[TotG: Distilled] Comments wanted on a text

[Jasper]

Howdy,

I'm working on a rewrite of Trials of the Grail, which I'm calling Distilled (for now).  The original version's text was wordy and stuffy, and I'd like to rectify that, since I really like the underlying game.  When Distilled is finally done, all the current owners of TotG will get it for free.

My goals for Distilled:

[*]Work the text like a mofo, making it as utterly tight and clean as I can.  It should explain just as much as it needs to, in simple language.  I'm aiming entirely for experienced role-players, so I want to keep the text on that level, and pretty informal.
[*]Organize it in a way that players can get up and running pretty quickly, and also reference it easily.  I.e. I really care about it functioning directly as an instruction manual.
[*]Focus on the most important, core rules.  But don't over-explain: it's fine if the implications of some of the rules are made apparent only in play.
[*]Don't discuss setting or color.  The original text used an Arthurian medieval setting as a starting point, but I want to emphasize the game's more universal applicability (within its themes).[/list:u]

Okay? So...Right now I'm looking at an early-ish draft.  I plan to work the text like mad, have lots of people look over it, hopefully play from it, and in the end get an editor.  At this stage though, I need some feedback on my basic approach.  As they say, you can't polish a turd, so I want to make sure the approach is a good one.

You can download the draft here:
http://primevalpress.com/games/totg/distilled.pdf

And you know the drill: don't redistribute, etc.  If you like the thing, you can buy it when it's done (or now of course).


I need some varied, well-informed feedback -- hence this post </flattery>. I'd specifically like thoughts on:

[*]The organization, especially in terms of comprehension on a first read-through.
[*]General prose style.  Is too informal/formal, dry?
[*]Clarity of the rules.  Is it too terse or (and I know this is true in some areas) should it be paired down a lot more? Are there enough examples?
[*]How would it serve as reference, during play?
[*]Anything else, of course.[/list:u]

In general, feel free to point out specific trouble spots (or good spots) and what the problem is.  If anyone's really inclined to get into the nitty-gritty, we can talk about it via e-mail or my site's forum.

Much obliged.

[Bardsandsages]

I like the general game mechanics.  They are very simple to follow and would be good for introducing new blood into roleplaying, particularly younger folks.  However, it is very dry and way too generic.  I don't think gamers need new systems so much as they need new worlds and ideas.  You're giving them a system, but nothing to do with it.

If the game is designed for experienced players, don't overexplain roleplaying in general.  The first three pages seem to be nothing more than rewordings of what every experienced player already knows.  If this was geared at introducing roleplaying to new players, then it would be a different story.

Why do all the questors have to be the same?  Part of the beauty of rpgs is showing how groups of individuals with different talents work together as a group.  And why do they have to be virtuous?  It's kinda like telling people they can only play paladins.  It forces the players into a very narrowly focused game, particularly when they ALL have to be the same.  I think this kind of micro manages the players too much.

[Jasper]

Hi Bardsandsages.  Welcome to the Forge.  What's your name?

Thanks for replying.  Let me clarify though. The system for the game is done.  I don't want to dismiss your opinion, but I'm not really looking to discuss that part of the game right now -- just the presentation. If you'd really like to talk about it, feel free to start a thread in Indie Design and I'll respond there.

If the game is designed for experienced players, don't overexplain roleplaying in general. The first three pages seem to be nothing more than rewordings of what every experienced player already knows.

Ah, I'm glad you bring that up, since I'd forgotten to ask about it.  I wrote that section very purposefully, and it is aimed at "experienced" role-players.  The scare quotes are important.  Most RPGs gloss over and make huge assumptions about basic organization of play*.  Likewise, a large portion of the hobby is probably not used to thinking about those things very consciously or to seeing them done differently.  That section of the rules is supposed to bring issues of organization into the light a bit.

Now, admittedly, TotG doesn't handle organization of play in any sort of amazing, radical new way.  But it's not the same organization as in a lot of other games (at least as far as they're implied to me).  I also wanted to nail down organization very clearly.  Since most games leave it up in the air, there's a lot of room for a group to move -- maybe too much.  So in TotG I just make some of that stuff explicit.  

I'm convinced of the usefulness of my doing this, in general.  But I'd love to hear about how successful I've been, and whether I neeed to say even more, or say things differently.

* I'm using this phrase "organization of play" to describe player interactions, namely issues of credibility and some IIEE.