Hmm, continuing my review of your system focusing on the character types that interest me more...
Default combat skill capped at 10 for Creature Powers is way too low. You either need to set it at 12 (with the option to swap another CS at 13 with it), or the option to raise it with skill points.
I'm rather unhappy with the fact that hybrid archetypes get one less schtick. Pure archetypes already get their chance to shine with one AV more in their combat skill, and in FS, one AV is a rather big deal. Robbing hybrids of one schtick slot too is unfair picking on them.
This core skill distribution makes little sense for Adept-Warriors:
Core
Athletics 11
Perception 11
Willpower 10
It should be:
Core
Athletics 11
Perception 10
Willpower 11
Given that Perception is their non-specialization core skill, it ought to be their lowest score.
I'm not putting it under combat skills, it just starts at 10. I still haven't decided which of the Creature Powers I'm going to retain. There are some which don't actually require the power anyway (like Regeneration). If they don't, I'm of a mind to just allow characters to swap a schtick for one.
I did make a mistake on the Adept-Warrior's schticks - they should have five (given both Warrior and Adept do) - fixed now.
All the others are simply adjusted to reflect the Expert component. Experts have fewer schticks for more Skill points (1 schtick=5 Skill points). Thus the Adept-Expert and Expert-Warrior have one less schtick, but 5 more Skill points.
That's reasonable - edited.
Any thoughts on an appropriate number of core schticks to give out to every character? I was thinking one or two.
If it's not a combat skill, and you can therefore use skill points to raise it (maybe with a cap at 12 or 13), then starting at 10 is reasonable.
Yea, the issue is about those Creature Powers that involve a touch, a HTH or ranged attack, or an action which might fail. Now, I've never been fully satisfied with the seemingly-arbitrary way canon calls for a Creature Powers or a Martial Arts roll, for different combat Creature Powers. Well, theoretically, one might ditch CP skill and either use Sorcery (for ranged attacks and non-attack powers) or Close Combat (for those who require a touch or a unarmed attack). But this would indeed rob the system of some significant flavor, since it would dampen the difference between monster powers and sorcery or kung-fu tricks. Admittedly, your system minimizes the main difficulty with having the three skills separate, since it ensures all archetypes are going to have the option to buy the Close Combat skill, albeit at different values, so it's far less likely a character type will have Creature Powers without the Close Combat skill to use them effectively, as it happens to canon Ghosts.
This is reasonable. It were Adept-Warriors that would have been unfairly short-changed.
Dunno so far. I need further reflecion on the issue.
This is it; under this system having a separate Creature Powers seems kind of redundant. All the close-in ones should just use Close Combat, and I'd be tempted to say the ranged use Willpower. Stuff like Domination should rightly use Willpower or a social Skill.
I'm tempted to just say if you're playing a non-human, you can switch up to two schticks (core or otherwise) for Creature Powers. More by agreement on a case-by-case basis.
I'm now thinking of turning this system to another favourite of mine: Star Wars.
On the other hand, on further reflection, retaining a separate Creature Powers skill adds much flavor (it keeps monster powers conceptually separate from magic spells and kung-fu tricks) and it solves a significant difficulty: while it is satisfactory to use Close Combat for HTH powers, it requires to use a core (Willpower), not a combat skill, for ranged ones. This is a potentially rather unpleasant unbalance, since in any other case, characters use (generally higher) combat skills for combat actions. Sorcery or Ranged Combat would be more fitting to use, but many character types are not going to have them. Therefore, I heartily recommend to retain a separate Creature Powers skill.
This is a good approach, only that for characters that are going to resemble the old Supernatural Creature, i.e. a "pure" monster powers specialist, they need more Creature Powers. Why not allowing to swap up to five schticks (surely combat, maybe core too) for Creature Powers ?
As for the issue of core schticks, on further reflection, seeing that any of them is going to cover the area of an old Secondary Attribute, and they will grant a +3 each, I'd say two each should be given out to every character.
As it concerns the Star Wars game, sorry, I can't help you there. I utterly lack experience with that game. I only know I would rush to play Sith characters. 8)
To be honest, having conceptually different power sources isn't that important to me. I only have two other types of schtick as it is, and if mos of the Creature Powers retained don't actually use the power then it isn't a big deal. If anything that's the opposite of my intent; the simpler it is, the better, the fewer categories of "specialness" the better.
Core skills won't be that far off Combat ones; indeed the might be higher in some instances since you're allowed one at 14 and the other two top out at 12.
Given this is a fantasy setting, I'm not really envisaging pure Supernatural Creature types anyway. While I've retained Creature Powers, they're deliberately de-emphasised. Main powers I want used are Sorcery and Weapon.
I understand your yearning for simplifying the system as much as possible. However, I still deem somewhat kludgy that Creature Powers alone, from all powers and combat abilities, are forced to rely on core skills, and the possible game unbalances thereof. I think things would flow much more smoothly if such powers were allowed to have their own skill. As you point it, it would not be a combat skill, but a general one, starting at 10 with ample possibility to customize its level with general skill points on its own. Not a big deal as additional system elements go. A player would be not moved to mix-max core skills and compromise character concept in otehr areas, to get an optimal score in monster powers use.
OK. But as fantasy settings go, it probably feels richer if there's not only one source for "magic powers". This is especially true since you have already ditched Fu tricks. Deemphasize them if you want, but keep them around.
Yes. However, my first response (the one you quoted, I edited it afterwards) was based on the misreading of Star Trek, not Star Wars. Therefore, my opnion needs change somewhat. The Star Wars universe indeed holds opportunity enough for superhuman stuff to satisfy my needs.
However, I happen to have had very little exposure and experience with Star Wars RPG. I barely seem to remember it's a fairly rigid system, with character classes and all that. As a general rule, I have very, very little sympathy with very rigid and structured character-development systems, with classes and levels and spell lists and all that.
Moreover, I'm not very confortable with the very rigid good-evil dichotomy such an universe mandates. I rather prefer very loose and shades of grey character morality. If anything, I find myself much, much more in sympathy with the "will to self-empowerment" Nieztchean ethos of the Sith than with the ascetic detachment of the Jedi. If called to play in the SW universe, I would likely be clamoring to play a Sith or something similar. The fact the Dark Side holds all the really cool powers is just icing on the cake. 8)
I don't agree, but again I'm not seeing Creature Powers-dominated characters anyway. A couple of schticks perhaps, but nothing more. I'm tempted to reduce the list of them down to things like Regeneration, Damage Immunity, Transformation and so on. And limit people to no more than a couple.
Frankly, "multiple sources of power" is one of my pet hates in fantasy. I prefer all magic and weirdness to be one, from the same source, working by the same rules. None of this arbitrary "arcane/divine" split, no high/low chi, just powers.
Not a big fan of Star Trek either.
Which Star Wars RPG are you talking about here? D6 or D20 or Saga Edition? Sounds like the D20 RCR version. Either way, I think Feng Shui is a better fit for the free-wheeling feel than any of those.
Depends what sources you're drawing on, really. Particularly with regard to how the Jedi behave.
I see. Well, if you strip out all Creature Powers that call for skill roll, it makes sense. However, in the case I'm going to use your system, which I otherwise fancy, I'm going to overrule you in this, since I definitely fancy keeping Creature Powers in their glorious variety.
On a general rule, yes, I can share your approach. E.g. I definitely despise the rigid arcane/divine split in D&D, and the superheroic settings which I define as the cosmic parade of freaks, where you have a truckload of wholly separate power origins, all coexisting. I rather much prefer settings where there's only one or two explanations for super-powers (typically mutant psionics, reality-warping, or magic). However, I'm also open to some multiple sources of power in fantasy when it makes sense: e.g. IMO a dichotomy that makes sense is magic spells vs. inborn or acquired gifts, such as divine or demonic blessings, or monster powers.
The D20, I suppose. But it's stuff that I got to make a lazy cursory read in FLGS, once or twice. As I said, besides the fact I hate class-based systems, there's the fact I also hate the systems with enforced goodey-good morality, and the fact you got to quickly lose your PC once he started using any of the really cool powers, was a huge turn-off. And anyway, my sympathies always went to the much-maligned Sith.
The movies (all of them) and the Expanded Universe comics, esp. the ones that detail the ancient ages of the Republic (Golden Age of the Sith, the Sith War, Knights of the Old Republic).
I agree that in past ages, the Jedi were not so oppressive on their own, but my sympathies go to the "will to power" warrior ethos of the Sith nonetheless. Although I agree they really need to tone down their destructive rapaciousness and infighting somewhat into a ruthless but functioning meritocracy, without crippling themselves down to two at a time (OTOH, the ancient Sith Empire functioned quite well with more than two Sith masters around at a time).
I think that in an ideal setting, my sympathies could go to a "grey" Force Adept philosophy that taught to embrace both sides of the Force equally. But I have very little patience with an ascetic philosophy that teaches to reject passion and force in yourself and in nature as an abominion. I can see where it originates in Eastern philosophy (and Eastern religions happen to be the only major modern religions I can respect, b/c they never really got their hands bloodied or Inquisitions in place, as far as I know), but I don't share the urge that originates it. I prefer to remain passionate with lust and intellectual gluttony and rage and most definitely pride and tie myself ever so tightly to the wheel of Karma, thank you.
Hey, if you're using it for your own games, be my guest!
I like the approach in Angel. Powers are the same, just because you give different in-game rationales for them doesn't mean you need completely different sets of mechanics with their own special rules for it.
Maybe. At present, we are completing an Ars Magica story arc, but after that, who can say ? Anyway, one of the biggest defects I've always lamented in Feng Shui is the lack of a system to customize archetypes and build characters from scratch, and your system looks like a good step in the right direction, even if I really do not share your simplification fury So, if I do it, I absolutely going to keep full-fledged Creature Powers and maybe also full Gun and Fu schticks. Not Transformed Animal powers, no, if I can avoid it. They have always stricken me as quite lame, as a character concept.
If you want a more traditional style template, the ones I used in my various attempts at Lite could serve well. Basically it's thus:
*All Primary attributes start at 5; you have 6 Primary and 6 Secondary to spend (1 Primary = 3 Secondary).
*You've got 30 points for Skills (I tend to top out at 14 and offer nothing lower than 12).
*You've got 5 schticks.
*Schticks can be traded for Skills/Attributes at a rate of 1 Schtick=5 Skill points=1 Primary attribute.
*Everyone defaults to Working Stiff. Optional whether being Poor gives you a Schtick worth, or being rich costs a Schtick.
*Optional whether lots of weapons costs anything.
For what it's worth I agree with you on the Tranimals. What's more, I really don't like the way their powers are like an alternate Fu system, even using the same power source. I don't like duplication for it's own sake.
Well, you're right at everything about the Trananimals. As it concerns your system, I happen to find what you've done with the Attributes simplification rather whileworthy. Where I do find your approach rather questionable is about the powers, IMO, FS fucntions quite well with four different power types: Gun, Fu, Sorcery, Creature. Anything less would make the system and setting less appealingly rich in my eyes. Like you, I loathe duplication of powers for its own sake, within a single genre setting; given that FS works like a crossroads of severla genres, I do find the rooster of the four power types above reflects it well.
Note: your sideline comments about Star Wars have got me thinking, and after some cursory checks I made about the present state of the game, I'm presently reconsidering about branching out my RPG expertise to that game too (so many nifty games to play, so little time). Would you kindly lend your expertise here
I got a suggestion of how to do that in one of my own threads. The free character creation system creates a more flexible archetype, but less powerful then the regular archetypes.
Hey, if you've gotten something useful from it, then that's a result.
I've realised I need to add one more skill to the list - Performance. For acting, singing, dancing and playing instruments. Ie all the stuff a bard/troubadour would need.
Right, I've decided to remove the Creature Powers skill altogether. Two reasons; firstly, the skill itself and the idea of "monsters" as PCs doesn't really fit. Secondly, I've removed all the powers that require it but one.
The list of Creature Powers I'm retaining is:
Abysmal Spines
Amphibian
Armour
Damage Immunity
Death Resistance + Inevitable Comeback
Flight
Poison
Regeneration
Transformation*
Darkvision (Friend of Darkness) - ignore penalties for darkness
Transformation will just use Willpower. I've appended Friend of Darkness on there as a creature power for those who can see in the dark. I haven't really seen any other Fu powers that would make an appropriate addition there.
I am tempted, however to add some blend of Fox's Retreat and Willow Step to the Weapon schticks. Basically +3 to your Dodge AV whenever you make an active dodge. I deliberately didn't go with the Willow Step variant, because it has a 0 shot cost which is abusive (remember the Horton Utilities?).
Given your list, I find the second reason good justification for removing the skill, even if I'm not going to adopt or endorse it, since I wish to retain the canon list of Creature Powers in its full glory. However, I do find the idea that "monsters" would not fit as PCs terribly outmoded and restrictive. Come on, even D&D allows to play them nowadays and the meme that you can play "monsters" has been an integral part of the hobby and genre for at least 15-odd years nowadays: World of Darkness, anyone ?
Outmoded or not, it's something I've never agreed with. A redeemed supernatural creature in a Hong Kong inspired game, sure. But not in traditional fantasy, especially since mine is more influenced by sword and sorcery (where there are only humans, and all non-humans are foes of humanity to be wiped out) than high fantasy.
In any case, these people aren't seasoned, regular roleplayers. I doubt they'll even consider playing monsters. They've never played any roleplaying games, D&D, WoD or otherwise. Two have played CRPGs or MMOs, all have read and watched LotR but that's about it.
I'm looking to set it up such that there are humans and some people are "demon-blooded" and thus have a few weird traits (ie Creature Powers). They've requested that they make characters before we discuss a scenario, but I want to discuss a world with them before that, and establish ground rules. Like what races there are present. If I could avoid the usual elves, dwarves and halflings business, I'll be happy.
As it takes the specifics of your games with a rather inexperienced players' group and your personal preferences, I find your position quite understandable.
My comment was more general and related to the default mainstream level of RPGs nowadays. Given players with minimally decent RPG experience, I think it is perfectly normal to allow "playable" supernatural creatures or non-human races (playable typically means possessed of a sentience, self-awareness, and ability to self-determinate one's behavior akin to humanity, sometimes it also means roughly humanoid, for familiarity) as PC types in any games that support such as a regular presence in the setting. Which definitely includes supernatural action-adventure like FS, or vanilla high fantasy.
I would only point out that, notwithstanding the specifics of your game and your personal preferences, "default" or "traditional" fantasy fiction or RPG is rather more akin to high fantasy than to sword and sorcery. In sum, it's your game, do it as you fancy. I would only find it rather questionable to take such exclusion as a general rule.
Let's face it, as you said earlier, if you put Creature Powers back in, and include some of the more outlandish powers it's easy enough to allow that "playing the monsters" vibe.
