This is a review of the PDF version of Forward. . .to Adventure! written by RPGPundit and published by Flying Mice LLC. FtA! is a generic fantasy rules system with an implied fantasy setting.  

DISCLAIMER:  RPGPundit has reviewed several products I have worked on (most of them favorably) and Clash Bowley (of Flying Mice LLC) is a standup guy with a lot of class.  I’m going to be as objective as I can with this review, but I wanted to make sure everyone knows where I’m coming from right from the start.


APPEARANCE

The book is pretty.  The Palatino-linotype font gives the text a suitable medieval/renaissance/fantasy feel without being unreadable.  The text is laid out in two-column format, right-aligned rather than justified, which is not bad, but seems to go against the industry standard.  The margins seem a little bit wide and the font size maybe a bit too large, meaning there are less words per column, but I’m guessing the wide margins look a lot better in the print version than they do in the PDF, since they won’t be so apparent on the bound side.  

The artwork consists of some really cool photo-manipulation images of fantasy-style people (humans in armor, elves in cloaks, etc.) doing fantasy-style things (sword fighting, firing an arrow, etc.).  These images are done in full color, and many of them are striking.  There is an image every 15 pages or so, which I think is a bit sparse, and a few smaller pieces could have been used to take up the inevitable white space that crops up at the end of some chapters.  The cover is especially nice, depicting a raising portcullis inside an emerald green background.  It’s taken from an “inside looking out” POV which makes it particularly evocative of the game--like you’re leaving the castle on your way to adventure.  

Summary
All in all, it’s got a readable layout that nicely reflects the fantasy genre.  


FORWARD. . .TO ADVENTURE

This is a nice foreword written by RPGPundit that lays out some of his design goals.  He seems to be under no illusions as to what he’s creating and clearly cites “old-school” D&D as one of his major inspirations (by which I assume he means the wonderful red boxed set that came out in the 1980s).  From the text, I gather this game is more of a tribute to the D&D concept than some ill-conceived attempt to supplant 3.5E.  

There is one simple, inconsequential but jarring typo here.  Typos are a bugaboo in almost every product, even those produced by big companies like Mongoose, but I’ve always felt they should never appear in the first ten pages, and certainly not in a foreword written by the author.

That aside, the really interesting thing about this section is that you find out the game was initially intended for marketing to Third World customers (particularly South Americans), and that a Spanish language version is currently in the works.  I assume it’s one of the reasons the game uses only six-sided dice since those are readily available anywhere (which incidentally makes FtA! seem almost like the soccer of RPGs).  This is a pretty admirable design goal and I think it’s one that is worth pursuing.


CHARACTER GENERATION

Those who are familiar with D&D will see D&D the moment they start reading this chapter, and I’m going to reference D&D a lot throughout this review because it’s the obvious comparison.

The CharGen chapter starts out with identifying the basic task resolution mechanic (the check) before going into to the character generation process.  Task resolution is resolved by rolling 3d6 and then adding appropriate attribute and skill modifiers.  The total must be equal to or greater than a difficulty number of anywhere from 10 to 40. (Task resolution is described in greater detail later in this review)

Characters are built using six attributes.  Yes, you guessed it, the attributes are Strength, Dexterity, Constitution, Wisdom, Intelligence, and Charisma.  D&D fans will see this as a bonus; detractors will not.  I’m sort of ambivalent.  Game stats don’t mean as much to me as how the game plays out.  Whether you call it Might, Strength, Muscle or whatever, you’re still using Strength in most “traditional” RPGs.  

Attributes are determined by a random roll and then consulting a chart to determine the result.  Taking a page from True20, stats range from +5 to -5, and these attributes represent direct bonuses to tasks.  

The description of each attribute is explained, along with the situations they are applied to.  This section runs together a bit--I would have liked to have seen the attributes listed as subheadings instead of as part of the text.  Still, the information is all there and easily understood.  

Next we come to a subheading of Classes which states that you gain a bonus of +1 to any one Attribute for every 3 levels your character achieves.  I think this could have been placed at the end of the Classes section (below).  Coming as it does before the Races section, it initially looks like this is all you need to know about classes.  

Races
FtA!’s races include Humans, Dwarves, Elves, Orcs, Halflings, and Half-Mermen. Each race has the usual list of racial bonuses, etc.  

There were two things here that seemed a bit out of place.  One was the subcategory of Barbarian human in the Human race section.  For one thing, no other races were subdivided like this, and for another, it seems like barbarian could easily have been an optional subclass of the Warrior.  

The second thing that stood out was the Half-Merman race.  It’s a perfectly viable race, it just seems strange for it to be included with the traditional fantasy races. It makes me wonder if maybe there is some private joke here that I’m not in on, which is fine with me, but I thought it was worth mentioning.  

Back to the races - Each race (other than humans) has certain Preferred Classes that make it easier for that race to advance (gain levels).  So, for example, it takes longer for a Dwarf Wizard to advance than it does for an Elf Wizard (or Dwarf Fighter).

Adventure Points
FtA! uses adventure points which are basically identical to D&D’s Action Points (+1d6 to any check), although here they can be given out arbitrarily by the GM.

Classes
The classes section starts out by saying there are 5 basic classes, but you don’t find out what those classes actually are until a full two pages later.  Just a line stating Warrior, Rogue, Wizard, Rogue-Wizard, and Warrior-Wizard would have shed some light on the tables that immediately follow.  

Obviously, the classes are pretty much self-explanatory.  The Rogue class is optionally divided between subclasses of Assassins, Thieves, and Loremasters (which seems more like the domain of wizards to me).  Wizards are also divided into Wizards, Priests, Druids, and Bards, but the formatting for the divisions is different than those of the Rogue and I’m not sure why.  Also, Bards always seemed more like Rogue-Wizards (Minstrels) or Warrior-Wizards (Skalds) to me.  The other classes have implied optional subclasses, but they’re not written out, and I think it would have helped to list knights, archers, etc. under the Warrior class, for example, just for the sake of consistency (especially given the target Third World audience who might not be as familiar with the common fantasy tropes).  

Characters advance by levels and receive bonuses for different things when they go up a level.  These bonuses include hit points (HP), combat bonuses (melee and missile are separate), check bonuses (active/ACT and passive/PAS), and skill points.  Collectively, these are called Gains.  Certain classes also have special abilities that increase at certain times.  

Gains differ depending upon the class’s area of expertise.  For example, Warriors gain +1 melee/+1 missile every level while Wizards gain +1 melee/+1 missile every 3 levels, and Rogues gain +1 melee every 2 levels and +2 missile every 5 levels.  I’m using combat as an example here, but it works the same way for the other Gains.

On a personal level, I like these split Gains a lot better then a flat BAB (or whatever) because it really highlights the areas each class is more prone to get better at over time.  There’s also a table for determining Gains per Level that at first looks like a lot of fractions, but it’s not, and once you understand the chart it should come in very handy.    

I think that the most interesting part of the class/level system should have had a Levels subheading of its own. In FtA!, you gain levels by completing adventures.  Not, by going on adventures and gaining experience points, but actually COMPLETING a number of adventures equal to your class.  So, at level 1, if you complete 1 adventure, you increase to level 2.  A level 5 character that completes 5 adventures increases to level 6.  

This beautifully illustrates the stated design goals, evoking that old-school D&D feel where you literally went on an adventure, then returned to town with your loot, bought better weapons and gear, and rolled for all your shiny new bonuses.  I’ve been out of the fantasy loop for years, so this mechanic may have been used many times before (which is why it might not have been emphasized more), but I still think it deserves its own heading.  More than anything else, as a player, this is built-in nostalgic feature is one that would make me want to play this game.    

Age
Next come a few guidelines for determining character ages and the bonuses and penalties for aging.  I don’t think this is addressed enough in a lot of RPGs, but I do like to see it.  

Alignment
The Character Generation chapter closes out with a large section on Alignment.  I was a bit torn when I first saw this.  I don’t use alignment features anymore because nothing in my games has ever caused as much dissension as alignment (or its equivalent), but the more I read, the more I think that the designer must have had similar issues in the past.  

FtA! uses Law, Chaos, and Balance (neutrality) and does away with good and evil.  As stated in the text, good and evil is a cultural and/or religious construct that is going to vary too much to be relevant.  By eliminating it altogether, FtA nicely does away with all the “should my paladin kill baby orcs?” moral dilemmas that totally wreck the spirit of hack-and-slash adventure.  I’m not saying these issues have no place in fantasy, but they certainly have no place in “old-school” fantasy.  

Another nice alignment feature is that characters choose their initial alignment, but can end up demonstrating characteristics of all three.  Alignment uses a point-based system to determine the character’s natural tendencies.  Point increases of 1d6 are determined at the end of each adventure and are based on the characters actions during the adventure.

If one alignment is 25 points higher than the other two, the character gains bonuses to social tasks involving people of the same alignment.  If one alignment is 100 points higher than the other two, he becomes an alignment champion and is granted special abilities for his piety.  A few examples of these bonuses are given, but the GM is encouraged to make up his own.  

Overall it’s a nice system that encourages role-playing without forcing penalties on characters who decide to buck the system.  I like the fact that points are always added and never subtracted because that really cuts down on bookkeeping.  The original Dragonlance hardback RPG had an alignment meter that was great in theory, but a joke to keep track of.  This one is much more intuitive.  

Summary
Character generation is fast and simple.  Games with low NPC prep times are a huge plus in my book, and they don’t get much faster than this, even when statting higher level NPCs.  I think the adventure/level up mechanic is excellent and should have been emphasized.  Some of the races and classes are either a bit out of place or could have been formatted a little better, but overall this chapter does what it’s supposed to do (generates characters) and you can’t ask for much more than that.  


EQUIPMENT

This relatively short chapter contains lists of various weapons, armor, and gear. FtA! Uses gold pieces (GP), silver pieces (SP), and copper pieces (CP) for commerce.  No bucking the system there.

A list of weapons is given, divided into four broad categories (light, one-handed melee, two-handed melee, and missile).  Weapons cause a base amount of damage based on whatever category they fall into and whether or not the wielder is trained in its use.  So the base damage for a light weapon like a knife is +1 in the hands on an untrained attacker and +2 in the hands of someone who has been trained.  This is generic enough to make it easy to remember and detailed enough to make it usable.  Of course, mastercraft weapons, high strength attributes, etc. all add to the weapon’s damage value.  It is important to note here that melee weapon damage actually factors into the melee combat attack roll which is described further in the combat suggestion.  

Oddly enough, in some ways the weapons list is too long and in other ways it’s too short.  It’s too long because I don’t think the target Third World consumer is going to need nunchucks and kukri in their game (especially because there are no accompanying descriptions), and it’s too short because traditional gamers are going to want more variety.  The good thing is that the broad weapon categories make adding new weapons extremely easy.  

The armor rules are nice and the armor list is comprehensive.  You must be “trained” to use armor or else you receive penalties to ACT Dex checks.  ARMOR REDUCES DAMAGE (thank God/the gods)!  

The equipment list also gives the costs for many services, something I find extremely helpful, although some of the headers could have been larger to make them stand out more--it took me a second to realize that the 1 SP price for a peasant/barbarian was actually the price of peasant/barbarian clothes and not the price of some poor slave.  

A table and guidelines are given for starting wealth/equipment as well as wealth/equipment/property based on social class.  The latter is a random roll.  

Summary
A straightforward list of weapons, armor, and gear.  I especially like the armor rules.


SKILLS AND STUNTS

This section expands on the task resolution system as it pertains to skills.  Remember, checks are divided into active/ACT and passive/PAS checks.  ACT checks are used when you attempt something.  PAS checks are used when something happens to you.  

When using a skill, you make an ACT check.  The formula for this check is written as:  

3D6 + ACT + relevant attribute + relevant skill (+ any miscellaneous circumstance bonuses or penalties)

------
Note:  I think I’m missing something here.  It seems from the text that the ACT check formula should be:

3D6 + relevant attribute + relevant skill (+ any miscellaneous circumstance bonuses or penalties)

I was going to ask for an explanation, but then it seemed like that would defeat the purpose of an objective review--if I’m missing something, someone else might miss it as well.
------

Different abilities can be used for different skills, so you might use Dex + Sleight of Hand skill to pick a pocket, but Wis + Sleight of Hand skill to notice someone picking your pocket.

ACT checks may be opposed by the target’s PAS check (in the example above, you noticing someone picking your pocket).  In this case, the highest number wins.  

Otherwise, the ACT check must beat a difficulty number.  Task difficulties are divided into seven categories ranging from 10 (Easy) to 40 (Virtually Impossible).

Skills
Skills and their descriptions are clearly laid out.  There are about 20 or so skills, most of which will seem familiar to most gamers, with a few skill subcategories for Craft and Knowledge.  One of these categories happens to be Pipe Lore, which brought and immediate grin.  I do like it when the designer injects a bit of personality into his own work.  

Stunts
The next section on stunts could have been a little clearer.  Stunts are sort of nontraditional ways of using skills or attributes.  Some provide bonuses to certain checks while others are role-play-related (like distracting an enemy from attacking a friend).  There are about 12-15 examples, and I think each example could have used its own subheading to make it stand out more.  As it is, it’s a lot to sort through to find a specific stunt (if I was in the middle of a game, for example).  

I especially like the stunt option, and would probably be attempting them often, so I would like to have seen some more examples.  

Summary
Overall, this chapter is pretty straightforward.  I’m not a picky system guy. I don’t get hung up on probabilities and percentages and whatnot.  If it seems serviceable and it applies the same way to everyone, I’m usually OK with it.  On paper, the FtA! task resolution system cleanly and fairly resolves conflicts, so it all looks good to me.  If I misread something, though, I apologize.  


COMBAT

Of course, no fantasy adventure game is complete without its own combat chapter.  

Combat is divided into six-second rounds.  Each round is further divided into seven phases which determine the order in which things take place.  These are:

1 Movement Phase
2 Magic declaration phase
3 Missile phase
4 Melee Combat phase
5 Stunt Phase
6 Spell completion phase
7 Morale/Intimidation check Phase

Characters can act in the movement phase and one other phase of their choice without penalty.  Acting in another phase (such as defending yourself from a melee attack after you’ve decided to fire a bow) imposes a stiff -6 penalty to both actions.  

The Morale/Intimidation check phase is interesting.  It’s basically a “free action” that only comes into play if you’re really beating the crap out of someone.  It’s something most GMs do intuitively, but it’s nice to see it factored in as an actual phase.  

Another thing I found refreshing was the option to permanently swap the positions of the stunt phase and melee phase, making it more likely that players attempt the aforementioned stunts (which could be a lot of fun as the stunt mechanics are flexible and emphasize tactics over brute force. That’s probably what I would do as a GM).  

I’m torn on combat phases I general.  On the one hand, they clearly lay out what is happening and when it happens during the round, so that’s a big bonus to new players who might be confused trying to take it all in.  It also gives you a fighting chance to take out that pesky wizard before he fireballs your whole party.  On the other hand, I tend to run combat scenes based on what makes sense and/or what is most entertaining.  If a situation arises where an enraged PC barbarian is charging a terrified archer, I’m going to give the barbarian the first attack, even though the melee phase normally comes after the missile phase.

The good thing is that reading over the text, it seems like I would be able to wing it the way I prefer without breaking anything.  I really like games that are customizable, and this seems to be one of them (although I haven’t tested it out to be sure).  I don’t know if being customizable was a design goal, but it’s surely a nice plus.  

Critical hits are addressed in the combat section as well as critical fumbles (different for melee and missile attacks).  There is even a chart for fumbles, which I think helps out a great deal and eliminates a bit of the player vs. GM problems that can arise from arbitrary fumble results.  

The chapter closes with damage, death, poison, and other adverse effects of being injured and there’s even an optional chart that lists permanent injuries and their game effects, but before I get to the summary, I want to touch on what I feel is the highlight of this chapter (and possibly the whole game):

Collective Combat
The Melee Combat phase is what sets FtA! combat apart from a lot of traditional fantasy games.  Each person participating in combat makes a melee combat roll.  The result is then added to the total of the other friendly combatants participating in the melee.  This total is then compared against their opponents’ melee total.  The highest group number wins the round.  The difference between the two numbers is the amount of damage that was done and the GM decides how it is distributed amongst the losing side.  This is why weapon damage counts towards the attack roll.

I can’t tell you how much I like this mechanic.  Theoretically, this means you could make a really crappy roll, but still win the round if your buddies bail you out with good rolls of their own.  

That said, the collective combat mechanic should have been emphasized more in the text.  Like with big flashing lights or something.  As it is, when you glance over the combat chapter (like I did the first time I read through it) the whole thing appears to be another typical “you swing at me, I swing at you” type of combat resolution.  It was only when I started doing this review that I spotted the collective melee mechanic and realized just how awesome the resolution is.  The only downside is the “all or nothing” nature of taking damage.  I would like to see a variation where even the attackers take a minimal amount of damage (maybe 1/10 the total hp they deliver), but that’s easily fixed.    

Summary
Overall, this is a complete chapter, with clear and concise rules for combat that should work whether you use the combat phases or not.  The collective melee combat mechanic is absolutely fantastic.  I have at least two setting ideas that I’ve shelved because I could never come up with a collective combat mechanic that doesn’t marginalize individual player actions and abilities, so I know from experience how difficult something like this is to put together.  If it plays out even half as well as it reads on paper, it should be lauded on every FtA! product page and discussion thread.  It’s _that_ good.


MAGIC

Like combat, no true fantasy game would be complete without a chapter on magic.  

FtA! magic requires verbal and somatic components, so you have to be able to talk and move to cast a spell. Casting magic is a full round action (you can see the gap between when the spell phase starts and when the spell actually takes effect in the combat section).  Casting a spell requires a Casting check.  The formula for this is:

PAS Wisdom against a difficulty of 10 + (spell level x2).  Knowledge (Occult Lore) can be added to the check to boost the chance of success, up to a maximum of +6.  

I don’t know why it’s not an ACT Intelligence check and I don’t know why the need to multiply the spell level.  Spellcasting seems hard enough as it is what with everyone taking shots at you as soon as you start chanting and waving your hands around, plus there are a lot of nasty things that can happen to you if you fail the check (critical spell fumble charts with even nastier effects are also included).  

There is an option for Quick Casting which allows you to cast spells immediately in the Magic declaration phase, but if you fumble that check, you could have something embarrassing happen to you (like grow fur all over your body) or you could be in big trouble (you open a Gate into a demonic plane that causes a demon to come through).

Spell Lists
Magic itself is divided by schools.  There are about 12-15 of them that fall into broad categories like Air Shaping or Earth Shaping and some that are more focused like Curing or Telepathy.  Each school has a spell list containing at least 10 spells, from spell levels 1-10. Each spell list contains a descriptive paragraph detailing what the spell does and what checks (if any) need to be made to avoid the effects.  The spells themselves are mostly what you’d expect, although there are quite a few new ones.

Intelligence limits the highest spell level you can cast, and you can only casts spells equal to or less than your character level. So, a 3rd level Wizard can cast 1st, 2nd, and 3rd level spells.  This is another nice feature that cuts down on bookkeeping and the need to consult charts.  

All in all, this section contains a workable fantasy magic system.  The lack of clearly delineated “spell blocks” might raise a few eyebrows to those who are used to 2E or 3E magic, but the necessary spell information is contained within the descriptive paragraph and the format should seem familiar to those of us who cut our teeth on a certain red boxed set.  


MONSTERS

This is one chapter I really like.  All of your traditional fantasy monsters are included (dragons, ghouls, centaurs, oozes, goblins, etc.), but the real value in this section comes from how easy it is to create new monsters.  Monsters have 6 basic stats that are used to determine what they can do (attacks checks, etc.).  For the most part, these stats are based on the monster’s Hit Dice (HD) which are equivalent to character levels.  Damage is determined by the creature’s size.

Summary
The mechanics behind monster creation are clearly explained and the fact that it is all boils down to 6 stats makes it easy to take a monster from somewhere else and drop it into your FtA! campaign without fuss.  


TREASURE

This chapter is devoted to determining what sort of treasure the characters find in dungeons or after they defeat monsters.  The amount and type of treasure is based on the creature’s HD, with a lot of treasure tables to determine exactly what the treasure is.  Treasure includes coins, gems (which includes works of art and jewelry), and magical items.  Descriptions are listed for the magical treasures which include generic magic items and weapons (+1 swords, etc.), specific magic items, (scrolls, rings, potions, wands, etc.), and more powerful artefacts (not a typo).  

Summary
A serviceable set of tables to determine treasure.  Some of the unique artefacts look interesting.  


DUNGEONS AND ENCOUNTERS

This chapter is the meat and potatoes of FtA! and should be another one of its main selling points.  It starts out with a set of random wilderness encounter tables divided into categories like grassland, forest, etc.  

The next 16 pages are devoted entirely to creating random dungeons.  The first level of the dungeon is level 1 and it seems to be structured so that the monsters you face are all equivalent to character level 1.  Then level 2, level 3, etc.  

The first table lists Dungeon Types (tunnel system, ruins, caverns, dungeons, with dungeons being defined as ancient complexes designed long ago by inhuman(e) wizards.  Descriptions for each type of dungeon are given (although these could have used subheadings), as well as information about types of lighting, entrances, wandering monsters, and passageways for each.

The Passageway table starts off a cascade of other tables including types of side passages, alcoves, doors, rooms/chambers, shrines, statues, fountains, dozens of nifty little traps, treasure, and wandering monsters based on character/dungeon level.  

This is the end of the book except for the character sheet and index.


OVERALL IMPRESSIONS

Forward. . .to Adventure! is a nice, rules-lite traditional fantasy game.  Its obvious D&D roots only serve to enhance its appeal and familiarity, although the inclusion of the combat phases make it feel a bit more polished.  There were a few design choices in the layout that could have been better, and the text could use a bit more consistency in some places, but this is overall a very solid product that does exactly what it sets out to do.

FtA!’s major selling points in my opinion are the low GM prep time (especially when designing NPCs), the bestiary guidelines, and the random dungeon generator.  Twenty-odd years ago, the dungeon generator alone would have been so useful it would have made me cry.  I can remember meticulously mapping out maze-like dungeon after maze-like dungeon on graph paper in school (and detention) and then trying to figure out what went where.  Today I like to think I have a bit better grasp on adventure design, but there are times when it is nice to just let the dice fly and see what comes up.  As a matter of fact, these tables make you _want_ to do that, and can be used with any system/setting.  

But above all else, the collective combat mechanic is what really makes this game appealing.  I honestly can’t say enough good things about it, and I don’t feel that it was emphasized enough in the text.  

I don’t run fantasy campaigns anymore, but every now and then my friends and I get the urge for some good old sword and sorcery one-shots. When this happens, I don’t want to waste time rolling up 2E or 3E characters and refreshing myself on the rules, but I’m not looking to reinvent the wheel either. I like games with quick (but interesting) chargen, fast task resolution, and low prep time.  This book joins Iron Gauntlets on my list of games that admirably meet those criteria.  

Pete

---
Peter C. Spahn
Small Niche Games
 

Well, so much for all that BBC code I added in.  

Pete

EDIT:  Also, the irony of pointing out typos in someone else's work when I've noticed at least half a dozen of my own since posting the review is not lost on me.  

EDIT #2:  The text is left-aligned, not right-aligned.  I don't know why I always get those two mixed up.

EDIT #3:  Just to update, the note I had in the skills section where I felt I was missing something - I was, sort of.  ACT and PAS bonuses are Gains you receive as part of your class level progression.  They're extra bonuses added to the skill ranks, attribute, etc., just like the formula says.  I knew that, I even wrote it down as part of the review (in the class section), but for some reason it just didn't click when I actually came to the skills section.  In case anyone still has any doubts, this is why playtest reviews are so much more helpful than capsule reviews.

EDIT #4:  If anyone notices any other discrepancies in this review, please let me know.  I submitted it to RPGNet's review section, so I want to make sure that when it posts there I can fix any mistakes with a followup post like this one.  Thanks!

It strips all BBCode except for links since every single freakin page that shows the article uses the same formatting, and it wouldn't work well on some of those pages. Now, the whole article is also supposed to show up in the forum thread. Ugh.

Thank you for the review.

I've got a question. Does FtA suffer from power inflation? That is, one of the reason I don't like D&D is because as your character levels up, there is a point where your character's power becomes ridiculous, to a large extent due to hit point inflation. In my opinion, Rolemaster doesn't have this problem, and if it does, it's very mitigated.

So, does FtA suffer from power inflation?

Thanks for your review, buddy!

I'm going to answer one of your doubts: the reason you do a PAS WIS check for spellcasting instead of an ACT INT roll is twofold.  First, the in-game justification you'll have noted is in the description of HOW magic supposedly works: you are channeling in divine power.  Thus the spellcasting check is actually a check to see if you can mentally handle the energy that is coursing through your body; you're not performing a skill, you're making a saving throw.
Second, it was a matter of game balance. You'll note that the Quick Casting check is INT-based (because to quickcast you actually ARE performing a skill, using arcane techniques to weave the spell out even as the energy flows in, rather than just passively waiting for the energies to release themselves).  What I wanted was both INT and WIS to be important to spellcasters, rather than it being all-INT.

Again, thanks for the review!!

RPGPundit

PS: Oh yeah, and the modular nature of the rules were DEFINITELY intentional. I wanted the game to be as customizeable as possible. Hence the options of when to put in stunting, the optional Goon rules, and the tables to create your own monsters.

Quote from: ClaudiusThank you for the review.

I've got a question. Does FtA suffer from power inflation? That is, one of the reason I don't like D&D is because as your character levels up, there is a point where your character's power becomes ridiculous, to a large extent due to hit point inflation. In my opinion, Rolemaster doesn't have this problem, and if it does, it's very mitigated.

So, does FtA suffer from power inflation?

Well, its closer to D&D than to rolemaster here.  A 15th level character in FtA! is absurdly powerful.  Keep in mind that the XP system is set up on an exponential scale, though, so what will usually happen is that your characters will reach a certain "comfort zone" (coincidentally the zone equivalent to the D&D-levels I most like playing it) and get stuck there for quite some time.

What I mean is, if you assume that 1 session = 1 adventure, it takes 10 sessions to go from level 1 to level 5.  But then it takes 11 more sessions to go from level 5 to level 7.
And to go from level 1 to level 15 would take a total of 105 sessions (at least 2 years of weekly gameplay).  So assuming you don't cheat, its very very hard to get up to those absurdly-high power levels, unlike modern D&D 3.x where it takes a relatively shorter time.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPunditAgain, thanks for the review!!

No problem at all.  You've reviewed plenty of games I've worked on so it was the least I could do (even though you've credited me as Peter S. Spahn on one review and once called my Chronicles of Amherth setting "so dull its not even bad").  

I tried to be as objective as I could.  I always like to see desgner enthusiasm for a new RPG, and it's an even bigger plus if the RPG is something I can use.

I see the reasoning behind the spell casting decisions.  It does seem like someone will have to be very dedicated to tactics to be a magic user in this game.  I wonder if there might be some stunts to make them less vulnerable.  

Quote from: ClaudiusSo, does FtA suffer from power inflation?

I haven't actually tested the game out at higher levels, obviously, but I don't think it handles power inflation any worse than any other game.  PCs are going to be more powerful at higher levels than most of the NPCs they meet.  However, my gut feeling tells me the collective combat mechanic evens this problem out quite a bit.  

In D&D, for example, a 10th level character being attacked by 20 1st level bandits is not going to bat an eye.  Other games are so lethal that being attacked by so many is almost always fatal.  But in FtA! the 10th level PC is essentially having to compare 20 lower attack rolls (added together) to his 1.  He might beat their roll and he might not, but even if he does he's not going to be killed right away since his roll should be competitive and damage is determined by the difference between the totals (which is why I would like to see the winning side take at least a minimal amount of damage---he might whittle them down eventually, but he won't be in great shape after the fight).  So, on the surface, it seems like there is a lot less of a power inflation issue on the combat side of things, but again, this is all just from reading the text.

Pete

EDIT:  Also, Brett, if you're following this, none of these replies are notifying my email, just FYI.  This is the only forum/thread that's happening with.

Quote from: pspahnEDIT:  Also, Brett, if you're following this, none of these replies are notifying my email, just FYI.  This is the only forum/thread that's happening with.

I know - it doesn't seem to work with these news/review/blog-based threads.

It seems like it could certainly be possible that there could be at least a "close damage" rule, that say if one side beat the other by less than 10 points, the winning side would take damage equal to 1/2 the damage they dealt to the losers.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPunditIt seems like it could certainly be possible that there could be at least a "close damage" rule, that say if one side beat the other by less than 10 points, the winning side would take damage equal to 1/2 the damage they dealt to the losers.

RPGPundit

Or 1/10 or maybe a number equal to the loser's lowest (or highest) damage total or something.  You know the nuances of the system better than I do, but it shouldn't be too hard to figure out with a few test cpmbats.  I just think it needs _something_.  I'm thinking in terms of combat situations where a great warrior like Achilles goes up against 20 Trojans.  

In FtA! mechanics, he's probably going to lose most of the rounds, taking damage each round, but probably not enough to kill him outright.  In the meantime, he's almost certain to be dishing out some damage and killing a few Trojans of his own.  They'll most likely get him in the end unless help arrives, but they should at least know they've been in a fight.  Unless I misunderstand the system, they could conceivably fight him for several rounds and finally kill him without suffering a scratch, and that just doesn't feel right.  

Maybe also because I just watched 300 last night.  You can see that none of the Persian warriors had a chance against the Spartans one on one (or even 5 on 1), but you did see the Spartans slowly getting whittled down over the course of the movie (taking wounds, losing eyes, etc.).  I think even an optional loser damage rule would be nice, if cinematic combat is not what you want to emphasize.  Gang tactics _should_ give one side an overwhelming advantage over the other, but the all or nothing damage just doesn't feel right.  If I get jumped by 5 guys, at least one of them is getting punched in the mouth before I go down, dammit.  

Pete

Mind you a lot of that is taken care of by the critical rules and the Goon option.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPunditMind you a lot of that is taken care of by the critical rules and the Goon option.

RPGPundit

Yes, you're right, of course, but it's still all or nothing on damage as far as I can tell (unless I'm missing something).  

Pete

Quote from: pspahnYes, you're right, of course, but it's still all or nothing on damage as far as I can tell (unless I'm missing something).  

Pete

Yes, under the usual rules its still all or nothing in any given round of combat.

RPGPundit

Apparently the latest version of Tunnels and Trolls has a system where any 6s (it only uses 6-sided dice) count as damage, regardless of who wins the round, and regardless of armour. In their case, this was designed for a situation where two high-level characters might be very likely to generate close combat totals, and thus score damage on each other that was less than either of their armour, meaning that combats could go on for a long time.

Quote from: Age of FableApparently the latest version of Tunnels and Trolls has a system where any 6s (it only uses 6-sided dice) count as damage, regardless of who wins the round, and regardless of armour. In their case, this was designed for a situation where two high-level characters might be very likely to generate close combat totals, and thus score damage on each other that was less than either of their armour, meaning that combats could go on for a long time.

In FtA! that particular scenario would only go on as long as the characters wanted it to; its very possible that something like this could happen if two opponents were evenly-matched enough; however, one or the other would then attempt to resolve the situation through stunting.

Which means that very close combats between very high level characters could often end up becoming hugely swashbuckling "stunt-battles", with each player trying to think of how to do something sufficiently daring to take out the other guy.

RPGPundit