I hope this is the correct forum for this, apologies if not.

I was looking to get some general design feedback from a simple "Party Game" RPG of mine.

The game was designed with the following goals: 

You had to be able to learn the rules, make characters, make an adventure and run an adventure in an hour or less.
It had to have boardgame elements to make the conceptual transition to RPG's easier
It had to have enough variation as to be suitable for playing up to a dozen games before switching to other RPG's

I have two versions out, rules and text wise they are identical.  One ,"the fancy print" edition, simply has a few graphics added so that if you wish to have a permanent copy it will look a little nicer.  The "regular" version is designed for quick printing at someone elses computer without wasting ink.

They are available here:

http://www.penandpapergames.com/forums/showthread.php?t=11132

and here

http://zzarchov.bravehost.com/Adventure.html

Any and all feedback is appreciated.  What works, what doesn't work and most importantly in both cases, why you feel that way.  Feedback breeds improvement.

My friend, let me voice my support for what you're trying to do here - there needs to be more games that can be played casually and quickly but also have, at their core, a role-playing element and enough substance to be immediately entertaining for any player without content-exposition or tried patiences. 'Adventuring Party' (or Adventure Party?) strikes me as a game that nearly anyone over the age of 12 only a little appreciation of the fantasy genre (and its trappings) could play without any problem.

It does have one or two flaws that I can see from a quick scan through. The big issue is that, instead of cutting away D&D-like artefacts until only the barest, most simple tools are left for the players to use, you retain them and let a few overly-complex or long-winded elements remain:

• - Character generation and the spending of points seems too complex, either set the scores and offer players chance to arrange ('You have scores of 2,4,6 and 8; place them as you will between your attributes') or define the ability-scores as a number of dice.
• -  In my eyes, resolution in and out of combat is too taxing, involving small arithmetic and the comparison of runs and matches in largish pools. A single die roll would suffice, or rolling a number and selecting the highest.
• - Classes have too many 'skills', and many aren't special to a single class. Also, some are fairly unconstructive. If you gain a bonus for kicking down doors your character (as well as all other knights in the game) is going to rush about challenging each door he sees. My recommendation is something like: If you're a knight you 'Deal a Mighty Blow', If you're a Hunter you 'Sneak About', If you're a Scoundrel 'Pick Locks and Traps', If you're a Mystic you 'Cast Magic.' Keep it simple and memorable with firm class-rolls in mind.
• - Could class and ability scores be collapsed into one? Obviously 'Strong' and 'Knight' are one-and-the-same, for example. Also it needs to be Strong, Quick, Clever and Lucky - the shift in style is unnerving.
• - Are movement limits and grids needed? If the GM doesn't think a character can run a distance in time or such, roll against 'Quick'.

It's about dropping the 'unfun' and 'lengthy' from the classic model and giving easy access to players otherwise unenthused about role-play, right? Think hard about the necessities and the easiest way to present them.
I hope you don't think I'm being too harsh without constructiveness, please tell me if you do!

Cheers,
Mike.

About char generation, do you really think having 2 points to split between 4 numbers, each having at least 1 and at most 5 is taxing? Im not saying you are wrong, just never crossed my mind, expressing points as dice is a great idea though. yoink!

As for grids and maps, i've found a common hangup with new games is the gm just 'Making Crap up as they go',  while the GM vs PC mindset is stupid and flawed, its also much more intuitive compared to games people are used to, its also a reason its a recurring theme in the rpg's that brought many of us into the hobby (heroquest, dragonstrike etc).  So now there are maps and grids (which I never use in games I run with experienced gamers).  Of course my trial groups are limited to about 8 individuals thus far.so I could be wrong.

keep in mind my goals include boardgame elements to make this an easier transition to more common roleplaying games.

I'll work on smoothing out skills, though I do want overlap in case of 'small party syndrome',  after all if only the  knight can kick down doors, what do you do if they have a party of 2 and no knight? 

And critisism is never too harsh as long as it has explanations of reasonings behind them.  I'd like to thank you for your review and opinions.

You must think of who you're writing for! Of course having 2 points to split between 4 numbers isn't taxing for you or I - but what about friends gathered at a party, or younger players; would they be willing to keep doing these boring sums? Really, you need single roll whose meaning is immediately apparent: 'Oh wow guys! I rolled a 20! Look!' - that's a happy memory in the making, right?

I think you need to accept some 'Making Crap us as they go' (or, more eloquently, 'improvisation') - it's a party game, right? Not every Referee wants, or has time, to prepare a great deal. It's a game of, as you demonstrate, simple premises and quick fiction: if what you want is boardgame elements, then use boardgame elements - corridors are single tiles and the players move as in monopoly (if you land on a hidden trap-square, role Quickness!), with rooms acting as single titles where individual placement is less important. Interesting?

If an adventure cannot go ahead without one or more type of class, is it that the game has a flaw? All combinations need to be playable. This is where GM improv. is crucial, if there is no character who can open locks, then why present locked doors blocking progress? Flexibility!

I'm glad you thing I'm being constructive. I really want to help: there's promise here, but there's some shovel work to do before gold nuggets are pulled from the earth, yeah?

Cheers,
Mike.

As an aside on the rolling 1 die vs several issue,  I just had quite a fun discovery when playing through a game

details:
http://zzarchov.blogspot.com/2009/06/inspiration-from-unexpected-places.html

I think as a board/RP game, it should have a good mix of both worlds... and simple math is definitely part of the RPG world. No point in pulling too many punches, you want people to end up playing RPGs so they should get a taste of the more complex ideas during this game.
I have my own take on this sort of board game + RPG by taking 8-Bit Dungeon and combining it with Drowning & Falling with a mix of my own ideas... in other words, I'm definitely interested in finding a good example of this type of game for introductory purposes.

Hi zzarchov,

To me, the basic premise doesn't describe anything in particular? If I said Adventure banana is a simple party game of the zuzu genre, would you know what I meant? Would you know what fun you'd play a zuzu genre game for? Would you see a reason to start messing around with dice or calculating anything?

Perhaps I have some history with roleplay games that a new participant wouldn't have, so they'd try and read about this classes and maybe one would tickle their fancy and they'd persist. But the rest of the document doesn't seem to indicate what thing you'd play for either. Not that the first edition (and prior miasma) of D&D was any different in presentation. But to me, I sometimes wonder if D&D continued because some people see all this text and think there must be something to it, and they persist with it and eventually create a large text of their own which someone else sees and thinks there must be something in it, and so on. But to me, that's hollow, except for the capacity to capture peoples imaginations enough that they then write documents that capture more peoples imaginations, but not produce much of anything, apart from more of itself. A variety of meme, perhaps?

So that's alot of meandering on my part and I could just be missing what you play the game for?

Well, to win.  Now in regular RPG's that isn't the case, that is also one of the huge stumbling blocks that some people never truly get over.  But that is why people play most games, so I just make sure the game has teamwork (encourage the social aspect) and that its like golf (you play against the course) and not like poker (you play against everyone else) as a halfway point.

Alot of RPG's do feature a 'play the course' mentality in the small scale when it comes to beating 'encounters',  so its not a bad starting point in my mind.  Of course this is just my opinion so if you think im out to lunch let me know.

"You play to win" isn't in there, is it? If I handed you a copy of chess (say you'd never played before) with the note that you play to win, and the win conditions, cut out of it, would you know that you play it to win? What is winning, when there is no win condition in the? Also, how do you lose?

I might have overlooked these in the text. But I'd say that you play to win aught to be in the first paragraph of the basic premise. Otherwise your thinking it as you write the game - but obviously other groups can't tell what you were thinking.

You'd have to read through to the sample adventure for that.

I think I'm giving you what my genuine impression would be upon contact, the reasons for that impression and given the design goal, a solution. Zzarchov, I think you've responded to me as if "You've gotten it wrong, you didn't read the sample adventure". If so, this is no good - you can't ask if you've made an error somewhere, then tell people they are the ones who made an error when they genuinely try to point out what they think is a mistake on your part!? If you didn't mean this, I'm just noting it anyway because as I've said, I think this needs to be in the first paragraph of the basic premise - having it at the back is still no good.

Also, if you meant it's in the escape from the witches tower, I still don't see any win or, even more notably, lose conditions? It could be infered rescuing the princess is winning, but how can you lose? She just stays up there until eventually she's rescued, or we just stop playing?

Perhaps you don't really want to have winning and losing as part of the game? Do you really want it in the game, or are you just trying to placate peoples gamist play to win instincts, as you introduce them to what you see as the real thing about roleplaying? Perhaps you should just make it about what you see as the real thing about roleplaying, then put a description of that that up the front in the basic premise (yeah, I'm still pimping the idea of putting what its about, front and center)? I mean this as constructive feedback.

what Im getting at, is that is destructive feedback for the design goals. Which is why I stated them.

This is a 'bridge' game,  built to go between boardgame and RPG.  Roleplaying (as a fun mechanism) is not something most people identify with,  most people who are familiar with it are familiar with it in a work context or a therapy context,  neither of which are fun environments.

Thus the word role-playing is mentioned only twice in the first paragraph and then dropped.  The game goes on implication of play,  just like most of the original RPG's that introduced so many people into the hobby. 

Explaining roleplaying, which is far more complex as a fun mechanism than any Math found in any RPG I can think of,  in under an hour, while also explaining how Roleplaying in a game context often involves story telling (most people are familiar with roleplaying in a work environment), its not really feasible.

Now If I say the goal isn't to win, they ask what is? then you get into the discussion of roleplaying, you've now eaten up an hour and a half and haven't gamed.  Roleplaying is easiest as a "show me".  If I imply the goal is to win I don't force behaviour, but the game has already moved on enough that they can already build their own end goals, even if just to get off the map.

I suppose I should go back and put more detail into the design goals,  if there is that much confusion..but keep in mind, this is an intro rpg,  for non-gamers.  Adults as well, not children (though there is nothing to stop bright children, the sort who can sit still for an hour, from joining in). 

Now I can certainly change this if this turns out to be not the case,  perhaps its merely the field I work in and the people I know who think in this manner.

But in the 'why it doesn't work',  Im getting the impression this is a 'why I don't think it will work',  not a "why it doesn't",  Im not seeking out playtesters here but has anyone run alot of games for non-gamers and thus has experience with the pitfalls of game design for non-gamers?  I've gotten quite a few comments like these from gamers before,  but never from non-gamers and not from gamers who I got to run the game for their spouses and kids.

That just means one of a few things though
.1.) they aren't telling me all the feedback I need and the real feedback is this info as you are posting.
.2.) this is armchair theorizing with no practical experience to draw upon

now Im willing to buy 1 is true, but some of the comments I've gotten seem very non-sensical for practical usage.  Not to poke people, but for example dividing 12 between 4 numbers being complicated, for adults, more than half of whom have college or university educations.  Even with children 10 and up Im sure sorting wouldn't be a problem.

I hope It makes sense where I am coming from.  That said I do take note of all suggestions and test them, even the "sort 12 between 4 is tough" could be bang on, im not so arrogant as to think Im going to be right all the time.

now Im willing to buy 1 is true, but some of the comments I've gotten seem very non-sensical for practical usage.  Not to poke people, but for example dividing 12 between 4 numbers being complicated, for adults, more than half of whom have college or university educations.  Even with children 10 and up Im sure sorting wouldn't be a problem.

But in the 'why it doesn't work',  Im getting the impression this is a 'why I don't think it will work',  not a "why it doesn't",  Im not seeking out playtesters here but has anyone run alot of games for non-gamers and thus has experience with the pitfalls of game design for non-gamers?  I've gotten quite a few comments like these from gamers before,  but never from non-gamers and not from gamers who I got to run the game for their spouses and kids.

tangent or no, thats actually a great idea.

As for taking 12 points and splitting them between 4 numbers,  my head cannot get around that being difficult or even bad, because you do it once, and then never again. And you don't even need to, you have pre-made options too.  I know its getting off topic and all,  but if during character creation that level of customization is too much..what the heck is not?  This isn't a conflict resolution mechanic..its char gen.  If that level of customization is too much..is there any hope for a game that has things like beliefs and goals? Often where one needs to list more than 4.  I do seek to be able to get up to 12 hours of entertainment from this afterall.

Zzarchov wrote: But in the 'why it doesn't work',  Im getting the impression this is a 'why I don't think it will work',   not a "why it doesn't",   Im not seeking out playtesters here but has anyone run alot of games for non-gamers and thus has experience with the pitfalls of game design for non-gamers?  I've gotten quite a few comments like these from gamers before,  but never from non-gamers and not from gamers who I got to run the game for their spouses and kids.

To me, the basic premise doesn't describe anything in particular? If I said Adventure banana is a simple party game of the zuzu genre, would you know what I meant? Would you know what fun you'd play a zuzu genre game for? Would you see a reason to start messing around with dice or calculating anything?

When working on a game, there are two levels / stages of feedback you can get: 1) Do these rules create the play experience I want them to? and 2) Does my explanation lead other people to play the game I designed? Right now, Adventuring Party has some pretty neat ideas, and a laudable goal, but it still needs work on both stages. (There are also some things you can do with the layout to make it easier to reference the rules, e.g. adding more headings and paragraph breaks. Take a look at the rules for a euro-game like Settlers of Catan to get an idea of what I mean.)

I like the board-game focus a lot. The reception of games like Betrayal at House on the Hill and Shadows Over Camelot suggests that it's a good way to introduce elements of RPGs to people who don't usually play them.

Rules questions and missing rules

In the Basic Premise section, you say that "Hero [players] only see the portion of the map which their character would see." How do players manage hiding and revealing portions of the map? If a player's character has been to a particular spot (e.g. a room) but that is now out of their line of sight, does the area have to be hidden again?

In Game Play, you say "Every turn a player can move all of their activated characters and perform an action." When a player is controlling multiple characters, do they get one action between all of their characters, or one action per character?

When comparing dice, does the opponent first roll their dice and then keep some of them according to the same rules as the instigator?  Or does the opponent use all of their dice? If it's the second, that gives the opponent a large advantage. If it's the first, do they do this simultaneously? In secret? One after the other so the second player can choose based on the first player's results?

Characters can hold 2 hand-held items. Do the items marked "Hand-held (2 hands)" count as 2 items for this purpose? A character can have one hand-held item in storage. Can this item be an item that's marked "Hand-held (2 hands)"?

Several times, you say that players "roll dice equal to their [insert ability here] score plus any extra dice they have
from equipment, magic or levels." Do players always add their level to their ability score when determining how many extra dice to roll? Or is something else going on?

What do pets and henchmen do?

How are quests, adventure scenes, and dangerous locations created? Who creates them?

Your sample adventures have descriptive setup text. Is this meant to be read to the players by the referee? Is the referee supposed to use it to make up some narration?

Rules feedback

For fast and newbie-friendly character creation, I advocate pre-generated characters. You could even put the characters on cards that act as a quick reference for all their stats and abilities. I have found that stat allocation can be a hangup for new players. It's not that distributing 12 points among 4 stats is "too complicated" for new players, it's that they don't have a full understanding of how the stats impact the game until they've actually played it. I've noticed that people are usually quicker to figure out what role or character type they want to play, especially when given a menu of choices.

Full-on character creation can be listed as an "advanced technique" -- something to try after having played with pre-gens.

I have serious misgivings about the dice mechanic. It seems like it will take too long for the amount of information it gives.  Basically, there are several small decisions to make -- sort the dice, find the largest set and run, decide whether a set or run is more advantageous -- with not that much payoff for each step. It's also difficult to get a grasp on the probabilities involved.

What's your goal with the dice? What does the current mechanic get you that you can't get with a more straightforward dice pool or roll-and-add mechanic?

I'm not sure how well the lengthy equipment list works for the game. In my experience, choosing equipment can lead to analysis paralysis when there are many choices, especially for players new to the game. When helping new players make characters for D&D and Tunnels & Trolls, I've noticed they tend to get bogged down in the equipment and spell lists. On the other hand, some people really like comparison shopping. And the equipment provides interesting exceptions to the base game rules, like the cards in Magic: the Gathering. Only playtesting will be able to tell you if there's a need to balance them or if some items never get used.

Rules that were hard to find

On my first reading, I completely missed the rule that characters level up when they successfully complete an adventure scene rated for characters one level above them.

I also missed the rule that all characters start with a Dagger. It should be in Making a Character, not in the Dagger description in the Store section. The paragraph at the start of the Store section indicates that players only need to look at the store after they've completed an Adventure Scene. I'll admit I didn't read most of the item descriptions.

General feedback

Other than that, there are some instructions that I think could be phrased better. I would probably rearrange some things, like putting the dice mechanic before the descriptions of action types.

Given your target audience, I think it might be worthwhile to break up the game into two parts. One part would be a full module with the basic play rules, pre-generated characters, and a single adventure scene with dangerous locations. The second part would be for "advanced" play, and include character creation, quest/adventure/location creation, leveling and store rules. You can offer multiple modules, each with a different set of characters and locations.

You should check out Drowning and Falling, which is currently my go-to game for introducing people to rpgs. (Dungeons and Vegas is a writeup of a session I played with 3 people new to tabletop rpgs.) It shares some goals with Adventuring Party, namely fast setup time and short session length. You can download a text-only version of Drowning and Falling from the game website.

Hello,  to answer some questions.

1.) Yes I've run this for completely non-gamers (ie, no Gamers other than me at the table)

2.) Selene Tan, that was very, very helpful.  Often when you work on something you can't see things that should be obvious,  I've got a bit of a checklist ahead of me to work on. Thanks again.

3.)  The dice mechanic:

The dice mechanic is based a lot on Yahtzee, the question becomes, why?  Originally the rules seemed thus 'too simple' to people.  When I grilled someone for more info (which is annoying to both parties) I finally got the response there is no choice, its too completely random.

With the railroady nature of the game this strikes very true.  What real choice is available?  You don't have any sliding scale of risk V reward.  everything becomes a problem not a choice.  While its purely a game mechanic,  and for RP purposes its the same as a single roll,  when drawing in new players I've found its engaging.  It provides choice and holds attention long enough to focus on other aspects.

Rolling a pair of 6's (or Aces on poker dice) and three 2s (or 10's on poker dice) for instance.  Makes a classic gambling choice, you can score larger with three 2's, but you are more likely to succeed with a pair of sixes.  Do you gamble? or take the safe bet?

Purely "gamist" as they say, and it won't hold interest forever.  But it does provide an attention sink for the initial buy in.  That is my experience with it anyways, when playing with non-gamers.  Gamers have far less concern about it and often find it distracting and counter-productive.

As for ideal design audience.  Either a Gamer refereeing for Non-gamers, or Non-gamers playing with non-gamers.

I was idly pondering things and offhandedly thought of DragonStrike, then this thread...
Do you know of DragonStrike? Its basically what you are striving (minus a few points). =) I'm not 100% sure why I am bringing this up, but it would shed some light on things for me if I knew. @_@

My question was whether you'd had non gamers run this for other non gamers? If I'm just thinking why it wouldn't work for that rather than really knowing why it wouldn't work, by the same token you just think I'm not giving accurate feedback - the tie breaker is a playtest of non gamers running for non gamers. Again, taking it that this is to some large extent aimed at non gamers running for non gamers. Or is it for gamers running for non gamers and passing on their own way of running things?

MacLeod wrote:
I was idly pondering things and offhandedly thought of DragonStrike, then this thread...
Do you know of DragonStrike? Its basically what you are striving (minus a few points). =) I'm not 100% sure why I am bringing this up, but it would shed some light on things for me if I knew. @_@

Zzarchov wrote: Dragonstrike had the "bitchin" video though.