What would you say is the way you would be shortening the learning curve, the thing you do or the thing you would want to see, I am not talking about making the rules easier, just how to ease the learning of rules ...
FFG's Star Wars boxed sets were perfect. Pre-made characters, an adventure that puts you right into the action/fun and teaches you parts of the games as it progresses. I ran all 3 at a con and had universally positive responses.
Hmm, I should check that out. Intros is always good.
I wouldnt try for most games as there is just too much variance in learning from player to player and if you dumb things down its going to put off some players.
Instead have a walkthrough of character creation somewhere in the book. Step by step. This REALLY helps some players get a handle on how things are done without being condescending to their intelligence. An example of a combat is also good to have in there too.
A summary/index of rules, intro scenarios and a step by step guide for important parts. ... is the tips so far, seems solid!
Quote from: Quadrante;1082398What would you say is the way you would be shortening the learning curve, the thing you do or the thing you would want to see, I am not talking about making the rules easier, just how to ease the learning of rules ...
Don't make the game mechanics hard to find.
Quote from: trechriron;1082406FFG's Star Wars boxed sets were perfect. Pre-made characters, an adventure that puts you right into the action/fun and teaches you parts of the games as it progresses. I ran all 3 at a con and had universally positive responses.
These were very good, at least the first 2 since I never tried the Force one. Their setup was near perfect.
Even though I now despise the system for running a 'Star Wars' game, I have to agree that the boxed sets were some of the best intro sets I have seen.
Quote from: Shawn Driscoll;1082469Don't make the game mechanics hard to find.
Fucking this.
I'm honestly tired of badly edited books that jumble tables and rules around and are apparently trying their damndest to confuse the reader.
Every core rulebook should also have all its tables collated at the end of the book and divided by their relationship to the rules. I guess this one would reduce the need for a DM Screen, and therefore would reduce profits...
Quote from: BronzeDragon;1082479Fucking this.
I'm honestly tired of badly edited books that jumble tables and rules around and are apparently trying their damndest to confuse the reader.
Every core rulebook should also have all its tables collated at the end of the book and divided by their relationship to the rules. I guess this one would reduce the need for a DM Screen, and therefore would reduce profits...
I think this is key, there should be something like this in any ruleset. But, I do not think this is due to profit, more lack if rules writing skill or bad choice of page count cuts.
Once you've made the rules easy to find, include nearby more examples of those rules in play, written in a way that is a realistic approach to how the rules work. Too many examples are written with what the authors had in mind but failed to deliver. (Or didn't care, because they were fudging their own rules in play.)
The AD&D 1E and Basic D&D examples of combat and exploration are good illustrations of how to avoid that trap. Showing a character getting killed in some gruesome fashion let you know what was expected. RQ combat examples are particularly notable for being out of line with the system.
What I hate the most is a game where the jargon gets in the way of learning the game. There are some games I've played where I read the rulebook, thought "this makes no sense," then when I played the game it was simple.
The perfect intro game would have quickstart rules, pregen character sheets, and an intro adventure to get you started. Then you can start to add in stuff as you go. The FFG Star Wars sets are actually pretty easy to play, even with their funky dice, but the core rulebooks make me fall asleep. I figure if I can't understand a set of quickstart rules, I have no prayer to understand the complete rules (as well as no desire to try).
Quote from: finarvyn;1082500The perfect intro game would have quickstart rules,
Cheque.
Quote from: finarvyn;1082500pregen character sheets,
Czech.
Quote from: finarvyn;1082500and an intro adventure to get you started.
Working on it. ;) I also have cheat sheets for the GM/players.
But the thread made me realize another thing would be beneficial and I'll probably add it to the next version of the Quickstart rules: a one page introductory summary for experienced gamers, as an at-a-glance presentation of how the rules work. So that you can see on one page if you like what the system does (and how it does it) or if you can put aside the game safely because it's not your thing.
Quote from: Alexander Kalinowski;1082503... a one page introductory summary for experienced gamers, as an at-a-glance presentation of how the rules work. So that you can see on one page if you like what the system does (and how it does it) or if you can put aside the game safely because it's not your thing.
Yes! This was a good one. But what does one want there? Sample rule snippets, summery, categories ...
For me: How does a basic test work, how does initiative order work, what's the action economy like, how does attacking/parrying/damage work. How does magic work. All in 2 or 3 sentences each. So that it's possible to decide within 30 to 60 seconds if the system is for you.
I will give this a test. You do not need to tell if you like the game style, but do tell what you are lacking in the description.
Quote from: Rule summeryIn this game, you roll six-sided dice and allocate them to get a final combat result. This combat result is both your chance to avoid being struck by any opponents and your chance to land a blow at ONE opponent. Combat results are compared between players to see who succeeds with its onfall. Turn order and actions may interfere, distance and protection may change the level of fatigue and damage.
Independent of how many dice you roll, ONE of the combat dice is chosen as your base combat value. The rest of the dice will be used to either increase this value or to be used as additional actions.
Instead of, or at the same time as your general melee, you may attempt various actions. Dice will, in this case, be used as actions instead of as part of a combat result.
At the beginning of every new turn, you reroll all of your available combat and bonus dice and change your turn order. Priority of placed dice, onfalls, defences and actions are resolved in turn order. Your fighting style will determine your turn order and actions may change it.
The aim of this game is to both be a tool in a narrative and like a game of duelling, you would even be able to play this as a regular board game, player versus player, teams versus teams or in a Battle Royal style.
To aid you there will be available cards to visualize and display your decisions, both to yourself and other players.
Well designed reference cards or booklets are what needed. I have a set for my Swords & Wizardry/Majestic Fantasy rules and they are good enough to allow people to make characters in 20 minutes for a convention games including equipment.
For example this is the starting card
https://drive.google.com/uc?export=download&id=0Bx9oLF40m-b8MTdaeElqLXJmUW8
Follow by the list of character classes
https://drive.google.com/uc?export=download&id=1KJfGcnEYH5Mk4A-QGbqoA074EHb8MeU4
Character Races
https://drive.google.com/uc?export=download&id=0Bx9oLF40m-b8VGpGVEJJRGNXNmc
An example of a character class (cleric)
https://drive.google.com/uc?export=download&id=0Bx9oLF40m-b8LTZTbEpHU2o5RU0
Combat Summary
https://drive.google.com/uc?export=download&id=0Bx9oLF40m-b8QlBuZ29SSkpDd2M
Started the above around 2009 when I started playtesting my adventures at conventions. I wanted the player to have the ability to make their own characters so worked at this until I got it just right. Now to be clear it meant to be used with an experienced referee answering questions. For the novices you still need a rulebook to teach them how the system works. It just the above should be included in addition to the rulebook so that referencing everything becomes easier.
This worked so well that I made reference cards for every system I run including D&D 5th edition, Adventure in Middle Earth, Traveller, Fantasy AGE, and so on.
This is an example of one I used to allow players to make D&D 5th edition character at convention games. I stuck to the basic 4 for this version but will eventually include all the core SRD classes.
https://drive.google.com/uc?export=download&id=0Bx9oLF40m-b8U2ppSzhxRE9SYTQ
OT: In your example you talk about several rounds as one turn.
I am used with the oposite, several turns as a round (if they not are interchangeble words) ... as in: my turn, your turn, his turn, her turn, around the table = a round.
Quote from: Quadrante;1082711OT: In your example you talk about several rounds as one turn.
I am used with the oposite, several turns as a round (if they not are interchangeble words) ... as in: my turn, your turn, his turn, her turn, around the table = a round.
It is a convention from D&D. One Turn = 10 minutes or 10 combat rounds. Some spell duration are given in turns.
Okay!
Quote from: Steven Mitchell;1082496The AD&D 1E and Basic D&D examples of combat and exploration are good illustrations of how to avoid that trap. Showing a character getting killed in some gruesome fashion let you know what was expected. RQ combat examples are particularly notable for being out of line with the system.
I disagree that combat examples in the Tales of Ruric the Restless in RQ1 and RQ2 were particularly out of line with the system.
Quote from: Quadrante;1082665wrota a lot in a rule description.
Hmm, this was an interesting and useful exercise ... did notice a part of the rules I had left out!
Quote from: Quadrante;1082665I will give this a test. You do not need to tell if you like the game style, but do tell what you are lacking in the description.
Let me first try it on my own for Knights of the Black Lily:
Task Resolution: You roll d100 and generate the usual
success levels (Critical Success, Success, Failure, Fumble). Only you're not rolling against a straight d100 value with percentage modifiers directly applied - you're instead rolling on a column in a table that defines the ranges for each success level above (see page XX). Modifiers shift you to more or less favorable columns. This has several advantages (see page XX).
Initiative Order: For initiative, however, you roll a straight 1d100. You add/subtract +20 for each point your Initiative stat is above/below 5 (see page XX). High roll goes first. (Note that you use initiative order only when two actions come into effect at the same time
and the order matters, which isn't all that common, see Action Economy below.)
Action Economy: Actions are grouped according to duration until they take effect within the 5 second round - to guarantee interruptability: A strike with a readied sword (Melee Action, cost: 2 Action Points) will reliably take effect before another character can charge over 20 meters (Move action, cost: 3 Action Points), while a short range shot with a readied arrow (Shoot action, cost: 1 Action Point) will always be faster than a sword strike. Characters have 3 APs each round but are limited to one attack per.
Attack Resolution: Attacker and Defender roll on their column on the Task Resolution Chart (see above). You compare the different
success levels (see page XX) and then different stuff happens, emulating cinematic combat. The defender needs to generally roll higher to counter the attack and end the attack sequence of his enemy. Sometimes a draw will suffice though. If the attacker has a better success level, he hits and remains the only one who can attack until next round.
Damage: Damage is not hitpoint based but on so called Hit Effects (see page XX). These emulate cinematic combat as well - with results ranging from an opening created in the enemy defense, over stunning the opponent to serious/deadly wounds. Serious wounds come with a general penalty, inducing a death spiral. However, the use of metacurrency (see below) can be used to delay beginning that spiral.
Fortune: The game heavily uses metacurrency to emulate heroic luck in fiction. There's on-going per-scenario pools for the party/GM each (see page XX) which both sides will
avoid drawing on at all costs as expended points change sides and the final tally at the end of scenario, before the final battle, determines how the ending plays out. You also may or may not have per encounter/challenge metacurrency (see page XX) which may be used without affecting the overall tally directly. But if the party fails to complete a challenge without relying on the Challenge Pool alone, it has failed the challenge and that will affect the overall per-scenario tally negatively.
Let me know if anything is missing/unclear.
Quote from: Alexander Kalinowski;1082757Let me first try it on my own for Knights of the Black Lily:
Action Economy: Action cost.
Let me know if anything is missing/unclear.
Good overview. Just add a sentence or two about action cost at the beginning of the AE.
///Your overview reminded me to talk about damage/wounds and stuff ...
Quote from: Quadrante;1082665In this game, you roll six-sided dice and allocate them to get a final combat result. This combat result is both your chance to avoid being struck by any opponents and your chance to land a blow at ONE opponent. Combat results are compared between players to see who succeeds with its onfall. Turn order and actions may interfere, distance and protection may change the level of fatigue and damage.
This part could use some revisions. As I understand it, in combat each character rolls a number of d6 at the start of the round and you allocate them freely to (a) attack, (b) defense and/or (c) other actions. The combat is then resolved by comparing to dice allocated to attack/defense individually.
As for "Turn order and actions may interfere, distance and protection may change the level of fatigue and damage.", I think you need to either make it more concrete so that I have an inkling of how they can interfere and which impact distance and protection have or else you're better off dropping the sentence.
Quote from: Alexander Kalinowski;1082761This part could use some revisions.
Yes, still do this. What is obvious to me may not be to others! (wip revisions in the link below)
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1-BAetxtBchp4MOwlysxQIEiBJmygf94xaOXItTQ-p68/edit?usp=sharing
Quote from: Alexander Kalinowski;1082761The combat is then resolved by comparing to dice allocated to attack/defence individually.
The opposite, this ONE value "the combat result" is as both defence and attack. If you are higher, you succeed with the attack, the lower of the two reduces the damage (the difference is the damage value).
Quote from: Alexander Kalinowski;1082761As for "Turn order and actions may interfere, distance and protection may change the level of fatigue and damage.", I think you need to either make it more concrete so that I have an inkling of how they can interfere and which impact distance and protection have or else you're better off dropping the sentence.
hmm ... well, I maybe should drop this, as it does not have to be said here.
Quote from: Quadrante;1082764The opposite, this ONE value "the combat result" is as both defence and attack. If you are higher, you succeed with the attack, the lower of the two reduces the damage (the difference is the damage value).
So the core basically sounds the same as Tunnels and Trolls, then? ("Each side rolls a handful of d6s and the one with the higher total hits, doing damage equal to the difference.") I see there's more to your system which diverges from T&T, but just talking about the core here.
One thing T&T does to make this a little less one-sided is "spite damage", which basically means that you automatically inflict a minimum of 1 damage per natural 6 on your dice, even if you're on the losing side, your opponent has enough armor to block all of your damage, etc. Personally, I think that's kind of important to have, since it allows a weaker combatant to have some effect on a stronger opponent, but that may not be something you're concerned with, or you may already be providing that capability in some other form with your "additional actions" options.
Quote from: nDervish;1082785So the core basically sounds the same as Tunnels and Trolls, then? ("Each side rolls a handful of d6s and the one with the higher total hits, doing damage equal to the difference.") I see there's more to your system which diverges from T&T, but just talking about the core here.
Almost, but do not use "successes" (dice roll over a value). Dice builds one value. But, the core idea is the same or at least similar.
EDIT: Ops, did double check T&T and its system, did confuse it with that other one. Still, I could say it is a similar idea, but you only choose one die (not the sum of dice rolled).
Quote from: nDervish;1082785Personally, I think that's kind of important to have, since it allows a weaker combatant to have some effect on a stronger opponent, but that may not be something you're concerned with, or you may already be providing that capability in some other form with your "additional actions" options.
Skill will, in most cases be equal to the possible use of "additional actions" and less the "massive damage", so I do have been thinking of it. But stripped away the critical successes or fails.
QuoteIn this game, you roll six-sided dice and allocate these to get a final combat result. This value is used both as your chance to avoid being struck by ANY opponents and as your chance to land a blow at ONE opponent.
These final combat results are compared between players to see who succeeds with onfall. The difference between values is the quality of the blow, and are used for fatigue and damage.
Turn order and actions may interfere with the attack, distance and protection may change the level of fatigue and damage.
When a combatant is attacked by several opponents, the combatant’s combat result will count as the defence value against them all, fully or partially lowering potential damage, both during a successful and a failed onfall against one of the opponents.
When a combatant is attacking to damage, gets a higher result, and thereby succeeds with the onfall against one, lower this opponent's stamina by the difference between the two results minus any penalty from distance.
Independent of how many dice you roll, only ONE of the combat dice is chosen and with its full value be used as base combat value. The rest of the dice will be used in dice combinations, to either increase this base value or as actions
///Not that this was supposed to be about my own writings ...
Quote from: estar;1082717It is a convention from D&D. One Turn = 10 minutes or 10 combat rounds. Some spell duration are given in turns.
Which is another thing: don't change established terms. If you have AC or HP, call them that. No need to come up with a new confusing term.
Quote from: Tod13;1082875Which is another thing: don't change established terms. If you have AC or HP, call them that. No need to come up with a new confusing term.
And explain the use of whatever term you use, as some do have several meanings. AC and HP may not, but still always, if it is an abbreviation, explain it.
Quote from: Tod13;1082875Which is another thing: don't change established terms. If you have AC or HP, call them that. No need to come up with a new confusing term.
Yes! Nothing worse than having to read a passage in a book, then mentally have to translate it into my own lingo. Some games feel to me like a guy was sitting there with a thesaurus saying, "hmmm, what's another word for Strength? Intelligence? Wisdom? Constitution? Dexterity? Charisma?" And then at the end he acts like Might, Intellect, Insight, Endurance, Agility, Personality makes his a "new" game.
It gets even worse with story style games. "If I can activate my push in order to enhance my momentum, then my action can be distributed among the party in the form of colored stones which can be used to alleviate stress or determine level of ... " um, is this even English? :(
Quote from: Tod13;1082875Which is another thing: don't change established terms. If you have AC or HP, call them that. No need to come up with a new confusing term.
Agreed. The main exception to this as far as my stuff goes is that I call skills abilities.
One of the things I emphasize is that any character can attempt any ability without penalty. Just some characters are better than others at certain abilities.
Whereas if I called it skills players would assume they could not use it unless they had a bonus in it.
I did it this was it was more in keeping with the spirit of OD&D then a traditional skill system.
Yes, and this is as true. If it is not as usual, do not use that same old term.
Quote from: finarvyn;1082887It gets even worse with story style games. "If I can activate my push in order to enhance my momentum, then my action can be distributed among the party in the form of colored stones which can be used to alleviate stress or determine level of ... " um, is this even English? :(
They ain't got nothing on
Aria: Canticle of the Monomyth. You don't create a character who studies a school of magic and casts spells. Oh, no! You define an Origin, then create a Persona who uses the Origin to invoke Paradigms. And that's just the one bit of Aria's terminology that was coherent enough for me to still remember it a couple decades later. There's far worse to be seen if you can get your hands on a copy and dare to open it.
Quote from: finarvyn;1082887Yes! Nothing worse than having to read a passage in a book, then mentally have to translate it into my own lingo. Some games feel to me like a guy was sitting there with a thesaurus saying, "hmmm, what's another word for Strength? Intelligence? Wisdom? Constitution? Dexterity? Charisma?" And then at the end he acts like Might, Intellect, Insight, Endurance, Agility, Personality makes his a "new" game.
I have some sympathy with this kind of thing, but only up to a point. I believe strongly that a game should name the thing what it is--or at least as reasonably close as possible within the confines of how imprecise language can be. At the same time, you want terms that create some spark in the readers.
As an example, renaming Strength to Might is going against the tide maybe too much. Combining Constitution and Strength into a new score, and then renaming it something like Might makes sense to me. It calls out the differences.
Though I'm also hampered by the desire to use English words with more Germanic or Norse roots, instead of Norman-French or Latin roots, as more appropriate for the kind of game I want to make. The competing interests mean that something gets shorted.
But yes, taking the same mechanics and then simply renaming everything is the worst kind of design laziness, and the worst of both worlds.