[DATA System] Criticism and Suggestions

[Luke Fleeman]

Greetings All,

I posted some time back about a setting I was working on, and the discussion sent me off in the way of designing a system. In the time since then, I have worked on the bare bones of this system, with a number of changes. I have also started other settings work as well. With that in mind, I tried to fashion a system that I would like to use for more than one setting.

My system, the DATA System, is available on my wiki here.

I am hoping the esteemed members of this board could read it and give me some input. I have several specific areas I would like help in:

1. Am I ripping anyone off? I've read so much stuff it's hard sometimes to tell. I do not want to plagiarize, even unintentionally.

2. Is the system to bland, or too complex?

3. In regards to Qualities, are they:
a. good
b. too plentiful
c. too few
d. useful
e. over-complicated

4. Is the combat system sound?

5. Is there any major gaps in mechanics I have missed?

6. Does this game appear to be to easy to powergame/min-max?

7. Does the Advancement Point/XP system seem like a competent way to make Roleplaying and Combat equal to each other?

8. My intent was to encourage the players of the game to make their character's backgrounds truly matter, and truly be involved in the story. Does this appear achievable?

9. Are the benefits from the Qualities too bland?

And I would love input on two other things:

1. I am considering a free-form Magic/Psionics system. Essentially, there would be a Magic trait, with skills in various schools of magic, which determines possible effects. Then the Target would be set by the duration, range, AoE, casting time, etc. Is this feasible? Is it too much like Ars Magica?

2. Any good ideas on a way to better do levels of success?

Any input anyone has on any other issues is fine as well, but these are my specific concerns.

Thanks in advance for your input and time. I hope to hear from you all soon!

-Luke Fleeman
shingen.wikispaces.com

[Luke Fleeman]

One more thing:

I am worried about the potential unbalancing effect of using the Qualities too frequently.

I was considering a system where there would be a pool of points that could be spent to bid a quality. I was thinking is could be a pool for Angst/Emotion/Gnosis or something of the like. This way, certain qualities could be used over and over as well.

[contracycle]

I don't see a mechanism for determining order of action; thats the only thing that appears missing as such at first glance.

There are some good ideas here, specifically in your use of traits in adventure design IMO.  Can you expand on what lead you to introduce this feature? I am quite interested in this sort of thing and would like to hear your thinking on the topic.

The system as such seems serviceable; I think it would be useful if you you showed a working of the system in action so that we can see more of how you expect the qualities to be called upon in play.

You have a fair-sized subset of rules for combat specifically.  Two considerations here are: is this really necessary, and/or, are there any other areas of action that should also be so detailed. Excessive weight on combat functions may detract from the wider use of qualities you seem to desire.

Overall I think this looks interesting.  The task resolution system is fairly mundane, but its not as if thats a bad thing.  The interesting idea here is the way you wish to use traits, and it this may get lost in mass of combat abilities and whatnot.  But, I may also be worrying unnecessarily.

[Luke Fleeman]

I don't see a mechanism for determining order of action; thats the only thing that appears missing as such at first glance.

Looks important. I'll work on it.

There are some good ideas here, specifically in your use of traits in adventure design IMO.  Can you expand on what lead you to introduce this feature? I am quite interested in this sort of thing and would like to hear your thinking on the topic.

The use of background and character as part of the mechanics and adventure design grew out of my personal experiences as a GM.

I frequently run D&D games, and have ran quite a few others as well. One thing I search for in my players, or work on as a player myself, is an interesting background, motivations and interests. The quality bid mechanic was an effort to encourage players, because in my experience they have been more receptive to actual mechanical benefits of their character's nature.

The way this fits in adventure design is my failure as a GM, honestly. After encouraging backgrounds, personalities and whatnot, I would often neglect to use all of them adequately. After laboring to get everyone on board to play this way, I would sometimes let it lag. Furthermore, players would not always implement it themselves.

By making it part of adventure design two primary goals are achieved: First, the GM can make sure he actively designs with his player's characters in mind, making sure that he involves them all in some meaningful way, and that they can fully realize their characters- and it focuses the story to address the various participants. Second, it encourages players to attempt to use the full breadth of their character's background by offering a concrete reward for doing so, and reinforcing good roleplay with such a reward. These were my main goals in including the traits in adventure design.

The system as such seems serviceable; I think it would be useful if you you showed a working of the system in action so that we can see more of how you expect the qualities to be called upon in play.

Certainly. This is my current project with the system.

You have a fair-sized subset of rules for combat specifically.  Two considerations here are: is this really necessary, and/or, are there any other areas of action that should also be so detailed. Excessive weight on combat functions may detract from the wider use of qualities you seem to desire.

My intention is that those are essentially the extent of the combat rules. With the exception of adding a few rules on special things, the Combat system is done. It appears larger and more developed because it occurred to me very naturally, and I was able to get what I wanted much sooner. The rules are expansive because the details are included and they came easily to me. I think they might appear more expansive because the other mechanics are still being refined and perfected, and once those mechanics are at full development they will equal or exceed the combat material.

I don't want excessive Combat, but I want the possibility of strategic combat. Hack and slash is not my game, but I want the PCs to experience strategic, interesting fights they must think or reason themselves through.

The other areas of action will certainly be expanded, especially once there are more comprehensive lists of skills, qualities and whatnot displayed up there.

Overall I think this looks interesting.  The task resolution system is fairly mundane, but its not as if thats a bad thing.  The interesting idea here is the way you wish to use traits, and it this may get lost in mass of combat abilities and whatnot.  But, I may also be worrying unnecessarily.

Your concern is certainly warranted. It is one of mine as well. I do not want the trait use do be lost in the rules, and your advice will be kept in mind while I further develop the rules. I want the focus to be on the development of the character's as the heroes/villains, and on the use of their fully developed backgrounds/traits to be central. Combat needs to be present, but I do not want it to be overwhelming. I like a few fights, and I like the struggle, but I do not want it to overpower the system. Combat should, in essence, be like any other goal, a way to use the qualities of the character's in a certain way.

[Luke Fleeman]

Greetings!

I have updated the Wiki with a more reader-friendly, easier to navigate version. I have also revised aspects of the game and terminology.

You can see the new DATA System rules here.

I am still interested in feedback. I am currently working on putting an example of play in.

I am most intrested in input in the following areas:

1. Am I ripping anyone off? I've read so much stuff it's hard sometimes to tell. I do not want to plagiarize, even unintentionally.

2. Is the system to bland, or too complex?

3. In regards to Aspects, are they:
a. too plentiful
b. too few

4. Is there any major gaps in mechanics I have missed?

5. My intent was to encourage the players of the game to make their character's backgrounds truly matter, and truly be involved in the story. Does this appear achievable?

Thanks in Advance,

Luke Fleeman

[Adam Dray]

Hey there! Welcome to the Forge and stuff!

1. Are you ripping anyone off? Hell if I know. If you don't think you are, then you're not. If you're asking if your game is wholly original and innovative, the answer is a question: who cares? Your game seems pretty neat. On a skim of the Contests section, you seem to have an interesting take on role-playing. That's all that matters.

Here's a secret: almost every game designer leans on the work of others. We read each other's games voraciously and borrow what is useful. It's polite to credit others when you do this.

2. Is the system too bland or too complex? That's a very subjective and personal thing. It depends on your goals and intended audience. My answer is another question: How is it playtesting?

3. Are Aspects too plentiful or too few? I'm not sure how to determine this. It seems like it's something that will have to be checked in playtesting. I suspect that you're trying to "balance" your game. My advice: don't. If the number of aspects feels broken when you play it, then you can throttle them back.

4. Do the rules contain major gaps? Admittedly, I only skimmed it. In my opinion, you have covered the main elements that most RPGs do: characters, play procedure, some kind of resolution system, a reward system. You have a simple but neat system for creating situation (Goals and Challenges).

I don't see any advice for creating setting other than (wildly paraphrased) "you have to do it yourself." How do characters and setting tie together? I mean, I obviously shouldn't create a Background Aspect, "Spaceship Pilot," for a 20's horror game. How do players tie their characters into the setting? Should players tie their characters to other PCs? I get the impression you're assuming the "party-style" tradition.

I'm not entirely sure what characters are supposed to do. If I took this to a group of players, we'd first have to pick a setting (no help from the rules) then make characters. Then we'd pick goals (based on what?) and, I assume, start trying to achieve those goals, though we get rewarded Advancement Points even if we ignore our goals entirely, so long as we bid our aspects and flaws. Right? If the point of the game is to achieve some kind of experiential thrill ("Let's be bastions of Good in a post-apocalyptic world consumed by evil!") then I personally would want more help from the game to build that world. Who gets to create setting details? The GM? The players? Both? When? Only at the start of the game, or during the game? How? I'm asking, I suppose, "Who owns the world?"

You said you play a lot of D&D. That's cool. Did you really design this as a replacement for D&D, so it can do some things you feel it doesn't do very well? If so, welcome to a very large, wonderful club!  I encourage you to post in the Actual Play forum about your experiences, good and bad, with D&D. You can segue that discussion into your motives for writing a new game, and that will help everyone here understand your design goals better.

5. My intent was to encourage the players of the game to make their character's backgrounds truly matter, and truly be involved in the story. Does this appear achievable?

It's achievable. I don't know if your game will do it or not. Playtesting will prove that out. My difficulty in giving you a straight answer comes from a few very subjective words that you used (and my inability to get in your head and read your thoughts!).

When you say you want to make character backgrounds matter, what does "matter" mean to you? I get that you want them to have an impact, but what kind? Do you want them to make the game feel more "believable" to you? Do you want them to give players an edge in a competitive combat-style game? Do you want them to help players make thematic points about what the (real) world is like through play, sorta like a moral or fable?

When you say "truly be involved in the story," what do you mean? Are you trying to increase player engagement at the table? With each other? With you, the GM? With the fiction? With the rules? Or do you mean something like making the roles of the PCs in the fictional setting bigger, like turning the characters into bigtime famous heroes? Or do you mean something more subtle, like avoiding role-play that marginalizes the characters as bit players in the world or has them doing inane things that no one (character or player) really cares about? Again, some Actual Play might help us understand what you want and don't want.

I encourage you to keep working on this, playtest it, and let us know what happens in the Playtesting forum. Once I have more free time, I'll give the rest of the game a deeper read.

[thargas]

Hi Adam.

I see one "problem" in the contest resolution.  Maybe you don't consider it to be a problem.  The higher a character's trait (size of die) the less important their skill (plus), which doesn't sound right to me.  Maybe it would be better to swap the two?

The idea of aspects sounds like the Fate system to me, though some of your stuff goes in different directions.

Under Challenges, I don't see how the characters are to know that they get bonuses for using particular aspects for achieving a particular goal, given that you've said this information is to be kept secret.  If it's secret, it seems pretty arbitrary.  If there were some way to let the characters know this then it would become much more interesting, especially for the odd combinations of Goal and Aspect.

Under Traits, you say that each trait gets an aspect.  Have you considered not requiring this?  For example, one character might have no physical traits, but have two mental ones.  Requiring the one-to-one mapping may make it more difficult to create certain kinds of characters.  I also don't see how it is determined which die is to be used for each trait.

I like the group abilities ideas.  I'd be concerned, however, if the players chose to create more than one group, as I've always found that player-vs-player seems to take a lot of extra time (due to restricted communications, and waiting for the other group(s)), which I've not found fun.  YMMV.  The group combat thing seems to punish the character offering the benefit too much to actually be used.  Maybe the offering character's trait is only lowered while someone else is using it.

More later.  Got to go.

[Luke Fleeman]

Hey Guys:

I appreciate the input. I got to go, but I will return with more comments after I scrutinize your comments.

Thanks!

[Luke Fleeman]

Sorry for the delay, but here are some responses to the earlier posts.

Re: Traits and Skills. I have the dice as the trait, because a higher potential or core ability, I feel, should be reflected by a higher likelihood of success. I will experiment with your swapping idea though.

Re; Challenges. The reason it is supposed to be secret is so the PCs will be encouraged to try different things, not just use the aspect the DM says and bounce away. I may tinker with it though to give them more of a clue.

Re: Group combat. I hadn'r considered multiple groups.

Re: Setting. I think my next step is putting one up, so everyone can see how these things actually function in play.

Thanks for the input!