[LowDie] Looking for feedback / casual playtesters

[DigitalMage]

I have written an RPG system (no setting) called LowDie and have released it as a Rich Text File (RTF) under the Open Game Licence (OGL).  

As I am not in this for profit I have released it without much playtesting, hoping to gain feedback from anyone who picked it up and ran a game with it.

To date I have received a small amount of feedback, some complimentary (it has been likened to Unisystem), some critical (it offers little new, it is human-centric).

I would however like more feedback, hence this post. Ideally I would like some more experienced playtesters to try it out and provide some feedback if that is possible.

The RTF file is available from my website or from RPGHoard here.

I appreciate any help you can provide.

Cheers!

[Andrew Martin]

Hi.

It looks OK, much like the James Bond 007 RPG from Victory Games.

When I see "GP", I keep thinking "Gold Piece" from AD&D. Perhaps it would be simpler to use "points" instead of "Generation Points"?

Your game system rewards players who read the rules carefully and min-max their characters to gain higher effectiveness by choosing disadvantages that are horrendously to the entire party or only come into play infrequently. Is this intentional?

Why should I use this system over, say, Fudge?

For example, with Fudge, I can have Wealth as a descriptor and roll that for tasks involving the use of wealth, so negating the need for accounting for money in Low Die. You could do the same in Low Die, and it would be an improvement, I feel.

Also with Fudge, I and my players can assume that most attributes default to Fair (average) and most skills default to Terrible, if not otherwise specified, so negating the need to buy up attributes from zero to get to average with Low Die. IIRC, JB007 had attributes defaulting to average, and the players could sell them down if they wished. Could you do the same?

[DigitalMage]

It looks OK, much like the James Bond 007 RPG from Victory Games.

James Bond was one of the inspirations, especially in terms of the Chase rules and the idea of Fate Points (Hero Points in JB).

When I see "GP", I keep thinking "Gold Piece" from AD&D. Perhaps it would be simpler to use "points" instead of "Generation Points"?

I didn't think of this, not being a D&D player. I started on Warhammer FRP which had Gold Crowns (GCs)! :) Generation Points is also the terms used in James Bond.

I wanted to clearly differentiate between points used to create characters and those gained after the game began (Experience Points), my reasoning being it would be easy for a GM to "audit the character".  However, yes it could be argued that because they are equivalent to one another you don't need to differentiate. I'll need to think about this.

Your game system rewards players who read the rules carefully and min-max their characters to gain higher effectiveness by choosing disadvantages that are horrendously to the entire party or only come into play infrequently. Is this intentional?

I hadn't noticed this as such. I did intentionally keep the list of Weaknesses a lot shorter than the list of Strengths. Can you specify in particular which Weaknesses you believe would disadvantage the group as a whole?

Why should I use this system over, say, Fudge?

A good question, and not one I can readily answer as I am not overly familiar with Fudge. The strength of the LowDie system to me is that it attempts to minimise the number of dice rolls required, e.g. contested actions require a test by only one party, there is no counter, parry, damage or soak rolls in combat, yet all those things are taken into account. It can even be run completely diceless with no change to the system as written.

For example, with Fudge, I can have Wealth as a descriptor and roll that for tasks involving the use of wealth, so negating the need for accounting for money in Low Die. You could do the same in Low Die, and it would be an improvement, I feel.

I imagine this could easily be added as a new Trait.

LowDie, as is, has two ways of handling wealth - some games can use the Resources Traits to specify an amount of funds a character starts with, with which they can purchase equipment and so forth. This would be similar to Shadowrun's Resources.

Alternatively the GM can use the Lifestyle Traits so a player just pays for a particular lifestyle and can be assumed to have all the trappings of that level - the player can ask the GM whether they have specific items and the GM can base their answer upon the level of the Lifestyle (Lower, Middle, Upper, Jet Set etc).  This is similar to Storytellers' Resources Background.

There is also a Trait that allows the player to gain an item that would not normally be part of their lifestyle - the GM simply assigns it a rating depending upon how powerful and difficult to obtain that item is.

The Fudge like Wealth mechanic could be implemented in LowDie, maybe with something as simple as to assign a numerical rating to the existing lifestyles as suggested below:

Homeless: 0
Squatting: 3
Lower: 6
Middle: 9
Upper: 12
Jet Set: 15

Also with Fudge, I and my players can assume that most attributes default to Fair (average) and most skills default to Terrible, if not otherwise specified, so negating the need to buy up attributes from zero to get to average with Low Die. IIRC, JB007 had attributes defaulting to average, and the players could sell them down if they wished. Could you do the same?

Skills already default to "Terrible" by having a default rating of zero :)

As for Attributes, this could be done but it would either have to break the simple rule of "Cost is equal to Rating x Rating", or use that rule and provide the info to assume Attributes start at 5 (see below).

E.g.
Attributes are assumed to start at an average Rating of 5 each.

Starting Generation Points should therefore be reduced by 200 (the cost of buying all 8 attributes at a rating of 5)

To increase an attribute the following costs must be paid:
New Rating - Cost
6 - 11 Points
7 - 24 Points
8 - 39 Points
9 - 56 Points
10 - 75 Points

If a player wishes to "buy down" an Attribute the following points are gained to spend elsewhere:
New Rating - Points Gained
4 - 9 Points
3 - 16 Points
2 - 21 Points
1 - 24 Points

This could also be added as an extra rule, but I personally would say it is easier to simply say that Attributes must be paid for whether below or above average and that the cost is equal to the Rating squared (Rating x Rating). The cost of all average attributes (rating 5) is 200 Points (a nice round number).

Thanks for the feedback, keep it coming in!

[Walt Freitag]

One thing I noticed right off: since many ten-sided dice are numbered 0-9, you should make clearer in the Core Mechanic section that zeros should be read as 10 or dice numbered 1-10 should be used.

I have to say that the LowDie mechanism itself is clever. It's a nice way to get a well-behaved random distribution that's center-weighted and centered (that is, where 0 is the most likely result and where +n and -n results are equally likely for any n) using dice that are numbered in the normal way (as opposed to, say, Fudge dice).

Note that you could get exactly the same distribution of results in a variety of other ways:
- subtract the die rolls, always subtracting in the same way e.g. the red die from the black die
- add the two die rolls and subtract 11 (for dice numbered 1-10) or 9 (for dice numbered 0-9)
- add the two die rolls and also add 11 (or 9) to the DN
- the player rolls one die to add to his total and the GM rolls another die to add to the DN.

The LowDie mechanism doesn't involve as much addition or subtraction. It does require remembering which die is which in order to read the result as positive or negative (as does the first alternative listed). Which way is best is going to be a matter of personal preference, but overall LowDie might be the fastest and it's a variation I haven't seen before. Another benefit of the LowDie mechanism is that one could easily change the variance or "degree of randomness" either for a specific test or gamewide by using smaller (or larger) dice. (The first and fourth alternatives listed could also do that smoothly, while for the second or third you'd also have to change the constant, which would be awkward and error-prone.) This would give you intermediate options between rolling the d10 LowDie, and going completely diceless.

It's admirable that most of the write-up is oriented toward providing information to help the GM evaluate challenges (deriving the DNs and applying the effects of different levels of success and failure). There are some improvements that could be made in that area, though, by focusing on play situations rather than (as you've done in a few cases) statistical facts and figures. For instance, a table of how much weight characters of different strength ratings can lift isn't really very useful in play, since there's usually more uncertainty in how much the item in question "should" weigh rather than how much weight the character can handle. What's the chance this hero can lift this I-beam? With only the Muscle table to work with, I can't tell unless I happen to know how many pounds an I-beam weighs.

This is not a suggestion that you add a big table of how much everything in the world weighs, though. Instead, you should take into account that you already have a mechanism to decide whether or not the character succeeds in the face of uncertainty about the exact details of the task: the core die roll mechanism. (You might think the randomness of the die roll represents the variation in the character's performance, but given the spread of results, which even in the -5/+5 center range alone adds as much variation as the skill level, it makes as much or more sense to think of the die roll as representing factors in the task itself that are outside the acting character's control and unknown in advance. Such as whether the target of an attack will effectively dodge, or exactly how much that I-beam actually weighs.) So instead, provide a table of example objects likely to be lifted in play, and the respective DNs for a Muscle test. Skip the kilograms altogether.

In general, I suggest that everywhere you have a special rule or a special table for buying or using an ability, "special" meaning something other than one of your standard DN, Results, or Modifiers tables, strongly consider rendering it into your standard form.  Andrew Martin's suggestion about handling wealth and purchasing is another example of exactly the same principle. Yet another example is Contacts: the key issue in resolution isn't who the contact is, but how likely the contact is to come through with a given favor when the character needs it. A character having a Contacts rating that works like a skill, with example DNs for different magnitudes of favor, would work just as well or better than the present catalog of contacts and costs, which doesn't appear to help the players to resolve attempts to actually use the contacts. (The player can still write down who the contacts are and so forth, for use in narration.)

Finally, some Indie Game Design forum boilerplate: you'll get more useful feedback here (or anywhere, but especially here) if you can specify what your areas of concern are. Is there some aspect of the game you're looking to improve or change in a particular way? Some potential problem (presentation, mechanical soundness, originality, support of certain play styles, or whatever) that you wish to investigate?

- Walt

[DigitalMage]

One thing I noticed right off: since many ten-sided dice are numbered 0-9, you should make clearer in the Core Mechanic section that zeros should be read as 10 or dice numbered 1-10 should be used.

Good point, I will ensure this is in the next version.

Note that you could get exactly the same distribution of results in a variety of other ways:
- subtract the die rolls, always subtracting in the same way e.g. the red die from the black die

I have been told this is how Feng Shui works. It extra benefit is to allow exploding D6s.

- the player rolls one die to add to his total and the GM rolls another die to add to the DN.

Yes, this was pointed out to me on a thread on RPG.net.  Effectively have every task be an opposed roll.

- The LowDie mechanism doesn't involve as much addition or subtraction.

Yes, this was one of the things I liked about it - you only have to add or subtract one number, but you get the benefit of a range of results clustered around a central result.

It does require remembering which die is which in order to read the result as positive or negative

Not too much of an issue IMO, no worse than when rolling two D10s as percentile dice and having to remember which is tens and which are units.

LowDie might be the fastest and it's a variation I haven't seen before.

I thought the dice mechanic was farily original too until I dusted off my old Babylon Project book (a game I never played) and found they used exactly the same mechanic only using D6s!

This would give you intermediate options between rolling the d10 LowDie, and going completely diceless.

There is a section in the GM chapter that discusses using LowDie diceless, basically it means using the same rules but dispensing with dice rolls - it is suggested to use more Fate Points so players can change the odds by allocating Fate Points to certain tasks. It also suggests using optional rules such as Rushing Things to avoid static initiatives and DNs in combat.

It's admirable that most of the write-up is oriented toward providing information to help the GM evaluate challenges (deriving the DNs and applying the effects of different levels of success and failure).

This was mainly done as I wanted the system to appeal to those that like crunch as well as those who like thing lighter. However it has bloated the size of the rules and so can appear intimdating.

I plan on doing a LowDie Light version, cutting out all the specific DN and Results tables and just emphasising using the general tables to act as a guide for the GM. I will also use the shorthand attributes and cut the Skill list in half by doubling up (for example Fire Arms will combine Side Arms and Long Arms, and Control Animal will combine Ride and Animal Handling).

provide a table of example objects likely to be lifted in play, and the respective DNs for a Muscle test. Skip the kilograms altogether.

A good idea, sort of the thing in the Storyteller games (one thing I particularly liked).

In general, I suggest that everywhere you have a special rule or a special table for buying or using an ability, "special" meaning something other than one of your standard DN, Results, or Modifiers tables, strongly consider rendering it into your standard form.

A good idea and one that should be fairly easy to apply just be adding numerical ratings to contacts etc and providing a DN and results table.

if you can specify what your areas of concern are. Is there some aspect of the game you're looking to improve or change in a particular way? Some potential problem (presentation, mechanical soundness, originality, support of certain play styles, or whatever) that you wish to investigate?

I was warned about this :) I originally posted this thread in the Connections forum to seek playtesters but a moderator moved it as it was felt it would get a better response here.

I have some Playtesting areas of focus that I would suggest people look at. It is on my website but I will post it again below.

[DigitalMage]

Aspects for Testing
There are a number of different aspects of the LowDie System that I would like feedback on, and these include:

Clarity - Are the rules easy to understand? Did you interpret a rule differently than someone else? How well are the rules formatted? Is the structure of the document any good? How easy is it to teach others how to play?

Balance - Do you feel the character generation and development process results in balanced characters? Are Attributes too cheap compared to Skills? What Traits do you feel are too powerful or too expensive? Are there any loopholes in the rules that can allow characters to be too powerful?

Completeness - Do you feel the rules lack detail in a certain area? Do you feel one area has been completely overlooked? Do you feel there is too much detail?

Styles of Play - Do you feel the system allows for the different styles of play - Gritty, Dramatic and Cinematic - as it pupports to do? Do you feel it favours one style over another? Are there some other rules that you feel could better allow the styles of play to be captured?

Adaptability - Do you feel that you could use the LowDie System to run a game of your favourite roleplaying genre, be it cyberpunk, espionage, sci-fi, horror or fantasy? What about if there was specific support for these settings? Which genres would you like to see supported?

Any other comments or criticisms that don't fall into the above categories are of course welcomed as well. And don't just comment on what doesn't work, let the me know what you did like and what worked smoothly! :)[/b]

[statisticaltomfoolery]

I hope you appreciated some kind of rushed feedback (about 15 minutes of reading the core part of the rules, and then glancing over the rest), as I'm super busy at work.

I was surprised to not find GURPS on your influences page (this of course, isn't a fault of yours), but I think it's the most obvious comparison: both your game and GURPS aspire to be generic any-setting games in which the creative agenda leans strongly towards Simulation of System (okay, I can leap, but exactly how far can I leap? 31 feet!), and while the resolution mechanics are different (but both pretty 'simple' at their core), the level of detail and complexity (high) is about the same.

So, the question is, why play LowDie as opposed to GURPS? The battle is going uphill on one major issue: when the creative agenda of both games is associated (in my mind) strongly with Simulation of System, that GURPS has a huge, enormous library of supplements to give you the rules you need to play just about any setting imaginable is a big headstart.


One of the most carped about system weaknesses in GURPS: albino syndrome, where players end up a pile of disadvantages/weaknesses to max points, is still here. Players are rewarded, very strongly, for taking as many weaknesses as they can, and they are also rewarded for making those weaknesses have absolutely no impact on the story: score the points for the alcoholism weakness, and then try and make sure the GM doesn't screw you on it.


I think that helping to define what separates it from other games of its ilk might lead to some good design choices. Right now, the pitch is: "great new die mechanic, which is simple", but you're going up plenty of other games (fuzion, GURPS, etc) where the core die mechanic is simple as well. Fate Points aren't really that interesting either (the bump a roll or small coincidence thing is very common now, and I think originates with Fudge).

Anyway, best of luck!

[DigitalMage]

I hope you appreciated some kind of rushed feedback (about 15 minutes of reading the core part of the rules, and then glancing over the rest), as I'm super busy at work.

All feedback is gratefully received! :)

I was surprised to not find GURPS on your influences page (this of course, isn't a fault of yours), but I think it's the most obvious comparison:

I've never played GURPS and only own one GURPS book (Martial Arts) which I used ages ago for inspiration for my Shadowrun Martial Arts rules. Therefore I can't really comment too much, though I accept that the goals are very similar in terms of producing a generic system.

Its funny, because one of the first bits of feedback I got was concerned that it resembled Unisystem too closely :)

Simulation of System (okay, I can leap, but exactly how far can I leap? 31 feet!)

I am not familiar with this term but I think I understand what you mean.

the level of detail and complexity (high) is about the same.

I actually used the D20 Modern SRD and Star Wars D20 as a guide to the level of detail being sought by some gamers.

So, the question is, why play LowDie as opposed to GURPS? The battle is going uphill on one major issue: when the creative agenda of both games is associated (in my mind) strongly with Simulation of System, that GURPS has a huge, enormous library of supplements to give you the rules you need to play just about any setting imaginable is a big headstart.

Maybe that is LowDie's biggest weakness - nothing to differentiate it from the majority of other systems except perhaps it being OGL. Still, my intentions were never to really compete with the "big boys" but to hopefully create a system I could enjoy and share with others, ideally for free. Though I haven't read it JAGS looks like the sort of thing I could see LowDie aspiring to be - a free RPG with a fair amount of high qality support material that is well liked by a small niche of gamers.

Fate Points aren't really that interesting either (the bump a roll or small coincidence thing is very common now, and I think originates with Fudge).

My inspiration for Fate Points originally came form james Bond's Hero Points - does that predate Fudge?

Anyway, best of luck!

Thanks!

[statisticaltomfoolery]

Heh. I think it just goes to showhow similar most high-detail generic systems look  in the end. GURPS was there first, as far as I can tell, but it's not like that matters.

As it turns out, James Bond 007 is old! (1983), which is surprising, but there you go. Serves me right for being a toddler when it was released.

The creative agenda stuff can be found in the articles section: GNS And Other Matters of Role-Playing Theory and Simulationism: The Right To Dream might be especially relevant.

Good luck with hitting your goal! If I had to recommend ideas where you might gain more differentiation, without sacrificing the feel, I'd consider reworking disadvantages (disadvantages that pay when activated, maybe paying in fate points; disadvantages that are based on being worked into stories), and maybe thinking about using orthodox scene framing: who says it's the GM who always gets to decide what the next scene is?

[DigitalMage]

Heh. I think it just goes to showhow similar most high-detail generic systems look  in the end. GURPS was there first, as far as I can tell, but it's not like that matters.

I think this is true, as was teh case with the guy who compared it to Unisystem - another game that I have neever read or played! :)

As it turns out, James Bond 007 is old! (1983), which is surprising, but there you go. Serves me right for being a toddler when it was released.

Yes, I am a big James Bond fan and have managed to complete my JB RPG collection including a few doubles (I have a few shrink wrapped scenarios doubled as well as 3 GM screens!)

I'll give the creative agenda stuff a butchers when I get a chance, thanks for teh directions.

In terms of disadvantages, yes a new take on this could be good. I particularly liked how Spycraft handled Background - they actually cost something to gain (rather than give a refund) but when they come into play they can earn you XP.  The idea of gaining Fate Points is a good alternative too.

Cheers!

[statisticaltomfoolery]

Yeah, I like Spycraft's background system a lot too.

I think if you expand the idea of weaknesses to also include plot points (much like Spycraft's backgrounds) work, and then have them be the core generator of fate points, you've got something where people will want to take backgrounds (even if they're doing nothing but min/maxing), and then will want to see those backgrounds show up in play.

You can either take Spycraft's approach, where it's kind of agnostic to how troublesome the debt is, or you can come up with an approach where certain types of backgrounds (weaknesses) give certain types of penalties, which makes them less expensive.

Or, another approach is that you buy backgrounds at a certain power level, and then the payoff for these backgrounds is based on whether it hurts or helps you: when you're really hindered by a background, that's when it pays off the most.

The problem to watch for is that the currencies might be too equivalent: a weakness means taking a -2 penalty on one roll gives you a fate point of +2 bonus later. Spycraft dodges this by making it all into XP, but this is in essence, a cop-out: hitting your backgrounds, or let's rephrase this, making the story hit the plot points which the players find interesting should be something which ideally, drives a large part of the game.

[Walt Freitag]

I plan on doing a LowDie Light version, cutting out all the specific DN and Results tables and just emphasising using the general tables to act as a guide for the GM. I will also use the shorthand attributes and cut the Skill list in half by doubling up (for example Fire Arms will combine Side Arms and Long Arms, and Control Animal will combine Ride and Animal Handling).

Hmm. No reason not to, I suppose, but I would think the whole point of a system like this is the tools it gives you to reach resolution on PC actions when resistance and uncertainty exist. I understand streamlining rules and why it's often desirable, but I don't see it in this case. It's like taking a bunch of 20-amp shop tools (lathes, bandsaws, drill presses) and making them half as big. They still won't be portable, or quiet-running, or easier to learn or use, but they will be less capable of the heaviest-duty jobs.

Consider that you could, for instance, reduce your game to the core die mechanism and character attributes, name-your-own skill and trait selection, and instruction to the GM to do all resolution by judging the difficulty of each action attempted, assigning the appropriate TN, and applying any relevant character skills and other modifiers. I'm not saying you should do that, I'm saying that if you did it would be completely playable. That you've seen fit to provide more specifics than that suggests that there's some quality of play you want those rules to provide. Unobtrusiveness isn't it, or else you'd have a very different kind of game to begin with.

Which brings me to another issue:as I said, this system is all about how to resolve characters' attempts to do stuff. If I want my space marine to gallop off on horseback while dodging fireball spells and ninja shuriken, by golly it shows me how to find out whether or not he succeeds. But how does the character get into that situation (or any other situation) in the first place? The game doesn't help the reader at all with that -- and yet that part is just as difficult to figure out, if not more so. Your book isn't the first to sweep that whole aspect of play under the "Have the GM do it" rug. It's a rather time-honored tradition. But what's the point? How many GMs out there can craft an adventure from nothing, but need a text to tell them what happens if a character makes a successful seduction roll?

(If other kinds of how-to books were written on the same principle, they'd have titles like "How to Make Your Second Million In Business," "How To Climb Down From The Summit Of Mount Everest," and "How To Eat Home-Cooked Gourmet Meals.")

It's a bit unfair to pick on LowDie for the same shortcoming that many other general-purpose game systems share, but most systems at least attempt to provide at least some hint of an organizing principle for creating an adventure. The GURPs sourcebooks (which are the real point of GURPs) offer a genre-based approach, providing bundles of stuff to put into a setting. Storyteller games are more setting-based, providing different levels of conflict to build around (from "thematic" moral conflicts to long-term factional feuds to issues situated locally in a metaplot). AD&D offers the option of pulling random creatures and stuff off lists and strewing it all around in the sewers. Many indie games provide explicit methods for creating adventures that radiate from the player-characters, with or without advance GM preparation. The merits and shortcomings of all these approaches are open to discussion (and are frequently discussed) but at least they all try to suggest some starting place.

My main reason for bringing this up at this stage is that it's a potential barrier for play-testing. To play-test LowDie it appears necessary to define a setting and situation, which the system doesn't help you with. This could makes result difficult to interpret too. If I run a gritty realistc Le Carre style spy game and GM it "no myth" style (no advance preparation, making all setting and background up on the fly), what part of the results would be applicable to using the system to run a front-loaded follow-the-clues treasure hunt in a high fantasy setting? You might get more testers and more meaningful results if you were to provide  the outlines of a "sample adventure" designed to exhibit and exercise the key features of the system.

- Walt

[DigitalMage]

Hmm. No reason not to, I suppose, but I would think the whole point of a system like this is the tools it gives you to reach resolution on PC actions when resistance and uncertainty exist. I understand streamlining rules and why it's often desirable, but I don't see it in this case. It's like taking a bunch of 20-amp shop tools (lathes, bandsaws, drill presses) and making them half as big. They still won't be portable, or quiet-running, or easier to learn or use, but they will be less capable of the heaviest-duty jobs.

The reason I am considering doing a LowDie Light is because the full rules can seem very intimidating because of their size (a result of being so comprehensive).  I therefore want to create a much shorter text that would encourage a casual reader to read it. Cutting the skill list in half just means that I can put all the skills on a character sheet and again make things seem a bit simpler (though perhaps a bit more abstract).

I would hope that any LowDie Light would encourage players to try out the full LowDie System.  It would also be written more as a proper text rather than the core rules devoid of any "fluff" and articles such as "What is roleplaying?" that the full LowDie System lacks (I wrote the LowDie Core Rules to basically be the equivalent of the D20 SRD - i.e. all crunch, which can be reused and merged into a setting specific game with all the supporting "fluff" added around it.

Consider that you could, for instance, reduce your game to the core die mechanism and character attributes, name-your-own skill and trait selection, and instruction to the GM to do all resolution by judging the difficulty of each action attempted, assigning the appropriate TN, and applying any relevant character skills and other modifiers. I'm not saying you should do that, I'm saying that if you did it would be completely playable. That you've seen fit to provide more specifics than that suggests that there's some quality of play you want those rules to provide.

Actually I was proposing to do as you stated - provide a list of skills but no specifics on how to use them, just general advice to the GM to judge the DN and interpret the results according to the general Success Levels (Incomplete, Adequate, Good, Excellent, Outstanding). I would perhaps give a few examples as well.

Your book isn't the first to sweep that whole aspect of play under the "Have the GM do it" rug. It's a rather time-honored tradition. But what's the point? How many GMs out there can craft an adventure from nothing, but need a text to tell them what happens if a character makes a successful seduction roll?

Again, my intent was not to try and create a "hot to GM" section, just to provide a set of core rules ala the SRD for D20. When I get around to writing some of the settings that will include LowDie I very much intend to add sections such as "how to design an adventure", "ways to motivate players and their characters" etc.

You might get more testers and more meaningful results if you were to provide  the outlines of a "sample adventure" designed to exhibit and exercise the key features of the system.

I am writing a couple of scenarios for GenCon UK that I plan to post to the LowDie website when I have done, hopefully these would perhaps provide a better means to gain playtesters?

Again, thanks for the feedback!

[RobMuadib]

DM

I haven't read through all of your document yet but I had one question. How come you don't have it available as a PDF? You can get free programs with PDF capablity, such as open office. It's pretty common to put out your stuff in a PDF.

best

Rob Muadib

[DigitalMage]

I haven't read through all of your document yet but I had one question. How come you don't have it available as a PDF? You can get free programs with PDF capablity, such as open office. It's pretty common to put out your stuff in a PDF.

I aim to put a PDF together but I also want to reformat it at the same time (provide specific page references aybe put some artwork in as well).  

Basically I don't have the time yet (I am busy writing two LowDie sceanrios and a LARP for GenCon UK!).