The Last Bastion RPG - an almost completed draft

[Kirk Mitchell]

For those that have read my other thread (Need feedback on my RPG concepts), and those who haven't, I have been working on an RPG which I have dubbed The Last Bastion. I have an almost completed draft posted in the files section at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Dumirik/ . Please take a look at it and post specific feedback. I can take constructive criticism pretty well so fire away.

[rafael]

Hey, hombre.  It seems that if I want to download the file, I have to join your Yahoo group.  Is that the case?  You might just want to upload it to a free hosting provider, and post the URL here or something.  It's kind of taking a while to jump through hoops at Yahoo...

-- Rafael

[Shreyas Sampat]

Do you have any specific questions that you'd like us to answer?  "Pick up my game, read it, and tell me everything you think" is not only a tall order, but likely to produce a lot of feedback you don't have any need for, like comments on deliberate design choices you made but your reader may take exception to for whatever reason.  It saves all of us time if you give a more directed request.

On the yahoogroups thing, you can go into your group's settngs and set the file download section to be available to the general public.

[Kirk Mitchell]

Sorry about that, I didn't realise that the group didn't allow non-members to view files. I have just fixed it and would appreciate it if you would now take a look at my file. On the specific feedback front, I would particularly like your point of view on my character creation and development system, the several magic systems (sorry, I havn't developed any spells yet) and my combat system.

Thanks.

[Mike Holmes]

Here's my Technical Review of the game in its current state. To expedite, as usual, I simply fire off a list of problems, as I perceive them. This isn't meant to be insulting, but is merely the style in which I always do these.
----

-Never apologize for being incomplete; it's part of the normal cycle. People make this mistake in general, apologizing. Apologies say to the reader that they ought to skip it. Only apologize when you have done something to offend someone. Do state that an incomplete text is incomplete; that's informative and honest. But just leave it at that.


-

The GM is in control of hidden forces, such as NPC (non-player character) creatures and other such things. Through the GM's actions, the way the game will unfold is decided.
You will encounter many references towards special options the GM may take, and it is up to the GM to decide what is fair and what will keep the game balanced.

There have been some debates here recently about text like this. Consider a careful revision to make very clear what the GM's role is.

Of course, you can always play the game in the imagination's' of the players and the GM, but you will have to be very strict with issues such as line of sight so no arguments break out about what they can or can't do.

Same here. I'd personally be more comfortable with just using miniatures in all cases. However, if you want to allow for non-miniature play, I'd make the above statement a bit more concrete. Who determines these things (the GM presumably). What are the mechanics of translation?

Even though this is a narrative skirmish game, a lot of emphasis is placed on being able to think like the character you are playing, and act accordingly.

What's a "narrativie skirmish" game?

- You use the term "warband" at the beginning as something that has to be specified about the character. Then you don't use it ever again, using instead "House" for Dumirik organizations. Or is "warband" supposed to mean something like "party"?

- Why start with base stats of 20 in chargen? Why not start with 320 points instead of 200 points, and just buy up from zero? Are you trying to say something about the level that 20 represents? If so what? There are ways to mechanically reinforce such a statement. For example, if you said that you could only lower one stat below 20, then that would make the level pertinent. But there's no reason to do so unless you want to make some sort of a statement about that level.

And by stating that Int can be brought down to -3 (why that number, BTW?), you imply that other scores can be brought down below zero. Is that your intent? Some would be impractical (Physique would make you dead, Dex would make you have a Spd 0, etc.), but they're not specifically prohibited, and for some stats the effect would be unknown (other than making rolls against them impossible to succeed at). Further, you don't indicate a maximum. Is there one? At first it might seem that it would be pointless to take a score above 100%, but with modifiers, that would make extraordinary tasks easy to perform. So you might want to allow it, or specifically disallow it.

- With only six stats, why break them down into four categories? Seems pointless. It's not referenced anywhere else.

- How does the figured Speed characteristic round? Up, I assume (so that a Dex of less than ten gets a SPD score). This stat does create a big breakpoint. That is, I think that all characters will be created with just enough Dex to get into the next SPD category. In general you don't say anything about rounding (and I disagree with Clinton; this is very important).

- Kadath is used a lot by HP Lovecraft. I assume that you've done the required work to see if it's public domain (I'd guess that it is for various reasons, but I'd want to be sure). Are you comfortable with what Kadath implies to other gamers?

- Headers need further organization by size (I thin kyou've got two that are indistinguishably close).

- You sorta imply that one can only play Dumirik in the text about them, but later we find that we can play humans. I assume that each character has to have one House, and one Faction? That's also not clear.

- Houses have "characteristic alterations". Basically, the effect is that the Obscurus Dictum get ten more points to build their characters. That is, given that they can make their characters any stat level they like, the "bonuses" and penalties do nothing. Unless the character can use the bonuses to exceed some maxima otherwise extant without the bonus (which is actually problematic itself). The only real use I can see for these is that they might give some idea of what norms are like for the houses. But that could be accomplished simply by posting the norms, or sample "average" characters. (BTW, I assume the 50% is "average human).

- The Sanity and Dogma stuff is neat. It would be cool, it seems to me, to require the player or GM to say something about the people that represent a Dumirik's Dogma rating. Who are they? Where did they come from? When did they become a part of the Dumirik's Dogma? How has that changed them?

There's a mechanical note in Sanity, that a Dumirik drains d10% from a human who he's had contact with. Is that 1-10 points, or 1-10 percent? That is, if a human has 50 Sanity, and I roll a 5, do I get 5, or 2.5?

- Characteristics have "effects", not "affects". Sorry, grammatical error that I always have to fix.

- Having read the notes on Humans and Dumirik, I'm going to guess that you'll have lots more players select Dumirik. They have all the neat extra abilities. In any case, per the comments in the thread, I see noting to rectify the idea of playing these characters together (not even at the end where you have the three act notes). That is, there are just notes on what everything is, and nothing about what play might look like. A GM or player might be lost for ideas. Also, what does a Dumirik look like?

- Some of the optional traits and talents seem oddly unsuited to the genre. You seem to have perused some other games' lists, and incorporated a selection of nifty abilities without much attention to what they'll make play look like. Less may be more, in this case. No skills, I see. That's interesting. Any notes on why? Do characters start with any Talents? Spells? Why are the rules for obtaining spells only in the section on spells? What's an "Appropriate level" for a spell? Experience level?

- Resolution system: in the section on Actions, it says that Speed is the number of actions you can take in a turn, and then later it says that the number is based on a Dex check. I think what you mean is that the player can choose to start on any speed announced, and then take up to his Dex in actions, one each speed announced. So, cleverly, the speed and the dex check coincide so as to never have more actions available than speed would allow in a round. If I have this right, it needs to be stated much more clearly.

- If I read correctly, the player makes his dex check after he decides to announce his starting speed. So if he delays, and rolls well, he may end up with more actions than speed to use them, correct? What happens with the extra actions, just lost? This also seems potentially possible with "fast" weapons.

It also seems that within an announced speed, that if you have more than one character acting (and this will be the majority of the time), you go in order of highest speed to lowest. Might I suggest that you go by Dex instead? That way you'll have far fewer ties. In the case of a tie, however, what happens? Simo?

- The Speaking rule says volumes about play style in some ways, but leaves it open to interpretation in others. Potentially confusing in this way. Essentially it discourages witty banter during combat by making it painfully costly to accomplish. My read is that the game has a decidedly tactical bent. I'd personally go with that. But is that your intent?

- On the rolling system, you introduce it haphazardly. Some assumptions come from the section on chargen, some from the section on botching, etc. All told, it's a pretty standard percentile system. Are you comfortable with the fact that modifiers can push things into the realm of the automatically successful, or automatic failure? Yes, you have rules to allow for failure in these cases (95-100), but it isn't at all ability dependent.

The rule for determining Successes needs to be a little clearer. If I read it correctly, from the one example, what you mean is that you get one Success for each ten percent rolled less than your target stat, or part thereof. That is, if I succeed by only 6, then I get one success, not zero. More examples could help to make that clear. The intro to movement has similar problems. In fact, it implies that once a character is on a course to a certain destination that he can't change his mind, no matter what happens in intervening speeds. It's just simpler to say that a character can move any amount up to the limit of the type of movement each time he decides to employ one.

- Piss-bolt? Sounds like a colloquialism of which I'm unaware.

-

If the character is trying to move other than a sneak walk or run, then the normal rules for combined actions apply-that is any positive modifiers are lost. If walking, sneaking, jumping or running, there are no penalties to combining actions.

Confusing. Which allow what? Put it in the text about each.

- The "Politics" section is very short, and oddly located. Whasupwidat?

The character with the most successes chooses who attacks and who defends, progressing down to the character with the lowest successes.

That's not clear. If I've been chosen to defend, do I then get to chose who attacks and defends later?

The whole Combat sequence seems problematic in fact. For example, by one reading, an average person could make ten attacks with a broadsword before the other character can respond. By another reading, a player can only make ten attacks in one turn. If some people are not in combat, but, say, running around, how does that mesh with the combat time? It's just not clear at all. I'd suggest having conflicts be simply opposed rolls between the participants with the winner scoring on the loser (a favorite simplification of mine).

- Under the example of the Broadsword, there is a list of maneuvers. Are these specific to the broadsword, or are they a generic list? Seem to be associated with the weapon. Isn't that going to make for massive lists of weapons? Wouldn't it be simpler to have a list of maneuvers with all their effects separate, and then simply list the titles of what maneuvers can be done with a particular weapon?

- You're range penalties are harsh. Let's assume that, say, a longbow has a "max" (that's kinda misleading, isn't it) range of 20m with no penalty; which is pretty generous for point blank range. That means that at 50 meters, that you'll have a -60, and most archers can't possibly hit then.

- You have a mechanical description for death that's very clear. But what happens in terms of the player? Should he make up another character? At starting stats?

- The Psion system introduces yet another subsystem for time and use. What if I'm alternating combat, running around and Psions? Isn't that getting quite complex in terms of determining what I can do?



Just what I found on the first go through. Looks interesting, but needs quite a bit of refinement.

Mike

[Kirk Mitchell]

Wow. Thats a fair amount of assessment. I will pretty much only answer the things that I disagree with, want to explain more, have now changed etc. etc. etc.

I think that I will remove the statement on non-minature play. The game is really very difficult without some visual representation of what is going on, or no-one will have a clue what is going on.

A narrative skirmish game is sort of a throwback term from when I was writing rules for a wargame. It referred to a game that was based around a series of scenarios (skirmishes, battles or what have you) which formed a plot movement as a whole. It seemed to apply to the idea that I had for this game, so I wrote it in without really thinking about it. I guess that will have to change...

The warband is also another term that I used. It is a party yes, but as I said in my previous thread, the players each play as one main character, and controll a band of NPCs, thus forming a 'warband'. The confusion over terms was not intentional.

I went through several dice systems, and I was utilising a d20 based system that didn't quite work before I switched to the percentage system. I was using the D&D style modifier table for characteristics, and that simply meant that the modifier could not go below -3. That particular section has been revised. No characteristics may be reduced to below 20% (that was the idea). If Physique is reduced to 0, the character dies, if Dexterity is reduced to 0, the character falls into a permanent coma, if Will is reduced to 0, the character looses all semblances of sentience and becomes a mindless bundle of instincts (the same with Sanity, but those rules arent't completed yet).

It certainly seems that all of these errors found are merely bits that I havn't cleaned up and refined properly, doesn't it?

Yes speed is rounded up. I thought I put that in there, but I guess not.

I used Kadath because it seemed appropriate, here is a game about a strange invasion from a dream world, and Kadath is, itself in a dream world. It was meant to be a nod in the direction of H.P. Lovecraft, and not any breach in copywrite (but I have noticed many short stories not written by H.P. that have references to Kadath).

Yes, characters have to choose one House and one faction.

When a Dumirik drains d10% from a Human who he's had contact with is 1-10 points. If you roll five, you get five. That needs more explaining.

Erm. This is the part where I have been having the most problem: the Human/Dumirik race issue. Everyone seems to point out that most people are going to want to play as the Dumirik, and I must admit that was my original intention, but I now have this little worry in the back of my head, that to play as the Human side would also be very interesting.

A Dumirik has no set 'look' as such, as each is a completely individual creation, based on the dreams that spawned them. In an attempt to demonstrate this in a mechanical sense, as the Dumirik further gains the abilities to manipulate the world, he can further unleash his true Dumirik form. This is where the Dream/Nightmare characteristics come in.

You see very well. Yes the Talents and Optional Traits were borrowed from other games' lists, just as examples to myself and others what kind of options would be available, but I am working on unique ones for the game now. I disliked the typical skills lists of other RPGs, so I wrote up the Enigmas section, intended to not only give skills, but flesh out the character as well, I don't know if you noticed that, but that was my intent. Does it work? Characters start of with one Talent of their choice (that is of the appropriate Experience level). The appropriate level for a spell is the Experience level. I think I specified that in the section on Character Points and their usage.

Yes the extra actions are lost. What do you mean by "fast" weapons? If you are referring to the Speed value of weapons, that is only for the Initiative roll in combat, which determines who gets to choose who attacks first (oh, and BTW it is only for the first exchange in combat that the winner of the Initiative roll gets to choose who attacks and who defends).

OK, Dex works a lot better! In the case of a tie, roll a d10, the winner goes first, and so on and so forth. If the d10 is a tie, roll again.

I did intend this game to have a rather tactical bent, but only during combat. The game can have sections without combat, such as political sections (explained in the, as yet, unfinished Politics rules section).

Do you have an suggestions on how I could improve the rolling system? And how could I make the failure in these cases ability dependant? Maybe only allowing a certain amount of modifiers to be applied, though some tasks might be impossible for only the most skilled individuals, but I think that only the simplest of tasks should be automatically successful.

Sorry about the "Piss-bolt" thing. It is an extremely Australian colloquialism that means pretty much to run as fast as you damn well can. Ehem...

If the character moves at a Dodge, Run, Bolt or Jump, he gets a -20% modifier to combining actions. Otherwise, he has no penalties to combining actions with movement.

If you have chosen to defend, then the other character attacks. From that point onwards your positions alternate, you attack and your opponent defends the next exchange, and then you defend again and your opponenat attacks etc. etc. etc.

Your simplification was what I intended, but it wasn't clear enough I guess. If some people are not in combat, they have to wait to make their actions until combat is over.

The manoeuvres are specific to the weapon, but your idea makes more sense.

What would you suggest would happen if a character was unfortunate enough to die? I would suppose that he would make another character at starting stats, but otherwise I don't really know how to approach this.

The game hasn't quite reached playtesting (though I tested out the combat once or twice), but your responce has spurred me to look more carefully at the rules and start playtesting the various systems.

Thanks for the feedback, and I will post again when the next draft is ready.[/list]

[Mike Holmes]

I think that I will remove the statement on non-minature play. The game is really very difficult without some visual representation of what is going on, or no-one will have a clue what is going on.

Why do you say that? I mean, it's really completely valid to do a miniatures-only game, but I'm not sure what about the game as written makes it neccessary to go that way. If it's just how you want to do it, that seems fine with me.

A narrative skirmish game is sort of a throwback term from when I was writing rules for a wargame. It referred to a game that was based around a series of scenarios (skirmishes, battles or what have you) which formed a plot movement as a whole. It seemed to apply to the idea that I had for this game, so I wrote it in without really thinking about it. I guess that will have to change...

I'm kinda getting a vision of a game which is divided into different sections of play, which could be very cool.

Erm. This is the part where I have been having the most problem: the Human/Dumirik race issue. Everyone seems to point out that most people are going to want to play as the Dumirik, and I must admit that was my original intention, but I now have this little worry in the back of my head, that to play as the Human side would also be very interesting.

But you don't envision playing mixed? Or do you? If the game is either Dumirik or Human characters only that could be cool. The players and GM could decide that before hand.

A Dumirik has no set 'look' as such, as each is a completely individual creation, based on the dreams that spawned them. In an attempt to demonstrate this in a mechanical sense, as the Dumirik further gains the abilities to manipulate the world, he can further unleash his true Dumirik form. This is where the Dream/Nightmare characteristics come in.

That's what I thought. This could be made more clear in the initial description.

I disliked the typical skills lists of other RPGs, so I wrote up the Enigmas section, intended to not only give skills, but flesh out the character as well, I don't know if you noticed that, but that was my intent. Does it work?

I think it will be very good.

Characters start of with one Talent of their choice (that is of the appropriate Experience level). The appropriate level for a spell is the Experience level. I think I specified that in the section on Character Points and their usage.

None of this is at all clear. A checklist would also be good in addition to clarifying these things.

Do you have an suggestions on how I could improve the rolling system?

Several classic methods suggest themselves.

You could use the doubles rule. Basically if you roll doubles, ignore all modifiers. This gives you a one in ten chance of getting an automatic success or failure result. The higher your ability, the more of that split is success, and the less is failure. For example, if my ability is 50%, then 11, 22, 33, 44 are auto successes, and 55, 66, 77, 88, 99, 00 are auto failure. The problem with this is that it creates breakpoints.

Another way is to have the 96-100 range be a potential fumble, but allow the character to roll again against his unmodified stat to avoid it. You could do this on the other end as well rolling to get the auto success against unmodified stat.

If you have chosen to defend, then the other character attacks. From that point onwards your positions alternate, you attack and your opponent defends the next exchange, and then you defend again and your opponenat attacks etc. etc. etc.

Your simplification was what I intended, but it wasn't clear enough I guess. If some people are not in combat, they have to wait to make their actions until combat is over.

I still am not sure what you're getting at. Are you saying that if there are two people having a fifteen minute duel, that it has to be entirely resolved before the two armies marching towards each other can resume movement? This seems odd and needlessly complicated.

What would you suggest would happen if a character was unfortunate enough to die? I would suppose that he would make another character at starting stats, but otherwise I don't really know how to approach this.

That might be fine. It's just cool to have some notes about it.

The game hasn't quite reached playtesting (though I tested out the combat once or twice), but your responce has spurred me to look more carefully at the rules and start playtesting the various systems.

I thik with some revisions that it ought to make a fine playtest. Keep in mind, however, that you already know what you mean, which means that the text is obvious to you. Other readers will have to interperet. So when rewriting, keep an eye towards that. In the end when you give it to independent playtest groups will they be able to get what you're trying to say?

Thanks for the feedback, and I will post again when the next draft is ready.

Cool. Look forward to it.

Mike

[W. Don]

Mike has pretty much done a good assessment of the game up there. I'm still going over it, but it seems the questions I'm coming up with are already being addressed by Mike.

As to the Dumirk/Human issue:

This is the part where I have been having the most problem: the Human/Dumirik race issue. Everyone seems to point out that most people are going to want to play as the Dumirik, and I must admit that was my original intention, but I now have this little worry in the back of my head, that to play as the Human side would also be very interesting.

But you don't envision playing mixed? Or do you? If the game is either Dumirik or Human characters only that could be cool. The players and GM could decide that before hand.

As presented, and if I were to play the game, I'd probably be one to choose Dumirik right away. The way I see it, the way tha manual is arranged skews the options in favor of Dumirik characters (at least in so far as the draft version is concerned).

A small and humble suggestion (for when you do the re-write, a matter of presentation not system per se): You may want to present the setting in detail first instead of the character options. Then introduce a section giving a quick overview of which sides of the fence a particular playing group might start a campaign from: Dumirik, Human, or maybe a mixed option (which would also be quite cool). After that, you can go on to detail the all-Dumirik option, the all-Human option, or the mixed option.

If the amount of material you've provided in the draft is an indication, I'm sure you are working from a strong sense of what the game world is like. I'm just thinking that the presentation can be further tweaked and made to suit your vision for what the game would be. (So feel free to send the suggestion to the trash bin if it doesn't jive with you're planning.)

Good luck with the project!

- W.

[Kirk Mitchell]

First, to address Mike's comments (again, only commenting on things I disagree with, or am clarifying further):

I have always worked with an extremely visual style with everything, and this game, if you look at my rules on movement and dangerous positions etc. really (at least to me) seem to lend themselves best to the usage of minatures (or tokens, as I most often use, simply because they are cheaper and easier to make). However, I sort of get your view that the rules don't really have any real reason for specifying miniatures. It is probably just the way that I want to do things.

I very much envision play being mixed, as the clashes culture and racial clashes between the Human and the Dumirik are at the heart of the game. But the different races could be NPCs depending on the choice made by the players and the GM. But still, the clash between some players wanting to play different races would be something of a problem. Oh, what can you do?

On the rolling system improvements, what are breakpoints? I haven't heard that term before. And what if I used both systems? I think that could work in a way as to eliminate the huge impact of modifiers. What do you think?

As for the combat, that was the only way that I could think to mesh it well enough with the rest that is going on. I thought that it would be rather difficult and complicated to have combat going on while everyone else is making their actions, it was a simplification in my eyes, especially from what I had written down before. What would you suggest?

W.D.,

I must admit, I certainly favour the Dumirik myself. I have always favoured the "aliens" and outcasts (hell, when I saw a few minutes of Aliens when I was eight and supposed to be in bed, I thought they were the good guys!). Your suggestion on the organisation of the draft is well noted, and I agree. It would probably be best to describe the world first, and then move on to the characters. The playing group starter campaign example is a great idea, it would solve both the Human/Dumirik racial issue, as well as the problem with no campaign concepts or ideas for GMs. Pretty cool!

What do you mean by tweaking the presentation a bit? I understand that you mean that I alter the presentation style a bit, but I don't really know how you mean. Yes, you are correct that I am working from a pretty much complete world that I have crafted in my head, and I have attempted to write the game accordingly.

Thanks for the support!

[W. Don]

What do you mean by tweaking the presentation a bit? I understand that you mean that I alter the presentation style a bit, but I don't really know how you mean.

Oh, sorry about that. By "tweaking the presentation" I was referring to my suggestion of re-organising the presentation (ie: world details first, followed by racial options). My apologies for being so confusing.

- W.

[Mike Holmes]

It is probably just the way that I want to do things.

Cool. I think it's an interesting choice. One thing to discuss in the text, then and however, is when play goes from being abstract to tactical. And why.

On the rolling system improvements, what are breakpoints? I haven't heard that term before.

Breakpoints refer to the case where you get a larger than normal bonus for a marginal increase in a statistic. So, if I have a Dex of 49, and am thinking of Raising it to 50, I think, that gives me a 1% bonus on tasks accomplished (1/10th of a success level), and I'll go ahead of anyone rated a 49 in initiative order. But if I go to 51, I not only get that, but I get another point of speed. That's much more of a benefit. So 51 gets a "break" in cost, essentially.

The bigges problem with breakpoints is that players percieving them, and they will, rightly min/max to these points. So you tend to get less variation in characters. If you're only going to have characters with scores of 21, 31, 41, 51, 61, 71, 81, 91 in Dex, that's only 8 possibilities. In which case, the finer granularity of the D100 stats isn't doing much good. You might as well just use a d10, and count each point as a level of success.

The system that I proposed would create breakpoints every 11 points. Why chose 54, when 55 causes you to lose one autofail number and gain an autosuccess number?  

And what if I used both systems? I think that could work in a way as to eliminate the huge impact of modifiers. What do you think?

I'm not sure what, exactly, you're proposing here.

As for the combat, that was the only way that I could think to mesh it well enough with the rest that is going on. I thought that it would be rather difficult and complicated to have combat going on while everyone else is making their actions, it was a simplification in my eyes, especially from what I had written down before. What would you suggest?

One time management system that covers everything like most games have. I'd just use the system that you have for normal actions for everything. Or something like that.

I must admit, I certainly favour the Dumirik myself.

So ignore the humans, as PCs, and make it a game about playing the Dumirik. I'm not seeing why you feel that you have to include the human option.

Mike

[Kirk Mitchell]

So, Mike, you are saying that my system, in essence, is a breakpoint system? Hmm. Was that suggestion of changing this to a d10 system and using each number as a level of success serious, because it makes sense to me, it wouldn't be too much of a problem to run through and alter the numbers and descriptions slightly.

Are there any other comments?

[permacultureguerilla]

Sorry, I only skimmed this time. But I gather the products of human imagination got angry with humans, imagining them into too much horror, and took revenge? That's cool!  I've thought of that when making a painful situation for a roleplaying game, lol.

I realize that's a real simplistic view, being only skimmed and all. But then, I wouldn't try to top the help you've been getting anyhow.

I agree with the no apologies criticism. I would in a forum presenting it, but not in the draft itself.

Also, not just for my laziness (for the moment) but for the actual reader experience, I'd suggest introducing the theme of the game before your GM section. It's much easier for me to criticize the style rather than the system.

I like toying with styles of narration. So please let me know if you'd like some attempted really "dreamy" writing for the Last Bastion. I have a very basic pattern to my games: I'm dramatically descriptive, making a story and nothing about the actual world. And then a little bit descriptive, mostly technical. Finally, I summarize the whole game in what sounds like a technical computer manual, just as a reference. I'll see whether it works out the way I have it planned (which could take eternity . . . Nooooo!).

[Kirk Mitchell]

Heloo,

Sorry about this late posting. I haven't been able to work very much on the document, and I have recently embarked upon a complete re-writing and redirection of the game. The game mechanics are being reworked and a am focussing more on the concepts to further cement them into the mechanics. The layout is also being altered.

The suggestion that I use a d10, and that each point under the required number is a degree of success is the basis of my reworking. The character design is under major construction and the action system is being altered to make the game less restrictive, particularly to allow non-miniature play, but still retain the tactical elements.

I want to start presenting my world and game concept ideas with the basic rules system for discussion while I further work on the game. Would this work, or should I again just design the manuscript using the feedback given and present it for dissection.

Alas, the real world calls...

Thanks.

[Shreyas Sampat]

I always appreciate short, sweet summaries of things; even if you were to present the document for discussion, I'd ask for a summary first.  As it turns out, I'm a mechanics nut... unless your setting's changed dramatically, I'd point back to earlier threads on the topic and just lay out mechanics for comment.  Setting, after all,  is as much in the writing and presentation as it is in the ideas that it contains; it makes commenting on it pretty difficult.