Since I have created an account here to nitpick others' games, I imagine it is only fair to come under fire myself. My main offering to the world of roleplaying is Slayer of Dragon RPG, which I have been developing for the past few years. I know it is traditional to pitch a game, but honestly, I wrote the game, then tried to figure out how to pigeonhole it, not the other way around. Feel free to give me your thoughts. Besides, there are more flavor rules than any sensible person would use in a single session/campaign. Think Martial Arts/Hong Kong Action and all that encompasses.

Honestly, it is far harder than one might imagine to write something and edit it, too. I have had very enthusiastic response at conventions and the like, but I myself have taught everyone how to play. I am very curious if the rules as they are written make any sense to anyone who is not me.

The link to my site is in my sig, but I know no one actually looks at sigs. Here it is: http://www.angelfire.com/games/freerpg/

Please do give comments and do make criticisms. I have thick skin; you cannot offend me without making a concerted effort. I have done about all I can with the game using only my own brain. It is time to start using the brains of others.

By the way, just read the section labelled 'The Basics' on page 4 for an explanation of the core mechanic. It is an opposed roll against a target number on 2d6.

You've got a cheeky writing style, right up my alley (since I did the same with Orx).

Couple things I noticed right off, probably because they're at the front of the document: Why Strength? Wouldn't something like Vigor, Power or Body be a better choice since the stat in question is both muscle and hardiness?

Also, why Dexterity? I'd say Agility would be a better bet.

It wasn't immediately apparent what you meant by the shorthand "Pen," nor what the penalty tables actually were (though I did finally manage to put two and two together).

Other comments: lots of math...multiplication, division and so forth for derived attributes. This isn't a bad thing in character creation, but the whole Actions per Round thing, with 1+Init/6 is just too much. Probably not that difficult to handle, but it will slow things down every round of combat as folks have to roll and refigure.

You might be better off handling it with modifiers and one roll to determine actions. That is, a Dex of whatever gives you +# or -# actions plus an extra amount determined by die roll.

The Attack check is...complex. I subtract whichever is higher between my Skill and the opponent's Dex from whichever is lower and divide it in half, then subtract it from seven. This contradicts the opening statement about opposed checks, where you add half the difference to seven.

All I have to say about the combat is that the manuevers and such are damn cool...I can just imagine shouting out, "Crushing Meteor!" or "Flaming Spin Kick!" and attacking.
Make more, there's not enough! No, seriously, I want MORE cool manuevers!

Rage looks cool...models the idea that as you get more beaten up, the odds stack more in your favor...the adrenaline rush. Right?

Not really sure about Katas, however...sort of getting the idea that they are combinations of manuevers, but I don't know. I may have missed the in-depth explanation, but I thought I read everything and didn't see it.

Thank you for replying. This is exactly what I need to keep me honest.

I am glad you like the tone. I hope it gives an idea what sort of game it will be without taking pages to say so.

All of the terminology was chosen to be immediately familiar to most gamers. I do like the suggestions of Power and Agility, though. I will think about it.

As for the abbreviations, that is an editorial gaffe. I know all too well that the first instance, and occasionally throughout, should be spelled out in full. I will be paying attention to that when I make the next revision.

Unless it becomes an issue, I have no problems with lots of math in character creation. It is already lightning fast, and the math gives a feeling of guilty pleasure, even though I have taken great pains to keep everything balanced. Math during play is not so good. Common maneuvers should be written down beforehand to avoid slowing things down, and yes, people do take a session or two to understand how exactly the numbers work, but I have found it is smooth sailing afterward.

The initiative thing is troublesome. I dislike the idea of division during play as much as you, maybe more. However, when you break it down into base number of attacks and the threshold for an extra attack, both being based on dexterity, it is not too bad. Again, this is something that is initially troublesome but quickly becomes second-nature. The trick is to have a player keep track of initiatives and actions, so the GM does not need to worry about it.

The add/subtract thing is another editorial gaffe. The wording should be consistant. The Combat section is correct. I should have mentioned in the Basics that higher is always better. Does the example given under Checks help at all?

I am glad you like the maneuvers. They are the most optional part of the rules, but I really like the flavor they add. It is important to note that they are just templates, however. If two different real-world moves have the same effect, they generally only get one line in the rules. The Wrestle technique offers several good examples of this. Anyone who is serious about running Slayer needs to understand this concept, but there is certainly room for even more maneuvers and techniques. I never thought the list would be even as long as it is.

Yes, Rage reflects those characters who seem to only become more powerful as you beat them down. You can think of it as the Bruce Willis effect. It is probably the most complicated technique, though, because of all the numbers you need to juggle.

Katas are combos. If anyone knows the correct Kung Fu (Chinese) term to describe them, please let me know. Maybe I should just use the word 'combo'. Anyway, a kata is just a set pattern of moves that the character goes through automatically. With the initiative system, a character has initiative when their number comes up and when they interrupt another character's initiative, thus being limited in the number of moves that can be done at once. Katas remove part of that limitation. A big brick character might go last in the round, but each action of a kata is going to count. On the other hand, a really fast character gets the Jet Li effect going with one move after another until the room is clear. Does the Kata section under Combat make sense as written?

Now, it is my turn. Which do you prefer: the current system using 2d6, or using the unmodified difference on 3d6? I prefer using less dice, but it might make more sense to spread out the numbers. I think if I go with 3d6, though, I will introduce some sort of gimmick to make it fun. 3d6 has been overused and has no character.

Thanks again for your thoughts. Feel free to suggest any changes. That is the whole reason for releasing the game under the OpenContent License (OCL).

(By the way, I like Orcs. I have added it to the links section.)

/Grant

p.s. Do not pass this link around (it is not really all that exciting), but you all might find it interesting to look at older versions of Slayer to get a sense of its development. http://www.angelfire.com/games/freerpg/archive/

[Edit: I incorrectly said there is an example of a combat roll in the Combat section. It is under Basics, instead.]

On further consideration, going to 3d6 makes no sense. The usable range models a d8, which is no good. The halving would still be necessary.

I am playing with the idea of basing numbers on five. There are five levels and the stats are in blocks of five. The core mechanic becomes 2d10 with target numbers between 5-15, and critical success and failure depend on matches. Initiative becomes Dex + d10 and the actions per round would be Init divided by five.

Staying with the idea of fives, HP = Str * 5, MP = Chi * 5. Regen levels would have to count double, but that would really make a troll's day.

The magic system needs work anyway, so changing it to the five elements would be fine.

I might even consider reducing the races list and giving every race the ability to use magic, but focusing on their own element. I would have to think about it.

For flavor, I am thinking of changing critical hits to bypass Soak, rather than do double damage. They will generally do less damage, but are easily described as an attack that hits a vital point, like a nerve or exposed blood vessal.

Critical failures should only be used when dramatically appropriate. I do not know how many times I have said, 'sure, just don't miss' to some crazy plan involving one PC attacking past another. A fight on a precarious ledge or on ice (like that ever happens *snicker*) would be another example of when to bring the rule out.

Another thought is to remove the three penalties. In effect, every character with the Melee Technique would be Jackie Chan. Punch would be +1 Skill across the board to give it an advantage over Kick. The other techniques would remain the same.

Thoughts? Questions?

Question for you all: does it bother anyone that I combine solid gamist rules with narrative priorities in-game? This is how I always play, but I do not know GNS well enough to tell if this is breaking 'the rules' or whatever.

/Grant

ThreeGee wrote: Katas are combos. If anyone knows the correct Kung Fu (Chinese) term to describe them, please let me know. Maybe I should just use the word 'combo'. Anyway, a kata is just a set pattern of moves that the character goes through automatically.

I don't know what your plans are for the game, like if you plan to publish it at some point or not, but if you do publish it get an artist to do a more "stylized" version of your world map. The map seems functional but not very evocative. It's more of a style-thing than anything else. :)

Okay, combos it is. You have a point about everyone understanding the term, though I would disagree that katas are just meditation. I have always understood them in terms of showing the flow of a style.

I should just take down the map. It does not actually convey any information. At one point, I was thinking of releasing an 'official' setting, but I have since changed my mind.

Unfortunately, my finances do not currently allow for an artist. Unless someone wants to work for free, what you see is what you get. Artists, like writers, never work for free.

/Grant

Pale Fire wrote:

To be fair, there are many rules-lite systems available today. Making a game rules-lite just to have a rules-lite game is self-defeating.

"Rules-light" is not really what I'm talking about. Rules-light often means generic and flavourless. That's not what I want. If you look at old basic D&D for all its failings, it still retains a character on its own despite it's simplistic rules. Rules-lite usually means very little flavour is retain in the rules. I think that's a bad thing. With simple rules that evoke the idea of the setting on the other hand. That's the way to go I think. There is no need for completeness in the rules, just make sure the rules enhance the setting and not let it be a hinderance in understanding the world. A lot of games are overworked to the point that in their aim for completeness they become less complete than a simplified version of it would be.

Using a d12 would probably make the mathematics more elegant, but I am okay with the asymmetry and the fact the actor has an advantage.

Just pointing out that it could be worth checking out. Extreme results are more likely which might be both an advantage and a disadvantage. Anyway it's a simplification from 2D6 although not by much. It was just so striking I had to mention it :)

You are absolutely correct about bonuses over penalties. The problem is that the whole game would have to be scaled up. I will think about it.

Yes, it really is a problem. I've tried a lot of methods of alternative rolling just to avoid stuff like modifiers. Especially the negative ones.

Yes, the racial bonuses are definitely meant to be balanced, so much so that I keep changing them. It is important to note that Skill and Chi are half again as valuable as Str and Dex.

Oh, I didn't know about Skill & Chi vs Str & Dex. I wish I had stats that orthogonal, but right now it doesn't work :)

Damage is a flat number. Soak is also a flat number. Soak is roughly half of base damage, but only because both are based on Str.

Isn't it more fun with variable damage? How come you settled on this method?

The pages of Techniques were not written overnight. The game started with Punch, Kick, and Wrestle, and only the basic moves plus a couple special moves for flavor. Absolutely nothing is stopping anyone from playing the game that way today. It certainly speeds things up, but I found the players were always coming up with crazy things to do and wanted rules to tell them how it would work, so they could judge their chances.

The techniques seem strictly balanced. Is there any way to rebuild it to a "do-it-yourself ATTACK construction kit"?

If I check out the punch techniques there seems to be a pattern for it.
Except for Crushing Meteor which ought to have +12 Str (or only -2 to Skill) the following seems to be your rules.

1 Skill = 2 Str
1 Chi = 3 Str
2 Attacks / at level 2 = 7 Str
3 Attacks / at level 3 = 7 Str
Fist of Iron Effect = 5 Str
Ring The Bell Effect = 7 Str
Strike The Spirit Effect = 10 Str

For kicks:

1 Skill = 2 Str
1 Chi = 3 Str
Sweep effect = 3 Str
Stand up attack effect = 7 Str
2 kicks / at level 2 = 7 Str
2 kicks / at level 3 = 5 Str
3 kicks / at level 3 = 5 Str(!?)
3 kicks / at level 4 = 5 Str
Great Wall of Flame Effect = 7 Str

A on-the-fly special improvised moves would be cool. Maybe using your material as inspiration I might be able to build something like that for my game. Would that be ok?

The characters are actually the critters. I may release material on additional critters at some point, but I have always tailored the NPCs to the party and to the adventure.

I tried to circumvent the problem of enemies by aside from a few critters also introduce a powerful magical evil race where every member have their own look and power so the "boss" will never look the same. Also there is another "evil" power which animates the dead so the players never run out of things to fight.

Having good enemies to choose from makes the GM task much easier. It's one thing to play one's own game which one has a clear view of, quite another is to play someone elses and now what to do with it.

Check out earlier versions of Slayer in the archives and see if the old magic system suits you better.

I'll check it out.

I ultimately scrapped it because I did not like the idea of a D&D-esque spell list.

Which is a bit ironic since your technique lists are essentially D&D-esque spell lists :) What about making the magic work like the fighting techniques? You already have a framework and the magic is set up to work balanced. I think it would provide a more solid ground to work from even though it might mean narrowing things down.

Pale Fire pointed out that some of the math in the move lists is a little wonky. Taking another look, that seems to be an understatement. I am scratching my head, wondering where I went wrong. The numbers do not work out at all. In many cases, a higher level move completely replaces a lower level move. This does not work. Slayer is nothing if not a gamist's game, and the name of the game is choices.

So, with this realization, I have gone back to the drawing board and redone all the move lists. No doubt I have broken something else in the process, but at least everything is overtly balanced.

http://www.angelfire.com/games/freerpg/archive/slayer14.pdf (draft)

The following describes roughly how to build a move:
-1 Skill -> +2 Str
1 Chi -> +3 Str, Energy attack
-2 Skill, 1 Chi -> +1 attack
K-D -> -2 Str
Held -> -2 Str
claws -> +2 Str
all punches are +1 Skill
all jump kicks are -1 Skill, +2 Str
all ground moves are +2 Str

Ok, the chinese name for kata would be "quan tao" or "tao lu".
(Of course that would be the pinyin transcription, so if you want to be consistent you should write "Chi" as "Qi" in that case. Or write "ch'uan t'ao"/"t'ao lu").

However, I agree with the others that "Combo" would be better, as it immediately makes you associate it with the right thing.

From checking the earlier drafts of the magic system, I understand why you scrapped it. It didn't seem very fun. On the other hand, the magic system as it is lacks the clarity of the rest of the rules. Something to keep in mind maybe.

If Slayer has no good guys, how do you get focus in the game? Ultimately it sounds dangerous. I don't mean you have to make evil races. What I'm thinking about is that you should create something which generates adventures.

As for the critters, these could be "normal" exotic beings. I mean you have a lot of humanoid new races, so what about other creatures? Are they there or not? They don't need to be something the characters fight.

Ch'uan t'ao sounds vaguely familiar, which is to say no one else will have any idea what it means.

The old magic system was fun, but not the right kind of fun. You are right about the new system being unfocused, though. The amount of GM improvisation is too high, and the math involved is not immediately obvious. However, I think I will keep the overall idea of spheres, ala Mage, unless someone has a better idea for a freeform magic system that can handle over-the-top action.

The easiest way to create adventures is to lampoon existing genres. Run a party through a dungeon crawl using Slayer and you will never see D&D in the same light. On the other hand, splat horror is a lot of fun, even if Cthulhu does eat the party at the end. Got a favorite Hong Kong action movie? There is absolutely nothing wrong with running an all-human party through chop suey cliches.

I feel that your question is not really about critters, but to answer briefly: yes, there can be critters. In fact, if you want a splatbook full of critters, feel free to write one up. At some point, I will be creating guidelines for creating undead, summoning demons and elementals, and so on, to enhance the already gloomy atmosphere of the game.

If you really want a narrative premise, here it is: "Can a small group of people living in a decayed and morally ambiguous world find the strength in themselves to rise about it?"

I think you are focusing too much on an us/them approach to running adventures, when the game specifically tries to destroy such ideas. The ambiguity needs be laid on pretty heavily. Usually, a GM feels like a failure if he cannot railroad characters into playing heroes, but Slayer characters should be encouraged to sink to their own level. If the party has a goblin character, throw a group of goblin raiders at them. If the party has a troll character, throw elven raiders at them. Whatever you do, play against the party's expectations. Do not let them get away with slaughtering animals unless you throw it into their faces later.

One shot adventures that I have run have been a lot lighter than I am describing, but I have still given players every opportunity to explore characters free from the traditional heroic mindset. Something is wrong if the description of a man summoning power from the netherworld does not draw jealous envy. All the skeletons and locked doors along the way are simply a warm-up.

If the aim honestly is to fullfil the narrativist premise you describe about living in a morally ambiguous world, I don't see the game giving off that vibe at all.

If you said you tried to evoke the feeling of manga video frpgs like Suikoden, Breath of Fire and Final Fantasy (to name a few) on the other hand, I'd say you were spot on.

Now these games do make humans the worst enemies, but that's more of a way to create an engaging and interesting plot than anything else. I definately wouldn't say any of those games were about "Can a small group of people living in a decayed and morally ambiguous world find the strength in themselves to rise about it?" or anything like that.

It just doesn't strike me as the main theme of Slayer, that's all I'm saying.

I must confess you have lost me. To use one of your examples, the Final Fantasy games present bleak, destroyed worlds, morally ambiguous heroes, and well-developed villians. The PCs start out weak and barely able to walk from town to town; they are just trying to survive in a hostile world. Eventually, though, they become powerful and must face the realization that they might be no better than the villian, based on their motivations and actions. However, they ultimately rise above their moral uncertainty to become true heroes.

On the other hand, the PCs slaughter countless men and beasts. In the game, these enemies are presented in black-and-white terms. They are evil because they are. This attitude is strikingly inconsistant with the larger story of the games. It is this attitude that Slayer plays with. By giving every enemy a face, the PCs are forced to consider what they are doing. In short, they must make a choice. Final Fantasy chooses for the PCs what they will do; they have been railroaded into a morally ambiguous situation. The players in a Slayer game should be making those same choices on their own and perhaps choosing a different path.

On the other hand, nothing is stopping you from running a game any way you want. You can play Slayer like it is just another D&D clone, if that makes you happy. I realize not everyone is interested in a postmodern deconstruction of traditional fantasy rpgs. Maybe you would be happier playing the game in a modern setting. Hong Kong action is one of the genres Slayer is meant to emulate.

I'm still relatively a newcomer to the Forge, but I think I can explain:
Narrative-based games should probably have some kind of rules for dealing with the moral issues you want to the players to explore.
As is, Slayer is simply a combat system. Still, there's nothing wrong with making a Final Fantasy-inspired "wander and fight" fest.

[edited a little]

I think 3G was just saying that if you wanted a Narrativist Premise to apply to the game, and drift it that way (drift indicating aganst the design strengths which are definitely Gamist, or maybe weird Sim), that he had one you could use.

I happen to agree that the Nar Premise he chose fits well. Then again, I just finished up playing FF10.

Mike

Thanks, Mike. I have not been very clear, I think. Clearly, Slayer of Dragon is a Gamist game. I would be crazy to call it anything else. I have only been saying it can be adapted to other purposes.

I am not fond of the idea that behaviour should be controlled through rules. As I have said, the premise of Slayer revolves around choices, and any rules defining how characters should be played would go against that idea.

A minor point is that Premise is not limited to Narrativism. In fact, if I understand Ron Edward's essay correctly, all games have a premise - a premise simply being what a normal person might call a theme.

I am going to make a moderator-like decision and ask that people please keep GNS comments to a minimum. At this point, I would prefer to concentrate on actual rules and actual experience.

/Grant

Threegee,

Just wanted to point out that, yes, "kata" is a term used for a combination of linked, predetermined martial-arts moves, not meditation (though perhaps it is used in that sense, I don't know, I've never seen it used as such, though). Ok, most importantly, how do I know this? Many, many years as a student of the martial arts -- in my case, Karate (Tae Kwon Do).

So, that being the case, I rather like the term Kata (as opposed to Combo), especially if you are going with the Chinese/Oriental/Anime flavor for your game, and it seems you are with the whole five elements magic system, Chi as magical energy and so forth.

(BTW, something I've been wondering about, shouldn't the title be "Slayer of the Dragon," or am I missing something obvious again?)

greyorm wrote: So, that being the case, I rather like the term Kata (as opposed to Combo), especially if you are going with the Chinese/Oriental/Anime flavor for your game,

greyorm wrote: (BTW, something I've been wondering about, shouldn't the title be "Slayer of the Dragon," or am I missing something obvious again?)

Pale Fire wrote: If he's going for chinese flavour it doesn't make sense to use kata as kata is a japanes term.

Kata is a Japanese word. Originally, I used Japanese terms over Chinese, but people just were not understanding what I meant, so I changed from Ki to Chi and renamed the moves to English names. The name of the game--Slayer of Dragon--is just a joke. The Slayers of Dragons, or The Slayers of the Dragon, would be a more appropriate name, just as Lina's Dragon Slave should be Dragon Slayer.

My current thought for the game is to deliberately evoke an over-the-top 19th/early 20th century China feeling. There have been a lot of HK films released by Disney lately that deal with the period, so I think people would get the idea pretty easily.

/Grant

Grant wrote: The name of the game--Slayer of Dragon--is just a joke. The Slayers of Dragons, or The Slayers of the Dragon, would be a more appropriate name, just as Lina's Dragon Slave should be Dragon Slayer.

Polishing, if I understand you correctly. The game has been playable for several years, though I have added some new pieces from time to time. Right now, I am working on the magic system to make it based on five spheres: earth, water, air, fire, and void. Also, I will be rewriting parts of the game to make things more clear, with examples and short stories to illustrate both the rules and what I expect a typical session to be like.

There used to be a stat called Luck, which was a metagame resource for rerolling bad rolls and for causing others to reroll. What do you all think of adding a metagame mechanic (not necessarily the same mechanic) to Slayer?

Having not played SoD (yet), I can't say if it needs it, however, that being the case, I need to ask, does the game NEED it? If not, then there's the answer!

About the luck thing... I think it's a matter of game lethality. If you have a metagame mechanic like luck you can put in a little more lethality, especially if the players have it and not the average goon.

On the other hand if it's something everyone has, forget about it. Who want's mindless goons to luck out with that mechanic. However it does have it's uses keeping the big bad boss out of dying through a fluke.

I don't know about the game lethality, so I can't say. All I can give as advice is, only put it in if you know that you want it. Not if you just happened to see other games with it. I've seen very few games use this kind of stat well. The only thing that ever worked for me was the Warhammer "Fate Points".

wyrdlyng wrote:

ThreeGee wrote: Katas are combos. If anyone knows the correct Kung Fu (Chinese) term to describe them, please let me know. Maybe I should just use the word 'combo'. Anyway, a kata is just a set pattern of moves that the character goes through automatically.

Just a minor point, use Combos instead of Katas. Katas tend to closer to a active form of meditation rather than a linked series of attacks. Combos also evokes the idea of a linked series of attacks to anyone even remotely familiar with any "fighter" video games (like Street Fighter, Tekken, etc.).

CrazyIvan wrote: In Kendo they are a series of complex interactions between a "master" and "student", a cerimonial dance almost. The actual moves are fairly basic, it is the timing and coordination that make it beautiful. But in each one, its illustrative of a move that gets the "master" in a dangerous position.