Monster "point values"

[Thrawn]

I actually play the american version too. I find heroes seldom hit traps unless they are careless, so it isn't very often a trap actually does any damage, especially in the standard quests where placement usually isn't all that strategic.

[drathe]

Or unlucky... my poor dwarf player never seems adept at disarming pit traps.

[Thrawn]

Most traps can just be avoided. I think the +2 for "unavoidable" is a good addition. I just think of all the 7 point falling rock traps that can add tons of difficulty on paper, but then one search and they are all avoided easily.

[cynthialee]

the search for traps and search for secret doors rules are to generous

[torilen]

That's why I give traps and secret doors and such a Find Rating...as well as a Disarm Rating for the traps.
Heroes have to roll a certain number of white shields on dice, based on their Search Ability...each hero
has a number of dice they roll for searches.

Makes a lot more sense to me. I mean, come on...really devious and intelligent bad guys are going to know
how to hide traps a lot better, and so they'll be harder to find..am I right?

[Thrawn]

I've seen lots of systems to add things like this, every time I've tried one, I decided it was an unnecessary complication to the game and took them back out.

[lorddax]

I think a lot depends on your players and the style of game they are looking to play. I've been looking for an encounter design system because my players are looking for character advancement and investment, which I learned as a D&D GM can quickly lead to players that start wrecking everything you throw at them if you haven't accounted for their growth in your design.

Systems like this push the game more towards the RPG end of the boardgame, which I find can give you many ways to go with keeping your group interested BUT you always have to keep it simple. As a UI designer by trade, one of our golden rules is KISS, Keep It Simple Stupid!

The less work that a player has to do the better a system is working, if the GM has nothing he needs to consult besides the quest book then the system may be work very well.

[Thrawn]

I'm very much on the keep it simple bandwagon as well. I've tried out a number of different advancement systems in the past, and I'm going to be using one in my upcoming HQ campaign with a new group as well. Simplicity is one key. Balance is the other. A couple things I don't let them do is advance their attack or defense dice. I leave those stats to equipment. In the new system, I'm only allowing advancement of body by 2 (dwarf and barb) or mind by 2 (elf and wizard) and everything else comes down to skills.

I'm using point values as a way to sanity check quests before I playtest them. (I have 4 quest packs, 1 ready for playtest, and 3 in the concept development side, and I'm trying to balance them out to make a full campaign set where they build off of each other well for difficulty.)

[el_flesh]

Check out how far Beernut's gone on my saturday night dungeon thread...

[lorddax]

Im reading thru the thread and it seems like your DM has managed to cram D&D into an HQ shoe

I'd love to explore his brain and system as I try to build mine.

My design goals are:
No Chart Lookups in game (GM or Player)
No Character sheets (as a past D&D dm these are the first things to break, go missing, be forgotten, or slow the game down)
Easy Insertion of new players
Easy scalability: for both original components under new system and for adding new modules
Be as simple as possible to allow people to customize for their own needs.