Sorry if it seems like I'm impatient... But, hell, I am. It's been over a day since I posted it without reply, and the "Views" on the thread has only increased by a few, so I'm thinking that people perhaps missed the link.

Reposted from "A new face with a new game"

It's not much, but it's here, finally.

http://members.aol.com/JohanusMorgan/Home.html

Use the link at the bottom of the site to e-mail me, or just post any commentary here. Thanks in advance.

Oh, btw.. Some of the images don't come up right the first time. If you right-click and select Show Image, it usually works to bring them up. ::shrugs:: AOL's webspace is kooky, but hey, it's free with the membership, so I might as well use it.

I like the archetypal feel to the magic. I'm a real sucker for archetypes. I wouldn't call the magical system revolutional though. The character sheet has a nice look to it. I'm sure you'll fill the blank box with something.

So far, both the web page and the game on top of it lack color and that spark of life that makes a game unique. I'm still left with a terrible sense of emptiness when it comes to Mage Blade society and why I should want to make one to play. I'll need something to hook me in, to make me even want to learn the mechanics because from a Gamist-perspective, I'd have better luck getting my group together to play with an old-but-true system they already know, like MtA or d20 and there's no real sense of what I accomplish from playing yet. From a Sim-perspective, I can't see what there is to explore regarding my character or the world, and from a Narrative-perspective, there's not much there to make a story with.

I avoid discussions of mechanics themselves, waiting for Mike Holmes or someone to do a better, easier to apply analysis than I ever could.

Even with all this negative or nuetral feedback I'm giving on Mage Blade, don't feel like I'm telling you to quit! I think Mage Blade shows excellent potential based on your enthusiam and posts about it and is a really good "learn by experience" project.

Laurel wrote: I like the archetypal feel to the magic. I'm a real sucker for archetypes. I wouldn't call the magical system revolutional though. The character sheet has a nice look to it. I'm sure you'll fill the blank box with something.

So far, both the web page and the game on top of it lack color and that spark of life that makes a game unique. I'm still left with a terrible sense of emptiness when it comes to Mage Blade society and why I should want to make one to play. I'll need something to hook me in, to make me even want to learn the mechanics because from a Gamist-perspective, I'd have better luck getting my group together to play with an old-but-true system they already know, like MtA or d20 and there's no real sense of what I accomplish from playing yet. From a Sim-perspective, I can't see what there is to explore regarding my character or the world, and from a Narrative-perspective, there's not much there to make a story with.

What I like:

- The organizing archetypes of the magic system is based on a familiar schema, the classical Greek elements. I've been disappointed many times by systems that try to invent a new archetype schema (colors, runes, platonic solids, n'Sync members, etc.) to make the magic seem more mysterious. Only to find, having gone to the trouble to learn the new schema, that it's just a disguise for the same old familiar categories of effects. Elements are a robust and comfortably familiar basis for a schema that touches on many different aspects of character concept and play.

- The options of Force Burn and Mana Burn. This is more protagonizing than "sorry, guys, I'm out of mana points, can't help you." I've added a self-destructive pushing rule to every system I've ever GMed that didn't already have one. Of course, such mechanisms are not uncommon but I'm glad to see you didn't overlook it.

What I dislike:

The critical hit check that requires a separate calculation of the success-failure threshold, a separate roll, then a table lookup. What does this add to play that's worth so much extra handling on every single successful attack?

Liam Fortuna's character sheet obviously depicts a Water mage. Yet his Water sphere attributes total no higher than the attributes of other spheres. This suggests that the schema of organizing everything around the elements has little practical meaning outside of the magic system. What's the point of calling Charisma, Finesse, and Empathy "Water" traits if this has no relationship to the character's sphere? (I'm assuming that "Sphere: Fire" at the top of the character sheet is a mistake).

Too many separate traits, for my taste.

What I can't determine:

The answer to "Why should I play this game?" that you've prefaced isn't complete yet. You state, "What sets it apart from other games of this type is both in the game mechanics and the setting's way of handling magic." The game mechanics are different from other games, sure, but what sort of different game play do they promote? How are they better than existing systems that have, if not the exact same mechanisms, most or all of the same components (initiative, success rolls based on skills and traits, hit points damage, critical hits)?

The setting's way of handling magic has, so far, some interesting and effective color and some potentially interesting spell-vs.-spell combat tactics based on the channeling decisions. (This would, IMO, be more interesting tactically if the force channeling and resistance channeling were linked together, so that the decision of which spells to be powered-up to cast also determined one's distribution of resistance.) But without knowing the details of how spells are created and acquired by the characters, it's difficult to judge how well or how uniquely the magic system supports the characters and setting. IOW, is it just a disguise for the same old familiar categories of effects? Every pick-a-school magic system I've ever seen has appeared carefully designed to reward conformity and genericness (e.g. by increasing the cost to learn spells outside the chosen school's list). Of course, if the player-characters all invent their own schools, that's different.

- Walt

I think perhaps a clarification of "Why should I play this game?"might help out.

Taking games that you'd play solely for the mechanics: GURPS-Play it because it simulates reality with real world research, Rolemaster-Play it for the critical hits, The Pool-Play it for Authorial control given to players, etc.

Taking games you'd play for the setting: Whitewolf-Play it to be supernatural and angsty, Legend of the 5 Rings-Play it to be a samurai fighting monsters, Over the Edge-Play it for wacked out conspiracies.

What the question boils down to is"Why should I play THIS game as opposed to THAT game?", or "What is fundamentally different in your game than others?" Both of these questions really come back to:"What is your game trying to do, and how does the system support it?"

For example, you've mentioned you'd like combat where a hero could drop a monster in one hit if they're good enough, but there's a way to approach that from all sides of GNS.

Gamist-I rolled a critical, and got a reroll, and a reroll, and I rolled 6 criticals in a row and the supermonsterdemon went splat(and at band camp...)

Simulationist-Hit location is...left nostril, ok roll for frontal lobe damage, ooo-rubberbullet effect, your sword goes up his nose, bends on the skull and shoots out the back through the ...5th vertabrae! he's dead!

Narrativist- Spending all of my "Look at me, I'm so cool" points, I jump up, slam my blade into its forehead, the ground cracks and we sink in a cloud of dust...Then a giant mystical explosion rips forth, letting loose all the souls he's ever eaten...and I come forth...carrying its bloodied heart in my hand...

Notice(despite the exaggerations) that any of the above approaches can have a one-hit one-kill rule, but the methods of going about it are different. Currently your combat system is fairly standard G/S... Some interesting things you could do to change that might be give bonuses based on elemental affinity(Damn! Earth Warriors, its going to be tough!), or perhaps bonuses and weaknesses against other people of different affinities(see Final Fantasy Tactics for an example of this using Zodiac signs).

Also notice that the different reasons to play different games are based either mechanically or setting-wise. You could play Whitewolf or L5R with D&D rules and not miss much in terms of system, but you're not paying for a fundamentally different set of rules, but setting. You could play the Forgotten Realms setting with the Pool, but it certainly would not play like D&D in any fashion.

My first goal in design is saying: What kind of game world am I trying to create? Realistic? Totally unrealistic but strategic? Whatever I see in the movies? Then I base the system goals around that.

I look forward to seeing what you do with this and what the background of your world entails...

Chris

Awesome, thanks for input. Let's see about addressing some of the points made...

Walt wrote: - The organizing archetypes of the magic system is based on a familiar schema, the classical Greek elements. I've been disappointed many times by systems that try to invent a new archetype schema (colors, runes, platonic solids, n'Sync members, etc.) to make the magic seem more mysterious. Only to find, having gone to the trouble to learn the new schema, that it's just a disguise for the same old familiar categories of effects. Elements are a robust and comfortably familiar basis for a schema that touches on many different aspects of character concept and play.

The critical hit check that requires a separate calculation of the success-failure threshold, a separate roll, then a table lookup. What does this add to play that's worth so much extra handling on every single successful attack?

Liam Fortuna's character sheet obviously depicts a Water mage. Yet his Water sphere attributes total no higher than the attributes of other spheres. This suggests that the schema of organizing everything around the elements has little practical meaning outside of the magic system. What's the point of calling Charisma, Finesse, and Empathy "Water" traits if this has no relationship to the character's sphere? (I'm assuming that "Sphere: Fire" at the top of the character sheet is a mistake).

The answer to "Why should I play this game?" that you've prefaced isn't complete yet. You state, "What sets it apart from other games of this type is both in the game mechanics and the setting's way of handling magic." The game mechanics are different from other games, sure, but what sort of different game play do they promote? How are they better than existing systems that have, if not the exact same mechanisms, most or all of the same components (initiative, success rolls based on skills and traits, hit points damage, critical hits)?

The setting's way of handling magic has, so far, some interesting and effective color and some potentially interesting spell-vs.-spell combat tactics based on the channeling decisions. (This would, IMO, be more interesting tactically if the force channeling and resistance channeling were linked together, so that the decision of which spells to be powered-up to cast also determined one's distribution of resistance.) But without knowing the details of how spells are created and acquired by the characters, it's difficult to judge how well or how uniquely the magic system supports the characters and setting. IOW, is it just a disguise for the same old familiar categories of effects? Every pick-a-school magic system I've ever seen has appeared carefully designed to reward conformity and genericness (e.g. by increasing the cost to learn spells outside the chosen school's list). Of course, if the player-characters all invent their own schools, that's different.

Chris wrote: Some interesting things you could do to change that might be give bonuses based on elemental affinity(Damn! Earth Warriors, its going to be tough!), or perhaps bonuses and weaknesses against other people of different affinities(see Final Fantasy Tactics for an example of this using Zodiac signs).

Ok, I guess I'll echo Walt's concerns about the damage system. It's not efficient. I appreciate what you're trying to do though. Advanced Heroquest has a neat way to deal with damage which is quick and still gives lethal results. You can tweak it slightly to add damage levels. I'm planning on using it for my game myself.

Quick version (not including my tweaks which are pretty straightforward. I think you probably see the possibilities without me having to point it out).

1. Defender toughness is a value around 4-7 (for humans).
2. Damage is calculated from weapon base damage and attacker strength (a simple addition) yielding a number usually between 1 (dagger) and 7 (two handed sword in the hands of an extremely muscular fighter)
3. Roll as many D12 as damage. Every roll above or equal to toughness is one "wound". Armour increases (adds to) toughness for the purpose of the damage roll. A character (fighter) starts with 2 (little) to 5 (a lot!) wounds.
4. Every roll of 12 gives an additional D12 to roll.

Quick example:

Yon Doh attacks a goblin in the infamous Castle of Doom (tm), he hits and rolls for damage.

With Yon Doh's strength his sword has 3 for damage.

The goblin has a leather armour (Toughness +1) and a tougness of 5 for a total of 6 for resisting damage.

Yon's player rolls the dice: 3, 5, 12. That's one point of damage and an extra die to roll. The extra die gives another 12. One more point of damage and another extra die to roll. This time it's a 7 and a third point of damage.

The unfortunate goblin (who could only survive 2 wounds) goes splat. And Yon Doh can continue his quest for fame and gold... mostly gold.

(If Yon had made 2 points of damage the goblin would be down on the floor unconscious and probably dying. 3 wounds though, that's instant death.)

Maybe interesting to look at?

A very workable and simple system indeed, Pale Fire. Only problem is that I'd have to scrap my entire game mechanic system to make it work. As the combat mechanic is currently, it could possibly be smoother, but the crit check really only consists of one additional roll, and a chart lookup (and that only if the roll is a failure). I'm not willing to scrap my entire system to make it smoother than that. I am however willing, nay eager, to listen to alternatives which keep in mind both the effect I am trying to achieve, and the basic task-resolution mechanic.

How about this as a possible alternative, though.. Rather than a roll, simply compare the success margin of a successful strike to the Body of the defending character. If it is higher, The effect is determined by looking at the chart and comparing success margin. And, really, the chart isn't remarkably complex[1]. I can just about tell you the result of any number on it without looking. After playing with it a few times, I believe the players will get the hang of not having to look.

[1] All charts within the game have a basic formula behind them, so that a player needn't look it up if they're willing and able to do the work in their head more quickly than looking at the chart. I included the charts simply as a way to avoid longer handling times by those who don't happen to be lightning calculators, or are not possessed of good short term memories.

Hi Lance,

Let's see ... I think my main concern at this point would be that you actually play the game for a while. Get a few pals, run an adventure or two, and see how things fly.

However! Most of the time, when people do this, they get all caught up in how the critical-hit table works (if you see what I mean) and the designer completely misses the point of the playtesting exercise. The point of the exercise is to see whether people glom onto the vision (what I called "initial" or "personal" Premise in my essay), and whether their own creativity is brought to contribute to it, through play.

I also suggest some comparative reading, specifically Everway and Legend of the Five Rings. I don't mean to imply that you're not familiar with these games, but now that Mage Blade is laid out to some extent, even a re-read of them (or play!) is recommended. I suggest that you'll find Everway magic a bit too loosey-goosey and L5R magic a bit too sketchy and too constraining ... but they'll provide a spectrum or range for comparison that will help you design Mage Blade exactly as you see fit.

Best,
Ron

Ron Edwards wrote: Let's see ... I think my main concern at this point would be that you actually play the game for a while. Get a few pals, run an adventure or two, and see how things fly.

However! Most of the time, when people do this, they get all caught up in how the critical-hit table works (if you see what I mean) and the designer completely misses the point of the playtesting exercise. The point of the exercise is to see whether people glom onto the vision (what I called "initial" or "personal" Premise in my essay), and whether their own creativity is brought to contribute to it, through play.

Ron Edwards wrote: I also suggest some comparative reading, specifically Everway and Legend of the Five Rings. I don't mean to imply that you're not familiar with these games, but now that Mage Blade is laid out to some extent, even a re-read of them (or play!) is recommended. I suggest that you'll find Everway magic a bit too loosey-goosey and L5R magic a bit too sketchy and too constraining ... but they'll provide a spectrum or range for comparison that will help you design Mage Blade exactly as you see fit.

Lance,

One thing you might want to try is to get one of your players to the point where he/she understands the rules well enough to GM the game as well. Having another person run it may give you a valuable perspective as a player, as well as information that will help you streamline the system (as you see what points the new GM struggles with, if any).

Random Comments:

Races. You indicate that certain races have different stat ranges. This is a pretty common sort of rule, and the intent is to make each race unique somehow. It has an odd effect which I'm sure everyone has seen. That is that if you have an increases maxima for a particular race, the player will usually employ it if they have the choice. An increased maximum unemployed is not really an advantage in play. So, if I have a troll character who is limited in his mental maximums, but has a high maximum in his physical stats, I will probably take advantage of that high stat maximum to make the character particularly special. Thus the majority of troll characters are going to be not just strong, but strong even for trolls. And dwarf characters willnot just be tough, but tough even for dwarves.

This has two follow on effects. First, you never get to see a dwarf with an average toughness stat, or a troll with a less than average (for trolls) strength. Essentially all characters of these sorts start to look alike. Second, this is usually exacerbated by the limited number of "professions" or archtypes or whatever that make sense for the character with those stats. I could have my monumentally strong but dumb troll be a mage, but I'll be the system discourages it. This means that characters end up being stereotypes more often, and are unique less often.

These are general effects, and some players will ignore them. But on the whole, you see these trends a lot. You may want to just take it into consideration. There are lots of good alternatives. Perhaps your chargen already adresses some of this.

Stats. That does seem like a lot. If you must have symetry, could you perhaps scale it down to only one or two stats per element? I'm going to have a tough time getting them all into play.

Resolution. Given the rule of 20, what's the difference between a TR of 19 and 20? They both fail on a roll of 20. The only difference would be on rolls employing the degree of success thing (later called the Success Margin). This rolling system is functionally the same as Rolemasters high open ended percentile system (divided by five). Have you considered allowing for open ended low, i.e. when you roll a one, roll another D20 and subtract? This would smooth a lot of things in your system out.

I like your rolling success margin concept. How do you know when a particular extended contest is over? Why did the example argument end where it did? The NPC being behind, wouldn't he have attempted to continue the argument to alter the outcome? Why would the player use a combination of stat and skill that was less than optimal (as was done in the example)? Why not just always use the best combination that the GM will allow. Or was the GM calling the combinations in the example?

Combat. Given the initiative rules, you'll see a lot of players taking a total number of fire stats that add up to just over ten or just over twenty. That last point gives you a small chance to get an extra action or two which makes it seem more valuable. In fact, to be really combat effective, you're going ot need a high Fire total. This due to the Reactive Action rule, and the number of atacks in general. There is a doubling of effectiveness, here. The high guy gets to go first, and gets to go more, potentially. This all said, the randomness of the initiative die roll does more than the stats likely can, so combat is very likely to go to a lucky initiative roller.

What happens if we both go on the same segment, and happen to have the same agility? Simultaneous? Another tie breaker?

Success Threshold = Success Margin? You need to tidy up some of your terminology.

Damage is completely non-random? Why not make it based in part on the margin (just add it for example; and double HP to balance)? Then (especially if you used low open enders) you could be rid of the whole critical thing. A really good roll could kill someone anyhow.

Magic. I take it there will be a spell list?

I like your pool and low refresh rates. In general, it means that a character will not spend more than their refresh rate every day unless it is fairly important. When you say the refresh works every day, how is this adjudicated (lots of systems like this are heavily open to interperetation). Do you get the points at midnight, or noon? Or do you get them 24 hours after first expenditure, and thereafter until back to full?


General. Well, you have what looks like it could be a decent combat and magic system. Given what I've seen, however, it seems the reason to play this game is to kill things with either weapons or magic. That's all the system informs me about. The setting you've proposed doesn't change that opinion. I think that this might improve on D&D which it is still very similar to. But there are a lot of other games where the focus is what you have. Your game will have to compete with all of these, some of which are very well designed.

Mike

Excellent point Eugene. GMing your own game has limited utility for playtests. GMs, by virtue of being GMs, have alot of authority to gloss over rough spots. When one GMs their own game design, there is a virtually unavoidable tendency to GM based on what's in your head rather than whats on paper, which leads to inaccurate conclusions about how complete the written version is.

Thanks, Valamir.

Damned good point, Eugene. Perhaps playtest phase two will do just that. By then, my players ought to have a good grasp on the rules.

Ah, Mike.. Been waiting for your response. ::smiles:: You've proven to be very astute in tearing systems apart and getting at the roots.

Mike, on races and the likelihood of stats becoming "vanilla": So far as I've seen, the players are pretty decent about not taking this too far. I'm not going to trust to a small group of players to represent the norm, however. The way I did it in the old system (simple plusses and minuses to the stats) I think it was considerably easier to abuse the stats especially when creating the character. The way I'm doing it now, even during character creation the higher your stat the more expensive it is to raise. I've made it so that average stats for different racial attributes costs about the same to achieve (so the average orc will have about an 8 Body, whereas the average human will have a 5 Body, but they both spent the same amount of points to get there) but it's still quite costly to get up to max. I'm not sure how well it will work, but I think that it will encourage higher stats where applicable and lower stats where applicable as well, without forcing anyone into an archetype. 'sides, Intelligence only plays into certain types of spells... It's Force that matters for power level, and no one has a penalty to that.

As for the number of attributes, we're just going to have to agree to disagree on this one. This is one point where I will be stubborn. I did it the way I did it for a reason, though one that is difficult to articulate. It comes down again to RL metaphysical concepts and beliefs.

Mike Holmes wrote: Resolution. Given the rule of 20, what's the difference between a TR of 19 and 20? They both fail on a roll of 20. The only difference would be on rolls employing the degree of success thing (later called the Success Margin). This rolling system is functionally the same as Rolemasters high open ended percentile system (divided by five). Have you considered allowing for open ended low, i.e. when you roll a one, roll another D20 and subtract? This would smooth a lot of things in your system out.

I like your rolling success margin concept. How do you know when a particular extended contest is over? Why did the example argument end where it did? The NPC being behind, wouldn't he have attempted to continue the argument to alter the outcome? Why would the player use a combination of stat and skill that was less than optimal (as was done in the example)? Why not just always use the best combination that the GM will allow. Or was the GM calling the combinations in the example?

Combat. Given the initiative rules, you'll see a lot of players taking a total number of fire stats that add up to just over ten or just over twenty. That last point gives you a small chance to get an extra action or two which makes it seem more valuable. In fact, to be really combat effective, you're going ot need a high Fire total. This due to the Reactive Action rule, and the number of atacks in general. There is a doubling of effectiveness, here. The high guy gets to go first, and gets to go more, potentially. This all said, the randomness of the initiative die roll does more than the stats likely can, so combat is very likely to go to a lucky initiative roller.

What happens if we both go on the same segment, and happen to have the same agility? Simultaneous? Another tie breaker?

Success Threshold = Success Margin? You need to tidy up some of your terminology

Damage is completely non-random? Why not make it based in part on the margin (just add it for example; and double HP to balance)? Then (especially if you used low open enders) you could be rid of the whole critical thing. A really good roll could kill someone anyhow.

I like your pool and low refresh rates. In general, it means that a character will not spend more than their refresh rate every day unless it is fairly important. When you say the refresh works every day, how is this adjudicated (lots of systems like this are heavily open to interperetation). Do you get the points at midnight, or noon? Or do you get them 24 hours after first expenditure, and thereafter until back to full?

General. Well, you have what looks like it could be a decent combat and magic system. Given what I've seen, however, it seems the reason to play this game is to kill things with either weapons or magic. That's all the system informs me about. The setting you've proposed doesn't change that opinion. I think that this might improve on D&D which it is still very similar to. But there are a lot of other games where the focus is what you have. Your game will have to compete with all of these, some of which are very well designed.

Wolfen wrote: Ah, Mike.. Been waiting for your response. ::smiles:: You've proven to be very astute in tearing systems apart and getting at the roots.

The way I'm doing it now, even during character creation the higher your stat the more expensive it is to raise. I've made it so that average stats for different racial attributes costs about the same to achieve (so the average orc will have about an 8 Body, whereas the average human will have a 5 Body, but they both spent the same amount of points to get there) but it's still quite costly to get up to max. I'm not sure how well it will work, but I think that it will encourage higher stats where applicable and lower stats where applicable as well, without forcing anyone into an archetype.

'sides, Intelligence only plays into certain types of spells... It's Force that matters for power level, and no one has a penalty to that.

As for the number of attributes, we're just going to have to agree to disagree on this one. This is one point where I will be stubborn. I did it the way I did it for a reason, though one that is difficult to articulate. It comes down again to RL metaphysical concepts and beliefs.

As for the open ended-low, I honestly hadn't thought about it. Do you think it would truly affect things very much? And if you were doing it, would you still attach an additional negative result to such a roll?

It would depend on the players and the GM when it ended. The only stipulation for it would be that in a confrontation like that (purely social) that both participants would get an equal number of rolls. Alternately, it could be whoever accumulated a given number on their total success margin.

It depends entirely on the action you are attempting as to which attributes and skills will be used. As all actions fell within the realm of Academic Lore, that was the skill that was used. He attempted different techniques like audience appeal, snap responses, etc. each of which is in a different area, and would require the use of a different attribute.

Again, in my experience, they haven't done this.

The pure mage in my first playtest group had to roll a 7 or better to get more than one action, and in one combat, he didn't. However, when it came to his turn, he turned the opposition to cinders (and scattered metal rings, from the chainmail...) In addition for those who choose a magical School which enhances their combat prowess, rather than allowing them to cast fireballs and such, there are spells which enhance initiative.

The section bolded... Are you just pointing it out, or are you mentioning it as a flaw to the system? In my experience, faster people *do* get to attack first and more often. Maybe my system overexaggerates this, but I set it up with an idea of the elite warrior being able to dive into a melee with 2 or 3 other lesser-trained warriors and managing to hold his own, and even turn the tide and stomp a mudhole in their... yeah.

Well, sure! Damage is a pretty straightforward thing, isn't it? Someone shoots you, it's going to make a hole. Someone hits you with a sword, it's going to make a gash. Admittedly, there are near-misses, and fleshwounds... But most of the time, if the attack is a "success" the damage is going to be pretty standard.

And though I would like to streamline the critical system, I don't want to do away with it entirely. There are other effects than simply more damage or insta-kill that I like.

Magic: There will be several spell-lists. They're integral to the individual Schools. I'd originally intended to make it more flexible, but I couldn't see how to do it, so I created the Schools. As it currently stands, I prefer the Schools, because it helps the setting, and to give structure to the magic system.

Um.. Y'know I didn't think about that.

Probably the simplest way would be to say midnight, or even to say that a character must meditate to draw in Mana, and the "refresh rate" is used as a limit to how much may be drawn into yourself in a given period of time.

Thank you, I'll take that as a compliment, as well as advice.

Mike Holmes wrote:
Again, what makes sense withthe system and cosmology. Where is mana from? If its from the rotation of the planet, or from the moon or something, then a certain time of day makes sense. If its internal, then say the refresh rate is what the character gets with eight hours of meditation (allowed usually only once a day).

::snarls:: I had this post almost entirely written, then I got booted and lost it. So, let's start from the top, shall we?

Valamir wrote: I think you are spending too much time worrying about mechanics and not enough time worrying about setting. Once you have a basic set of game mechanics...a rough resolution system, you should set the mechanics aside and delve full bore into the reality of your setting. THEN return to your mechanics and fill in the details so that the results are based on your setting.

Mike Holmes wrote: In any case the point is that a particular stat is worth a particular amount from a game balance POV. An unused maxima or bonus is worth nothing in terms of power balancing (this is the problem with racial packages in Hero System, for example). Much easier, and more balanced is just to have suggested averages and ranges for races, but have the cost all be the same for everyone in order to get balance. And players can play to or against the stereotypes as they prefer, with no penalties for doing so.

Mike Holmes wrote: I thihnk that its not a bad idea, and it does have mnemonic symetry with the other end of your rolls, so it adds no complexity (it just replaces the current rule of one, anyway). The idea is that if you are reduced to a -7 TR, you still have a chance to succeed, and even succeed big, theoretically. It's just long odds, and odds that are dependent on the current situation. As opposed to the current system where everyone at or below 1 TR has the same chance at only one possible outcome, which is a mediocre one.

Symetrical, intuitive, detail generating, simple, interesting.

Mike Holmes wrote: I like that idea. He who gets to 20 first wins or somethiong like that.

The problem is that well matched opponents could go on forever.

Mike Holmes wrote: I get that. The question is why did he use one stat in one case and another stat in another if one was higher than another. I can see a sim player doing this, but the mechanic encourages the repeated use of the same stat over and over. Perhaps you could have a rule that characters had to rotate stat use during contests to make them more interesting.

Or do you have another reward system or mechanic that would give a player incentive to use other than his highest stat?

Mike Holmes wrote: We're looking at "all else being equal". Look at two fighters who are otherwise identical. One has a higher fire total and the other has something else to balance point wise. Which one has the advantage. I'm betting that it's the guy with the high Fire total, because in a system this lethal, extra attacks and defenses are huge.

~Concentrated Defense: It is possible to use Active Actions as Reactive Actions. If you opt to do this, you lose an Active Action, but gain a Reactive Action, which is used like a standard Reactive Action.

Mike Holmes wrote: I'd ask what experience, but I'll take it on faith. From what I know of combat, throwing more attacks is not an advantage necessarily. Your whole argument is predicated on the idea that fights are some back and forth exchange of blows, which is totally untrue. This is an artifact of wargaming scaled down to a personal combat level. A conveient abstraction that has nothing at all to do with reality.

Mike Holmes wrote: Huh? Look up a book on emergency room gun shot wounds or stabbings. The bewildering variety of types of damages is so large that an RPG can hardly hope to emulate them. Any weapon can do any amount of damage ranging from scratches (which you admit occur) to being instantly fatal, and everywhere in between. Certainly we have to abstract this, but to say that one person assaulting another with a given weapon can only do an amount of damage that will result in the same level of impairment seems, well, not realistic. And if you're going for cinematic, that's even worse. Weapons do all manner of unrealistic things to people there which would need to be enumerated.

I most wholeheartedly disagree.

Mike Holmes wrote: Yes, those effects {critical effects} are interesting and I wouldn't hav you be rid of them. However there are other simple ways to get those effects.

Mike Holmes wrote: Cool. The magic system should support the setting. How do you attempt to balance the schools and individual spells? Is it just a zen thing like most do, or do you have a system?

Mike Holmes wrote: Again, what makes sense withthe system and cosmology. Where is mana from? If its from the rotation of the planet, or from the moon or something, then a certain time of day makes sense. If its internal, then say the refresh rate is what the character gets with eight hours of meditation (allowed usually only once a day). I like that last sort of limitation, because it makes the player think twice before spending mana. I can get it back, but only after days of meditation. As opposed to just taking time.

There are lots of other options, as well.

Wolfen wrote: ... I've thought extensively about the setting, I'm just not bringing it to the Forge boards. I don't really feel I need help on it. (and frankly, I'm not really wishing to hear it called derivative of D&D, a game which I've played only seldom, or of Tolkien, of who's writings I've only read the hobbit. If it manages to be derivative anyhow, oh well, I'll cope. Ahem. Irritation talking, excuse me.)

But.. Orcs are stronger than humans, dwarves are too, as are Drakken.. Elves are a bit quicker, and more socially adept.. So shouldn't the system reflect this? I understand that some will take advantage of this, but isn't it worth it to have the system encourage the strengths and weaknesses of differing races?

Fair enough. So here's the question... If the TR is modified to -7, the character will have to roll a 1 to even have a chance.. But then do they have to roll below 7? Or do they have to roll below 13 (20-7)? Or would it even be their normal TR -7? Or, alternately, on the negative side of the spectrum, will they have to roll *higher* than 7 (effectively lower, as it's negatives..)? Which way would you choose?

Well, two well-matched opponents *could* go on forever, if they were stubborn enough. ::grins:: But to prevent that, I'd say that either an IC interruption, or the GM saying something along the lines of "Okay, so you two continue long into the night... but you still only get 2 more rolls apiece to settle it, so we can continue with the game."

Mostly it was used as an example of how different attributes can be used in combination with the same skill, really.

There's not really any reward to using other attributes, other than the GM might award a Char Point for good roleplaying in the scene. Do you think there should be?

If the second fighter did not have the balancing points in another area which affected combat, all would not be equal.

If on the other hand the other points went into, say, Earth attributes, the second fighter would make up for his lack of initiative (assuming the dice rolls were also equal) by being able to deal more damage in his fewer attacks, and being able to resist the effects of damage better.

On the other hand, magic does a lot to equalize. In the example mentioned before, about the pure mage.. If he'd have met in face-to-face combat, he'd have been butchered, both because he was slow, and because he wasn't combatively effective. However, as he was able to hang back out of physical combat, he did more damage than anyone else combined.

~Concentrated Defense: It is possible to use Active Actions as Reactive Actions. If you opt to do this, you lose an Active Action, but gain a Reactive Action, which is used like a standard Reactive Action.

This does indeed give another advantage to faster characters, but it also allows survivability to slower characters.

Basic Training admittedly doesn't include a lot of hand-to-hand for Tankers, but it does include some, where I picked up some of this. Prior to my military experience, I was involved with the SCA

Okay, bad argument. I am actually theoretically familiar with the spectrum of gunshot wounds, as I was trained as a Combat Lifesaver.

I honestly just wanted to keep damage simple.

So I've been seeking. How would I simplify it and still have the chance for those effects? How much simpler can it get from 1 additional roll and a chart check?

All spells within the game, regardless of the School they come from are rated with a Force level, which depends on how many Force points are required to cast it. Frex, Lightning is a variable force spell. It's learned as a Force 2 spell, but can be cast at Force 4, 6, 8 and 10. It requires, at base level 1 Force channeled to Fire, 1 Force channeled to Air. Each successive level requires another to each. Because each School uses the Force rating system, and the maximum is 10 (11 for some purely elven Schools, if any are ever created..) the spells are all to be fairly balanced.

Whether this is actually so will have to be discovered in playtesting.

Okay, here's where I hit you with some setting stuff.. Mana, by it's very concept, is natural energy... So either way it could be meditation which allows you to absorb it, or by simply living and breathing. I suppose it comes down to whether or not it's a conscious action, or not. That I have yet to decide. What say you?

Mike Holmes wrote: Well, (just to be irritating ;-) ) your setting is already obviously derivative of Tolkien and D&D. If for no other reason than it has orcs. No geting around it.

Mike Holmes wrote: ...alot of stuff about races and attribute averages... (sorry, didn't feel like quoting all three paragraphs)

Mike Holmes wrote: It's really very simple, and identical symetrically to the high roll. All other mechanics are the same. So, if you roll a one, roll another die and subtract fom one (as opposed to addingto twenty). If the roll is less than the TR, then it's a success. Otherwise its a failure. You calculate Success Margin as always by subtracting the roll from the TR.

EX. Bob has a TR of -7. But it's his lucky day. He rolls a one on his first roll. He then rolls again and gets a 10. 1-10= -9. -9 is less than -7 so Bob succeeds. His margin of success is -7 - (-9) = 2. Not bad for a really difficult task.

Mike Holmes wrote: See, now there's a cool mechanic to include. Continuing attempts get longer and longer until the player decides that it's just not worthwhile anymore. I'd encode that, if I were you.

Mike Holmes wrote: OK. I thought that might be it. Just wanted to be certain. If you do an example in the text, make sure that it indicates that the player is rolling aganist stats chosen by the GM.

Mike Holmes wrote: Could be interesting. Especially with all of the stats you have. A mechanic that forces them all to get used would go a long way in making them all usefull. Otherwise I think that you'll just see manysit dormant because players did not emphasize them. OTOH, it works fine without.

Mike Holmes wrote: Having more attacks is second most important. Which is more effective, having 3 attacks which can do 12 damage and are more likely to hit, or 2 attacks that do 18 damage and are less likely to hit? The three attacks are better for a bunch of reasons.

Mike Holmes wrote: In your RL example of the guy with the two swords, first, I'm betting that he was pretty skilled. Skill in combat is what gives you the "initiative" not just raw speed. I'm not saying that speed is unimportant, however, but rather that speed is so important that nobody really has a huge difference in advantage in real life. Moreso, allowing speed that does give such advantage without making it cost more is unbalancing.

Mike Holmes wrote: I believe you. My point was only that amongst warriors your system would promote fast over strong. I'll bet the fast mage is more lethal than the slow one as well.

Mike Holmes wrote: You're just making it worse. This is called a loser strategy in game theory. The only thing a defense can do is make my offense weaker. It cannot make yours stronger. This means that I am more certain to win eventually, though it may take longer (again all else being the same). The only case where this is not true is where I have to delay so that friends can help. So it's not bad game design to include it (most games have it in some form). But it will not help the strong fighter beat the weak fighter. In fact, it will make the strong fighter look like a coward. See Deprotagonization, and The WIff syndrome.

Mike Holmes wrote: Also, don't let this sort of rule get out of hand. If you extend it and allow defenses to be traded for offenses, for example, you further exacerbate the problem, as well as creating new ones.

Mike Holmes wrote: Looks like we have about equal "experience" then. OTOH, you should also consider that potentially what you are trying to simulate is not real life, but a cinematic or literate version of it. Would you rather have a real life combat in your game of fights like the ones from LotR, book or movie. There is a diference in how to produce this mechanically, and not just jacking up characters.

Mike Holmes wrote: Well, as you said, the crits already take care of more damage. What seems to be missing is the potential to do less. More below.

Use that one chart check to do both damage adjustment and crit effects. Which it already does. Just extend it down a bit. Same complexity, more potential results. It goes from being the "Crit" table to being the "Combat Effect" table.

Or any of a jillion other ways that other games handle it. Or something original if you're feeling really creative.

Mike Holmes wrote: The spells are balanced because they are rated by a balance figure. How do you determine the balance figure. From what I see, I will assume it is the zen method

Mike Holmes wrote: Sounds pretty cool (if standard). I'd do some interesting combination like allow mana to seep back in at a very slow rate, or come back faster with meditaion. Perhaps after casting, a character gets back a mana every 60/(Recovery stat) hours thereafter until full. Meditation of one sixth this figure would get back a point. This would give a range of from 6 to 60 hours for seep, and 1 to 10 hours with meditation.

But that's just off the top. There might be more or different ways that make sense with your setting. These are pretty standard. For instance, perhaps you can only get mana back at certain places. Or there is a rate shift for the places you are in. Do you have gods? Do priests have powers? For these I like recovering with sacrifices only.

Wolfen wrote: Okay.. I'm going to try this one more time, but if we still don't see eye to eye, I'm just gonna drop it

The "reality" of the game supports this, so shouldn't the system (which attempts to mimic physics) also support this?

A maxed out orc costs x points, and a maxed out human costs x points. Why would an orc who worked just as hard as a human to put himself at peak potential have to pay more?

I honestly don't see how people making strong, none-too-bright orcs is unbalancing, or stifling creativity.

Mike Holmes wrote: ... although the idea of a marginal success (where somethin' bad happens, even though you succeeded) is an idea I'm somewhat reluctant to let go of.

Mike Holmes wrote: Actually, I'd rather not encode it, so much as leave it open as an option.

Do Earth and Fire attributes balance? I think so, for the most part.

Agility is the only Fire attribute which effects speed. Dexterity is a measure of raw, untrained skill, whereas Wits is a measure of ability to think and react quickly. These three things all have an effect on your combat prowess, which is why I decided that they would all effect initiative. So agility is your overall speed, dexterity is your ability to move and attack effectively, and wits is your ability to think quickly and change strategies on the fly. Does this change anything?

Mike Holmes wrote: Strategic situations where the Concentrated Defense rule would be used would be if you roll low on initiative, and you want to push the combat into the next combat round, where you'll get a new chance at initiative. Survival is the best way to strengthen offense, after all. Also, kicking defense in against a faster opponent will allow you a chance to use at least one of your attacks, in most cases. It could even, as you said yourself, be used to delay whilst friends come to join you in the fray. Example: the warrior leaps into battle, allowing his friends time to cast spells, or join him, using Concentrated Defense to avoid the attacks of the multiple foes.

Mike Holmes wrote: Do I have to choose? I've seen some extraordinary SCA fighters take on multiple opponents in a way very reminiscent of the battle scenes of LotR (the movie, as I've yet to read the books). I suppose that combatants like that are fairly rare, though, in modern reality. I'd like to think that hobbyists (SCA fighters) can be used to illustrate the possibility of people who once (back in the day) did it for real.

Okay... I see where you're going with this. but how would I do it? I suppose I'm asking not for advice in this particular question, but an actual example of how you would go about altering the Crit Chart to become a Combat Effect Chart.

As I create the spell lists, I put spells where I think they ought to go, according to power level. If that's "Zen" then I suppose that's what I did.

Hmm. Well, at current the "seep" rate is 1 per day for every two points of your Mana attribute, thereby creating a range of 1 (for Mana of 1 or 2) to 5 (for Mana of 9 or 10) per day. I didn't do it because it made the most sense, only because I needed a rate. Basically I patched a hole, until I could find a better fix for it.
Still though, a range of 1 point every 6-60 hours is a little too much, I think. That would be a range of 1 point every 2.5 days to 4 points per day. I think I'll play around with the idea, but I don't think I'll use your exact numbers.

As for gods.. No.

Some excellent points, and finally, I think, some resolution on some issues. And from the points quoted below, my place as a primarily sim gamer is strengthened, and thereby my choice to make the game very much simulationist. (note: prior to coming to this forum, strongly gamist players were considered to be bad roleplayers... Now I realize that they just have a different way of enjoying gaming. Still doesn't mean I want to play with strongly gamist players, though)

Mike Holmes wrote: OK, here's where the GNS stuff comes in. You have to decide what your point based CharGen is about. Are the points there to make the players create more average, and "realistic" characters? Or is the system there for balance. You can't have both. Because "reality" is that things are not balanced.

What if I you wanted to have a race of cretures called wolfmen who had all their stat ranges higher than the human average? That creature surely wouldn't balance. So now you have to have setting rules about the races that ensure that all the races are closely balanced so that CharGen is balanced. But all this means is that players are limited in what races they can play to a set that are artificially balanced for play sake. Again this limits what players can do for no particularly good reason.

Mike Holmes wrote: This would intimate that the points represent units of effort. Again, this is realistic, but you can't expect such to balance. Either the mechanic is Simulationist, and intent on modeling gameworld "reality", or it's Gamist, and meant to balance characters out.

Mike Holmes wrote: It's not necessarily unbalancing. But how is players conforming to stereotypes due to being able to more efficiently create effective characters that way, not stifling creativity?

We can call this the GURPS problem. In GURPS it makes more sense from an effectiveness POV for most characters to have to be highly dexterous, than to be highly skilled (I won't debate this, it's been well established on boards specific to GURPS). So what happens is that most players build such characters this way. Despite possibly wanting a less dexterous and more skilled characters. Those who do make characters the other way are penalized by having less effective characters. Essentially a penalty on creativity.

Mike Holmes wrote: So if I want to be a powerful warrior with a high body score, your system rewards me if I go with the orc. If I want a smart trader sort, the system rewards me by going with whatever race makes sense there. And penalizes me for wanting to play an orc trader. I want to be an orc trader! I love that idea.

Mike Holmes wrote: I like the marginal success thing a lot. How about a second roll less than or under your TR+Success Margin+10 to avoid a negative effect (this would allow those negative effects for anyone at anytime potentially)? Or if you don't want to add such a roll, just do what you did before. Any roll that a player actually decides to make against a TR less than 1 (2?) would result in some unintended side effect. Makes the player think twice before even attempting such an action.

Easier than all this, though, would be a simple standard fumble rule. A success margin of, oh, say, -10 or worse means that somthing awful happended on the attempt. Or you could use them all.

Mike Holmes wrote: Well, its a spectrum. If you really think that there are people that can fight as well as Aragorn (who has about sixty years of combat experience at the time of LotR, IIRC; he's something like eighty years old) in RL, well fine. Then that's a realistic level. Think that there are people who can fight as well as Hercules in the TV show? My point is that at some point you may want to allow feats that are somewhat fantastic. Or maybe not. I think that you subscribe to the "mostly realistic" school. Which is fine, it's just a choice.

[code]
Result Effect
1 Scratch - 1 point
2 Half Damage
3 Full Damage
4 Full Damage -1 to all TRs
5 Full Damage -2 to all TRs
6 Full Damage -2 to all TRs Stunned
7 Double damage -3 to all TRs " "
8 Double damage -3 to all TRs " "
9 Double damage -3 to all TRs Knockdown
10 Double damage -4 to all TRs " "
11 Double damage -4 to all TRs " "
12 Double damage -4 to all TRs Maimed
13 Double damage -4 to all TRs " "
14 Double damage -5 to all TRs " "
15 Double damage -5 to all TRs Unconscious
16 Triple Damage -5 to all TRs " "
17 Triple Damage -5 to all TRs " "
18+ Triple Damage Instantly Killed [/code]


Better in my mind would be to just get rid of the hit points entirely. The formula for the damage roll would be TR = Attacker's Str + Weapon Damage + Margin of Success - Target's body -Target's armor rating, rolled by the Attacker (note that though this formula seems complicated, your system has all these calculatons just at different steps). His Margin of Success (lets abreviate that as MS for further discussion) gets compared to your chart for effects on the target. Chuck onto the chart all of the effects that you have for the different levels of wounded like penalties to strength, etc. How do you kill a character? Well, after several wounds the defender's TRs and stats will have dropped so much that he'll be easy to get a "killed" result on.

Or something like that. This corresponds to my "Wounds do not Add Linearly" rant, which I won't recount here. Hit points are silly. Your penalties (including death) are what counts in the end. Why have two systems?

Mike Holmes wrote: So is there no religion at all? Or is it just that the gods that are prayed to don't respond in any practical way? Can one get power from worshiping an Avatar?

I fear that we use avatar too interchangably with "persona" these days for it to be risk free - you might consider "oracle" or "sybil" or something related to information rather than impersonation. In fact I quite like idea of an oracular source magic distinct form its source of power.

I would also caution against "vivo" and "necro". For one thing I worry it might establish their opposition too strongly. Do you intend for them to be in real cnflict, or is this just a colourful distinction of player character abilities? And they are from the real world which can be jarring. It might be worth naming them after cocnepts or leaders and then defining their differences in approach and method in the accompanyibng text. Are they going to be mechanically distinct?

heroism side. It's nice to be able to do heroic things.. but the corrollary is that your foes may be just as capable.

Wow, quick responses, Contracycle.. I wasn't even done reading other threads in this folder yet.

Contracycle wrote: Boromir?

Contracycle wrote: Anyway, I suspect that if you are not trouncing your enemies, you are not really powerful. Beware too much balancing.

From the Meriam-Webster Dictionary:
Main Entry: av·a·tar
Pronunciation: 'a-v&-"tär
Function: noun
Etymology: Sanskrit avatAra descent, from avatarati he descends, from ava- away + tarati he crosses over —more at UKASE, THROUGH
Date: 1784
1 : the incarnation of a Hindu deity (as Vishnu)
2 a : an incarnation in human form b : an embodiment (as of a concept or philosophy) often in a person
3 : a variant phase or version of a continuing basic entity

Wolfen wrote:

Contracycle wrote: Boromir?

Yes! Him! He was kicking some major goblin butt even after catching a couple arrows in the torso.

A few notes:

Gareth was saying that the term Avatar has become weighted around here. Just wanrning you that people might get confused by your more traditional use.

I think your avatar concept is interesting. But humans, at least, and maybe other races as well, are going to believe in things bigger than themselves. It's hard to imagine a world with no religion assuming that their psychology isn't vastly alien from ours. That's not to say that there can't objectively be no gods. You can declare that no such beings exist in your universe. But that won't stop the people of your world from believing that there are gods. Unless you have a serious rationale. Perhaps there is physical evidence of how the universe was created and its nature that was known to all. That would be hard to imagine, but I suppose you could come up with something. Even with gods like in D&D, I still think people might believe in a supreme being above those gods. After all, where did the gods come from? Do you see where I'm going with this?

Actually, this is setting stuff, and you said you wanted to stay away from it. Which is fine by me. I just wanted to see if you had missed an area of the mechanics in forgetting to enumerate divine powers. But your setting has none, so it's all good.

The Hit Points don't break the game. At the very least, you have avoided the serious pitfall of escallating hit points.

But to be very honest I would be unlikely to play your game anyhow, unless there was a whole lot of work put into it. In every case where your system has good points (and there are a few), there are games that I think are better. Nothing in your system is really at all innovative. Every suggestion that I've given has been based off of some other good game. Your rules have some examples of what were innovations in games years ago, but have been done better since.

Perhaps your setting would carry it, but I can't really say until we see it. But I have to say I doubt that too. If your world is so focused on magic, and the setting is so good, why are you just now figuring out how mages get their power? The Avatar thing sounds like it has potential, but is largely unformed yet. Or so it seems.

Your game is shaping up to be a classic example of a "Fantasy Heartbreaker" in Edwards terminology. It has it's heart in the right place, but it's making all the same mistakes. But it has potential. As opposed to PFs vaporware that is just an idea. So, I don't mean to be discouraging. But I wouldn't want to leave you believing that I thought that you had something that was really new. As such I thnk that you'll find that there will be some interest in your game, but just cursory. Unless it changes.

Sorry, that all sounds harsh reading it. But keep in mind that it's just my opinion. You are up against a lot of tough competition. I mean you are talking about publishing this sucker, right? Given that, it has to pass a very high standard.
Mike

As for the religion thing, it seems a little little bit like religious Taoism. Mostly philosophical, some divinish beings who are not all-powerful and who are at least partly physical beings. In fact, they are "people who have achieved ultimate understanding." Sounds somewhat like Mage Blade metaphysics. All I'm saying is, it's conceivable to have a group of people that doesn't believe in traditional "higher beings."