chances of success with 1d10+1 (20%) are worse than your chances of success with 1d12 (25%). If you (as a system designer) want to minimize variance, then you could just abandon die rolls altogether and say "Ok, you succeed automatically on any task with a target number of 6 or lower, and automatically fail on any task with a target number higher than that".




Hmm... Not really, honestly. I feel like I have seen enough "D&D done better" systems by now. However, that doesn't mean that I wouldn't be interested if it was really significantly better. Your current version seems a little too early to judge that.

This looks great! I definitely want to see more.
Creating fun filled and simplistic rpgs has been an an and off hobby of mine for quite some time now.

I recently started playing D&D, and after using it for a while and exploring the various odds and ends, I've arrived at the conclusion that there can be better. So I thought, "let me try and make a game. Got nothing better to do." I'm not very far into developing it, but I thought I'd come for any advice and feedback I can get. All the info I have so far is available in the attached document.

To concentrate discussion, I would primarily like to hear what people think about the class system. It was what got me thinking about the whole thing, and is essentially the basis of the whole project.

If you're still eager to talk, I'm down for any advice you might have about dice rolling mechanics.

Feel free to mention anything you feel worth of discussion in regards to the game.

Lastly, answer this: if you came across a game like this in a store, would you be interested in buying and trying it? (not asking for publishing thoughts, just trying to get an estimate of how much people would be interested in the game)

Thanks!

Brief Description:
-Open ended multiclass system.
-Intended for all genres of RPGs.
-More realistic melee combat.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1yW6BmGhPVKn2wawcNwNzf80XwaeYnP7NV7gofzWX_jM/edit

There is a method that is used in D&D 4E to speed up things: prerolling results. This might be used here as well: preroll a bunch of numbers with the usual dice setups (with 4E for example, only d20s). The GM writes down the results, but keeps the list away from the players. Any time a hidden roll is necessary, the GM just takes the next one in the list. He might also write the task next to the number, so everyone can see that after play. It's not perfect but very fast and does not disrupt play.

Thanks! I've heard the name before but didn't know much about the system. I'll check it out if I manage to find it around...

This is another of the summaries that Ron wrote that were left at the archive, this one is HERE and was written in 2006

I am adding at the end an upgrade with the new rounds of Ronnies.

-------------------------------------
Here's the history of the Ronnies.

Introducing a new contest
The Ronnies, September 2005
[Ronnies] The winners for September
[Ronnies] October contest begins!
[Ronnies] October winners
[It Was a Mutual Decision] Girlfriend + Rat
November Ronnies! Start your engines for the 6th
[Ronnies] November results at last

With each round (three so far), each game has been the subject of at least one Indie Design thread, and in a few cases, Actual Play threads as well. You'll have to run searches for those. You'll also find the relevant links to the games themselves. I'll provide the thread-links for the winners here so you can see what they look like.

SEPTEMBER
$75: Alien Angels, Space Rat, Rats in the Walls, The Suburban Crucible
$25: Untitled, One Can Have Her, Cutthroat

OCTOBER
$75: Contenders, 3-16
$25: Disaster!, Left Coast, Hierarchy, The Drifter's Escape

NOVEMBER
$75: General Mud
$25: Apocalypse Girl, White Dragon, Holodomor, Krasnoarmeets, October's Shadows

All of the games, winners or not, feature Indie Design threads and some have Actual Play (and now, Playtesting) threads. A couple have even been published! You'll have to search for those. I strongly recommend learning and using the options for the Advanced Search function. Alternately, you could scroll the forums based on date, using the above threads as starting points.

Some of you have expressed opinions about whether I should do more rounds, and how often. I do want to run at least two more rounds, but will pace them out a bit more slowly. However, I'd like to see that "culture" that I wrote about in the November results thread come more fully into existence here and with any luck, at other websites.

My request to all of you, at this point, is to do a full-on, personal Ronnies review of your own. Find any entries, winners or not, to all three rounds so far that interest you most. Play them. Re-read them. Post about them.

Best,
Ron
------------------------------------

This was written in 2006, but in 2010 Ron stated new rounds of Ronnies. This time they had a separated subforum, this one:
Endeavor: Ronnies 2011
Where you can find all the relative threads.

Hmm... Yes, actually we could do that. The GM could just give us the commonplace info for free, and everything beyond that would be resolved through roleplaying it out, so we could use your method b. The primary problem with that would likely be that we as players (including the GM) don't know a thing about researching unusual topics reliably, but if we consistently stick to playing it out, maybe that obstacle would go away after a while.

Another problem that might arise is that the roleplaying would slowly gravitate back to the short version over time. So, in the first session we do this, we would play it out in a very detailed way. Talking to all the NPCs who might know something about it, looking for the right books to consult, including checking the right cross-references, etc. However, this procedure could get boring after a few times. Then, the players would likely just say "Ok, I want to research about that topic. I will go about that the same way as last time.". Then, we would effectively just have method a, without a random element to spice it up. However, if our characters have no explicit research-skills anymore, that might in fact not be such a bad thing.




I like it when a player can decide to play a character who is good at finding information... And if a player wants this decision to have any meaning, then the system must provide a way to answer this question about "how likely is it for a particular character to get information through research?", dependent on some research-skill of that character. The issue here is less about the accuracy of the simulation (which is still important to us by the way), but about what character choices are open to the players.

...That being said, we currently have no characters in our group who specialize in just research. They all have other areas where they are good at too. If we decide to scrap research rolls, than we could just free up any points spent in research related skills and allow them to be spent somewhere else instead.


---

So, now for something different: I have in fact come up with a mechanical way to achive what I want, although it is still a bit complicated. Here is the procedure:
-> Both the GM and the player roll 3d6 and note the results of each die on a piece of paper (so if you get 3, 1, 4, you write down "3, 1, 4", not "8"). The player can't see the roll of the GM and the GM can't see the roll of the player.
-> The player then gives his note to the GM (after the GM has written his roll down), who does the following: For each die (first, second, third), the numbers from the GM and the player are added together. If the result is bigger than 6, 6 is subtracted. Then, these three numbers are added together to get the real result of the secret roll. Example: Player rolls "4, 1, 1", GM rolls "5, 5, 6". The actual roll would then be "3, 6, 1", which means a roll of 10.
-> The GM then compares the result of this "combined roll" with the research-skill of the character and gives out information based on that.
-> The two pieces of paper are now stored somewhere where no one can see them, until the accuracy of the information is revealed.

This achieves the following:
-> Neither the GM nor the player can manipulate the result in a particular direction, despite all the rolls being secret. For example, if the player wanted to achieve the best possible outcome ("1, 1, 1", a critical success) by lying about his roll, the result of the GM would be needed before writing down the result of the own roll. If a player just lies and says "1, 1, 1" was rolled, and the GM rolls "5, 5, 5", then the result is a critical failure instead of a critical success. "2, 2, 2" would be the result the player needed to have written down for the desired outcome. So the player can't gain any advantages by lying about the outcome of the roll, and since the GM also can't see the roll of the player before writing his own roll down, neither can the GM.
-> Since the player doesn't know the roll of the GM immediatly after the information is given, there is still uncertainty there. What did the GM roll? The player doesn't know that, and therefore can't draw any conclusions about the information the GM gives.
-> Once the accuracy of the information is clear, the two pieces of paper can be brought out again. The players can easily calculate the secret roll from that, and can then verify that that the validity of the information corresponded to that roll... And because the GM didn't know the exact result before receiving the note from the player, the players can be absolutely sure the GM didn't manipulate anything.
-> Note: This mechanic could easily be applied to other systems. In D&D for example, the player and GM would just roll 1d20, and the final result would be the sum of the two rolls, minus 20 if it is greater than 20.

So... The main disadvantage of this method seems to be that a lot of notes and some additional calculations are needed, as well as the fact that both the player and the GM need to roll instead of just one of them. It would have to be tested if this is a better solution than simply leaving research-rolls out completly.

Since the Forge is closing, I wanted to try to summarize the nifty things from this thread for easy future reference.  Here's the stuff that most interests me:

1) Player choices impact how GM plot impacts the characters (in terms of personal issues, effectiveness/resource, how they relate to the NPCs and plot, and more).

2) GM can put the good stuff where the plot is.  Hinting or promising these rewards is often a good move.
- XP
- loot (e.g. uniquely effective gear) where the plot is.
- NPC esteem (which is a conduit to loot and more)
- info that is valuable (to players and NPCs)

3) GM can prime productive investment in plot by playing intended ally NPCs as likable and intended enemy NPCs as unlikable.

4) GM can make the timing of big plot points contingent on player actions.  (When the PCs give the info to the king, that's when Act II, The King's War begins.)

5) Learning about (or otherwise getting entangled in) stuff in the world (e.g. NPC factions) can give you leverage over it or increased ability to work with it (skill points, dice pool, spendable resources, etc.).  Such learning could be organized into initiations, revelations, and other illuminating events.  Such leverage could include influence over certain NPC actions.

6) Players could be rewarded for:
- character actions that aptly reinforce or fit into the setting
- revealing character
- being proactive in engaging with the GM's plot (e.g. seeking out interaction with key NPCs)
- offering theories on what's going on
- making predictions about what's going to happen
- planning and acting on such theories and predictions

7) System could track/test the balance between a character's “Personal story” and the “Main story”, with different corresponding outcomes.  Too much Personal over Main could mean the character completes their own arc and leaves the game.

8) The GM's hints and clues can be organized according to dramatic pacing concerns, and altered on the fly to accommodate player progress.
- if the players are slow, lost, or swamped, the GM can combine multiple threads of plot/motivation/factions into one
- if the players are racing forward with no suspense or pondering, the GM can complexify, adding motives, agents, feints, etc.

9) The GM can fill in the blanks in the Big Plot with stuff relevant to specific PCs, as indicated by flags or other pre-game chat.

10) Defining two end points and brainstorming what happens in the middle to connect them could be one way for the GM to turn mega-plot into scenes.

I'll return to this project at some point.  When I do, I'll post an update on Story Games, as well as G+ and Facebook.

Ps,
-David