Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Rational D20

Rate this topic


DragonMaci

Recommended Posts

I was thinking of making a d20 System product that is based on rational thinking. Is that even a workable or feasable concept though? If you have any ideas, suugestions or opinions relating to this concept please post them.

It's working title is Rational d20.

Note: I have no details about it yet since it is just a concept at the moment (though I have begun work on the dragons for it).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I take it you mean a d20 system without magic or supernatural beings. There are other RPG games out there that just have factions and soldiers with different type of guns.

Also, you could use "magical energy" to enhance weapons as long as you have a scientific reasoning behind it, it would be rational.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Develop a new alignment system. This was discussed on a previous thread (I don't recall which one).

Current systems for conflict resolution allow for everything the PCs might encounter in such a game. The real "meat" would be in flavor text, setting and storyline.

I would suggest adding small elements of science fiction. Put the setting 50 years in the future. This allows for interesting twists on the current political climate while keeping it limited to non-mystic action. Plus, the science elements wouldn't get out of hand while also allowing for some new Kewl Powerz - like "Juicers" (drug enhanced supersoldiers), bionic implants and private space vehicles.

What would the role of the UN be? China? Is the war on Islamism still creeping along? Does man have moon colonies? Has man landed on Mars? These are all important questions to answer if you choose that near future setting, especially if the game is to be geared toward epic level conflict.

I like D10 and percentile systems the best - Like White Wolf and The 1st edition Legend of the Five Rings. "Leveling Up" seems absurd to me. But I do understand that D20 is more marketable. Plus, if I can suspend disbelief enough to pretend that I am a Werewolf or a Shugenja, I suppose I can overcome leveling up in a D20 system.

Hmm... I just noticed the reference to dragons after writing the previous paragraphs. What is the setting you have planned?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It was discussed here previously. I've been doodling around with a way of making the D&D Alignment system consistent with the Objectivist ethics and epistemology, you're welcome to take a look at what I've got so far (I attached the Word document).

I really don't think there's anything else you need to change in ANY gaming system to make it rational, just take the forced Altruism out. Calling a fantasy game Rational d20 is not going to bring you a lot of subscribers. I'd go along the lines of making it a mystery game where the idea is to solve problems via rational thinking rather than the more typical "kill monsters, get loot, repeat".

Featherfall, you should really check out Mutants and Masterminds 2nd Edition. It's the simple straightforwardness of d20 without the stupid level-up shyte. They do, sort of, retain levels, but they do not work at ALL the way they do in any other d20 system.

Personally, what I'd like to see is a game where you start with ALL the abilities you are ever going to get, and they just get slightly better as you go along. It's no fun having to wait forever to get the thing that you want to do.

Rethinking_Alignment.doc

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I may need to read some of the ways this would apply to a game before making a judgement. I think Objectivist ethics don't mesh well with the Law vs Chaos/Good vs Evil system. It looks to me as if combining the two blurs the distinction between the two axes. The new definition of Law vs Chaos seems to be a function of Wisdom and Intelligence.

What about Good vs Evil as you've defined it and Self-Interested vs Altruistic?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I take it you mean a d20 system without magic or supernatural beings. There are other RPG games out there that just have factions and soldiers with different type of guns.

Also, you could use "magical energy" to enhance weapons as long as you have a scientific reasoning behind it, it would be rational.

In order to make the system work I will need to make some compromises. You ever heard the term "supension of disbelief"? It refers to fictional work. Magic is one of them. How do you suppose I could pull of dragons without magic? A creature that large could not fly without the aid of magic. Also without magic they could not breath fire. Without those abilities and their other magical and supernatural abilities they are not dragons but rather intelligent dinosaurs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Develop a new alignment system. This was discussed on a previous thread (I don't recall which one).

Current systems for conflict resolution allow for everything the PCs might encounter in such a game. The real "meat" would be in flavor text, setting and storyline.

I would suggest adding small elements of science fiction. Put the setting 50 years in the future. This allows for interesting twists on the current political climate while keeping it limited to non-mystic action. Plus, the science elements wouldn't get out of hand while also allowing for some new Kewl Powerz - like "Juicers" (drug enhanced supersoldiers), bionic implants and private space vehicles.

What would the role of the UN be? China? Is the war on Islamism still creeping along? Does man have moon colonies? Has man landed on Mars? These are all important questions to answer if you choose that near future setting, especially if the game is to be geared toward epic level conflict.

I like D10 and percentile systems the best - Like White Wolf and The 1st edition Legend of the Five Rings. "Leveling Up" seems absurd to me. But I do understand that D20 is more marketable. Plus, if I can suspend disbelief enough to pretend that I am a Werewolf or a Shugenja, I suppose I can overcome leveling up in a D20 system.

Hmm... I just noticed the reference to dragons after writing the previous paragraphs. What is the setting you have planned?

I'm not sure if changing the alignment system is permitted. I know some parts cannot be edited.

It's a fantasy setting... that's all I've decided for now. I've only just come up with the idea a couple of days ago and I wanted some advice from people here.

Personally I think the d20 System is the best sytem I've encountered and I prefer a level based system, so I'm using that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think Objectivist ethics don't mesh well with the Law vs Chaos/Good vs Evil system. It looks to me as if combining the two blurs the distinction between the two axes.

You might have heard of the D20 Modern game. Modern does away with the traditional Good/Evil - Lawful/Chaotic alignment system and opts instead for an "allegiance" system. The characters must choose three things they are loyal to and list them in order of importance. For example, a police man might choose "Law, Good, Police Force" while a mercenary would pick "Self, Money, Employer".

I've been GM'ing a Modern game for a few months now and played for many more months prior to that with a different group and I think the allegiance system works very well. It allows for much more freedom of action because it can be more specifically tailored to a character's intended personality.

My only disappointment with Modern is that it doesn't include the races introduced in D&D and focuses exclusively on humans. However, since both rule systems are similar it's not very difficult to "import" the D&D races into the Modern game, as I've done.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You might have heard of the D20 Modern game. Modern does away with the traditional Good/Evil - Lawful/Chaotic alignment system and opts instead for an "allegiance" system. The characters must choose three things they are loyal to and list them in order of importance. For example, a police man might choose "Law, Good, Police Force" while a mercenary would pick "Self, Money, Employer".

I've been GM'ing a Modern game for a few months now and played for many more months prior to that with a different group and I think the allegiance system works very well. It allows for much more freedom of action because it can be more specifically tailored to a character's intended personality.

My only disappointment with Modern is that it doesn't include the races introduced in D&D and focuses exclusively on humans. However, since both rule systems are similar it's not very difficult to "import" the D&D races into the Modern game, as I've done.

Good point, the d20 Modern game does have what I think is a better alternative to the alignment system. The System Reference Document for d20 Modern are online remember, so you should take a look at this Kane.

You can for instance choose an Allegiance to one or more Beleif Systems (which could include a philsophical system), Ethical Philosophy:

This describes how one feels about order, as represented by law and chaos. An individual with a lawful outlook tends to tell the truth, keep his or her word, respect authority, and honor tradition, and he or she expects others to do likewise. An individual with a chaotic outlook tends to follow his or her instincts and whims, favor new ideas and experiences, and behave in a subjective and open manner in dealings with others.
- d20 Modern System AllegianceReference Document.

And there are allegiances to Moral Philosophy:

This describes one’s attitude toward others, as represented by good and evil. An individual with a good allegiance tends to protect innocent life. This belief implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of other creatures. An evil allegiance shows a willingness to hurt, oppress, and kill others, and to debase or destroy innocent life.
- d20 Modern Allegiance System Reference Document.

OK, as it is presented in SRDS and the books raises a few problems, but it would not too much tweaking to make it a passable system. Change the definition of good to take out the altruism for instance, and I think you could have a good system here. This is what I am doing for my d20 Modern based game, currently given the patch-up name of Techscape until a I decide on something better and further develop the concepts involved so that I can know what might be more fitting.

Edited by Prometheus98876
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good point, the d20 Modern game does have what I think is a better alternative to the alignment system. The System Reference Document for d20 Modern are online remember, so you should take a look at this Kane.

You can for instance choose an Allegiance to one or more Beleif Systems (which could include a philsophical system), Ethical Philosophy:

- d20 Modern System AllegianceReference Document.

And there are allegiances to Moral Philosophy:

- d20 Modern Allegiance System Reference Document.

OK, as it is presented in SRDS and the books raises a few problems, but it would not too much tweaking to make it a passable system. Change the definition of good to take out the altruism for instance, and I think you could have a good system here. This is what I am doing for my d20 Modern based game, currently given the patch-up name of Techscape until a I decide on something better and further develop the concepts involved so that I can know what might be more fitting.

Get them onilne? I already have them on my pc. I'm not sure that system is what I'm looking for. More scope than the alignment system, yes (which is over simplified for my liking) but not quite qhat I want. b it doesn't quite appear to have the right sort for what I am looking for.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've done some more work on the system and here are some of the changes so far:

- No divine spellcasting.

- No gods (except in people's delusions).

- No Use Magic Device Skill.

- No alternate Planes.

- No extra planar beings.

- Rangers are no longer spellcasters.

- Clerics now get their power from within themselves.

- No paladins.

- Removed a few divine based prestige classes.

- A lot of edits to dragons.

- Removed old dragon types in favour of seven new ones.

- Renamed Dragon type to Draconic Beast type.

- True dragons simply referred to as dragons now.

- No Knowledge (planes) skill anymore.

- Made it so fiends and celestials live on material plane (only plane).

I have quite a few more changes planned that are related to these edits and some that are not related. Some of these are:

- Edit clerics to remove divine abilties and replace them with non-divine ones.

- Balance the ranger's loss of spells.

- Include new knight core class.

- Include new dabbler core class.

- Edit a few monsters.

- Make dire animal a template.

- Edit half-dragon, half-celestial, half-fiend, fiend and celestial templates.

- Introduce an alternate ability score point buy system.

- Introduce new synergy bonuses.

- Introduce new skills.

- Introduce new feats.

- Introduce new monsters.

- Introduce new prestige classes

- Introduce new spells

- Alter spells.

- Remove a few spells.

- Edit assassin and dragon disciple prestige classes.

- Remove and replace alignment system (if that's legal).

- Include more ways to gain experince (including training).

Also dragons will play an important role in the setting and be one of the main sources of reason.

I feel I should clarify that the system and setting are fantasy based.

Edited by DragonMaci
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What about Good vs Evil as you've defined it and Self-Interested vs Altruistic?

For Self-interested vs. Altruistic you have to know the intentions and motivations of the person carrying out a specific action, wheras the point of alignment is only to describe their actions. It is very easy to tell if someone is trying to get away with saying that reality is something other than it is, while it's often nearly impossible to tell if a person is motivated primarily by selfishness or altruism in a given instance. A selfish but benevolent person may donate money to charity, while an altruistic person may refuse to do so because it's good for people to suffer.

With the present alignment system it's very hard to know if a Lawful Good or a Chaotic Good (or a Neutral good!) person is the epitome of virtue, whereas with the way I've changed it a Lawful Good person is very obviously the top of the pyramid and a Chaotic Evil one is very obviously at the bottom. In between there are subtle shades and nuances . . . a Lawful Evil person is more effective than a Chaotic Evil one, while a Chaotic Good person with intellectual authority may do more damage than either of those.

If you assign a number to each of the labels on the two axes like so: the highest = 3, the lowest = 1, you'll note that LG = 6, NG and LN both = 5, CG, LE, and NN all equal 4, CN and NE both equal 3, and CE equals 2. The ones with equivalent numbers are about equivalent in moral stature, but they differ in their methods. That's the continuum of alignments.

It might help you to see the difference if I assign some names to the various positions, so I'll give it a try here:

Objectivists (LG), the more ideological kind of Libertarian (NG), Pacifists (CG)

Most political "Moderates" (LN), Pragmatists (NN), Multiculturalists (CN)

Anarchists (LE), Socialists (NE), Communists (CE)

I'll be happy to explain why I chose the groups I did if you're interested. Alignment is very difficult to assign to a group, but generally very easy to assign to an individual.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's irrelevant now that I have made my own system that is more complex and covers more variations.

Here's a little detail:

- I've done away with the alignment system all together.

- It's called the Philosophy System.

- I got the idea from d20 Modern's Allegiance system, though that wasn't to my liking so I made a system all of my own.

- I intend to enhance it by adding more detail.

I have attached the dcument with the system, which right now is not Open Game Content since it is still being developed.

Please don't quote the entire post directly above yours--JMeganSnow

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For Self-interested vs. Altruistic you have to know the intentions and motivations of the person carrying out a specific action, wheras the point of alignment is only to describe their actions.

While the original alignment system was a guide to both morals (Good/Evil) and patterns of behavior (Law/Chaos), I think alignments are best used as representations of a character's moral standards only, which in turn offer a rough guide for action. This seems logical to me. Every nuance of each character's potential actions (out of a possibly unlimited number of characters) can't be jammed into a simple x/y matrix. It seems appropriate for allignments to be moral codes because they serve to manage unlimited concrete actions.

An axis that describes allegiance to metaphysical laws steps on the Wisdom attribute's toes. It makes a chaotic person seem to have a low Wisdom score, and a Lawful person a High Wisdom score (maybe I am missing something?).

My personal preference is to flesh out character behavior outside of the alignment system, and have a two-axis morality system. Alignments seem more important to the antagonists that are made "on the spot" that might get a chance to evolve into larger story elements. A PC's or important NPC's motives should be clearly fleshed out before hand.

But they can be useful, so...

I am fond of D10 systems (probably due to the ease of statistical analysis), so I would put either 5 or 10 points on each axis. But 3 would do in a pinch, and would be more consistent in a D20 system.

The first axis would be the “values axis” of Self-Interest/Altruism, the second would be the “force axis” of Benevolence/Malevolence (good/evil). If this were put in the traditional D20 style, the seven possibilities become:

Selfish Benevolent (SB)

Benevolent B

Altruist Benevolent (AB)

Morally Neutral (MN) Pragmatist? Chaotic? Ethically Vacuous?

Selfish Malevolent (SM)

Malevolent (M)

Altruist Malevolent (AM)

SB: These characters hold their lives as the supreme value and will not violate the rights of another intelligent being. These characters are the cream of the moral crop. Not the best place for Paladins, Clerics and Rogues, but still possible.

B: Non-valuers that would not initiate force against another intelligent being. Caravan guards that spend their money on gambling and drinking would fit here.

AB: This type of character holds some other being, idea or group as their highest value, but would never initiate force in pursuit of that value. Paladins and Clerics of good deities are usually placed in this category. A Fighter who swore allegiance to a good king might fight here. Rogues would have a hard time.

MN: This encompasses a large number of different character types.

Characters that hold no value in high regard and may only be interested in base survival fit here. For this reason they will usually simply coast through life via the easiest rout, while not pissing in other people’s cheerios, doing good if it will help them get by. However, when their wellbeing is threatened they will commit malevolent acts to ensure survival.

This alignment can also be used to describe people who will act in malevolent ways but will not take it to the extreme, like a noble who protects his people but is willing to force them off of their homes to mine the ore underneath.

Monks that vow complete neutrality would fit here also, but might be better as B or (M) if they have sworn to uphold some other principles as well.

While not typically great for Clerics and Paladins, most other classes fit here.

SM: These characters hold themselves as their highest value and are willing to take actions to better themselves at the expense of others. Any character class could take this alignment, but Paladins and Clerics are rare.

M: Non-valuers who will take malevolent action to pursue their range-of the moment goals. Brigands or scoundrels who spend their money gambling and drinking would fit here.

AM: These characters devote themselves to a group or cause and will initiate force to achieve their goals. Evil characters of all types fit here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well the system I have made is basically an evolution of the d20 alignment system and the d20 allegiance system. it is however unique. Also far superior to both as far as I am concerned. it does not go into moral specifics but rather ways of thinking or philosophical types rather than philosophical specifics.

Please don't quote the entire post directly above yours--JMeganSnow

Edited by JMeganSnow
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is your game set for epic level adventure? And I don't simply mean 20+ character levels, but world-shaking PC driven action? Or, is it more geared toward the traditional heroics? I've found D20 has difficulty supporting the epic stuff - it doesn't have many mechanics for political influence and such.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is your game set for epic level adventure? And I don't simply mean 20+ character levels, but world-shaking PC driven action? Or, is it more geared toward the traditional heroics? I've found D20 has difficulty supporting the epic stuff - it doesn't have many mechanics for political influence and such.

You don't need mechanics in order to that, only imaginations, since it is plot device not something for rules. So in other words, no I don't have nor will I have rules for it. Besides I have no idea how to make that sort of rule, so I'd be best not to try.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The first axis would be the "values axis" of Self-Interest/Altruism, the second would be the "force axis" of Benevolence/Malevolence (good/evil).

Interesting. I was trying to keep the familiar terminology, but I don't think for any good reason. In fact, there's a good reason to scrap it: it's more obvious that you've changed the referents.

Is your game set for epic level adventure? And I don't simply mean 20+ character levels, but world-shaking PC driven action? Or, is it more geared toward the traditional heroics? I've found D20 has difficulty supporting the epic stuff - it doesn't have many mechanics for political influence and such.

They recently came out with an auxillary sourcebook (I saw it in Barnes & Noble, but can't remember the name, it's something like "Lords of Battle") for handling epic-scale battles and so forth, with many units, terrain features, etc. Sadly, I think D&D has reached a sort of Book Critical Mass where I don't bother to buy them any more (my ex still has mine, in fact, I just have the regular old PHB). Only if I were considering a campaign in a specific setting would I buy the book, they are just too expensive.

You don't need mechanics in order to that, only imaginations, since it is plot device not something for rules. So in other words, no I don't have nor will I have rules for it. Besides I have no idea how to make that sort of rule, so I'd be best not to try.

Read Ron Edward's article System Does Matter.

d20 does NOT handle narrativism well, so you DO need rules for pretty much anything you want to undertake. The only question will be whether the GM will a.) avoid the situation, b.) make up rules on the fly, or c.) stretch existing rules to cover the situation. d20 has the benefit of everything being set down and drawn out, but this unfortunately means that if you encounter something that isn't in the rules there's no real methodology for handling it.

I think d20 is pretty much flat-out gamist, with a few simulationist aspects at very early levels when your characters still resemble "real" people in most respects. Shortly thereafter it becomes pure gamism.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting. I was trying to keep the familiar terminology, but I don't think for any good reason. In fact, there's a good reason to scrap it: it's more obvious that you've changed the referents.

I think there are good reasons to stick to accepted terminology. If I was playing with Objectivists, I would prefer my system. But I have really only role played with two Objectivists, and they live in a different time zone now. When playing with other people, it is probably better to stick with terms that they are familiar with. Most of them wouldn't take kindly to an entirely new alignment system that they might see as arbitrary.

They recently came out with an auxillary sourcebook (I saw it in Barnes & Noble, but can't remember the name, it's something like "Lords of Battle") for handling epic-scale battles and so forth, with many units, terrain features, etc. Sadly, I think D&D has reached a sort of Book Critical Mass where I don't bother to buy them any more (my ex still has mine, in fact, I just have the regular old PHB). Only if I were considering a campaign in a specific setting would I buy the book, they are just too expensive.

I used to play games like Warhammer and Warhammer 40,000. If you've got the miniatures and the time, it is really fun and transfers well into an epic RPG. I like White Wolf's World of Darkness because they have rules for contacts and influence. But sometimes narration is best.

I'll try to check out the "Lords of Battle" thing.

Most RPGs do oversaturate. The best marketing research is done with actual sales. So they spend extra money on potentially useless books to see if they make a hit. If something hits big, they spend extra time on it during the next edition.

I think d20 is pretty much flat-out gamist, with a few simulationist aspects at very early levels when your characters still resemble "real" people in most respects. Shortly thereafter it becomes pure gamism.

Rules often matter, but like I said earlier, sometimes narration is best. A lot of people get caught up in the "How Many Dots Are On My Sheet?" game, so publishers cater to them. If the GM/DM/ST is good, they will be able to get away with a more role playing and less roll playing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...