Toast 6.0

[ethan_greer]

I have written the Greatest Role-Playing Game of All Time.

Not really.  But it's fun to say.  In fact I have so much fun saying it that I put it in as a subtitle.

Anyway, Toast is here and despite the rude and crass way in which it is presented, I would be interested in reading reactions to it.

A note:  Donjon, by Clinton R. Nixon, has a combat system that rocks my world.  So I stole it.  I include a plug for Donjon in the document, but Clinton, if you wish to object to my use of your (excellent) ideas, PM me and we'll talk about it.

[Andrew Martin]

After reading the second swear word in the text, I skimmed to the end and didn't bother with it any further. I'd suggest taking them out.

[ethan_greer]

Whoops, I forgot to mention that.  Warning to sensitive readers:  There's a few cuss words.

Sorry about that, Andrew.

[Jasper]

You, or perhaps I, also seem to be confused:

The masses don't have the time or the inclination to read and learn this game. In fact, the only reason this game is online in the first place is to ease distribution to my group.

So why are you telling us about it?  Have you changed your plans?  If so,  maybe you should do a rewrite so that it *is* in a state we'd like to read.

Seriously, I don't mean to be harsh.  What are your intentions here, and what do you hope to achieve by soliciting a opinions?

PS. If you could tell me where I can find these role-playing masses, I'd love to know. <takes tongue out of cheek>

[Rich Forest]

Hi Ethan,

I'd like to first expand on Andrew's comment, which I partly agree with, but I'm taking it in a slightly different direction.  I think that the text could use some revision if you are really interested in what folks outside your game group have to say about it.  You may not be—in fact, as Jasper points out, the "Presentation" section pretty much says so.  I think that the tone of that section, more than the swearing itself, will garner a specific reaction from a lot of people.  While I'm personally not particularly sensitive about swearing, I am put off when it's directed at me.  From your tone in the forum post, and the fact that you've posted a link asking for opinions, I'd guess that you are genuinely interested in constructive feedback.  But once I get to the text itself, I get a different vibe.  There's nothing wrong with a conversational tone, but I can only be told to "fuck off" so many times before I stop caring about your game.  Really.

I suspect that I'm not the only one.  

However, I do have a question about the game itself, and I mean it in the most constructive way: "What's the point?"  

What is the game about?  What am I supposed to do with it?  What's a game of "Toast" supposed to look like?  Why "Toast?"  Right now, I see a sketch of a game rather than a game.  It reads like your personal notes.  In one place, I see an advancement system that gives advancement for failed rolls because "people learn from their mistakes."  But then, under missile ranges, the text says, "Note that this handling of range is not realistic. If you want realism, fuck off."  So is the game supposed to realistically simulate, uh, something, or not?  I just don't know, and that makes it difficult to offer any real comments.  I don't know what your goals are for this game, and that limits my ability to give you any useful feedback.

So my main comments are: revise the language and the tone.  If you're going for humor, trust me—it may be funny to tell me to "fuck off," but I don't know you well enough to think it's funny to be told to do so.  Ditch the whole section on gender, if you're interested in people taking you seriously.  The game isn't long enough to need it.  If you just use "he," that's fine.  But you're turning off some people who might give you good feedback by insulting them.  Hmmm.  Also, it seems that every section comes with a final comment of the sort that "whatever is ambiguous in the game, uh, that's the GM's job."  That's fine for you, if you're the GM and it's your game.  But I'm not interested in a game that basically tells me to fill in its holes.  

Andrew and Jasper's comments are short, and there's a reason for that.  If you put more care into the game, I think you may find that other people will put more care into their comments.

Rich

[Shreyas Sampat]

Regarding the game itself:

Is there a reason that you have to roll for "impossible" or "stupid simple" actions, besides some kind of continuity of mechanic?  A 1-in-12 chance doesn't look to me like "impossible" at all.  If you say Impossible, you should mean it.  Similarly, something painfully simple, IMO, shouldn't be touched by the resolution mechanic.

Second, what made you choose to have a large set of statistics that you then derive much fewer numbers from, and use those in resolution?  What value do the original statistics have?  It seems like you're just putting an extra, unnecessary layer of complication, further muddled by numerous formulae and mathematical acrobatics, onto your game.

[ethan_greer]

Fair questions, Jasper.  I didn't take it as harshness, so no worries.  :)  There are two reasons I posted this to the Forge.

1. I stole Clinton's ideas, and I wanted to make him aware of that and give him a chance to tell me if he has a problem with it.  I could have PM'd him on it, but

2. This community is cool, and I felt like sharing.  I guess I don't really consider the Forge to be "the masses" so to speak.  You're more of a really extended role-playing circle that I move in.

Obviously, Toast as it is currently presented won't appeal to everyone, and it isn't intended to.

What do I hope to achieve by soliciting opinions?  Dunno, really.  Maybe some ideas, maybe some suggestions, maybe a chance to talk about my RPG baby of the past couple years, maybe a bit of external validation.  Or not.  Really, I see Toast at this point as a mostly complete thing, so I'm not really looking for design advice.  Hmm.

I guess it boils down to a simple message:  "Hey, Forge!  Here's what I did!"

If anyone's interest is piqued, I'll be pleased as punch to talk about it.  If not, hey, that's cool too.  I already know I'll get gaming mileage out of Toast, and as the introduction suggests, I'm not too worried about it.  :)

[ethan_greer]

Hi Rich.

Regarding the point of Toast:

Simulate any sort of reality:
Well, not really, but I do like mechanics to make some sort of "sense."  So, yeah, people learn from their mistakes?  Quasi-realistic, maybe.  But for combat ranges, I'm comfy with a sensible abstraction.  I don't see a need for realism there, and that's what I was addressing in that playful suggestion at the end of the Ranges section.

Tell total strangers to fuck off:
Not really the point, but I consider it a fringe benefit.  Disclaimer:  Don't take it seriously.  You can if you want, but I would politely suggest against it.

Show my game group the rules by which I expect to run games:
Here we come to the crux.  That's the point.

As it stands, I can see your point of view that it is a framework of a game rather than a game.  That's sorta the point, and I'm not going to argue about that.  I've used Toast in the past mostly for running games in Harn, but I can easily picture using it in other settings and styles of game, and indeed, I intend to.  I guess Toast could be regarded as a toolkit that I tend to favor.

[ethan_greer]

Is there a reason that you have to roll for "impossible" or "stupid simple" actions, besides some kind of continuity of mechanic?  A 1-in-12 chance doesn't look to me like "impossible" at all.  If you say Impossible, you should mean it.

These terms are used as quick descriptors that I can latch onto to ease the task of picking a target number.  Shoot an arrow through a ring rolling along the ground?  Boy, that'd be Hard.  While skydiving?  Impossible.  Bandage a wound?  That's Routine.  This provides a nice level of abstraction that I like better than just picking numbers.

Also, note that a character won't necessarilly succeed on a Kick (or fail on a Flub) so it's not really a 1-in-12 chance to succeed or fail - it's a 1-in-12 chance that something cool happens.  So what's cool?  Whatever the group comes up with.

I guess there's the inevitable Social Contract business at work here pretty heavily.

Second, what made you choose to have a large set of statistics that you then derive much fewer numbers from, and use those in resolution?  What value do the original statistics have?  It seems like you're just putting an extra, unnecessary layer of complication, further muddled by numerous formulae and mathematical acrobatics, onto your game.

I can hear the riff to Led Zeppelin's song Heartbreaker playing in the background.  :)

Seriously:
First off, I like to use Attribute rolls a lot in my games.  Need to remember something?  Use Focus.  Need to move a big rock?  Use Strength.  Need to play pick-up sticks?  It's not a skill, so use Dexterity.  Need to notice the large scary man pointing a crossbow at you from across the street?  Perception.  And etc.  Hence the "large" set of statistics.

As to all those doggone derived stats:
I like systems that tie attributes and skills firmly together.  A good attribute should have some effect on your skill.  Unfortunately, many systems I've seen that do this favor munchkinism at some level.  Also unfortunately, I can never decide which attribute should be coupled with which skill.  The Brain and Body mods solve both these problems to my satisfaction, and that's why I have them.

For intelligence, I have one player who will bitch at me if I don't have some sort of Intelligence attribute, so if he wants it that bad, he'll have to work a little bit to get it!  :)  I don't even know if I'll ever use Intelligence in the game.  Maybe, maybe not.  It's a pacifier for people who want it.

Toughness: Used significantly in combat whenever a character takes damage.  I guess I could have just used Health, but I feel that Strength and Willpower also play a role in how "tough" someone is.

Initiative:  I can't emphasize enough how much I love Clinton's combat system in Donjon.  To use it, I needed an Initiative stat, so there it is.

Another layer of complexity?  Absolutely.  Needless?  Well, that's debatable.

Anyway, I hope that helps explain why I did things the way I did.

[Jasper]

I have some specific comments, but first two more general concenrs:

You say that you consider it basically complete, and that it's basically a framework for you to work with.  Is it your aim for other people (besides your immediate group) to use the system?  I understand that you've "put it out here, and that if anyone feels like using it, fine" (so to speak).  But do you want to make it easier for other people to use?  Appealing for people to use?  If not, and if you're completely satisfied with it, I don't know how we can help you.

Assuming the answer to that is no... as Ron asks, what's the point of the game?  I know it's a generic kind of system without setting.  But I guess my real question is: Why do you use this system?  Why would anyone use this system?  What do you see its advantages over other games being?  Is there something it's supposed to do well, or another game that it's supposed to "fix" maybe?  If it's just a generic system, I can still offer a little advice (as I'm sure others can), but without some direction, we won't reall be able to tell you where to go....

(If it were someone else, I would here again caution that I don't mean to put you down.)

Now, some more specific issues:

The extra layer of complexity with the attributes: have you thought about other ways to do it?  Maybe it's not necessary.  Instead of having X number of attributes, and then two derived scores, start each character out with the derived scores as their main attributes.  Then make give the characters "edges" that modify those basic attributes.  Just +1/+2 or something.  It seems a little cleaner somehow.

(This is most of what I had to say, but a guest has just arrived, so I'm going to have to skidaddle for now.  Apologies.)

[Gwen]

Ethan,

Personally, I don't mind swear words in a source book.  While some people might expect a certain level of professionalism from a source book, it's by no means mandatory.

However, two things.  One, the almost obsessive use of the word "fuck" would most certainly detract from what you are trying to do, which (I assume) is present a set of rules.  Of course, if your only intention is to use this game for yourself and your friends, then it shouldn't be an issue.

Two, and this is similar to Rich's post, telling the reader to "fuck off" is certainly not beneficial. Even if your reader tends to cuss a lot (as I do), you can't go around telling them where they can stick it.  I didn't care much for it.  Again, this is moot if the game is only meant for yourself and your friends.

If the game is meant on for you and your friends, then it didn't need to be posted here.  If it's going to be posted here, it should be written with more people in mind than you and your friends.

As you have surely seen by now, this thread has generated more negative feedback- mainly about your word choice, not about the rules.  This is detracting from any constructive criticism.

Enough of that.

Your system seems pretty good.  It's obvious you spent a good amount of time working through your equations.  I think it's safe to assume you sat down and figured up the numbers to make sure the system stays balanced.  For that reason, I'm putting my faith in you that your "skill-up" system works at least decent.

I have a concern that the actual use of the initiative system demands too many dice.  I don't know what an average Initiative score would be, but since each player involved in combat is rolling a number of dice equal to their initiative score, this is certainly more d12's than I have ever seen on a table top.

You said any kind of dice works, as long as they are all the same.  I don't think a wishy-washy approach to a rule is good.  If any source book I ever picked up said "roll these dice... or these dice... whichever... they're all good," I would think the developers didn't bother to decide.

While I'm not here to tell you how to run your own game, I would suggest just picking a dice type.  Probably a d6, since they're common and easier to put in order.  A lot of actions might happen at once and that will make combat more chaotic, but it keeps with the realism you have in your mechanics.  Realistic combat is chaotic.

I would like to know if your "skill-up" system is designed to advance players quickly or slowly.  Will characters become god-like after a few adventures, or will it take a long time?

[ethan_greer]

Again, I'm not looking for help - the system's pretty much done for all intents and purposes.  If the only reason to post a message in Indie Game Design is if you're looking for design advice, then I apologize for misusing the forum, and I'll say again for clarification:

Hey Forge!  Here's what I did!

So.  If anyone wants to talk about the game with me, that would be cool.  If you don't give a rat's ass about the game, then don't comment on it.  It's that simple.  If you see the cuss words and think to yourself, "this guy's an asshole," please don't feel compelled to criticize me about it.  I am well aware of the fact that I am an asshole and don't need it pointed out.  :)

So.  Onward and forward.

Jasper:
All good questions.  The design goals of the game are listed below:
- Allow for a lot of Attribute rolls
- Have skill levels partially dependent on attribute levels but minimize the traditional problems of that approach
- Allow the GM freedom from worrying about character advancement at all and put it all in the player's responsibility
- Use 12-sided dice, the neglected bastard children of all dice bags

So, with these design goals in mind, I'll answer the question, "why do I use this system?"  Well, it meets my design goals, and amazingly enough my players seem to like it.  And after a couple years of off-and-on use, I am comfortable with how it works so that I can think in it.  "Why should others use this system?"  If they like it, they should use it.  If they like certain aspects of the system, they should feel free to steal the ideas they like.  But I'm definitely not trying to sell the system to others, and that should be pretty obvious from the language used.  :)  I'm just throwing it out there for digestion.  Again, if that's a no-no in the Indie Game Design forum, then I apologize.

As far as the derived stats, there's a bit of evolution there.  See, in prior versions of Toast, I had a buttload of averaging attributes.  On the fly.  During the game.  Gods, what was I thinking?  So, the derived attributes put a few calculations in the char-gen step, and preserve some of the flexibility of the old system, without needed a calculator at the gaming table.  (!)  I hadn't considered the idea of edges and flaws, because I've never liked the concept as presented in Shadowrun, GURPS, Fudge, and various other systems.  Thanks for the suggestion, though.  I assure you I'll keep it in mind.

Gwen:
Initiative:
Figuring the Attribute levels will hover around ten, the "typical" Initiative will be 6-7.  If someone maxes out Agility and Perception, Initiative will be 13.  More d12 than you can shake a stick at.  Which was one of my design goals listed above.  What did the lowly d12 do to deserve such neglect?  It's time to give the dodecahedron its due.  In response to your wishy-washy claim, I can see your point.  But, in my own defense, I did pick a die type.  d6 would certainly work, though, and I don't see a problem with pointing that out in the rules.

About Skill-Up:  I can tell you that it works great.  I used to worry about experience point rewards and all that crap.  Now it's the players' responsibility, and I'm very happy about that.  As to the quickness of advancement:  In the prior version Toast, you rolled a Skill-Up if you used the skill, and that seemed a bit fast.  Doing Skill-Ups only for failed skills slows it down a bit.  Advancement rates will also depend on the skill list, and how broadly focused it is.  I plan on using GURPS skills in the future, but the old version of Toast was geared specifically to fantasy and had a narrowly focused list.

If anyone is curious, the old version of Toast (5.2, I think) is here.  Toast 6 streamlines things quite a bit, and incorporates the combat system from Donjon, which rocks.

[Gwen]

Usually the d12 gets abuse because they're usually only available in the D&D Tube.  Sold individually, you look at the cost and just want to vomit in confusion.  I'm all for giving the odd dice their day in the sun, however.

I originally thought that there was potential to abuse the skill up system, in that a player can attempt to use each of their skills so they get a skill-up roll for each one at the end of the game.  For example, if they have archery, they might just run around shooting arrows at trees until the fail, then stop and move onto the next skill.

However. this obviously isnt roleplaying and would be frowned upon.  I then though that the players would try to be more subtle and work in their skills whenever they could, but then I realized this isn't a bad thing.  Working to find a practical application of each skill is probably going to add more depth to the character.

[ethan_greer]

Gwen, that's kinda funny because you basically outline the thought processes I had when developing the Skill-Up system to a t.  In playtesting sessions, there was a little bit of that "shooting trees at random" syndrome until the players settled down a bit, got used to the system, and started getting into their characters.  After that, it was all good.

[Ben Morgan]

Ethan's gotten the point by now, but the only game I know of that has gotten away with the "gratuitous profanity but still quite funny" is Kill Puppies for Satan. It works because it's in context with the tone of the game itself.