From NexusCrossing

Contents 1 Talk Pages TOC 2 Attributes 2.1 Stamina Vs Mana 2.2 New list 2.2.1 Carrying Capacity 2.2.2 Awareness 2.2.3 Charisma 2.2.4 Defense 2.2.5 Hit Points 2.2.6 Stamina 2.2.7 Speed 2.2.8 Quintessence 2.3 What is average? What is Super Human? What is Maxxed out? 2.4 Skill and Attribute progression 2.4.1 Leveless system 2.5 References

[edit] Talk Pages TOC

• Top Page Discussion
• Attributes
• Quirks, Merits and Flaws
• Skills and Special Abilities
• Combat
• Magicks
• Character Sheet

[edit] Attributes

[edit] Stamina Vs Mana

I like the idea from ~Emry~ about Stamin and Mana both having something to do with casting spells ect. So to go with it, Stamina should be the Physical/Mental force exhumed through doing any special action, where Mana should only be used in actual creating of "substance," for lack of a better word.

In this everyone would need Stamina so that they would have the ability to do something besides use basic skills, namely the special abilities. Where as only those using magic or something of the sort would need Mana, due to making things that are "not so real" become "real."

For instance: Shooting 4 arrows at once would take stamina because it is only straining your mind and body. Where as creating and explosion in the air would strain your body and mind, as well as be creating something from nothing, in turn putting a strain on your spirit (making sure you believe enough to make it happen)

With that, the best way to derive Stamina would be Fortitude + Constitution (stain of mind and body) And to derive Mana simply use Quintessence because you will only stain your spirit.

Fazanatox 02:02, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I think it might be possible though that some basic magicks may only use stamina, instead of mana. Consider a fire ball, it produces an explosion of flame that causes burning, but no real long term effects beyond damage dealt. A low level fire ball might only require a certain amount of stamina to create.

A resurrection spell on the other hand might require an impressive expenditure of stamina, as well as an expenditure of mana. While the way you cast the spell may not be so different from the fire ball, you are doing something that seriously reweaves the fabric of reality. Both are strenuous, but in the long run only the resurrection has a real outstanding effect.

Another example might be the idea of creating ice. This is one that could be done one of two or three ways. The first and most obvious is to freeze water. It is something that can happen naturally, and is completely a part of the natural order of things. This would require an expenditure of stamina. However, if you have no water, and want to create the ice from thin are (or for that matter, you want to create the water instead), you would have to expend a small amount of mana energy to do this. Perhaps it is also possible that if you use something of value to create the ice, for instance a valuable stone or coin, or simply something with the right natural or metaphysical properties, it may still cost mana, but might cost less than just producing the ice from thin air. Emry 02:13, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

One thing that I'm pretty dogmatic about is anything having to do with healing should take more mana due to that fact that it does have such a "real" effect. I think anything from nothing should take mana. Including a fireball. I agree that if there is water, then making ice should be relatively simple, and take no mana, given that it is a glass of water or a small puddle, making a hockey ring out of the local lake on the other hand, that should take some mana. As for basic spells and prestidigitation's, we should create items (staves, wands) that can augment the need to use mana. This could be thought of the same way as the ice thing. To cast a simple fireball one might need a pinch of magnesium (or something that might be seen as explosive). This way you still have the basic since that all the mage is doing is changing a small part of physics, not really creating something. Same goes with a mage can create a fire, if there is a pile of wood, with a snap of his fingers, and the use of a little stamina.Fazanatox 02:37, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I think this actually goes along better with my thought processes. I am expecting that the "easiest" forms of magic to learn for non-priests will be magics based on items (spell components), and magics that are fueled by the character’s own life force in some way, whether that be stamina or hit points. Magic that actually uses Mana will likely be of higher level. I agree that healing should use mana. In the case of a priest, that mana might be provided by their god, but it would still require the mana to be spent in some way. Emry 02:56, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

That is why Mana should be controled by Quintessence. That is pretty much what connects a the whole mystical thing. I would expect Mages to be more intelligent (fort) and Fighters to be stronger (CON) and Priests to be more spiritual (Quin), thus a priest would have more mana than the other two, and would use it more also.

I personally expect that all spell casters should have some degree of Quint. It is not a "Goddly" thing, it is a "Metaphysical" thing. Because of this, a priest may be able to get away wiht having a lower score in Quint than a high level Mage, as long as they can meet the requirements set forth by their god. Their god plays a strong roll in things. Now, if a mage wants to do the whole touchy feely healer thing, they are going to need more personal Quintessence to pull it off, strictly because they are not likely to have the backing of a god to do it. Emry 03:06, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Bah! We are saying the same thing two different ways! When I say spiritual and mystical, I am meaning metaphysical, to me, they are one in the same. To me gods are metaphysical, so anyone drawing their power from the gods need to have a stronger metaphysical stamina.

Anyway we look at it, I think we are both coming to the same conclusion. Mages will rely on Mana less than Priests. Priests will rely on Mana more than Mages. Do you agree?

Metaphysical does not always have to do with gods. As for the statement about priests and mages: Anything that goes beyond basic simple stuff is likely to involve mana. ALL casters will rely on mana to a strong degree. Priests may use more mana related spells, but their own mana is likely to be augmented by their deity. This means that a priest is more likely to be able to slack on the mana than a mage, if the mage intends to have any real level of ability beyond strictly combat spells. Emry 04:20, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I didn't say metaphysics=gods I said that the gods are metaphysics. metaphysics encompasses a lot, part of which are the gods.Fazanatox 08:13, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

[edit] New list

This is a new list of what needs to be taken into account. Rearranged, and edited to remove redundancies.

[edit] Carrying Capacity

First we need to define weight in the game, then worry about how much people can carry. Doesn't make since to say someone can carry 20 stones, if we don't know how much a stone weighs.

With that, do we wnt to get into decimals or just use whole number? Such as: a light book weighs 1 stone, a heavy book 2-3 stones, a sword 5 stones, full plate 20 stones. Or: light book .4 stone, heavy book 1.1 stone, sword 2.8 stone, full plate 13.5 stones. The problem with the former is simple, how much does a handful of feathers weigh, or enough fairy dust to make Peter Pan fly? Problem with the latter, most people don't want to worry about the decimal. Possible solutions: Make a component pouch that has a certain weight, 5 stones, and can hold so much with the weight not changing (ie empty and full it weighs 5 stone). Another solution is to have higher limits. Make a light book weigh 7 stone and a sword weigh 23 stone so that a handful of feathers can weigh 1 stone. When this is figured out, carrying capacity can be an easy set of multipliers (x10 normal, x15 encumbered, x20 unable to move) to BODY.

I am thinking that for weight, just going with kilograms should work well. I mean, I am all for emersion in the fantasy setting, but in order for things to seem real, there needs to be some elements of familiarity as well. Beyond that, it is easier than making a system up.  :P It means that if we want to know the average weight of an adult goat, we can just look it up on Google, no conversion needed.

The reason I am looking at metrics is simple. It is the system of measures used by most of the world, and it is easy to convert from one metric unit to another. Americans tend to think that their system is the best, but from a global population standpoint, and a potential programmers stand point, metrics may be much easier to deal with.  :P Emry 02:00, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

That is understandable. Then there is just simple math need to figure out how much the average person can carry, and how to get the number ten into a formula for it. I will start that right now.Fazanatox 02:40, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Okay, it has been agreed that using the real life metric system will be best and easiest to use for a weight system. According to Google, 1 lb=about .45kg, so I say we round it to .5 for easier use. I am taking into account that a Characters physical size will be equivalent to their BODY Score (the stronger and heartier you are, the higher the score will average out to). I have found through averaging on multiple websites, that the average man can lift and carry amounts proportionate to his size and weight. A lighter man can obviously carry less than a larger man. With this I will propose this, on average a normal sized man can carry 100lbs, or 50kg. In the game, the average score is 10, including BODY. So max carry can be on simply multiplying a character's BODY score by 5, and calling encumbrance at 90%. An Examples:

:BODY 10      Carry Max: 50kg     Encumbered: 45kg 
:BODY 20      Carry Max: 100kg    Encumbered: 90kg 
:BODY 50      Carry Max: 250kg    Encumbered: 225kg 
:BODY 100     Carry Max: 5000kg   Encumbered: 4500kg 

These numbers seem to get high quickly but a score of 20 is around level 12, score 50 is around level 65, and score 100 is around 150.

[edit] Awareness

The level of consciousness at which a creature becomes aware of sensory data.

Cognizance^[1]

This seems like it is an advanced part of MIND, being a mix of Intelligence and Wisdom: taking in information, and reacting to it

[edit] Charisma

personal appeal, personal magnetism^[2]

I don't believe this should be a derived attribute, but rather just part of the Social Skills

[edit] Defense

Can apply to defensive capabilities. This is likely to end up being a derived attribute based on various factors that can help to contribute to a creatures defense capabilities, such as their awareness, physical toughness, etc...^[3]

As with Charisma, I think this should be moved and held as a skill. Could be done somewhat easily as an Attack skill check versus Defense skill check.

[edit] Hit Points

A value that represents an abstraction of the amount of physical trauma that a character can go through before becoming incapacitated or dieing.^[4][5]

Needs to be worked on. What is the difference between HP and Stamina

• Formula Idea: HP=Quintessence(Fortitude+Constitution) Justification: Anytime you get hurt it is your BODY being able to take the hit without serious injury (kicking the table doesn't break your toe, it just hurts), which is Constitution. Your MIND has to work through the pain which is stressful (same scenario, you have to walk it off), which is Fortitude. These are multiplied by Quintessence because Quintessence is what you a "hero" in the game, it is your gift from the gods that have sacrificed themselves. This will make a pretty high number, but will be fine if damage is equally significant.
  • After doing the math on the character sheet page I realized that that would make the Quintessence the single most important attribute (just look at the "Preacher Man"). So if we use this, it would only make since to give a point to Quintessence every level in addition to any other points they may get to allocate. Even with this I think the formula HP=Q(F+C) should stay because it shows the importance of Quintessence, the gift from the gods, making someone into an adventurer.
    • Also with this, because of the extremely high numbers that can, and most likely will, be generated: HP could very well be something not easily replaced, such that HP is more like your life force. If HP is used in this way, then Stamina could be used as the "everyday" oomph that is easily regenerated.

If we use HP=FORT+CON+QUIN everyone's HP will come out similar. It also shows the connection between MIND BODY and SPIRIT and that just because one is strong doesn't mean you will live, that all three are important. If you have a fragile body, the body will break, if you have a weak mind you cannot keep striving, and if you have a poor spirit, you have nothing to live for.

[edit] Stamina

the energy and strength for continuing to do something over a long period of time.^[6]

I've imagined stamina to be an amalgam of Strength and Constitution.--Zachron

Needs to be defined separately from HP and its affect in the game. (ie: fighter's mana???)

I personally have been trying to decide what to do about mana vs stamina. I was thinking actually that most things that a magic user does will draw on stamina. Mana will likely be a fairly low number compared to hit points and stamina, but will be required to make certain effects "real". Your average level 10 fireball equivelent might take 10 to 20 stamina, where as creating a creature from nothing might take 10 to 30 stamina, plus 1 to 5 mana. I invision priests having slightly more access to magics that might normally require mana, but their mana source would come from their god. For an arcane caster, mana may be the difference between a ceremonial or book wizard, and a powerful sorcerer. Emry 04:18, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I like that have stamina be the physical and mental strain from doing things and have mana be the surreal strain.

[edit] Speed

The rate distance traversed in a given time. ^[7]

Hmmmmmmmmmm... How about Agility + Constitution. This shows your ability to move physically plus your ability to continue to do so. The only thing I see that could be a problem is the "sprinter Vs. marathon runner" idea

[edit] Quintessence

::left this until we can figure out a easy way to phrase it.
quintessence  
 c.1430, in ancient and medieval philosophy, "pure essence, substance of which the heavenly bodies are composed,"  
 lit. "fifth essence," from M.Fr. quinte essence (14c.), from M.L. quinta essentia, from L. quinta, fem. of 
 quintus "fifth" + essentia (see essence). Loan-translation of Gk. pempte ousia, the "ether" added by Aristotle to 
 the four known elements (water, earth, fire, air) and said to permeate all things. Its extraction was one of the
 chief goals of alchemy. Sense of "purest essence" (of a situation, character, etc.) is first recorded 1570; 
 quintessential (n.) is from 1899, in this sense.[8]

 1. quintessence, ether -- (the fifth and highest element after air and earth and fire and water;
    was believed to be the substance composing all heavenly bodies).
 2. quintessence -- (the purest and most concentrated essence of something).
 3. quintessence -- (the most typical example or representative of a type).
 http://open-dictionary.com/Quintessence [9]

[edit] What is average? What is Super Human? What is Maxxed out?

What is a good starting range for average ability scores?

One of my ideas was for 10 to be the default "average" for a human character. That is pretty much the norm in most systems anyway. The average untrained NPC would have between 8 and 12 in most stats, but a trained soldier might have more.

I was also thinking of the idea of using 255 as the default maximum score for an attribute. A character with a score this high would be god like in that particular attribute. It would also represent a LOT of work on raising the skill or attribute that manages to get that high. Of course, animals may have higher or lower average scores.

I know that smaller numbers are easier to use, but larger numbers allow for more diversity. I think that if we use lower numbers with a somewhat complex gaming/leveling system, then achieving more diverse characters wold be simple. But if the gaming/leveling system is going to be simple, we need to have larger numbers to allow character diversity.

Example simple system: HP equals average of Fortitude and Constitution. [HP=(F+C)/2] No offense meant to whomever entered this.

Example complex system: HP equals Mind plus Body multiplied by Spirit[HP=S(M+B)] Three Primary Attributes are equal to the average of their parts [M=(I+W+F)/3]

I think the complex system would be better (especially if computer based) because, who is a better runner: the guy who can run a marathon or the guy who can run a mile in 6 minutes? I would say they are about the same, but the difference on "paper" might be the marathon runner has a higher Constitution where the sprinter has a higher Strength and Agility, but over all they have the same Body score. Fazanatox 01:10, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

For the cap of 255, do we want that as the primary attribute cap or each of the three parts being capped at 255. Choose A or B:

A                         B 
 MIND  255                 MIND  210 
  INT   360                 INT   255 
  WIS   200                 WIS   187 
  FORT  205                 FORT  188

The difference is A will allow PCs to have higher parts, so a "tank" can worry about getting more CON than STR so he can take a hit. B makes it where no single attribute can rise above 255, thus making everyone end up with the same stats, if they get to level 755+. I think "A" would be better because it puts a cap, but doesn't make it where everyone will end up with the same stats in the end.

Hmmmmm... You know, you are right there. :P Emry 09:48, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Another reason I Really like A is that if someone wants to create a "Barbarian" type character that really doesn't care about anything spiritual, he can spend most or all of his SPIRIT Attribute points for Quintessence and leave PWR and GNS low, because he will get less use from the latter two.

[edit] Skill and Attribute progression

Here is my idea:

I am thinking of a kind of level+skill point system for developing characters. As the character uses skills, those skills will slowly grow, plus they will generate a certain amount of free exp to spend on raising skills as well. This will only be spendable on skills and certain abilities.

When a character gains a certain amount of XP, their level will go up, and at that time they will recieve a certain number of points to assign to attributes. This will allow attributes to go up at a semi-even pace between different characters, while still allowing for the flexability that is indicated on the example character sheet that Fazanatox is working on.  :-)

This will also provide a kind of compromize between the classless/leveless feel that I preffer, and the satisfaction that many players gain from reaching that next level. It will also keep attributes from going way out of control in place of people spending points on skills, by raising them from two different pools of points. Emry 04:24, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Not quite clear on what exactly you mean. This is how I'm reading it. You gain XP that you spend on skills, and after you gain enough XP (that has been spent on skills) you level up and get a number of Attribute points. Example: At level 1 you need 1000 XP to go to level 2. After you get 500 XP you can spend it to raise your combat:swords skill 2 points. Then when you gain another 500 XP you spend it to raise your social:persuasion skill 2 points, and you also go up to level 2 which gives you 3 or so attribute points.Fazanatox 07:07, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

More like this. As you use an attack skill (Such as Swordsmanship, Short Sword, whatever), that skill will slowly gain XP directly into it to raise through use. You will also gain an additional percentage of XP that is not assigned. It will go into a pool of unused XP. That unused XP can be used to boost most skills. Example: You have a Swordsmanship skill of 45, and you need 1000 XP to boost it. You get into a number of fights with various creatures and people, and gain 900 XP directly into that skill (probably over the course of many many many battles…) . In addition to that 900 points, you also gain somewhere between 9 and 90 additional unallocated XP (this is assuming an as of yet undecided percentage, 9 representing 1%, and 90 representing 10%). These points could of course be funneled into the Swordsmanship skill as well, to accelerate the process of raising it, or they could be used somewhere else. For instance, you could spend them to increase (or learn for that matter) another skill such as Baking or Unarmed Defense. Once a certain number of experience points have been accumulated (we can decide if we should count unspent points, or just spent points), then the character will advance a level. For instance, the character is sitting at 900 accumulated XP (assuming a level 1 character), and they need a total of 1000 to advance to level 2. They manage to accumulate 100 more XP through combat and skill use, and advance to level 2. At that point, they would gain a certain number of Attribute Points to spend on attributes. It might be a set number, or perhaps a random number, such as 1D4 or 1d10+2. We would also still need to decide if attribute points cost the same to raise from level 1 to level 2 as they do to raise form level 24 to level 25. If they do, then it could just be point for point. If we want more graduated costs, then perhaps it could cost 1 point per rank to go from 1 to 20, then 2 per rank from 21 to 30, etc. Many of the numbers here are just examples of course. Emry 07:30, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I say keep them 1 for 1 and give two or three per level up, because at that rate PCs won't hit max Attributes till level 755 (3 points/level starting with 10's across the board)

A couple ways that could be used for level and giving out Attribute Points

4 Attribute points. Get 1 point for MIND, 1 for BODY, 1 for SPIRIT, and 1 for free allocation. 
This will help keep characters about 15% rounded, while still letting them become dominate in 
a single area, only forcing all the Primary Attributes to even out in latter levels. Using the 
base  of 90 points (10 for each of the nine parts), giving 4 points/level will make them level 
552  before they have reached the Attribute maximum.
 
2 Attribute points. Get 1 point for free allocation at every level, and 1 point in MIND at
level 1+3x, BODY at level 2+3x, SPIRIT at level 3+3x. This will again, keep characters somewhat
rounded but allow customization. The major difference is the time it will take to max out
Attributes. The lowest level to Max is 1148, taking into account you place evenly the free
allocate points. For those who stack all the free points into one attribute, it will take longer 
because they will only receive 5 or less points every 3 levels, where as it would be 6.
 
1 Attribute point. Of course with only one point, you are looking at free allocation. This will
take a long time to level.

Fazanatox 22:40, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Leveless system

A fact of any RPG's I can think of is not being able to get away from numbers. It seems imposable only for the fact that numbers are needed to measure the difference between someone who knows what they are doing and someone who does not. In life, you can just show you can do something, but in a game, you can't just show that an imaginary thing can do something. Thus we have to keep numbers, but it is possible to get ride of I'm level X and you are level Y, so I should be able to kick your ass.

If we want to work towards a truely leveless system, then we should look at skills and attributes progressing parallel and equal, yet parallel and unequal (I love oxymoronical statements).

It has been determined that skills will increase as they are used, in an XP gaining fashion. When you stab something with a sword, your sword skill goes up. hen you build a car, your car building skill goes up. Most likely, when you attempt to build a car and you happen to crush your hand, you will get more XP do to learning more from a big mistake than actually doing it correctly. As Thomas Edison said, "I have not failed. I've just found 10,000 ways that won't work."

Keeping the above in mind, as a character gains XP, it will go into two pools, the one mentioned above, and a second that is solely for attributes. To visualize:

Bob earns 60XP for slaying a dragon. He was using a sword, so he gains 60XP in the sword skill. 
At the same time, he earns 60 XP in "leveling" his attributes.

I think it would be best not to try and make the Attribute XP go to a specific Attribute because when fighting, which attribute do you use the most? STR, AGI, CON? What about using tactics during the fight? That would use WIS, and perceiving the fight and learning the weakness, that would use INT. Instead I would use one pool and let points earned be free allocation.

With this system of "leveling" I think it would be best to have a constant XP requirement to earn Attribute Points, but then make it cost more points to raise higher attributes and have unused points store in a Point Pool. To visualize: (excerpt only, XP and PP is for all Attributes)

Bob before the fight                    Bob after the fight
 BODY  60                                BODY  60
  STR  90                                 STR  90
  AGI  26                                 AGI  26
  CON  64                                 CON  64
    XP  480/500                             XP  40/500
    PP  25                                  PP  26

Before the fight Bob has 25 Points in his pool, not enough to level any of his stats. After the fight he has gained enough XP to gain another Point, which goes into his Pool. He now has enough to raise his Agility by one point, if he chooses. Which it would then look like this:

 BODY  60 
  STR  90 
  AGI  27 
  CON  64 
    XP  40/500 
    PP  00

In the examples an equal number of Points where required to increase an attribute. STR 90 needs 90 points to go up, AGI 26 needed 26 Points to go to 27, CON 64 would need 64 points to go up.

Thinking now, an XP constant of 100 would be more sound with the cost to increase being equal to the current score. Because if the "average" starting score is 10, that would require 1000 XP to increase the attribute (10 points to increase, each point 100 XP) This could work well because the maximum in any Attribute part is 759 (for a living PC, with the other two parts at the minimum of 3). To increase to this max score it would take 758 points, which would be 75,800 XP. That is the equivalent of going from level 1 to 11.8 in D&D 3.X, and the only think earned is 1 Attribute point. Remember it will take 757 points to raise it the point before. In short: it will take hundreds of millions of XP to raise a single state above about 400. In fact, using this, to raise just one attribute part from 10 to 31 it will take 40k XP. So it will make upping attributes time consuming.

I know that it is a lot all at once, but I just kinda got it all at once in the brain.Fazanatox 00:18, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Sometimes inspired things come out the best, and when they come to yo uit is best to get them all on paper quick.  :P Anyway, this looks great.  :P It is certainly something to start with! Emry 00:31, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

[edit] References

1. ↑ http://open-dictionary.com/Awareness
2. ↑ http://open-dictionary.com/Charisma
3. ↑ http://open-dictionary.com/Defense
4. ↑ http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Hit-points
5. ↑ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_(gaming)
6. ↑ http://open-dictionary.com/Stamina
7. ↑ http://open-dictionary.com/Speed
8. ↑ quintessence. (n.d.). Online Etymology Dictionary. Retrieved January 02, 2009, from Dictionary.com website: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/quintessence
9. ↑ http://open-dictionary.com/Quintessence