dracopticon

Wow! These are some very good answers. And I'm going to answer them all (or atleast most of them) in turn. Because this discussion about traits are one of my favourite ones. But, right now I'm learning the basics in three Microsoft Office 2007 programs, Excel, Word and Outlook, all because I'm going to teach them all during the following wednesday, thursday and friday to a small group of people at a business company here in town. So, my time isn't all that free right now! Sorry for that because I'd like to talk about this right away. But I'll return with some new energy soon (I hope)! Bye for now, and thanks again, Erik Brickman.

Hello Tavern Guvnor (I like the title)! Well, to be honest, I haven't even begun to think about it. My aim right now is to somehow post the whole material (complete or incomplete) on my website for my world/BRP clone-system EBROS. It'll literally take years I think, mainly because I work alone on this. But, I think it's ok for people to borrow from this work, hopefully not copying it raw. This magic system of mine is wholly my own invention, but, as I myself have borrowed a lot from material for other parts that has/is been produced from Chaosium and others, why shouldn't everyone else? One little warning though: be sure to post your own copy of the copyright text for Chaosium and/or other companies. The best thing would be to get people who's interested in this gathered on one forum specifically for this topic, like this one. Mainly because: I'm not done with all the work on EBROS. And, it has taken so many years for me to come this far. Therefore, all new ideas on developing this are welcome. So, that's why I'm willing to share. I know it doesn't say so on my website, but, heck, better to share and develop than not, and stand still. Erik Brickman.

Thank you Atqxtg! Those are a couple of very good ideas there. Hadn't thought of it that way, but they sure sound interesting. Erik Brickman.

On request, I thought I'd give an example of the EBROS magic system. My own magic system for EBROS is totally made up of ritual magic. As I've always been against the kind of "flash-bang nonsense" (quote from Pendragon) that so often are displayed by characters in hack'n'slash-RPG's, I thought that a system that absolutely demands the magician to perform an elaborate ritual every time magic is to be used makes for more feeling when it actually works. It revolves around five basic "ritual types" of magic, or 5 basic ways of working any magic at all. The five main classes are: 1. The SENSUS ritual (where touching something is required). 2. The SIGNUM ritual (where some sort of inscription is required). 3. The NOMEN ritual (where some sort of uttered word or song* is required). 4. The GESTUS ritual (where some sort of gesture is required). and 5. The RERUM ritual (where any kind of material object is required). These 5 rituals are then cross-indexed by 36 known types of magic areas of knowledge on a special table I have, like this: 1. Constructive magic (used in building material things, not corpus magic) 2. Metal magic (one of the six elements of EBROS) 3. Mind-affecting magic ...and so forth ( I don't write them all up here, but it'll be on the website later). But how does one lay a spell, then? Well, I thought like this: If you want to be reasonably sure the spell of a certain kind is going to work, then THAT magic type's required rituals have to be performed successfully and in time. An example: Dirwun the Druid wants to lay a protective layer of moss, grass and roots over himself while the enemy soldiers looks for him in the woods. They are closing in so he'd better lay the "Grass Quilt" spell pretty soon or they'll spot him. When laying Plant Magic, you use only two of the five rituals (as can be seen on a table not shown here); the Gestus and the Rerum ritual. The Gesture ritual to "weave" the roots and grass around him, and the Material ritual to get the actual roots and whatever to obey his movements. As Dirwun the Druid is quite the celebrity on Plant Magic, his percentage-skill in these two rituals have been used many times, and therefore are high. The player of Dirwun then roll two dice rolls, one for each ritual type. How much time, Magic Point-usage etc this spell takes can be found on spell-lists not shown here, either. Should Dirwun fail in either of these two rolls, a 'backfire result' might happen. But as it's not a very dangerous spell to begin with, the backfire for this particular spell would be more of a nuisance than a danger to the character. These and more ideas have sprung out of my mind over the years. There are also twelve Magic Schools not described here, grouping the 36 different magic types in sections of three within each school. But as magic knowledge on the Gantyon (player) continent is forbidden on the pain of death, these schools have all but been forgotten. So, playing a mage in my world is also being a digger/archeologist looking for old and forbidden stuff. *= Like in an Enchantment (chanting = singing). Erik Brickman.

Jep. You're right with the rules as they are now. But that is what I'm trying to change. And I don't mean stats should be as changeable as skills, but as I said: find a way to incorporate them into eachother much more, and you have areas of knowledge bound into the character from the beginning. It all boils down to this, I think: in my view, the PC's are always heroes. They should innately know more, be stronger, faster, quicker to learn and everything should be better. That's the basic reason why I want this work to succeed. Erik Brickman.

A huge thank you for that! Erik Brickman.

First of all, a big thank you for the thoughtful and very extensive answer, Gnarsh. I really liked to read it! Now, to the quotes and answers: And don't forget Twerps who's got only ONE stat! Interesting to hear that The Fantasy Trip had a greater lethality than RQ (which in turn IMO always was more lethal than AD&D). WFRP is probably the most lethal RPG I've ever played and gamemastered. That TFT had a broader interpretation of what the stats stood for is really exactly what I'm aiming at with this thread. But I'm not saying this is the ultimate solution, but again, if I cover a lot of ground from the beginning with more statistics/characteristics/attributes and downsize the amount of skills, I think it'll be more playable. Maybe I am. But it isn't automatically a stunting of skills just because I empower the attributes with more possibilities. They can definately complement eachother. I'd like to have skills and stats on the same area of the character sheet. That also sounds like the idea I'm promoting here. I've never played superhero-RPGs myself, but I can see where such a game needs to be "ultra focused on the interaction of different abilities". I'm really sad to hear that. I think the Pendragon system of traits is a work of absolute genious. Sure, it "restraints" the free will in certain situations (doesn't real life?). AND: the greatest win is that it simulates real moral and value testing when characters get caught in personal tight spots, moral wise. And why not? Why should PC's be spared from that kind of testing? It's probably the most interesting part of roleplaying, in my view. Sorry, but it seems you've totally misinterpreted the whole meaning of using traits. Just consider this (I don't know if it's a better player-climate where you live but): there's a lot of players that don't understand how you even start to roleplay a character. They 98% of the time just 'roleplay' themselves. That is sad in my view. Here's where the traits come in handy because they act as 'handles' to a better roleplaying of the character. And in my experience, the traits model has helped a lot of players really PLAY their PC's personalities instead of themselves. Which is almost always much more interesting. But that's my views on this. It's very nice to hear other views like yours. Erik Brickman.

I started playing AD&D 1984. Boy, did that suck. Not from the beginning of course, because we never knew anything different. But: from the day Call of Cthulhu RPG came into my life, nothing and I mean NOTHING has been the same. So whatever people played or plays, lets agree on the big motha': BRP is king! (or Emperor more like). Erik Brickman.

Yeah, you're probably right in some ways. If there's an effective enough skill-system things get much easier. But at the same time, why not stymie the "I can't do that because I haven't got the skill"-trends that more often than not happens? I can imagine that you can incorporate a lot of 'sub-skills' in the standard ones. But... why not make the attributes and skills into something more symbiotic than they already are? I'm striving towards it atleast, but it isn't easy. Erik Brickman.

EBROS stands ready to open it's newly built gatehouse w/attached bridge to any other world(s). Welcome. Erik Brickman.

Yes! Why not, that's a good idea and sounds a lot like the way I think with more powerful and encompassing attributes than more and more skills. Erik Brickman.

That's exactly how I feel. Looks are the same as APP, that's why I want Charisma to balance the 'only-looks-side' of the PC. So how can you say: APP, as you yourself said, is the same as looks. In other words only the exterior of a PC. Why then only have that? Is there no more in a character than the surface? Personality is better shown by traits, like in Pendragon and with the MORALITY attribute in my view. And foremost: by how the player roleplays his or her character. But here, the traits and MOR values should be helpers. Skills like Persuade and Fast Talk are only that: skills. And I want to avoid having too many skillls. That makes some areas impossible to know anything about. Ever. Which is bad, in my book. Knowledge means things we learn, by experience. We all carry different amounts of knowledge as a result of age, living situations, priority and opportunity. In my opinion, no way is knowledge "what you know already", automatically. Education is learning, people get educated, they learn. Can't get much more simple than that. You're probably right when you say "Stamina and Endurance are pretty much the same thing", but there's things built into the two that differ. Like I explained in my opening thread. That doesn't mean I'm right. They probably need to be worked on. The name change is to have ONE letter for each attribute different from the other. If you look, you'll see that they all start with a different initial. That makes it possible to abbreviate them with one capital letter. Yes, you're definately right when you say "although, it's something that's not easily definable, universal or easily measured as such." But I'm working on it, I'm not 100% sure I'm gonna use it. We'll see how it works, if I get to playtest it. Thanks for your views! I like this opportunity to talk about it! Erik Brickman.

Hehe, I'd like to know what that was...? "The less is more school of thought" is actually what I'm also a member of. But read my reply to rust, because I think there actually can be more simplified rules by "overbuilding" the first part, i.e. the characteristics from the beginning. That way you don't have to have one skill for every bit of little area that needs to be tested. Edu is justified by how high tech-level the campaign is set in. My own setting of EBROS is a high fantasy world (with very little magic being available). Size is somewhat of a hate/love characteristic for me. It's needed but a little bit too simple to be among the other characteristics. Nope, that's exactly what I want to avoid. Again, by building more on the attributes/char, one should be less inclined to get stuck in the "skill-swamp". Erik Brickman.

Aha! Interesting, I've never heard of the problem before being named like that. And yes, the question is, is it possible to use with different tastes? Or is it to overbuilt? Read my reply to rust. Erik Brickman.

Yes, in my view I think you're partially right, they only make sense when contributing something to the character concept. But. The general idea, and foremost: the reason why I'd like to have a lot of attributes (or characteristics) on the PC is because they're way too many skills and skill areas in the BRP system(s) yet produced. In Ringworld, who was otherwise a great BRP version, the skill numbered almost impossible amounts. Which is fine if you play a group of 25 players or so... Ok, that's a bad joke. But seriously I do think that if you incorporate a lot of basic TALENT in the attributes (atleast if you have a medium to better level), you don't have to find a micromanaging skill for every situation. The best thing would be if the talent or atleast possibility fo a talent for the supposed situation is to be found in the attributes. Half of the work is already done by that. And that is the main thought here: to simplify by "overbuilding" mechanics early on. Does that sound crazy? Erik Brickman.

Here are one of the most central questions for me, as a RPG/BRP-system (clone-)builder: what characteristics are the best ones to have for describing characters to their fullest? The original seven BRP characteristics STR, CON, DEX, INT, POW, SIZ and APP (+ the eighth of Education) I feel is a little limited for full range description of a character. My own (written and rewritten) RPG version of BRP includes as many as 12 characteristics and are as follows: AGILITY (=body motor activity) BRAWN (=physical strength) CHARISMA (=strength of personality) DEXTERITY (=fine motor activity) ENDURANCE (=physical toughness) KNOWLEDGE (=capacity to learn) LOOKS (=within own species) MORALITY (=basic moral value) REACTION (=speed of response) STAMINA (=how big-boned and healthy) UNDERSTANDING (=basic logical capacity) WILLPOWER (=mental toughness) I don't like it when a PC's litheness and general flexibility are described in one characteristic. I think there are one thing to be flexible and agile with your body, and another to be fast with just your hands (like when making card tricks or picking a lock), and finally you can have a tremendous reaction speed, but otherwise be sluggish with your body or hands. So therefore I think the best is to split DEX into AGI(LITY), DEX(TERITY) and REA(CTION). Also, a character could be incredibly beautiful, but have as much personality as a pebble. Or the other way around, be magnetically charismatic and yet look like an old hag. So therefore, both LOOKS and CHARISMA is essential. Likewise, CON needs to be split in my opinion. You can be very resistant against disease etc, but not be able to take the slightest pain. And: why have a characteristic named MORALITY? The answer to that is the chance to have a fast value that can be tested in a morally tempting and testing situation. Also, some of these are hidden characteristics. The more obvious, like SIZE and BRAWN you can see more easily with the first glance of the PC when looking at their visage. But their MORAL fiber? No. So that's why some of these characteristics should be shown on the front of the character sheet, and some are hidden on the back. The front ones, are: AGILITY BRAWN CHARISMA DEXTERITY LOOKS STAMINA While these go on the back: ENDURANCE KNOWLEDGE MORALITY REACTION UNDERSTANDING WILLPOWER (The same rule applies to other data that can be seen on the front: visible equipment and weapons, visible clothing and armor, carried pets, other visible paraphernalia, distinctive features, etc. The hidden stuff are the opposite, and also background info, magick knowledge and/or other stuff the player don't want to share with everyone right away and can be written on the back of the sheet). And this is the plan with the characteristics (I like the word attributes more) right now. What do you think? I like all kinds of responses, except insolent ones. Speak you minds.

My own roleplaying world of EBROS and system with the same name (which is a BRP clone) is now some twenty to twentyfive years in the doing. I have my own website which shows something of the content so far. The address link is: hem.passagen.se/drakfisk (it's not on www). The documents made so far is somewhat disparate and talks about different starting years, but other than that, the site shows the character generation system made until now. What isn't shown is the magic system, with five different basic ritual systems and 36 different kinds of magic organized in 12 magic schools. But these schools were active some 1500 years ago, and their old knowledge are today almost totally shunned by everyone alive. Almost everyone atleast... The reason is that the old Empire of the High King Emperor was brought down by magicians, so they're still forbidden everywhere. Well, perhaps I will put it all together before my last breath comes. I don't know, it's really a gigantic work for one person. My brain keeps producing new ideas for the setting anyhow. I like it. Erik Brickman.

First answer: no they're not the only heroes (and sure enough, the other NPC heroes got their Tanj points too). Even the 'evil guys', or the major opponents got their own 'anti-tanj', which could nullify the use of tanj points by the PC's. Second answer: this is where I've been a little lazy, I've formulated that a player character can get Tanj points from their rexpective God/Goddess/Church/Belief as a reward. But ultimately, that got so scarce that I started rewarding players with Tanj points when they managed to roll a "01" on the D100 when using skills etc. So, the lucky ones got even luckier (this system can definetly be improved). Erik Brickman.

Several years ago, I gamemastered my own BRP-clone of EBROS in a campaign that lasted one year and a half, during which time I had a value on the character sheet called "Tanj" (from the Ringworld abbreviation "There Ain't No Justice"). This were my label on the Hero/Fate Points of my system. But the criteria was that they could do only so much. For example, a character got three crossbow bolts in his chest in one combat round, and each was quite deadly (of course). So the player choose to use up three fate points (one for each bolt). And that really cost him, but it should! The Tanj points could not reverse a gods decision, for instance, or something as heavy. But I plan to use the Tanj points again, since my view on characters are: they're heroes! Erik Brickman.