Okay, I just ran the first playtest of my multi-genre roleplaying system this last Sunday.  It looks like I'll be able to fix the most obvious issues the players had with my game without much of a problem, but I figured I'd post them anyway to see if you guys had any comments.

First of all, AVERA is by no means a permanent name.  It is just my attempt to throw some words that describe the math behind the system together.  I don't honestly think potential players are going to care about the math, though.  I've gone through a few other acronyms that are just as bad.  My final decision will probably end up being something based more around the feel of the system, rather than the math.

Rather than go through the standard "Power 19" questions, here are my purposes.  I'm not trying to create a completely new idea for a system, but my goals are lofty.  I'd like to have, in the end, a very simple system.  However, I'm trying to build it so that strategizing (please tell me if I'm using the wrong word here) is possible and offers a greater advantage than the dice; but that no perfect strategy exists in any well-matched situation.  I've been reading a few books on game math.  I'm by no means advanced on the subject, and many of the ideas I'm bouncing around in my head aren't yet integrated into the system.  I am far from achieving this goal with the system, but I believe the core mechanic and framework has that potential.

What separates AVERA from other systems with the same goals is primarily the logarithmic-approximation dice mechanic (wrote about this in a separate thread).  I feel it simplifies a lot of the math required to create relative balance between different strategic options (so there's as rarely as possible a no-brainer option). 

As far as publishing goals, eventually, I'd like the game to be available online in .pdf form to all those interested, but this is beside the point.

Now, about the playtest.

AVERA's character creation process (as written for the playtest) integrated a character's equipment into their stats.  My players were wondering what would happen if they changed equipment, and my mechanics for doing this were far from smooth.

Originally (meaning, before I rewrote the rules for the playtest), I had treated the equipment modifier to a roll as a separate modifier from a character's stat.  Based on the fact that I don't want to remove "changing equipment" as a strategical option, I think it would be best to revert to the way I had it before; the way most systems handle the issue.

My thoughts, the original time I adopted the abstraction of equipment into stats, was that balance versus min/maxing etc. was more easily reached without as much thought.  Since I intend the system to be multi-genre, it was hard to balance out the advantages and disadvantages of one set of equipment versus another based on era and law enforcement differences.  I suppose creating balance here will just have to be more difficult, if my other design goals are to be kept.

Also, I had originally designed the system so that damage was a set of conditions the attacked character incurred.  I "simplified" this a few months back by switching to a Track (a mechanic I use for tracking progress on time-duration actions) for damage as well.  This made the system work more like a standard Hit Points system.  It leaves a bad taste in my mouth, and requires certain modifiers to be introduced to balance out the math.  I was relieved to hear a player say during the playtest something like, "wouldn't it be easier to get rid of the Track altogether?"  It still needs to exist for non-random situations, but random situations work themselves out according to the original (simpler) mathematical principles.  I think the only time I'll still need to combine the track with random situation is in something like Searching a room, where a definite progress is being made by process of elimination, but dice are still rolled.

With the original conditions idea (still not playtested, unfortunately) it acted more like a system of bidding, where characters were more likely to achieve smaller tactical goals in a shorter amount of time, and were penalized for going straight for the kill by going up against an enemy with few weaknesses.

The calculation time for the dice mechanic didn't seem to be a problem.  I've been using dice that have no "1" on them.  It wasn't hard to find at the local gaming store sets of dice that had dragons, cancer, convention advertisements, or the word "d'oh!" instead of 1s.  This made it easier to ignore them.

The issue with order of action in a system with simultaneous actions didn't turn out to be a problem either.  I think it was more an issue of the players beign more than willing to work with me on that issue.  I didn't have any complaints about it.  But introducing the idea into other groups might be a bigger problem.

-Jason T.