More detailed notes
Hey Mark,
So, I just had office hours, which I used as an opportunity to read the system thoroughly. I took three pages of notes... Some of my previous comments I realize aren't applicable, now that I've read more closely. Keep in mind that my job for several years involved looking at documents kinda like this one, so I've got a lot of specific comments, and they're all meant from MY take. I tried to say a LOT of things like 'why is it this way' that are from my general take on rules, and so take 'em with a grain of salt. What I mean is, I tried to ask questions - I dunno if you have the answers or not, but several of my comments aren't complaints, but pointing-stuff-out that I think about in a system quite a bit.
I didn't look for any typos - there are a couple that struck me, though. Not bad! The language is tight, flows well, and more than for most first-editions gets its point across clearly and well.
But first, I have some MAIN points:
The world-sytem stuff and mechanics-system stuff are all co-mingled. Which is fine, if YOU are the target audience, but if this is eventually for publication I'd split it up. Stuff on races, night-time penalties, monsters, religion, etc. in a second volume. Just an idea for the future.
Some of the places focus on playability, and some on realism, and some on balance. I'm more play then real or balance, and want a minimal rule-set, but that's a personal preference. However, some of the rules are fast-n-loose, and some focus on realism, and some on system-balance. I've found that the more rules there are, the harder balance is to attain; I think your system hits it pretty good, and mostly what I'm suggesting here is to keep ideas of balance/playability/realism at the front when looking at the basics of a system.
That's also why I'd do 20s-always-good - streamline the mechanics so the play is easier.
Yeah, and I said my piece on stats vs skill points, and making the skill-point pool appropriate, and etc.
Finally, I'd make up several characters, and then use them LIBERALLY througout the rules as examples. You've got the two guys jumping the mage - so roll them up and put 'em in the back. If this ever goes out in the world, I'd consider using one of the example characters for EVERY rule or nuance. If it's just for us, though - we'll figure it out. And this is really an end-stage comment, like fleshing out the spells.
Okay. Some specifics, in order as I went through:
Agility doesn't modify missile fire. Should it?
"Checks unique to Strength"? Why? What if I was trying to . . . juggle, or something?
Funny language in the negative-hp-for death text. It took me a few reads to see what you were saying. It's correct, just awkward. Maybe "13 endurance means down to -6 the character is unconcious, and dies at -7". The first read through I thought the math was wrong...
Dodge: There's a system by Steve Jackson games, that started as Melee and Wizard, turned into The Fantasy Trip, and now is the foundation for GURPS. It's ALL stats, baby, like your combat stuff. Which is fine, but I'm not sure it'll be balanced, with the additional Skill Point structure. Like I said, I'm gonna make some barbarians and put 'em in a box to make 'em fight, so I'll see if I can break combat. But having stats THIS important to fighting - hp, target to-hit number, bonuses from ST, AND skill points - seems too much, somehow.
Great strike can be used twice per day. Why? (I mean, for balance, of course...) This kind of thing always feels artifical to me - maybe change it so there's penalties, or weaken it, or have it be some sort of holy ability or something? I dunno. But uses per day seems to weird. Maybe have a minimal time between uses? That satisfies both the realism and balance, and wouldn't take that much away from playability.
Healing. Takes one round? Wo. So fast! And the healer's skill or int doesn't affect the target number, just the target's endurance? Hmmm. Are there any benefits to resting under the care of a healer (like, a bonus hp back for a night's rest)? The language about uses (one per day, but sometimes a second) is a little awkward. Is two the maximum? Is one the maximum? I think I see what you mean, but the text isn't clear.
Health points. Hmmm. Again, I'll see how combat works. It seems lethal, which is fine, but the more lethal a system, the fewer rules there should be, I think. If I'm spending five hours thinking about game mechanics (above and beyond character background and stuff) ... you know what I mean? But, I'll try to break it this weekend.
Mages and Armor? Why? I mean, full plate, sure, but leather and chainmail? I'd look really hard at this - the original restrictions were to keep fighters and mages in balance, but that explanation doesn't mean so much with the great expense of skill points a mage costs. Just something to think about. Can priests use swords? Same issue, from 1st edition.
Mages to 8th, Clerics to 6th? Why? Having the same limit cap for both helps to keep mage and cleric spells balanced, and this restriction seems more artifical than it might be worth.
Parrying can't use daggers? What about the Main-Gauche, a dagger specifically designed for parrying? Well, I guess I'd just buy a short-sword and do the same thing.
Priests cost 35. Mages cost 40. This doesn't seem like enough of a difference to make it meaningful - and the kind of thing that when I look at a system, makes me think the rules are pickier than I like. Are you expecting munchkin gamers? Then make priest signficantly cheaper than mage - maybe even half, and inflict some sort of sphere-of-influence on the priests. Are you expecting gamers like me, who if I want to play a priest am going to spend the skill points to make the character I want? Then make priest cost the same as mage, and leave the diety restrictions up to the player/DM. Priests are one of the trickiest parts, because of the HUGE amount of role-playing and DM hooks here, on top of the system stuff. Blast-um mages are easier to deal with than the more fluid priest spells!
Increased cost for circles? Hmmm. I guess you need to, with skill points ramping up per level. But then cheap things get cheaper, kinda - a fifth level guy has an easier time learning fishing than a first-level guy?
Unarmed seems like it tries to pack too much in to one skill - the ability, the # of attacks, the bonuses to hit and damage done. Maybe make unarmed just like a regular weapon - same advancement and shit as Weapon Mastery, and another skill tree for Kung Fu (or whatever) that ramps up the damage dice?
Non-mastery penalty for weapons? Hmm. It always felt like everyone should suck equally at everything they weren't trained it, so instead of a penalty, give everyone no bonus with any weapon except the trained ones. You know? Penalizing everyone might as well be no penalty.
Armor making: if I've got a smithy, and the materials, and a couple of months, do I need to make a check to make that ring mail? Maybe a minimum skill for making the shit, with checks made only for special stuff (like a rush job, or working in Fred's garage, or a crazy enameling job).
If my armor gets hit in combat, how do I repair it? Is armor-making also armor-repair?
If I want to know what spell is coming in, what do I roll? Arcane and Spellcraft both seem like library-research type skills. Paul's got a skill called 'Awareness' that seems like it'd be a good addition - sort of like 'spot', but for magic shit.
Backstabbing and flanking rules? Facing sucks, and really, flanking does too. It adds a lot to realism, loses a bit for balance, and sucks donkey for playability. I'd add some damage bonuses for a backstab, too - but that's just me.
The die roll for damage absorption seems too harsh, especially with the hefty penalties to dodge. If I was a high-level character, even with the armor skill maxed out plate mail seems like a bad option. But it worked really well in the world for a long, long time - pretty much the time between steel and gunpowder. I dunno if the rules just need tweaking, or rehauling entirely, but it don't seem right. I'll have some more specifics after I do barbarian fights.
Bows and x-bows have longer ranges than you have listed, I'm pretty sure. And does the way the dodge score work make sense for missile weapons? Maybe a new set of rules for missile fire? That seems like a beast, any way you cut it.
How do magic weapons work? What's it mean to have a +1 sword? +1 chainmail? I could see many different kinds of +1 armor; +1 to everything, or +1 just to dodge penalty, or +1 to damage abosrbed, or...
d10 for init?
In your example for a critical hit, you say that a crit 'doubles the dice'. Your example doubles more than the (2-7 becomes 4-14). Does a crit double all damage, or just the weapon's base, and then the ST and skill mods, or figure out the damage, and then double it?
Recovering HP is harsh. It's realistic, sure - except that hit points aren't really realistic to start with. I'd give everyone at least one hp back every day - the system's lethal enough. If I want to fuck my adventurers over, I'll give them a disease or something.
Encumberance rules suck any way you slice it. Me, this is something I'd put in an appendix - although you have the words about 'usually adventurers will be appropraitely encumbered'. But I've found that encumberance rules slow down the play and make things less fun, and as a DM if I think a PC is too loaded down, I tease the player until they change their equipment (and the other PCs back me up). "Dude, your character is wearing THREE SWORDS and has 200 arrows. Really? And what's this - a barrel of honey? Hmmm. Well, we'll just call your character the pack mule. Make a check versus braying, everyone."
Mages have spells per day, and that is both the number of spells in their head, and the number they can cast per day, right? Why? I mean, this is the opposite of a complaint, but there's a lot of ways to go here, and I'm curious as to why this one? It might just be 'line drawn in the sand', which is fine, and this reduces rules and bookeeping and shit.
Do priests have to memorize? An example might help. I didn't know if they had essentially a full spell-book, or essentially every spell in their heads, if you see what I mean (from the mage spells).
Minor timeportation is listed in the example as 2nd circle, but the spell description as 3rd.
In the priest magic section is a part cut-n-pasted from the mage magic ('Acquiring hermeneutic magic...')
Finally, I'd add some sort of CR to the monsters. Again, this is a Later-Time comment, and some decisions need to be made before hand, but if I make any monsters I'm going to have a target PC level I want that monster to challenge. I usually base the monster on the actual party I'm running - maybe thinking of four PCs, one mage, one priest, one tricky-thiefy mundane, and one meaty-beefy mundane, with average skills and abilities and shit - what level does the minotaur challenge? What does it mean to challenge - one fight and sit down? Five fights before resting? There's a lot of background for this kind of ranking, but it REALLY helps game mastering.
Yup. That's a BUTTLOAD of comments, I know. Game systems are fun!
So, I just had office hours, which I used as an opportunity to read the system thoroughly. I took three pages of notes... Some of my previous comments I realize aren't applicable, now that I've read more closely. Keep in mind that my job for several years involved looking at documents kinda like this one, so I've got a lot of specific comments, and they're all meant from MY take. I tried to say a LOT of things like 'why is it this way' that are from my general take on rules, and so take 'em with a grain of salt. What I mean is, I tried to ask questions - I dunno if you have the answers or not, but several of my comments aren't complaints, but pointing-stuff-out that I think about in a system quite a bit.
I didn't look for any typos - there are a couple that struck me, though. Not bad! The language is tight, flows well, and more than for most first-editions gets its point across clearly and well.
But first, I have some MAIN points:
The world-sytem stuff and mechanics-system stuff are all co-mingled. Which is fine, if YOU are the target audience, but if this is eventually for publication I'd split it up. Stuff on races, night-time penalties, monsters, religion, etc. in a second volume. Just an idea for the future.
Some of the places focus on playability, and some on realism, and some on balance. I'm more play then real or balance, and want a minimal rule-set, but that's a personal preference. However, some of the rules are fast-n-loose, and some focus on realism, and some on system-balance. I've found that the more rules there are, the harder balance is to attain; I think your system hits it pretty good, and mostly what I'm suggesting here is to keep ideas of balance/playability/realism at the front when looking at the basics of a system.
That's also why I'd do 20s-always-good - streamline the mechanics so the play is easier.
Yeah, and I said my piece on stats vs skill points, and making the skill-point pool appropriate, and etc.
Finally, I'd make up several characters, and then use them LIBERALLY througout the rules as examples. You've got the two guys jumping the mage - so roll them up and put 'em in the back. If this ever goes out in the world, I'd consider using one of the example characters for EVERY rule or nuance. If it's just for us, though - we'll figure it out. And this is really an end-stage comment, like fleshing out the spells.
Okay. Some specifics, in order as I went through:
Agility doesn't modify missile fire. Should it?
"Checks unique to Strength"? Why? What if I was trying to . . . juggle, or something?
Funny language in the negative-hp-for death text. It took me a few reads to see what you were saying. It's correct, just awkward. Maybe "13 endurance means down to -6 the character is unconcious, and dies at -7". The first read through I thought the math was wrong...
Dodge: There's a system by Steve Jackson games, that started as Melee and Wizard, turned into The Fantasy Trip, and now is the foundation for GURPS. It's ALL stats, baby, like your combat stuff. Which is fine, but I'm not sure it'll be balanced, with the additional Skill Point structure. Like I said, I'm gonna make some barbarians and put 'em in a box to make 'em fight, so I'll see if I can break combat. But having stats THIS important to fighting - hp, target to-hit number, bonuses from ST, AND skill points - seems too much, somehow.
Great strike can be used twice per day. Why? (I mean, for balance, of course...) This kind of thing always feels artifical to me - maybe change it so there's penalties, or weaken it, or have it be some sort of holy ability or something? I dunno. But uses per day seems to weird. Maybe have a minimal time between uses? That satisfies both the realism and balance, and wouldn't take that much away from playability.
Healing. Takes one round? Wo. So fast! And the healer's skill or int doesn't affect the target number, just the target's endurance? Hmmm. Are there any benefits to resting under the care of a healer (like, a bonus hp back for a night's rest)? The language about uses (one per day, but sometimes a second) is a little awkward. Is two the maximum? Is one the maximum? I think I see what you mean, but the text isn't clear.
Health points. Hmmm. Again, I'll see how combat works. It seems lethal, which is fine, but the more lethal a system, the fewer rules there should be, I think. If I'm spending five hours thinking about game mechanics (above and beyond character background and stuff) ... you know what I mean? But, I'll try to break it this weekend.
Mages and Armor? Why? I mean, full plate, sure, but leather and chainmail? I'd look really hard at this - the original restrictions were to keep fighters and mages in balance, but that explanation doesn't mean so much with the great expense of skill points a mage costs. Just something to think about. Can priests use swords? Same issue, from 1st edition.
Mages to 8th, Clerics to 6th? Why? Having the same limit cap for both helps to keep mage and cleric spells balanced, and this restriction seems more artifical than it might be worth.
Parrying can't use daggers? What about the Main-Gauche, a dagger specifically designed for parrying? Well, I guess I'd just buy a short-sword and do the same thing.
Priests cost 35. Mages cost 40. This doesn't seem like enough of a difference to make it meaningful - and the kind of thing that when I look at a system, makes me think the rules are pickier than I like. Are you expecting munchkin gamers? Then make priest signficantly cheaper than mage - maybe even half, and inflict some sort of sphere-of-influence on the priests. Are you expecting gamers like me, who if I want to play a priest am going to spend the skill points to make the character I want? Then make priest cost the same as mage, and leave the diety restrictions up to the player/DM. Priests are one of the trickiest parts, because of the HUGE amount of role-playing and DM hooks here, on top of the system stuff. Blast-um mages are easier to deal with than the more fluid priest spells!
Increased cost for circles? Hmmm. I guess you need to, with skill points ramping up per level. But then cheap things get cheaper, kinda - a fifth level guy has an easier time learning fishing than a first-level guy?
Unarmed seems like it tries to pack too much in to one skill - the ability, the # of attacks, the bonuses to hit and damage done. Maybe make unarmed just like a regular weapon - same advancement and shit as Weapon Mastery, and another skill tree for Kung Fu (or whatever) that ramps up the damage dice?
Non-mastery penalty for weapons? Hmm. It always felt like everyone should suck equally at everything they weren't trained it, so instead of a penalty, give everyone no bonus with any weapon except the trained ones. You know? Penalizing everyone might as well be no penalty.
Armor making: if I've got a smithy, and the materials, and a couple of months, do I need to make a check to make that ring mail? Maybe a minimum skill for making the shit, with checks made only for special stuff (like a rush job, or working in Fred's garage, or a crazy enameling job).
If my armor gets hit in combat, how do I repair it? Is armor-making also armor-repair?
If I want to know what spell is coming in, what do I roll? Arcane and Spellcraft both seem like library-research type skills. Paul's got a skill called 'Awareness' that seems like it'd be a good addition - sort of like 'spot', but for magic shit.
Backstabbing and flanking rules? Facing sucks, and really, flanking does too. It adds a lot to realism, loses a bit for balance, and sucks donkey for playability. I'd add some damage bonuses for a backstab, too - but that's just me.
The die roll for damage absorption seems too harsh, especially with the hefty penalties to dodge. If I was a high-level character, even with the armor skill maxed out plate mail seems like a bad option. But it worked really well in the world for a long, long time - pretty much the time between steel and gunpowder. I dunno if the rules just need tweaking, or rehauling entirely, but it don't seem right. I'll have some more specifics after I do barbarian fights.
Bows and x-bows have longer ranges than you have listed, I'm pretty sure. And does the way the dodge score work make sense for missile weapons? Maybe a new set of rules for missile fire? That seems like a beast, any way you cut it.
How do magic weapons work? What's it mean to have a +1 sword? +1 chainmail? I could see many different kinds of +1 armor; +1 to everything, or +1 just to dodge penalty, or +1 to damage abosrbed, or...
d10 for init?
In your example for a critical hit, you say that a crit 'doubles the dice'. Your example doubles more than the (2-7 becomes 4-14). Does a crit double all damage, or just the weapon's base, and then the ST and skill mods, or figure out the damage, and then double it?
Recovering HP is harsh. It's realistic, sure - except that hit points aren't really realistic to start with. I'd give everyone at least one hp back every day - the system's lethal enough. If I want to fuck my adventurers over, I'll give them a disease or something.
Encumberance rules suck any way you slice it. Me, this is something I'd put in an appendix - although you have the words about 'usually adventurers will be appropraitely encumbered'. But I've found that encumberance rules slow down the play and make things less fun, and as a DM if I think a PC is too loaded down, I tease the player until they change their equipment (and the other PCs back me up). "Dude, your character is wearing THREE SWORDS and has 200 arrows. Really? And what's this - a barrel of honey? Hmmm. Well, we'll just call your character the pack mule. Make a check versus braying, everyone."
Mages have spells per day, and that is both the number of spells in their head, and the number they can cast per day, right? Why? I mean, this is the opposite of a complaint, but there's a lot of ways to go here, and I'm curious as to why this one? It might just be 'line drawn in the sand', which is fine, and this reduces rules and bookeeping and shit.
Do priests have to memorize? An example might help. I didn't know if they had essentially a full spell-book, or essentially every spell in their heads, if you see what I mean (from the mage spells).
Minor timeportation is listed in the example as 2nd circle, but the spell description as 3rd.
In the priest magic section is a part cut-n-pasted from the mage magic ('Acquiring hermeneutic magic...')
Finally, I'd add some sort of CR to the monsters. Again, this is a Later-Time comment, and some decisions need to be made before hand, but if I make any monsters I'm going to have a target PC level I want that monster to challenge. I usually base the monster on the actual party I'm running - maybe thinking of four PCs, one mage, one priest, one tricky-thiefy mundane, and one meaty-beefy mundane, with average skills and abilities and shit - what level does the minotaur challenge? What does it mean to challenge - one fight and sit down? Five fights before resting? There's a lot of background for this kind of ranking, but it REALLY helps game mastering.
Yup. That's a BUTTLOAD of comments, I know. Game systems are fun!
posted by Dave @ 6:27 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home