Five by Five RPG

I do agree entirely that new dice mechanics are great. It is something that shows me that a designer is serious about creating something new. Creating something new has always been something that I respect in designers.

But I disagree that not liking universal games is that people are lazy. For me it's always been that games that have a setting can be more streamlined to do its job better.

I'd just rather play a game that does it's own thing great, than something that does everything alright.

That's just my opinion on the matter.

The quite helpful page of potential attributes was an intelligent design choice. Providing information about the lightning wielder certainly makes the picture more apt and gives an inkling of how the supernatural might be modeled in this system. Now we just need to see a bit more about how one would design and build such things.

It would seem to be a sort of a zero sum game - gain lighting, lose the ability to use metal objects. Would there be a pair of lists to chose from, or is this going to be a more complex process - repeating the weak trait/strong trait of characters?

Is the sample character from the game you're running? How is that going, and what do your players think of the system?

(yes, my humor is that esoteric)

There is a fine line between hobby and obsession. I seem to have lost sight of it some time ago.

Thanks for the feedback... It was my hope that the Lightning Wielder example rules would serve to make the picture more appropriate in the context of the document and that it would demonstrate to players how the rules might be easily manipulated to handle new situations.

No, the character isn't from my game... I just made it up to go with the picture. The game we are playing has been using the FABLE rules (the link to that document appears in the main post above,) but I do think that "Five by Five" has enough "meat" to it at this point that I could use it comfortably in place of FABLE with my group.

The FABLE rules have been serving this group really well. They are a detective agency in modern day New York who have fallen upon cases of an "occult" nature. The plan is to do a sort of "Angel" (of Buffy the vampire slayer) in New York kind of game. It's been a lot of fun, but we've only played two games and both of these with FABLE.

I want to switch to Five by Five because I think the transition will be easy and that my game will be just as much fun. As far as I know, FABLE isn't supported in any way. There is no contact information for the author and I haven't found any other materials based upon the game. That's the main reason I saw a need for "Five by Five" because I liked FABLE but wanted my own version ... one that I could continue to support and share with others.

Also, I am not sure I like the way combat works in FABLE. It's one roll to tell who hit whom and how much damage was done by both sides... we did this in our last game and it works... but it's different than what I am used to... and sometimes the "flow" of the combat required a bit of extra "interpretation" from all of us as players.

In this regard, Five by Five differs greatly from FABLE in that my game expects a more structured exchange between the combatants in a skirmish. These rules choices are pretty "old school" they may date me, but I prefer a more structured combat model. To my mind, this makes Five by Five a better game. I guess I will know for sure after we actually start playing using the Five by Five rules.

This is my plan for the game in December. I foresee the coming months of game play having some effect on the "Five by Five" rules document. At the very least I will share character examples within the work and maybe a sample adventure.

Thanks again for the response. The RPG Lab has provided me with invaluable support and feed back. Thanks all!

Regards,

Jeff Moore
http://www.1km1kt.net/Jeff-Moore.htm

Ya, I have yet to find a RPG system that is truly universal.

The Hero System is great for Champions, but doesn't quite translate as well for non-superhero genres.

The Chaosium system works fantastic for Call Of Cthulhu, but falls flat for Elric Of Melnibone'.

And GURPS had excellent source material, but a pretty weak basic system. TWERPS was it's superior!

About the only system that I did think got the universal thing right (or at least got close) is the Palladium system. The game Rifts demonstrated that it could be quite a flexible system.

I have a universal percentile system i've been meaning to flesh out, but that is a rare exception for me. I mainly like a specific genre assigned to one of my RPGs, as well as an unofficial rule of making a new system for each RPG I make. It's more fun of a challenge for me that way.

Anyway, good luck with this 5x5 system of yours, Jeff.

Peace, Errin : )

http://www.1km1kt.net/Errin-Famiglia.htm

Adventuria Online RPG

I'm not a big fan of rules lite games. The whole point of rules is to make the game easier to run by providing judgments and abjuration of arguments. If anything, I find "simple" games harder to run because you need to stop and make decisions or debate a point.

That said, I think you got 5x5 right. It certainly doesn't feel like reused fantasy system with the specific names filed off - the game can stand for any setting. My major problem with this type of setup is addressed by the borderline trait rule - players can meet halfway in arguments about whether an ability applies or not. The new table of probabilities earns high marks in my book as well.

Your use of the artwork strikes me as a bit questionable - it doesn't really underline the theme. The archer might have made sense next to the paragraphs about combat - but near the probability table its just a non sequiter. Given that there is not magic system (aside from the potential to have normal stats with special outcomes - but thats only implied)the woman with lightning bolts doesn't quite fit either.

Running with the 5x5 terminology, perhaps you could start with a picture of a radio on the cover. Continue a theme of circuit boards and vacuum tubes throughout. A soldering iron and test kit next to creating a character, transmission towers/amplifiers next to level and experience.

While I prefer genre specific over universal rule sets, Fuzion struck me as a decent system.

There is a fine line between hobby and obsession. I seem to have lost sight of it some time ago.

Thanks for the feedback ... about the art ... I actually had the same thoughts about the "radio" art ... but I couldn't find any decent clip art that I liked ... I put the art in that I did because I thought it was attractive, and it was free, and available ... not a "great" reason, I know... but as a "universal" system anything should be applicable.

Thanks for the thoughts about the system. I have been running "Fable" for a group of mine and it plays well. "Five by Five" is close enough in flavor, spirit, and approach to "Fable" that I hope to "switch the group over" next time we play. Part of the reason for using such a system is that the rules-package itself is easily digestible by the group. D&D is good for this as the "system everyone knows" but one of my players had never played D&D. I liked Fable because as a twenty page print out, I could give everyone a copy to keep and we were up and running instantly.

In a small friendly group, systems that keep the rules "loose" work well for me. Time spent thumbing through a book is replaced by brief discussions by the group. It's both faster and more socially engaging for everyone. I think minimalist systems are fantastic for small role-play intensive gatherings. I wouldn't want it for a larger, more combat intensive group.

In a larger group combat almost has to be a greater focus ... not everyone likes to role-play or does it at the same level ... the bigger the group, the more certain players can get "left out" in the intensive role-play session. But, combat is structured, turn based, mechanical. Everyone gets to play at the same level by design ... so, it has been my experience that "combat intensive" is the way to go in large play groups. For, that ... for combat intensive groups, the more structured, specific and mechanical the game system, the better.

My current group is small and everyone role-plays and plays together well. It's the kind of group a game like "Five by Five" was made for. It is probably my favorite way to play, but finding the right group dynamic for this type of game doesn't happen often. We've only played twice, but I plan to keep this one going for as long as I can. If we do start playing "Five by Five" which is my intention, it will be my first opportunity to utilize one of my game systems in a regular game play environment since "A+ Fantasy." A+ ended up being a pretty evolved game compared to my others so it's my hope that "Five by Five" will follow suit.

Thanks again for the input.

Regards,

Jeff Moore
http://www.1km1kt.net/Jeff-Moore.htm

I rather do like universal/generic systems; and more particularly SIMPLE systems since I don't have enough time to play anything at all let alone complex games. Don't know if multiplying the dice is never-before-seen-mechanic, definitely an interesting idea. Did you invent it just because you can or is there a mechanical advantage to using it in the game? If rolling 2D6 there are 36 possible outcomes. Having 6=0, 11 of these are zero, 12 are 6 or less, 13 are 8+. That gives the untrained folks about a 1/3 chance of accomplishing a task (whereas if a character is not just untrained but "weak" he only has 1/5 chance). If gives standard-issue humans, traits in the 2-6 range, up to 2/3 chance. This would be higher for a highly competent person who has exterior advantages such as sword in combat, proper tools for lockpicking, handy Chilton's manual to repair a vehicle, etc.; it would be lower for a not-so-competent person (better than 1/3 not so good as 2/3). Legendary/superhumans would have much greater chance of using traits successfully - and if all characters are presumed to be able to walk and chew gum at the same time (as opposed to some of us in real life) that would apply to use of legendary/superhuman traits too. E.g. If a trait is "extraordinary perception" then the hero of the TV show "Psych" would be 6+ but you'd have to roll each time to see if he picks up the clue; but Superman using X-ray vision doesn't require a roll at all, it's normal for him and if he doesn't have "extraordinary perception" he might or might not notice a clue even though he saw the clue "normally" with X-ray vision. The foregoing is what you intended?

That's why I'm so happy with it. The base value for all stats is 0. With a "roll under" system like Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay that served as an inspiration for what I'm doing here all "roll under" traits are generated by rolling 2d10 and adding 20... for values from 22-40 with 31 the average. WHFRP is a d% system so a trait of 31 has a 31% chance for success.

As I was working on Five by Five I gridded out all the chances for various die roll results...

On a 6x6 grid of 36 results using my 5x5 die roll mechanic 0 appears on the grid 11 times as I believe you have already pointed out. That's 30.5% to roll a zero... the default "average" trait... the majority of trait increases improve your chance for success an additional 5.5% on average which is not a bad ramp. Any +1 in a d20 system is a 5% bump. The numbers look really good to me when I compare to the other systems I enjoy playing.

I realize the higher you go the less benefit you receive as you hit points where certain number increases don't improve your chances of success at all... but I see this as a benefit really... I think the higher you push your skill values the closer you get to a plateau and the less those improvements mean. It discourages players from pouring too awfully much into a single trait... and I see that as a plus.

Jeff Moore
http://www.1km1kt.net/Jeff-Moore.htm