RedRavenRPG.com: I'm scared to ask!

[fruitbatinshades]

You got me mike, I'm not that experienced.  Advanced heroquest, Warhammer fantasy, AD&D 2nd, but i didn't write the system, I just donated goodies and developed the website.
The real author (taran) will be along shortly to answer serious questions.  It's just after AD&D for 8 years Red Raven is a fantastic break for me.

[fruitbatinshades]

FBIS (could we have a name, your screen name is just too much),

Lee

but statements like what you have about how your resolution system works makes it sound pretty standard in many ways.

The whole idea of the system is too make it open and adaptable for GM's. I never used 50% of the rules whilst playing AD&D because they were too much, 3rd is even worse.  I always used to 'guesstimate' the relevant actions.
The advanced rules are more detailed, but also pretty standard but then we are not trying to create a new genre we are trying to create a system that can used for any environment and is easy to learn and play.  Players only need to learn the skills or spells they use so they incrementally know more as they play.
This also means that using the base rules in a sci-fi, cartoon or comedy genre is just a case of creating the relevant skills.  It is not a simulistic rule set.  It's for roleplay.  No points are awarded for killing monsters, points are awarded for playing the character.

[Mike Holmes]

Nice to meet you Lee,

It's just after AD&D for 8 years Red Raven is a fantastic break for me.

I can imagine. I'd say that's too long for any game. That's just me, however.

The thing is that looking at the system in question, it's pretty standard in many ways (as Jack was pointing out). Which isn't terrible, but it begs the question how you intend to get people interested. One question that we usually ask at this point is why someone would play your game instead of, say, using FUDGE.

At this point, a lot of people say that the setting is really neat, too. I'm not sure about your setting given what you've presented, but many around here are fond of saying "System Does Matter", which actually refers to an essay in the "articles" link at the top of this page. What it says, is that, sure, you might attract some people with a nifty setting. But system is important in delivering good play - without a good one, replay of your game might not happen. And then you lose your most important marketing tool, word of mouth.

Another thing that System Does Matter says is that just getting rid of the parts of a system that don't do what you want, is only half of the battle. From your post above, it seems as though you might be of the opinion that there are no mechanics that can facilitate the style of play that you're outlining. That's probably not true. One thing we can show you is how to actively support the style that you're trying to promote.

So, our first question will be what you want your game to promote as far as play? And you can answer that for us as well or better than your compatriot. It's not at all technical. But, basically, what is it that you want to see from play? Who are the characters? What do they do? What would a typical session look like (sans mechanics - just the narrative of it)?

If you could help give us the vision of what you're looking for, that would help a lot. The image I'm getting so far is action somewhat like D&D, but enabled by less rules getting in the way of players just making decisions? Can you correct/expand on that?

Mike

[fruitbatinshades]

The initial idea for the system had to meet these points:-

Be easy to play
Be world independant
Keep player reading to a minimum
Allow GM total control
[/list:u]
Easy to play is achieved through only having 1 d type and 2 roll types
World independence is achieved through the way we use skills
Players only need to read the skills, spells, items they want to use
GM is not restricted by physics or complicated decision based rules, all decisions are made using GM intelligence and converting said intelligence into a difficulty rating.[/list:u]
I guess from your posts that you are a realist, this is not a realistic system, although the GM can use any formulas he wants (Hence total control).  We also aim to listen to our players and implement what they desire and add supplemental rules they can use if desired, hence the tiered design I spoke about earlier.
What makes it unique is the system is adapatable and is designed to be so no 'It says on page 497 that you can't do that GM'  The GM can adapt the system as he/she sees fit.  It makes no difference to the players who can choose Basic, advanced or customised rules.  The only dependacy is on player honesty, which is an issue in all systems.

[fruitbatinshades]

So, our first question will be what you want your game to promote as far as play? And you can answer that for us as well or better than your compatriot. It's not at all technical. But, basically, what is it that you want to see from play? Who are the characters? What do they do? What would a typical session look like (sans mechanics - just the narrative of it)?

I can only comment as a player, I don't know what other people do with system.  When we play we like to think our way out of situations rather than kill everything.  My current GM is constantly peeved when we outwit him.  That makes the game better for everyone, the GM and players are challenged.
At the end of each session the GM awards up to 25 points minus bad roleplaying.  Each player also votes for who did the best in the game, usually based on the most inventive actions.
This helps with the group dynamic, which is really what RR is all about, no powergaming, just intellect and interaction.

If you could help give us the vision of what you're looking for, that would help a lot. The image I'm getting so far is action somewhat like D&D, but enabled by less rules getting in the way of players just making decisions? Can you correct/expand on that?Mike

I know you pre-empted this, but, our initial fantasy setting is rich in races, social interaction and history.  That is really what the game is about, role playing, having fun and helping each other out and outwitting the GM :)

[Emily Care]

Hi Lee,

It sounds like Taran's system is oriented toward slimming down the mechanics (so you don't have to throw so much out) and reducing the handling time (just making it easier in general, like the way players can learn pieces of the system, taking on more as they get more familiar with it).   And putting decision in the hands of the gm instead of arbitrarily in the game materials prep'd stats.  These are fixes aimed, I presume, at making the mechanics stop getting in the way of your having fun.  Is that correct?  It sounds like RedRaven is successful at doing that. Howver, there are some different ways of looking at mechanics and what they can do that might be of interest to you both.

Go check out The Pool. Not necessarily as advice on the kinds of mechanics you should use, but more just as a model of a different way of looking at mechanics. What would it be like to run your scenario with a system like that? What would be lost, what would be gained?

Yrs,
Emily Care

[Taran]

Greetings and Salutations one and all.....

Right I shall start this post with a few formalities, just to save time later J

Yes my real name is Taran, it is not a nickname.
No I am not of Asian blood or upbringing.
Neither am I of African descent in any way shape or form.

Right sorry if anyone is offended by those comments, but they are the ones I answer on an almost daily basis lol

Right my gaming experience (Deep breath)
I first started RPG gaming in a serious way at the age of 8, and way the youngest member of a local RPG club. I was running games as a GM at said club by the time I was 12 (mature for my age I guess), started college at 16......increased the amount of RPG I was playing and GM-ing to silly proportions (Much to the dismay of a great many would be lady friends..lol) and now coming up to my 27th birthday have no signs of slowing down J

Right the games that I either own of have played (On more than a dozen occasions, as I have omitted any others) are - in no particular order

D+D / AD+D (up to 3rd ed) / Palladium RPG (revised ed) / Vampire the Masquerade (1st 2nd 3rd kindred of the east and Dark ages) / Werewolf the apocalypse (1st 2nd 3rd and wild west) / Mage the ascension (1st 2nd ed) / Changeling the dreaming (1st ed) / Wraith the oblivion (1st 2nd ed) / Merp / Rolemaster / Gurps / Fighting Fantasy (the RPG not the gaming books...although I have a collection of them also) / The lone wolf RPG (again not the game books) / The legend of the five rings / Shadowrun / Cyberpunk / Warhammer fantasy roleplay / S.L.A industries / Pendragon / Tunnels and trolls and quite a few more that remain tucked away on various bookshelves about my home (and I'm sure my wife would rather me thin out lol)

Oh and as well as all that i have a collection of various miniature war gaming rules systems and figures

And to think at one time I had a life that did not revolve around the RPG hahahahahahaha then again maybe not :)

Again apologies if I portray myself as a little arrogant but that's my relevant gaming history.... I think...yeah that's more or less it J.

What was I talking about again????? lol

[Mike Holmes]

I guess from your posts that you are a realist, this is not a realistic system, although the GM can use any formulas he wants (Hence total control).

That's a fascinating observation (hey, Richter, I'm a realist!). What makes you say that? I'm guessing that you're responding to some typical criticism of the game.

We also aim to listen to our players and implement what they desire and add supplemental rules they can use if desired, hence the tiered design I spoke about earlier.
What makes it unique is the system is adapatable and is designed to be so no 'It says on page 497 that you can't do that GM'  The GM can adapt the system as he/she sees fit.  It makes no difference to the players who can choose Basic, advanced or customised rules.  The only dependacy is on player honesty, which is an issue in all systems.

This is a complex set of statements you've made here. They seem contradictory. That is, if the GM can adapt the system as he sees fit, then how can that make no difference to the players? Or is he not allowed to change those rules? Just what are you trying to say here?

Interestingly, a lof of what you say sounds like you're trying to stop some sort of rules abuse. But then you say something wise - "dependancy is on player honesty, which is an issue in all systems." The common wisdom herabouts is that you shouldn't design to combat abuse, so we agree with you. Still, that leaves me baffled as to some of your design elements.

Again, not to be insulting, but your inexperience is showing with the following statement. "we like to think our way out of situations rather than kill everything" is a reaction to D&D play. Many game systems aren't like D&D, and do not promote killin. Moreover, many do not even pose the think or kill dichotomy that you pose. There are other things to do in RPGs than take on the GM's finely crafted adventure.

It's probably way too early to get into this, but...this is a late stage design, no? You're going to publish soon, in theory? Because you have provided a lot of evidence of a problem that would be called in very technical terms (that you don't really need to understand yet) a case of Gamism-Simulationism incoherence.

Essentially, it seems that the game is about competing with the GM - meaning to overcome the obstacles that he places in your path. But then players aren't supposed to consider their characters pawns, instead they're supposed to play them well. Let's do an example: I have a character who in his background has a sister in his home city of whom he is the sole ward. The GM has an adventure prepared in which the characters have to make an arduous crossing of a desert to get a powerful magic item.

Should I go on the quest, or declare that my character stays home to watch his sister? Which gets me the RP reward? Which counts as successfully taking on the adventure? Which is most fun to play?

This is a loaded situation, and there is no right or wrong answer - it just points out a potential conflict in player motives. Player motives, not character motives.

You're statement about "role-playing, having fun, helping each other out," these things don't really say much about your goals. These are goals that all players have in all RPGs, given certain definitions of these terms. You have to be more specific with this sort of wording, because it could mean anything. Which doesn't help with analyzing the game in question.

Mike

[Mike Holmes]

At the risk of following up on my post above, which I made not having seen Taran's first post, welcome Taran.

Didn't seem arrogant at all to me. I asked and you answered. That's not a bad list of games. Seems odd to me, however, as there are very few newer designs in there, and a lot of really old ones (odder because you're not that old). It seems like you stopped playing new stuff with something like L5R?

Anyhow, given your pretty broad background, what is it about your system that you see as superior to, say, Pendragon? Is Pendragon simply too complicated? If so, then check out Emily's post above and the game that it links to. What are your feelings about a game like that?

Once we have an idea of your vision, we can really get down to making more cogent comments about your system.

Mike

[fruitbatinshades]

Mr Holmes,

I find you posts aggressive and arrogant.  This is not constructive critism or helpful advice.  This is 'Prove you are worthy' and it is a game I will no longer play.
We are looking for helpful critism not looking for a discorse in how wonderful you and your theories are.  If you cannot be constructive in a non-superior fashion then please do not post any more 'advice' for us.

Thankyou

Lee

[Matt Gwinn]

????
Where did that come from Lee?
I was actually feeling Jealous that Mike was taking so much time to post to your thread.  

I asure you, Mike's input is quite valuable.  You just need to be patient while he learns more about what you're trying to accomplish with the game.

There's no need to feel offended.

,Matt

[Zak Arntson]

We have a demo scenario (Ghosts of wreckers cove) that outlines the basic rules, so please download a copy and let me have it **Blocks critisism attack, swish!**.
We also have a character generator that gives you an idea of the basic characteristics each race starts with, including their race skills.

http://www.redravenrpg.com/downloads/demoscenario.zip

Please let me know what you think

I read the scenario, and I can't tell what kind of criticism you're looking for. Do you want the rules examined? The adventure itself? Ghosts of Wreckers Cove doesn't give me enough details on how to actually run the game. I also must point out that, at 20 pages, I didn't read the entire text of the adventure. I did, however, read through the rules, the sample character sheets, the NPCs, Monsters and Magic Items. I skimmed the actual adventure part. So, with that in mind, here are my questions:

- What are the basic and what are the advanced rules? I can't critique them if I don't know them. This sounds like an important goal (you emphasize it in your introductory post), but I don't see it in the demo scenario download.

- Again, without the full rules available, I'm stuck at guesswork. In the NPC/Monster descriptions, does Reaction or Intelligence have any system effect?

- The magic items at the end have little in-game rules. When the venom blade has a "fast-acting poison," how is that handled in the rules?

- From the text, I'm unsure when to apply the rules. In Encounter One, when the characters chat up Reno, do they have to make Charisma checks to learn anything? Can a PC make an Awareness check to realize the high chance of contracting a disease?

I do want to point out that the Rule of One is a great way to have critical fumbles and avoid the higher score = higher fumbles problem.

Now, on to the general design issues. My big questions for you, design-wise, are the following:

- What does the GM do?
- What do the players do?
- What do the characters do?

This is answered a bit in the demo scenario, but not enough. The follow-up question to these three is: How do the rules support this?

From your posts, I gather that the GM provides challenges (what kind of challenges? Combat only? Social?), the players make choices with limited knowledge (i.e., they know as much as the characters about the situation) to overcome these challenges. I don't want to make guesses though, so I need to know your answers before really examining the rules.

[fruitbatinshades]

????
Where did that come from Lee?

Maybe it's the old problem of intention not coming through text well?  If I am wrong I apologise!

[fruitbatinshades]

What are the basic and what are the advanced rules? I can't critique them if I don't know them. This sounds like an important goal (you emphasize it in your introductory post), but I don't see it in the demo scenario download.

From posts so far, I think we need to do serious work on the introductory scenario,  It obviously doesn't portray the system very well **blushes**

I find it hard to answer some of these questions, because as Mike pointed out, I'm not an RPG professional and have not studied all the genres.  We are not trying to create the worlds best system, we are trying to create a simple system that can be adapted to the group/GMs requirements.  I've always adapted systems, but they were never designed to changed.  RR is.

- The magic items at the end have little in-game rules. When the venom blade has a "fast-acting poison," how is that handled in the rules?

Yet another good point.  Posion is in the basic rules but not in the scenario :(  It's hard to read your own work because you know what it's on about so you don't notice things are missing.  Magic has no rules as such.  The spell descriptions explain what the spell does.  Thats it.

From the text, I'm unsure when to apply the rules. In Encounter One, when the characters chat up Reno, do they have to make Charisma checks to learn anything? Can a PC make an Awareness check to realize the high chance of contracting a disease?

This is puely down to the GM.  He can make the players roll on whatever they spot or he feels like.

- What does the GM do?
- What do the players do?
- What do the characters do?

Can you give me an example answer?  My immediate response is 'Solve the situation and roleplay'.  I seem to find these sort of questions hard to answer.

From your posts, I gather that the GM provides challenges (what kind of challenges? Combat only? Social?), the players make choices with limited knowledge (i.e., they know as much as the characters about the situation) to overcome these challenges. I don't want to make guesses though, so I need to know your answers before really examining the rules.

Either we all play differently from everyone else, or I'm missing something.  Each campaign usually has an mission/point.  It's up to the players to retrieve that item, stop that war, kill that baddie etc.  Standard RPG fair.

Whilst heading for that particluar mission, things happen!  The environment affects what the players end up doing.  The skills in the system lead to all sorts of 'Free' situations (i.e. the GM didn't have to write it).

Code Select Expand

Brotach is a gargoylean (12ft of rock, 2 ton) and we are heading into an underground city.  We come to wooden ladder that leads down to a cave 50' below and tell Brotach to stay where she is.  

'We'll just go down and have a look, you stay here and keep watch'

We come to an inscription on a door that is written in a language only Brotach can read (Read/Speak Duragadanian Skill).  Now what do we do?
This sort of thing happens all the time in RR, GM's can set it up but it happens all the time due to the way we use skills.  Characters are put in all sorts of situations because of their race or skills.  Brotach cannot come with us into an rotting wooden building for example.  Gargoyleans don't sleep either, so she is always on watch.  The player wanted to start carving at night.  We had no carve skill in the listings, but as RR is designed to be expanded, we just added one, she spent the XP and now is getting quite good at carving and sells little statues in towns.

This is basically what RR is about.  It about character development alongside your normal 'Save the princess' stuff.  Characters are not restricted to a class as such either.  A Warrior can cast spells and a mage can kick ass.  It all depends on what skills they learn.  This means characters are a lot more rounded and players get attached and actually care about them.

[Jack Aidley]

(Lee e-mailed me a copy of the 'player's basic guide' for RedRavenRPG, these comments refer to that text, which expands upon the rules given in the demo scenario.)

Hi Lee (and Taran),

I've had a read through the rules. As I thought more about it I've begun to quite like the basic resolution mechanic, although I'm still dubious about the re-rolls it requires, and it does have a very strange probability curve (for higher numbers of dice, you get a curve increasing up to 9, then nothing at 10, then a curve increasing from 11 to 19, then nothing at 20, etc...). Which means that a change in target number, or attribute value can have very strange effects on the probability.

The biggest thing that strikes me about the design is that it seems to lack the courage of it's convictions. It has a quite neat, fluid, semi-freeform mechanic for most resolution - and then a hugely crunchy combat system. It has the same 'I hit you' - 'you hit me' freeze-frame combat mechanics of D&D (which I will freely admit an increasing dislike for), but can take up to five(!) rolls to resolve each strike. I worry about the handling time for that (especially with your system which I would expect to have a potentially longer handling time for each roll). I wonder whether you would be better re-thinking your combat system to be more in keeping with the freer feel of the rest of the system.

There's also three distinct combat systems: one for melee combat, one for brawling and one for missile combat. Each has it's own special way of working out damage. Is this really needed? It seems horribly inconsistent to me. At least unify the damage mechanics.

I'm really not clear on why you have three defence skills - there seems to be no difference between them (apart from shield block which is strictly inferior to either dodging or defending), so why have them? Why not just have one defend skill that everyone uses?

It's not clear from the rules, as is, what skills are available - do you make up your own, or is there a list not included in the rules.

I haven't done the numbers, but it looks like the xp required to 'finish' a mage is much, much higher than that required to 'finish' a warrior. My experience with WFRP suggests to me that this is not a good thing.

What is a 'level 1' skill? How does it differ from not having the skill? Both would seem to roll one dice.

What is an 'advanced' skill - it is mentioned in the xp chart to advance skills, but I can't see any description of what it is?

Hope this helps,

Jack.