Here's where I'm at.

[abjourne]

Premise

-What are you playing? 

I'm play-testing a fantasy RPG labeled DE for short.

How long have you been playing/how long do you intend to play this game?  Is this your first time?

I've been play-testing/gaming with my current group for about 4 years. With rule revisions between campaigns. I started working on the game about 10 years ago, very part time, going back & fourth between bouts of playing & re-working.

-Who's playing, how many people, any notable things about them(demographics, relationships, blood kin, etc.)? -Group history- how long have you all played together, if at all?

My current group consists of 4 players, Mike (computers), Chris (engineer), Pat (student) & Erik (blue collar). I'm a CNC programmer/operator. Average age within the group is 31.

-Logistics- Face to face, LARP, online chat, email, forum post game? 

We play "at the table" face to face.

How long are the sessions?

Each session lasts about 4-5 hours.
The Game

-How did it go?

It's been going pretty good for a while now with a few exceptions;
a.   Lack of world development.
b.   Lack of rule finish work (spell descriptions, monster descriptions, ect.)

-Pro's/Con's - what caused them?  specific examples to highlight them?

Pro's are:
a.   Uniform system, all actions are determined by rolling a standard die (d12) Combat & Magic are defined by parallel rules, attributes meld with all other aspect of game-play
b.   Smoothe game-play, sessions run with virtually no hang-ups, except for unusual "in-game" improv. Such as, "my character tries to jump across the table, grab it's end & hurl it into the opponent."
c.   Distinctive options, scores of character classes with customizable rule-sets, several distinct types of magics w/ major & minor spheres of control/influence & augmenting skills, Many types of "special" attack options.
d.   Large base to extension system, the basic mechanics are fairly complicated, but there are very few auxiliary rules, so once a player learns them their done.
e.   Easy to Game Master (GM), this was one of the defining parameters of the games design, I often never play a session with any GM material (documentation) except for a few rule reference sheets (GM, Merchants, Spell list, Monster list, Combat Tactics, Fumbles random NPC traits)

Con's
a.   While I do have a fairly complete "Player's Guide" (except for all/most spell descriptions) I have no "GM's Guide" or "Campaign Guide".
b.   Since it's my system I don't really know how "good" it is.
c.   The latest version has only been tested on a "regular" group.

-System? Techniques? Drifts, house rules?

a.   Combat is determined alternating player/opponent rounds where frequency & types of attacks are determined by PC attributes & weapon choice against their own skill at arms then foiled or not by their opponent's defenses.
b.   Magic is usually determined in a similar fashion.
c.   Armor reduces damage relative to attack type.
d.   Injury Points (Hit Points) start high but increase slowly.
e.   Skills are simplified with straight roll bonuses against difficulty ratings.
f.   Most creature stats are determined by it's size.
g.   Campaign setting has a traceable/accountable history of development.

-Compare and contrast- how does this compare to other sessions, other games, and/or other campaigns?

Compared to D&D, DE has a stronger base with less auxillary rules for ease of play while maintaining in-game player options but falls very short in documentation & "fleshing".

Wrap up

-How did people like/dislike it?

The group I'm with seem to enjoy it especially the magic system.

-Are you gonna play more? 

You betJ

[Ron Edwards]

Hi there,

I'm interested in a description of that magic system in action - what kind of actions did a player announce, what game mechanics did he or she employ, and what happened in the game-fiction before and after those actions?

Best, Ron

[abjourne]

Lets start with a skilled sorcerer in battle against three trained guardsmen.

The sorcerer's magical attributes:

Mystic Art: Sorcerery
Casting Level: 6
Channeling: 6
Power: 7
Artistry:   1st: 2      2nd: 6      3rd: 12
Willpower: 5

His mystical skills:
Focusing: 6
Components: 7
Invocation: 7
Meditation: 2
Runes & Glyphs: 4

Mystical Equipment:
An expensive rune enscribed rod
A component pouch with enough components for five uses costing a total of 35 pieces of silver.

After confronting the sorcerer the guards threateningly draw swords & a crossbow. Each of them is 8 meters away & 2 apart. Initiative falls to the player unless surprised, So;

Sorcerer, " These fools are no match for my power, I cast a command at the crossbowman & three fire-bolts at one of the swordsmen using my wand (Focusing)

The player then rolls four 12 sided dice and gets, 3,4,6 & 8. uses the 8 to the command to SHOOT A COMRADE (a class two spell) and the rest towards the firebolts (class ones) and succeeds at casting them all. He then places 5 of his 6 spell cards over indicating that those points were expended for the round.

GM, Rolls a D12 to resist the command and gets a 5 plus the guards willpower of 2 for a 7 failing against the sorcerers power of 7 plus his 6 focusing (13 total) and fires his crossbow at one of his fellows, who is moderately injured. Then he rolls 3 D12's for the swords man who tries to use his shield to parry the three bolts and gets, 2, 8 & 11 plus 4 on each for their shield parrying and blocks 2 of them.

The player rolls for damage, 3d12 for 21 total.

Of witch only half is scored due to his armor (11 points/ ok damage)

Since two of the guards are not within sword reach they can't attack this round & the other re-loads his crossbow thus ending the first round.
The player resets his spell cards.

Second Round;
Player backs up 2 spaces (2 meters).
Two guards charge him & one takes aim.
Charge attacks are resolved during movement if they can reach & in this case they do.
Each sword wielding guardsman rolls to perform their attack & one succeeds.
The player casts a stone shield spell (D12) rolls a 9 plus 4 (runes) for 13 and foils the attack, but spends one spell point (flips over a card, 5 remain).
Movement has been concluded.
Player casts one "hurl rock" spell (class two) using Invocation & Components (4 left) at one of the swordsmen. Spends 2 spell points for the day giving them to the GM (invocation) and rolls a D12, gets a 5 (fails). He's down to 3 spell points. (trouble)
The swordsmen already attacked but the crossbowman didn't. He fires & misses.
2nd rounds ends, 4 spell points are re-set.

Third Round:
No one moves.
Player casts summon psudo-elemental & succeeds (2 spell points remain for defense).
The Guards attack and 3 sword swipes come in along with one crossbow bolt!
In desperation the player tries to parry and succeeds against two blades. Then casts serpent armor against the striking blade and incinerate arrows against the bolt (no spell points remaining).
2nd rounds ends, 2 spell points are re-set, 2 spell points are used to control the psudo-elemental.

From this round the sorcerer will try and use the elemental to weaken the guardsmen while trying to reserve his spell points to pick at them or for defense until the elemental falls & he back up to 4 spell points a round. Had his supped-up hurl rock spell worked it would have almost certantly slain the one guardsman (power: 14, damage 14 D10 times seven) but it failed and he had to continue the battle with 2 spell points less and nothing to show for it or better yet not tried invocation (for times seven damage and +7 to power) and just used the components so he could have recovered the 2 spent spell points for the round and for the whole day!

As you can see there are a lot of tactical options available with some simple rules and quick resolution. But mages can keep up with fighters in long dungeon romps without having to stop & rest constantly unless they choose to drop the Bomb (invocation).

[Ron Edwards]

Hello,

This is setting off some of my good-alert signals.

Are you familiar with The Fantasy Trip, from the late 1970s? If not, then run-don't-walk to find a copy of Wizard, specifically its original form, a small pamphlet. One of the most influential games ever, although typically screwed-up when imitated. You're hitting some of the same great notes, which is a welcome sight.

Here's one recommendation. Your posts include a lot of direct comparison to Dungeons & Dragons, which leads me to think that you might be using that game as a benchmark for design. I suggest letting it go - saying, it doesn't matter whether part X or Y of my game is the same as or different from D&D.

The reason for this is that many, many games, especially those with innovative or at least uniquely-fun magic systems, tend to bury their goodness under a mass of assumptions or habits that exist only because the authors can't separate "role-playing" from "D&D" in their minds. For instance, you apparently have a Player book and a GM book in mind - is this only because D&D has them, so it simply seems natural that you should? Or also for instance, you contrast the fatigue or limits on spellcasting in your game to those in D&D ... and I suggest that this is unnecessary. Your metric might do better to focus on the specific kind fun your game offers, not "more fun than D&D."

Best, Ron

[abjourne]

Hey Ron thanks for the encouragement & advice.

First, I compair my game to D&D because of two reasons;

1. It is the most widely recognized RPG on the market and therefore a near perfect base for comparison. I could have chosen Runequest, Fantasy Wargaming, Warhammer or Tunnels & Trolls, but about 80% of all tabletop players have a good idea what I'm talking about when I use it (D&D) as a point of reference.

2. I actually agree with some of D&D's fundamental principals about character development. I just think they blew it when they chose to just "add more crap" and give the system an illusion of depth as opposed to coming up with a better way to relay their imagery thru mechanics. I think Basic & Expert D&D are strokes of genius (for their time) and each version of AD&D an even more grotesque distortion of an elegant but primitive system.

3. I'm also trying to, "Sell It!" a little, so competition bashing might occur.

As for your recommendation on forgeting about how D&D does it. That's the point to DE's game design from the ground up. When I decided to "build a better RPG" I started by playing/researching a bunch of other games. Then I packed the D&D books away except for one Dragon magazine where D&D's "creator" explained the whys & why nots of it's design. From there I made a list of all the things I wanted in my design and set out. Each new version of DE was an improvement upon the last. Some Ideas worked, sometimes just in parts. some were disasters. I'm pretty damn pleased with the game's current built except for those pesky missing volumes of text and lack of experienced input (yourself).

Now as to your two specific points of interest;

Players Guide & GM's guide, I definitely think the information and advice required for a GM should  be in it's own tome. There is a world of difference between participating in a game & running one. Players and GMs have to look at the game from perspectives. Yes they both need to know the "rules" (player's Guide) but the GM needs to know things players shouldn't, just for the sake of immersiveness.

In DE one can suffer physical & magical fatigue. In D&D, ya just run out of spells.

I hope this clairfies my position my goals a little & I'll try looking for that "The Fantasy Trip" "Wizard".
Thanx
PS: anything else, I'm looking 4 the feedback.

[Glendower]

Players Guide & GM's guide, I definitely think the information and advice required for a GM should  be in it's own tome. There is a world of difference between participating in a game & running one. Players and GMs have to look at the game from perspectives. Yes they both need to know the "rules" (player's Guide) but the GM needs to know things players shouldn't, just for the sake of immersiveness.

What would be in the GM's guide?  Are we talking setting information, or additional rules, or what?  Personally I think the the players and GMs should be on equal footing when it comes to information.  Most players I know have read both the Players Handbook and DM's Guide in D&D, with no lessening of fun.  Splitting this information into two books does nothing to prevent the "super secret" information from becoming known.

In fact, I grumble about having to buy, and then lug around two books, while the players only have to buy one.  I really like games can be played with just one core book.  Less back pain, less wallet pain.

[abjourne]

Your right Glen it's true many players buy & read both books. It is in my opinion however, that the information required to manage a game is enough to warrant it's own manual. Information such as setting information, creature stats, treasure tables, and more importantly game management advice, shouldn't be available to players at the table. So if there are two guides you can have one set for the entire group (one book for everyone to share/use & one with information just for the GM). Another consideration is the game's development. My focus with regards to documentation  was  providing the players a consistant source for the games mechanics with a minimalist approach to GM material. As time went on I ended up with a player's guide well before compiling the GM reference data. As far as weight/cost, each manual is under 200 pages and I don't expect to distribute nearly as many GM guides as player's & why should someone who doesn't plan on GMing have to pay for information they don't need.

[abjourne]

Oh yea Glen I guess I have one more point to make, Like you I hate carrying/buying extra books. One of my many lofty goals is to offer a complete package, not excuses to keep tapping the well known as your wallet. Once you have the rules the only thing I'd ever want to offer is advice & adventures, because what I want is for people to experience & enjoy the fun of a table-top role playing game, not pay homage to em.