Latest revision as of 14:07, 24 July 2017

Significant Departures from d20

Although the system we are using - referred to as "t20" - is derived from the d20 System, the similarities between the two are, at this point, only in passing. One of the most significant changes is that we have eliminated free multiclassing: that is, you cannot freely take levels in new classes as you gain levels. This does not mean that you are expected to rigidly adhere to a single class (because as a character grows, it is always possible that they will branch out and try new things) - but it does mean that changing takes time and is an involved process.

There are several paths to take for determining your character's class advancement, which are outlined below.

• The Hero Class: The Hero class is designed specifically for players new to TTRPGs, and has much simpler mechanics and stronger themes that help players new to Trinity learn both the system and the foibles of the setting. That said, while simpler, it is incredibly diverse, and players using it can mix-and-match abilities that effectively come from every other class.
• Single Class: The standard approach to character creation, you simply pick your class and stick with it for the whole of the character's life. While this may sound restrictive, keep in mind that every class represents only a broad archetype, and each class offers many choices to be made to allow you to differentiate yourself from others.
• The Adventurer Class: The Adventurer class is our replacement for multiclassing - while it is a class in and of itself, you select two or three other classes, then progress through them at an increased rate. This increased rate of progression is due to class levels increasing in value quadratically, rather than linearly: the 20th level in a class is simply more valuable than its 10th. As such, adventurers who choose two classes gain effectively 13 levels in both classes, which those that choose three gain effectively 9 levels in each.
• Job Feats: Job feats are a collection of feats that act effectively as a "half-level" of a class; for instance, the Sorcerer feat gives you roughly half the resources that a level in Mage gives a character. Once you have a Job feat, you can take other feats meant for that character type - for instance, if you have Sorcerer, you can take feats that improve your spell access, your mana pool, and can take Metamagic feats. You can only have one Job feat at a time; unlike Adventurer, which keeps all of your choices mostly even, this path fits better for a "primary/secondary" setup, or for a concept that dabbles in something else.

Martial Class Design

That's right, these new ideas are so important they go to the top of the page.

What I'm talking about here is finalizing how martial classes work. Some of the classes have not been well-defined in the past, and others still need a bit of work to fit into my design paradigm. But I think I've finally got the basics. Don't worry if these words don't make sense to you - they make sense to me.

arc	[A] (tim) take action - get aim (some)
brk	[P] (cha) multiple triggers (take damage, deal damage, ???), no maneuvers until triggered
def	[C] (psi) make armor or shield check - gain armor (maneuvers can be used w/o spending armor, but less awesome)
ein	[P] (tec) bad rolls lose maneuver until long rest (pull a muscle, cramps, etc)
flc	[C] (voi) use maneuver - make focus check - if bad roll, gain penalties (get out of rhythm with partner, etc)
kar	[P] (mag) AoOs, automatic refresh (resonance: can use another maneuver off same trigger action, call it "flow")
lnc	[A] (nat) take action - get momentum (all) - lose over time (better: two types of momentum, push and pull)
unf	[A] (blu) take action - make "openings" - can use maneuvers of that opening value or lower, once used locked until make openings again
wld	[C] (div) make strat check - gain gambits - spend gambits on maneuvers

adepts - not allowed classes

mag - brk, flc, kar
psi - arc, flc, wld
tec - brk, def, kar

div - arc, kar, unf
nat - ein, lnc, wld
voi - brk, def, flc

tim - arc, unf, wld
cha - def, ein, lnc
blu - ein, lnc, unf

Older Stuff

Words about things!

Haha, of course we're working on other stuff.

Skills... skills. It always comes back to skills. The d20 skill system is a mess; in Trinity, we've compounded the problem by adding a ton of skills, which further bloats the game and makes individual skill points generally worthless, with the exception of a few skills (Tumble, anybody?).

We're going to fix this. Not by going more specific - nope, by going more generic, and by changing the definition of how skills are used.

Inspiration taken from here (specifically this) and here, because who doesn't love the Alexandrian? And also here, because apparently the Tomes are ridiculously awesome. Also look at this and this. This pdf is also pretty solid.

Overview

Okay, so: skill grades. You have some picks at character creation, whatever, get some skill groups at different grades.

Okay.

Every now and then (how to determine?) you get to upgrade a thingy, so that you feel less small in the pants.

Question - how much can you suck?

Assume rogue seconding Int and a mage. Rogue has +3 Int, Mage has +4.

Rogue is untrained at X skill, Mage is novice.

Rogue - d2+3 [4/4/5]

Mage - d4+4 [5/6/8]

Now let's do same, 1st level mage (Int +4, Novice), 20th level mage (Int +8, Grandmaster)

Lil Mage - d4+4 [5/6/8]

Big Mage - d12+8 [9/14/20]

Okay so in general it will be most unlikely that two members of the same class trained in the same thing will make the higher level guy feel small in the pants.

Let's do the skill point thing.

Lil Mage - d4+4+1 [6/7/9]

Big Mage - d12+8+20 [29/34/40]

Hmm... that could be workable... brings the low-end skills down in DC... hrm.

How do you pick a lock?

Picking a Lock

Troi is an 8th-level learner with the Criminal knack, at Expert, with a Dex +4. So his open lock "damage" is d8+4 [5/8/12] or d8+4+8 [13/16/20].

However, in order to "deal damage" to the lock, he has to "hit" it. This is a skill check... d20 + 4 + 8, so take 10 of 22 [9/21/32].

The lock is a level 10 lock. So it has an AC of... 20, let's say (10 + 1/2 level). According to d20, opening a lock is a full-round action; so it should probably have somewhere in the range of ... well, crap. What do we expect at this point?

A level 10 d20 rogue would probably have... let's see, d20 + 13 + 5, +2 for tools, so a take 10 of 30. So your average 10th level rogue could easily just handle a "good lock" in a round, but pretty much nobody else could at that level. Which means...

Lock has AC. Lock has HP. We're only messing with one-half of this equation.

How do you improve your "skill attack"?

Let's go sim for a minute.

Outside of combat, in a non-threatening situation (ie, no penalty for failure), the DC is irrelevant. If you're looking at a level 30 lock with 250 hp, and you have a d2+2 open lock, you can keep picking at it. Eventually, you'll get it open. Why? Because that's how learning works. We represent that in this game by giving you XP for "killing" a skill challenge. You get xp, you gain levels, you get better at stuff. Yes, picking locks can make you better at killing shit, just like killing shit can make you better at picking locks.

Skill points are attack bonus. Think they have to be. So you put skill points into knacks; that makes your to-hit better. No, that is wrong. You are working to reduce granularity and bookkeeping; spending skill points in this kind of fashion means that you have it back, and brings back class disparity. You don't want class disparity in skills.

How do you make your damage better?

Crap, Other Thoughts

Okay, so you gain your level as a bonus to all skill damage.

To prevent mages from suddenly being able to pick locks simply by virtue of being stupidly high level, the bonus is capped by the die you use. So if you have only a d2, you only get d2+2, even if you're 200th level.

Force Skills

Yay!

• M - Arcana
• P - Psionics
• T - Science
• D - Theology
• V - Nihilism
• N - Geomancy
• I - Futurity
• C - Entropy
• B - Informatics

Trinity Alignment: Philosophy

What is alignment? In traditional D&D, this question - and all those that come after - has been the source of no end of arguments and debates. Over the years, while many can agree on what "good" and "evil" mean, the concepts of "law" and "chaos" are significantly more nebulous. Not to mention that this divides everyone in the world into two opposed camps, with those who refuse to commit often being held in disdain by those on both sides.

This approach is not conducive to trying to model what should be a living world. A more nuanced approach is required. Where D&D has two axes, each with two positions and a "neutral" third, Trinity once used a wheel of five "alignments," opposed to and allied with each other in various ways. However, upon further reflection, this single axis - though more varied than that of D&D - is also not sufficient to model peoples' approaches to life, and so the initial axis - now called the moral axis - has been trimmed down, and a second axis - the ethical axis - added.

Much as with D&D, these two axes are independent of each other. One could just as easily encounter a morally WU, ethically Y person as a morally RG, ethically Y person; likewise, one could encounter a morally UB, ethically O person as easily as a morally UB, ethically K person. It is up to a player to explain how or why their individual character believes what they believe; that said, races have a tendency to encourage particular morals, while cultures trend towards impressing their ethics onto their occupants.

Example: Trolls almost universally encourage their young to work with the tribe, to trust their gut, and to get results at any cost: these are troll morals, and many consider them part of what it means to be a troll, resulting in most trolls having a GB morality. By contrast, the Golgari tribe may encourage imagination and trying new ways of doing things, allowing outsiders to travel through their lands without fear of reprisal, with PK ethics; while the Drakkari tribe may reward those who are steadfast in their beliefs and focus on the problems of the now, with OE ethics.

Naturally, some combinations are trickier to justify than others (and may even result in somewhat inconsistent beliefs and actions: after all, real people often rarely manage to always act in accordance with what they think they believe), but they are all valid.

In addition to the colors, an individual can have insufficiently strong beliefs that they do not claim to participate in any color. Rather than "neutral," these individuals are "unaligned:" individuals who either have not put much thought into how they behave, or that have actively decided to forego determining how they want to live their lives. Some such individuals profess a "neutral" stance, that balance in all things is best and that claiming that one action is right while another is wrong is not conducive to life in a world with so many varied peoples and cultures.

Combining colors for a given axis is sensible, and many people fall into at least two colors. Three colors is somewhat more rare, but is generally a "core" moral framework supported by virtues of its allied colors (for instance, a primarily U morality could also include W and B elements, leading to a three-color morality in support of U). Four-color moralities are all but unheard of, and five-color moralities are almost literally impossible. The same is true of ethics.

We'll now talk about the colors.

Morality

This section discusses the moral colors, and their relationships.

Moral Colors

This section describes the moral colors in more detail.

White (W)

White is the color of law, order, duty, and loyalty. White is also the color of tyranny, of oppression, of dictatorship; White seeks to impose its own moral framework on the universe, which can be good or evil, depending.

White’s allied colors are Green and Blue. White gets along with Green because of its nurturing nature and emphasis on another kind of order (the natural kind) while Blue’s orderly thought processes attract it to a long-standing alliance. White rejects Red’s chaos and impulsivity, as well as Black’s individualism and idealization of the self.

At its best, White is selfless, inclusive, loyal, and hopeful, the color of healing and structure. At its worst, White is judgmental, oppressive, and constricting, the color of blind obedience.

Blue (U)

Blue is the color of intellect, of science and experimentation, of the mind, of pure thought. Blue seeks above all other things to understand, and through that understanding glimpse the true nature of things.

Blue’s allied colors are White and Black. Blue gets along well with White’s devotion to reasonable and orderly conduct, and Black’s devotion to control over oneself and influence over one’s surrounding personalities. Blue rejects Red’s chaos and passion, and Green’s refusal to alter the natural order of things when improvements should be obvious.

At its best, Blue is inquisitive, curious, and celebratory of the glory of knowledge; at its worst, Blue is withdrawn, misanthropic, and detached from emotion.

Black (B)

Black is about the self. Self-empowerment, self-actualization; Black is the color of individualism and self-determination, and actively rejects others’ restrictions on its own potential.

Black’s allied colors are Blue and Red. Black gets along well with Blue’s rationality and pragmatism, and with Red’s passion and joy in life, but rejects White’s imposed order and Green’s sublimation to a different kind of order - the natural.

At its best, Black is ambitious and unashamed. At its worst, Black is enslaving and devouring.

Red (R)

Red is about passion and chaos. Red is the spirit of the flame, those who burn hot, and quick, who throw themselves into everything they do with wild abandon.

Red’s allied colors are Green and Black. Red gets along well with Black’s emphasis on freedom and with Green’s devotion to the natural flow of life, and rejects White and Blue’s impositions of order upon its wonderful, wild existence.

At its best, Red is a celebration of life and love, of the senses, of everything positive in life; at its worst, Red is heedlessly or gleefully destructive, caring only about the joy of the moment with no regard for others or even the self.

Green (G)

Green is on the surface about peace and harmony, and underneath that, about the natural order of things. Green is a believer in life’s beauty; Green is about the birdsong, the earth between your toes, living in harmony with those around you, but it is not often tolerant of those who differ from its own value set.

Green’s allied colors are White and Red. Green gets along well with Red’s devotion to what comes naturally, and with White’s devotion to peace and order; Green rejects Blue’s cold rationality and Black’s devotion to personal greatness over common harmony.

At its best, Green is healing, nurturing, and harmonious; at its worst, Green is stagnant and xenophobic, tearing down anything that alters what it regards as natural and beautiful.

Moral Conflicts

This section gives some examples of the conflicts between the moral colors.

White vs. Black

Morality vs. Amorality: White believes in the existence of a set of moral rules; black doesn’t. In white’s eyes, that makes black evil. In black’s eyes, that makes white foolish. White believes that it is its moral responsibility to destroy black. Black believes it is its responsibility to destroy anyone who wants them destroyed (or anyone who gets in their way).

Light vs. Dark: White is open, honest, and straightforward. White likes having its rules displayed for all to see (and, of course, to follow). Black likes secrecy. Black has agendas. White enjoys the light of day; black enjoys the dark of night. White will use the light to illuminate the evil of black; black will use the dark to corrupt the naïveté of white.

The Good of the Group vs. the Good of the Individual: White values the group; black values the individual. White’s rules (what it calls laws) put the importance of the group over the importance of the individual; black cares only about itself. White will try to impose its laws on black to protect the innocent. Black will defy those laws to protect the rights of the individual – in other words, itself.

White vs. Red

Order vs. Chaos: White believes in the importance of rules. Red hates rules – red just wants to be free. White wants things neat and orderly; red likes things messy and chaotic. White believes that red needs to be reigned in to avoid anarchy, but red believes white needs to be abolished to avoid fascism.

Defense vs. Offense: White thinks the best offense is a good defense. Red doesn’t think that much; red just likes smashing things. White feels a need to protect. Red feels a need to destroy. Obviously, these two agendas clash.

Strategy vs. Spontaneity: White believes that rules always help. Red doesn’t feel a need to think that far ahead… That’s what impulses are for.

Blue vs. Red

Intellect vs. Emotion: Blue embraces intellect, but red embraces emotion. Blue believes that the key to victory is knowledge. Red believes the key to victory is passion. Blue thinks before it acts; red just acts.

Thought vs. Action: Blue is about the coolness that comes with the distance of thought; red is about the heat that accompanies the fury of action. Blue plots. Red acts. Blue plans. Red smashes. Blue anticipates. Red destroys.

Caution vs. Impulsiveness: Blue believes that mistakes come from rushing. Red believes that mistakes come from not listening to your gut. Blue sits and studies; red charges and kills. Blue thinks red is dangerous and must be controlled, whereas red thinks blue is threatening and must be destroyed.

Blue vs. Green

Nature vs. Nurture: Green believes that an individual is born with all his important qualities; blue believes that an individual is a blank slate that can be shaped and formed. Green strives to find the hidden potential inside each living thing: Strength comes from within. Blue believes that potential is created: Any living thing can be trained or taught or changed to become whatever blue wants it to be.

Natural Growth vs. Artificial Growth: Green respects nature and natural growth, while blue respects progress and artificial growth. Green looks at the natural world and sees the essence of life. Blue looks around and sees a series of natural resources ripe for use in its latest experiment. Green wants to protect nature killing anything that threatens it; blue, wanting to further advancement, is nature’s greatest enemy.

Reality vs. Illusion: Green believes in what is; blue believes in what could be. Green’s strength lies in its ability to recognize the value in all living things. Blue’s strength rests in its ability to understand perception. Green threatens you with what you know, while blue threatens you with what you don’t.

Green vs. Black

Organic vs. Intervention: Green is about the natural way. Black is about its way. Green believes that everyone should step back and just let nature do its thing, whereas black believes that it needs to step in and make sure things happen the way it wants.

Growth vs. Decay: Green wants things to realize their potential, and it believes that only through growth will the world’s potential be reached. Black, however, believes that life is a zero-sum game, and that for every winner, there is a loser; in such a world, it seeks to put down others so that it might advance.

Symbiosis vs. Parasitism: Green wants things to live together in harmony. Black wants things to bow at its feet and do what it tells them. Green believes in the interconnection of all living things, and from that interconnection comes strength. Black, meanwhile, sees others as yet another tool it can use to gain the power its craves.

Ethics

Ethical colors.

Yellow (Y)

Yellow is the opportunist. Yellow is fueled by a never ending perseverance. Yellow's goal is to make the best for itself, and it will do anything to make sure it does.

Yellow's allies are Purple and Orange. Yellow is a combination of Purple's drive and Orange's resolve. Yellow will do whatever it must, but it will also be reasonable. Like Purple, it will never quit. But like Orange, it realizes its limitations. Yellow's enemies are Brown and Pink. In Brown, Yellow sees a color that will never do anything for itself. In Pink, Yellow sees a color distracted by the needs of those around it.

At its best, Yellow is vivacious, dynamic and goal-oriented. At is worst, Yellow is petulant, aggressive and short-sighted.

Purple (P)

Purple is the dreamer. Purple is fueled by its imagination and its will power. Purple makes up its own rules as its goes along, never taking no for an answer. Nothing is impossible for Purple.

Purple's allies are Yellow and Pink. In Yellow, Purple sees the same determination and drive. In Pink, Purple sees understanding and support. Purple's enemies are Orange and Brown. In Orange, Purple sees no sense of imagination or creativity. In Brown, Purple sees "the man" who will keep it from its goals.

At its best, Purple is imaginative, free-spirited, and perceptive. At its worst, Purple is naive, capricious, and fragile.

Pink (K)

Pink is the lover. Pink is focused on making the best life possible for its friends and family. Pink wishes it lived in a world with no conflict at all.

Pink's allies are Purple and Brown. Purple is an idealist that will fight with Pink to make it's dreams come true. Brown realizes the importance of the group. Pink's enemies are Yellow and Orange. Yellow only looks out for itself, and does not create any kind of relationships. Orange wants to keep things they way they are, and wants conflict to remain as it is part of the natural order.

At its best, Pink is caring, social, and nurturing. At its worst, Pink is impractical, inactive, and cowardly.

Brown (N)

Brown is the collectivist. Brown's entire philosophy revolves around the group. Everything Brown does is focused solely on the good of everyone.

Brown's allies are Orange and Pink. In Orange, Brown sees a color that will acknowledge the group as being more important. In Pink, Brown sees a color willing to help all of those who need it. Brown's enemies are Purple and Yellow. Both of these colors are driven off of personal wants or gains, which is in direct opposition to Brown's philosophy: in Purple, it sees a color who is willful and headstrong, putting the ideas of one above the many; in Yellow, it sees a color willing to sacrifice anything for personal gain, putting the goals of one above the many.

At its best, Brown is communal, efficient, and patient. At its worst, Brown is dogmatic, far-sighted, and lethargic.

Orange (O)

Orange is the realist. Orange accepts the limitations of its world, and uses them to its advantage. Orange does not want to change or accomplish anything, but rather embrace that which has been given. Orange is small-minded, but strong.

Orange's allies are Yellow and Brown. To Orange, Yellow shows an understanding of the "natural" way. To Orange, Brown shows the successes of a system built within the world. Orange's enemies are Purple and Pink. Purple is a mad man who wishes to meddle in the natural way. Pink, on the other hand, is a "hippie" that must accept reality instead of trying to help everyone.

At its best, Orange is savage, unrelenting, and wise. At itss worst, Orange is conservative, ignorant and stagnant.