Mage Blade once more...

[Lance D. Allen]

Okay folks, I'm back to working on my game, now that my hiatus is done. What I've got is a web-book in the works. It doesn't have it all, nor does it even pretend to cover all of the important aspects of it. However, it's a lot more than what I gave ya'll before.

Understand that, while this is a website, it isn't set up as one. It is set-up as a book (sorta). There is also a whole lot of reading there. I believe that if I were to print out what I have here, it would total over 100 pages. If you do not have the time to read through the entirety of the information on the web, but would prefer to have it all on your own computer to read at your liesure, PM me with your E-mail address, and I will send you the stuff as a file-attachment.

Without further ado...

http://members.aol.com/JeriolKeayn/MageBlade.html

Comments on layout, and content are welcome, as are opinions about the images (all my own work) and .html work. In fact, they're more than welcome.. They're requested.

Edited to fix the URL, even though it still works fine for me...

[Andrew Martin]

It looks like the URL is broken? AOL comes up with:

Unable to process URL
Unable to process the URL.
AOLserver/3.4.2 on http://members.aol.com

[Christoffer Lernö]

This is a personal preference, but what about slimming down the Mage Blade rules? Looks like you have alot of stuff, but it's no joy cruising through. What about simplifying rules and making the core rules more clear? Right now it reads like an orgy of modifiers - even though it's not as bad as many of the fantasy heartbreakers out there.

What I'm suggesting is to clean up the system and and consolidate modifiers and rules. Of course this my personal opinion. I don't have too much patience wading through rules. If the rules are clearly stated up front that's very helpful. Of course web books suffers from the fact that you can't quickly flip through the book and find the stuff you're the most interested in. So only listen to my suggestion about consolidating the modifiers and the rules. Less is more.  :)

[Lance D. Allen]

Clean up the system, huh? Considering that it's all just variants of the same mechanic (add att+skill, roll a d20 and try to get under) it's fairly straight forward, I think. There are various modifiers mentioned throughout the book, 'tis true, but they all work the same as any other. I suppose I could put them all together in one place for easy reference, but that's not my focus at the moment. When I get to actual layout and organization, I'll definitely keep it in mind, though.

One specific question, though.. How might I more clearly state the rules up-front than:

The Die Roll - First things first, I'll list all of the dice needed to play this game. When you have gathered all of the necessary dice, then return and read on.

1 20-sided die

That's it. At least one 20-sided die at a minimum, but for optimal play, one per player, and 4-5 dice for the game master is recommended. Rolling the die is simple. First, cup it in your hands, shake it several times for good measure, then release it, with the goal being that it eventually comes to a stop on a nearby flat surface. Determining what the die roll means, and when to roll the die on the other hand, takes a little more thought and explanation.

Whenever the character wants to attempt a task which has a variable outcome, whether it be casting a spell, forging a sword, striking an opponent or communicating with a sentient yam, a roll may be called for.

First, determine the appropriate attribute, and the appropriate skill for the task at hand.(A list of actions and their appropriate attribute/skill combinations is available later in this chapter) For example, if your character wishes to slash at an opponent with a sword, the Dexterity attribute and the Swordsmanship skill will be used. Once you've determined the appropriate attribute/skill combination, add the two ratings together to determine your Base Target Range. Then apply any modifiers, either penalties or bonuses, to determine the final Target Range.

Once the Target Range is determined, roll the d20. If you rolled equal to or lower than the Target Range, you have succeeded in the task, at which point, the results are determined according to the task's description. Exceptions to this are the Rule of One and the Rule of Twenty, below.

~Rule of One - If the TR is 0 or higher, a roll of 1 is a success. However, if the Target Range is reduced to less than zero (a negative number) and the die result is a 1, then a second roll is made and subtracted from 1. If the second roll is lower than the TR then it is a success, if higher, then it is a failure.

~Rule of Twenty - If the Target Range is 20 or less, then a roll of 20 is an automatic failure (unless the rule of degrees of success/failure applies). However, if the Target Range is 21 or higher, due to racial bonuses, magical enhancement, etc. then on a roll of 20, another roll will be made, and added to the first roll. If the resulting number is equal to or lower than the Target Range, then it is a success, if higher, treat it as a failure.    

~Degrees of Success/Failure - Some actions are not measured in the simple black and white of Succeed or Fail. These actions may have degrees of success or failure, which will be described in the Skills section.

~Success /Failure Margin - When a roll is made, determine the difference between the roll and the TR. Some rolls may call for the Success or Failure Margin.

This is the blurb taken directly from the beginning of Chapter 4: Mechanics. If this isn't clear enough, how might I make it better?

[Walt Freitag]

I like the way you wrote the beginning of Chapter 4 (the text you quoted). I even like the chatty bits. The "how to roll the die" instructions might come off as just a tiny bit snide, but then again, how many thousand times have I seen a player, even one who can quote chapter and verse for every obscure rule in a system, fail to correctly execute the "comes to a stop on a nearby flat surface" part when rolling a die?

I have a lot more to read, so I'll be back later.

- Walt

[Mike Holmes]

Perhaps PF means that the mechanics should come before the CharGen. Without knowing them, it's hard to decide on what makes a character as effective as you'd like. Just a guess.

As far as fragementary use, you do use the basic mechanic differently in combat (consulting a chart) than you do in, say, magic where it's mostly pass/fail, for example.

Mike

[Lance D. Allen]

The "how to roll the die" instructions might come off as just a tiny bit snide, but then again, how many thousand times have I seen a player, even one who can quote chapter and verse for every obscure rule in a system, fail to correctly execute the "comes to a stop on a nearby flat surface" part when rolling a die?

I try to be humorous, and still they glare at me.. ::sigh:: (j/k)

I've failed to do this many a time, which is why I put it in there.. Perhaps if it's written out plainly, gamers like myself will get it right for once. Honestly, I think the voice I used in writing is overall pretty good. I stay fairly focused throughout most of it and toss in a "chatty" bit here and there. I know people have said here on these boards that they dislike "chatty" roleplaying games, but then, others have said that they did like it, or at least didn't mind. Can't please everyone, so I might as well have a little fun while I'm writing it.

[Lance D. Allen]

Ack.. Cross-posted with you, Mike.

Okay, fair enough.. I just followed what appeared to be fairly standard chapter ordering for the industry (ie, I looked in several RPG books I had, and decided that "if it worked for them...")... Setting, Character Creation, then the "Meat and Potatoes", followed by secondary stuff. Everything with the layout is fluid, though.

As for how the mechanic is used in combat as opposed to your basic skill check, I'd like to point out that 1. The chart didn't used to be there. That was partially your idea, Mike. ::mock glare:: and 2. where margin of success matters, there is likely to be a chart to compare to, unless it's a contested roll against another roll. Item Creation will also have a chart, as will certain spell effects. They're just not in there, yet.

As it stands, the only case where you roll a die and it isn't a att+skill (or in certain limited circumstance, attx2) and roll under is Initiative, which I consider a "feature" rather than a bug.

[Blake Hutchins]

What's chatty depends on the RPG.  I love reading Dying Earth or Nobilis, and I consider them chatty.  I like Ron's occasional side comment in Sorcerer, too.

Best,

Blake

[Mike Holmes]

Okay, fair enough.. I just followed what appeared to be fairly standard chapter ordering for the industry...

Keep in mind, I was just speculating as to what PF may have meant. I agree with him only in part. The complex part as I see it is the inclusion of many other mechanics, not so much that the main resolution mechanic is abused. For example, there are a bunch of rules for how different kinds of spell users get the power to cast spells. None of which uses the resolution system, really.

My suggestion in all RPGs is to see if you can't make your one resoution mechanic work for everything. So, for example, instead of having skill masteries with all manner of baroque enhancements, just have a broader skill range which emulates the effects sought after through the normal mechanics. Otherwise you get the' "Oh, yeah, I forgot my +3 damage modifier, that would have finished him off three rounds ago" syndrome.  

Mike

[Christoffer Lernö]

Sorry, I'll try to be a little more specific, although these suggestions boil down to personal preferences as well, just so you remember to take everything with a grain of salt.

First of all I'm not to fond of an opening story, not presenting too much of the setting before you get to the character mechanics. This has been discussed recently in another post, but I don't remember which. Again some people like it this way, some prefer the system straight up and then getting to hear about the system.

You should be aware though that introducing a lot of new names in the beginning of a text (names which are not immediatly obvious to the players) can put off a lot of people (me included).

There are some interesting thoughts on layout by the way: this thread here on the Forge and this one on rpg.net

Just for clarification of what I mean if you're wondering.

If we go over to character creation, what about an overview and then the details? For example, every sphere has 200+ word description before you can get to the next sphere. What about listing the spheres briefly and then giving the detailed description of what they are at the end of the chapter?

The skills chapter reads like the spell list of AD&D. This is ok, as long as there is an overview of the available skills and the rules for them before you start listing them. If we're assuming I'm reading the book from beginning to the end, it's best to introduce rules before you start using them.

For example, the spheres are introduced before you explain how they are assigned points. Any rules for that isn't included just after the explanation either.

In the skill descriptions (which comes way before any description of mechanics) there are occasional references to concepts which haven't been explained. I put those in bold in this example:

"Superiority: The damage code of the weapon gains a bonus +1 in a proficient wielder's hands. A proficient user can parry/be parried against Armed Combat with no damage at all to their own weapon, and as normal against another proficient wielder. A proficient user can also re-roll a failed attack roll once against an opponent using Armed Combat or Unarmed Combat. Proficient wielders may choose to control damage and critical effect, limiting them as much as they choose. Exercising this control entails a -2 TR. Weapon Proficiency is useless with any weapon other than it's specified type."

These things make the skills very hard to read. Put them after all these concepts have been properly established.

An overview of the skills without details, on the other hand, has no such problems.

I think similar reshuffles can be done throughout the game. Basically establish simple facts to begin with and build upon that base. I would argue the same for the setting. Don't kill the reader with a lot of new concepts. Take it slow and slowly build it up.

As for consolidating rules, I feel that in a lot of places you could do well by either cutting away some of specialized rules and make the resolution more general. If that isn't possible, at least cut out as much of modifiers and things out of the descriptions and put them in table form instead to give a better overview.

Again of course these are only my personal opinions.

[Lance D. Allen]

Okay, that's a lot more what I was looking for. Specifics. Only problem is, I find myself nodding my head along with what you're saying, but I'm still not sure how to go about it. I've reorganized this book at least twice now, and while I think it's considerably better than when I originally divided up the sections, I know I have a long way to go.

Mike,

the different types of magi (Nulls, Vessels and Loci) are I suppose what you might call "advanced rules". I would probably do well to note them as such. They are exceptions to the rules already put forth about magi and magic. I think the basics of magic keep with the main mechanic fairly well, especially since the Mana redesign (I scrapped the idea of having a mana pool, and instead made it a bit more dynamic.. another roll or two is required, but at least it loses the "resource management" aspect which I had begun to dislike.) I've even been considering a few new ways to do initiative which keeps the same effect, but makes the die roll use the same basic die roll.
And honestly, I feel that the basic die roll system is going to retain it's problems, but overall I think it simple enough. There will always be instances of people forgetting modifiers (you have no idea how many duels I've had to remind my opponent of his +2/-2 CP modifiers due to stance or weapon reach) in any game that uses them. The only way I could avoid such is to change the entire mechanic, which I'm not willing to do. On the other hand, I recognize that things could be organized a lot better to facilitate remembering these things.

Okay... So am I wrong in getting the impression that, overall, the mechanics seem workable, if not complete? Most of the comments I've received have been based on layout, voice, and clarity. I somehow don't think this is the case, as there are several areas I know I need work in. Such as...

~Goals: In what ways might I better emphasize their importance, via the mechanics? Right now, they seem like what they are.. an idea tacked on.

~Character Generation: Specifically allocation of attributes and skills. No matter what I do, it seems bulky. All the charts in the world don't seem to help. Is this just me? I don't think so, as I had to correct various issues when my players used the rules to create their characters. Is it just a matter of clarity?

~Advanced Skills: This seems to be something both of you have hit upon, which is notable because I dropped a lot of stuff out of that section, like various "maneuvers" available to users of the Weapon Mastery and Martial Arts skills. Keep in mind, for one, that these are ADVANCED Skills, and you shouldn't be doing more than skimming their basic description without a full understanding of what they do... But I'm not sure what you mean, Mike, when you say:

So, for example, instead of having skill masteries with all manner of baroque enhancements, just have a broader skill range which emulates the effects sought after through the normal mechanics.

I get the gist of "simplify it, make it all use the same mechanic" but I'm not comprehending the "how" in this suggestion. A broader skill range? As in, more than the 10 maximum? If so, I'm not attempting to emulate greater skill, so much as focused skill. Weapon Mastery is great when using the weapon in question... and utterly worthless with any other. So unless extending the range beyond 10 is what you're suggestion, I'm not sure I get you.

Anyhow, I hope I'm not too incoherent. I'm posting after about a couple hours' nap rather than decent sleep, so forgive me if I come off as rambling.

[Mike Holmes]

the different types of magi (Nulls, Vessels and Loci) are I suppose what you might call "advanced rules". I would probably do well to note them as such.

And maybe move them to their own section. The mastery rules could go there as well. It's important that people understand the basics before you move on to the advanced stuff. Teach them what they absolutely need to know, and let them absorb the advanced options later.

And honestly, I feel that the basic die roll system is going to retain it's problems, but overall I think it simple enough. There will always be instances of people forgetting modifiers (you have no idea how many duels I've had to remind my opponent of his +2/-2 CP modifiers due to stance or weapon reach) in any game that uses them. The only way I could avoid such is to change the entire mechanic, which I'm not willing to do. On the other hand, I recognize that things could be organized a lot better to facilitate remembering these things.

Yes, a standardized notation would be a good start with a section of how to interperet the notation.

... there are several areas I know I need work in. Such as...

Well, we are assuming that you aren't finished. But you are at the point where playtesting needs to start. As for those other things you mention, try to see if you can develop them in play.

I get the gist of "simplify it, make it all use the same mechanic" but I'm not comprehending the "how" in this suggestion. A broader skill range? As in, more than the 10 maximum? If so, I'm not attempting to emulate greater skill, so much as focused skill. Weapon Mastery is great when using the weapon in question... and utterly worthless with any other. So unless extending the range beyond 10 is what you're suggestion, I'm not sure I get you.

Well, there are a lot of ways to do this. One standard one is to just have the specialty skill stack with the standard weapon skill. Doesn't really require anything else to make it special. As for the maneuvers make them available to anyone, just make them hard to pull off with a low skill. This might require tweaking the ranges some, I haven't looked into it closely.

But it's just a suggestion for the kind of thing that could be done to simplify the game. Many of the MB rules seem very arbitrary. Why are there different caps to different skills? Why not just make one easy to remember cap and apply it to all skills? This is the sort of thing that you can do to make the rules easier to learn (and easier to analyze as well; it's hard to say how wll the stuff you have will hang together, as it's all over the place).

The overall principle is to avoid having special rules for each oddity that occurs, but to have a general set that can be applied to each specific case in such a way that the results are unique. Easier said than done, but many games do it.

Mike

[Christoffer Lernö]

Ok, let's see if I can write some more helpful stuff.

You have to realize though that I didn't even get through reading the whole thing yet. I don't have much patience, that's true, but it also shows there might be a lot more to be done. I'm trying to get through it slowly now though, but have patience with me.

The general layout, "setting", "character", "mechanic" and so on is fairly straightforward. As a personal preference I put the setting last though, only having about 1 page of DISTILLED (sp?) setting to begin with (no opening novella, no detailed background, no buzzwords, no new terms)

Skipping those things and leaping into trashing your system:

The Spheres, arguably the essence of your game and probably what created the most attention (or?). Remember that and when cutting away stuff from the game, keep these intact - or even better reduce the other rules to be mostly be derived from the sphere mechanics (err..)

Ditch the 4 categories of learning straight away. It might seem like a good idea, but is your game really about skills? I don't think so. A few deterrents might be in order to list:

RM started out with a basic pack of primary skills. Then there was a few additional secondary skills which were tacked on. Those were later inserted into the system on equal terms with the primary skills. More development points were therefore introduced. Even more skills and differentiated skills were introduced, more development points needed, and so on.

Differentiation of skills usually leads to less competent characters. Less skills is more able characters. Eventually in RM you were REALLY bad at even the most basic things because you probably hadn't taken the skill. If the GM only would have used his imagination it would have been clear the character could have done it no problem.

Skills also means a lot of (arbitrary) decisions about efficiency and effect of skills. They rarely create any realism, but rather create their own artificial world construct.

The more skills, the longer it will also take to build a character as the skill list has to be gone through. Besides the descriptions of the skills have to be learned.

Consider reducing the skills or only introducing rpg-skills... with that I mean a set of skills which are relevant and often tested against in common scenarios of the RPG.

If you want the advanced skills, you can make them into a "take once and have it for ever" kind of skill/ability mix. However if you take that path you better make every advanced skill worthwhile... (not only efficient but worth the effort of actually reading its description too :) )

I tell you this because I did exactly the same thing to begin with... too many skills for no special reason other than completeness.

The "choose a goal" is very abstract, maybe there is some motivation for it later on, but right now I don't see any reason why anyone would bother to write that down. There is no help whatsoever with examples in the text either which makes it even harder and less likely to be used. The only time I actually seen stuff like that seriously used was when you could roll it on a table as well as choosing it. That ensured everyone had a tangible goal.

Your name suffers the problem of most fantasy RPGs. They come from nowhere, aren't rememberable and use too many syllables. Just a quick note. And yes I originally did this too which is why I know it's a bad idea.

Assigning skill points: ARE YOU OUT OF YOUR MIND?? ;) Hahaha, no it's not at all that bad, but you got 240 points which is a pretty big sum, and don't cost 1 for 1 point. Looks like you're assuming people have a calculator handy. I'd streamline this.

Besides, what the heck do the different numbers mean? What's average? What's a +1 or +2? It's again probably mentioned somewhere but it's not clear looking at the attribute chapter.

As a rule, always explain things somewhere close to where they are used.

The clearest part in this chapter was the bonus money you get from high stats and skills.

"Improving your character" read as material borrowed from BRP with stuff from other RPGs thrown in for good measure making it even less clear. Less is more. Sacrifice detailed skill improvement, it's not gonna make the game better. Unless, of course, the game is ABOUT skill improvment.

If you're doing stuff like "adding the fire attributes" regularly, I'd create a FIRE stat which is exactly that number instead and refer to it by "FIRE".

I notice you make a lot of concessions to have the success roll give the damage, but at the same time you have a lot of modifiers to bog down play. It seems contradictory.

Ok. I'll look at the rest later.

I just want to say something about the skill+stat: If you use this, know what you are doing. Cyberpunk got ludicrous at times thanks to this. I most recently objected to skill+stat in this thread  (the thread is really about a totally different die mechanic idea I had).