Mage Blade website

[Lance D. Allen]

Sorry if it seems like I'm impatient... But, hell, I am. It's been over a day since I posted it without reply, and the "Views" on the thread has only increased by a few, so I'm thinking that people perhaps missed the link.

Reposted from "A new face with a new game"

It's not much, but it's here, finally.

http://members.aol.com/JohanusMorgan/Home.html

Use the link at the bottom of the site to e-mail me, or just post any commentary here. Thanks in advance.

Oh, btw.. Some of the images don't come up right the first time. If you right-click and select Show Image, it usually works to bring them up. ::shrugs:: AOL's webspace is kooky, but hey, it's free with the membership, so I might as well use it.

[Laurel]

I like the archetypal feel to the magic.  I'm a real sucker for archetypes.   I wouldn't call the magical system revolutional though.  The character sheet has a nice look to it.  I'm sure you'll fill the blank box with something.

So far, both the web page and the game on top of it lack color and that spark of life that makes a game unique.  I'm still left with a terrible sense of emptiness when it comes to Mage Blade society and why I should want to make one to play.  I'll need something to hook me in, to make me even want to learn the mechanics because from a Gamist-perspective, I'd have better luck getting my group together to play with an old-but-true system they already know, like MtA or d20 and there's no real sense of what I accomplish from playing yet.  From a Sim-perspective, I can't see what there is to explore regarding my character or the world, and from a Narrative-perspective, there's not much there to make a story with.

I avoid discussions of mechanics themselves, waiting for Mike Holmes or someone to do a better, easier to apply analysis than I ever could.

Even with all this negative or nuetral feedback I'm giving on Mage Blade, don't feel like I'm telling you to quit!  I think Mage Blade shows excellent potential based on your enthusiam and posts about it and is a really good "learn by experience" project.

[Lance D. Allen]

I like the archetypal feel to the magic. I'm a real sucker for archetypes. I wouldn't call the magical system revolutional though. The character sheet has a nice look to it. I'm sure you'll fill the blank box with something.

Actually, I had enough people tell me they loved the blank box that I wanted to keep it all the way to publishing.. But it looks like things are going to have to be moved around and the box will probably go away. I'm going to do what I can to keep it, though.

So far, both the web page and the game on top of it lack color and that spark of life that makes a game unique. I'm still left with a terrible sense of emptiness when it comes to Mage Blade society and why I should want to make one to play. I'll need something to hook me in, to make me even want to learn the mechanics because from a Gamist-perspective, I'd have better luck getting my group together to play with an old-but-true system they already know, like MtA or d20 and there's no real sense of what I accomplish from playing yet. From a Sim-perspective, I can't see what there is to explore regarding my character or the world, and from a Narrative-perspective, there's not much there to make a story with.

Oh! No, no see, this isn't the website which would theoretically be there to sell the game, or even to fully explain it. The website's sole purpose is to attempt to give a very basic answer to the questions in green, which Ron asked me over in my first thread. "Why should I play this game?" And "How does it work?" I may not have done a very good job of the former, but the latter is a pared down version of the rules of the game. I mostly wanted feedback on the system, because most of the setting information isn't fully put down in print yet, it exists only in my mind, and in the minds of those who helped me develop what is there. I'm working on ideas for Premise in a different thread, which I will use to create the "hook" (my term for the writing on the back cover of the book, designed to get you all fired up about the game to the point where you'll buy it and bug your friends to play). Eventually I'll also get the setting into print as well.

[Walt Freitag]

What I like:

- The organizing archetypes of the magic system is based on a familiar schema, the classical Greek elements. I've been disappointed many times by systems that try to invent a new archetype schema (colors, runes, platonic solids, n'Sync members, etc.) to make the magic seem more mysterious. Only to find, having gone to the trouble to learn the new schema, that it's just a disguise for the same old familiar categories of effects. Elements are a robust and comfortably familiar basis for a schema that touches on many different aspects of character concept and play.

- The options of Force Burn and Mana Burn. This is more protagonizing than "sorry, guys, I'm out of mana points, can't help you." I've added a self-destructive pushing rule to every system I've ever GMed that didn't already have one. Of course, such mechanisms are not uncommon but I'm glad to see you didn't overlook it.

What I dislike:

The critical hit check that requires a separate calculation of the success-failure threshold, a separate roll, then a table lookup. What does this add to play that's worth so much extra handling on every single successful attack?

Liam Fortuna's character sheet obviously depicts a Water mage. Yet his Water sphere attributes total no higher than the attributes of other spheres. This suggests that the schema of organizing everything around the elements has little practical meaning outside of the magic system. What's the point of calling Charisma, Finesse, and Empathy "Water" traits if this has no relationship to the character's sphere? (I'm assuming that "Sphere: Fire" at the top of the character sheet is a mistake).

Too many separate traits, for my taste.

What I can't determine:

The answer to "Why should I play this game?" that you've prefaced isn't complete yet. You state, "What sets it apart from other games of this type is both in the game mechanics and the setting's way of handling magic." The game mechanics are different from other games, sure, but what sort of different game play do they promote? How are they better than existing systems that have, if not the exact same mechanisms, most or all of the same components (initiative, success rolls based on skills and traits, hit points damage, critical hits)?

The setting's way of handling magic has, so far, some interesting and effective color and some potentially interesting spell-vs.-spell combat tactics based on the channeling decisions. (This would, IMO, be more interesting tactically if the force channeling and resistance channeling were linked together, so that the decision of which spells to be powered-up to cast also determined one's distribution of resistance.) But without knowing the details of how spells are created and acquired by the characters, it's difficult to judge how well or how uniquely the magic system supports the characters and setting. IOW, is it just a disguise for the same old familiar categories of effects? Every pick-a-school magic system I've ever seen has appeared carefully designed to reward conformity and genericness (e.g. by increasing the cost to learn spells outside the chosen school's list). Of course, if the player-characters all invent their own schools, that's different.

- Walt

[Bankuei]

I think perhaps a clarification of "Why should I play this game?"might help out.  

Taking games that you'd play solely for the mechanics:  GURPS-Play it because it simulates reality with real world research, Rolemaster-Play it for the critical hits, The Pool-Play it for Authorial control given to players, etc.

Taking games you'd play for the setting: Whitewolf-Play it to be supernatural and angsty, Legend of the 5 Rings-Play it to be a samurai fighting monsters, Over the Edge-Play it for wacked out conspiracies.

What the question boils down to is"Why should I play THIS game as opposed to THAT game?", or "What is fundamentally different in your game than others?"  Both of these questions really come back to:"What is your game trying to do, and how does the system support it?"

For example, you've mentioned you'd like combat where a hero could drop a monster in one hit if they're good enough, but there's a way to approach that from all sides of GNS.

Gamist-I rolled a critical, and got a reroll, and a reroll, and I rolled 6 criticals in a row and the supermonsterdemon went splat(and at band camp...)

Simulationist-Hit location is...left nostril, ok roll for frontal lobe damage, ooo-rubberbullet effect, your sword goes up his nose, bends on the skull and shoots out the back through the ...5th vertabrae!  he's dead!

Narrativist- Spending all of my "Look at me, I'm so cool" points,  I jump up, slam my blade into its forehead, the ground cracks and we sink in a cloud of dust...Then a giant mystical explosion rips forth, letting loose all the souls he's ever eaten...and I come forth...carrying its bloodied heart in my hand...

Notice(despite the exaggerations) that any of the above approaches can have a one-hit one-kill rule, but the methods of going about it are different.  Currently your combat system is fairly standard G/S...  Some interesting things you could do to change that might be give bonuses based on elemental affinity(Damn! Earth Warriors, its going to be tough!), or perhaps bonuses and weaknesses against other people of different affinities(see Final Fantasy Tactics for an example of this using Zodiac signs).

Also notice that the different reasons to play different games are based either mechanically or setting-wise.  You could play Whitewolf or L5R with D&D rules and not miss much in terms of system, but you're not paying for a fundamentally different set of rules, but setting.  You could play the Forgotten Realms setting with the Pool, but it certainly would not play like D&D in any fashion.  

My first goal in design is saying: What kind of game world am I trying to create?  Realistic?  Totally unrealistic but strategic?  Whatever I see in the movies?  Then I base the system goals around that.

I look forward to seeing what you do with this and what the background of your world entails...

Chris

[Lance D. Allen]

Awesome, thanks for input. Let's see about addressing some of the points made...

- The organizing archetypes of the magic system is based on a familiar schema, the classical Greek elements. I've been disappointed many times by systems that try to invent a new archetype schema (colors, runes, platonic solids, n'Sync members, etc.) to make the magic seem more mysterious. Only to find, having gone to the trouble to learn the new schema, that it's just a disguise for the same old familiar categories of effects. Elements are a robust and comfortably familiar basis for a schema that touches on many different aspects of character concept and play.

 Though the Greeks might be most famous for them, they've been used in other places just about as long, if not longer. I study modern and historical magical/spiritual beliefs, and these are what I based my use of the elements off of, though in a mostly non-magical sense.

The critical hit check that requires a separate calculation of the success-failure threshold, a separate roll, then a table lookup. What does this add to play that's worth so much extra handling on every single successful attack?

 It adds the ability for a good hit to do more than just damage. I agree that it might be a little bulky, and I'd like to pare it down somehow without losing the total effects. However, the ability to knock someone down or to more seriously wound them (or even kill them outright) as in the example shown is something many gamers I've spoken to like to see in a game. It also ups the lethality on the game, which I like, personally. In the example, Liam slashed, was parried, then thrust and took his opponent down, one hit. I like that (though it was an extreme case... the die rolls were unreal). On a constructive note though, if anyone can offer suggestions to simplify this without taking away the basic effectiveness of the rules, I'd like to hear them.

Liam Fortuna's character sheet obviously depicts a Water mage. Yet his Water sphere attributes total no higher than the attributes of other spheres. This suggests that the schema of organizing everything around the elements has little practical meaning outside of the magic system. What's the point of calling Charisma, Finesse, and Empathy "Water" traits if this has no relationship to the character's sphere? (I'm assuming that "Sphere: Fire" at the top of the character sheet is a mistake).

 It is not a mistake, but an entirely purposeful contrast. I may not have gotten across exactly what Prime Sphere means, and how it effects the character. Prime Sphere is a descriptor of the person's personality type, and lends a bit of aptitude to certain types of magic (in it's aspect for Prime Channeling). However, that does not mean the character *must* go into Schools which align with their aptitude.
 The reasons the attributes are aligned the way they are is based on the aforementioned study of magical and spiritual beliefs. The elements, I believe, correspond to the various levels of existence for humanity. Void is the highest level, the most ephemeral level of Spiritual existence. It is what connects us to everything and everyone else. This is why Void attributes, in Mage Blade, are the magical attributes. Fire corresponds with the subconscious, creative, active/reactive portions of us, which transcend normal ways of thinking, or which bypass thought altogether and simply act and react. This is why Fire atttributes are the ones which define your ability to act, react and do things. Air corresponds with the mind and Psychological levels of existence. This is why Air attributes are all mental attributes. Water corresponds with the Emotional and Social levels of existence, hence why the Water attributes in Mage Blade are entirely social or emotional. Earth correspond with the physical level of existence, our actual bodies. This is why the Earth attributes all deal with the solid capabilities of our bodies. It all relates, though in somewhat convoluted ways.
 Liam is not a primarily social person, despite being a Water Mage, and he wasn't intended to be. He was intended as a primarily active person, though when I actually ran the character through the examples, his glaring weaknesses made themselves plain. I actually did my best to balance him out fairly evenly, rather than attempt to give him particular areas of strength or weakness. The fault mostly lies, I think, in the current character creation system, which I am currently in the process of revamping.

The answer to "Why should I play this game?" that you've prefaced isn't complete yet. You state, "What sets it apart from other games of this type is both in the game mechanics and the setting's way of handling magic." The game mechanics are different from other games, sure, but what sort of different game play do they promote? How are they better than existing systems that have, if not the exact same mechanisms, most or all of the same components (initiative, success rolls based on skills and traits, hit points damage, critical hits)?

 I'll admit that I'm not entirely pleased with the first section of the website. I'm not good at things like that. When it comes to writing, speeches aren't my forte, and neither is getting to the point. Honestly, though I think the game is worth the effort I've put into it, and I would like it to succeed, so I'll need to put a lot more work into the premise and "hook". In the end though, do I think it's better than other games? No, just different. If it were better, then why would you play any other game? I certainly don't think it's worse than any other game either, though, just still in need of playtesting and tweaking.

The setting's way of handling magic has, so far, some interesting and effective color and some potentially interesting spell-vs.-spell combat tactics based on the channeling decisions. (This would, IMO, be more interesting tactically if the force channeling and resistance channeling were linked together, so that the decision of which spells to be powered-up to cast also determined one's distribution of resistance.) But without knowing the details of how spells are created and acquired by the characters, it's difficult to judge how well or how uniquely the magic system supports the characters and setting. IOW, is it just a disguise for the same old familiar categories of effects? Every pick-a-school magic system I've ever seen has appeared carefully designed to reward conformity and genericness (e.g. by increasing the cost to learn spells outside the chosen school's list). Of course, if the player-characters all invent their own schools, that's different.

 I'd originally considered linking Force and Resistance allocation, but discarded it. I think the tactics are better as they stand, with each player in the mage duel having to use guesswork and deduction to determine what spell to use, and how to distribute Resistance. However, as I am remaining open to suggestions, I'll try both ways during playtesting.
 Spells are taught to the student and inscribed in their Grimoire when they reach the rank appropriate the circle of spells. Actually memorizing the spells is a matter of practice and spending Character Points. I originally wanted a much more free-form system of magic, but could not figure out how to reconcile doing so with the system as it stood, or do so in such a way that would not promote player abuse of the system.
 Actually, characters are dissuaded from learning spells of other Schools only In Character by the restrictions that the Schools have. Some Schools say that a character may not learn from ANY other School, whereas others have less stringent restrictions, or even none at all. The character may do so anyhow, but they risk the censure of the Schools if they are ever caught. The only game mechanic which in any way discourages learning from other Schools is that each School has it's own skill which is used to cast it's spells, so to cast a spell from a School other than the one you've learned from originally, you'd have to learn a new skill. Other than that, I highly encourage characters to branch out, and even illegal (from an In Setting standpoint, not from a Game Mechanics standpoint) sharing of spells and teaching of magic skills among the PCs. I also would like to encourage players and GMs to create their own spells, either as parts of the curriculum, or new spells the characters devised. Furthermore, I'd encourage them to create their own Schools. To both of these ends, templates and "how-to" guides will be included in the finished product.

Some interesting things you could do to change that might be give bonuses based on elemental affinity(Damn! Earth Warriors, its going to be tough!), or perhaps bonuses and weaknesses against other people of different affinities(see Final Fantasy Tactics for an example of this using Zodiac signs).

 Actually, I've thought about it. It doesn't currently exist in the game at current, but the idea is still under consideration. There is *some* element of this in the way Spell Duels work, using the channeling of Force and Resistance, and the rules for Prime Channeling. A fire mage who is a Fire Prime will be able to shift all of his Force immediately into Fire, enabling him to cast an immensely powerful Fire spell, for example, before an opponent could allocate his Resistance. (::reads over the webpage, and realizes he forgot to note that Prime Channeling also applies to Resistance... oops::)
 As an idea, I've considered that with Resistance, you cannot Prime Channel to your Sphere. This would reflect that your affinity with the element actually makes you weaker against it. Instead, perhaps you can Prime Channel to it's opposite (Fire-Water, Earth-Air Void-...Void, I guess, so it's the sole exception) What do you think of this idea, Chris? Anyone?

 And I've got a Zodiac in the works, oddly enough. Do you think it would be too similar to FF Tactics to incorporate Zodiac into bonuses/penalties against others of compatible/incompatible Zodiac signs?

 As for the rest of your post, I'll have to think more on it before I can address the points.

[Christoffer Lernö]

Ok, I guess I'll echo Walt's concerns about the damage system. It's not efficient. I appreciate what you're trying to do though. Advanced Heroquest has a neat way to deal with damage which is quick and still gives lethal results. You can tweak it slightly to add damage levels.  I'm planning on using it for my game myself.

Quick version (not including my tweaks which are pretty straightforward. I think you probably see the possibilities without me having to point it out).

1. Defender toughness is a value around 4-7 (for humans).
2. Damage is calculated from weapon base damage and attacker strength (a simple addition) yielding a number usually between 1 (dagger) and 7 (two handed sword in the hands of an extremely muscular fighter)
3. Roll as many D12 as damage. Every roll above or equal to toughness is one "wound". Armour increases (adds to) toughness for the purpose of the damage roll. A character (fighter) starts with 2 (little) to 5 (a lot!) wounds.
4. Every roll of 12 gives an additional D12 to roll.

Quick example:

Yon Doh attacks a goblin in the infamous Castle of Doom (tm), he hits and rolls for damage.

With Yon Doh's strength his sword has 3 for damage.

The goblin has a leather armour (Toughness +1) and a tougness of 5 for a total of 6 for resisting damage.

Yon's player rolls the dice: 3, 5, 12. That's one point of damage and an extra die to roll. The extra die gives another 12. One more point of damage and another extra die to roll. This time it's a 7 and a third point of damage.

The unfortunate goblin (who could only survive 2 wounds) goes splat. And Yon Doh can continue his quest for fame and gold... mostly gold.

(If Yon had made 2 points of damage the goblin would be down on the floor unconscious and probably dying. 3 wounds though, that's instant death.)

Maybe interesting to look at?

[Lance D. Allen]

A very workable and simple system indeed, Pale Fire. Only problem is that I'd have to scrap my entire game mechanic system to make it work. As the combat mechanic is currently, it could possibly be smoother, but the crit check really only consists of one additional roll, and a chart lookup (and that only if the roll is a failure). I'm not willing to scrap my entire system to make it smoother than that. I am however willing, nay eager, to listen to alternatives which keep in mind both the effect I am trying to achieve, and the basic task-resolution mechanic.

 How about this as a possible alternative, though.. Rather than a roll, simply compare the success margin of a successful strike to the Body of the defending character. If it is higher, The effect is determined by looking at the chart and comparing success margin. And, really, the chart isn't remarkably complex[1]. I can just about tell you the result of any number on it without looking. After playing with it a few times, I believe the players will get the hang of not having to look.

[1] All charts within the game have a basic formula behind them, so that a player needn't look it up if they're willing and able to do the work in their head more quickly than looking at the chart. I included the charts simply as a way to avoid longer handling times by those who don't happen to be lightning calculators, or are not possessed of good short term memories.

[Ron Edwards]

Hi Lance,

Let's see ... I think my main concern at this point would be that you actually play the game for a while. Get a few pals, run an adventure or two, and see how things fly.

However! Most of the time, when people do this, they get all caught up in how the critical-hit table works (if you see what I mean) and the designer completely misses the point of the playtesting exercise. The point of the exercise is to see whether people glom onto the vision (what I called "initial" or "personal" Premise in my essay), and whether their own creativity is brought to contribute to it, through play.

I also suggest some comparative reading, specifically Everway and Legend of the Five Rings. I don't mean to imply that you're not familiar with these games, but now that Mage Blade is laid out to some extent, even a re-read of them (or play!) is recommended. I suggest that you'll find Everway magic a bit too loosey-goosey and L5R magic a bit too sketchy and too constraining ... but they'll provide a spectrum or range for comparison that will help you design Mage Blade exactly as you see fit.

Best,
Ron

[Lance D. Allen]

Let's see ... I think my main concern at this point would be that you actually play the game for a while. Get a few pals, run an adventure or two, and see how things fly.

However! Most of the time, when people do this, they get all caught up in how the critical-hit table works (if you see what I mean) and the designer completely misses the point of the playtesting exercise. The point of the exercise is to see whether people glom onto the vision (what I called "initial" or "personal" Premise in my essay), and whether their own creativity is brought to contribute to it, through play.

I am actually attempting to do just that. I've got one player left to create his character (and frankly, I'm considering redoing the character creation system due to some ideas inspired by these boards.. Only question is, before or after the initial playtest?) and then I'm set to play.
 And I do see what you mean. I am wanting this primarily to highlight where the system does and does not work well, but at the same time, I do hope to see how well the setting and premise are liked by the characters. The premise so far is "I have a fantasy RPG I'm making and I need playtesters" to which the response is (to quote your GNS essay) "Oooh! Cool!" I'll take to heart your suggestions to keep at least some of my focus on the vision of the game, and to invoking (when necessary) the player's own creativity.

I also suggest some comparative reading, specifically Everway and Legend of the Five Rings. I don't mean to imply that you're not familiar with these games, but now that Mage Blade is laid out to some extent, even a re-read of them (or play!) is recommended. I suggest that you'll find Everway magic a bit too loosey-goosey and L5R magic a bit too sketchy and too constraining ... but they'll provide a spectrum or range for comparison that will help you design Mage Blade exactly as you see fit.

Totally valid implications, Ron. I've heard of L5R, and had a friend who played it tell me of a few exploits of his Phoenix Shegenja(?), but I've never played it. Everway I've never heard of prior to coming here. My main problem is money and time. I work nights (prime time for gaming) and my two nights off are devoted to D&D, and soon my MB playtest game. Other than that, I haven't the cash to spare at this point to buy new games, or I would, based wholly on your suggestion. Anyhow, I'll keep an eye out for friends who might have these games, so I can at least flip through the rulebooks. Thanks much, Ron.

[Eugene Zee]

Lance,

One thing you might want to try is to get one of your players to the point where he/she understands the rules well enough to GM the game as well.  Having another person run it may give you a valuable perspective as a player, as well as information that will help you streamline the system (as you see what points the new GM struggles with, if any).

[Mike Holmes]

Random Comments:

Races. You indicate that certain races have different stat ranges. This is a pretty common sort of rule, and the intent is to make each race unique somehow. It has an odd effect which I'm sure everyone has seen. That is that if you have an increases maxima for a particular race, the player will usually employ it if they have the choice. An increased maximum unemployed is not really an advantage in play. So, if I have a troll character who is limited in his mental maximums, but has a high maximum in his physical stats, I will probably take advantage of that high stat maximum to make the character particularly special. Thus the majority of troll characters are going to be not just strong, but strong even for trolls. And dwarf characters willnot just be tough, but tough even for dwarves.

This has two follow on effects. First, you never get to see a dwarf with an average toughness stat, or a troll with a less than average (for trolls) strength. Essentially all characters of these sorts start to look alike. Second, this is usually exacerbated by the limited number of "professions" or archtypes or whatever that make sense for the character with those stats. I could have my monumentally strong but dumb troll be a mage, but I'll be the system discourages it. This means that characters end up being stereotypes more often, and are unique less often.

These are general effects, and some players will ignore them. But on the whole, you see these trends a lot. You may want to just take it into consideration. There are lots of good alternatives. Perhaps your chargen already adresses some of this.

Stats. That does seem like a lot. If you must have symetry, could you perhaps scale it down to only one or two stats per element? I'm going to have a tough time getting them all into play.

Resolution. Given the rule of 20, what's the difference between a TR of 19 and 20? They both fail on a roll of 20. The only difference would be on rolls employing the degree of success thing (later called the Success Margin). This rolling system is functionally the same as Rolemasters high open ended percentile system (divided by five). Have you considered allowing for open ended low, i.e. when you roll a one, roll another D20 and subtract? This would smooth a lot of things in your system out.

I like your rolling success margin concept. How do you know when a particular extended contest is over? Why did the example argument end where it did? The NPC being behind, wouldn't he have attempted to continue the argument to alter the outcome? Why would the player use a combination of stat and skill that was less than optimal (as was done in the example)? Why not just always use the best combination that the GM will allow. Or was the GM calling the combinations in the example?

Combat. Given the initiative rules, you'll see a lot of players taking a total number of fire stats that add up to just over ten or just over twenty. That last point gives you a small chance to get an extra action or two which makes it seem more valuable. In fact, to be really combat effective, you're going ot need a high Fire total. This due to the Reactive Action rule, and the number of atacks in general. There is a doubling of effectiveness, here. The high guy gets to go first, and gets to go more, potentially. This all said, the randomness of the initiative die roll does more than the stats likely can, so combat is very likely to go to a lucky initiative roller.

What happens if we both go on the same segment, and happen to have the same agility? Simultaneous? Another tie breaker?

Success Threshold = Success Margin? You need to tidy up some of your terminology.

Damage is completely non-random? Why not make it based in part on the margin (just add it for example; and double HP to balance)? Then (especially if you used low open enders) you could be rid of the whole critical thing. A really good roll could kill someone anyhow.

Magic. I take it there will be a spell list?

I like your pool and low refresh rates. In general, it means that a character will not spend more than their refresh rate every day unless it is fairly important. When you say the refresh works every day, how is this adjudicated (lots of systems like this are heavily open to interperetation). Do you get the points at midnight, or noon? Or do you get them 24 hours after first expenditure, and thereafter until back to full?


General. Well, you have what looks like it could be a decent combat and magic system. Given what I've seen, however, it seems the reason to play this game is to kill things with either weapons or magic. That's all the system informs me about. The setting you've proposed doesn't change that opinion. I think that this might improve on D&D which it is still very similar to. But there are a lot of other games where the focus is what you have. Your game will have to compete with all of these, some of which are very well designed.

Mike

[Valamir]

Excellent point Eugene.  GMing your own game has limited utility for playtests.  GMs, by virtue of being GMs, have alot of authority to gloss over rough spots.  When one GMs their own game design, there is a virtually unavoidable tendency to GM based on what's in your head rather than whats on paper, which leads to inaccurate conclusions about how complete the written version is.

[Eugene Zee]

Thanks, Valamir.

[Lance D. Allen]

Damned good point, Eugene. Perhaps playtest phase two will do just that. By then, my players ought to have a good grasp on the rules.

Ah, Mike.. Been waiting for your response. ::smiles:: You've proven to be very astute in tearing systems apart and getting at the roots.

Mike, on races and the likelihood of stats becoming "vanilla": So far as I've seen, the players are pretty decent about not taking this too far. I'm not going to trust to a small group of players to represent the norm, however. The way I did it in the old system (simple plusses and minuses to the stats) I think it was considerably easier to abuse the stats especially when creating the character. The way I'm doing it now, even during character creation the higher your stat the more expensive it is to raise. I've made it so that average stats for different racial attributes costs about the same to achieve (so the average orc will have about an 8 Body, whereas the average human will have a 5 Body, but they both spent the same amount of points to get there) but it's still quite costly to get up to max. I'm not sure how well it will work, but I think that it will encourage higher stats where applicable and lower stats where applicable as well, without forcing anyone into an archetype.  'sides, Intelligence only plays into certain types of spells... It's Force that matters for power level, and no one has a penalty to that.

 As for the number of attributes, we're just going to have to agree to disagree on this one. This is one point where I will be stubborn. I did it the way I did it for a reason, though one that is difficult to articulate. It comes down again to RL metaphysical concepts and beliefs.

Resolution. Given the rule of 20, what's the difference between a TR of 19 and 20? They both fail on a roll of 20. The only difference would be on rolls employing the degree of success thing (later called the Success Margin). This rolling system is functionally the same as Rolemasters high open ended percentile system (divided by five). Have you considered allowing for open ended low, i.e. when you roll a one, roll another D20 and subtract? This would smooth a lot of things in your system out.

 I'll agree that the difference is minimal, but it's one I chose to live with to make sure that there is always a small margin for failure. If you have a 19 TR or a 20 TR, the chances of you failing are minimal. The difference exists both in the success margin of a roll, or if there are negative modifiers to the TR.
 As for the open ended-low, I honestly hadn't thought about it. Do you think it would truly affect things very much? And if you were doing it, would you still attach an additional negative result to such a roll?

I like your rolling success margin concept. How do you know when a particular extended contest is over? Why did the example argument end where it did? The NPC being behind, wouldn't he have attempted to continue the argument to alter the outcome? Why would the player use a combination of stat and skill that was less than optimal (as was done in the example)? Why not just always use the best combination that the GM will allow. Or was the GM calling the combinations in the example?

 It would depend on the players and the GM when it ended. The only stipulation for it would be that in a confrontation like that (purely social) that both participants would get an equal number of rolls. Alternately, it could be whoever accumulated a given number on their total success margin.
 It depends entirely on the action you are attempting as to which attributes and skills will be used. As all actions fell within the realm of Academic Lore, that was the skill that was used. He attempted different techniques like audience appeal, snap responses, etc. each of which is in a different area, and would require the use of a different attribute.

Combat. Given the initiative rules, you'll see a lot of players taking a total number of fire stats that add up to just over ten or just over twenty. That last point gives you a small chance to get an extra action or two which makes it seem more valuable. In fact, to be really combat effective, you're going ot need a high Fire total. This due to the Reactive Action rule, and the number of atacks in general. There is a doubling of effectiveness, here. The high guy gets to go first, and gets to go more, potentially. This all said, the randomness of the initiative die roll does more than the stats likely can, so combat is very likely to go to a lucky initiative roller.

 Again, in my experience, they haven't done this. It has depended on the sort of character they were playing. The pure mage in my first playtest group had to roll a 7 or better to get more than one action, and in one combat, he didn't. However, when it came to his turn, he turned the opposition to cinders (and scattered metal rings, from the chainmail...) In addition for those who choose a magical School which enhances their combat prowess, rather than allowing them to cast fireballs and such, there are spells which enhance initiative.
 The section bolded... Are you just pointing it out, or are you mentioning it as a flaw to the system? In my experience, faster people *do* get to attack first and more often. Maybe my system overexaggerates this, but I set it up with an idea of the elite warrior being able to dive into a melee with 2 or 3 other lesser-trained warriors and managing to hold his own, and even turn the tide and stomp a mudhole in their... yeah.

What happens if we both go on the same segment, and happen to have the same agility? Simultaneous? Another tie breaker?

 Wits would be next as a tie breaker. If that didn't work (and they were in direct conflict with each other, or both attacking the same guy, or it really mattered in some way or another who went first) then I'd say just a simple die-roll to determine which goes first. If it really didn't matter, then I'd just have it happen simultaneously.

Success Threshold = Success Margin? You need to tidy up some of your terminology

 D'oh! It was originally Success Threshold, before I realized I wasn't really using the word correctly, so I changed it to Margin. I did a Locate/Replace, but I guess it missed an instance or two.

Damage is completely non-random? Why not make it based in part on the margin (just add it for example; and double HP to balance)? Then (especially if you used low open enders) you could be rid of the whole critical thing. A really good roll could kill someone anyhow.

 Well, sure! Damage is a pretty straightforward thing, isn't it? Someone shoots you, it's going to make a hole. Someone hits you with a sword, it's going to make a gash. Admittedly, there are near-misses, and fleshwounds... But most of the time, if the attack is a "success" the damage is going to be pretty standard.
 And though I would like to streamline the critical system, I don't want to do away with it entirely. There are other effects than simply more damage or insta-kill that I like.

Magic: There will be several spell-lists. They're integral to the individual Schools. I'd originally intended to make it more flexible, but I couldn't see how to do it, so I created the Schools. As it currently stands, I prefer the Schools, because it helps the setting, and to give structure to the magic system.

I like your pool and low refresh rates. In general, it means that a character will not spend more than their refresh rate every day unless it is fairly important. When you say the refresh works every day, how is this adjudicated (lots of systems like this are heavily open to interperetation). Do you get the points at midnight, or noon? Or do you get them 24 hours after first expenditure, and thereafter until back to full?

 Um.. Y'know I didn't think about that. Probably the simplest way would be to say midnight, or even to say that a character must meditate to draw in Mana, and the "refresh rate" is used as a limit to how much may be drawn into yourself in a given period of time.

General. Well, you have what looks like it could be a decent combat and magic system. Given what I've seen, however, it seems the reason to play this game is to kill things with either weapons or magic. That's all the system informs me about. The setting you've proposed doesn't change that opinion. I think that this might improve on D&D which it is still very similar to. But there are a lot of other games where the focus is what you have. Your game will have to compete with all of these, some of which are very well designed.

Thank you, I'll take that as a compliment, as well as advice. There is a lot more to it than what is shown there, but as the major body of the work is currently in a greater state of flux than usual (due to the suggestions/inspirations from the boards here) I don't feel comfortable posting the full system yet. The setting is actually fairly unique (inasmuch as I have never run across anything quite like it) but is still only skeletal in print and my mind. All of this will be rectified in time. Thank you for your in-depth dissection.