[Great Ork Gods] Playtest release

[Jack Aidley]

Well, Great Ork Gods has finally been written up to a stage where I think it's ready for playtesting. I've got a website up for it from which you can download the latest rules.

However at the time of writing, the domain name has not resolved, so you'll need to go to http://66.98.138.15/~greato00/ and the email addresses on the site will not work so please post any responses here.

I'm looking for any comments and feedback on the rules. Both mechanics wise and in terms of presentation and clarity. I'd also really appreciate anyone who can take the time and effort to playtest it. Finally, I'm really not too good at the whole marketing speel thing, so I could do with some help on suitable 'bullet points' for the game.

Those of you who haven't visited the earlier Great Ork Gods may find them worth referencing:

[Great Ork Gods] Latest Rules
[Great Ork Gods] Actual Play
[Great Ork Gods] Early Ideas

[Loki]

Jack, I'm psyched. These look great--I'm up to "Assigning the Gods" now. When do you expect to have illustrations? Those I can't wait to see.

Minor typo, p5, "God Cards" Section, 1st paragraph, last sentence (italics mine):

If you haven't any card protectors, and managed to avoid CCGs you can just use them as bits of paper--they just want be as pretty.

Should read "won't" is my guess.

Really exciting! Nice choice of fonts and the writing is good. Great work. Give yourself 5 Oog.

[Jack Aidley]

When do you expect to have illustrations? Those I can't wait to see.

Hopefully I'll be getting some this weekend. He's just got Balder's Gate II though, and isn't spending as much time on the illustrations...

Oh, the domain name has resolved now, but for some reason www.greatorkgods.co.uk isn't working, only greatorkgods.co.uk. The e-mail addresses on the site are now functioning.

[montag]

p.6 "Assigning the Gods"
"After each player picks, if there are any cards left not out, put a new one ...."
What is meant by "left not out"? (I know how it's supposed to work, but the line is very unclear IMHO) Why aren't all the gods laid out at once? Redrawing seems unecessarily complex for no good reason. Besides, especially for small number of players (like in your example) this seems to distort the – AFAIK intended – effect of rating gods according to the value they have for players, by bringing in more fortune.

"Performing Actions"
First of, it's a bit unclear, what happens if multiple gods are relevant. From the rules, it seems that only then everyone may add Spite. This (a) doesn't make sense, only the gods concerned should be allowed to add Spite IMO and (b) contradicts the latest rule version I am aware of, in which everyone was allowed to spend Spite all the time. Besides, why not make two or more tests if two or more Gods are relevant?

I also don't really like the idea of having all tasks for which one's own gods are relevant be easy. With a good choice of gods in the beginning a player might set themselves up for virtual immunity that way.
The new "whining" mechanic OTOH is brilliant.

"Spite"
I'm not a big fan of unassigned Spite. IMHO each God should have their own Spite. Admittedly I have no idea how to implement this without adding a lot of unwanted book keeping.

p.7 top left:
"he throws a 3 a two 6's" > "a 3 and two 6's"

General:
- I've been wondering what success on a "That which guards..." roll means. Probably the Ork doesn't get hurt, although an attack was successful (or rather, the Ork's defence was pathetic). ((Just found it, it's answered in the player's handout. Should be included in the main text IMO))
- You _must_ come up with a new name for the GM. I hate the practice as much as the next guy, but in your game, with all those gods, you just need to come up with a cool name for the Big One.

Playtest:
Unavailable at the moment, seems my PnP group wouldn't like to playtest it. I'll try to persuade them or otherwise set up an online game. For that I'd have to translate at least the God names, so I might not get round to actually doing that.

[Jack Aidley]

Hi Montag,

Thanks for the feeback.

Why aren't all the gods laid out at once? Redrawing seems unecessarily complex for no good reason. Besides, especially for small number of players (like in your example) this seems to distort the – AFAIK intended – effect of rating gods according to the value they have for players, by bringing in more fortune.

Not all the Gods are laid out for two reasons: one: to reduce the advantage of going first, and two: to increase the randomness. I agree it's not very well explained.

First of, it's a bit unclear, what happens if multiple gods are relevant. From the rules, it seems that only then everyone may add Spite.

Eek! That's not the intended reading. I've looked over the text, but I can't see how you've drawn that conclusion from it. Could you point out the text that led you to that idea?

Besides, why not make two or more tests if two or more Gods are relevant?

Because more tests rapidly reduce your ability to suceed.

I also don't really like the idea of having all tasks for which one's own gods are relevant be easy. With a good choice of gods in the beginning a player might set themselves up for virtual immunity that way.

This can be a problem, however the chances of one player getting all the 'best' gods seems small. In any case, Spite is capable of counter-acting any difficulty setting anyway - it seems to work in play.

How would you prefer to see it done.

I'm not a big fan of unassigned Spite. IMHO each God should have their own Spite. Admittedly I have no idea how to implement this without adding a lot of unwanted book keeping.

It makes no difference anyway - any God can spend spite on any test.

I've been wondering what success on a "That which guards..." roll means. Probably the Ork doesn't get hurt, although an attack was successful (or rather, the Ork's defence was pathetic). ((Just found it, it's answered in the player's handout. Should be included in the main text IMO))

Yes.

You _must_ come up with a new name for the GM. I hate the practice as much as the next guy, but in your game, with all those gods, you just need to come up with a cool name for the Big One.

Maybe. I really dislike that kind of thing - it seems so, well, deliberatly obfuscatory anyway. In my experience everyone carries on refering to them as the GM anyway.

Unavailable at the moment, seems my PnP group wouldn't like to playtest it. I'll try to persuade them or otherwise set up an online game. For that I'd have to translate at least the God names, so I might not get round to actually doing that.

When the final version is finished, it is likely (likely, not definate) that german, french and possibly dutch translations will be offered.

Cheers,

Jack

[montag]

First of, it's a bit unclear, what happens if multiple gods are relevant. From the rules, it seems that only then everyone may add Spite.

Eek! That's not the intended reading. I've looked over the text, but I can't see how you've drawn that conclusion from it. Could you point out the text that led you to that idea?

Certainly: p.6: "Performing Actions" "...Note that one action may require successfully foiling mare than one God: firing a Crossbow for  example. The God's player .... Any player can then spend Spite to make the throw harder, while..." There is no mechanical consequence to having multiple Gods involved, but I was expecting one. The next thing that looks like a mechanical consequence of multiple God's involvement ist the "Any player" sentence.

I also don't really like the idea of having all tasks for which one's own gods are relevant be easy. With a good choice of gods in the beginning a player might set themselves up for virtual immunity that way.

This can be a problem, however the chances of one player getting all the 'best' gods seems small. In any case, Spite is capable of counter-acting any difficulty setting anyway - it seems to work in play. How would you prefer to see it done.

On second thought, it's admittedly a very, very minor problem. It just seems odd to default to easy, defaulting to medium seems more "plausible".

I'm not a big fan of unassigned Spite. IMHO each God should have their own Spite. Admittedly I have no idea how to implement this without adding a lot of unwanted book keeping.

It makes no difference anyway - any God can spend spite on any test.

Forget it, that was based on the assumption that only involved Gods may spend Spite (see above) in which case it might have made sense to limit individual God's resources.

When the final version is finished, it is likely (likely, not definate) that german, french and possibly dutch translations will be offered.

Great! I'm looking forward to them.

One question: is it possible to provide players with the handout by sending them the PDF or putting it up on some private webspace? I wouldn't want them to have the full playtest version, because then I'd have to think of a new scenario ;)

[Loki]

A suggested edit for the section "Assigning the Gods", 3rd paragraph, last sentence. You have:

After each player picks, if there are any cards left not out, put a new one on the right of the line so that you maintain a line of one card for each player.

My suggested rewording:

After each player picks, if there are any God cards still undealt, deal a new God card to the right of the line until there are no God cards remaining in the deck.

(edit: I removed some text in my rewording. Since you add a card after each player picks, and each player can only pick one card, you would never need to add more than one card at a time to the line.)

Another suggestion I have is to change the instructions so that all God cards are dealt, face-down, in a line. Then the first X cards are turned over, where X is the number of players. Proceed as before, turning over new Gods after each pick. That might clear up confusion about the process, and ensure that all God cards are taken. (Although the example that follows this section is quite clear.)

Question: is there some reason not to just deal all the Gods face up and allow players to proceed down the line, adding spite until they get to the God they want? That would ensure a greater amount of spite for unwanted Gods. Or did you find that would result in too much spite?

I am psyched to play this game next weekend.

[Valamir]

Question: is there some reason not to just deal all the Gods face up and allow players to proceed down the line, adding spite until they get to the God they want? That would ensure a greater amount of spite for unwanted Gods. Or did you find that would result in too much spite

Jack used that rule largely as I suggested it.  The equal to the number of players was my idea so I can share why I suggested it that way.

The idea behind the system was two fold.
1) to allow each play group to balance what they thought to be the most useful gods by allowing the less useful gods to be skipped...until such time as the accumulated spite on those lesser gods made them worth taking.

2) to force a player to choose between how badly he REALLY wants that god deep in the list even if it means giving spite to other players vs. accepting a less desired god to avoid giving spite to other players.

If you have 4 players and 4 gods in play, and player 1 takes the last god, than the first 3 gods will have spite on them.  If each of the other players take a god with spite, then when it gets back to the 1st player all of the spite he played will have been taken.

If you put 5 gods out, and player 1 takes the last god, then even if the other players each take gods with spite on them, when it gets back to player 1 there will still be one god with spite on it, guarenteed.  A player can be assured of giving himself spite by drawing deep enough.

By limiting it to the same number of players, its up to the other players whether they want to deprive player 1 of the spite, or give him an opportunity.

That's my logic anyway.

[Loki]

Makes sense to me. Thanks for the explanation.

[Loki]

Jack, I've got a question about the stunting rules. The rules say:

If a Stunt is not allowed, two rolls must be made instead--one to resolve the usual action, and one to resolve the fancy effect the player desires.

Does this mean that if my Ork is trying to throw the Halfling into the pond, either his stunt is allowed and he stunts to Lifting Stone or his stunt is not allowed and he rolls twice (once to the appropriate god, and once to Lifting Stone)?

I also don't understand what's being stated in the paragraph that follows the above:

The stunted roll completely replaces the original roll, so any consequences the original roll would have had on failure apply to failure on the stunted roll.

Does that refer to all stunts--merely saying "if you stunt instead of stabbing the Halfling, the stunt roll is the only roll used to determine success/failure"?

Or does that refer to the situation where a stunt is not allowed and two rolls must be made.

Incidently, if 'allowed' means you can stunt, and 'not allowed' means you can stunt, but have to make an extra roll, I suggest changing 'not allowed' to something like 'frowned on (by the gods)' ... you can still stunt, it's just much harder.

Or am I missing how stunts are supposed to work?

[Darcy Burgess]

Our group ran the "module" included in the back of the playtest .pdf last Thursday.

All in all, we had a real hoot.

I can't say enough good things about this game, provided that it's approached from the right perspective.  Our group embraced the base silliness and tomfoolery that makes this game rock, and that really helped.  (As a case in point, one of our original cast of characters was Grishnak the Grammar Ork.)

Some of the stumbling points we found were mostly related to Goblins and actions (in general).

re: Goblins.  The players didn't embrace them, and had a hard time working them into play -- eventually they did, but it was a hard path to tread.  One player in particular always wanted to narrate the use of a goblin BEFORE any difficulty/spite was determined.  I think that part of this stems from the rather free-form way that gobbos are handled -- they just "float", and many of the players found this confusing.

re: actions.  As GM, I found it tricky not to make everything into an action.  By the end of the evening, I realized that a lot of stuff that shouldn't have been rolled for had been.  It's an easy trap to fall into with most RPGs, but I found that GOG is particularly prone to this GM pitfall.

my feeling is that these are both minor points, but some sort of mechanic to help solve them would be nice.

suggestion re: gobbos.  have each ork trailed around by a number of gobbos equal to their Oog.  That way, the player always knows his extra resources available.  any extra gobbos can float, chase ducks, whatever.  as gobbos die, they are replaced by gobbos from the pool after a reasonable duration (this may also be based on Oog).

Once the pool of "unaligned" gobbos is depleted, then the "ordering" mechanic will come into play more, as orcs of higher Oog steal their compatriot's gobbos.  This should enhance the adversarial nature of the game, and would be good fun.

re: rolling for EVERYTHING, I'm not sure what would help fix this issue.  Perhaps a bit more detail on what most "average" orks can do would be good.  I think it's probably mostly a practice thing, and in the end too much rolling isn't as poisonous to GOG as other RPGs, as the whole difficulty/rolling mechanic is half the fun of the game, as it's entirely based on interplayer interaction.

in summary, a grand game.  loads of fun, and thoroughly exhausting.  I had a blast, and was completely tuckered out by the end -- it was an (albeit enjoyable) chore trying to keep up with my players, and they really kept me on my toes.  I think this is due mostly to the fact that the system forces them to take ownership for the quality of the gaming experience.

You've got a winner on your hands.

[Jack Aidley]

Cool; valuable responses.

Re: Assigning Gods: You see that's the great thing about the Forge, you get the genius of top class designers for free. I picked up Ralph's suggestion wholesale for the reasons I gave above - turns out there's a cunning reason I missed entirely.

Loki,

Does this mean that if my Ork is trying to throw the Halfling into the pond, either his stunt is allowed and he stunts to Lifting Stone or his stunt is not allowed and he rolls twice (once to the appropriate god, and once to Lifting Stone)?

That's right - you can always carry out the action, whether it is treated as a 'Stunt' or not determines whether there's one roll or two to acheive it.

Does that refer to all stunts--merely saying "if you stunt instead of stabbing the Halfling, the stunt roll is the only roll used to determine success/failure"?

Yes. What I was trying to get at is that if you Stunt a roll that has consequences - i.e, if you change from fighting the halfling to throwing him into the pond (from Slashings and Slayings to Lifting Stone, Pounding Rock) then failure has the same consequences as failing the original roll would - in this case facing That Which Guards The Gate.

I think I better add some examples.


Darcy,

Thank you for your kind words. I'm glad you enjoyed it.

Pretty much everyone has echoed your comment about having Goblins assigned to specific Orks, I've been resisting it because it goes against my idea of what they should be. But, perhaps, it's time to embrace it. My experience echoes yours in that in my playtest the players didn't really start using them until the end.

Rolling for everything could be a problem, I'll see if I can put together some more guidance - actual rules would seem overkill on this point.

Cheers,

Jack.

[Lxndr]

Hey, Jack, last night in indie-netgaming there was a brief discussion that almost turned into a game of Great Ork Gods, but more than half the group could not reach your website for some reason ("unrecognized").  How new is your sitename... is this just a matter of DNS propagation?  Or is there something more sinister at work (some Orkish God of the Internet trying to spite you?)

[Jack Aidley]

Hi Alexander,

The site name is new (registered last tuesday). For some reason www.greatorkgods.co.uk is not working at all, but http://greatorkgods.co.uk is, my webhosts are looking into at the moment - so hopefully it will be fixed soon. In any case http://66.98.138.15/~greato00/ should work for anyone, regardless of any DNS issues.

(edit: And remember I spell Ork with a 'k', not a 'c').

Cheers,

Jack.

Oh, NB: I've got a couple of bits of art through from my artist (actually my brother) - if I get time I'll put them up on the site tonight.

[Jack Aidley]

My webhosts have sorted things out, so www.greatorkgods.co.uk is working at last. I've also got a couple of pieces through from my artist - you can find them on the site.