>>21505956
Wow, you actually made an RPG? Already? I'm impressed.

>>21505956
This looks like building a character would be quite time-consuming. The possibility for shit-fights over what counts as fitting to an archetype does not endear it to me. You don't explain what damage against an archetype means.

File: 1352500724839.pdf-(195 KB, PDF, Liara 1.2.pdf)

>>21506060
Character creation is just distributing fifteen points. Here's a sample character. You're right about damage, though. I'll fix that.

File: 1352500975428.pdf-(194 KB, PDF, Archetype RPG 1.3.pdf)

>>21506060
Here's version 1.3 of the ruleset, with expanded description of how conflicts work.

>>21505956
this is kinda cool
add a note in that says 'the gm knows what archetype fits where, if you don't like it, fuck off' to avoid arguments

>>21506226
This is the final sentence of the Rolling section:
>The GM has the final decision on whether or not a given archetype is relevant to a given action.
Does that work?

>>21506215
You have a minimal responsibility to either drop a paragraph on each of the archetypes or put it to the referee to do so. Having a written point of reference is necessary to stop misunderstandings.

>>21506278
Will do. I'll start writing a description of each archetype just like how I have a description of each race.

>be awesome warrior dude

>become epic hero

>get hot outsider chick

>great sex

>find out she's your grandfather

>MFW

>>21506339
Heh, yeah, that could hypothetically happen in this setting.

>entire race of mary sues

why?

>>21506448

Not this guy, but there is a theme here that is apparent among the races.

Male Races:

>Short, strongfat, bearded dudes
>Tall, leather-skinned, crazy fuckers
>Not-even-remotely-humanlike, with a tendency towards sociopathy

Female races:

>Sexy women who are tall and strong, who explicitly dress skimpy
>Sexy women who are short and smart
>Sexy women who are near-deified

I have no problems with the mono-gendered races, but the female ones are, at least in my opinion, boring.

What if I wanted to play something fairly against archetype? For example:

>Wyrm
>5 Performer
>5 Artisan
>2 Leader
>2 Magician

Representing a dragon that has done away with the traditional maiden kidnapping and has moved on to more modern and dynamic forms of extortion, such as organizing teams of adventurers with the goal of robbing banks/art galleries/collections of valuable antiques, mostly because he loves that shit?

>>21506485

>implying anyone wants to play a withered, leather-skinned bitch

>>21506505
You can't actually have two archetypes at 5, but that's perfectly valid. Wyrm would still only provide a +1 to the types of actions it normally does, but you don't have to be a perfect stereotype of your race, as long as you still act, for better or worse, like your race. If you act too not-The Wyrm, though, you'll start reverting to human - this is mostly up to GM fiat, since races have only one level, and therefore only cost 1 experience point.

>>21506485

Don't think the male races are ugly, but if you want a pretty hunk male race I don't mind. Moving away from D&D cliches is good

>>21506485

The thing is, these races are idealized concepts of archetypical creatures. The archetypical male creature can run the gamut from handsome to ugly.

The archetypical female creature is basically modelocked into lookin' good, unless it's a witch or some such like that, I suppose.

File: 1352502858537.jpg-(60 KB, 304x304, ozzy-osbourne.jpg)

>>21506505

You're playing a dragon version of this?

>>21506505
I read it as 15 points, not 15 ranks. To have max rank in one archetype right at the creation means to have nothing else.

File: 1352502975922.pdf-(199 KB, PDF, Archetype RPG 1.4.pdf)

Okay, here's version 1.3. It has a writeup of the various archetypes. I'm interested in hearing more input on this.

>>21506582
>All characters start with 15 points to spend
on archetypes, race, and patron. Each level in an
archetype costs one point

>>21506582
It's 15 ranks. I'll clarify that for version 1.5. Do you guys think that The Outsider should be changed to something like The Hag or something? The idea was to have two fae/natural racial archetypes (The Elf, The Goblin), two industrial racial archetypes (The Dwarf, The Gnome), and two mystical racial archetypes (The Wyrm, The Outsider).

File: 1352503114282.jpg-(160 KB, 468x624, 1324565218424.jpg)

>>21506598

>>21506610

Just make sure to include both ugly and beautiful versions of each race descriptions. Outsiders don't have to be beautiful, they can be powerful witches as well as angelic figures, for instance.

>>21506610
Oooooh. I see what you're doing.
>Gobbo, elf
>Dorf, gnome
>Wyrm, cthulhu?

Looks good, OP! Thanks for sharing!

>>21506579
Sounds more like Bain from Payday to me.

>>21506638
Yeah, you've got it. Male and female race pairs. If you check the creation myth, each of those race pairs were originally lovers, husband/wife, in terms of the original archetype.
>>21506632
Will do, except for The Elf and The Goblin, which are always beautiful/rough, respectively.

>>21506610


I think outsiders need to be rewritten, not because they're too pretty like others have said, but because they are so open ended, it becomes "anyone who thinks females are cool becomes an outsider". Notice how each other race listed has a list of values, strengths, weaknesses? The outsider says "it's up to each individual's personality", which makes it lack character.

Does this make sense?

>>21506662
Absolutely. Working on it.

>>21506632
>Just make sure to include both ugly and beautiful versions of each race descriptions.

The question is though, why would someone choose to be ugly? These are humans who strive towards an ideal, and I don't see anyone who would WANT to be ugly short of the ultimate stage when you can turn into some kind of cthulhoid nightmare.

These are platonic ideals, after all.

>>21506638

Actually, the pairs all make sense, except the Wyrm/Outsider one.

Goblins/Elves
Dwarves/Gnomes
and then... Dragons/Angels? Shouldn't it be Devils/Angels?

>>21506662
Not this guy, but adding in bullet points, like in the 4e manual, might help. Like...

Dorfs are (usually):
•Hardworking and loyal
•Industrial and stubborn

Something like that.

>>21506673

"Wizened old crone" or "weathered old wizard" are archetypes too, for example. After all in most cultures age was seen as something to respect and revere.

>>21506673

>The question is though, why would someone choose to be ugly?

This.

>>21506673

Because one could choose to embody the ideal of brute strength, or superior intellect, or brutal cunning, or any number of other virtues that have nothing to do with psysical beauty?

>>21506673
Because the appearance comes with the other benefits.

>>21506709
>>21506673
Someone mightn't choose to be ugly, but their character-even IRL-sometimes affects how a person looks. Grumpy looking people ARE often grumpy, right?

I think each race should have a positive and negative manner of expression.

Elves are close to nature, and caring for life. They're also known for being very snobby and xenophobic. That should be represented.

IMO, goblins should be Orcs instead. They have very high placement on physical ability and kill often, but they are also VERY close knit when it comes to family/tribe.

Dwarfs are industrious, community minded, and innovative. They're also wildly destructive to the environment, stubborn as all hell, and slow to accept outside ideas.

Gnomes are wildly imaginative and resourceful, have a bundle of energy, and are masters of conversions. However, they also lack good attention spans, ignore or belittle the abilities of those that don't meet or exceed their own, and are notoriously hedonistic.

>>21506718
>>21506729
>>21506730

Ah, but you forget that each ideal is physical as well as mental and skill-wise. You can't become a dragon if you don't really WANT to be a dragon, you learn to act like a dragon, think like a dragon. For that reason, someone who wants to be a dwarf but can't get their mind around being short and beardy will never become a dwarf. They will stall on their path and never fulfill it.

File: 1352504016018.pdf-(200 KB, PDF, Archetype RPG 1.5.pdf)

Here's version 1.5. I clarified some rules information, edited the race descriptions.

>>21506790
That sounds awful CHIM.

>>21506779

>Elves: Cheerleaders
>Goblins/Orcs: Jocks

>Dwarves: Nerds
>Gnomes: Nerd Girls

>Wyrms: ?
>Outsiders: ?

>>21506801

Sounds more like mantling tbh.

>>21506802
>Wyrms: PE teacher
>Outsiders: That one hot librarian chick

>>21506814
It is mantling, and it was described as such in the first thread.

>>21506790

That puts a rather arbitrary barrier to entry on the male races, don't you think?

"I don't want to be a manlet"
"I don't want to be made of leather and ugly as sin"
"I don't want to turn into a giant snake thing"

versus

"Yeah, being tall and sexy sounds nice"
"Yeah, being a powerful angel sounds nice"

gnome might have an issue, but considering how short girls are favored in some circles, I could see it being "Yeah, I don't mind getting short, as long as I don't get ugly"

>>21506779

The problem with calling goblins orcs is then we'd just be ripping off tolkein, and there were people in the thread we came up with this idea in who were 'why don't we just go straight ot the mythology instead'?

WE've been bandying about troll, orc, or goblin for that race, and goblin seemed to be the most agreeable one.

>>21506779

We're trying to stay away from "orcs" because it's so D&D

>>21506830

So we need a physical perfection male race APART from staying human (which is a perfectly viable option).

>>21506836
>>21506839


>goblin seemed the most agreeable

Fine with me, I suppose, but I still think they should have some kind of warrior code or honor system to me. The nomenclature wasn't really what I was sweating, it was the ideals the race seems to have.

>>21506830
It's more about approaching the mentality of it. A brutal warrior who acts enough like a Goblin will become a goblin - and that can cross gender barriers. A female human can end up a male goblin.

>>21506682
Well its M-Dradons and F-Devil/Angels
Though dragons and Devils have many similarities, scaled skin, clawed feet, leathery wings, bestial visage.

>>21506855

OP said if you don't want to be X race, you can't make the leap to being X race. Considering this, I can see a lot of people not minding the shift towards the feminine races, but it seems like there will be a shit load of male humans.

>>21506855
This needs to be determined. Is it:

>Person decides to think like an elf
>Becomes scantily clad woman

or

>Person likes nature
>Starts to become an elf

How fast is the change, too?

>>21506879
>there will be a shit load of male humans.

and the only female humans will be the ones who are neutral about archetypes or so far skewed to the male ends but are unwilling to make the big switch to get that last morsel of power

>>21506890

Actually following a racial path was in the first thread said to be exceedingly exacting, requiring lots of training, meditation, experience and willpower. It's not that people who gain power just casually turn into elves or dwarves. They only do if they are actively following that particular path of life. If you choose to follow the elven path and you decide you don't like the femininity thing, you will break it off and find something else to do. Once you reach the end of a path, though, you are committed to your choice (which also goes for the regular human profession paths).

>>21506890
It's a somewhat gradual process. You can start along the path by accident, but you can only finish becoming the race on purpose. The thing is, you only get access to a race's perks by going all the way. Elven immortality, Goblin resilience and strength, Dwarven ingenuity and toughness, Gnomish creativity and speed, Draconic magic, power, and longevity, and Outsider magic and wisdom. All of these things come only if you go all the way, and a lot of those features are very attractive to a lot of people. Aside from that, Goblins do kidnap children and indoctrinate them into being a goblin.

File: 1352504856842.jpg-(37 KB, 277x450, i fucking love water.jpg)

>>21506952
>>21506976
For people who weren't here for the first thread, you should put that somewhere in the PDF, OP.

>>21506976
>>21506952

So there will be a handful of Dorfs and Wyrms, a fair amount of goblins (due to kidnappings), a shitload of male humans...

...a shitload of outsiders, a shitload of elves, a fair amount of gnomes, and a handful of female humans

>>21505956

How about we remove the orc/goblin/troll thing and replace them with some ideal male-looking race to contrast the elves instead? Evil humanoids are so cliche, and the setting can have various non-human critters to serve that role instead.

>>21506976
That's part of the reason why most of the races are relatively rare compared to humans, except when goblins suddenly build a horde by kidnapping and indoctrinating.

>>21507001
>a shitload of outsiders, a shitload of elves
Those are actually a very hard path to follow. I'll update the race fluff again to get a better picture of that.

ALSO.

Diametric opposites, anyone?

>Elf: Nature-loving
>Dwarf: Industrial

>Goblin: Nasty
>Gnome: Nice

>Wyrm: Taking, controlling
>Outsider: Giving, outgoing

I think there needs to be some sort of thing preventing everyone from just becoming a dragon or outsider, if they're supposed to be rare.

>>21507116
Fluffwise, I think there is. Mechanically, there isn't, because the benefits are fairly mechanically insignificant.

Personally I'd steal my archetypes from the Tarot, just becuse it's got awesomely powerful symbology..

File: 1352505541912.pdf-(200 KB, PDF, Archetype RPG 1.6.pdf)

Here's version 1.6. I updated some racial descriptions, such as making Goblins more varied and less unattractive. I added an intro paragraph in the races section describing how hard it is to become one of a race. I extended the description in the Advancement section to talk about how gaining the experience point to become a race requires hard work and dedication.

>>21507132
Typo under Wyrm:

>bristling with scars and nature weapons

Also, gnomes have no downsides apparently.

It's a bit odd how the racial archetypes have taken over the idea so totally. The original idea didn't even have races, just humans trying to live up to their class ideal according to whatever archetype they believed in.

>>21507165

Yeah, I think the racial thing should be secondary compared to the class thing

>>21507171
Yeah, it's supposed to be, but people have a lot more issues with the races. They're more controversial, so there's more discussion.

>>21507155
>Also, gnomes have no downsides apparently.
I'm open to suggestions, really.

>>21507177
>>21507171
>>21507165
That's because the archetype bit is fine. You don't fix something that isn't broken.

File: 1352505971670.jpg-(109 KB, 600x900, 2e3fcf11da104c1186fa556ee(...).jpg)

>>21507132
It seams to me that Races should have at least 2 levels to them, and not just because the idea of someone half-way to something could be interesting to see.

The first point could be something accidental, a natural lean to something or the simple ideological leaning that pulls one toward an archetype. They find themselves more like it, but not a true part of the race. As in the last thread, we considered someone on the way to being something like a "Half-Elf." They have some benefits, but they don't have an elven immortality, there would be the rare half-elf who is still male, and possibly struggling with that last step toward becoming a true elf Or the female draconian equivalent.

It also makes the Race harder mechanically to truly become, and shows someone's progress into a race over time.

>>21507181

Gnomes are flighty, not always logical, quite often narcissistic and have a tendency towards megalomania. Physically they tend to be weak due to their lessened size.

Adittionally, high shelves, chairs, counters, and other such things.

>>21507181
OCD? ADHD? Morally questionable pursuit of goals over all else?

>>21507193

I really like this.

Any chance we could make "stage 2" of a race some sort of Epic Destiny equivalent? Something you can really only get after many hard-fought victories and personal achievments?

File: 1352506291322.jpg-(34 KB, 640x430, pick one.jpg)

>>21507222
>>21507193
Isn't that when they just ascend to the big blue and become their own archetype?

>>21507193
>They have some benefits, but they don't have an elven immortality, there would be the rare half-elf who is still male, and possibly struggling with that last step toward becoming a true elf Or the female draconian equivalent.

This is cool. Perhaps it's at some point important to be able to let go to some very hardwired preconceptions to complete your path.

File: 1352507166084.jpg-(275 KB, 900x1166, 1271680827570.jpg)

Okay. Say you play a female wannabe wizard, who is kind of dumpy, has bad skin, bad breath, is shy and all that. And the local archetype for female wizards is pic related. What happens to your character?

What happens?

File: 1352507957939.jpg-(40 KB, 432x455, ha ha i'm using the shavi(...).jpg)

Is there going to be a 1.6?

Which archetypes did the different race people embody in the creation myth?

>>21505956
Cool, OP. Keep up the good work.

>>21507630

Agreed, great work.

>>21507364

You best start working at getting to look like that. And as you do, it will become easier to look like that, until you do.

>>21507896

Same with any class, really.

Do you ever have to actively change race or gender?

>>21507963

No, that'll happen automatically once you pass that point of obsession/become aligned enough with that archetype.

>>21507193
For me, that first step is getting the experience point towards the race, and the second step is deciding to actually spend it. Does that make sense?

>>21507963
No, but it can help.

>>21507503
Yeah, I'm working on it. I had to step away from the computer for a bit.

>>21507559
That's up to debate in-setting, but it's largely accepted that The Wyrm was The Mage, The Outsider was The Priest, The Goblin was The Warrior, The Elf was The Adventurer, The Dwarf was The Artisan, and The Gnome was The Scholar. It certainly seems to fit.

File: 1352512435492.pdf-(201 KB, PDF, Archetype RPG 1.7.pdf)

Okay, here's version 1.7. I changed some of the wording on rolling, some of the wording on spending an experience point on a race, and added a bit to the gnomes describing them as both creative and unrealiable. Also, I'm glad that the class archetypes are fine, and I appreciate the input on the races.

>>21505956
Since this is more or less, without the crit system, a copy/paste from Simple D6 on 1d4chan and you didnt even mention it in acknowledgements I would say that you suck. Homebrewing is cool but at least give credits where due mate.

Do the races NEED to be mono-gender?
I mean I understand the creation myth and I think it's really cool. It could even lead to patriarchal/matriarchal societies in which people of the "lesser" sex (female dwarves, males elves,...) are culturally the ones that stay home and mind the kids, the stewards of the realm, the teachers and so on. And in practice, the overwhelming majority of a race that you'd find would match the gender stereotype. But the other gender would still exist and occasionally appear in a story.

Wouldn't that make a more interesting and subtle world?

Changing race to fit what you work hard towards is really great but I have a problem with the gender-swapping it brings. It's too close to /d/ material for my comfort.

>>21508345
I've never actually read Simple D6. If they are that similar, I'll add a note. Thanks for telling me, man.

>>21508347
No, not really. This makes it a much more fantastic and strange thing, rather than 'oh well i guess there are guys elves as well'. It's also another reason why people don't go full racial most of the time.

Also, the only reason you think it's /d/ is because you're projecting. Grow up, please.

>>21508345
Now that I've read it, this is actually quite different from Simple D6. I actually drew most of this from the likes of Shadowrung or WoD, with dice pools and numbers of successes. Simple D6 looks more like dice pools created by aspects working collectively and providing results that a qualified rather than flat successes/non-successes. My inspirations were Shadowrun mixed with Risus, and I hope it shows. Thanks for calling me out on what you thought I was doing, though. I don't want to come across as dishonest.

>>21508385
Allright, mate.
I can't suspend my disbelief that much, but kudos to you if you can.
I hope you don't mind if I have a go at this with a bit of a spin on the fluff to include both genders in every race.

>>21508347
They don't really need to be, we just felt it made it more interesting, since it really forces the point of you being made fundamentally different by pursuing a racial archetype. We didn't intend for it to be at all fetishy, but I can see why you would see that there. Do you really think I should change it, or was it more cautionary to make sure that we don't come across as fetishy? I mean, that's part of the reason why I've been paring down the female races' descriptions to make them less always-attractive.

>>21508347

The thing here is that the other "races" are really not "races" at all.

They are gatherings of like-minded humans who have independently decided to pursue a certain way of life.

The monogender thing makes it more distinctive and alien, and not just another "oh yeah there's elves and dwarves and orcs and such blahblah" Dungeons & Dragons approach.

Furthermore, none of the "races" can breed true. If say an elf breeds with a human, you get normal human children. Same if they breed with another elf, or a goblin. Or hell, a dragon. For that reason alone, double genders of each "race" is not necessary for the game setting AND would detract from the uniqueness of it.

File: 1352513177778.gif-(2.16 MB, 472x344, praising the sun.gif)

>>21508419
I don't even give a fuck, homedog. May you find a group that isn't shit.

>>21508347
>Changing race to fit what you work hard towards is really great but I have a problem with the gender-swapping it brings. It's too close to /d/ material for my comfort.


You have no problem with someone turning into a dragon, but a guy turning into a female elf is somehow abhorrent to you?

I appreciate you have problems with the idea, but the thread(s) have treated it with maturity and as a thought-provoking idea (apart from a few hecklers).

Your assertation that it's somehow bad comes off as being extremely shallow and disrespectful for the people who have written up the stuff so far.

>>21508474
No, dude, come on, I actually want people's input. I want all of the positions and criticisms, even if I'm not going to act on them. This doesn't need to be a kid gloves, nobody gets hurt kind of thing. Nobody benefits from that. Nothing's sacrosanct, even if I think it's pretty neat, like monogender races.

>>21508302
Here's a question, OP.

If, for example, you were fighting in a bar brawl with someone, and he pulled a sword (and you had, like a mug), would you take a penalty? How's that handled?

>>21508438
>>21508432
>>21508450
>>21508410
Fair point, thanks for explaining.
I still think it's more interesting to steer closer to classic D&D medfan stuff (and God knows I hate classic D&D medfan stuff) and focus on the archetype thing, but I can see where you're coming from.
The mono-gender thing does make this thing unique, I'm probably far too much of a gender-theory fan IRL to fully agree, but I see what it brings to this game.

Carry on, gentlemen, you are doing fine work, if only not exactly the type of material that is exactly suited for my particular tastes.

>>21508504
Probably a situational +1 bonus to the guy with the advantage (the guy with the sword, in this case). It doesn't provide a permanent enough bonus to keep him from taken out of play if his normal points in Warrior are removed, but it gives him the bonus while actually rolling. If both of them were properly-equipped, though, there would be neither a bonus nor penalty.
>>21508508
Cool, thanks. I really do appreciate the input, and I can totally see where you're coming from, and I'm glad you can see where we're coming from too. Do you have any other suggestions, criticisms, or just general input that might help us out?

>>21508500
>>21508432

Hey, compiler-dude? I assume that's you. I love the work you've done so far. I'm the guy who did about half of the idea work in the first thread.

But I have to say... If you're going to make the race archetypes have both genders and such, I would prefer if you dropped the race archetype altogether from the rules, and we just had humans in the setting.

If you change that, then it turns into another D&D. I ONLY wanted the race archetypes in there because they would be a different take on tired fantasy races (adding more spins to the race descriptions would have been cool too).

Sorry if that sounds harsh, but I would rather slash and burn that idea than just turn it into another watered-down more-of-the-same generic fantasy thing.

>>21508474
Oh to be honest I'm more bothered by the idea of a village of all-male goblins or a massive foundry of all-female gnomes.
The gender-swapping thing just brought bad memories from a few trips I had to /d/, but it's just a minor setback compared to the fact that I can't really deal with the idea of a single-gender social organization.
Matriarchal/Patriarchal, I can do. Single-gender, I disbelieve.

But once again, I can see your points and if you like it that way by all means my two cents should not tip this boat.

What would an average adventure using this system comprise?

>>21508544
I'm not planning on dropping it, actually. I think the monogenders are really cool. I was just trying to get input on why people might or might not like it, and if they dislike it, how I might tweak it without getting rid of it. Don't worry, it's totally staying.
>>21508560
Okay. Thanks for the input, dude.
>>21508584
Normal adventure stuff, I would assume. Combat, heists, politics, riddles, traps, blackmail, investigation, that kind of thing. All manner of stuff.

>>21508560
>but it's just a minor setback compared to the fact that I can't really deal with the idea of a single-gender social organization.

It's no different than real-world monk orders who only have male members.

Hey, does anyone have any ideas for a good name for this setting/system? I mean, Achetype RPG is cool and all, but it's not actually cool at all, it's actually pretty shitty.

>>21508639
13? Representing the number of archetypes?

>>21508656
That's pretty good, actually. Maybe 13:7? Or 13:7:3? You know, to reference the races and the divine entities. Any other ideas?

>>21508533
Other ideas:
-I really like the idea of race being more than just one level. Why not scale it on five like the rest of the archetypes? Say one point is natural inclination or the starting of a path (and you can't start at more than one point at chargen), two points is full-fledged, the communities of a race will be at two points in general, and more than two points make you more and more obviously "monstrous"/"weird"/"alien", as well as acclaimed by your community. It could bear social status, recognition, possibly even lead to ascending to achetypedom... A Five-rank Wyrm would practically be a full dragon, A Five-Rank Elf would practically be a damn dryad,... (With, of course, the same benefits i.e. extra dice, and experience evolution as Archetypes)
-Why not do the same thing for patrons? Not everyone is favored by the divine in the same way, some people could be REALLY good at Destruction, Creation or Balance, while others less so. There again, maximum 1 at chargen and build the rest through roleplay.
-Write in the rules situational bonuses. Like superior weapons, preparation, knowledge of the terrain and such. It may go without saying for most seasoned roleplayers, but anon's question about the sword is a valid one, and other similar situations may arise. Say, maybe every situational bonus is +1 and you can't have more than three. And penalties may happen on the same principle.

Jesus now I'm turning this into WoD.
I'm terrible at this.

>>21508713
Okay, for the first point, the main reason I avoided that I because I kinda ran out of space in the character sheet section. I'll see if I can fit in a blank for character race and patron alignment, but if I can't, I'm leaving it as-is.

As for the situational bonuses, I'll definitely try to find space for that. That's something that should really be addressed.

>>21508677
Fitting Archetypes To Advance Literally.
Or, to connoisseurs, F.A.T.A.L.

>>21508782
Heh, that's good. Maybe I can fit in a system for random-rolling penis/breast/anus sizes between the section on patrons and the creation myth. Do you guys think I should include setting notes? The Wyrm Alliance, the Dwarven Trade Federation, that kind of thing?

"Thirteen" is a pretty cool name.

So, I tried to bring this up in the last thread but either nobody liked the ideas or nobody saw:

There's no actual gods on the world, those were all destroyed by the original 13. Any other beings are ascended humans.

Monsters exist. They are created by either the dead gods or by ascended humans who have gone insane.

Races other than humans are rare and never plentiful, but Wyrms and Outsiders are the rarest of all, so rare that only a few are named, and many are just legend.

Thoughts?

File: 1352515015430.jpg-(213 KB, 800x744, consider the why.jpg)

>>21508677
13:7:3, I like it.

>>21508713
>Say one point is natural inclination or the starting of a path (and you can't start at more than one point at chargen), two points is full-fledged, the communities of a race will be at two points in general, and more than two points make you more and more obviously "monstrous"/"weird"/"alien"

I thought it was interesting that there was a binary choice. You either started out as a certain race or you didn't. I was guessing that humans who started on a path could technically buy the race eventually, but it would be up to GM stuff. The other downside to incremental race steps is that it's also kinda pulling attention away from the archetypes bit and putting it on the race bit. After all, most everyone's human, aren't they?

>Why not do the same thing for patrons
Again, I thought it was an interesting 'GO HARD OR GO HOME, ALL IN MOTHERFUCKERS' approach. If you didn't fully uphold that ideal you wouldn't get there at all.

Just playing devil's advocate.

>>21508832
I think one of the strenghts of your game is that it's very open. It's a skeleton where you can slap your own stuff without compromising the whole balance of it.
(Like, say, my wanting to chuck the mono-gender thing, it doesn't make the whole game terrible and the main idea, Archetypes, stands)

If you start describing your setting more, you'll steer away from the simple beauty of one-pagers (a concept, a system) and into the expectations people have when facing a fully fleshed RPG (that they can just read and play as written with minimal creation process).

I'd say don't describe it too much. You'll lose more than you'll gain.

Maaaybe if you feel like it you can have a "suggested setting" in a different pdf to hand around where you can go wild with city descriptions, influence groups and so and so.
For now, I think it's counter-productive.

File: 1352515206775.jpg-(137 KB, 546x438, nat 1 damage.jpg)

>>21508713
>Write in the rules situational bonuses. Like superior weapons, preparation, knowledge of the terrain and such
I like that idea too, but capping it at 1 would make things interesting, and force players to TRY instead of faffing about trying to get every situational bonus. Also mean that someone who was The Warrior 1 actually matching and overcoming someone who was The Warrior 3.

I guess I'm imagining the archetypes as bell-curves and regular bonuses as linear.

>"winning" tooone

Yes, captcha, we are all winning.

>>21508832
>writing in setting stuff
Of two minds. On one hand, it makes it easier to run. On the other, it makes it more work, since you have to read up on it. Despite either of these choices, people can also chuck it entirely and go play in their own setting-but it'll still 'not be the main setting', and things might not work as well as they would have.

tl;dr do what >>21508910 said

>>21508857
To be fair, my idea about incremental stages of race and patron was just bringing in some other archetypes of a special kind (start at one, can't have more than one at the same time, have to start all over again if you switch).

They would, mechanically, be like the other archetypes.

>>21508910
Cool, thanks. That makes a lot of sense to me, and I think you're right. I'll avoid actually building a setting beyond the creation myth and the race descriptions.

OP, namefag so we can ID you.

File: 1352515714129.pdf-(203 KB, PDF, 13 7 3 1.8.pdf)

>>21509028
Okay. Better? Also, here's 1.8, now with rules on situational modifiers and a header and footer. Also, I hope that people have been noticing what I've been doing with word colour. Have you guys?

>>21508780
Oh maybe one of the solutions to that problem would be to have one page for the character sheet (easily photocopiable) and the rest of the rules in other pages. That would leave more space to character stuff without nibbling on the system.
And you wouldn't even need to overdo it, everyone loves a good, simple, easily readable sheet like Don't rest your head or Dogs in the Vineyard.

Let me play devil's advocate again.

People don't jump on RPG's for the mechanics, or at least only very few people do.

It needs well-crafted and cool fluff to make people want to run it, otherwise they can just run any other "generic" RP system.

>>21509120
>play devil's advocate
That suits me just fine. Is the current fluff well-crafted and cool? If so, does it need more, or does it work now? If not, does it need to be better developed, or does something need to be changed?

File: 1352516209256.jpg-(28 KB, 761x264, 299792458 retards per second.jpg)

>>21509120
>creation story isn't cool fluff
>the system concept isn't cool fluff
>mfw

That said, you can always make up your own fluff if you like a system. It's what people do with DnD, and it comes with, what, three vanilla settings?

>>21509132
A little bit more info on Creation, Destruction, and Balance would be cool, but I can see why it's as vague as it is.
And yes, I see what you're doing with the font colours.

>>21509132
>That suits me just fine. Is the current fluff well-crafted and cool?

It has fluff? I saw a few race descriptions that were super bare-bones, and some background story that was also super-brief.

And the name of it with that character creation sheet makes it look like it's an exercise in bookkeeping.

This got me thinking, who's closest to embodying the archetypes right now?

>Loner
Bear Grylls?
>Performer
Elvis? M.J.?
>Leader
Hitler?
>Noble
Queen Elizabeth?

I don't know, just sperging.

>>21509120
Have you never read a one-pager?
I can see what you're trying to say here, it's kind of hard to, say, turn new people into a hobby with just crunch, and it can be quite easy to seduce people with a terrible system that comes with a nice atmosphere (Warhammer, D&D,...).
This is not trying to be a full game so far.
This is still pretty much one-pager material, despite spanning more than one page.
It's an entirely different thing.

Blaming it for not being what attracts people to RPGs would be like saying that since most people who go to the movies don't watch short films, people who shoot short films should do feature-length movies instead.

I know you were playing devil's advocate, but this is really an invalid claim so far.

>>21509170
So, you would suggest I develop it more? I admit, I'm torn between the idea that developing it would take away more than it would add and the idea that the fluff is kinda pointless unless it's more-developed.

>>21509239

I know what you mean, but I am merely suggesting that if you want more people than the 3 who are contributing to it in this thread to even give it a look, it needs to be more than a "one-pager".

Then again I don't know if you aspire to go beyond just this thread at all, so don't ask me!

As for the existing fluff, I like the take on the generic fantasy races. That is a really cool idea.

>>21509245
Like I suggested earlier, fluff belongs in another chapter of this book, or if this is purely short pdf material, in another pdf.

Hey, here's an idea, if you really want to go crazy with this:
-A Creation pdf. Elves, Dwarves and Outsiders fluff. Organizations. Villains and heroes. Myths (especially on the ones who ascended, with possibly cult followings). Magical items.
-A Destruction pdf. Goblins, Gnomes and Wyrms fluff. Organizations. Villains and heroes. Myths (especially on the ones who ascended, with possibly cult followings). Magical items.
-A Balance pdf. With an in-depth description of one playable city in which people of all races and patrons are welcome. Human history and fluff. Organizations. Myths (if there is any linked to the Loner).

If you write those three, this could arguably be a fully fleshed RPG, and not an expanded one-pager.

>>21509268
I've never looked at a 1-pager ever before, mostly because it's just a set of simple rules, exactly the same as every other 1-pager. This, however, has an interesting CONCEPT. So I'm paying attention to this one, and will probably run a game of it/hope someone else does because I'm a terrible GM.

That said, I'm sure there's something out there that's exactly what you're looking for.

>>21509348
>optional extra shit
Is good. As long as it remains definitely optional.

>>21509348
That makes sense to me. Would you like to write some fluff for that? I would really appreciate the help since I'm more of a compiler and a mechanics guy.

Well, seems like you're letting the sperglord who can't stomach the actually interesting ideas here win.

Nothing like a "supporter" for an idea who chokes the life out of it trying to make it fit "his vision".

Whatever. It was fun while it lasted guys. Saved the first thread for the future.

>>21509423
Which ideas should we be focusing on? I'm trying to take input from all sides and use what sounds good or gets plenty of support to make adjustments. I would really be interested in your vision for that reason.

>>21509458

I'm not saying anything needs to be focused on. I'm just saying that guy with the "gender studies" who thought the whole last thread was fetish fuel and now wants it to be totally fluff-less is a dick who isn't contributing jack shit, and you're now catering to his wishes.

>>21509480
Well, I would appreciate fluff suggestions. I don't want the pdf to go over six or so pages in length, but that still leaves a page or two that we could devote to more fluff. Have any ideas?

>>21509423
I'm not sure if you're talking about me here (faggot who would make this universally double-gendered) but if I have offended, I apologize.

What do you think was the core good idea we're steering away from here? Archetypes? Do you want to add something to this? Or do you think it should be left bare-bones for people to fluff it up manually?

>>21509458
Not any of the above guys, just dropping in to give input.

I, for once, am more interested in how the archetype system, the race system, and the destruction/balance/creation system works than anything else. I have imagination on my side, I can make up whatever I want for a setting. The core mechanics are neat and provide a good enough foundation.

OP, word of advice, don't take help from idiots. If you can see that someone's just a douche, ignore him.

>>21509480
Yup you were talking about me.
Sorry, bro, I really didn't mean to burst your bubble.

I'm really fine with fluff, as long as it's suggestion and not METAPLOT ALL THE TIME. Or half-assed ("Look we made a world! Here is half a page of superficial mish-mash").

Then again this is just my point of view, and I know that OP and I are not the only ones posting here since I got on this thread.
Do contribute, my friend, I don't mean to make this project my own.

I'm the guy who started the idea in the first thread and started doing some of the fluff stuff (again).

I like the idea of a basic rules system and then some optional fluff. I think it would work well for this kind of idea to have notes which describe ideas for how to make it play different than other systems.

For example, how the different archetype paths relate to eachother. How they can (but don't have to) view the world and their place in it. What goals one can hope to achieve following an archetype. Dropping off a path, what effects can happen (a good source for villains, bitter failed archetypes?). How the "racial" archetypes fit into society (for the record I never wanted them to have separate societies. I intended for them to live with normal humans, but perhaps gather together in clubs, schools or similar to pursue their goals. some might become loners or live in small colonies, but I don't want any dwarven cities or elven metropolises... just my two cents).

Ideas for where conflict might arise, based on the basic ideas. As I said before, bitter people who fail to reach their archetypal goal may be good adversaries, as do those who HAVE reached their goals and are now using that power to dick people over.

Once again, just rambling here.

>>21509592
>I don't want any dwarven cities or elven metropolises
You reminded me of A Plague of Angels by Sherri S. Tepper. In that, there were people who were born 'maidens' or 'knights', and were basically THAT archetype forever with no variance, because that's how it was. But everyone just accepted it as a normal thing. I, too, would enjoy the idea of everyone treating everyone else, no matter what race, fairly normally. Mostly because the other way's been done so much and so extensively. And because the idea of Mr. Zenizarifax, the wyrm who runs the corner store, entertains me.

The great thing about actually making fluff for this is that it's optional. People can run it however they want.

>>21509681
>The great thing about actually making fluff for this is that it's optional.

Is fluff ever not optional for any game?

File: 1352519446923.png-(42 KB, 1024x768, dark souls pvp.png)

>>21509724
When it's in the same book as the rules, it generally has an impact on the rules. Dark Heresy, Dungeons and Dragons, stuff like that. They're all for running a certain KIND of game, as dictated by the original setting. It can be converted to run other settings and themes, but it won't be as good as the setting it was intended for. This seems to be like GURPS in its purview, except less algebraic.

>>21509724
There are a lot of games where fluff is very present all the way through and players will feel annoyed if you don't follow it.
It's not "there is a KGB agent behind your door wating to break your arm in four places if you change a comma" mandatory, but some people can seriously throw sissy fits and brand you That DM if you don't follow the widely accepted vision of the game and homebrew it all a bit around.

Fluff is always optional, but I can't think of a better thing to stress that this.

>>21509765

I respectfully disagree with you there, especially with D&D.

>>21509778
Are you one of those people who try to run modern games with the d20 system? I've seen it done, and done well, but I reckon it can be done better. I appreciate your civility, though.

File: 1352520133418.pdf-(211 KB, PDF, 13 7 3 1.9.pdf)

Okay, I added a single page of sample fluff of a few factions in an intentionally-vague city on page five. Is that good or shitty? I'm torn on it. I'll leave it in if you guys like it, or axe it if you don't.

>>21509804

No, but I am here keeping "fluff" separate from "basics of the game". The Basics of D&D are a bunch of adventurers getting together and killing shit and stealing treasure. Now that can have any of a million different settings, motivations, tones and whatnot.

The "fluff" of D&D is the stuff in the dungeon master guide with how the races interact, the cosmology, religions, etc. THIS stuff I would consider be eminently changable on a whim. I don't think any of it affects D&D playstyle so fundamentally that altering it would need you to do rootkit surgery on the game.

Perhaps you consider the bare basic stuff I mentioned, like spells, classes and such to be "fluff" too, but I don't think that's a very accurate description of it.

>>21509868
Not a huge fan of this fluff.
Either leave it out or expand it much more, this middle ground looks really half-assed.

>>21509905
Yeah, okay. I'm axing it.

File: 1352520753750.png-(80 KB, 594x397, something.png)

>>21509878
Oh, it seems that we've both missed each other's point. I meant that
>If you include rules about this game, knowing that it takes place in a fantasy universe, people will be inclined to imagine it in those terms and confine their games to that type of game

Like what you call DnD's basics of the game. This doesn't have a 'basics of the game', from what I can tell; the closest is the archetype/race concept, and exploring what it means to embody something you're not.

I meant fluff as what would come in a 'guide to X' setting book.

>>21509868
Eeeeh...it's kinda shitty.

>>21509995
>Eeeeh...it's kinda shitty.
Yeah, I really half-assed it. No excuses on that.

>>21509995
>This doesn't have a 'basics of the game', from what I can tell; the closest is the archetype/race concept, and exploring what it means to embody something you're not.

That's pretty much it. You got a fantasy game, you got your class equivalents, you got your races. Sounds like basics to me.

Since I never get anyone answering my posts with either good or bad, I'm assuming there's no interest in developing the fluff side any further, and so I'm off.

It was fun, gentlemen, good luck with the rest of the crunch stuff.

>>21510090
I actually am interested. What ideas do you have?

File: 1352521586782.jpg-(8 KB, 220x229, maecho megn.jpg)

>>21510050
Then there's a whole bunch of bullshit relating to the classes, the races, the skill system, feats, all pointing towards a hack'n slash medieval romp through the halls of fuck, but at least we figured out each other's bullshit.

>>21510110

What if the warrior archetype was The Ultimate Warrior

>>21509868

I have one question. Why Is Balance so limited?

No Balance race (Unless humans are it), One Balance archetype, and that's it. Frankly, Loner doesn't even make that much sense as a Balance type. I'd tag Adventurer as a Balance archetype, because adventure is is just experience. You could climb mountains and swim channels and delve into caves, and that's all adventure. It's not inherently destructive. Fighting and killing things falls under the Warrior purview.

Huh. The archetype focus is kind of like a rules-light Unknown Armies.

>>21510199
Yeah, I said that in the first thread too. It's also like mantling, in The Elder Scrolls.

>>21510161
>humans are the balance race

nuoh my god

The Loner is more like 'The Undying Spirit' or something. Perseverance.

>>21510199

It was noted in the first thread too.

File: 1352522569580.jpg-(32 KB, 471x480, Ultimate Warrior.jpg)

>>21510140
then we will WORSHIP THE BLOOD GODS THAT ONCE UNDER THE BLOOD MOON, ROAMED THE LAND
FUEL THE SPACESHIP HULK KHOGAN, FUUUEL THE SPACESHIP, AND LAUNCH IT HOLK KHOGAN, LAUNCH IT TO PART'S UNKNOWN
I'M COMMING FOR YOUR HEAD HOLK KHOGAN AAAAAAAAAAAAAAWRHHHH

>gender specific races
Why

>>21510275
Race-specific genders, actually.

>>21506839
But goblins are not large, and these ones are. It's wrong. Call them trolls or ogres if not orcs, but don't call them goblins.

>>21510367
We're going more for a folklore origin for most of these things. The elves and goblins are based on the seelie and unseelie, not on D&D goblins.

>>21509778
True, the specific kind of game that D&D lends itself to isn't really much like the original setting.

Can you stop being an elf just by not acting sufficiently elf-y enough? Did I read that right?

>>21510395
So call them seelie and unseelie if you have to. But regardless of D&D or anything else, goblins are small. Goblins have always been small, in modern media and in historical stories. So applying that term to something which isn't small is simply inane.

>>21510447
Yes. If you violate the concept of 'elf' enough you cease to be aligned with the archetype and turn human. You can also become elf by acting elfy enough.

>>21510454
His Goblins can be big if he wants them to.

>>21510454
That is not even remotely true. I don't think you're lying, just ignorant.

>>21510458
Why are people more concerned about the mono-gendering of 'race' than of the fact that race is readily transcendable?

>>21510470
Then why call them goblins?

>>21510509
Because they're afraid that it's fetish fuel, as far as I can tell.

>>21510470
If he wants, his elves can have round ears and he can have tall spindly dwarves with no beards. That doesn't make it a good idea.

>>21510454
>modern media
In Lord of the Rings, 'goblin' was used to describe orcs and trolls. Goblin has been used for centuries to describe the unseelie, and they were usually tall, unattractive, malicious Sidhe. You don't know your shit.

>>21510543
Because they're Goblin-like in many regards?

Why does D&D have Elves when it's elves are nothing like Glorfindel? Why does it have Dwarves who are nothing like Durin?

>>21510570
No sir, you don't know your shit.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goblin

>>21510588
>Because they're Goblin-like in many regards?
They aren't though. They're ogre-like in all regards. Literally no way in which they're similar to goblins are they not more similar to ogres.

>Why does D&D have Elves when it's elves are nothing like Glorfindel?
D&D elves are within spitting distance of the elves of mythology and of previous fantasy stories - not particularly nor exclusively of Tolkien.
>Why does it have Dwarves who are nothing like Durin?
D&D dwarves are within spitting distance of the dwarves of mythology and of previous fantasy stories - not particularly nor exclusively of Tolkien.

>>21510588
>>21510570
You know, the fact that Tolkien deviated from archetypes doesn't really mean that a game about archetypes should deviate from the archetypes.

File: 1352525417964.png-(23 KB, 595x842, thirteen seven three.png)

I was bored.

>>21510636
I reject that this games conception of Goblins differs from the popular conception to any greater degree than D&D elves differ from the popular conception.

>>21510669
No one is deviating from archetypes here.

>>21510739
Wow, neat. Do you mind if I use that as a cover page for the pdf?

>>21510757
Nope. That's what I made it for.

File: 1352525806306.jpg-(104 KB, 516x713, Goblin_Design_BrunoBalixa.jpg)

>>21510744
If we're talking popular conception, a goblin looks like this.
It's green, small, hairless, scrawny. Now, it's flexible. They're not always hairless or green. Sometimes they're not even that small. But a goblin is fucking always small, even in the vast deviation of centuries, everything a goblin is and everything goblins have been based on have been small. The idea of a non-small goblin simply doesn't jive with what a goblin is.
And thus calling it a goblin is stupid, especially when we have perfectly good and accurate names for what the presented race actually is already in widespread use.

>>21510789
>size is the only thing that matters

File: 1352526384536.pdf-(239 KB, PDF, 13 7 3 2.01.pdf)

>>21510773
Thanks. Here's version 2.01.

>>21510885
Size is a defining characteristic of being a goblin. All of the defining characteristics of being a goblin are absent from 13:7:3 goblins.

>>21510907
>dat sizefuckup on my part

fffffffffffff-

What's the dimensions of that page?

>>21510947
8.5x11 inches. Your picture was 8.33 by 11.79. It's no biggie, I still think it looks super cool.
>>21510935
The reason it's The Goblin is because it was the consensus in the first thread. If not stops being the consensus, I'll change it. It's not a big deal.

>>21510935
They are tribal, brutal, vicious and warlike. That's every goblin I've ever read of.

>>21510979
It's also every orc, most ogres and giants, and every hun, mongol, pre-Christian european, most Africans, and many asian and native american groups.
Being primitive is not enough to apply to a goblin, which is a thing with very specific meaning which contradicts what this race is.

Also there's plenty goblins who don't focus on that stuff at all, focusing instead on engineering and/or rapid breeding. WoW and MtG come to mind.

>>21511057
>WoW
>MtG
Okay there, Buddy.

>>21510968
Well it's by definition not the consensus at this point, since there's at least one dissenter. But there's no alternative consensus.

>>21511086
Examples off the top of my head, which are common enough that even an imbecile utterly unversed in fantasy should at least have heard of.

>>21511097
It's already been stated we're working off traditional folklore instead of popular pulp fantasy.

>>21511086
I'm not your buddy, guy.

>>21511106
That guy's clearly not though, since he referred to goblins as tribal and warlike.

>>21511160
That's what folklore goblins are like.

File: 1352528141551.png-(23 KB, 612x792, thirteen seven three.png)

Fixed. Hopefully.

File: 1352528339462.pdf-(238 KB, PDF, 13 7 3 2.02.pdf)

>>21511245
Close enough!

>>21511229
No they're not. They're a fairly generic trickster creature. Ugly and malevolent little fuckers who generally make trouble for people. You are entitled to your own opinions but not your own facts, and historical perceptions definitely fall into the latter category. I mean, this is some basic fucking shit, even Wikipedia knows this.

File: 1352529028348.png-(23 KB, 612x792, thirteen seven three.png)

And with fixed colour ratios, proportions, and size.

Hey OP, what's your opinion on the goblins thing?

File: 1352529320574.pdf-(238 KB, PDF, 13 7 3 2.03.pdf)

>>21511394
Oh, I'm mostly just waiting for there to be a consensus one way or the other. I'm not really attached to the name, but I also don't dislike it.

>>21511444
When two neckbeards are each utterly convinced they're right, there won't be a consensus. I think the anti-goblin guy is right though, it's not really a great fit.

>>21511526
I'm personally fine with the Seele, Unseele thing. Or whatever. They're just names really, its the content behind it that matters to me. Could call it the green martian men from mars and I would give two fucks, if the substance is good.

>>21511543
*wouldn't

>>21511543
Unseelie refers to a whole bunch of different fey things, though.

I, for one, am fine with calling them goblins; but the image that the word conjures certainly doesn't fit the one actually described.

>>21511586
Hobgoblin work? The words are sometimes used interchangeably, at least that I've seen.

>>21511586
Well it does accurately describe Tolkien Goblins as well as the Goblins from The Princess and the Goblin so it's not unprecidented that they should be like this. Really, it's not like there are really goblins or orgres around. These words are meaningless outside of specific fictions. If you make a new fiction you can reasonably apply new meanings to old words.

File: 1352530681867.jpg-(444 KB, 600x703, 1350912129795.jpg)

>>21511647
Yeah, but people will still think of whichever meaning they already know, usually to the preference of whichever meaning you WANT them to think of.

>>21511642
That sounds pretty good.

File: 1352530957512.jpg-(92 KB, 500x500, 1352489026733.jpg)

>>21511444
13, I'm very sad that this quote didn't make it in there.

>>21511642
"Hobgoblin" shares all the same problems as "goblin" really.

>>21511788
Hm... Spawnling? Sluagh? Redcap? Bugbears?

File: 1352531367746.png-(12 KB, 417x357, tell me more.png)

>>21511840
Bugbears is also good.

>>21511840
Ogre? That seemed like a good name to me. Or Troll, or really any of the words that originally referred to neanderthals.

>>21511786
It will be in 2.04.
>>21511840
If we're going that far to appease the people who dislike goblin, why not just call them trolls? That's what they were before we switched the name to goblin.

Orc.

File: 1352531497999.gif-(224 KB, 500x300, troll danc.gif)

>>21511889

>>21511889
>>21511885
>>21511865
I'm just throwing out names here, I don't really care much about the names, or at all really so them changing isn't that much of a concern with me.

>>21511889
Troll would work. Since it has connotations of internet trolls and of tiny things with fluorescent hair, I think ogre would be more ideal.

>>21511918
Trolls are big hairy stupid things. Ogres are bigger stupider things.

>>21511918
Why not giant? We have short races, so why not big ones?

>>21511948
They're already big. "Giant" implies super huge though.

On a subject not related to names, does anyone else think it would be good to have partial races? Like, someone who's partway towards a race but not all the way, so they get only some of the traits. It gets plusgood if you allow a character to have two half-races at once, with the effects for both.

Well, I'm going to sleep. I'll read anything typed in this thread when I wake up tomorrow. I'll also start a new thread tomorrow with 2.04. If you guys reach consensus, the new name will be in 2.04. If you guys don't reach consensus, or if you decide to keep goblin, it won't be changed in 2.04. Night, guys.

>>21511987
No.

I'm in favour of keeping Goblin or switching to Orc or Ogre.

>>21512059
I'm in favor of troll or ogre.

I think there's only three or four people in this thread, so if others agree on ogre that'll be our consensus.

>>21512084
>>21512059
My opinion is sure. Just chalk it up as a vote for everything/abstain.

File: 1352533433606.png-(91 KB, 313x399, that face.png)

Rolled 4

Well I'm in favour of keeping it Goblin, so it looks like we must play the most dangerous game.

File: 1352546291647.jpg-(838 KB, 900x1175, 1343101756888.jpg)

>>21505956
Bump.

Here's a bump, and I vote for... I don't really care. I kinda like Goblin, but if it changes I will not long mourn it's passing.

Combining two previous ideas:
A player may invest up to two points in a race. At full investment they gain all benefits of that race. At half investment they may choose a single trait of that race.
A player who decides to invest half way into two different races may do so but cannot invest into diametrically opposed races with opposing philosophy:

Dwarf/Gnome
>A machine is art / A machine is a tool
Elf/Goblin
>Strength is found in harmony/Strength is found in strife
Wyrm/Outsider
>Value is in the object or use/Value is in attachments we make

THE EXCEPTION to this rule is if you are of the Balance domain. In this case you may choose diametrically opposed races.

So.. How's this going?

>>21516165
That seems a little too rules-intensive for the game's design philosophy as it is now. At least to me. What does everyone else think?

So, why not just call goblins "Roughnecks" or something that implies a great level of physical ability without the immediate negative connotation?

>>21516212

That is to say, they don't need to just be named after mythological/fantasy creatures. We have Outsiders, after all

File: 1352568108784.png-(3 KB, 200x200, woooooooooooooaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa.png)

>>21516165
Seems a bit needlessly confusing. And kinda ballses up the whole, 'try to embody something so much you become it' thing.

The philosophy stuff is interesting, though.

Does this have a 1d4chan page?

>>21505956
That's very impressive how you've made an rpg a size of a flyer. Good job OP.
captcha: rRomet Hilton-Jacobs,
And here's my character.

>>21517593

Probably not. OP did this all yesterday, after all.

>>21517593
Not yet. Want to start one?

Bump

>>21519097
Unless I'm mistaken, the thread is actually in autosage.

>>21519175
We have 45 posts to go.

>>21519248
The autosage limit here is 250, not 300, isn't it?

>>21519292
Nope. Watch how these posts jump us up to the top of the front page.

>>21519305
I use the catalog. I haven't been on the front page in almost a year.

File: 1352591994146.jpg-(139 KB, 476x488, high ground.jpg)

I'm going to take this and run a game.
Thanks for working on this OP, and not being a faggot.

>>21520833
>not being a faggot
Well, I don't know if I would go quite that far.

>>21520877

That's true. You ARE OP, after all.

File: 1352623958120.jpg-(95 KB, 800x600, scales.jpg)

>>21520833
here. Since most of my friends >implying I have friends are lame and don't like this system/can't be bothered to look at it, I'm going to recruit FROM THIS THREAD.

The setting is essentially modern day, with modern technology replaced by magic (which serves exactly the same function).

You are the heroes that scourge the streets of evildoers and loose cannons. You are the ones from which none can hide: you are the RECTIFIERS.

You are also underpaid.

Backed by a number of powerful individuals in the name of Balance, you have nearly limitless expense accounts.

The only condition is that you remain untraceable.

You will have to balance what you're like with who you are, what you want to be, and what they want you to be.


Since this is a work in progress, I'm going to be trying out some different ideas and see what works and what doesn't, and, like the OP, I value your opinions. Send contact details to the email in the email field.

I would personally prefer IRC but we'll go with what the majority of players are comfortable with.

>>21528481
Glad to see someone actually trying this! I don't think I've got any time to try it, but I wish you luck.

>>21528481
's GM here. Two people have replied and submitted tentative character concepts so far. I'm looking for one or maybe two (at most) more to round it out. The tone of the game doesn't seem like it will be too serious.

I'm going to bed, will check mail in the morning.