I've had an almost-completed long-term RPG project sitting around, needing only playtesting.

Today, I checked to see wether I had posted about it here. I hadn't. Horrible!

So now, I'm posting it and saying...

*Deep breath*

...Tear it apart. Point out all the flaws, problems and less-than-ideal solutions. Tell me what I did wrong - Even better, tell me how I can do it right.

Delving and Danger

Have fun!

I assume the chart for Strength is based on the passive score. However, that's not indicated, so if it isn't used (carrying things is passive?) then you have some weak schlubs in the game.


I didn't get much farther than that--I got to the three forms of health and my eyes glazed over. Sorry mate. Mostly because its just more numbers and talk, and very little--what do I do, and exactly how do I do it. Admittedly I'm getting old so that may be a part of it--I want games to get down to that faster. I'll download it and get back to it another time. It seems like your tracking a WHOLE lot of data, and haven't yet told me why I care about these numbers. It would probably help with a step by step character creation example.

Passive is used for the carrying chart, on the idea that how much we can carry doesn't really vary that much from attempt to attempt, most of the time.

Yeah, one problem I'm having is it comes across as bland in places to me, and I'm hoping to pin them down and burn them with fire. And then rebuild.

I'm trying to have it be the sort of generic that D&D is - built for a certain sub-genre of fantasy, with rules for that play, without specifying a setting that you would play in.

How well does it play?

I ask because it looks to me like a lot of the rules will never see action at the table, and in general those are rules that should be cut. Probably time to take these rules for a spin and record the results, and then be ruthless.

Along those lines, the skill list particularly doesn't seem to suit actual play. If all skills are effectively equal (as these seem to intend), ask yourself a couple of things about each one:
- is this skill about the same specificity as other skills that play at similar focus?
- if this was my best skill, would I be a cool character to play?

The first could be unpacked -- if a skill gets used when "zoomed in", like in combat, then it can be a lot more specific than a skill that doesn't get zoomed in. So while being good with axes is probably nifty in a detailed combat system, being good at a specific kind of farming is only interesting if there's a detailed farming system. And it demands that we ask, "how come skill X isn't equally represented", where skill X is an infinite set of things you haven't thought of.

Armed with that information, again cut ruthlessly. You can never go wrong by deleting stuff. If it was really smart you can write it again.

Good point.

One reason I ask these questions of other people is it tends to jog my own brain into thinking about that.

And I realized I've been feeling about it for a while, that I had a few good ideas and then crammed a game around them using filler.

So, cut the filler, replace and expand with stuff that matters. Noted and good point.

Unfortunately, I still don't have an offline gaming group. That may change in the next few weeks.

Quote from: Narf the Mouse;338757Good point.


Unfortunately, I still don't have an offline gaming group. That may change in the next few weeks.

Recruit! Recruit! Recruit! Offline or online via chat programs (something that gives fairly immediate response, and closer to "Real play" speed.)

Quote from: Narf the Mouse;338757Unfortunately, I still don't have an offline gaming group. That may change in the next few weeks.

Something that got a little discussion in another design thread here, you can get a lot of mileage out of mocking up some table dialogue of fictional people playing your game according to your rules. If it uses all the rules and doesn't look like fun (you'll probably spot this as you write it), it probably isn't fun. I find this a very valuable tool during the early stages of design.

There are some good examples here that have been, will be, and are in the process of affecting (and effecting!) design.

This will be a negative post since I am fundamentally a negative sort of person. Please take everything here as (attempted) constructive criticism, and remember that if I thought this was all wasted effort, I wouldn't have written all this mess.

First: proofreading, proofreading, proofreading. I know that this is a first draft and everything but if you don't know how to spell, say, 'aerodynamic,' don't spell it several different ways and hope you get it right at least once. I know I'm being a bit harsh here especially considering the context, but pet peeve, sorry.
Not that I'll spell every word herein correctly or anything.

The skill list is very, very long and rather specific. I'd probably concatenate a bunch of those skills (the Religion list could easily be made half as long, for example).
Magically speaking, what's the difference between 'Change' and 'Modify' anyway? You may want to change your terminology a little there. Or modify it, as the case may be.
Speaking of skills, I'd like to see a little explanation re: the skill point progression.

Yep, greater clarity regarding the difference between active and passive attributes would be useful.

Spiritual and Mental health could probably be combined, since the consequences of their loss seem awfully similar.

I'm really not convinced of the value of AP systems in p&p games (which is what 'Active' seems to be). It's a lot of book-keeping - how many AP you have, what actions cost what AP, and the GM has to keep track of every enemy's AP too.
Personally I'd convert it to a fate point type system where, in exchange for X amount of points and perhaps a quick test of some sort, a player can take an extra action beyond what is normally allotted to him. That is, of course, only a suggestion.

Traits are weird. The GM will demand compensation if you take one but there aren't any defined effects for them? Sounds a bit harsh. If mechanical guidelines beyond 'negotiate with your GM' aren't provided (and I do mean guidelines, as opposed to hard and fast rules), then they should really be treated as RP aids rather than feats - ie. let players make them up, and treat the defined list as examples only.

Nice to see some jokes in the text. I know lots of people like their rules to read like textbooks, but clarity and dehumanising dullness are not synonymous.

That's all for now, it's lunchtime.

Quote from: Halfjack;338778Something that got a little discussion in another design thread here, you can get a lot of mileage out of mocking up some table dialogue of fictional people playing your game according to your rules. If it uses all the rules and doesn't look like fun (you'll probably spot this as you write it), it probably isn't fun. I find this a very valuable tool during the early stages of design.

There are some good examples here that have been, will be, and are in the process of affecting (and effecting!) design.

I've tried that, but I have difficulty take it seriously, for some reason.

Quote from: Lord Rocket;338781This will be a negative post since I am fundamentally a negative sort of person. Please take everything here as (attempted) constructive criticism, and remember that if I thought this was all wasted effort, I wouldn't have written all this mess.

Great! I posted this to find out what was wrong with it.

QuoteFirst: proofreading, proofreading, proofreading. I know that this is a first draft and everything but if you don't know how to spell, say, 'aerodynamic,' don't spell it several different ways and hope you get it right at least once. I know I'm being a bit harsh here especially considering the context, but pet peeve, sorry.
Not that I'll spell every word herein correctly or anything.

The open office spellchecker is very fragile, I've found. One wrong button and it stops working. But yeah, I should have used the dictionary more.

QuoteThe skill list is very, very long and rather specific. I'd probably concatenate a bunch of those skills (the Religion list could easily be made half as long, for example).

Tried to hard to be generic, there.

QuoteMagically speaking, what's the difference between 'Change' and 'Modify' anyway? You may want to change your terminology a little there. Or modify it, as the case may be.

'Change' is 'I turned you into a frog'. 'Modify' is 'Now you have webbed fingers and green skin, but you're still human'. Category change, versus in-category alteration.
You could turn someone into a giant with Change; you'd need Modify to make them larger, while still whatever they are.

The same in many aspects of results, but different paths and the destinations overlap, but aren't the same.

Which explanation will go into the re-write.

QuoteSpeaking of skills, I'd like to see a little explanation re: the skill point progression.

For some reason, I have difficulty explaining 'It costs skill points equal to the rank of skill you're buying' in a non-technical manner.

QuoteYep, greater clarity regarding the difference between active and passive attributes would be useful.

Mostly a matter of flavouring actions - Are you trying to do something chancy or unchancy? Are you actively doing something (Punching someone in the face) or passively resisting (Hah! That didn't hurt a bit!)?

And, it gives leeway - You could roll Dexterity to dodge, because it's active, or just say you're keeping moving and behind cover and use passive Dexterity.

Simply comes down to taste and wether there needs to be a roll.

QuoteSpiritual and Mental health could probably be combined, since the consequences of their loss seem awfully similar.

I had a bit of a 'three divisions' meme going around my head, but I think I'm mostly over it.

QuoteI'm really not convinced of the value of AP systems in p&p games (which is what 'Active' seems to be). It's a lot of book-keeping - how many AP you have, what actions cost what AP, and the GM has to keep track of every enemy's AP too.
Personally I'd convert it to a fate point type system where, in exchange for X amount of points and perhaps a quick test of some sort, a player can take an extra action beyond what is normally allotted to him. That is, of course, only a suggestion.

Good point, and that might work - Some spells/powers were given higher AP costs because they were more powerful. Converting that to a FP cost - Or have Health and a Fatigue track? Then, each additional noun-verb combo a Wizard cast would move him one down the fatigue track.

That would also cover acting more than once in combat - One extra action per moving down the fatigue track.

QuoteTraits are weird. The GM will demand compensation if you take one but there aren't any defined effects for them? Sounds a bit harsh. If mechanical guidelines beyond 'negotiate with your GM' aren't provided (and I do mean guidelines, as opposed to hard and fast rules), then they should really be treated as RP aids rather than feats - ie. let players make them up, and treat the defined list as examples only.

That was part laziness, part 'too much generic on the brain', part 'Well, then they can have whatever character they want'.

I tried a defined traits list in another game; it was a failure. Too defined and too undefined at the same time.

I think I'll go with moving them fully into 'defined examples'. Maybe eight, four easy and four tricky.

QuoteNice to see some jokes in the text. I know lots of people like their rules to read like textbooks, but clarity and dehumanising dullness are not synonymous.

I fully agree. Add to that, the duller something is, the less likely I want to read it.

QuoteThat's all for now, it's lunchtime.

Food is good.

All right, now that's it's been torn down and I've had time to mull it over -

What's good about it? What works? What should be kept/extended improved upon?