RedRavenRPG.com: I'm scared to ask!

[fruitbatinshades]

I must apologise to Mike.  

His questions are direct and focussed and I took this to be aggressive.  I must admit I am out of my depth here and probably reacted to that rather than to mikes advice.

I don't understand the questions mainly, which makes me what Mike hates (according to his article).  We have spent a long time working on RR 4 years from the idea, 2 years trying to write it all down, do the website and manuals etc.  Which is why we missed all the newer RPG's.

So once again, my humble apologies to Mike

Lee

[fruitbatinshades]

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.

Can you illustrate this :)

but can take up to five(!) rolls to resolve each strike.

5? Never had that!

Swordsmanship=4
roll 4d10 (3,7,10,1)
Reroll 10 (4)
Result is 14 + Swordsmanship = 18[/list:u]
Thats 2 (including the re-rolled 10)

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.

Strangely enough we only had 1 to start with but players started saying things like 'You roll your endurance because you brace yourself right? Well how can I brace myself against an arrow, I don't know it's coming!'

I'm really not clear on why you have three defence skills

There are different defence skills because of the types of attack.  If you are wimpy mage you will probably never of learnt hand-to-hand combat.  The mage may be adept at quarter staff fighting but that doesn't mean he can fight off a ninja. His ability to defend is down to his weapon in 'Block Melee', where as his ability to defend had-to-hand is down to his fists and close fighting experience(Block Brawl).

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've emailed them to you :)

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.

We spotted this one one early on, when a mage progresses to the next level he is gifted with 2 spells from that level as he mutates.  That balances the XP required (in favour of the mage so he can also improve skills)

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

The first level of a skill means you are learning to do it.  If you have no experience of 'Carving', you cannot do it, other than to wittle.  So level one is like going to a night class.  A more obvious problem skill would be law.  If you had never looked at it, you would know nothing about it.  At level 1 you are starting to read and begin to understand what 'A clause contract' is, at 2 you would understand the documentation, 3 be able to write one, 4 be able to write a water tight one, 5 be able to write one that gets someone to sell their soul.

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?

In RR you only need 5d10s.  If the GM allows you to go a skill of 6 you gain a special ability with that skill.  A swordsmanship of 6, may involve being unable to be disarmed, or the GM could give you chain lightening(bad spell, bad spell) whilst using a sword. Again this down to the GMs discretion.

[Jack Aidley]

Hi Lee,

Can you illustrate this :)

Maybe later. The odds follow quite obviously though. You can't get a ten (or any multiple thereof) because you re-roll and add, and each 'step' up will repeat the pattern of the first line (although less pronouncedly).

5? Never had that!

Iniative (combat sense)
To Hit
Them to defend
To Damage
To reduce Damage

That's five seperate rolls for one attack.

Strangely enough we only had 1 to start with but players started saying things like 'You roll your endurance because you brace yourself right? Well how can I brace myself against an arrow, I don't know it's coming!'

It seems to me to go against your stated aim of reducing unnecessary rules. An equally good rational is that tougher people can take more damage (and in any case, you can see arrows coming in most circumstances).

There are different defence skills because of the types of attack.  If you are wimpy mage you will probably never of learnt hand-to-hand combat.  The mage may be adept at quarter staff fighting but that doesn't mean he can fight off a ninja. His ability to defend is down to his weapon in 'Block Melee', where as his ability to defend hand-to-hand is down to his fists and close fighting experience(Block Brawl).

So there's different block/dodge/shield skills for different situations as well, then? That wasn't what I meant though: why do you have seperate block/dodge/shield skill when they all do the same mechanical thing? Since you can use only one of them at a time, it makes no sense to have more than one? (And it seems never to make sense to use 'shield').

I've emailed them to you

Cool. I'll have a look over them and get back to you.

The first level of a skill means you are learning to do it.  If you have no experience of 'Carving', you cannot do it, other than to wittle.  So level one is like going to a night class.  A more obvious problem skill would be law.  If you had never looked at it, you would know nothing about it.  At level 1 you are starting to read and begin to understand what 'A clause contract' is, at 2 you would understand the documentation, 3 be able to write one, 4 be able to write a water tight one, 5 be able to write one that gets someone to sell their soul.

Ok. So if you don't have a skill you simply can't do it? Yes? I don't think that's made clear in the rules.

Cheers,

Jack.

[fruitbatinshades]

Iniative (combat sense)
To Hit
Them to defend
To Damage
To reduce Damage

Point taken :)

An equally good rational is that tougher people can take more damage

You see whilst playing that HP are not so easy to come by in RR.  You never get given them, you have to purchase them, which means theres always a balance between skills, spells, attributes and HP,MP. Characters are built up via the players discretion, but there is always a trade off.  Should I improve my block melee or buy 2 new hit points?

That wasn't what I meant though: why do you have seperate block/dodge/shield skill when they all do the same mechanical thing?

Thats a good point.  It's more for the players actions than the system.  I think we will rework the dodge skill so it is not related to the damage.  An elephant kicks at you, not much chance of blocking that, i'll dodge instead.  Or maybe just take it out!

[Ben O'Neal]

Yeah, I think it's safe for me to speak on Mike's behalf when I say that he was not being hostile towards you or your game. I also think it's safe to say that his comments were intended to do the best thing any comments can hope to achieve: help you focus your own critical analysis so you can figure out what you really want, and the best ways to achieve that. If you do a bit of reading around the forge (especially the articles section) and then go back and review his posts I think you may find them a bit more enlightening and helpful.

And really, how can learning about what you like be bad??? It can only help you make your games even better than they are. You'll probably even be reading and think "hey, you know, that would really be cool...". In fact, I garauntee it.

Also, I second Jack's motion that if your goal is to make "light" rules, then you should keep them "light" through combat as well, which means re-thinking all the crunchy bits that bog it down. Or change your focus to combat, in which case crunchy 'em up!

-Ben

[Mike Holmes]

First, if I come off as arrogant, I apollogize. I admit that my approach could be taken that way. As far as agressive...I would like to help you. I have an "agressive" way of getting to the point where we really can help you. At most sites you go to, you'll find that people will tend to make rather random comments about your game and suggestions about what might work. This isn't totally unhelpful, but I think that we've developed here a rather more substantial method of analysis that can provide a lot better feedback than that.

Now, to get to that point, we really need certain information from you. So before you see anything like advice from me, you'll first be seeing this battery of questions. The point being that what you're going through is very similar to what others go through here when first arriving looking for advice. Ask recent arrivals Ravien for instance. And then ask if he thinks that the analysis is helping him to make a better game.  

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**

Well, it's a synopsis, or a fraction of the entire game, so that's not too surprising. This brings up another touchy subject that may make you defensive. Is there some reason that you're not showing people the entire system?

Occasionally people get worried that they might be losing potential sales to people who would download it now, or that the ideas from the game might be "stolen?" If this is the reason for not displaying the entire game, your fears are unfounded.

In any case, realize that having us try to help you while only being able to see part of the game will seriously limit the speed and effectiveness at which we can provide feedback. It would really help us to help you if we could see more of what you want feedback on.

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.

Note the "indie" term all over this place. I have published exactly one full game to date. In fact, there's a sentiment here that there really are very few, if any, "RPG Professionals." Instead there are people like yourself who want to build a better mousetrap for their hobby. Every "proffessional" started out the same way as you.

Further, many of these questions relate to a general vision of play. They are non-technical and simply require you to answer them to the best of your ability. Not in some specialized manner.

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.

No system is, or will ever be perfect. Nobody expects that. But there are things that one can look at. Certainly you posted here looking for feedback on improving the game? Because that's what this forum is for. "Can I ask if anyone would look over the base rules and let me know your opinions?" is a tad vague, but if you note the posting conventions listed at the top of the forum, this is a place for getting the sort of feedback that I'm giving.

As it happens, the one game that I designed has a specific rule in it for how to change the rules (the Gimmick Rule). So I think that the idea of malleable rules is pretty interesting. I think we'd like to see what you have there to comment on it. Again, is there any chance we can see the system in total?

Can you give me an example answer?

- What does the GM do?

In D&D, the GM controls all NPCs, monsters, the world in general, and is responsible for having a "scenario" or adventure ready to play out each session.

- What do the players do?

In D&D, the players control the actions of their characters.

- What do the characters do?

In D&D, the characters usually go on the GM's adventures, which mostly involve killing things, and taking their stuff.

This all may seem obvious as in "what else would these things do?" But they're all assumptions which you may have different ideas on. And many of these assumptions don't apply to many RPGs. So we always check. The last one is particularly malleable. In Champions, the characters are superheroes who fight crime. Sure, one could make up a super, and then have him become a business magnate, but that's not what Champions supports. What is it that you want your game to support?

My immediate response is 'Solve the situation and roleplay'.  I seem to find these sort of questions hard to answer.

Actually, that's not a bad answer. Just to clarify, however, by "solve the situation" do you mean that the players try to solve the situation through using their characters, or that the characters solve the situation. This is a subtle difference. In the first, the player is the one being challenged. For example, in D&D, deciding which spells to take each morning for the wizard is a player challenge. A character challenge would be rolling to see if he can figure out how to open a puzzle box. See the difference?

And, let's define what you mean by "role-play" once and for all. I'm going to guess that it means to play your character in the first person, to act the part of the character. Is that it? As I said, there are many other viable definitions, so we really need to narrow this down some. If "role-play" simply means to play a RPG, that doesn't help us much at all.

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.

Again, you're going to find a lot of your assumptions challenged here. Yes, this is typical of a lot, maybe even most RPG play. But it's far from universal.

But what you're saying is clear.

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).

This is a good clarification off of the "standard play" assumption above. It's not uncommon, but neither is this "free" play universal. So it's good that you mentioned it.

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.

Just to be even more clear, when you say "character development" you're speaking to them aquiring new skills, and new sets of skills and the like? To what extent do you mean the "literature" meaning of character development, meaning that their personalities are tested, or change, or their relationships, etc?

I think that we've got nearly what we need to proceed. Again, the biggest problem is that we're not looking at the whole rule set. What often happens in cases like this is that we end up saying, "the game could use X" and you respond, "well, it's already got X." And we say, exasperatedly, "Well, why didn't you say so?"

I'm just hoping to avoid a lot of that.

If the feedback that you're getting here is completely different than what you were hoping to get, then please let us know what you were hoping for. It may be that either this isn't the forum for it at The Forge, or maybe The Forge isn't really the place to get the kind of feedback that you're looking for (and perhaps we can suggest a better place).

Mike

[Ben O'Neal]

The point being that what you're going through is very similar to what others go through here when first arriving looking for advice. Ask recent arrivals Ravien for instance. And then ask if he thinks that the analysis is helping him to make a better game.

Well, seeing how you asked :)

Here is where I was in the same position as you are in now.

Here is something very cool (I think) that came out of Mike's helpful input.

Here is a topic about something completely different that ended up being a topic about my game. This is also something you might want to avoid if controversy scares you. Also an example of how Mike's advice can be twisted to the Dark Side, so must be handled with respect.

So in short, Mike was extremely helpful in helping me make what I feel is a much better game than what I started with. I recommend him to anyone :)

-Ben

[Mike Holmes]

And it's not just my advice, thanks Ben. But it's everyone's here. By answering my questions (and those of others), you're empowering potentially thousands of people to help you better. In fact, the people who are likely to respond are probably only about 100 or so, but that's still a huge think tank to be tapping, and the ones who respond include some really great minds. I'm merely the most prolific - there are other's here who likely have much more important things to say about your game than I do.

So this isn't just one wacky poster asking you some wacky questions. This is SOP around here, and you can really benefit if you just play along a little with our unusual program.

That all said, let's turn the tables at this point. Let me ask you - what, if anything, do you see as something in the game that might use some work? Do you see any flaws with it, no matter how small?

BTW, everyone, Lee PMed me (not to mention the apology above -which was unneccessary, but appreciated), and I think it's all cool now. Smooth sailing, I hope.

Mike

[Mike Holmes]

Yeah, I think it's safe for me to speak on Mike's behalf when I say that he was not being hostile towards you or your game.

Following up on the last post. Heh, yeah, Ben's seen me when I'm actually acting aggressively and like an ass. :-)

Mike

[fruitbatinshades]

Let me ask you - what, if anything, do you see as something in the game that might use some work? Do you see any flaws with it, no matter how small?

1. We need to move the basic combat rules to advanced, go back to the original combat rules for basic.

Attacker: Roll your weapon skill (still using rule of ten)
Defender: Roll your weapon skill

Damage to defender: Attackers total - Defenders total

2. It's been commented on that we need a magic system, but we don't see the need.  The system is, if you know the spell and have the mana, then cast it.  We've got way too many spells (about 100 more than in the manuals you've got!)

We do have a really good magic system that is free form, but may unbalance the game.  We're still not sure whether to include it.  Ther should be no problems if the GM is ok with it, but it will scare newer GM's.

[Mike Holmes]

Let's focus on that term "freeform" a little. It has lots of different meanings. I'm guessing that here you mean that mages can work up all sorts of different spells on the fly, make whatever magical effects that they want to? Interesting.

Would the following be a viable spell (acutally a spell right out of Rolemaster's Spell Law)?

Long Door - target dissapears, and reappears 100 feet away anywhere the caster can see.

Would that be a writeup of a spell that would fly in your game? Get the answer set in your head before proceeding.

If the answer is no, why? What's "missing"?

If the answer is yes, then let's say that I have a mage character, and I say, "I'm casting Long Door on that tower to move it over there." What do you, as GM tell me happens? Does the tower move, or no?

If the answer is yes, then can I make the planet my "target"? Can I use my opponent's head as the "target"? Why, or why not?

If the answer is no, I can't move the tower, then what's that based on? How is that determined? I take it that the GM has final authority - what does the game tell him he has to use as criteria when making this decision? Just his own good judgement?


Don't let these questions make you think that there might be a wrong or right answer. On one end of the spectrum we have magic systems as complex as Chivalry & Sorcery 1st ed, and as simple as what is sometimes termed freeform meaning something other than what you're talking about. Freeform in this instance means that the system that the GM uses is to "just do whatever you think is the right thing to do." Entire games are played this way every day. So, you're game is somewhere in between these two extremes. What I'm trying to do is determine what the system is that you guys are using for determining the outcome of magic. Because, at the moment it would seem to be "freeform" using the definition that I've just enumerated above. Some would instead say that you are using "drama" as your form of resolution here (as opposed to fortune or karma). Meaning that it's just up to some player to make an "appropriate" decision of some sort.


Also, your last comments are interesting. If the set spell system relies on the players trusting the GM, then how can the other system you have be, "unbalancing"? What balance is being thrown out? Is it just that the freeform method gives the mage more abilities, or more powerful ones?

"Balance" is another of those topics that has a lot of meanings. We may have to clarify that, too. What you're talking about sounds like "power balance" meaning that each PC is limited so as to be more or less as powerful as the next. Is that what you're talking about?

Mike

[fruitbatinshades]

Yeah Mike,

Taran has just sat down and explained to me why it's a bad idea, but I am a programmer and we do the impossible all the time.  I'm going to spend some time on it (as a side project) and see if I can make it safe.  I like a challenge ***Laughs Madly***

[fruitbatinshades]

"Balance" is another of those topics that has a lot of meanings. We may have to clarify that, too. What you're talking about sounds like "power balance" meaning that each PC is limited so as to be more or less as powerful as the next. Is that what you're talking about?

Balance in the context of what you just said.  "Teleport, Target, moon", "Drain, Spirit" are too powerful.

In the rest of the game with character progression, balance is not such an issue.  Basically players can have a multi-skilled low level character,or a focused, poweful character that lacks a decent range of skills.  A supreme warrior will be stuck when he goes to a different culture to arrange a peace treaty and has a charisma of 3!

Players can be powerful in one region or a more naturally rounded and realistic.  It depends on the playing style.  This is one of the ways RR allows for lots of different types of play in the same gaming session.

[Zak Arntson]

On the issue of balance: Balance is a very broad concept. Do you want balance of characters' in-game effectiveness? I.e., characters of the same level should have an equal chance to succeed at combat? When you generalize this, with something like, "A 3rd level fighter should be comparable to a 3rd level magic-user," you're making certain assumptions with play. In a game focused on combat, hopefully the magic-user is equally capable in combat, or the fighter will earn limelight. If you focus the game to be 2/3rds combat (where the magic-user is half-as capable as a fighter), and 1/3rd non-combat, you've got some limelight balance. Note that I said "limelight balance." If you earn more experience in combat, then there is a loss of reward balance.

So, when you say that "Teleport, Target, Moon" and "Drain, Spirit" are too powerful, what is your basis of comparison? If a fighter can reasonably kill a goblin with one blow, then how is that less powerful than teleporting the goblin to the moon?

In your example of a supreme warrior and a multi-skilled low-level character, how do these balance out? This can be handled by the GM (one way would be to gauge the PC's effectiveness in different areas and provide a chance for all PC's to test their skills), the actual rules (during play or required GM prep), or even the players (say, using a skill means you can't use it later on so that other PCs get a chance to use it), or some combination of the three (and probably more factors I'm missing).

---

Moving to another topic, your concerns of pleasing other gamers with your game. If you're trying to improve D&D, your game is going to be compared to D&D. Inevitably, it won't do favorably (since D&D is going to "out-D&D" anything, by the nature of it being D&D). Don't please the world of gamers; please yourselves with Red Raven.

[fruitbatinshades]

An NPC walks up to your beloved 2 year old character and casts Teleport, Moon.  How happy would you be :)

We do not want to be associated AD&D in any way, thank you very much!  I personally preferred warhammer but they got lost in wargaming and never produced any backup for it.  Hence I was left with AD&D at the time, b4 vampire, werewolf etc. Have I given my age away, damn!

I think we are nearer to GURPS in our intentions.  People keep wanting us to say we are a Gamist/Narrativist/Simulationist system.  I don't think we fit into any one.  The idea was to make the mechanics simple enough to allow for all types of play in the same game.

In my current gaming group we've got 2 power gamers (all skills at max, 3rd circle magic etc) who loved AD&D and we've got 3 who loved pendragon, warhammer and white wolf!  I constantly think my way out of situations even though I've got weapons skill at max, another player likes casting crush bone on peoples necks and skulls and yet another likes to amble around being all arty.

It works for us.  No-one is forced to play any one elses way, the rules are simple enough to allow most types of play together.  I think this is why I had such trouble answering Mikes questions.  It also leads us to a 'normal' situation in groups of people.  Like having to stop (in character) the powergamers running amok when we need peace, telling me shut up when the answer is obvious and i've missed it cos i'm thinking too much, and stopping the arty one being arty when we need to run away.

That is what the system was designed for.  That is why it doesn't neatly fit into any category.  By removing the hard core rules it allows the players and GM to play to the situation, not the mechanics.

Phew!

**Waiting nervously for Mikes response**