Finally (hah) finished, my martial arty kung-fuey tekkeny RPG.

Go put on the Mortal Kombat theme song and give it a read.

Final Stand

It's taken me an inordinate amount of time to get typed out, but now it's finished (kind of). I'd like to flesh it out a lot; full descripition of the styles, forms, and special techniques, more meat to the structure section, more in the "Final Thoughts and Useful Things" section. It also needs a lot of playtesting, but gimme a break; I've only just pdf'd the damn thing.

Phew. I love that "finally finished the mutha" buzz. Like when you finish an essay, but oh-so-much better.

Edit: I completely forgot to say this in the document, somehow: it uses six-sided dice.

Hi Tim,

Don't forget to put the link into the Resource Library, OK?

I got the file, and I'll be perusing it sooner or later. At first glance, I'm thinkin' I'd like a tad less on the "how to play your character" (which borders on intrusive; if I'm to play in this setting/genre, I know what the various "types" are like already), and a bit more in terms of funky-duty stuff to do in combat, specifically surprising applications of simple rules. But that's not real feedback; I gotta read it and run a couple Cranked thump-fests first. Be assured that I love this stuff and have always wanted an RPG that does it fun, fast, and colorful.

Congrats on Finishing the Thing, or this stage of it, anyway.

Best,
Ron

I just downloaded this thing.

It is cool as shit.


Looks like a blast to play and run...it has all my requirements for a good martial arts action game- a solid mook rule; fast and loose play; intresting and fun die mechanics; and a fast and dirty attitude.

My initial impression leads me to this it will work quite well at simulating the wacky coreography of everything from a bone-crunching 70's Sonny Chiba smack fest to a dramatic wire-opera like Crouching Tiger.

The reward mechanics seem to pay for the right kinds of behaviors- crushing your oponents, dramatic flair, genera-enforcing descriptions (I LOVE massive porperty damage!), and genera-apropriate strategies and actions.

I'll give it a good working over this weekend...but Ron is dead on- the only real tell for a game is play and revsion from playtest results.

I personaly found the roles quite neat...and easy to adapt to any particular flavor of game...an Aristocrat could just as easily be a the son of a corporate president or political figure... They struck me as less intrusive role playing guides, and more as springboards from which to bounce a good character.

Some useful alterations to format and such I can suggest now. Table lisiting all the techniques and move costs and roll difficulties would be useful- preferably with a small enough font to fit it onto a single page for quick reference.

A character sheet should also include some quick reference info to keep a fight as fast as possible.

As for non-combat actions... if each Stereotype, Style and Form included a block describing the kinds of non-combat Skills they include (or the kinds of skills someone who studies them might be likely to know) it will help provide a guide when judging such things... Your example of the Shadow Cobra warrior makes sense... I would just like a better idea of what my character can do than "its up to the GM"...

Perhaps, if one of a character's three major elements (Stereotype, Style, and Form) provides for the kind of action they want to take, they can describe a Basic Success, if two provide for the skill, a Full Success, and if all three cover the intended action, a Superlative success. For example:

Shadow Cobra Mysterious Stranger: All three elements cover sneaking over a wall. a Superlative success. He gets over, is unseen, and makes no noise.

Iron Crane Reformed Villian: Only two really apply (the crane and the villian). A Full success. He gets over and is unseen, but makes some noise.

Stone Tiger Towering Ox: Only one applies (and only just)- basicly using Towering Ox to haul his huge ass over the wall with brute strength. A Basic success. He gets over, but not quietly and he'll be seen.

Drunken Panda Street Bum: He's got nothing. He can't really climb with Drunken (or at least shouldn't try) and Panda form isn't known for its nimble acrobatics... and Street Bum...the less said. He could get it, however, if he wanders up to the front gates pretending to be a drunken (well, more drunken) old begger, and so entertain the guards with his bumbling and crazy stories, that he gets the drop on them and takes them out.

Just my preference. As a player it would make me more comfortable to have my capacities better spelled out. As a GM I'd like to be able to seem less arbitrary to my players when judging their chosen actions.



Also, as an aside, this could make a very nice Chambara samuri and swords dueling game in the vein of Zatoichi and Lone Wolf and Cub. Slash, Trusth, and Chop dice perhaps...

I can also see using the same core mechanics you have here for a game of magical dueling and outrageous magical action... roll your Conjure, Alter, and Invoke dice... groovy.



Anyhow, this looks like a great start to a fantastic game. Good work.

Hi Tim,

This is just the kind of game I love to see, being that I’m a verified Street Fighter (yes, both the video game and the RPG) nut. Kudos, 'cause you did a great job.

In no particular order, here’s the stuff I noticed or had questions about.

I like the Style + Art = Way thing. It looks like it’ll allow for neat fun in creating a character’s martial art, and it nicely sidesteps anyone getting any misconceptions about the styles emulating real world martial arts. Instead, it says, “These martial arts should have cool sounding names, and that’s what really matters.” I like it.

What about making the stereotypes more customizable as well? When I first read them over, I kept thinking, “yeah, this does fit the ‘towering ox,’ but I can also think of other quirks that might also fit a towering ox. Say, I like the ‘looming presence’ quirk, but I don’t want my towering ox to be a ‘goof.’ I see him as more of a guy who gets enraged,” or something like that. So could there be a list of 3-5 possible quirks for each stereotype, and the player chooses two for his character?

Here's a note from my inner gamist:

In the game text, you wrote:

Again, just go with what you like the sound of; ‘shadow cobra’ or whatever. Don’t read the specifics of every style and form and choose the most lethal combination. You’ll have more fun choosing with gut instinct.

power up
Before rolling your action dice at the beginning of a bout, you can power up. For each energy point you burn, you can allocate 2 extra, temporary (for this bout only), action dice where ever you wish. This is accompanied by you powering up (much like energy boost above).

Thanks for the feedback fellas (man, I love the Forge)

Ron,

When you say, "less on the 'how to play your character'", do you mean the stereotype descriptions, or something else?
If you are talking about stereotypes, I'm inclined to leave them as is. At this level of description, you can pick one up simply by the name and run it without a thought, or you can easily mould and shape the stereotype to your own vision.

"a bit more in terms of funky-duty stuff to do in combat, specifically surprising applications of simple rules" - do you mean more examples of how to use the rules in funky-duty ways, or more minor add-on rules for funky-duty stuff? The former, sure. The latter, I'm not so keen on. Maybe a little.


Bailywolf,

An appendix? Sure. I'd also like a one page reference sheet of all the uses of inner peace and energy, and all the methods by which to gain inner peace (with little tick boxes next to them so players can keep track of how many times they've used each one)

The non-combat action stuff is a stroke of genius. That's going right in. Basically, it's the same idea though: any obstacle can be overcome, but different combination of style/form/stereotype will overcome the same obstacle in different ways.


Rich,

You're right (on a number of things, but I'll go down the list); the game should say that stereotype quirks are customizable. I see no reason why there needs to be a list of 3-5 to choose from though; just change the stereotype as much as you want (or not at all). No matter what the quirk is, it nets the same inner peace, so... there's no chance of abuse there. Although, the GM would have to be careful no-one made (in effect) a perfect hero stereotype.

The note about choosing based on cool names: yep, that was a cop-out. I knew as soon as I'd written it, it didn't belong. I'll get rid of it in the next draft.

Inner Rage vs Inner Peace: sounds like its getting a little complicated for my tastes; I'm more inclined to simply let a player call his Inner Peace by the name Inner Rage.

Yes, I suppose one could absolutely waste someone by fully powering up. Of course, if by some stroke of luck they survived, they'd only have to land one punch... In any case, I'll change this so that you can only burn 2 energy in this way per bout (so a maximum of 4 extra actions).

Speaking of bouts, yes, you're right. But I can't really be bothered changing it; besides, I kind of like the word. Unless there are other people this bothers, I'll leave it in.

Quirks are related to inner peace methods in that they're both strictly non-mechanical ways of gaining the same mechical reward (Inner Peace). Quirks are more for Fluff, methods are more for Levels.
Yes, you might as well try doing them as many times per game as allowed (that was intentional; makes the fights more interesting). I don't reaaalllly see how it's inappropriate for a quiet volume setting; quiet is only semi-realistic, after all.

Rewards: originally, there were rewards for every level. I changed to every session because I realized that otherwise players would be ridiculously powerful ridiculously fast. So yes, rewards at the end of the session. The ambiguity is there because when I didn't do a very good job of changing every mention of 'level' to 'session'
Also, rewards at the end of the session make the players more eager to have the next session, to play around with their new toys. It's a hook.

I'll put a short "basic resolution" section after the character section (before combat). Is there anything to put in it aside from non-combat resolution as outlined by Bailywolf? I can't really explain combat resolution without a full combat section...

I’m glad some of the comments were helpful.

I’m thinking about the “basic resolution” section, and you're right: it could be pretty short. All it would have to do is: 1) explain how non-combat actions work; 2) talk about die rolling conventions (Combat uses d6 dice pools vs. a target number set by the kind of attack, and you roll it all up then assign the dice as you want.).

That’s basically all you’d need, as far as I can see. Combat and the type of die, etc. would basically be included to give the reader a general standpoint for understanding the specifics later. While #1 is actually giving the rules, #2 is working more as a textual device. It's kind of an "abstract" of combat, so the reader has an easier time learning how combat works when he or she gets there.

Rich

Just a couple of quick second-though questions.

Why "inner peace?" it seems a bit antithetical to this sort of thing (considering the highly kinetic cinema and video-game reference material)... why not go with the generic "Chi" which is as familiar and comfortable to a martial arts gamer as "Strength" to a D&D'er? Then you could define your personal path to Chi... the Mystic finds a place of tranquility within... the Towering Ox taps his vast stores of vitality and rage... the Homeless Bum uses his undaunted will to survive... its all just Chi... Inner Peace seems to carry a value judgement with it.

What about wuxia-style action with weapon styles? If I want Crouching Tiger, I need blades...

You know. It wouldn't take alot of effort to have these rules cover swashbuckling and derring do also...like 7th Sea...only fun.

Just downloaded it. Looks pretty amazing so far.
Suggestions:
-Rules for being blind a la Zatoichi. Tip o' the hat to Bailywolf for mentioning "Chambara." It's been years since I last heard that term.
-Rules for being one-armed, becoming one-armed, etc. As the movies go, when you lose use of a limb you often have to develop a new style (no kidding) and often become a more vicious fighter.
-If you're going to have the Wuxia genre covered, you'll probably want accomodate the fact that the fighters spend 90% of their time in the air. The duration of a single jump can be equivalent to 1 "bout."

Keenway hits some good points... but you could cover Blindness and Missing Limbs by simply allowing additional Styles to be added to your Way...

Zatoichi
Stereotype: Wandering Gangster
Style: Blind
Second Style: Lightning
Form: Sword

Way: Blind Lightning Sword

Blind grants non-combat proficiency with your other senses- doing things like hearing which side a coin comes up on. It also allows you to fight in any kind of visual condition w/o penalty. Zatoichi has also shown that a Blind way is best used when reacting to an attack... you can't attack unless you are first attacked yourself (some rules here allowing a Blind style fighter to sieze the Attacker position after being attacked regardless of total moves etc.).

One Arm could also be a style...

One Arm Drunken Panda Bamboo Tearing Swipe!

Blind Lightning Sword Unseen Slash!

Inner Peace was kind of an ironic joke. I might change it to Chi though. But chi seems so... mundane. Maybe Fire? Inner Fire? Power? Inner Power?

No eyes, One arm: it seems to me that these are purely cosmetic; the blind man you've presented is as functional as a person with sight, and the person with one arm might fight differently, but he fights just as well.

I'm not very familiar (at all) with Chambara, but if you guys want to hash out some rule modifications for it, go nuts. Likewise if someone wants to put together swashbuckling rules, magic combat rules, or whatnot. I'd imagine, as y'all said, it wouldn't take a lot of work.

Anyone got any comments on the core fighting system?

I was just making some changes to the game (changing Inner Peace to Chi, changing bouts to rounds). I was also putting in the non-combat resolution rules. I've added almost ad-verbatim what Bailywolf said.

However: do you think each style, form, and stereotype needs its own "style" description; a wee bit of text describing how they overcome obstacles? Or do you think it's pretty obvious what the styles, forms, and stereotypes can and can't do outside of combat? As Ron said, I've already said a lot about how to play these characters, stuff people know anyway; I'm hesitant to add more.

I liked "Inner Peace". I thgought it was brilliantly ironic.

Mike

I have some questions about "Major Fights."
Should the first PC have a reasonable chance at winning? Or should a GM plan for the last PC being able to win? How should the Boss stats be determined?
I was thinking maybe the PCs should be allowed to "stack" together sort of like how multiple weak Mooks are able to in your MO,FC rules.

[multiple post]

[multiple post]

What about if PC's- through dramatic teamwork and coreographed cooperative fighting- can recombine their Forms and Styles to allow them new and unexpected attacks? Attacks which might exploit a Boss's weaknesses....

Say a odd-couple pair of jokers Mr Fong (a Dancing Cobra M. Stranger) and Number Three Lion (A Stone Lion Enormous Ox) are partners... they fight their way into Dr. Jade's Secret Lair... but find that Dr. Jade's awesome Kung Fu is flawless when confronted with their individual styles...

But Mr. Fong and #3Lion combine their styles- Lion throws Fong, who makes a powerful Flying Stone Cobra Strike. Dr. Jade retaliates, but the partners spin off in oposite directions, using a Dancing Lion evasive manuever... etc.

Or perhaps instead of just mixing and matching, a team of PC's can focus all their skills through one member of the group- #3Lion could throw Mr. Fong who uses a Dancing Stone Cobra strike...

Playtest with a friend:

We picked secretly: Stone Dragon (11,9) vs. Storm Dragon (9,12). Both our characters ended up with more punches than other moves because these moves looked to be the most effective for the cost.
Since we were just trying the system out, we didn't try the Inner Peace uses and just concentrated on the fighting.
Descriptions of the fights:
1. I started with cheap punches and they were so effective I kept using the cheapest moves. My friend had really bad luck and failed every single defensive roll. When his dice were all gone, I finished him with the big moves (unblockable by now).
2. We fought again and my friend, the attacker, gleefully tried to "cheap" me back. In a cool sequence, we punch-blocked a couple times, each spending 2 punch dice at at time and getting perfect successes...
But then we suddenly realized that if the defender didn't block any of the attacks, the cheap attacker would run out of dice before victory (I had 4P,1K,1T dice which would be 4+2+1=7 dmg)! Oops. Up until this point, we overdid the defensive stuff. Things got more interesting.
The first couple fights were over in a single round.

Notes: Overall, we still focused on using cheaper attacks. We never really explored the possibilities of throws.
Our narrations were very very brief as things were tense enough without having to visualize everything. Sorry!

[edit: continued in Actual Play]

Kenway wrote: I have some questions about "Major Fights."
Should the first PC have a reasonable chance at winning? Or should a GM plan for the last PC being able to win? How should the Boss stats be determined?

Kenway wrote: We picked secretly: Stone Dragon (11,9) vs. Storm Dragon (9,12).

Both our characters ended up with more punches than other moves because these moves looked to be the most effective for the cost.

Our narrations were very very brief as things were tense enough without having to visualize everything. Sorry!

I just came up with a quick idea for FS... let me throw it out here.


Combo Moves

A staple of action videogames and kung fu movies- hammer your oponent with the right series of lesser moves to set him up for... Seven Dragon Strike!

They way I see it, certain especialy devistating moves can be made more so by adding in Foundation moves- say to land that Seven Dragon Strike you must have already landed 3 successful strikes- 2 punches and a kick- in a row. It can add another layer of strategy to a fight if you are laying down the smack in such a pattern as to open your oponent up to a your signature attack move.

Perhaps that is what is needed... each character needs a Signature Move or two... perhaps a Signature Defense, a Signature Attack, and a Finisher...

They would be combo moves- each requiring a certain number of successful moves bofore they can be used- and would be much more potent than normal attacks or defenses, but could only be used once per fight.

A Finisher is more a stylistic thing... describing your prefered method of dispatching a defeated foe... anything from stabing a vital nerve point to render him unconscious... or ripping out his spine.











<<side note>>

I've also been thinking about some of the other ways to use this system... what about a WoD-on-its-ear BLADE-style Monster Mash fighting game? Remember NIGHTLIFE? Wouldn't Flawless Victory be about a million times better than that system? And how easy, eh? Pick your race (vampire, ghost, werewolf, boogie man etc), pick your Style, pick your form, pick your stereotype... A Half-Vampire Flashing Blade Slayer...

anyhow... when will the next revision be available?

Another MA game to play. I can't believe I've never seen it before now, considering the dates on this thread. Would it be okay to link to the rules?

Glancing over the rules, it looks like fights are supposed to always be one-on-one. If so, I am curious why, as the mechanics seem to support multiple characters fighting at once. I think the skill system (if you can call it that) is great. Less talk, more fighting.

Getting away from rules, a character sheet at the back of the document would be greatly appreciated. A good character sheet is worth a thousand words (or more). Also, the layout is really clean, except the paragraphs run together. Typical wisdom says to indent the second and subsequent paragraphs in a section, for readability's sake.

Overall, this looks like a riot. I will definitely be scrounging up some poor souls to inflict it upon.

A hoy hoy,

ThreeGee wrote: Would it be okay to link to the rules?

Glancing over the rules, it looks like fights are supposed to always be one-on-one. If so, I am curious why, as the mechanics seem to support multiple characters fighting at once.

Getting away from rules, a character sheet at the back of the document would be greatly appreciated.

I was hoping to put in a session today, but that did not happen, so here I am applying 'pure thought' to the matter at hand. In other words, take my comments with a grain of salt.

The first thing that jumped out at my devious mind is that some Ways get more points than others.

Next, knowing there is already a possible exploit, I need to know where to put those extra points. Looking over the defenses, I quickly see that there is one 5+ option for stopping a kick, an additional 5+ option for stopping a throw, and a 4+ option for stopping a punch, in addition to the other two. Kicks and throws both seem more effective than punches in terms of energy/move damage, so this would be the way to go. Also, Monkey Roll and Recoiling Serpent look handy.

However, looking through the moves, none of the really good specials are in styles that fit the sort of horribly broken character I am going for. Mantis offers Crushing Grasp, but offers poor stats. Panda offers Bear Hug, but is very Energy heavy.

Overall, I would have to pick Storm Leopard. 9/13 looks promising, plus a couple powerful mid-level moves and a strong finisher. I would combine this Way with either Quiet Mystic or Mysterious Stranger for maximum skill use. That this is the sort of character I usually play makes it even better. I can kick ass with style.

It does not look like I can break this system the way I did Streetfighter, but I would suggest a more obvious balance between the Styles and Forms. The premise of the game is very gamist, so expect people to be this cheesy in how they make characters. No one plays a video game to lose.

On a different note, not only a character sheet, but a cheat sheet, too. Very handy. I can give everyone two sheets of paper, instead of an entire rulebook.

Concerning multiple attackers, I still do not see why you think it is complicated. Clearly I am missing something, since I do not see any reason whatsoever why the rules as written cannot support this idea. The mook rules are great, but what about when our favorite protagonist faces two named opponents? Or, more likely, how about when a player finishes off his man and decides to tag in and help his buddy? I feel that you are limiting the game needlessly when you force it into a video game mode. Films certainly do not have any such limitations.

You have been very responsive to everyone, so I imagine you will continue working on an already fun game to make it even better.

Hey man,

Thanks for giving it a read. Make sure you post in Actual Play if you do play it (or just send me an e-mail).

Hopefully the Styles and Forms are balanced, but there's obviously going to be some problems at this stage (minimal playtesting so far). I tried to make sure that the styles/forms with more energy and action got weaker moves. Stereotypes shouldn't be a problem; some may have more powerful abilities, but all the abilities are pretty minor.

While we're talking about styles/forms, I ran into a problem last night whilst testing the character generation. If you take certain Ways, you get redundant moves. F'rinstance, take Iron Eagle; the Eagle has Raking Talon (2 kick moves, 6 damage, -1 move), and Iron has Cold Foot (2 kick moves, 6 damage). This is because Iron has 1 more action than eagle (so eagle has better techniques to compensate).

Possible solutions:

Combos: at character generation you can remove ONE technique, and combine it with another of your techniques. The technique you combine it with must not be a basic technique, and must have a move cost of more than one. The new technique, named by you, has the combined damage/effects of the two base techniques, and costs the combined move cost minus one.

Example: I take Iron Eagle. Because Cold Foot is redundant, I remove it and make it into a new technique; Icy Talon. I add Raking Talon to Cold Foot. Icy Talon will cost 3 kick moves (2+2-1 = 3), does 12 damage, and deducts one move from the opponent. My character no longer has Cold Foot as a technique, but does have Icy Talon and Raking Talon.

Problems with this solution: it only makes new problems; in the example above, Icy Talon has made Flying Kick (3 kick moves, 9 damage) redundant for the Iron Eagle character. Maybe the new techniques should have prerequisite moves, like Ben's idea above?

Another possible solution: you can cash in one technique for extra energy/action?

And another: each advanced technique can only be performed once per round (or fight, even); so having a back-up technique is quite handy, even if it is a bit weaker.

Ideas?

When I implement the double-energy change, it'll make Gangs a little harder to keep track of. With that in mind, I'm going to make gang mini-sheets, with energy trackers on them that also show when the gang loses an action (and thus what their total action is currently). Considering how fast combat runs, I think I can safely slow down gangs with making combat go at a crawl.

And finally, here are the gun rules I posted on RPGnet:

- Inside a martial-artsy fight, they work through the 'improvise' rule.
- If it's outside a fight (like shooting a sentry or something), they work in relation to the context:
If you were sneaking into a military installation and wanted to take out a guard with your silenced pistol, it'd be covered by the 'intrusion' skill. If, later on, you were in a pitch black room and wanted to shoot the lock off the door, it'd be 'perception'. If you were standing out in the open operating a heavy machine gun, it'd be 'independence'. And so on.

Thoughts on the problems above would be greatly appreciated.

Cheers,

Tim

Nifty cool solution to the gun issue... nicely delt with.

I think the once-per-fight rule is a good one for special techniques. When I think of...say... Iron Monkey, Wong Kei-ying only whiped out his Shadow Kick at just the right moment... it might make sense to a gamer to tap that extra groovy attack as often and furiously as possible, but from a dramatic standpoint limiting its use makes good sense.

It prevents technique redundancy, will help extend fights, and keeps special tecnhiques SPECIAL.

I can also see a new use for CHI.

Recharge Technique- spend 2 Chi to reuse one of your special techniques during the current fight. To use the same technique a third time will cost 3 points. A fourth time, 4 points, and so on.

Making the special moves once only sounds like a good idea. However, some of the existing specials seem more basic than others. Maybe an overhaul would be in order? I could see Bear Hug being used a few times in a row and described as a continuous attack, but Screeching Uppercut brings painful memories of being on the wrong end of Ryu/Ken. Correct me if I am wrong, but it looks like fights only last a round or two, so any given special should not reasonably be used more than once a fight, anyway. Changing the rules would just make it explicit.

Also, it should go without saying, but a line explicitly stating moves should be improvised would be a good idea. You have chosen not to actually describe any of the moves, which i applaud. I do not punch someone, I jab them, or chop their shoulder, or something. throws are not just standard judo hip tosses, but wristlocks, sweeps, chokeholds, etc. Too many people typify the 'I cast magic missle' gamer.

Finishers were mentioned earlier in the thread, so here is my take on the matter: some of the specials are rather risky propositions anyway, so you could make a rule saying they may only be used on defenders who have left themselves open (ie, are out of moves and cannot defend). Thus, every character suddenly has a signature move. You could even add a section to the standing rules giving points for finishing someone with the sig move and taking away points for attempting the finisher and failing to KO.

Guns are a real pain in MA games. Weapons of any sort in martial arts flicks are just props and are never used as actual weapons, but guns have no style. The characters can have style, but the guns never do. Certainly not like a long bamboo pole in the hands of a good actor/martial artist. Using all the existing stuff and just saying it is actually a gun sounds like a good plan. 'The five tongs pull their guns and start shooting, but you nimbly flip over their heads and disarm them' sounds a lot more exciting than 'the mook horde kicks you, you dodge'. Shooting the lock out certainly sounds like an apt description of how the grizzled soldier breaks into places.

I like the idea of combos, but I am a little sceptical that making super moves is the way to go. I would play around with the idea that certain moves make harder moves easier by reducing their move cost. Maybe the characters can start with something simple, like choosing a basic move that leads to a special, or something.

OK, I'll go with the one-special-technique per fight rule, and also add in that chi use. Thanks fellas.

Grant,

The reason some moves are more basic than others is because the style/form they come from has more energy and/or action, and so their techniques are more basic to balance it out.

Also, thanks for pointing out the improvisation thing. I over-looked mentioning that side of things.

some of the specials are rather risky propositions anyway, so you could make a rule saying they may only be used on defenders who have left themselves open (ie, are out of moves and cannot defend).

I understand it is a balance thing. I just meant it seems weird that you can only use one-move techniques once per fight. Some of them are things any fighter could do. Maybe Bear Hug should be Panda Crush or something to differentiate it from Throw (Bear Hug), which anyone can do over and over. I know this is minor, but it jumps out as a way the characters are being railroaded. Not everyone is going to know Crashing Waterfall (for instance), but common wrestling techniques would be easy to pick up.

The high-cost techniques are used at the end of the round, but it would add an additional element of strategy if you only pull them out of the trick book when you are sure they will work. On the other hand, less rules is probably better.

My analysis of effectiveness is based purely on math (yes, I said the evil word). Assume a character has 18 Action for simplicity, and these moves are split evenly into 6 punch, 6 kick, and 6 throw. On average, that means the available moves each round will be: 5 punch, 4 kick, and 4 throw. Already we see that punch gets more moves right off the bat, so more points may as well be allocated elsewhere, if desired. But getting to defence, on average it takes two moves to defend against a kick or a throw when it takes only one to defend against a punch. 1 Block has a 50% of success. 2 Blocks have 75%. 1 Jab or Dodge has 33%, 2 have 55%, 3 have 70%. Thus, for pure cheesiness, it makes sense to have a minimum of throw moves and to stock up on kicks for attacks and defense against kicks and to have some punch for defense against punches and throws. That kicks already do more damage on the whole just makes it even better. The advantage to lots of Punches is the possibility of a better move total at the beginning of a fight.

However, it is somewhat of a relief that the playtesters find the opposite to be true. I still remember the nightmare that Streetfighter: the Storytelling Game could be. Throws were easily the most dominating thing in the game. Throw - Beat, rinse and repeat.

You have not mentioned why you think multiple combatants is complicated, so I am going to take a guess and say that initiative presumes only two people. However, it seems simple enough to just use 'tags'. By that I mean that when more than one person is beating up on someone, one person goes as usual, but as long as he retains the initiative, he can tag the other person, who then gets initiative. If, for some reason, both sides have multiple attackers, people standing around can attack someone on the other side who is likewise doing nothing. If one person has the initiative on two or more defenders, he can pick and choose which he is attacking. Maybe if one defender is taking all the punishment, he can tag his partner to bow out; then initiative is determined by total moves remaining.

Something new to think about: I was reading through the old posts and noticed comments about Power Up. Power Up trades one Energy for two Action, but one round only. The current trade-off is two Energy to one Action (in character creation). With the doubled energy, fights might last longer than one round, but it still seems like a must-do option, especially for the Ways that are already Energy-heavy.

Grant,

Bear Hug should be changed simply because Pandas aren't even bears... (right?)

As to multiple combatants... I'm afraid I'm going to have to keep it the way it is, unless play-testing proves otherwise is better. It's not that multiple-combatants is impossible, it's that the amount of fun added to the system by multiple combatants isn't suitably high compared to the amount of complexity added.

When the double-energy rule is made, I'll it to one energy burnt = 1 extra action, (max 2 energy can be spent).

Tim

Besides, its easy enough to treat 2 NPC characters as a 2-man mob attacking one PC.

Hey Tim, any news on FinS?

Yes! Sorry it's been so long; I've been swamped with assignments lately. However, a website is in the works, complete with nifty martial arts flash intro w/ japanese dialogue, and all the rules in a nice html design. And a few extras.

Speaking of the rules, I did make those changes, but I didn't want to announce it until the website was ready. Since that's taking a while, the updated rules are here.. The old character sheet, combat quick sheet, and chi quick sheet are still around, if'n you need them.

And Stalkers, a Final Stand horror/monster/gore supplement, is coming some time. Right Ben?

Last time I posted Final Stand everyone was in a pre-gencon buzz. Now that you're all back to earth, any fresh comments on this thang?

Hey Tim! The new version looks good. I'm going to see if I can get Sarah to play it again with me tomorow.

Stalkers has been stalled... I haven't had much time for anything but work and girl recently... I've got so many things on my plate right now... I wish my time management skills were a bit better ;)

I've also become a bit dissatisfied with the way Stalkers was shaping up... I don't know quite why... I was reading back through Final Stand and was struck by how tight it is- a marvelous example of focused game design... kung fu action is the heart of the game, so kung fu action gets the rules.

Stalkers was just starting to look like Final Stand with the seriel numbers filled off...there wasn't enough individual identity there to make it distinct from FinS... it was just a game of supernatural creatures fighting instead of martial artists... and that's fine, but it has to capture the flair of that concept, and not just make it kung fu with monster masks.

So I started to reevaluate the concept, and then using FinS as a model, work back to a system which better captured it. I came up with these ideas:

* Character creation
> Pick Origin- a background... what you were
> Pick a Breed- you supernatural species- what you are
> Pick a Calling- your 'job'- what you do
> floating pools are Essence (vital mystical energy) and Gore (physical energy and vitality... loosing Gore has obvious gruesome side effects).

* Conflict Dice
> Focus- skilled physical combat
> Frenzy- crazy insano shit... flipping out monster stuff
> FX- using your powers in combat...each Breed and Calling offers different options here.

* Game Structure
> More player driven... invert the typical supernatural horror game in which player characters are poor sods manipulated and confused and dominated, and put them in the position to manipulate, dominate, and confuse others...
> As a group- the assumption is that players are members of a Cabal of allied creatures- the players define a Dominion... a territory, industry, or criminal enterprise they control. I'm considering something of a meta-system to define these Dominions almost like characters, with pools of Influence dice, Resource dice, and Control dice... improving these pools at the expense of the competing Cabals can be a major motivation for the Players to plot and plan and conive.




Still in the works though...


Later

-Ben