# The Odyssey System -- Stripped-down Hot Rod d20 rules



## GMSkarka (Dec 11, 2007)

Adamant Entertainment is planning on releasing our own d20 OGL "house system" in 2008 -- The Odyssey System, which will debut in a stand-alone version of our pulp line:  *Thrilling Tales, 2nd Edition.*.

Basically, I really like the steps taken by Saga Edition, but in my opinion, it doesn't go far enough.   So I'm coming up with an even faster, stripped-down hot-rod.   d20-based rules with fast creation and faster play in mind.

In this thread, I'm asking you guys what you'd like to see.  What things, as a GM or as a Player, are things that you think need stripping down?  

So far, the ideas we're already working with:


*No Character Classes:*  Everybody is a single "class" -- Occupations give you your basic skill packages, and all of the old class abilities are found in Talent Trees which allow players to mix-and-match to their heart's content.  (For example, in THRILLING TALES, there will be a "Mad Scientist" talent tree, and a "Man of Mystery" talent tree, etc. and players can pick and choose as they wish, to customize their characters)


*No class-based Saving Throws:*  All saves are simple characteristic checks, plus half the character level.   (Reflex = Dex, Willpower = Wisdom, etc.)


*No Hit Points:* Damage handled through a combination of M&M-style "Toughness" save (CON check), with results playing out on a SWSE-style condition chart.  


*Perception as an Ability Score:*  Replacing skills like Spot and Listen -- instead of a skill, something that everyone has.


*Stripped-down skill list, plus Training:* Similar to SWSE -- no skill points.  Everyone has a default in all skills, but "trained skills" (from Occupation or Talents) give you a bonus (based on character level).


*SC2.0-style NPC creation* -- as per our FOE FACTORY release.



As I said, this system will first be used in a stand-alone 2nd Edition THRILLING TALES rulebook, and from there, possibly in a licensed RPG (the license will be announced soon).  Close enough to the core of d20 that it should be easily adaptable for those playing other games, but cool and fast enough that they'll be tempted to just switch!

...and yes, it will be released as a free SRD as well.

So, that's a start.    Let's hear what you'd like to see.


----------



## SirKerry (Dec 11, 2007)

I like the sound of everything but the "_Stripped-down skill list, plus Training_" bit.  Nothing wrong with consolidating skills like in RPGObject's *Modern20*, but I really hate way *SWSE* does skills.

Kerry


----------



## GMSkarka (Dec 11, 2007)

SirKerry said:
			
		

> Nothing wrong with consolidating skills like in RPGObject's *Modern20*, but I really hate way *SWSE* does skills.




Care to elaborate?  I'm curious as to your reasons.


----------



## jonrog1 (Dec 11, 2007)

Some people do prefer the variability of assigning skill points at will.  Personally I'd say go with SAGA but have a sidebar with a skill point conversion.


----------



## SirKerry (Dec 12, 2007)

GMSkarka said:
			
		

> Care to elaborate?  I'm curious as to your reasons.




I just hate the way SWSE ties skills to level.  Just because a character is 5th level doesn't mean that all of their 'trained' skills should be of the same compentency level, IMO.  I don't mind level limiting max skill compentency (other then the fact that I don't like levels period, other then M&M's Power Level system).  I like the fact that skill compentencies have a wide range - it makes for more unique and interesting characters and game.

Kerry


----------



## Committed Hero (Dec 12, 2007)

I think the ultimate in stripped down d20 is to have all skills replaced by descriptive ratings that outline a character's history:  Seal Training +5, Archaeology Professor +10, et c.  This encourages character development and deals neatly with the skill/knowledge dichotomy (using the above, the archaeologist could make a roll for any field of knowledge that seems reasonable to the troupe).  In the absence of an applicable description, an ability check would have to suffice.


----------



## SirKerry (Dec 12, 2007)

Committed Hero said:
			
		

> I think the ultimate in stripped down d20 is to have all skills replaced by descriptive ratings that outline a character's history:  Seal Training +5, Archaeology Professor +10, et c.  This encourages character development and deals neatly with the skill/knowledge dichotomy (using the above, the archaeologist could make a roll for any field of knowledge that seems reasonable to the troupe).  In the absence of an applicable description, an ability check would have to suffice.




Hmm, that would be interesting to try, has a real PDQ System vibe to it.

Kerry


----------



## jonrog1 (Dec 12, 2007)

SirKerry said:
			
		

> I just hate the way SWSE ties skills to level.  Just because a character is 5th level doesn't mean that all of their 'trained' skills should be of the same compentency level, IMO.  I don't mind level limiting max skill compentency (other then the fact that I don't like levels period, other then M&M's Power Level system).  I like the fact that skill compentencies have a wide range - it makes for more unique and interesting characters and game.
> 
> Kerry




Well, D&D pretty much ties skills to level by allowing you max ranks, which 99% of players do on their primary skills.  SWSE has untrained skills, trained skills, Skill Focus, and feats and abiliites which allow rerolls on specific skills, meaning an effective range of +10 or so not even taking into account ability mods.

I understand your problems with the system, but having shaken it out a bit, there's no feeling of cookie-cutter ability ranges when in play.


----------



## jaerdaph (Dec 12, 2007)

Hi Gareth,

I've been thinking about this. Honestly, even though I'm sure you'll do one hell of a design job like you always do, I'm not sure what the market needs is yet another d20 variant rule system (well, I know I don't need another one personally).  I know things are a little up in the air as the 3e era comes to an end and WotC's plans for their other product lines like d20 Modern aren't really on the table yet. I also know publishers are trying to fill voids in gaming (and their income) in the interim, and I admit these new experiments with d20 are cool to see. But I'm not sure further fracturing of the d20 fanbase is the answer. There are other viable options out there now that might be a better choice. 

For example, have you considered a standalone True20 version of Thrilling Tales? I know you have begun to dual stat Thrilling Tales for d20 Modern and FATE. Imperial Age, as it continues to grow, is another option for True20 conversion. There is a large, existing True20 fanbase out there eager for more product. Perhaps this is a safer road, as the Grim Tales and Modern20s are the exceptions, not the rule, when it comes to d20 variants. 

Just my +2 Wealth bonus. Hope it's helpful.


----------



## Starglim (Dec 12, 2007)

GMSkarka said:
			
		

> *Perception as an Ability Score:*  Replacing skills like Spot and Listen -- instead of a skill, something that everyone has.




The potential difficulty I see here is that you're throwing the Perception score onto the scales with all the existing ability scores. Whether you're creating characters by point-buy, roll and distribute or any other method involving choice, players now have a seventh slot to allocate their scarce resource of ability score points, splitting what Wisdom did before. It may take considerable tinkering to get the balance right again.


----------



## jdrakeh (Dec 12, 2007)

Starglim said:
			
		

> The potential difficulty I see here is that you're throwing the Perception score onto the scales with all the existing ability scores. Whether you're creating characters by point-buy, roll and distribute or any other method involving choice, players now have a seventh slot to allocate their scarce resource of ability score points, splitting what Wisdom did before. It may take considerable tinkering to get the balance right again.




Actually, I don't see that as a problem at all (particularly if using a random roll method). 

If using a random roll method, balance is automatically ensured by generating the ability score in the same manner as all others, as there is no other form of mechanical balance utilized in the random method. An extra ability score throws nothing out of whack here. 

Now, if using point-buy, things are a bit more complex (but not much more so). If using point-buy, one needs to do some short division (breaking down the current point-buy values) and add an appropriate number of points to the attribute pool based on the findings.


----------



## jezter6 (Dec 12, 2007)

jaerdaph said:
			
		

> Hi Gareth,
> 
> I've been thinking about this. Honestly, even though I'm sure you'll do one hell of a design job like you always do, I'm not sure what the market needs is yet another d20 variant rule system (well, I know I don't need another one personally).  I know things are a little up in the air as the 3e era comes to an end and WotC's plans for their other product lines like d20 Modern aren't really on the table yet. I also know publishers are trying to fill voids in gaming (and their income) in the interim, and I admit these new experiments with d20 are cool to see. But I'm not sure further fracturing of the d20 fanbase is the answer. There are other viable options out there now that might be a better choice.
> 
> ...




I agree. I love the TT and IA lines you have, but I can't see myself using yet another d20 SubSystem. I like Modern20, yet I will never use it because I already use d20 modern and True20. No need for something else.

And +1 to the idea of going True20. We're clamoring for more product, and since Chuck and RPGO are starting to support Modern20 - we need to fill that void, and you're just the company to do it.


----------



## damiller (Dec 12, 2007)

See and I am just the opposite. I want another d20 system.

d ;D


----------



## SirKerry (Dec 12, 2007)

jezter6 said:
			
		

> And +1 to the idea of going True20. We're clamoring for more product, and since Chuck and RPGO are starting to support Modern20 - we need to fill that void, and you're just the company to do it.




I'd love to see Adamant support Modern20 or True20, but if GMS wants to create his own vision of nextgen d20 system more power to him.  I don't know if I'll like what he comes up with, but I'll certainly give it a try.

Kerry


----------



## GMSkarka (Dec 12, 2007)

jaerdaph said:
			
		

> But I'm not sure further fracturing of the d20 fanbase is the answer.




In my opinion, I really don't think these "fracture the fanbase" -- since they're all d20-based and therefore pretty easily adaptable.



			
				jaerdaph said:
			
		

> For example, have you considered a standalone True20 version of Thrilling Tales? [...] There is a large, existing True20 fanbase out there eager for more product.




I had briefly considered it, but honestly, I have doubts about the size of the True20 fanbase.  There doesn't seem to be much demand reflected in market presence of the True20 stuff, either in online or real-world stores.

Plus, in my opinion, similar to my views of SWSE, True20 doesn't go far enough in stripping down the rules.


----------



## Walt C (Dec 12, 2007)

At present, there are no plans to migrate the Imperial Age line. All products currently in development use the d20 Modern rules.

Walt Ciechanowski
Imperial Age Line Developer
Adamant Entertainment


----------



## Bretbo (Dec 12, 2007)

GMSkarka said:
			
		

> In my opinion, I really don't think these "fracture the fanbase" -- since they're all d20-based and therefore pretty easily adaptable.




Plus I'm thinking that most folks will follow the support products (like Thrilling Tales) more than the system, at least at first.


----------



## Dragon-Slayer (Dec 12, 2007)

GMSkarka said:
			
		

> I had briefly considered it, but honestly, I have doubts about the size of the True20 fanbase.  There doesn't seem to be much demand reflected in market presence of the True20 stuff, either in online or real-world stores.
> 
> Plus, in my opinion, similar to my views of SWSE, True20 doesn't go far enough in stripping down the rules.





     Not to sound contradictory at all, but True 20 does seem to have a fairly strong fanbase; not only are the official forums active, but also I have Yahoogroups for both WFRP2 and True 20 and while the former has more members, the latter is growing faster at this point in time than the WFRP group, which lumbers along and adds members slowly. There could be several factors that cause this, including the heavy-handed GW attitude getting worse than it ever was. The True20 books at the local bookstore appear to sell fairly well, they had WFRP books once and never brought them back and will only special order them, D&D books move very slowly and now the D&D books are all $5 each and still not moving.


----------



## GMSkarka (Dec 12, 2007)

Another point, re: any supposed fracturing --

Keep in mind, that unlike any of the other systems mentioned, we'll be releasing Odyssey as a free SRD.   Not just making it Open Content, but making the core system free.


----------



## Angel Tarragon (Dec 12, 2007)

Conceptually very interesting. I am glad to hear there will be an SRD. Will this be exclusive for licensed developerrs or for everyone?

I'm a little less than thrilled with classless system. Even when I DM D20 Cthulhu, I use the WotC Cthulhu book and D20 Modern + the D20 Past stuff from the SRD.


----------



## Angel Tarragon (Dec 12, 2007)

Upon further thought this sounds right up my alley, as I happen to be a big fan of Victorian Era roleplaying and it might be used as an alternate way of doing Masque of the Red Death.


----------



## GMSkarka (Dec 12, 2007)

Frukathka said:
			
		

> Conceptually very interesting. I am glad to hear there will be an SRD. Will this be exclusive for licensed developerrs or for everyone?




Everyone.  We'll release it as a free download.


----------



## VirtualWizard (Dec 12, 2007)

I think it would be better not to add any additional attributes to the core 6.  Wisdom works just fine for Perception based tasks.  Characters that want to focus on Perception should take it as a skill just like they do in SWSE.


----------



## SirKerry (Dec 12, 2007)

VirtualWizard said:
			
		

> I think it would be better not to add any additional attributes to the core 6.  Wisdom works just fine for Perception based tasks.  Characters that want to focus on Perception should take it as a skill just like they do in SWSE.




Whereas, I think adding Preception as a attribute makes a huge amount of sense.  

Besides, it's not like D&D (or AD&D to be more precise) hasn't had 7 attributes before (re: Comeliness).   

Kerry


----------



## SirKerry (Dec 12, 2007)

GMSkarka said:
			
		

> Keep in mind, that unlike any of the other systems mentioned, we'll be releasing Odyssey as a free SRD.   Not just making it Open Content, but making the core system free.




Great news.  What about allowing other publishers to produce materials using system, a license system like M&M Superlink would be tops.

Kerry


----------



## SirKerry (Dec 12, 2007)

GMSkarka said:
			
		

> [*]*Stripped-down skill list, plus Training:* Similar to SWSE -- no skill points.  Everyone has a default in all skills, but "trained skills" (from Occupation or Talents) give you a bonus (based on character level).




While I don't like this, it's not a show stopper for me by any means.



			
				GMSkarka said:
			
		

> So, that's a start.    Let's hear what you'd like to see.




What I would really like to see is an effects-based power system for modelling magical abilities, spells, superpowers, etc along the lines of Mutants & Mastermind's Ultimate Power (it doesn't need to scale to the high-end superpower levels, but up to the low-end would be nice).

Kery


----------



## Walt C (Dec 13, 2007)

SirKerry said:
			
		

> Besides, it's not like D&D (or AD&D to be more precise) hasn't had 7 attributes before (re: Comeliness).
> 
> Kerry



IIRC, AD&D 2.5 (the "Options" series) actually had 12 ability scores. (I know, they were really the classic six divided in two, but still...good munchkin times to be had! )

Walt


----------



## SirKerry (Dec 13, 2007)

Walt C said:
			
		

> IIRC, AD&D 2.5 (the "Options" series) actually had 12 ability scores. (I know, they were really the classic six divided in two, but still...good munchkin times to be had! )




Huh, I wasn't aware of that.  Never bothered to play or even buy any of the AD&D 2nd edition stuff.

Kerry


----------



## TonyTempest (Dec 13, 2007)

I don't like SWSE's skill system.  You mentioned Spycraft 2.0... I really like that consolodated skill set... makes it much easier, but still allows customization. In fact, I use that skill set in my current game which is Thrilling Tales/Mars (both from some company called Adam... something).  I would love to see a consolidated skill set, but don't like the Binary On/off of SWSE.

I do like the Perception ability.  That would simplify all those skills.  Feats and flaws(touchy subject, I'm sure) might make someone better at Searching or Listening than something else.

I also am not a fan of death spirals, which condition tracks seem to perpetuate.  I really was excited about the Toughness save in M&M, but in play, one punch at the beginning of the fight and the main character was useless from then on out.  Hit points get a lot of grief about not being realistic, but especially in a Pulp game like Thrilling Tales, I like the John McClain/Die Hard model... keep fighting at peak level even though you've lost twice as many pints of blood as the human body actually carries.  However, I can see your point when I look at Indiana Jones, esp. fighting that big Nazi in Raiders beneath the plane.  He was reeling, and uneffective til fate helped him out with the plane rotor. 

It doesn't matter.... I'll be buying this Thrilling Tales 2.0 anyway (as long as there is a print version available)... and I'm interested in stripped down faster engines with the familiarity of D20 .  So far True20 hasn't been that.... maybe Odyssey will!

david


----------



## Scurvy_Platypus (Dec 13, 2007)

A few different points:

Skills.
*sigh* You're going to have 2 groups here. The first screams if you consolidate it, and thinks that SWSE is killing puppies because of how it deals with skills. The second will moan and complain about how you're going for a stripped down system, but chose to include the clunky skill system, and how you should consolidate it.

And cue a bunch of other people to argue about the "logical" way to consolidate them.

You're not going to win on this, and it'll be a deal-breaker for a group of people. What might be workable is to provide options for both. Decide whichever is going to be the default, and then put in a sidebar for the other people.

I vote for the consolidated skills by the way. I think 8 years of the d20 skill system is long enough to allow for the condensed skills to flex their legs a bit. It's condensed d20, let's condense that bad-boy.

Easy foe generation.
I went ahead and bought Foe Factory modern, even though I'm running a fantasy game. I don't feel like waiting for some time in the future, but want to use it now. I'll do the legwork on my own to use it for creatures, but having some additional creature examples would be helpful. No, you don't have to toss in owlbears, but at least a few animals or something. Lions, giant boa constrictors, scarab beetles that strip the living flesh from you, or any of the other non-human antagonists. Heck, maybe even a mutated Gorilla or something.

True20 vs standalone.
Blue Rose seemed pretty interesting to me, and so did Mutants & Masterminds 1E. True20? Not really interested. It doesn't seem that stripped down to me. Sure it trimmed some stuff, but it's not like it's suddenly into rules-light territory.

What I'd like to see.
Compatibility. People already have money invested in their products, and while a simpler version of d20 would appeal to some folks, people aren't really going to be wild with the idea of not being able to use their favorite whatever, or having to jump through all sorts of hoops in order to do so. Show what a typical character build would look like using the default d20 rules, and then show what you toss or fold into something else to arrive at the same character using the new system. A couple of different examples like that showing a couple of different types of characters, and I'd be much more likely to get the product.


----------



## Committed Hero (Dec 13, 2007)

SirKerry said:
			
		

> Whereas, I think adding Perception as a attribute makes a huge amount of sense.




I guess it depends - What about skills like Sense Motive, Research and Gather Information, all of which are arguably Perception-based?  Will there be feats for specific senses in their place?


----------



## Walt C (Dec 13, 2007)

While obviously affiliated with Adamant, these thoughts, as well as any other posts in this thread, are my own and should not be taken as canonical Odyssey System information.



			
				Committed Hero said:
			
		

> I guess it depends - What about skills like Sense Motive, Research and Gather Information, all of which are arguably Perception-based?  Will there be feats for specific senses in their place?



I'd still consider Gather Information a Cha-based skill, since it's all about influencing people. 

M&M and True20 folded Research into Knowledge skills. Personally, if I kept Research as a skill, I'd keep it Int-based (knowing how to find information in books or computers strikes me more as Int than Per).

I'd marry Sense Motive to Perception, since it essentially is about how you perceive a person.

Walt


----------



## GMSkarka (Dec 13, 2007)

Scurvy_Platypus said:
			
		

> Compatibility. People already have money invested in their products, and while a simpler version of d20 would appeal to some folks, people aren't really going to be wild with the idea of not being able to use their favorite whatever, or having to jump through all sorts of hoops in order to do so. Show what a typical character build would look like using the default d20 rules, and then show what you toss or fold into something else to arrive at the same character using the new system. A couple of different examples like that showing a couple of different types of characters, and I'd be much more likely to get the product.




Absolutely -- my plan is to include conversion guidelines for d20 Modern, d20 3.5, and possibly 4e (assuming WOTC actually gives publishers a look at the rules some time before they release them....if not, then we'll do a conversion after the fact).  We've done a d20-to-FATE conversion already, and it's been pretty well-received, so that sort of thing is definitely a feature that we're shooting for.


----------



## Ilium (Dec 13, 2007)

SirKerry said:
			
		

> What I would really like to see is an effects-based power system for modelling magical abilities, spells, superpowers, etc along the lines of Mutants & Mastermind's Ultimate Power (it doesn't need to scale to the high-end superpower levels, but up to the low-end would be nice).




I couldn't agree more.  I know such a system would be a ton of work, but I think it would mesh nicely with a classless system (everybody can buy powers as part of a talent tree, etc.).


----------



## GMSkarka (Dec 13, 2007)

The other option for skills, recently arrived at in design discussion, is to eliminate them entirely.....


Heroes tend to be well-rounded and resourceful. We could reflect that by allowing leveled ability checks to take the place of skill rolls.

Remember Marvel FASERIP? Heroes could try anything; talents only added a small bonus. 

You could work that through the Occupations for specialized usage -- for example, any hero could make an INT check to make a minor car repair, fix a leaky pipe, or build a shed, but only a hero with the Engineer occupation could design and build a bridge.


----------



## 2WS-Steve (Dec 13, 2007)

GMSkarka said:
			
		

> You could work that through the Occupations for specialized usage -- for example, any hero could make an INT check to make a minor car repair, fix a leaky pipe, or build a shed, but only a hero with the Engineer occupation could design and build a bridge.




Personally I like this solution -- skills as feats (of a sort).  What the skill does then is give you a range of special abilities -- picking locks, hacking computers, and so on.

Special abilities are cool and fun to gain -- much more fun than simply incrementing some numbers.

There would probably be some issue with skills that people normally think of as having multiple levels of ability, such as sneaking or disable device -- perhaps a simple tier system such as disable device I, DD II, DD III -- sort of like Uncanny Dodge.

Again, this is just my preference, but I like a smaller number of bigger bumps (like feats) to a large number of small bumps (like skill points).


----------



## TonyTempest (Dec 13, 2007)

This almost seems like it goes back to Non-Weapon Proficiencies.  I thought skills were an improvement over NWP... but I do understand that somepeople assumed if you didn't have points in a skill, you couldn't do it. With FASERIP style talents (or even NWP/Feats) this would indicate those things a character is Really good at.

I have a pilot character in my Thrilling Tales game.  The character has feats and bonuses to the piloting skill that by this level (only 6th or 7th) there really isn't a point in putting anymore points there... it's just redundant.  So, what do I do with skill points after a certain point?  Although this sounds contradictory to previous point, perhaps feats/NWP/or Talents IS the way to go with this.  As long as there are ways to differentiate a superior barnstormer/combat pilot and Joe HighDex, I'm good with whatever comes about.  I just don't think SWSE has enough steps.  Maybe Unskilled/Skilled/Talented skilled/Excellent skilled/Superior Skilled... Five steps to get Joe Nobody to Indiana Jones (I can fly, I just can't land) to Cliff Secord to Buck Rogers to Han Solo (order those as you see fit).

I'm beginning to think Perception as an Ability score might have some issues without associated feats/skills.  Spot/Sense Motive/Listen....  you could do that as a simple ability check..... If you don't want it too grainy.

Ah, just ramblin' on... 

david


----------



## Walt C (Dec 13, 2007)

TonyTempest said:
			
		

> This almost seems like it goes back to Non-Weapon Proficiencies.  I thought skills were an improvement over NWP... but I do understand that somepeople assumed if you didn't have points in a skill, you couldn't do it. With FASERIP style talents (or even NWP/Feats) this would indicate those things a character is Really good at.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> ...



I'm looking at it as basically three tiers:

In a pulpish game, heroes are considered capable. Without a skill, a hero should be able to grab the controls and keep a plane in the air or drive it along the ground. He might be able to land the plane with professional guidance.

A hero with the Pilot occupation (or whatever occupation covers it) would be able to understand and execute all of the basics with a plane: take-off, landing, holding steady in a storm, navigation, routine maneuvers, etc.

A hero with the Air Ace talent tree is a step above. He can execute advanced (and death-defying) maneuvers. This tree actually includes a number of sub-tiers, so that experienced Air Aces can perform better maneuvers than rookie Air Aces.

Walt


----------



## jonrog1 (Dec 13, 2007)

Scurvy_Platypus said:
			
		

> True20 vs standalone.
> Blue Rose seemed pretty interesting to me, and so did Mutants & Masterminds 1E. True20? Not really interested. It doesn't seem that stripped down to me. Sure it trimmed some stuff, but it's not like it's suddenly into rules-light territory.




Only three roles, a generic FX system, a single d20 to play and a universal damage track? It's    ... at the very least rules-lithe if not rules light.

And I'm wondering, what's the situation with the game play wher eyou experience death spiral on the damage tracks?  Not that I don't believe you, I just haven't seen it kick up in play.  was it the stun-lock problem, or the negative modifiers, or what?

Oh, to make sure this post is at least nominally on topic - will you be able to mix and match the talent trees, or does choodsig from one preclude choosing form others?


----------



## GMSkarka (Dec 13, 2007)

jonrog1 said:
			
		

> will you be able to mix and match the talent trees, or does choodsig from one preclude choosing form others?




Mix and match.   Full customization of characters.


----------



## damiller (Dec 13, 2007)

Is there any intention of dropping the "tactical" elements of d20? (Such as AoO, and its ilk) Because that is the one thing I liked about True 20, they dropped all the tactical map related stuff (which is the only reason I keep going back to it and MnM2e, I can get rid of maps if I want, because there are no rules about that stuff. Which is my one complaint about SW Saga, the combat chapter has so many "tactical" elements too it I darn near don't want to play it.)

d


----------



## ValhallaGH (Dec 14, 2007)

damiller said:
			
		

> Which is my one complaint about SW Saga, the combat chapter has so many "tactical" elements too it I darn near don't want to play it.)
> 
> d



One thing to keep in mind is that it's always easier to cut those elements than it is to keep them.  Just announce at the beginning of the campaign that there are no attacks of opportunity, and that all feats and abilities that rely upon them are now useless (things that just tangentially connect to the AoO system may need some rewriting).  

However, for people that want such rules (and they do exist, the lack of such rules is a fairly common complaint about both True20 and MnM 2e), they don't have to go through the complicated work of designing and adding AoO back into Star Wars Saga.

My point is, if you like a system except for one big thing then look at what happens when you change or remove that thing.  If you'll still like the system then get crackin', because it's not that much work to write a rules set (it's just a lot of work to balance one).


----------



## GMSkarka (Dec 14, 2007)

damiller said:
			
		

> Is there any intention of dropping the "tactical" elements of d20?




Absolutely.  Our goal with Odyssey is that you could even play it .....*gasp!* _without miniatures_!  (Shock!  Horror!)



			
				ValhallaGH said:
			
		

> However, for people that want such rules (and they do exist




They sure do.     And it's my opinion that they're already well-served by other, more tactically-oriented rules sets (like core d20, for example).   Odyssey is being designed specifically for the players and GMs who like the familiarity of the basics of d20, but would prefer a more streamlined, so-called "rules light" approach, while maintaining the easy adaptability of other d20 products.


----------



## jaerdaph (Dec 14, 2007)

GMSkarka said:
			
		

> In my opinion, I really don't think these "fracture the fanbase" -- since they're all d20-based and therefore pretty easily adaptable.
> 
> I had briefly considered it, but honestly, I have doubts about the size of the True20 fanbase.  There doesn't seem to be much demand reflected in market presence of the True20 stuff, either in online or real-world stores.
> 
> Plus, in my opinion, similar to my views of SWSE, True20 doesn't go far enough in stripping down the rules.




Fair enough. I have to admit that I like the stipped down aproach you're proposing here (I can certainly see myself trying this system for quick spur of the moment pickup games, for example, and the existence of a free SRD for the game would go a long way towards making that possible). 

One thing that I see as integral to a rules-light/stripped down game engine is ease of GM prep: Not only should one be able to learn the rules faster and have actual play go faster, the GM should be able to prep an adventure in a much shorter amount of time as well. Will that be something you will address directly (not just implied indirectly by the rules)? I think you'd agree ease of GM prep is a very big selling point, if not just to save time in our busy 21st century lives, than to save time for concentrating on the creative elements of the story we want to tell (the so-called "fluff"). 

And thanks for reminding me of the positive aspects of the so-called fracturing I brought up - Adamant Entertainment has always been a generous supporter of the d20 OGL movement with their OGC declarations, allowing for others to take things in other directions as they do the same.


----------



## TonyTempest (Dec 14, 2007)

Occupation + Talent Trees sounds awesome. That would do it for me!  I agree that in a pulp-y game (and that would include such modern fare as Die Hard and 24) the Heroes should be able to do quite a bit without having to spend skill points. As long as there's some "niche protection" (a termed I've seen kicked about on the 'net!   ) by having the Talent Trees, I'm good.

As for the Death Spiral (asked above), the M&M game I played had the problem that, when the character was hit (in the first round), that character then was incapable of hitting or dodging for the rest of combat, and was barely able to run away. I could have been playing it wrong, but it felt so wrong I checked and re-checked the rules and didn't find a mistake.  I've had similar (but not as extreme) happenings in other games with a death spiral, so I wasn't surprised.

The problem with any sort of damage system is it can't do the plot necessitated damage you see in movies or books.  The character can stand up and take any kind of damage til the end of the fight, or have a "Per Encounter" set of hit points (hmmmm.....). I mentioned the Indy v. Giant Nazi earlier... but after the Nazi was killed by the propeller, Indy kept fighting like he had just had a Cure Serious Wounds potion in his adventuring pack, maybe he had a new set of hit points when he entered a different encounter?      However, when the plot needs the hero to go down so the villain can explain his elaborate plot, in exacting detail (with diagrams), the hero goes down like he has a glass jaw.  For my money, what a high-action/adventure game needs is hit points galore, but a super-easy coup-de-grace rule so a hero can be knocked out (not killed) and thrown into a Bonds-style deathtrap or a prison cell (where the other prisoner can help him build his powered armor suit) or so on.  That way, when the fight is important, the hero can go on and on like the Energizer bunny, but when the nazi gets the drop on him, he doesn't have to beat the hero like a rented mule in order to knock him out and take him to the master villain.  GM fiat is okay if the players trust the GM, but a way to handle "health" that emulates that would be better.

thanks

david


----------



## SirKerry (Dec 14, 2007)

TonyTempest said:
			
		

> For my money, what a high-action/adventure game needs is hit points galore, but a super-easy coup-de-grace rule so a hero can be knocked out (not killed) and thrown into a Bonds-style deathtrap or a prison cell (where the other prisoner can help him build his powered armor suit) or so on.  That way, when the fight is important, the hero can go on and on like the Energizer bunny, but when the nazi gets the drop on him, he doesn't have to beat the hero like a rented mule in order to knock him out and take him to the master villain.  GM fiat is okay if the players trust the GM, but a way to handle "health" that emulates that would be better.




Yes, but what would stop the players from using it on the big bad and then just slitting his/her/its throat - kinda anti-climatic.

Kerry


----------



## TonyTempest (Dec 14, 2007)

Well, they would have to sneak up on the big bad to do that, and hopefully by fighting through all the minions he would know they were coming.....

I dunno... I got nothing.... but something like that would be nice.

david


----------



## 2WS-Steve (Dec 14, 2007)

TonyTempest said:
			
		

> Well, they would have to sneak up on the big bad to do that, and hopefully by fighting through all the minions he would know they were coming.....
> 
> I dunno... I got nothing.... but something like that would be nice.
> 
> david




Jonathan Tweet actually tried to address this once on his website and it struck me as at least a good place to start:

There is no Try

I'll also copy and paste the whole thing below so people can discuss if they wish (if I'm over-stepping, I'm sorry.  But I figure it was intended to be shared).

****************
In classic Trek, Captain Kirk is unlikely to try to escape from a villain that has him under the gun and fail to do so. Sometimes he tries and succeeds. Other times he doesn't try at all, being led around by goons, defeated. (It's incongruous when this happens because we've all seen him get out from under the gun at other times.) How would this dichotomy translate into RPGs?

[This question is tangentially related to the recent issue of whether action movies, or other media in general, are good models for RPG mechanics.]

Most roleplaying games follow a simulationist model for determining whether a PC can get the better of a villain holding a gun on them. The player decides that the PC will go for it, and only then do the dice roll. Star Trek does not look like that. The Star Trek model would go something like this:

Player: I try to take out the guy who's holding the phaser on me.

GM: Roll for it.

Player: [rolls & fails]

GM: He's too alert. You know that if you tried it you'd almost certainly get disintegrated.

Player: Dang. OK, I go through the door like he's telling me to.

The player has tried to get the PC out from under the gun, but the PC hasn't actually tried (just like Kirk doesn't try—he either does it or doesn't do it).

Now if the player's roll had succeeded, the PC would have taken out the villain with the phaser. Maybe if the player has failed badly, then the PC would have tried to take out the guy with the phaser and gotten beaten into unconsciousness, or maybe disintegrated. The less Kirk-like the PC is, the worse you can do to them with a bad roll.

Why would one want to use such a system? It would be to make the PC's more Kirk-like. That is, there's something base and demeaning about trying to do something and failing (especially trying to get the better of some mook and failing). Of course, whether Kirk takes out his captors or gets led meekly around depends on the needs of the plot, not dice rolls. But at least a system like this would let you look like Kirk while still using the roleplaying convention of dicing for success.

I'm not saying that having Kirk-like PCs is a good thing, or that I want to play that way. I'm just exploring how you'd handle Kirkliness in an RPG.

—JoT
August 2002


----------



## 2WS-Steve (Dec 15, 2007)

Commenting on it now:

You could translate that to a bigger fight scene by dicing out the entire combat, then having some point where the players could either choose (or spend) action points/story points to retcon that they didn't actually fight it out, but instead accepted being captured.  The players might want to do this if, for instance, one of the PCs died.

Perhaps this could even be a standard use of Action points (though I'm thinking more like White Wolf's Adventure! style story-changing points).

Then, for quiet ambushes, maybe a different use where you spend the Action points in advance -- and if you win (defeat the opponents in under ten rounds or something) then you're considered to have dropped the target with one blow or whatever.


----------



## BadMojo (Dec 19, 2007)

Fewer skills would be great.  No skills at all (as mentioned above) would be even better, IMO.

I'd love to see some sort of mechanic like action dice, but more integrated than we see in the Eberron or Unearthed Arcana versions.  It'd be great to be able to have my character do something completely crazy and cool but actually have it work.

Point buy as default character creation would be nifty too.

Sounds like it'll be a fun, light alternative to True 20.  As much as I like True 20 it still seems too close to standard D20.


----------



## Tim Gray (Jan 7, 2008)

GMSkarka said:
			
		

> I had briefly considered it, but honestly, I have doubts about the size of the True20 fanbase.  There doesn't seem to be much demand reflected in market presence of the True20 stuff, either in online or real-world stores.



You know, I was just looking at RPGNow's Metals page and according to that the True20 mainbook is the best-selling product of all time. So the *potential* market is substantial - but I'd agree that it doesn't seem to get the buzz that would go along with that. A retailer of our mutual acquaintance was telling me last year that he thought Savage Worlds was by far the stronger seller.


----------



## GMSkarka (Jan 13, 2008)

Just to respond to some email queries that I've received:

It was explicitly stated on the WOTC 4e conference call that the new OGL is specifically tailored to support D&D and products will require the use of the Player's Handbook.  Bill Slavisek specifically referred to products like Mutants & Masterminds and Spycraft, saying that those sort of genre explorations will most likely have to wait until any eventual re-tooling of d20 Modern.

So -- to directly answer the questions I've been asked:   Yes, we're going forward with Odyssey.   We feel it fills a worthy niche, and we will release the core SRD for Odyssey as a freely available document, 100% Open under the original, un-revokable OGL v1.0.


----------



## jdrakeh (Jan 13, 2008)

GMSkarka said:
			
		

> So -- to directly answer the questions I've been asked:   Yes, we're going forward with Odyssey.   We feel it fills a worthy niche, and we will release the core SRD for Odyssey as a freely available document, 100% Open under the original, un-revokable OGL v1.0.




Bitchin'  I feel that the original OGL is an important tool for publishers and consumers alike which is being dumped in favor of a more restrictive, less beneficial, license (well. less beneficial to parties other than WotC, anyhow). I think it is _great_ that third parties will continue to support the superior license.


----------



## Tim Gray (Jan 15, 2008)

Interesting news at http://www.true20.com/ about the future shape of that product.


Gareth, what sort of size of thing do think Odyssey might be? Would you be aiming to keep it fairly short and simple?


----------



## GMSkarka (Jan 15, 2008)

Tim Gray said:
			
		

> Interesting news at http://www.true20.com/ about the future shape of that product.




That's great news.   It will be cool to see more products out there -- but for what Adamant has planned, True20 doesn't go far enough.   We want this *seriously* stripped down, not "d20 Lite."



			
				Tim Gray said:
			
		

> Gareth, what sort of size of thing do think Odyssey might be? Would you be aiming to keep it fairly short and simple?




Let's put it this way -- ideally, what we're shooting for is for an Odyssey System character sheet to comfortably and legibly fit on an index card.   We want this to be as close to pick-up-and-play as any d20 iteration has ever been.


----------



## damiller (Jan 18, 2008)

INDEX card sized, d20 iteration....you have just sold multiple copies!!!

So what kind of ETA in general are we looking at for seeing this system? Near Summer, After Summer, Fall, Winter?

d


----------



## GMSkarka (Jan 18, 2008)

damiller said:
			
		

> So what kind of ETA in general are we looking at for seeing this system? Near Summer, After Summer, Fall, Winter?




We're in the early design stages now, so I'm guessing a release of the free SRD sometime in Spring (early summer at the latest).


----------



## damiller (Jan 19, 2008)

And is the Thrilling Tales 2nd Edition RPG (utilizing the Odyssey system) going to happen before or after the SRD?

d


----------



## GMSkarka (Jan 19, 2008)

damiller said:
			
		

> And is the Thrilling Tales 2nd Edition RPG (utilizing the Odyssey system) going to happen before or after the SRD?




Most likely a simultaneous release.


----------



## GMSkarka (Jan 19, 2008)

By the way -- we hadn't posted it here in the thread yet, although it has appeared in our company news and in an ad on the back cover of the last THRILLING TALES release:

Here's the logo:


----------



## Angel Tarragon (Jan 19, 2008)

Very cool logo.


----------



## Pat (Jan 20, 2008)

GMSkarka said:
			
		

> *Perception as an Ability Score:*  Replacing skills like Spot and Listen -- instead of a skill, something that everyone has.



The system sounds appealing. But why not make Perception a save? 

Saves represent a character's ability to react in critical situations. Whether it's resisting torture, throwing off a disease, or dodging an eldritch blast, it's purely a response to a situation. React, not act. Do you notice that platoon of Nazis hidden in the underbrush? The GM makes the save for you. Are you surprised when they jump you? Make a save. This has the advantage that, unlike abilities, saves scale with level. And unlike skills, you're not entirely out of luck if you didn't train in it.

It won't cover active searching, but it's simple enough to leave Search tied to Intelligence (or even Wisdom). Active searching has more to do with training, diligence, and attention to detail than the ability to quickly apprehend and process information, anyway.

Wisdom works quite well as the basis for the save, since the ability covers both intuition and perception. Then just shift Will from Wisdom to Charisma. After all, Charisma encroaches on Wisdom's territory. While Wisdom is explicitly defined as willpower (as well as intuition and perception), Charisma is actual strength or force of personality. Linking a commanding presence and a stern resolve is probably even better than linking a keen intuition with willpower. One bonus is that even in combat-heavy games, Charisma would still have a use. No more dump stat.

This is slightly out of tune with the default d20 System, but it's probably a closer match than adding a new ability score and rearranging all the skills. Though since the focus is more on the reactive aspects, Notice or Alertness might be a better name for the save than Perception.


----------



## GMSkarka (Jan 20, 2008)

Pat said:
			
		

> The system sounds appealing. But why not make Perception a save? (...) but it's probably a closer match than adding a new ability score and rearranging all the skills.




I can't go into details yet (we're still ironing them out), but, briefly:

1) There will be "saves" based on ALL ability scores.   So, yeah, there will be a "perception save."

2) We're actually leaning towards getting rid of Skills entirely.   Everything based on ability checks (modified by character level), with situational bonuses and penalties based on whether or not a character's occupation would have trained them in  particular area.  (In other words, common sense -- a character with the "Doctor" occupation would get a bonus to any roll dealing with medical stuff, for example.)

Remember, the idea here is stripped-down --- WAY down, concentrating on a playable structure that still makes internal sense.


----------



## Pat (Jan 20, 2008)

Moving towards _Over the Edge_, then. It's hard to comment intelligently on a system based on a few highlights after all, so I guess I'll just have to wait and see.


----------



## Tim Gray (Jan 21, 2008)

A middle ground for skills would be what True20 did in the original version - I think it's been changed now. Taking a skill switches it on, and it's automatically at level + 3 (plus attribute).

I suppose one of the major design issues is the tension between lightening the load and compatibility with other forms of d20.

Like the idea of attributes essentially doubling as saves.

For feats, you could probably squish it down into a quite small number of general types without losing a lot of detail, e.g. Improve Save (specify). The most common probably being a bonus in a particular kind of situation, specified when taken. Then that's easily extended to include personality traits, if you like. (I suppose you could use skill-type feats to work alongside occupations to remove the need for skills as a major element - they'd allow hobby skills etc.)

Back seat designing is fun!


----------



## Walt C (Jan 21, 2008)

Tim Gray said:
			
		

> A middle ground for skills would be what True20 did in the original version - I think it's been changed now. Taking a skill switches it on, and it's automatically at level + 3 (plus attribute).
> 
> I suppose one of the major design issues is the tension between lightening the load and compatibility with other forms of d20.




Current thinking is that the main system will be skill-less, but a skill system will be included as an optional rule. However, as Gareth said, the system is still being ironed out.

Walt


----------



## GMSkarka (Jan 21, 2008)

Tim Gray said:
			
		

> For feats, you could probably squish it down into a quite small number of general types without losing a lot of detail, e.g. Improve Save (specify). The most common probably being a bonus in a particular kind of situation, specified when taken. Then that's easily extended to include personality traits, if you like. (I suppose you could use skill-type feats to work alongside occupations to remove the need for skills as a major element - they'd allow hobby skills etc.)




We're looking at folding feats into talents, since the core of the classless character system is the concept of dozens of talent trees, with players customizing, picking and choosing as they go.

Expect to see a lot of the nitpicky/proficiency-related/tactical feats dropped or streamlined into wider versions.


----------



## tsadkiel (Jan 24, 2008)

Here's a question - what genres will the SRD cover?


----------



## GMSkarka (Jan 24, 2008)

tsadkiel said:
			
		

> Here's a question - what genres will the SRD cover?




The SRD won't be "covering" genres, per se (similar to how the Modern SRD can be used for espionage, or pulp, or horror, or urban fantasy, etc. etc.).   It's a toolkit, providing the complete rules system, applicable to any genre (and conversion guidelines for other d20-based systems).   

The conversion rules are a big part of the SRD -- with those, converting any d20-based rule or stat block for use with Odyssey will be at-a-glance intuitive.   If you want to use, for example, the core 3.5 edition spell system, you'll be able to port it over easily.   If you'd prefer to use the True20 powers rules, you can do that.


----------



## Scurvy_Platypus (Jan 24, 2008)

This might be mixing stuff up a bit, but...

I picked up your Modern Foe Factory, and think it's groovy. I've messed around a bit with using it for my d20 fantasy game.

Are you planning on doing something similar to the Foe Factory as a part of the system? And if you're not, will NPC generation be covered in the SRD and similarly simplified?

A really different question...

You guys put out a conversion for d20/Fate. Are you planning on doing an Odyssey/Fate conversion? Not knowing what Odyssey looks like, it's hard to say if such a thing would even be needed, but is such a thing even possible? I can't personally picture a scenario where I'd go d20 -> Odyssey -> Fate, but... I guess anything's possible. 

Lastly...

I know it's not popular, but are you conversion guidelines going to include notes for BESMd20? The Anime SRD document is out there, and I know at least some folks (like myself) do get use out of BESMd20/Anime SRD.

I'm sure I'll be able to figure out conversions on my own, and I expect you're probably not. But I figured it was worth asking.


----------



## GMSkarka (Jan 24, 2008)

Scurvy_Platypus said:
			
		

> Are you planning on doing something similar to the Foe Factory as a part of the system?




Yes, there will be a system based on Foe Factory included.



			
				Scurvy_Platypus said:
			
		

> You guys put out a conversion for d20/Fate. Are you planning on doing an Odyssey/Fate conversion?




Yes, FATE is one of the systems that will receive a conversion guide in the SRD



			
				Scurvy_Platypus said:
			
		

> I know it's not popular, but are you conversion guidelines going to include notes for BESMd20?




Most likely not.  We'll be sticking to currently-supported rules.   Current plans include conversion guidelines for d20 (3.5/Modern), True20, FATE, and eventually 4th Edition -- although this won't appear in the initial SRD release.

But as I said, it should be fairly easy to convert any d20-based system once you've seen what we've done.


----------



## jdrakeh (Feb 17, 2008)

Things that I'd like to see in the planned Thrilling Tales OS release (apologies if these have already been mentioned -- I'm in a bit of a hurry): 


Simple chase rules -- those in Butch Curry's _Core Elements: Toolbox Edition_ might be a good place to start. 


Mook Rules for nameless NPC lackeys. A nameless criminal henchman does _not_ need to be generated using the same rules for generating PCs. 


Stunts -- or, more correctly, rules for doing stuff that looks cool but is, technically speaking, just next to impossible (e.g., downing a plane with a handgun, using a whip to grab a weapon from an opponent and toss it to an ally, etc). 


Rules for cheating death -- rr, at any rate, a mechanic that makes this possible. Pulp heroes and villains have a knack for surviving circumstances that would kill a normal man.


----------



## Armadillo (Feb 21, 2008)

A very interesting idea to use an open choice of talent trees and feats in place of classes.  Going without skills might work, particularly if what would be skill checks default to an attribute save that could be modified by a talent and/or a feat.  Similarly, a Perception attribute would work if there are talents and/or feats that can modify it to represent someone with heightened or trained perception like Doc Savage, the Shadow, or Batman.


----------



## Frostmarrow (Mar 5, 2008)

Is it too late to participate? Is this project still active?


----------



## Walt C (Mar 6, 2008)

Frostmarrow said:
			
		

> Is it too late to participate? Is this project still active?



The Odyssey System is currently in active development.

Walt Ciechanowski
Imperial Age Line Developer
Adamant Entertainment


----------



## GMSkarka (Mar 25, 2008)

Just to give you a sneak peak at what we're doing, here's a summary of the developments of the Odyssey System:

*ABILITIES*
•  Abilities are rated in bonuses only (+1, +2, etc.), rather than numeric scale.
•  New Ability added:  Perception
•  All Saving Throws are simple ability checks, plus half the character level. (Reflex = DEX, Willpower = WIS, etc.)  It is possible to have a "Save" based on any ability.

*CLASSES:*
•  No Character Classes: Everybody is a single "class" -- Occupations give you your basic areas of expertise, and all of the old class abilities are found in Edges (q.v.) which allow players to mix-and-match to their heart's content. 

*SKILLS*
•  Eliminated entirely -- Everything handled via Ability checks, plus half-level bonus for normal use, full-level bonus for occupational areas of expertise, and/or bonuses from Edges.  (For example: a hero could use DEX to drive, but would only get a regular DEX check + 1/2 their level.  A hero with a "Formula One Driver" occupation would get a DEX check + their full level, and a hero with a "Born Behind The Wheel" Edge would get additional bonuses.)

*EDGES*
•  Both Feats and class Talents have been eliminated (kinda-sorta) -- replaced with Edges, which combine their functions.  Edges are nifties -- stuff you can do.  An Odyssey PC gets 2 Edges per level.   Some Edges have pre-reqs, some don't.  Players create custom characters through their choice of Edges.

*COMBAT & ACTION*
•  No Hit Points -- Toughness Save (CON) (similar to M&M from Green Ronin), but with results tracked on a Condition Chart.
•  Initiative -- Ability check, using average of DEX & PER
•  Attack:  DEX or STR + character level + Edge bonuses
•  Defense: STR (blocking in melee) or  DEX (avoidance in melee or ranged)  + character level + Edge bonuses.
•  Chase Rules based on HOT PURSUIT (check it out for a preview)
•  Stunt Point system from MARS. (In short, a roll of 20 gives you a Stunt Point, which is set aside, to be spent later for automatic successes, to gain the use of an Edge you don't have, to bring about a fortunate circumstance, to negate a hit against you, to instantly kill a minor NPC, etc.)

*SFX SYSTEMS*
•  Spells, Psionics, etc.  -- Adapted from the SRD or other Open versions, to show how easy the conversion is.  Full conversion examples provided in detail.

*NPCS*
•  Using FOE FACTORY style NPC Creation

There's more, of course, but that's a peek at what we're up to.


----------



## Tim Gray (Mar 26, 2008)

Nifty! Random questions:

* You're a d20-head, and I'm not. What level of compatibility with more "standard" versions are you shooting for? E.g. will these stat numbers work out broadly on par? (I'm guessing that's the whole idea.)

* Couple of examples of Edges?

* Toughness save - the version in True20 is hideously complicated - not helped by errors in early versions of the rules, but in any case with too many different conditions and results to keep track of in one's (OK, my) head. Please tell us that yours isn't like that!


----------



## Bretbo (Mar 26, 2008)

I like what I'm seeing here!  Seems fairly straight forward and intuitive.

Just a F.Y.I., Savage Worlds calls their Feat-like abilities Edges as well.  Don't think you'll run into any trouble there, just thought you ought to know (if you didn't already).


----------



## Walt C (Mar 26, 2008)

Hello,

I just thought I'd add for the benefit of those that find OS's skill system too free-form that there is an optional rule for incorporating skill lists (either ported from another d20 system or one of your own creation).

Walt


----------



## Jackelope King (Mar 26, 2008)

What was behind the decision to divorce perception tasks from Wisdom and to make them their own Ability score?


----------



## GMSkarka (Mar 26, 2008)

Jackelope King said:
			
		

> What was behind the decision to divorce perception tasks from Wisdom and to make them their own Ability score?





To be honest, this is something we're still arguing about.    

My thoughts:

I've always felt that perception was crammed into Wisdom (it wasn't there in 1st Edition -- I think it was added in 3rd (I don't have a copy of 2nd Edition handy)) --  because they knew it was needed, but had no place else to put it.

Wisdom as common sense?  Sure.   Wisdom as "mental strength" as opposed to Intelligence being "mental dexterity"?  Sure.   Wisdom being intuition?  I can even see that, although it's a stretch.

Perception, though?   I'm not so sure.      How does being Wise go hand-in-hand with sharp eyes?

Hence my preference in this case for separating Perception into an Ability.   Keeping in mind that Odyssey is also being designed initially for use in THRILLING TALES -- a pulp game, where investigation  (hence, perception) is a critical part of the action.


----------



## GMSkarka (Mar 26, 2008)

Tim Gray said:
			
		

> * You're a d20-head, and I'm not. What level of compatibility with more "standard" versions are you shooting for? E.g. will these stat numbers work out broadly on par? (I'm guessing that's the whole idea.)




The numbers will work out exactly -- instead of concerning ourselves with what you rolled to get the bonus, we only list the derived modifier.  So, instead of saying you have a STR of 17, you say that you have a STR of +3.



			
				Tim Gray said:
			
		

> * Couple of examples of Edges?




Sure!

*Improved Investigation: * The character is trained to notice things that mundane  investigators might miss.  A character with this Edge that comes within 10 feet of a clue to a crime or other mystery is allowed to make an Perception check, even if the character is not actively searching for clues at the time. 


*Man Without Fear:*  A character with this Edge gains a +4 morale bonus on saves to resist fear effects and on checks to oppose Intimidation attempts.

*Esoteric Knowledge: * This character's cases often involve the strange and unusual -- as a result, she has amassed a vast amount of esoteric knowledge. The character can make a special esoteric knowledge check with a bonus equal to her level + her Intelligence modifier to see if she knows anything relevent about clues, people, places or things.  The check will not solve a crime, but might provide leads for the character to follow.   The DC of the check is determined by the GM, based on the relative obscurity of the information (usually within a range of 15 to 30).   _Requires: Improved Investigation_




			
				Tim Gray said:
			
		

> * Toughness save - the version in True20 is hideously complicated - not helped by errors in early versions of the rules, but in any case with too many different conditions and results to keep track of in one's (OK, my) head. Please tell us that yours isn't like that!





Ours isn't like that.   Ours is closer to the Mutants & Masterminds version, but with failure results being 1 or more steps moved along a Condition Chart (similar to SW:SE).


----------



## breschau (Mar 26, 2008)

Good luck with the project. I have liked Thrilling Tales in the past so I was look forward to the new release. I can't say the updates you've provided since the op have excited me all that much.

Abilities:
Finally! I've hated the pointless ability scores since day one of 3rd edition. You guys and True20, oot. That makes two games without the scores. Let's campaign for more.

Skills:
I haven't played without skills since the days of AD&D. I have no interest in going back to a skill-less system. Using an occupation system to hide the skills is a bit of an over-reach. Considering what a crucial role skills play in _all_ the source material (i.e. pulp magazine shorts, pulp novels, pulp serials, etc), that's going to be a hard sell for the dedicated pulpster.

Perception:
You could go so many routes with this instead of adding a new ability. I'm hoping a 4E knock-off of Take 10 with which ever version you do. I'm so tired of knowing something's going on when I have to roll, but know I'm not aware of it because of a bad roll. You could do and average of Int, Wis, Cha bonus (to cover all the mental abilities). You could go with the best of all three, the best of any two, etc. There's many ways to do this without adding another ability.

Damage:
I love M&M and think that's so much easier than tracking hp.


----------



## Armadillo (Mar 26, 2008)

GMSkarka said:
			
		

> Wisdom as common sense?  Sure.   Wisdom as "mental strength" as opposed to Intelligence being "mental dexterity"?  Sure.   Wisdom being intuition?  I can even see that, although it's a stretch.
> 
> Perception, though?   I'm not so sure.      How does being Wise go hand-in-hand with sharp eyes?




Presence of mind can translate into greater awareness of your surroundings.  This is link between Wisdom and Perception is a part of traditional and contemporary Asian literature and folklore.


----------



## Jackelope King (Mar 26, 2008)

GMSkarka said:
			
		

> Wisdom as common sense?  Sure.   Wisdom as "mental strength" as opposed to Intelligence being "mental dexterity"?  Sure.   Wisdom being intuition?  I can even see that, although it's a stretch.
> 
> Perception, though?   I'm not so sure.      How does being Wise go hand-in-hand with sharp eyes?



Fair enough. What would wisdom be used for task-wise then, beyond Will saves?



> Hence my preference in this case for separating Perception into an Ability.   Keeping in mind that Odyssey is also being designed initially for use in THRILLING TALES -- a pulp game, where investigation  (hence, perception) is a critical part of the action.



True. Were it a more generic system, I'd disagree more, but for a game where investigation is meant to be central, I think it gets a thumbs-up.



			
				breschau said:
			
		

> Good luck with the project. I have liked Thrilling Tales in the past so I was look forward to the new release. I can't say the updates you've provided since the op have excited me all that much.
> 
> Abilities:
> Finally! I've hated the pointless ability scores since day one of 3rd edition. You guys and True20, oot. That makes two games without the scores. Let's campaign for more.
> ...



Please, sir, stay out of my head


----------



## GMSkarka (Mar 26, 2008)

breschau said:
			
		

> Considering what a crucial role skills play in _all_ the source material (i.e. pulp magazine shorts, pulp novels, pulp serials, etc), that's going to be a hard sell for the dedicated pulpster.




I disagree, whole-heartedly.

Here's a quiz -- what were the Shadow's skills?  Doc Savage's?

The answer is simple-- whatever was needed at the time.   All pulp heroes pulled previously-unknown skills out of the air from story to story.   He needs to be able to fly an autogyro?  Sure!   He needs to be familiar with lost Incan language?  No problem!

The easiest way to simulate this is to use Ability checks to cover actions -- with occupational areas of knowledge (as well as Edges) to reflect those things which are common "schticks" at the core of the character (Savage's invention ability, or The Shadow's investigative skills).

In other words, it's not so much "no skills" as "ALL skills" -- everybody has a shot at doing everything, with bonuses given to those with the proper occupations or Edges.


----------



## GMSkarka (Mar 26, 2008)

Jackelope King said:
			
		

> Fair enough. What would wisdom be used for task-wise then, beyond Will saves?




Tests of Faith, for those campaigns with supernatural elements, for example.    

As I said, we're arguing about this one.   The question is whether or not there's enough there for two Abilities, whether we should be splitting Wisdom into two abilities (Perception and Willpower, forgoing the "Wisdom" title, entirely), or just leaving it as is.


----------



## Tim Gray (Mar 27, 2008)

GMSkarka said:
			
		

> As I said, we're arguing about this one.   The question is whether or not there's enough there for two Abilities, whether we should be splitting Wisdom into two abilities (Perception and Willpower, forgoing the "Wisdom" title, entirely), or just leaving it as is.



Bingo. It's long bugged me that the Wisdom stat lumps perception/intuition and willpower together. Of course everyone sees stats breaking down in a different way, but to me those don't sit together... and it's not really what "wisdom" means either. 

(In some of my own games I use Wisdom as an attribute that's very like intelligence; and Presence to include both charisma and willpower, which seems a more natural combination. And Awareness as a separate one. But then I don't have to care about compatibiulity with anything.)

I know you don't want everyone chiming in with their own schema, but if it were me I might turn Wisdom and Charisma into Intuition and Presence. The former would include the empathy and common sense bits of Wis. Might muck up the balance between different saves though.


BTW, I hope this won't be too pulp-focused...


----------



## breschau (Mar 27, 2008)

GMSkarka said:
			
		

> I disagree, whole-heartedly.
> 
> Here's a quiz -- what were the Shadow's skills?  Doc Savage's?
> 
> The answer is simple-- whatever was needed at the time.   All pulp heroes pulled previously-unknown skills out of the air from story to story.   He needs to be able to fly an autogyro?  Sure!   He needs to be familiar with lost Incan language?  No problem!




Yes, the ships move at the speed of plot in fiction, but this is an rpg based on that fiction. This rpg will also involve that most dastardly cad, the gamer. Those gamers are a nasty bunch. If you give them something like you described above, they will all be Savage and Shadow. I know you will say that's the point, and I almost agree. You're forgetting the Fabulous Five and Pat. You're forgetting all the Shadow's agents. There has to be some limits otherwise the players can do anything. That's not fun. If they can make any kind of check then why team up? Sure, Savage gets a +2 to invention, and Shadow a +2 to investigation, but that's not fun.



> The easiest way to simulate this is to use Ability checks to cover actions -- with occupational areas of knowledge (as well as Edges) to reflect those things which are common "schticks" at the core of the character (Savage's invention ability, or The Shadow's investigative skills).
> 
> In other words, it's not so much "no skills" as "ALL skills" -- everybody has a shot at doing everything, with bonuses given to those with the proper occupations or Edges.




You're right that with ability checks replacing skills, everyone does have a shot at doing everything, but, that's the way it is now, with skills. You are right that with your occupational bonuses to certain checks, that adds to the character, but, I call them trained skills.

My point here is I see no point in taking the system far afield. The OGL comes with feats and skills. You're essentially renaming them Edges and "occupational areas of knowledge" respectively, that seems silly and wasteful to me. Why do that when the function almost identically? It doesn't make sense that you would do this unless you plan on claiming them as Product Identity. This move does make sense from a publisher's stand point, but you've already stated, and we can all see, that they're the same. 

Your example of Savage and Shadow can be used for either of our arguments though. Again, you call them OAoK I call them trained skills.


----------



## GMSkarka (Mar 27, 2008)

breschau said:
			
		

> This rpg will also involve that most dastardly cad, the gamer. Those gamers are a nasty bunch. If you give them something like you described above, they will all be Savage and Shadow.




A long time ago I discovered that if you spent all your time trying to error-trap against powergamers, you'd end up beating the joy out of a game.  There's *always* gonna be some twit who doesn't get the point, and you shouldn't worry about trying to force them to be good players.    Hence, I design the games I want to play, for the sort of player I prefer to have at my table.   It means that I miss out on some of the "common denominator" mass-appeal money, but in the end, I like what I've done.  




			
				breschau said:
			
		

> You're forgetting the Fabulous Five and Pat. You're forgetting all the Shadow's agents. There has to be some limits otherwise the players can do anything. That's not fun. If they can make any kind of check then why team up?





This is covered by varying character levels.   Main heroes start at a higher level than supporting heroes --which means that their level bonuses are higher, and they have more Edges.   We provide ranges, depending on what you're looking for in play style, but for an example, I'd do Doc at, say, 9th level and the rest of the Fabulous Five at 5th, with Pat at 3rd-ish.     

Why team up?   Differing occupations, differing Edges, differing power levels.


----------



## Scurvy_Platypus (Mar 28, 2008)

breschau said:
			
		

> Yes, the ships move at the speed of plot in fiction, but this is an rpg based on that fiction. This rpg will also involve that most dastardly cad, the gamer. Those gamers are a nasty bunch. If you give them something like you described above, they will all be Savage and Shadow. I know you will say that's the point, and I almost agree. You're forgetting the Fabulous Five and Pat. You're forgetting all the Shadow's agents. There has to be some limits otherwise the players can do anything. That's not fun. If they can make any kind of check then why team up? Sure, Savage gets a +2 to invention, and Shadow a +2 to investigation, but that's not fun.




First, I'll note that I have never seen a skill system that everybody has liked in the past 20 years of playing rpgs.

For example, people are apparently arguing over the skill system presented in Pathfinder, with some folks like it, and others wanting to stay with the default 3.5 skill system. I for one happen to strongly disike the default 3.x skill system.

Second, there was this:



			
				Walt C said:
			
		

> Hello,
> 
> I just thought I'd add for the benefit of those that find OS's skill system too free-form that there is an optional rule for incorporating skill lists (either ported from another d20 system or one of your own creation).
> 
> Walt




So it seems like it's really not going to be a problem either way.



			
				breschau said:
			
		

> My point here is I see no point in taking the system far afield. The OGL comes with feats and skills. You're essentially renaming them Edges and "occupational areas of knowledge" respectively, that seems silly and wasteful to me. Why do that when the function almost identically? It doesn't make sense that you would do this unless you plan on claiming them as Product Identity. This move does make sense from a publisher's stand point, but you've already stated, and we can all see, that they're the same.




I would imagine that part of it is that whole "tone" thing. Renaming something helps to establish the overall tone and feel for what a character is and what the setting is like. It can be a subtle thing at times, but what you call something can really influence people's perceptions of it, even if mechanically it's the exact same thing.

Renaming is also helpful because it means you don't have explanations that go, "Feats in this game aren't actually like Feats in d20. Instead, a Feat in the Odyssey system [blah blah blah]".



			
				GMSkarka said:
			
		

> A long time ago I discovered that if you spent all your time trying to error-trap against powergamers, you'd end up beating the joy out of a game.  There's *always* gonna be some twit who doesn't get the point, and you shouldn't worry about trying to force them to be good players.    Hence, I design the games I want to play, for the sort of player I prefer to have at my table.   It means that I miss out on some of the "common denominator" mass-appeal money, but in the end, I like what I've done.




Thank you dear god. I really do wish that this was more common. 



			
				GMSkarka said:
			
		

> This is covered by varying character levels.   Main heroes start at a higher level than supporting heroes --which means that their level bonuses are higher, and they have more Edges.   We provide ranges, depending on what you're looking for in play style, but for an example, I'd do Doc at, say, 9th level and the rest of the Fabulous Five at 5th, with Pat at 3rd-ish.
> 
> Why team up?   Differing occupations, differing Edges, differing power levels.




I'm one of those folks that's fine with actually starting a game and not doing the whole zero-to-hero thing that prevades the hobby. So starting charcters at different levels isn't a problem for me.

I do wonder though how it's going to play out in this particular case. d20 seems to be a bit twitchier in terms of having characters of different levels together. A system like Buffy handles the power difference between the Slayer and supporting heroes using Drama Points. For those that aren't familiar with them, Drama Points can be spent in game to help hit things, reduce the amount of damage taken, and other stuff. Kind of like Action Points in d20, but actually useful.

Is Odyssey going to be employing a similar mechanic to handle this sort of thing? Or is it going to be left to the realm of the individual GM to sort it out?


----------



## Walt C (Mar 28, 2008)

Scurvy_Platypus said:
			
		

> I would imagine that part of it is that whole "tone" thing. Renaming something helps to establish the overall tone and feel for what a character is and what the setting is like. It can be a subtle thing at times, but what you call something can really influence people's perceptions of it, even if mechanically it's the exact same thing.
> 
> Renaming is also helpful because it means you don't have explanations that go, "Feats in this game aren't actually like Feats in d20. Instead, a Feat in the Odyssey system [blah blah blah]".




You've nailed it.

When we decided to combine feats, talents, and class features into one list, it was much easier to classify them under a new term. "Edge" fit the bill.

Walt


----------



## GMSkarka (Mar 28, 2008)

Scurvy_Platypus said:
			
		

> Is Odyssey going to be employing a similar mechanic to handle this sort of thing? Or is it going to be left to the realm of the individual GM to sort it out?




There are a number of mechanics we're adding for genre emulation.   For example, the Stunt Point system I mentioned above, which originally appeared in our MARS game -- and were specifically created to be, as you said, "like Action points, but actually useful."

Other emulation mechanics include:  Mook rules (faceless hordes of cannon-fodder), Heroic Escapes (retconned PC deaths), and more.


----------



## doghead (Apr 1, 2008)

OGL - Odyssey System

I haven't read the whole thread, so some of this may no longer be relevant. But based on the first post -

- No Character Classes - I like this idea conceptually. I scratched out a classless character generation system based on DrSpunji's much superior version. It used points for buying skills points, feats and class abilities from the core rules. It was a bit rough and ready, but I had about a dozen players generate characters using it, and overall, the resulting characters were really interesting.

- No class-based Saving Throws - Again, this works for me. I usually play at the shallow end of the pool, and saving throws rarely seem to play a big role in defining the characters. So yeah, something else I don't have to manage. Good.

- No Hit Points - I don't like the d20 hp (and AC) system. Generally, I use Ken Hood's GnG combat system. Everything has 25 hp's, armour works as damage reduction. It also incorporates penalties for being wounded. Another plus. I have the SWSE rules, but I can't remember exactly how the system works. Didn't make that much of an impression then.

- Perception as an Ability Score - Nah. This is one thing that would be an automatic turn off. I don't want another stat to deal with. Especially as Wisdom (as a measure of the character's ability to perceive the world clearly) works fine for me. It doesn't add anything of great value, but adds another complication to conversion.

- Stripped-down skill list, plus Training - I'm not sure on this one. As I said in the Pathfinder skill thread, my biggest problem with 3.5 skill system is the class and cross class distinction. In a classless system, one point equals one skill rank, easy. In my classless system, it cost one point to get [INT] skill points/ranks. IIRC, players tended to grab quite a few skills.

I do tend to combine Spot/Listen and MS/Hide and Climb/Balance for simplicity sake. Recently I have started using a even more simplified system for NPC's - Area of Expertise, Combat, Knowledge, Mobility, Perception, Social, Stealth. I've just started this, its a bit of a work ini progress. I use circumstance mods to adjust them as I think necessary. But overall, the skill list in 3.5 isn't that large, so for me, its not a major issue.

- SC2.0-style NPC creation - don't know this system.

I think that these are going to be interesting times for the d20 market. There are a number of alternatives to 4E out there, and more coming. To survive, a system is going to need to fight for its market share. Clearly defining what it is intended to do (and successfully doing it) will be important. Pathfinder I think is in a strong position here so long it sticks to its design principles. I also think product support is going to play a big role in whether a system survives or not.

doghead
aka thotd


----------



## GMSkarka (Apr 1, 2008)

doghead said:
			
		

> - Perception as an Ability Score - Nah. This is one thing that would be an automatic turn off. I don't want another stat to deal with. Especially as Wisdom (as a measure of the character's ability to perceive the world clearly) works fine for me.




For what it's worth, we've resolved our argument in this area --

We're allowing for two options:  Gamemasters can use Wisdom as-is, or can split wisdom into two abilities:  Perception and Will.

The default assumption for THRILLING TALES 2nd Edition (the first product released using this system), will be PER & WIL, for the genre reasons discussed earlier in the thread.   The Wisdom method (and conversion between the two methods) will be included as an option in a sidebar.


----------



## Scurvy_Platypus (Apr 1, 2008)

doghead said:
			
		

> - SC2.0-style NPC creation - don't know this system.




I wasn't familiar with it either (Spycraft holds zero interest for me), but back in November Adamant released an NPC creation system that's apparently inspired by it. Called Foe Factory: Modern, it's a pretty solid product. So now I don't have to buy Spycraft. 
http://enworld.rpgnow.com/product_info.php?products_id=51080&filters=0_0_30

In theory there's a fantasy version also, but last I heard it wasn't going to be released until after 4th Ed. *shrug* It may or may not come out, but I went ahead and picked up Foe Factory to use for my fantasy games despite it being "modern".

I've been messing around with it for my game, and so far I haven't had any problems. It's fine for NPC creation in general, a bit thin if you're looking to use it as a quickie Monster Generation/ Monster Scaling product. On the other hand, combine Foe Factory with the Grim Tales Creature Creation and you're good to go. Foe Factory will allow you to "scale" your monsters a fair degree, and the Grim Tales will provide a solid EL cost for the additional abilities.


----------



## Armadillo (Apr 1, 2008)

GMSkarka said:
			
		

> This is covered by varying character levels.   Main heroes start at a higher level than supporting heroes --which means that their level bonuses are higher, and they have more Edges.   We provide ranges, depending on what you're looking for in play style, but for an example, I'd do Doc at, say, 9th level and the rest of the Fabulous Five at 5th, with Pat at 3rd-ish.




Interesting.  Are you going to have some balancing mechanic similar to the ways that Drama Points work differently for Heroes and White Hats in Cinematic Unisystem?


----------



## Scurvy_Platypus (Apr 1, 2008)

Armadillo said:
			
		

> Interesting.  Are you going to have some balancing mechanic similar to the ways that Drama Points work differently for Heroes and White Hats in Cinematic Unisystem?




Errr... I asked that question in post 91. Post 93 has his response:


			
				GMSkarka said:
			
		

> There are a number of mechanics we're adding for genre emulation.   For example, the Stunt Point system I mentioned above, which originally appeared in our MARS game -- and were specifically created to be, as you said, "like Action points, but actually useful."
> 
> Other emulation mechanics include:  Mook rules (faceless hordes of cannon-fodder), Heroic Escapes (retconned PC deaths), and more.


----------



## Tim Gray (Apr 19, 2008)

Given that Some Other Guys have been talking about dates recently    - any updates on release plans for Odyssey?


----------



## GMSkarka (May 5, 2008)

Just an update:  As mentioned in this thread (where we also preview the cover art),  THRILLING TALES 2nd Edition will be the first release featuring the Odyssey System.   

We're currently on schedule for an early June release -- and (because we recognize that some of you might have some other purchases lined up for that period of time  ), *the PDF version will be absolutely FREE.* 

We'll be selling a print version, but for those who want the PDF (either to play some pulp action, or just to check out the Odyssey System), we'll be giving it away.   Free.   Gratis.


----------



## Jackelope King (May 5, 2008)

You've got me curious enough to want to check out the Odyssey System, GMSkarka. I'll have to tip my hat to you for the generosity.


----------



## jdrakeh (May 5, 2008)

GMSkarka said:
			
		

> We'll be selling a print version, but for those who want the PDF (either to play some pulp action, or just to check out the Odyssey System), we'll be giving it away.   Free.   Gratis.




Well, rock on! That is mighty cool of you


----------



## Darrin Drader (May 5, 2008)

Well, on the upside, I like what I'm hearing. I like the fact that this is rules light but has the option to retain the strategic elements of D20. I think the skill system needs to be fiddled with a bit. Personally I like the idea of having a skill system where you simply choose the skills, but there is no skill rank, as that is a function of your level. Then, to make it so that characters can still grow, allow them to pick a new skill every few levels. Sure, it probably needs work. I also like the fact that there will be an SRD. I feel pretty strongly that the OGL and D20 game mechanics need to be preserved in one form or another in the 4E marketplace since there's a pretty good chance that WotC will have the power to revoke the GSL. If we want to keep playing in the same sandbox, we need to have a common game or two, and this sounds like a decent candidate.

What I don't like is that I've already hitched my Reign of Discordia cart to True20 and now this system will be competing with it. I know that the anticipation of Reign of Discordia has already brought new players to True20. One possible option would be to adapt Reign over to Odyssey after it's been out for a while if Odyssey ends up having a large enough fan base.

Lots to think over. I look forward to seeing it.


----------



## Armadillo (May 6, 2008)

Scurvy_Platypus said:
			
		

> Errr... I asked that question in post 91. Post 93 has his response:




No, my question was about how they are addressing the balance in power levels, akin to the way Cini Unisystem _uses Drama points_ to balance Heroes and White Hats.


----------



## GMSkarka (May 6, 2008)

Armadillo said:
			
		

> No, my question was about how they are addressing the balance in power levels, akin to the way Cini Unisystem _uses Drama points_ to balance Heroes and White Hats.




I'm not sure what more you're looking for here.   Yes, as I said, we have a number of genre-emulation rules, which include systems for handling groups of mixed-level heroes.

If you're demanding more specifics, all I can say is wait a few weeks and check out the PDF for free!


----------



## Razuur (May 6, 2008)

I for one would love to hear more about your hit point/condition mechanic.

Any teasers in this area?

Razuur


----------



## Aus_Snow (May 6, 2008)

I can't wait to see what this is like.

What I've read seems pretty encouraging, and Adamant tends to make some good stuff, so. . .


----------



## GMSkarka (May 6, 2008)

Razuur said:
			
		

> I for one would love to hear more about your hit point/condition mechanic.
> 
> Any teasers in this area?




It's similar to Mutants & Masterminds' damage system (a CON-based saving throw), with results tracked on a condition chart similar to the sort used Star Wars Saga Edition, or the stress track in FATE/SOTC.    The possible results of being hit are:  No effect, or one or more steps on the Condition chart (which gives penalties to all rolls, etc.)


----------



## Ilium (May 6, 2008)

I'm psyched about Odyssey.  Between this and Pathfinder (for my fantasy fix) I'm officially in the "Not going to 4E" camp.


----------



## Acid_crash (May 7, 2008)

Committed Hero said:
			
		

> I think the ultimate in stripped down d20 is to have all skills replaced by descriptive ratings that outline a character's history:  Seal Training +5, Archaeology Professor +10, et c.  This encourages character development and deals neatly with the skill/knowledge dichotomy (using the above, the archaeologist could make a roll for any field of knowledge that seems reasonable to the troupe).  In the absence of an applicable description, an ability check would have to suffice.




Take a look at Spirit of the Century and the Fate system for how Aspects work, which is pretty much the same thing as you are talking about... and how they incorporate skills into the game.  Plus, it's an OGL game that doesn't use the d20 system, but I think that Aspects could be a universal trait that could really expand how characters are seen and thought of.


----------



## GreatLemur (May 14, 2008)

GMSkarka said:
			
		

> As I said, we're arguing about this one.   The question is whether or not there's enough there for two Abilities, whether we should be splitting Wisdom into two abilities (Perception and Willpower, forgoing the "Wisdom" title, entirely), or just leaving it as is.



I know I'm late to the party, here, but I have to say that this is *exactly* how I'd do it.  For the most part, the whole list of things you've got planned for _Odyssey_ sounds great to me, but the mention of both Wisdom and a Perception ability in your initial post really jumped out at me as illogical.  I strongly support replacing Wisdom and Charisma with Perception and Willpower, _Unisystem_-style.

Wisdom has typically been the absolute worst-defined ability score in _D&D_, and Charisma got pretty hazy in 3e, too.  Junking those two and repartitioning the associated dependencies into an arrangement that better suits the needs of the game would make for a much better d20 system.  Overcoming enchantments, powering magic or psychic abilities, haggling for a better deal in the marketplace, maintaining focus through physical discomfort, convincing others of your sincerity?  That's all Willpower.  Eavesdropping on a conversation, following tracks, gauging the truth in another's words, finding a clue, reacting first to a threat, contacting higher powers?  That's Perception.  (Hell, I'd even make a case that Perception could cover certain types of ranged attacks, and thus allow Dexterity to handle all other attack rolls without getting unbalanced, but that's another subject all together.)

I'll also add my name to the list of those who aren't so sure about getting rid of skills.  Not so sure.  I'll have to see how the Occupations and Edges end up working.  If they're flexible and _SotC_-style enough, I'll definitely buy that they could be far better than skills.

Everything else is sounding really, really great.  At this rate, _Odyssey_ might be the system that keeps me from having to do my own post-_D&D_4e d20 hack.


----------



## Brutorz Bill (May 15, 2008)

Will your Mars RPG be updated for this new system?  I just discovered the Mars RPG, I really like it!  Hope to see more support for it!


----------



## GMSkarka (May 15, 2008)

Brutorz Bill said:
			
		

> Will your Mars RPG be updated for this new system?  I just discovered the Mars RPG, I really like it!  Hope to see more support for it!




Possibly -- we definitely need to do something with MARS, because, bluntly, the straight OGL version isn't selling as well as we had hoped.


----------



## Brutorz Bill (May 15, 2008)

GMSkarka said:
			
		

> Possibly -- we definitely need to do something with MARS, because, bluntly, the straight OGL version isn't selling as well as we had hoped.




  Sorry to hear that.  It's a great game.  I dug out my old Dungeon with Iron Lords of Jupiter for additional ideas to add to the setting.


----------



## Emryys (May 20, 2008)

GMSkarka said:
			
		

> Possibly -- we definitely need to do something with MARS, because, bluntly, the straight OGL version isn't selling as well as we had hoped.




Perhaps take a page from GR - Freeport and make Savage Mars! 

Am looking forward to what you come up with for the Odyssey system...


----------



## Tim Gray (Jun 14, 2008)

What's the current situation re content, ETA, etc?


----------



## GMSkarka (Jun 16, 2008)

Tim Gray said:
			
		

> What's the current situation re content, ETA, etc?




Decided to slow down a bit through June -- mostly so we could see how the 4E Juggernaut affects the market.    The last thing we want to do is throw this out there and have it go unnoticed because everybody is purchasing, playing and talking about The New Hotness (tm).


----------



## Tim Gray (Jun 17, 2008)

GMSkarka said:
			
		

> Decided to slow down a bit through June -- mostly so we could see how the 4E Juggernaut affects the market.    The last thing we want to do is throw this out there and have it go unnoticed because everybody is purchasing, playing and talking about The New Hotness (tm).



Makes sense.


----------



## Razuur (Jun 18, 2008)

There are those of us though who are quite cool towards the 'New Hotness" and have no intention of every playing it.

We are looking for a place to spend our dollars...

Razuur


----------



## Jackelope King (Jul 19, 2008)

GMSkarka, any updates on a release date?


----------



## GMSkarka (Jul 21, 2008)

We're currently shooting for an August release.


----------

