[Playtest] First Look

[ef2718]

I just got my copy, and this is going to be harsh but ...

why bother?

What you have here is bog-standard GM-builds world, players have one character with basic skills that a million other games have. You rool d6 vs d6 instead of d20, but that isn't exciting.

If you took GURPS and took out the advads / disadvads, or took d20 and took out the feats, you'd functionally have you system. Take 'Pocket Universe' and you've got your system, except that 'Pocket Universe' is a lot more flexible. In other words, what you have right now is wimped-out other systems.

There are some pretty 'WTF' rules in here, too. Two really caught my eye from the missile combat part.
1) pg 16, "test ... against ... (Opponent's Speed - Opponent's Health)". The healthier somebody is the easy they are to hit??
2) pg 17 "Firing at Objects" A cockraoch right in front of me would be practically impossible to hit.

+---------------------------------+
What I think you should do:
First, there are gigabytes of free games out there. Go get them. Start with John Kim's pages on darkshire and the resource pages on www.indie-rpgs.com See what other people have done.
Next, if you're planning on moving to Finland, they do so wild weird stuff there. I'd start with 'Beyond Role and Play' http://www.ropecon.fi/brap/ and go nuts.

 

[Jim LotFP]

why bother?

This is a completely fair question and I sat for awhile with my core mechanic and plans for moving forward, reading about Fantasy Heartbreakers before deciding to really move forward with the whole idea. Simple answer is I think I will be able to produce something with a different feel to it than existing RPG systems, thus justifying its existence. I think I can do that without re-inventing the wheel of how to play a role-playing game.

What you have here is bog-standard GM-builds world, players have one character with basic skills that a million other games have. You rool d6 vs d6 instead of d20, but that isn't exciting.

As for 'bog-standard', I think a core rules set HAS to feel that way. It's just a toolbox. Every additional idea that comes after has to build on the core rules, but the core rules is not the sum total of all that can be done with the game... but the core rules need to work by themselves before any whiz-bang stuff can be done with it. And rolling dice isn't so exciting in any event, but I like the idea of 'head to head' rolling instead of rolling versus a static number or the less elegant dice pool ideas.

If you took GURPS and took out the advads / disadvads, or took d20 and took out the feats, you'd functionally have you system. Take 'Pocket Universe' and you've got your system, except that 'Pocket Universe' is a lot more flexible. In other words, what you have right now is wimped-out other systems.

GURPS 4th Edition Basic Set (2 books): $69.90
D&D Core Rules (3 books): $89.85

LotFP Core Rules: $5.00. $15.00 if you don't think it would be complete without magic or monsters.

That's one big difference in philosophy and how it will be 'different', and I don't think the depth of the game will be any less than either of those others.

When you say 'wimped-out', the vibe I'm getting (because you describe the rules as 'x without y') is 'not as much detail' or 'less rules', which is also kind of the point. I'm convinced that my game should (and has in my playing) run faster than GURPS and a *lot* faster than D&D, especially in combat.

Maybe the 'advice' text needs to be completely re-done or something, maybe some of my mechanics aren't doing what I thought they should do, but this game should be very fast paced when it comes to actually doing things with the rules, it shouldn't at all be a combat-munchkin game (which D&D undoubtedly is, GURPS less so but a ton of it is geared towards combat). But that's part of the reason I sent this out... to identify problems with both the mechanics AND presentation.

I haven't seen Pocket Universe personally.

There are some pretty 'WTF' rules in here, too. Two really caught my eye from the missile combat part.
1) pg 16, "test ... against ... (Opponent's Speed - Opponent's Health)". The healthier somebody is the easy they are to hit??

Health is an all-around physical stat counting strength, durability, and physical size. The smaller something is, the less durable it's going to be... and something like a whale is going to be able to endure quite a bit of abuse, yet be pretty easy to hit.

2) pg 17 "Firing at Objects" A cockraoch right in front of me would be practically impossible to hit.

I'm not convinced the average person would be able to take a bow and hit a bug right in front of them, but calling bug shot difficulty 'Herculean' might be a bit much. I'll take a look at this and post in a day or o what I think could be a fix to this.

And now that my attention has been brought to this, perhaps that little chart needs to be rewritten using actual size dimensions and not examples of things that will have their own Speed and Health stats, eh?

What other 'WTF rules' do you see?

First, there are gigabytes of free games out there. Go get them. Start with John Kim's pages on darkshire and the resource pages on www.indie-rpgs.com See what other people have done.

I read the Forge daily. I even have Sorcerer on the way (including the Sorcerer and Sword supplement). Biggest problem I have with a lot of the Forge stuff is the idea that a concept should fit into the rules of the game itself. That drives me up a wall when you can't separate out the rules from what the writer says the character role in the game should be.

Next, if you're planning on moving to Finland, they do so wild weird stuff there. I'd start with 'Beyond Role and Play' http://www.ropecon.fi/brap/ and go nuts.

Downloading now. Will give thoughts later.

 

[Jim LotFP]

"Beyond Role and Play"

Hmm.

First off, I have no interest in LARP. It's only a lack of motivation to argue about it that allows me to accept it as being in the same category as pen-and-paper RPGs. The fact that most of this was directed at LARP made it largely irrelevant to me.

More disturbing was the mountain of opinion buried in academic language, with the idea that big words and footnotes makes that opinion more correct. I could give the same treatment as to why crunchy peanut butter is better than smooth peanut butter.

The 'Battle Against Primitivism' essay was just laugh out loud hilarious. The idea that Vampire was some sort of innovation in gaming in anything other than tone proves that this particular author hasn't got a clue what they're talking about.

"Vampire broadened the scope of role-playing and brought a number of essential elements to the fore, especially social interaction. It did this, however, at the cost of introducing a lot of concepts like story and narrative, concepts foreign to actual role-playing."

There is not one single truth in that quote. Hell, once I actually saw the Vampire game I completely rejected it because of the built-in setting and metaplot. It wasn't about playing vampires... it was specifically about THESE types of vampires in THIS situation. Very limiting.

The idea that D&D was nothing more than a tactical simulator makes me wonder if the author's brain is even working correctly. D&D is not at all limited in its play to just being played as the rules imply (yet never state), yet do not state. I was using the game to create story arcs that had nothing to do with 'kill things and take their stuff' in 1985.

But story is BAD to this author.

"Talking about role-playing in terms of stories is not just regressive and near-sighted – it’s embarrassing."

I must be very near sighted and embarrassed, because I can't even visualize the purpose of playing an RPG. Even without a pre-conceived plot, all RPGs, indeed every sequence in life, becomes a story. What you are doing, why you are doing it, and whether or not the 'why' is acheived, and how it came to be, is a story in itself. And if the answer to 'why' has no answer, why is anyone bothering to play that out? Sounds to me like that type of role-playing is more of a "merely a tactical simulation spiced with a descriptive
gloss" than D&D ever was because at least that game from the start gave a framework and motivation, even if just for kill n loot, over a long term framework.

The "I don’t really understand why people often want to know the “real story” behind a game they participated in." sequence displays a real shallow thought process. The surface is all that matters, depth is irrelevant. I can't disagree in stronger terms. If there's any structure beyond the character's actions (or out of game thoughts related to in game action), it's an uninteresting waste and a sign of a broken game? Wow, my IQ dropped 10 points reading that article.

Overall, just as the book 'Heavy Metal- The Music and Its Culture' by sociologist Deena Weinstein is irrelevant to either creating or listening to said music, so I think 'Beyond Role and Play' is irrelevant to creating, or playing, traditional pen and paper RPGs. (whether that's true for LARPGs, I don't know, but it's not something that I'll be involved with)

And I need to find a copy of that Gygax book. It sounds like it's quite amusing.

 

[ef2718]

Thanks Jim, for the reasoned reply to my rather flame-worthy intial email.

1) The Forge. I find a lot of the Forge too abstract to be useful. That is useful is the bazillion links to other game systems, to see what other people have done. For instance, Clinton Nixon on anvilwerks (I think) has a free implementation of the Socerer game system, and I think better done.

2) Richness of the rules: It sounds like the goal of the system per se is to have something really basic and quick-playing, with the real creativity coming in world-products. If that's the case you don't need a really great rules system. Your rules system just has to be rich enough to support your worlds. If the rules are, then my comments about being 'wimped-out' X are pretty meaningless.

3) More thoughts on the rules:
Statistics vs. Skills: Since statistics and skills work basically the same, why keep both? Why not have 'Attributes' that encompass both stats and skills, and have the same point cost?

4) Cheats: Is there any way of getting new cheats after character creation?

5) Social combat: I don't see a lot of 'Social Combat' stuff, which can be just as intricate as physical combat.

6) Psychic Combat?

7) Armor: How exactly does armor work? I'm guessing that it 'absorbes damage', that is if someone gets a -3 result in combat and they have chain armor, they take 6-4 = 2 pts.

 

[Jim LotFP]

Thanks Jim, for the reasoned reply to my rather flame-worthy intial email.

Not a problem. At this stage, brutal honesty is more useful than fluffy praise.

1) The Forge. I find a lot of the Forge too abstract to be useful. That is useful is the bazillion links to other game systems, to see what other people have done. For instance, Clinton Nixon on anvilwerks (I think) has a free implementation of the Socerer game system, and I think better done.

I agree about the Forge's direct usefulness, but reading threads like 'What Can Rules Actually Contribute?' is a healthy exercise for either a game designer or someone putting a lot of thought into what game is perfect for them to GM or play, even if it just reinforces an existing viewpoint on the subject.

I do check out a lot of columns on games, not so much game-specific material though. I'm hoping my Sorcerer books arrive today or tomorrow, and I'm sure after reading Edwards' own brainchild for myself I'll be looking for more thoughts on it. As long as he doesn't tell me that D&D is crap and not roleplaying I should be fine with it.

2) Richness of the rules: It sounds like the goal of the system per se is to have something really basic and quick-playing, with the real creativity coming in world-products. If that's the case you don't need a really great rules system. Your rules system just has to be rich enough to support your worlds. If the rules are, then my comments about being 'wimped-out' X are pretty meaningless.

I think we're agreeing on the major point now, which is great... although to me 'really basic and quick-playing', plus a dash of 'fairly realistic', does equal a 'really great rules' system to me. There are big systems out there that I am in awe of conceptually, but at the playing table they take more time to use than I'd personally prefer.

3) More thoughts on the rules:
Statistics vs. Skills: Since statistics and skills work basically the same, why keep both? Why not have 'Attributes' that encompass both stats and skills, and have the same point cost?

Statistics are based on traits every character has. Health represents physicality and determines how durable the character is to abuse, how long they can go on a forced march, how big and mean and able to ignore puny armor, all represented by a number everyone has.

Skills represent learned behavior. If skills and statistics were to not be differentiated, I'm not sure if I'm understanding you correctly, but are you meaning making characters buy what are now individual Statistic traits as separate skills? 'Lift Objects', 'Traveling Endurance', 'Chasing Speed', etc?

4) Cheats: Is there any way of getting new cheats after character creation?

Simply spend an experience point per cheat. A player really can decide whether they want their character to be lucky, or good.

(By the way, any time a rules question like this is asked, it is going in a notebook, both for the purposes of editing/clarifying the manuscript, and figuring out which rules need simulated-play examples added on as well)

5) Social combat: I don't see a lot of 'Social Combat' stuff, which can be just as intricate as physical combat.

Agreed that it can be just as intricate. I'd originally had a 'Charisma' skill that would be used in instances of interrogation, seduction, 'let us use your boat' situations, etc.

I ended up dropping it just because of what my views on role-playing are. In combat, I don't expect a player to be able to really fight in order to play a great warrior. I don't expect a player to know how to hammer a nail to play a skilled carpenter. These are things a character 'does', not how a character acts. making interaction a 'skill' as it were reduces the 'role playing' aspect of the game in my eyes. Instead of acting out a negotiations, it seems a little bit cheap to me for a player to just say what end result he wants and then just roll a die to get it.

But getting away from how *I* want to play, and thinking of my greater ideas of what role-playing games are for (playing someone that you can't be, doing things you can't do)... what if an introverted geeky kind of guy (and everyone is probably nodding their heads thinking 'I know just that kind of player') wants to play a James Bond suave and sophisticated kind of character? Is it any more fair to make the socially inept guy role-play through social interactions than making a 9-5 office worker pantomime a swordfight? Probably not.

But not everything should just be resolved with a die roll with players directing their characters to just 'do this and that' like it's a video game. That thinking is, by the way, why Intelligence isn't used in the game beyond determining how fast new skills/skill improvements are learned. GMs should very well be able to present logic puzzles or riddles to their players and expect them to work it out without the situation being resolved with a die roll.

Along similar lines, I do think I need to have some sort of difficulty rating example table (sort of similar to the ones on the Acting and Disguise skills) for the Academics, Goverment, and Religion skills for dealing with the 'bureaucracies' as described in the skills, and make the Merchant skill apply to trade organizations/guilds in this same way. I'm thinking the breadth and usefulness of those skills aren't well represented as the skills are currently described. One table for all 4 skills should do, and I think I'm going to just list the Acting/Disguise tables once in the final layout.

Maybe some sort of rule where unstatted, random NPCs are fully susceptible to these sorts of skills, named/significant-to-plot NPCs are more difficult to affect, and characters with Cheat points of their own are can not have these skills used against them? (prevent players from using the rules to dominate other PCs in-character as well as major adversaries)?

6) Psychic Combat?

Psychic abilities aren't part of the core rules, so nothing relating to psychic combat should be needed as of yet.

I imagine magic and psionics rules concerning this sort of thiing will boil down to a 'mental power level' vs 'Awareness' or 'psychic defense' type of test. But it's not definite... I've written a ton of fluffy descriptive text for the magic book so far but I haven't wanted to put in game mechanic information until the core rules are finalized.

7) Armor: How exactly does armor work? I'm guessing that it 'absorbes damage', that is if someone gets a -3 result in combat and they have chain armor, they take 6-4 = 2 pts.

Wow. All that text about armor ratings and I never actually stated how it applies to damage. Holy cow, I feel dumb. And glad I'm going through this process. But yes, that's how it works.

If I can brag a bit about the concepts in the combat system... I want to make sure people notice this part, haha. One thing that's always bothered me in RPGs is that a 'dagger' is nowhere near a deadly weapon in 99% of the systems I've played and read. So I made the rules so a skilled knifewielder is in every way the deadly equal to a skilled swordsman.

But then I worked the armor rules in a way that explains why vast armies just aren't cheaply equipped with daggers, because armor is more effective against smaller weapons. And armor is a real life saver all around...

... except against piercing missile weapons, which is historically accurate because the development of longbows and then gunpowder weapons were the reason heavy personal armor became obsolete in warfare until modern times. (if the game moves into modern/futuristic settings, one aspect of armor will be the canceling out of armor piercing effects of missile weapons)

But I wanted the option for a heroic game, not one where the characters become quick statistics to the deadliness of the battlefield, so I put in the idea of the Cheat to push the idea that the heroes still obey the 'rules of the game', but they're damn lucky.