Realms of Wonder from Action Studios

[Jeffrey Miller]

the spellcasting system is the best i have ever seen. as a mage goes up in level he has more control over his magic not less like in D&D.

Have you seen Ars Magica's system, where the level of every aspect of a spell is adjustable?

[Hardpoint]

No worries. But as everyone here is saying, these are the things you need to put into your "ad". Basic mechanics aren't inspiring in terms of play. All a combat mechanic says is, "yep, this game, too, will be about killin' things and taking their stuff." Seems that your game has a lot more depth to it than that, and that's the stuff that you need people to see.

I plan to tackle that, but will wait to do it when I'm more done with the game, like when I finish the reworking of the JumpStart Edition. I like what others have said are focus items, and that feedback will certainly be listened to.

That's in the expanded rules, somewhere, right? I mean the general notion of when to roll and when not to do so. It's funny, because I often make fun of the many games out there who will tell GM's not to roll for things like crossing the street, and tying shoes. Does anyone actually do that? But lot's of people would roll for climbing a tree. What GM's need to know is what sort of things make sense to roll for in this partticular game. Seems that you only want rolls when there's significant pressure or somthing like that. Make that known with examples. Most designers miss this point in their text.

I do in fact specifically mention not to make people roll for things that have no need to be rolled unnecessarily. Sometimes Heroes can just do things, like climb a tree. There are some things that DO need to be rolled each time, but that is for making things, as Rank Result indicates Quality Rating.

But my point was to make only one scale, which would be simpler. Yes it would require a modification to rolling. But I guess my point is to ask if any of these "different scale" stats ever get rolled against. And if so, how do you accomodate that with the system. If only Str goes on this other scale, and is never rolled, well then I guess you have no problem. Still, it seems atrificial to cap ability ratings to me in order to keep them on a small scale, and there are fun and easy ways around this. Just saying. :-)

And, again, you kick the crap out of D&D there. But do a search here on the phenomenon called "Whiff Syndrome". Your game isn't as bad as some, but it's going to have significant amounts of this problem.

Well, in playtest it so far hasn't been that much of a problem. Those that have had issues with die rolling was because they couldn't roll below the high 20s and few would succeed then. Players have had extremely good die rolling (Daeglan in fact consistently rolls well and his Elf has stats around 20 and is Rank 3 in a lot of his skills), while others have trouble, but that has to do with the die more than anything.

There are opposed rolls, like in Combat, but there are also unopposed checks (like Sneak Attacks, making something, etc)

That's an astute observation (about the adversarial relationship). But in general there are two ways to deal with this. One is, as you do, to limit the GM's powers to areas that can't be percieved as adversarial as much as possible. The other, however, is to create mechanics that speak to the neccessity of trust. Basically, it's an irony, but true, that the more you limit the GM, the more you inform them that they are working against the players in a limited framework. These limitations become something to work around to "get" the characters. There are lots of other ways to engender trust, IMO.

That said, I don't really like the GM having to make such subjective decisions (there are lots of potential problems in that). Again, you're taking my suggestions too literally. OTOH, equitable is just fine if that's truely your goal.

The idea is to tell a fun story and one where the players all get killed is not terribly fun (CoC, some DnD...). The goal is not the point, it's the road getting there where the fun lies. GMs gunning for players is discouraged in the rules, instead they are encouraged to foment fun roleplaying and introduce cool story elements where the players can shine. I also talk about GMs making sure that the spotlight gets moved from player to player now and again to make sure everyone has their "time in the sun". This is an area where a lot of RPGs simply fail to recognize that there are different styles of player and some are more timid than others, but at heart, everyone wants to have their moment of glory. I just encourage GMs to consider that angle. Make sure that your players get a chance to be the center of attention.

You're misdirecting. I might point out that when I bought James Bond (about the day it came out as I am a slavering fan of the franchise), I noted that it was itself influenced by Fame and Fortune points in Top Secret, which might be considered the first metagame resource mechanic.

I wasn't meaning to. I had forgotten Top Secret. I actually first saw Glory  in a pocket TSR game called Saga. But that was how you won the game.

But that's neither here nor there. You're dodging the question of whether or not the rewards are too tightly bound to what you are rewarded for. At GenCon playing with Wick, I saw this in action. In the game he was running for us, several times, he took a chip from a player only to hand it right back to him. John, I think, sees this as a good thing, but I don't personally. It doesn't encourage stretching out, it doesn't inform about anything other than playing dramatically. Which a lot of groups do anyhow.

Just as another example, you could, for instance, link the rewards to increasing Glory or something (which seems to make intuitive sense), which could then, in turn be used to help the character in other ways. The point is that in extending the cycle to include other activities, you create links in your mechanics that can be useful in promoting the style you want to see. Do you see what I'm getting at?

Did you see my post on Hero Point awards and how they are handed out? I hand them out for doing things in a heroic manner. Not just for drama, and combat, but also for acting like a Hero. Also, they are there as a means of "cheating" within the rules. They are designed to cover that cinematic aspect of why a hero wins a fight he shouldn't. The real reason is "it's in the script", but here since there is no script, sometimes the Hero has to nudge things his way. I call it Good Guy luck. This is how that works. I see your point about the tight circle, but because the awarding of Hero Points is based on play, it encourages players to participate, not just go thru the game. Players who add to the fun factor of play for everyone else are to be rewarded. I do that with Hero Points, Glory Awards (as playtesters will remember my "take 2 Glory out of petty cash" award wherein I reward players for cool dialogue ), and at the end of a Chapter (read play session) EP. EP is handed out on the concept of roleplaying vs rollplaying. I created this "tight circle" to ensure that players would want to get involved, in order to get the goodies. Those who just show up, play like it was DnD and just loot and scoot, will not ever get as many of the benefits of my game as those who grab hold of the concept of the dramatic style and run with it. I award things based on players acting and doing rather than just existing. Yes, the system is meant for Hams, but that is the point of cinematic style gaming.

OTOH, that may just be arrogance, and you can dismis it if you want. But I'd like to think that I've helped people with my commentary, and generally get feedback that I do.

Perhaps this is something you should evaluate of yourself. Arrogance is not something to be proud of. I don't wish to engage in a flame war as that is destructive and pointless. I'm just giving you feedback on what I read here. As Ron Edwards said in the moderation issue of the other day "I can't read intent, only what is here in print" and what is here in print is sometimes unncessarily inflammatory.

OTOH, if you want to play, then bring it on over to Indie Netgaming. We're all about the Actual Play here. There's certainly something to be learned by playing the game. My point is not that it wouldn't be educational to do so. Just that I'm pretty good at eyeballing games, if I do say so.

I may do just that.

Cool. Do you want more feedback, or do you now think I'm an arrogant bastard who has nothing useful to say? ;-)

See above. =) Sometimes arrogant bastards can be useful. You made me fight for what I've done, for which I do thank you. You have made me see things from a different light, but at the same time, I am sticking to my design.

Further, if you do want feedback, could you make it a bit more clear what subjects you'd like to discuss. The more you tell us what you want, the more cogent help you'll get.

Point taken. Will do in another thread.

It contains editable areas of the PDF (for the characters) and the art by Larry Elmore is there with consent, as the release is free.

I thought I'd recognized that art. Very nice. You apparently haven't spared any expense to make this a good looking game (or do you have an "in" with Mr. Elmore?).

I guess you could say I have an "in." He's a very nice guy with a very soft heart when it comes to small publishers. I've met him several times while working security for Cons in Los Angeles. I contacted him, asked for permission, and he agreed, as long as I linked back to his website and didn't alter the images (other than size).

Cool. Now that's worth waiting for. Want to work it out here at all?

Sounds like a decent idea. But certainly a new topic.

Heh, like I said, Freudian. That's exactly what I predicted. Given your design, what you're doing here is, IMO, displaying an intuitive knowledge of GNS issues. That is, Storyteller is actually a bad name in some ways for what the GM is mandated to do in WW products, but much more closely fits your vision. I wish you had it instead. Still, Author works well. Good choice.

Glad you like something...lol  =)

Someone here asked what ROW could do that D20 couldn't, which is the only reason I went there. Normally I wouldn't.

My mistake, sorry. That said, you do it in your text, and have several times here, already, the above example notwithstanding. It's been suggested here that comparisons to other games in your text is not a good idea. Because it gives an unconfident feel, as if the game is self-conscious and feels a need to measure up to the big guy. If the game is good, let it speak for itself. People will naturally make comparisons on their own anyhow, and see the advantages for themselves.

I just got the new 415 page Fantasy Hero with it's 67 pages just on magic. :-)

I'm guessing at around the same page count for ROW, perhaps more, and that includes a bestiary (for Witchcraft). I read a little about Sorcerer last night and those who like that game will find that my Witchcraft rules are very similar (without ever having heard of it before).

All that said, as others are now agreeing, we're starting to see where your game might shine. We're just wondering why you didn't make these things you major selling points.

Cause I'm dumb...lol

I agree abou the "wargaming roots" for HERO, BTW. Yet, your game seems to bend to tradition quite a lot as well, IMO. I especially liked your note that says something like, "RPGs are about combat, and this one's no exception."

I'm an action move buff and that is what I'm going for, thus there will always be combat. I also have had complaints when I've run for not having enough combat in the campaign. This stems from my belief that there are no such things as Random Encounters, something I touch on in the Book of Prophets. All combat in the story has to have a purpose, even if that purpose is to inform the players what kind of environment their Heroes are entering. This is why I will never provide an "encounter table." An Author should have his combats lend movement to the story, not just be there so people can experience what my friend Sean Fannon calls "Kool-Aid". I do agree that there should be regular action, but not all Action Scenes have to have combat in them. Chase scenes, death traps, etc can all be used to create moments of Action without having to have blood spilt.

Realms of Wonder defines gameplay into 2 basic modes, Action Scenes (which use Combat Time) and Dramatic Scenes, which are much more free form. Authors are encouraged to plan out their stories using this format as a means of getting the story moved along.

[Mike Holmes]

Whoa, somehow some of the quote in that last post got seriously mangled. :-)

At this point I just want to say that you and I apparently have very different wavelengths for communication. You keep interpereting things I say in ways that I didn't intend. Probably my fault. Still, if you could make a bit of an effort to see what I'm saying, I'll try to be more careful in how I write. We may be able to shorten this some.

Did you see my post on Hero Point awards and how they are handed out?

Yes, I did. And I do understand it, I think quite well. And given that you have lots of used for Hero Points, that might be just fine. Let me ask you this. Can a player get a Hero Point for making a daring attack, and then use the points to boost that attack? I'm just trying to see how tight the circle is.

"I can't read intent, only what is here in print" and what is here in print is sometimes unncessarily inflammatory.

Isn't meant to be. This is one of those communication issues that I was talking about. You obviously care about your game, and that's important. Criticism can hurt. But it's intended to help.

You have made me see things from a different light, but at the same time, I am sticking to my design.

Well then it's all good. Nobody is suggesting that you chuck your design. These are just ideas we're (well mostly I am) throwing at you.

Look forward to the upcoming topics. You are right that it's probably time for some new threads.

I guess you could say I have an "in." He's a very nice guy with a very soft heart when it comes to small publishers.

Really? Who knew? I hope he doesn't get a slew of mail from a zillion designers here now, all wanting to get free Elmore art. I have to admit that I'm tempted, tho... :-)

Glad you like something...lol  =)

I like a lot of what you have. Wouldn't be posting if I didn't see anything worthwhile. I also saw that you're working with Fannon, so you can't be a complete piker. :-) The more intelligent voices around here the better, I figure, so I wanted to find out what your game was about. Took a while, but we're getting there.  

I read a little about Sorcerer last night and those who like that game will find that my Witchcraft rules are very similar (without ever having heard of it before).

Heh, that's a more loaded statement than you could possibly know. The rules may be superficually similar, but I'll bet that there are very large conceptual differences. That said, I'll have to wait and read the Witchcraft rules.

I'm an action move buff and that is what I'm going for, thus there will always be combat.

Ever read Extreme Vengeance? Might be an eyeopener if you could get a copy. Hmmm.

I also have had complaints when I've run for not having enough combat in the campaign.

Sounds like a play style issue. But its waaay too early for us to be getting into that. Suffice it to say that there are some players who aren't just out for combat.

Realms of Wonder defines gameplay into 2 basic modes, Action Scenes (which use Combat Time) and Dramatic Scenes, which are much more free form. Authors are encouraged to plan out their stories using this format as a means of getting the story moved along.

Well, it looks like I've got some reading to do. Any idea of when the updated version will be available?

Mike

[Hardpoint]

As for the Sorcerer similarities, the summoning for borrowing powers or just for sending it off to do tasks is the similarity I speak of. Styles are VASTLY different. The Witchcraft system I have developed is one where you summon a Spirit from one of 3 Realms (Celestial, Natural, and Infernal) and then have the option to borrow its Aspects in order to gain special powers like flight, nightvision,

As for the communication issue, you're right. I'm being a little reactionary and will cool down and read over what it is you write, but try reading what you post from my perspective. Really read what it is you write and how you say what you say. I'm sure I'm not the only one who might feel this way, but perhaps the first to say something.

On the front of the Tight Circle, the handing out of HP is not instantaneous. I've handed them out at the end of a session and during gameplay. Both methods seem to work ok, doing it at the end of play makes the

Hero Points cannot be awarded and used in the same move, at least when I run. Other Authors might take their own approach to it. I give alternates on how things can be done, encouraging Authors to find what works for them. Like monsieur Wick, I encourage people to throw out rules where they get in the way of play. The only other campaign GM whose run ROW long term is my partner Jon King. His take is to do things the way I started out, which is to hand out EP, Glory, and HP at the end of the Chapter (which is typically a single session, but sometimes is just the story stopping point, which might take more than one session to reach).

As for not being a piker, I've been published through the Chrome Books (1-3) for CP2020 and have had a long relationship with the Pondsmiths. In fact when I worked at Microsoft on Crimson Skies (XBox) Mike was the man who brought me there. I'm now at Sony working on the next Syphon Filter game. I've worked in video game development since 1995, starting as a tester and now as a designer. In fact, it was me who brought Fannon into Action Studios in the first place. And now that life has quit kicking him, he'll be able to get back to making games.

[Shazear]

Admission: I am also one of the playtesters for RoW.  I will admit also, that there are elements of the mechanics that I'm not too hot about at all, but it's not so significantly flawed to remove the fun of the game for me...

What I enjoy in RoW: First and foremost, is the world as we have already touched on.  But the key for me, even in the campaigns that don't immediately focus on it:  the religious reformation that is taking place in the Human (Faithdom) nations.  It pulls from elements of the Protestant reformation, and thats something that I believe has been lacking in so many other fantasy/renaissance era worlds & (frankly) historical reenactment also.  

The drama of trying to decide which is better, to be part of the establishment or part of the reform.  Either as the leader, or as just a casual layman of the church/faith.  During the actual European Protestant reformation is was such a part of the political and emotional landscape that the remove the potential dramatic play is a severe crippling aspect to any other of this genre I've experienced.

Admittedly also, in the campaign that Marcus referenced I play a major part of the reform movement.  It's that moral challenge that brings me back.  The internal struggle with the PCs own moral code when in theory there is no real right or wrong to the debate of faith vs. reform.   This can also be taken to the debate around Cerena's existence and Tal Ceren himself.  Tal Ceren is a hero to the human lands but a murderer/slaughter to those elves across the river.  Even PCs within the human lands upon researching start seeing the potential for the skew that history can take.  It's not to say that the elves or the humans are more right than the other... it's that debate that drives the drama.  

As long as the races aren't specifically "evil" you will have the potential for PCs playing the flip-side.  The Drama, and drive isn't the "go crush kill" mentality prevelant in so many fantasy genre games that I've experienced, but rather when everyone, both PC and NPC are dancing that line of moral ambiguity.  It makes them all seem more real... Makes it easier for the suspesion of disbelief.

Okay... enough rambling... and an attempt to not talk about my char. *eg*  Just trying to help maybe put down some of the selling points of the world.

Shazear
AKA Alex Bender
...

[Jeffrey Miller]

As for the communication issue, you're right. I'm being a little reactionary and will cool down and read over what it is you write, but try reading what you post from my perspective. Really read what it is you write and how you say what you say. I'm sure I'm not the only one who might feel this way, but perhaps the first to say something.

Heh.. I felt that way about Mike for the first 5 minutes after I read one of his posts about my game, until I thought, "what the hell am I doing?  This guy is giving me seriously decent feedback, and he writes like this in all his posts." ;)

-jeffrey-

[Mike Holmes]

Hey, what can I say, I gotta be me. And Jeff's right, you can't take it personally. Still, it would be hypocritical of me to expect people to accept criticism and then not to do so myself, no? Hard to break 5000+ posts of habit, however; so don't expect miracles! :-)

Anyhow, from what Alex says (and other previous comments), it sounds like a nifty setting. So... I guess I want to see it.

Good to hear the Mr. Fannon might be doing something soon. Any chance we can get him in here on some discussions? As a theorist (those who are unaware, SPF wrote the Gamer's Bible) I think he'd be able to mix it up well here. In fact, he's quoted here somewhere, I believe (though, honestly, I think mostly to be refuted).

Anyhow, I think this thread is dying off, and I await more on more specific topics. :-)

Mike