It took me a while to find my way back here. On retrospect, I want to comment on a few of Jim's items from the OP.
JimLotFP wrote:* Magic saving throws modified by Charisma. It's the force of personality, not intelligence, that powers this stuff!
I know it's kind of heresy, but of all the quibbles I have with D&D, the biggest is the ability list. There really should be proper abilities for Willpower and Perception. Something about lumping both hand-eye coordination with reflexes and balance has always rubbed me wrong. Agility should be split off from Dexterity. And I'd even consider combining Strength and Constitution into one stat, like Might or Toughness.
Admittedly, it would take some work to rebalance these abilities. Using Charisma for magic saves makes sense just to make Charisma more valuable to most players. But using the concept of "force of personality" to bridge willpower and charm seems like forcing things, to me.
JimLotFP wrote:* Encumbrance should affect initiative in some way. Different encumbrance levels using difference dice is one option but I fear might complicate things. "for every encumbrance dot roll an extra die for initiative, use the lowest of the bunch" might work?
I have some initiative and encumbrance rules that I'd like to share with you here. It's just an extension of LotFP rules that I run at my table.
Every character has an Initiative score. This is equal to Dexterity (well, Agility) modifier plus Fighter levels, plus one for a leveled character.
In big fights, we don't roll. We just run down from high to low. In fights with four or less combatants, I may have each one roll 1d6 and add to their Initiative. The uncertainty creates tension, but 1d6 is a limited uncertainty. Die size is entirely season-to-taste, here.
I got rid of the idea of Dexterity modifiers to AC. In place of that, I added benefits to having a higher Initiative. If your Initiative is higher than an opponent that you choose to attack, then you get a +1 to you attack. If you instead hold back your action till a later segment, then while you are holding your action, opponents with a lower initiative get -2 to attack you. If you held your action, though, you lose the initiative attack bonus even if you decide to attack a slower opponent.
In practice, this is a fast system of resolution, and the consequences of gaining and losing initiative feel about right. It has an effect that is worth considering, and it feels natural, but it doesn't disturb the balance and usual roles of different statistics.
How does encumbrance come into play? I use LotFP encumbrance mechanics, and characters must subtract an amount from Dexterity (Agility at my table) proportional to encumbrance level.
JimLotFP wrote:* Not original, but all weapon damage is d8, with the "roll twice, take the lowest/highest" for certain kinds of weapons.
I see you're digging on the whole bonus/penalty die mechanic. The funny thing is, that's how I houserule different task "difficulties" for skill rolls in LotFP (i.e. roll 2 or 3 dice, and keep the lowest/highest). As GM, I like having big qualitative jumps in difficulty level.
JimLotFP wrote:* Also thinking that by expanding the skill list a bit, we could give Fighters and Magic-Users some skill points to play with while also giving Specialists more points so it's still their thing without maxing the existing skills up faster. Very unsure about this one because it makes NPC statting more complicated and I want to avoid that.
I'm against giving skill points to other classes. But then again, I'm on record as being multiclass-friendly. I really like how LotFP highly differentiates each class. DCC does that, too, but in a very different way that makes multiclassing infeasible. I'd rather you found a way to permit multiclassing. That way, it becomes a lot easier to homebrew your own paladin or ranger (or buccaneer or witch hunter).
I do really like adding new skills. I almost doubled the skill list for my game. Here are some of my additions:
Animal handling (for riding, calming, training, caring and packing of animals)
Business (for getting good deals, and also for appraising potential treasures)
Deception (forgery, disguise and sucker-punching (like a sneak attack to the face))
First aid (stabilize someone in critical condition, give a poison victim another saving throw, etc.)
Lore (history and the humanities in general)
Mysticism (understanding of magical matters; Magic-Users automatically progress in this one)
There are a couple of others, but these are probably some of the most reasonable for general FRPG situations.
JimLotFP wrote:"Explorer" itself being dishwater-dull as a name...
It beats "Specialist" ;-)
JimLotFP wrote:My problems with those conceptually... yes, the art will be all "1600s western European-focused" in the main rulebooks. It's what excites me and what I think of in my game. Buuuttt, "Fighter" "Magic-User" "Specialist" are themselves universally applicable. If you want your campaign to be Aztec-based, Ottoman-based, Mughal-based, Edo-based, Tokugawa-based, Ming-based, whatever, then those three classes are still applicable. "The ass-kicker, the mystic, the misc. skills."
Not so much "Witch-Hunter" or "Conquistador/Buccaneer".
I really agree with this sentiment, and I feel that these classes are a poor fit. I would be concerned that more than just your contributing writers would feel that a specific setting was de rigeur. If you can fit multiclassing into your paradigm, I think any need for these kinds of ultra-specific classes disappears.
The concept of class is a bit of an odd one. Classes are supposed to be archetypes, so multiclassing can feel like a violation of that. But a proliferation of setting-specific sub-classes was a plague on D&D even back towards the end of 1ed. Remember thief-acrobats and kensai? Remember barbarians, cavaliers, and a dozen other ways to say "Fighter"? With sane multiclassing, you don't have to come up with a new potentially game-breaking set of rules every time one of your players watches a movie and gets an idea for a new cool archetype.
I've been persuaded recently to handle experience very simply. Players level up every X number of sessions of play. I've done a bit of work to balance the basic three classes, without going crazy (more skills and skill points for Specialists, slower spell-casting for Magic-Users), and now they all use the same session-based scale. It works for my group...they couldn't care less about XP incentivization.
JimLotFP wrote:Not only thought about but long ago decided: Demi-humans and Clerics will go in the appendix, firearms to the main portion of the book, and Cleric spells folded into the MU spell lists.
Sounds good to me! My game has three classes. The Cleric has always seemed like a weird fit, better as an NPC. If you design them as such, I think they make great allies and antagonists when you don't have to worry at all about balance. To the extent that I have them in my games, they are just another flavor of Magic-User.
And I have NEVER liked the idea of playable elves and dwarves (as classes or races). Especially not the Tolkienesque approach.
JimLotFP wrote:That's kind of the point. One thing I hate about the modifiers is they eliminate the lower possibilities. It's why Strength doesn't modify damage, because doing 1 point of damage should always be on the table.
I think this is a really insightful point. It's one reason that it's very difficult to implement "realistic" mechanics for armor to reduce damage without ending up in some very skewed situations. I found a workable mechanic, though. Characters have an AC representing how big a target they are and how fast they are moving. Armor coverage increases this, regardless of armor type. So a full suit of leather has the same AC as a full set of chain (18). A roll above the base HC (Hit Class) for a target (12 for man-sized combatants) but under the AC has the damage reduced by the armor's Protection. This value ranges from two (leather) to five (plate), with the middle ground being reserved for light and heavy mails.
The usual AC mechanics work for man-vs-man situations, but they seem silly when dealing with giants and dragons and such. When those guys hit you, you're still going to take damage through any protection. It seems pretty weird that plate armor can completely deflect the danger of a huge dragon's claw swipe, whereas the reality is that it should be barely more protection than that paper gown they give you in the hospital.
Another way to do it would be to use the DCC dice chain for damage reduction. This could reduce the amount of stats to track, and retain that concept of minimal damage. Or even use the same mechanic you were talking about for weapon damage, with penalty dice for armor. Thick armor could have you rolling 5d8, keeping the lowest die.
Well, them's my thoughts. I hope you find something interesting in this mess.