KhorasForum

I would like to come back on some specific points of the David's speech.
Globally I agree with him on most of them. I really think that he points out some basic problems of D&D or RPG in general.

I am fondamentally opposed to the XP system. As David said, it allows to improve skills that were not used in the game. I use a system of characters evolution strictly based on the utilisation of a competence (you say "skill" in english?). Each time you have a success in a competence, you "tick a box" (I don't know how to say...) corresponding to this competence. After a certain time (at the end of a travel, an adventure...) you can try to improve each skill. The number of success represent the chance you have to obtain +1 (over 20) in the competence. For example, 5 successes means 5 chances over 20 to increase the skill. If you pass this test, your ticks are erased and you recommence. If you fail, you keep them until the next test (the next scenario). As each competence is treated separatelly, you only improve your skill in the domain you really use. That's the basic system I found in an old French game. It's very simple, but I have never found it in another game, and I have never found a better system in any other game.

Concerning the HP system, I think that the problem comes from the evolution of the HP max with the character level. But this evolution is the basis of the heroic game style. In a lot of games, max HP (or life point, or fatigue point, or...) are constant. If you are skilled, you have more chance to dodge attacks, but if you fail you will be wounded like a beginner. The blade will cut your flesh exactly the same way.

About situationnal modifier, I remember of a ridiculous scene. I played a young boy (8 years old) and I wanted to put an unconscious guy (90 kg) in a wagon. My DM asked me a strengh test with a modifier of -15 (over 100) only. My character wasn't very strong but I was "lucky" and I succeeded. It was completely stupid . He should have given me a modifier of -60 at least. I often ask to my DM to be generous with their situationnal modifier, positive and negatives ones. Some of them are cautious and stay between -30 and +30 (over 100). In my mind, it should rather be -100 (practically impossible to succeed) to +100 (practically impossible to fail).

That was my 2 eurocents   

   First of all, I have to say that I'm positively surprised . I'm not very aware of the RPG world, news, favorite games and things like that. But I was said that beyond Atlantic ocean, D&D was worshipped like a saint game . And I'm very happy to see I was wrong, because I don't like this game

   About the difference between generic systems and specific system, I agree with what Kristian said. But I found their is other deep problems. A system is always balanced and adjusted in order to obtain a specific game style (more magic, more diplomatic...). For example, if magic is powerful in the rules, it will make a magic-oriented game (obvious). If you want to build a generic system, you will enconter numerous problems of game balance because of what happens in the real life. The game style we wat is not always coherent with the real life. Then you will be obliged to force upon several points and eventuelly your game doesn't look like what you wanted.
   I don't know if I'm clear because it's not clear in my mind . Some examples can help :
It could be fun to have a world where a guy can bought broadsword and rapier. And their isn't a great difference between the sword era and the rapier era. But in the fact, someone with a rapier will win without a doubt again someone with a so heavy weapon. In a few time, everybody (above all, all players) should buy rapiers and your game will not be like you wanted. And problems are more important if you compare some weapons more different (like spears vs tanks). That's why I prefer a system dedicated to a specific technologic/magic/other level. You know what you have, and you can adjust the balance of the game as you wish.

Hello!

   I'm new on this forum  but I'm already fan of the World of Khoras (I will introduce myself later if you want). In fact, my opinion on this delicate topic is not the same as yours . I deeply prefer a solution 50/50 with very powerful true gods and with "new" lesser gods.
   I see several arguments (relevant or not, you choose) in favor of this situation in comparison with a situtation with "only" true gods.

- Less powerful new gods are not equivalent to less powerful true gods. Some people may prefer them because they come from their land, their nation, their race, etc... And it explains why true gods have few interraction with the real world. New gods would be closer to human and want to help (or control, or kill...) them.

- In the same way, it could cause conflicts between old "wise" and new "ambitious" gods. It can also explain that new gods want to be worshipped and act clearly in the world.

- It is more original : most of other stories speak about omnipotent gods, creating worlds and influencing civilisations. New gods bring somethings different in this scheme. Khoras is quite particular, why doing something classical? (ok, that's vile flattery )

- New god existence do not implie that a simple human can become god. The "human" could be not really human, for example a powerful spirit who wants to access to godhood by incarnating a human body. In my opinion, it removes a killing point of the new gods concept : the fact that anybody very important (great emperor or wizard) should become god.

- Some guy may try to found their own religion, even if there is nothing behind. I agree that this argument is less strong. It's possible if only true gods exist, but it is made easy with new gods.

   I think all these reasons leads to a larger game potential. That's why I'm not for a solution without true gods. And I don't like the solution with only new gods (it was very surprising when I first red the Ithria gods description). But I think that a mix of true and new gods could be very good.