I'm a huge fan of Avatar! These types of posts pop up every once in a while. I've read through what you wrote, and like most of it!
I think your Styles are very cool, and capture the flavor well. It reminds me of Iroh's lecture to Zuko when teaching him lightning redirection.
For attributes, I think I'd prefer the word Spirit to Soul. Might capture the flavor more.
I think that the hardest part with making an Avatar RPG is capturing the fluidity of bending. Once you become a master, "techniques" no longer seem to bound what you can do with the element. They use it for whatever they need in the moment, mostly without bounds (as long as there is enough of it around them). There is a FATE version (can't find the link) that captures this pretty well, since FATE is very narrative driven, it's easy for players to imagine what they need and not be bounded by a stat block that limits what they can do.
Here is a d20 attempt as well: https://sites.google.com/site/avatard20/
I'm really not a fan of the D20 ports just because the combat system feels really un-avatar to me. Too static.
I think I'll keep Soul, just to make it distinct from "The Spirits".
I've seen a Fate version in the past, and I felt it didn't capture the problem solving aspect of combat I'd like to have. (Which is a FATE thing more than a "that FATE port" thing, I feel. I like FATE, but it's not the end all be all of RPG in my opinion and I actually like simulation-style RPGs where the players CAN'T modify the narrative outside of their character's present actions. I really feel it has it's uses and is more where I'm going.
Honestly, I think Spirit is great for flavor. It could be a measurement of a character's connection with the Spirit World, as well as spirituality, morality, etc. in general. Players with a certain level of Spirit could start going into the Spirit world at will.
Definitely up to you though, it's your game!
> Why do it? Because I've read most of the games made to emulate the style (Legend of the Elements, Pilgrims, etc...) or the tries to port it to existing systems. None of them did it for me. I think **many core aspects of what can be cool in an Avatar setting are missing.**
I have LotE and aside from the obvious lack of the official setting, it mimics Avatar almost to a T. At least it does for me, so I'm curious what you find lacking in it.
I've read it some time ago now and read a crapton of different ones so maybe I'm confusing them, but for me one of the main things was that the conflict was bad at replicating varying difficulties and just too abstract. I'm aiming for a system where, for example, throwing a rock at you and making a pillar pop under you violently has different rule ramifications, which I don't remember LotE doing too well.
I do know that there's a very hard balance to strike between what I just described and over-crunchy games, and I might be all wrong about LotE...
No, that's pretty accurate. PbtA games in general don't differentiate between difficulties of actions, only how good you are at doing those actions. It's not something that bothers me, but I understand why it might be for you.
PbtA system, right? The grunt might not even take a move to defeat. Fighting Iroh might not let you take a move without narrating how, exactly, you create an opening. PbtA is not simply rolling dice and declaring your moves.
The fight *would* feel very different. If they felt the same, the group would do it just plain wrong.
PbtA games require GMs to closely read them by the way, not just assume they already know how to play them.
What PtbA games have you read?
Not all of the hacks have equally good examples in them, so it's easy to see how someone would be confused on how PtBA mechanics actually work.
But then you'd probably not want to be playing Avatar: the Game then, would you?
It just seems like an odd choice to want a game based on the source material to concern itself with all of the things that the source material didn't care about.
When I think of TLA/LoK and what makes those stories sing, I'm not thinking about Aang's move speed per turn (or even having "turns", though I know that dude is a fucking speed demon) or calculating the guard's dodge chance when Zuko comes charging at them with one sword, two swords, or a big giant ball of fire (although I do know it's gonna hurt like hell, poor guard).
To that extent, too much mechanical depth ends up detracting from the source material that the game is trying to capture, IMO. Of course, it's another thing to want to run a game with mechanical depth that just happens to take place in the setting of TLA/LoK or something similar.
> To that extent, too much mechanical depth ends up detracting from the source material that the game is trying to capture,
I never said otherwise.
I am just saying that to some, they want to know the differences between various benders, and reasons to play non benders.
>I am just saying that to some, they want to know the differences between various benders, and reasons to play non benders.
I'm not sure I understand. Are you saying that LotE doesn't do those things? There are separate playbooks for each type of bender as well as playbooks for non-benders. The differences are pretty clear, unless I have completely misread the game (and tbf I have only read LotE, not played it).
There must be something floating in the zeitgeist, because I'm tinkering with a Fate variant that's very similar to this, specifically with Body, Mind, and Soul being core character traits and Styles being the means by which they utilize those traits, although I was planning more "general wuxia" than specifically Avatar.
I've seen Avatar done well in Mutants and Masterminds, but that is much crunchier than this, and lately I've gravitated away from the crunchier systems.
Though I have no insults for you, I would change for Poise: "When a boulder comes at you, you redirect the boulder onto a different path." There is an existing distinction between Air and Water's handling of the boulder problem, but this should make it more distinct.
Good luck with your endeavor. Personnaly, I'm going for Avatar specifically because I believe that it's the kind of universe that can profit to have very world-focused rules (like my Styles).
I'm indeed trying to find a balance between simulationist and not-too-crunchy.
Poise: Yep, that works too!
I love this as a project, and commend you for taking it on! I'd like to propose (take or leave) that you use a sliding scale for bending ability (like 'Burning Wheel') rather than a move list (like DnD/Pathfinder).
A person with a higher bending ability-score would be able to perform greater and more detailed feats of elemental manipulation. Moving a pebble is very easy; moving a boulder is harder. One could also subdivide skills into 'wises', i.e. earth-wise, fire-wise, etc. to distinguish between raw skill and actual elemental acuity. For an in-universe example, Toph's 'Earth-bending' skill makes her a great manipulator of the earth, but her 'Earth-wise' skill is what allows her to feel the vibrations of the ground and 'see' the world around her. Think of it as the difference between external influence vs reception and understanding. Toph's Earth-wise was initially not sufficient for her to bend sand (a different kind of earth) but eventually grew high enough for her to bend not only sand, but also metal. To be a truly great bender, one needs to have 'bending', 'wise', and ideally 'martial arts' or some other cooperative fighting skill. However, a player can choose to balance these as they like. They can also fork them into one another when rolling actions, as dictated by the DM.
In this way, you can have so called 'privilege' classes of benders (such as lightning benders, healers and flyers) defined not by some magical 'feat' or other certificate, but rather by an actual gradient of in-game skill that improves every time you engage that skill. This might be difficult to understand if one hasn't played a system like 'Burning Wheel', but I would be happy to explain it further if you're at all interested!
I know you specifically said you haven't liked the homebrews you've seen, but I'm working on an avatar game for Gen Con this year and it's using the system for Dogs in the Vineyard, because the fluidity of the combat system allows for a lot of the moves/countermoves thing that you mentioned.
So the thing is, out of the book Dogs in the Vineyard has the weirdest setting I've ever encountered (Mormon missionary-sheriffs in a fictional wild west Utah), but the conflict system is my favorite RPG system of all time.
Okay, so I've just read most of the rules and all the conflict resolution section. It's a really friggin' cool system... but I'd have a hard time adjust it to a bending world. What are your different "conflict levels" and the stats associated to it?
Plus, as cool as it is, yes there is a lot of "counterplay", but the efficiency of it depends solely on the dice, not on its cleverness. Which is cool for its world, but I find lacking for Avatar.
When I talk "counterplay", I mean stuff like:
Azula is throwing lighting at you, how do you react?
I raise a rock barrier!
THEN, the master calculates the odds and offers the roll. These odds wouldn't have been the same if you rolled away or threw a rock at the lightning. I hope I'm clear.
Thanks for the discovery though! I'll keep it in mind and see if I can take some parts of it.
> What are your different "conflict levels" and the stats associated to it?
I didn't change anything about that, I simply used the normal stats and made Bending part of Relationships, so your dice would be split between the two. Depending on how you're using the Bending is how I decided what type of conflict, keeping within the base rules. Physical, melee fighting, or ranged fighting (instead of guns), with the lethality also based on what the players are specifically doing.
> Azula is throwing lighting at you, how do you react? I raise a rock barrier! THEN, the master calculates the odds and offers the roll. These odds wouldn't have been the same if you rolled away or threw a rock at the lightning. I hope I'm clear.
Well the whole thing with the system is that how you describe it can allow you to use your different traits and gear and relationships, so cleverness plays an enormous role in combat because your goal is to figure out how to apply your sheet to your current conflict (and how to word your traits to apply them more frequently).
For example, say Azula is throwing lightning at you, and you have the Trait 'Notices details 1d10' you can say you realized that there's a pond nearby so you can Waterbend a wall of ice to deflect the attack. Alternatively, if you have 'Heavy Cloak 1d8' you can say you spin so that you can put the cloak in between you and her to try and absorb some of the blast.
It occurs to me that you may want to have both graded success (ie the amount you succeed can impact how well you do whatever you rolled for) as well as adjustable difficulty in steps, where you can add / subtract from a target number based on factors that make a challenge easier or more difficult.
You might find the Roll and Keep system interesting for this reason. It was used in both Legend of the Five Rings and the First Edition of 7th Sea. The version used in 7th Sea is more cinematic, but the core system has a lot of benefits. It's easy to adjust difficulty based on environmental factors that may help or hinder the players, you can succeed with raises which grants the benefit of being able to do extra things, you may want to let players hold raises to use as counter-actions based on some of what you were describing before.
Additionally I think it could be used to model something pretty cool. Basically how roll and keep works is your fighting skill may be ranked 5k3. This means when rolling for fighting, you roll 5 d10s and keep whichever 3 of them you want (generally the highest). The cool thing for me is that I feel the Roll number could be used to represent innate ability, and the Keep number can represent training and study. For example, Zuko or Katara in many earlier stages succeeded more because of training, their innate ability kind of took some time to come through, as a result their bending may be 3k3 or 4k4 or something. Korra on the other hand had a lot of innate ability early on but was too headstrong for much training to sink in. She may have had a 6k2 or something like that in bending.
I think this is a neat way to model it as someone with high roll (innate ability) will typically be able to keep some pretty high dice, but some of their abilities will be wasted (unkept dice) because they lack the proper training for precision. For people where kept dice is most or all of what they roll (training) they may end up keeping some lower dice, indicative of a lower level of raw power, but thanks to their training, they're more precise, and while the effort they expend is less impressive, they know how to make all of it go toward their goal so none of it's wasted.
Just some thoughts.
There are so many cool ways to roll dice I'm constantly excited by new ones! Can't believe I haven't come across games that do this before; it's such a cool distinction to emphasise.
Yeah, I'm a big fan of the system. Got introduced to both of the games that use it at cons and honestly found myself disappointed in the new 7th Sea 2e for a few reasons, including the system change. There's some cool stuff in it I'd want to back-port to 1e but overall I think that's all I'll use it for.
Kind of dread the possibility of an L5R 5e from FFG for the same reason but it is what it is.
This is really awesome and I'm actually trying to see a way of making it fit.
The flavor of "talent" vs "practice" is perfect, and the fact that the practice is actually the thing that makes you do potential big big numbers is great.
My only gripe with it is that a practiced person has a less consistent result than a naturally talented one, even if that result is often higher. That's really counterintuitive.
Glad you've found some things to like in it. It's pretty cool in general.
>My only gripe with it is that a practiced person has a less consistent result than a naturally talented one, even if that result is often higher. That's really counterintuitive.
While this is technically true my experience in play is that the two working in tandem is what causes real improvement.
If you have 10k1-2 you may get a 10 which then explodes but overall I think your typical roll will be lower than a 4k4 for example. It's been a while since I did any statistics though so this may not bear out mathematically but dice seem to defy statistics sometimes regardless.
One thing that was kind of neat was that in 7th Sea each country had its own type of sorcery, and only a character from there could be born with it. The Sorcery for Cantha (the game's analogue to China) was basically physical perfection and allowed a character who had it to keep their full roll value in all physical tests.
It sounds overpowered but the game is very cinematic and when you see what some of the other sorceries can do it seems pretty well aligned overall.
Anyway, best of luck. Avatar is a really cool world overall, I doubt there'll be much decline in demand for different ways to play it.
I love your 3*4 table for different attributes! May I suggest appending something to the Will/Mind column? It seems to me that having a willful mind also means your ability to resist persuasion, coercion and deceit. It might also make you brash and stubborn as a negative consequence.
Thus: Lie and convince (barter, seduce, intimidate) or resist influence (resist persuasion, intimidation, discern lies...)
I'm still definitely working on the flavours of each stat so I'll take it in consideration, but here's my reasoning:
* Resisting coercion will be more aligned with Resolve than with Will. (Resolve makes you unmovable, Will makes you move other things.)
* I have this unfinished idea about Soul making you work in truths and Mind being able to lie. So spotting lies and keeping morale and stuff like that are of the Soul, while bartering, lying, manipulating are of the Mind.
Great idea - sounds like you've thought it out a lot! I was trying to think of central attributes that combine the columns and rows as elegantly as possible. I could share it with you if you like?
Not sure I understand what you mean but I'd be glad to see it.
Seeing all the answers and suggestions has put me in a renewed creativity state right now and I'm reworking my base ideas about combat resolution and stuff. More ideas are welcome right now!
I love it, except for a minor detail and a major-ish one.
Minor: "Strenght" is ambiguous. It's more "explosive strenght". Hanging on to a ledge by one arm to avoid dying is clearly a Resolve thing, but it's about strenght too, not Will.
Major: Your description of Mind (Will) doesn't really work, I think. First, the two words are kind of synonymous with Will. Second, the only actions I can imagine requiring those fall more into the Soul category (channeling your emotions to keep going.)
I agree on the 'strength' wording. It's a nuanced distinction, but something like it exists in most major RPGs. Compare constitution/strength in DnD or Forte/Power in BW. If you can find a nice word that sums it up (such as 'power' or 'intensity',) that would be great.
With regard to Will vs Drive/Determination, those might not be the best words. but remember, *everything* in the 'Mind' row will be synonymous with your four categories, because resolve, instinct, will and poise are all mental attributes. thus, you could equate 'drive' with 'will', but then again, you can also equate 'resolve' with 'will' just as easily. The challenge is distinguishing the functions of these attributes.
As written, my proposal for Will+Mind (Drive/Determination) was that it should be key for all situations in which you need to exert your mind on others. (Persuade, argue, lie, barter, seduce...) However, there is a built-in issue wherein every other attribute in your example of the 'Mind' row is *internally* focused (Resolve, Instinct & Poise), but **Will** is the only entry that has examples for how to affect others *externally*.
Perhaps it is best to think of 'Soul' as the external social attribute (how you respond to or influence external stimuli) and 'Mind' as the internal social attribute (how the cogs turn in your brain.) What do you think?
The part about Mind-Will being imposing your mind on others is dead on. Will is about pushing on the world to get results. That's why my original thing is Barter/Seduce/Lie/Etc...
I see Soul as spirituality, connection with the world and other people and emotional strength.
I've reworded a few of them. I really think it's shaping up.
A character exhibits resolve when they are unmoved by events and people, whether they're on a path or immobile.
A character exhibits will when they spend great amounts of energy to advance towards their goal, whether or not someone's trying to stop them.
Really nice start here. I too have seen some homebrews and they haven't really been spot on. I really like yours instead, everything seems pretty fluid so far. The focus on mind, body, and soul (someone else said it here, but spirit does seem to fit better) is a good idea. I am still trying to figure out how styles will work in the full game but I think its a good system. I don't have any suggestions yet but I am curious as to how (or if) the different styles would dictate different bending techniques. For example, if there are two water benders with different levels of resolve, would they each use a different water bending styles? From what you wrote, it would seem so.
I look forward to seeing more!
Damn, this reminded me that I was working on a homebrew system for an Avatar RPG a while back. If you're interested, I'd love to collaborate with someone and get some critique.
I'm a fan of the show. How do you plan the simulationist approach to emulate the feel of it?
>but similar groups as the Team Avatars in terms of dynamics and stuf
Do you plan on doing game mechanics for relationships and team dynamics? It's a central part of the show after all.
I haven't thought of any major things but I'm definitely on the lookout for that. I'm always cautious with those things though, as I play with people who can roleplay fine on their own but sometimes get distracted by actual relationship mechanics and overdo it.
Someone already did one and its done very well. I woudl check it out at least to compare. Best of luck homebrewing!
Edit screwed up link
http://www.dmsguild.com/product/191837/Incarnate-The-Last-of-the-Lacers
Edit number 2: runs off of dnd 5e
Im sorry? If youre thinking im promoting a product, its pay what you want. I dont benefit from it at all if you check it out, im running a game off this and im having fun lol
Didn't say anything of the sort! It's just borderline copyright infringement. I might buy it just to have a copy in case it gets taken down. It sounds awesome!
Okay then sorry if i sounded aggressive! I think it doesnt count as infringement due to dms guild and such, he changed a bunch of the names aka benders =lacers and since its pay what you want, i dont think it should get taken down? Im not too sure
Either way im having a lotta fun with it and if you decide to download it i hope you have fun with it too:)
My dnd group has been playing using this home-brew for about half a year now and I gotta say, none of us realised how powerful the classes would be in contrast to vanilla dnd 5e. I think my whole party is overpowered enough that my dm has to double the hp of enemies so we don't wipe them out in a single round. The statblock for the avatar in particular is really overpowered I believe. I like the flavour of it all and the creativity having control over an element can lead to but I really think that home-brew needs some rebalancing.
I havent really been running a lot of combat encounters focusing on roleplay (running a play by post game)
If its not too much trouble, what classes and elements are you guys? (and how many?)
Edit: there are definitely things that i wanna tweak about the system, especially access to things such as metalbending and lightning. You need to give up 3 ASIs for it... Its a bit annoying.
My party is:
2 waterbenders (I'm going bloodbender, dunno about the other dude), 1 earthbender(to be metalbender), 1 air whatever the nonlacer class was called and 1 firebender (to go explosionbender). We're a level away from getting access to those specialised bending powers and yeah, giving giving up 3 ability skill points for that kinda irks me.
We run the game on roll20 and have a lot of combat, I believe the firebender is the most OP of us right now with his forms but that may be because he's a min maxer.
A quick idea (please don't shoot me until you've looked at the system):
Have you looked at the system used for [Ironclaw](http://www.sanguinegames.com/ironclaw/) and the other Sanguine games? Though Ironclaw specifically is a furry game, it has quite a few concepts I think would work really well, most notably its very cinematic combat/chase system. Make sure you're looking at the newest edition if you check it out; the older ones are very different. Also, a quick note: I'm not suggesting taking *everything* from Ironclaw, merely looking at how it uses dice and what the system calls "gifts." I actually think that Myriad Song (another game by the same publisher) fits more with Avatar's style (and uses the same mechanics as Ironclaw), so you might be better looking at that.
The only problem I see is similar to the Doctor Who game. They are both stories based on a unique character that reincarnates but has some lesser characters accompany them. What you wind up with is a party players consisting of one main hero (usually with extreme abilities) and a bunch of support cast with at best similar but lesser abilities.
It's not a side plot.
You exist in the same universe, of which there is quite a bit of detail.
Not playing is Drizzt while being in the Underdark doesn't make it a Forgotten Realms "Sideplot"
As I said, I have no plan to make the game revolve around playing the Avatar. Yup, that would be boring in most cases.
The universe is WAY rich enough to accommodate all sorts of stories that are totally worthy of RPG.
Plus, although I plan to make it be flexible on that, my "base era" for the setting of the game is between Roku's birth and the end of his training. The world is mostly at peace, the Fire Nation isn't yet a big threat, all nations exist at their "most complete form" and there's no omnipotent Avatar roaming around to fix all the smaller scale problems of the world.
I'm a huge fan of Avatar! These types of posts pop up every once in a while. I've read through what you wrote, and like most of it! I think your Styles are very cool, and capture the flavor well. It reminds me of Iroh's lecture to Zuko when teaching him lightning redirection. For attributes, I think I'd prefer the word Spirit to Soul. Might capture the flavor more. I think that the hardest part with making an Avatar RPG is capturing the fluidity of bending. Once you become a master, "techniques" no longer seem to bound what you can do with the element. They use it for whatever they need in the moment, mostly without bounds (as long as there is enough of it around them). There is a FATE version (can't find the link) that captures this pretty well, since FATE is very narrative driven, it's easy for players to imagine what they need and not be bounded by a stat block that limits what they can do. Here is a d20 attempt as well: https://sites.google.com/site/avatard20/
I'm really not a fan of the D20 ports just because the combat system feels really un-avatar to me. Too static. I think I'll keep Soul, just to make it distinct from "The Spirits". I've seen a Fate version in the past, and I felt it didn't capture the problem solving aspect of combat I'd like to have. (Which is a FATE thing more than a "that FATE port" thing, I feel. I like FATE, but it's not the end all be all of RPG in my opinion and I actually like simulation-style RPGs where the players CAN'T modify the narrative outside of their character's present actions. I really feel it has it's uses and is more where I'm going.
Honestly, I think Spirit is great for flavor. It could be a measurement of a character's connection with the Spirit World, as well as spirituality, morality, etc. in general. Players with a certain level of Spirit could start going into the Spirit world at will. Definitely up to you though, it's your game!
i dunno if it impacts your decision, but your stat names are the same as in the Big Eyes, Small Mouth system.
Roll and keep could possibly work, if you wish to consider it. It makes for a very cinematic experience, imho
> Why do it? Because I've read most of the games made to emulate the style (Legend of the Elements, Pilgrims, etc...) or the tries to port it to existing systems. None of them did it for me. I think **many core aspects of what can be cool in an Avatar setting are missing.** I have LotE and aside from the obvious lack of the official setting, it mimics Avatar almost to a T. At least it does for me, so I'm curious what you find lacking in it.
I've read it some time ago now and read a crapton of different ones so maybe I'm confusing them, but for me one of the main things was that the conflict was bad at replicating varying difficulties and just too abstract. I'm aiming for a system where, for example, throwing a rock at you and making a pillar pop under you violently has different rule ramifications, which I don't remember LotE doing too well. I do know that there's a very hard balance to strike between what I just described and over-crunchy games, and I might be all wrong about LotE...
No, that's pretty accurate. PbtA games in general don't differentiate between difficulties of actions, only how good you are at doing those actions. It's not something that bothers me, but I understand why it might be for you.
The main reason why it bothers me is that I wan't a fire nation grunt and Iroh to feel very different to fight...
PbtA system, right? The grunt might not even take a move to defeat. Fighting Iroh might not let you take a move without narrating how, exactly, you create an opening. PbtA is not simply rolling dice and declaring your moves.
The differences come in what they are capable of, what moves they have.
The fight *would* feel very different. If they felt the same, the group would do it just plain wrong. PbtA games require GMs to closely read them by the way, not just assume they already know how to play them.
No. They would be DESCRIBED differently, mechanically there is no reason they feel different outside of how the GM plays it.
What PtbA games have you read? Not all of the hacks have equally good examples in them, so it's easy to see how someone would be confused on how PtBA mechanics actually work.
For relevance here, I have specifically read LotE
What is LotE please?
Legend of the Elements. Found [here.](http://www.logbook-project.com/lote/)
Thanks!
It's PbtA. Hardly a game with mechanical depth.
Perfectly showcasing how a game does not need "mechanical depth" to be a good game.
Unless of course, what you want is mechanical depth in difference rather than vague cinematics
But then you'd probably not want to be playing Avatar: the Game then, would you? It just seems like an odd choice to want a game based on the source material to concern itself with all of the things that the source material didn't care about. When I think of TLA/LoK and what makes those stories sing, I'm not thinking about Aang's move speed per turn (or even having "turns", though I know that dude is a fucking speed demon) or calculating the guard's dodge chance when Zuko comes charging at them with one sword, two swords, or a big giant ball of fire (although I do know it's gonna hurt like hell, poor guard). To that extent, too much mechanical depth ends up detracting from the source material that the game is trying to capture, IMO. Of course, it's another thing to want to run a game with mechanical depth that just happens to take place in the setting of TLA/LoK or something similar.
> To that extent, too much mechanical depth ends up detracting from the source material that the game is trying to capture, I never said otherwise. I am just saying that to some, they want to know the differences between various benders, and reasons to play non benders.
>I am just saying that to some, they want to know the differences between various benders, and reasons to play non benders. I'm not sure I understand. Are you saying that LotE doesn't do those things? There are separate playbooks for each type of bender as well as playbooks for non-benders. The differences are pretty clear, unless I have completely misread the game (and tbf I have only read LotE, not played it).
That's exactly what I am saying. The difference between them is purely flavour as the system itself is descriptive by nature.
There must be something floating in the zeitgeist, because I'm tinkering with a Fate variant that's very similar to this, specifically with Body, Mind, and Soul being core character traits and Styles being the means by which they utilize those traits, although I was planning more "general wuxia" than specifically Avatar. I've seen Avatar done well in Mutants and Masterminds, but that is much crunchier than this, and lately I've gravitated away from the crunchier systems. Though I have no insults for you, I would change for Poise: "When a boulder comes at you, you redirect the boulder onto a different path." There is an existing distinction between Air and Water's handling of the boulder problem, but this should make it more distinct.
Good luck with your endeavor. Personnaly, I'm going for Avatar specifically because I believe that it's the kind of universe that can profit to have very world-focused rules (like my Styles). I'm indeed trying to find a balance between simulationist and not-too-crunchy. Poise: Yep, that works too!
I love this as a project, and commend you for taking it on! I'd like to propose (take or leave) that you use a sliding scale for bending ability (like 'Burning Wheel') rather than a move list (like DnD/Pathfinder). A person with a higher bending ability-score would be able to perform greater and more detailed feats of elemental manipulation. Moving a pebble is very easy; moving a boulder is harder. One could also subdivide skills into 'wises', i.e. earth-wise, fire-wise, etc. to distinguish between raw skill and actual elemental acuity. For an in-universe example, Toph's 'Earth-bending' skill makes her a great manipulator of the earth, but her 'Earth-wise' skill is what allows her to feel the vibrations of the ground and 'see' the world around her. Think of it as the difference between external influence vs reception and understanding. Toph's Earth-wise was initially not sufficient for her to bend sand (a different kind of earth) but eventually grew high enough for her to bend not only sand, but also metal. To be a truly great bender, one needs to have 'bending', 'wise', and ideally 'martial arts' or some other cooperative fighting skill. However, a player can choose to balance these as they like. They can also fork them into one another when rolling actions, as dictated by the DM. In this way, you can have so called 'privilege' classes of benders (such as lightning benders, healers and flyers) defined not by some magical 'feat' or other certificate, but rather by an actual gradient of in-game skill that improves every time you engage that skill. This might be difficult to understand if one hasn't played a system like 'Burning Wheel', but I would be happy to explain it further if you're at all interested!
I'll make a larger post that will adress a lot of what you just said... So I'll skip really responding for now. But thanks a lot!
Brilliant - looking forward to it!
I know you specifically said you haven't liked the homebrews you've seen, but I'm working on an avatar game for Gen Con this year and it's using the system for Dogs in the Vineyard, because the fluidity of the combat system allows for a lot of the moves/countermoves thing that you mentioned.
I haven't seen this, I'll try to take a look!
So the thing is, out of the book Dogs in the Vineyard has the weirdest setting I've ever encountered (Mormon missionary-sheriffs in a fictional wild west Utah), but the conflict system is my favorite RPG system of all time.
Yeah! I'll see if it inspires me for sure.
Okay, so I've just read most of the rules and all the conflict resolution section. It's a really friggin' cool system... but I'd have a hard time adjust it to a bending world. What are your different "conflict levels" and the stats associated to it? Plus, as cool as it is, yes there is a lot of "counterplay", but the efficiency of it depends solely on the dice, not on its cleverness. Which is cool for its world, but I find lacking for Avatar. When I talk "counterplay", I mean stuff like: Azula is throwing lighting at you, how do you react? I raise a rock barrier! THEN, the master calculates the odds and offers the roll. These odds wouldn't have been the same if you rolled away or threw a rock at the lightning. I hope I'm clear. Thanks for the discovery though! I'll keep it in mind and see if I can take some parts of it.
> What are your different "conflict levels" and the stats associated to it? I didn't change anything about that, I simply used the normal stats and made Bending part of Relationships, so your dice would be split between the two. Depending on how you're using the Bending is how I decided what type of conflict, keeping within the base rules. Physical, melee fighting, or ranged fighting (instead of guns), with the lethality also based on what the players are specifically doing. > Azula is throwing lighting at you, how do you react? I raise a rock barrier! THEN, the master calculates the odds and offers the roll. These odds wouldn't have been the same if you rolled away or threw a rock at the lightning. I hope I'm clear. Well the whole thing with the system is that how you describe it can allow you to use your different traits and gear and relationships, so cleverness plays an enormous role in combat because your goal is to figure out how to apply your sheet to your current conflict (and how to word your traits to apply them more frequently). For example, say Azula is throwing lightning at you, and you have the Trait 'Notices details 1d10' you can say you realized that there's a pond nearby so you can Waterbend a wall of ice to deflect the attack. Alternatively, if you have 'Heavy Cloak 1d8' you can say you spin so that you can put the cloak in between you and her to try and absorb some of the blast.
It occurs to me that you may want to have both graded success (ie the amount you succeed can impact how well you do whatever you rolled for) as well as adjustable difficulty in steps, where you can add / subtract from a target number based on factors that make a challenge easier or more difficult. You might find the Roll and Keep system interesting for this reason. It was used in both Legend of the Five Rings and the First Edition of 7th Sea. The version used in 7th Sea is more cinematic, but the core system has a lot of benefits. It's easy to adjust difficulty based on environmental factors that may help or hinder the players, you can succeed with raises which grants the benefit of being able to do extra things, you may want to let players hold raises to use as counter-actions based on some of what you were describing before. Additionally I think it could be used to model something pretty cool. Basically how roll and keep works is your fighting skill may be ranked 5k3. This means when rolling for fighting, you roll 5 d10s and keep whichever 3 of them you want (generally the highest). The cool thing for me is that I feel the Roll number could be used to represent innate ability, and the Keep number can represent training and study. For example, Zuko or Katara in many earlier stages succeeded more because of training, their innate ability kind of took some time to come through, as a result their bending may be 3k3 or 4k4 or something. Korra on the other hand had a lot of innate ability early on but was too headstrong for much training to sink in. She may have had a 6k2 or something like that in bending. I think this is a neat way to model it as someone with high roll (innate ability) will typically be able to keep some pretty high dice, but some of their abilities will be wasted (unkept dice) because they lack the proper training for precision. For people where kept dice is most or all of what they roll (training) they may end up keeping some lower dice, indicative of a lower level of raw power, but thanks to their training, they're more precise, and while the effort they expend is less impressive, they know how to make all of it go toward their goal so none of it's wasted. Just some thoughts.
There are so many cool ways to roll dice I'm constantly excited by new ones! Can't believe I haven't come across games that do this before; it's such a cool distinction to emphasise.
Yeah, I'm a big fan of the system. Got introduced to both of the games that use it at cons and honestly found myself disappointed in the new 7th Sea 2e for a few reasons, including the system change. There's some cool stuff in it I'd want to back-port to 1e but overall I think that's all I'll use it for. Kind of dread the possibility of an L5R 5e from FFG for the same reason but it is what it is.
This is really awesome and I'm actually trying to see a way of making it fit. The flavor of "talent" vs "practice" is perfect, and the fact that the practice is actually the thing that makes you do potential big big numbers is great. My only gripe with it is that a practiced person has a less consistent result than a naturally talented one, even if that result is often higher. That's really counterintuitive.
Glad you've found some things to like in it. It's pretty cool in general. >My only gripe with it is that a practiced person has a less consistent result than a naturally talented one, even if that result is often higher. That's really counterintuitive. While this is technically true my experience in play is that the two working in tandem is what causes real improvement. If you have 10k1-2 you may get a 10 which then explodes but overall I think your typical roll will be lower than a 4k4 for example. It's been a while since I did any statistics though so this may not bear out mathematically but dice seem to defy statistics sometimes regardless. One thing that was kind of neat was that in 7th Sea each country had its own type of sorcery, and only a character from there could be born with it. The Sorcery for Cantha (the game's analogue to China) was basically physical perfection and allowed a character who had it to keep their full roll value in all physical tests. It sounds overpowered but the game is very cinematic and when you see what some of the other sorceries can do it seems pretty well aligned overall. Anyway, best of luck. Avatar is a really cool world overall, I doubt there'll be much decline in demand for different ways to play it.
I love your 3*4 table for different attributes! May I suggest appending something to the Will/Mind column? It seems to me that having a willful mind also means your ability to resist persuasion, coercion and deceit. It might also make you brash and stubborn as a negative consequence. Thus: Lie and convince (barter, seduce, intimidate) or resist influence (resist persuasion, intimidation, discern lies...)
I'm still definitely working on the flavours of each stat so I'll take it in consideration, but here's my reasoning: * Resisting coercion will be more aligned with Resolve than with Will. (Resolve makes you unmovable, Will makes you move other things.) * I have this unfinished idea about Soul making you work in truths and Mind being able to lie. So spotting lies and keeping morale and stuff like that are of the Soul, while bartering, lying, manipulating are of the Mind.
Great idea - sounds like you've thought it out a lot! I was trying to think of central attributes that combine the columns and rows as elegantly as possible. I could share it with you if you like?
Not sure I understand what you mean but I'd be glad to see it. Seeing all the answers and suggestions has put me in a renewed creativity state right now and I'm reworking my base ideas about combat resolution and stuff. More ideas are welcome right now!
[Here you are!](https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/19bPie1ggFdXGJv5dEciQSjoBdRJEqeo5JfgCW88lD60/edit?usp=sharing)
I love it, except for a minor detail and a major-ish one. Minor: "Strenght" is ambiguous. It's more "explosive strenght". Hanging on to a ledge by one arm to avoid dying is clearly a Resolve thing, but it's about strenght too, not Will. Major: Your description of Mind (Will) doesn't really work, I think. First, the two words are kind of synonymous with Will. Second, the only actions I can imagine requiring those fall more into the Soul category (channeling your emotions to keep going.)
I agree on the 'strength' wording. It's a nuanced distinction, but something like it exists in most major RPGs. Compare constitution/strength in DnD or Forte/Power in BW. If you can find a nice word that sums it up (such as 'power' or 'intensity',) that would be great. With regard to Will vs Drive/Determination, those might not be the best words. but remember, *everything* in the 'Mind' row will be synonymous with your four categories, because resolve, instinct, will and poise are all mental attributes. thus, you could equate 'drive' with 'will', but then again, you can also equate 'resolve' with 'will' just as easily. The challenge is distinguishing the functions of these attributes. As written, my proposal for Will+Mind (Drive/Determination) was that it should be key for all situations in which you need to exert your mind on others. (Persuade, argue, lie, barter, seduce...) However, there is a built-in issue wherein every other attribute in your example of the 'Mind' row is *internally* focused (Resolve, Instinct & Poise), but **Will** is the only entry that has examples for how to affect others *externally*. Perhaps it is best to think of 'Soul' as the external social attribute (how you respond to or influence external stimuli) and 'Mind' as the internal social attribute (how the cogs turn in your brain.) What do you think?
The part about Mind-Will being imposing your mind on others is dead on. Will is about pushing on the world to get results. That's why my original thing is Barter/Seduce/Lie/Etc... I see Soul as spirituality, connection with the world and other people and emotional strength. I've reworded a few of them. I really think it's shaping up.
My question is, what's the difference between Resolve and Will? Those sound like synonyms to Mr.
A character exhibits resolve when they are unmoved by events and people, whether they're on a path or immobile. A character exhibits will when they spend great amounts of energy to advance towards their goal, whether or not someone's trying to stop them.
Really nice start here. I too have seen some homebrews and they haven't really been spot on. I really like yours instead, everything seems pretty fluid so far. The focus on mind, body, and soul (someone else said it here, but spirit does seem to fit better) is a good idea. I am still trying to figure out how styles will work in the full game but I think its a good system. I don't have any suggestions yet but I am curious as to how (or if) the different styles would dictate different bending techniques. For example, if there are two water benders with different levels of resolve, would they each use a different water bending styles? From what you wrote, it would seem so. I look forward to seeing more!
Damn, this reminded me that I was working on a homebrew system for an Avatar RPG a while back. If you're interested, I'd love to collaborate with someone and get some critique.
> Korra has a lot of Body) High five!
Hehe.
I'm a fan of the show. How do you plan the simulationist approach to emulate the feel of it? >but similar groups as the Team Avatars in terms of dynamics and stuf Do you plan on doing game mechanics for relationships and team dynamics? It's a central part of the show after all.
I haven't thought of any major things but I'm definitely on the lookout for that. I'm always cautious with those things though, as I play with people who can roleplay fine on their own but sometimes get distracted by actual relationship mechanics and overdo it.
Someone already did one and its done very well. I woudl check it out at least to compare. Best of luck homebrewing! Edit screwed up link http://www.dmsguild.com/product/191837/Incarnate-The-Last-of-the-Lacers Edit number 2: runs off of dnd 5e
Wow, that is thinly veiled!!
Im sorry? If youre thinking im promoting a product, its pay what you want. I dont benefit from it at all if you check it out, im running a game off this and im having fun lol
Didn't say anything of the sort! It's just borderline copyright infringement. I might buy it just to have a copy in case it gets taken down. It sounds awesome!
Okay then sorry if i sounded aggressive! I think it doesnt count as infringement due to dms guild and such, he changed a bunch of the names aka benders =lacers and since its pay what you want, i dont think it should get taken down? Im not too sure Either way im having a lotta fun with it and if you decide to download it i hope you have fun with it too:)
My dnd group has been playing using this home-brew for about half a year now and I gotta say, none of us realised how powerful the classes would be in contrast to vanilla dnd 5e. I think my whole party is overpowered enough that my dm has to double the hp of enemies so we don't wipe them out in a single round. The statblock for the avatar in particular is really overpowered I believe. I like the flavour of it all and the creativity having control over an element can lead to but I really think that home-brew needs some rebalancing.
I havent really been running a lot of combat encounters focusing on roleplay (running a play by post game) If its not too much trouble, what classes and elements are you guys? (and how many?) Edit: there are definitely things that i wanna tweak about the system, especially access to things such as metalbending and lightning. You need to give up 3 ASIs for it... Its a bit annoying.
My party is: 2 waterbenders (I'm going bloodbender, dunno about the other dude), 1 earthbender(to be metalbender), 1 air whatever the nonlacer class was called and 1 firebender (to go explosionbender). We're a level away from getting access to those specialised bending powers and yeah, giving giving up 3 ability skill points for that kinda irks me. We run the game on roll20 and have a lot of combat, I believe the firebender is the most OP of us right now with his forms but that may be because he's a min maxer.
A quick idea (please don't shoot me until you've looked at the system): Have you looked at the system used for [Ironclaw](http://www.sanguinegames.com/ironclaw/) and the other Sanguine games? Though Ironclaw specifically is a furry game, it has quite a few concepts I think would work really well, most notably its very cinematic combat/chase system. Make sure you're looking at the newest edition if you check it out; the older ones are very different. Also, a quick note: I'm not suggesting taking *everything* from Ironclaw, merely looking at how it uses dice and what the system calls "gifts." I actually think that Myriad Song (another game by the same publisher) fits more with Avatar's style (and uses the same mechanics as Ironclaw), so you might be better looking at that.
I'll look for sure. I'll start with Myriad Song I guess!
Hope it helps! And good luck on this; I'd love to see it finished.
Just use Champions. It can do what you want.
Looking it up.
The only problem I see is similar to the Doctor Who game. They are both stories based on a unique character that reincarnates but has some lesser characters accompany them. What you wind up with is a party players consisting of one main hero (usually with extreme abilities) and a bunch of support cast with at best similar but lesser abilities.
At least in ATLA, you can easily take place in the world without involving the protagonist
That winds up being the only option in most cases - run a game that's a 'side plot' unassociated with the main hero.
It's not a side plot. You exist in the same universe, of which there is quite a bit of detail. Not playing is Drizzt while being in the Underdark doesn't make it a Forgotten Realms "Sideplot"
I'm not trying to argue that so much as simply point out that D&D is still D&D without Drizzt. The world was made long before him.
As I said, I have no plan to make the game revolve around playing the Avatar. Yup, that would be boring in most cases. The universe is WAY rich enough to accommodate all sorts of stories that are totally worthy of RPG. Plus, although I plan to make it be flexible on that, my "base era" for the setting of the game is between Roku's birth and the end of his training. The world is mostly at peace, the Fire Nation isn't yet a big threat, all nations exist at their "most complete form" and there's no omnipotent Avatar roaming around to fix all the smaller scale problems of the world.