Roleplaying Under the Moons of Magnatz (revised version)

[jdrakeh]

To make things more convenient for you, I've moved the Magnatz files to my web-site, here:

http://www.angelfire.com/goth/oblongbox/miscdebris.html

It's located under the "Fantasy" section of the site. So if you'd like to download the .pdf without the hassle of joining an e-group, there it is.
Again, feedback is welcomed and encouraged (it's already generated some on the RPGnet design forums).

Thanks again.

James Hargrove

[Ron Edwards]

Hi James,

You might consider revising the name "Magnatz," as it's a very recognizable name from Jack Vance's book, The Eyes of the Overworld.

Best,
Ron

[jdrakeh]

So noted.

I'm a huge vance fan, but I'm stuck for a good word to use in its place. It is, after all, just a working title (I plan on using something different as soon as I come up with something that sounds as good).

Vance is a primary source of inspiration for the setting (among other authors) so that was  the first thing that popped in my head. If I catch any flack for it, I'll pull the title - but as it's never, ever, going to see press, I don't anticipate too many problems. I do not, however, wish to cause any problems for him.

On the topic of names, however, if anybody has a nice sounding one that fits well after "Under the Moons of..." I'd be happy to credit them for it.

James Hargrove

PS - The setting's original  name was "Noctis", so perhaps I can default back to that.

[Mark D. Eddy]

How about Tsagnam? (Just reversing the word, keeping the consonantal values the same...)

[jdrakeh]

Thank you for the suggestion, Mark... I had already reverted to the old title, however. I think that "In Noctis" fits the setting quite well, so for now, I've decided to stick with that (although the other title sounded sooooooo sexy). Oh well... can't win em' all.

James Hargrove

[Mike Holmes]

Hi James,

First, here's the obligatory look at the odds. As I read the rules, it says that you can only have up to +3 in modifers. It does not make it clear if you can then add fortune on or not. So I've included the case of a +4 in case this is legal. The column on the left is the total modifier, and the columns to the right of that are the chances to get each of the possible results.

P = Phenomenal
G = Great
S = Success
F = Failure
B = Bad
H = Horrendous

Code:

  P    G    S    F    B    H
0  10%  18%  27%  17%  18%  10%
1  15%  21%  28%  15%  15%  6%
2  21%  24%  27%  13%  12%  3%
3  28%  27%  24%  11%  9%   1%
4  36%  28%  21%  9%   6%   0%

Interesting how standard success only comes up about a quarter of the time, and how mostly what you see is a shift from the worst results to the best results. Is that what you wanted? Could be cool. Certainly exciting.

Are the tasks any more difficult ever? Or is the zero modifier the most difficult. I ask because with a zero modifier you have a 55% chance of some sort of success. That seems pretty good. Also, if you cap out modifiers at +3 aren't you going to be missing soe modifiers occasionally. Let's say I have Mountaineering, and Dexterous. I am climbing and dodging falling rocks. Both seem applicable. So I have a +2. But if I want to go for a +3 I either have to use fortune, or burn a Trait. Which would have brought me to +4, but I am capped at +3. Seems odd. OTOH, I can see the problems that the system gets into with more than a +3. Exploding dice, perhaps? This becomes more of an issue after development has occurred and the characters have more than three traits making it likely that more will come into play.

Also, about the three Traits. Isn't that a bit slim? You mention racial Traits, does everybody have to take one? If you say that humans do not, that seems odd, and makes humans more diverse characters as they are not spending one on that. Or can I be an Elf (or whatever) and not purchase the Elf Trait?

How much fortune do characters start with?

Are there any effects of wounding other than the descriptions. If you injure a character is he just as effective as before. If maimed? Can you put a character out if you maim him enough? Or do you always have to get a Phenomenal success to put someone out?

Character growth is stated in terms of adventures. By this do you mean sessions? Or is this just a subjective call on the GM's part on what constitutes an adventure? What if you do soap-style play and there are rarely any final resolutions?

Mike

[Mike Holmes]

Oh, and one more thing (he said, sounding like Columbo), you say that these rules were designed to go with your setting. Surely, these are "get out of the way" type rules. From reading them, I know nothing about the setting except that there are multiple races (and that could mean a lot of things). Was this intentional? Does the setting somehow require a "get out of the way" system? Or is this just a preference of yours? Or, rather, why shoudn't I play your setting with GURPS instead?

Mike

[jdrakeh]

Mike,

To begin with the +3 modifier cap that you refer to applies only to the modifiers gained by simply possessing traits (it does state this in the rules). Burning traits and spending fortune adds additional modifiers on top of this +3 maximum.

As for the interesting percentages, yes this was (for the most part) intentional.

Finally, in regard to setting specific mechanics, they have not been added yet - expect to see a section on setting specific traits and modifiers, plus some setting specific magic rules... these will begin to appear as the setting is developed further. The rules (as they stand now) will likely be reformatted as a kind of generic core manual (for use with any setting) sometime in the future, as well.

James Hargrove

PS - Thanks for the input and feedback!