Hi all

I've just got a PDF of Wayfarer's Song up and running and I thought I'd see if I could get a bit of feedback from the design community here.

1) Are you able to download the PDF okay?

2) Does it read well? Does the basic layout make sense?

3) Have you spotted any mistakes or problems?

4) Most of all, does the system actually look interesting enough to play?

Any and all feedback will be much appreciated.

Thanks ahead of time...

Chris

Wayfarer's Song: http://www.geocities.com/mythopoetic_games/Mythopoetic.html

Very nice. The mechanics seem very smooth to me after a quick read. Lots of dice, but, then again, I like that. Single mechanic taken to it's logical conclusion. Well done.

I do not see any character generation rules, however. That is, there is an advancemnt system, and rules for what all the character stats are, but if there was something about how to determine your character's starting stat and skill levels, I missed it. Could you help me out?

Mike

No Chargen?

Yikes. It is there I assure you. Or should be.

There should be two Chargen Systems in the Kithbook: Mortal Men. One that uses a very quick-start archetypes system and another that uses a more advanced step-by-step method.

Simplified character creation starts on Page 11 of the Mortals Kithbook. Advanced Character Creation starts on page 32 of the Mortals Kithbook.

The advanced creation system creates a character by defining where a character was and what he was doing in the 'passages' of his life: Youth, adolescence etc.

Hope that is helpful...

Chris

Very helpful. Hadn't read the Kithbook yet. Simple as that.

I get your modular design. But if you do go with this split, make very certain that people realize that they can't play without at least one Kith book. If you ever sell the game (and I think maybe you should), you may want to combine them, or at least make the mortal book available with the core rules for one price.

Mike

When I try to go to that site I get a message that the site has exceeded its file limit quota and I can't get in.

Nice.

Why do all the archetypes start with the same Attributes? Why not get part of it over, and just have some stats start higher or lower before adjustment? Wouldn't that be informative? Or are you hoping for players to play archetypes out of the norms?

The Cults remind me a bit of Glorantha.

Fate points are a bit hazy. How long does it last? I do like the consensual rule for challenging them, however (no surprise). Good limit.

All in all, well done. How playtested is this?

Mike

Mike

Yeah - I mention once, somewhere briefly in the intro that both Core Rules and at least one Kithbook are needed to play the game. If I ever sold the game either as a PDF or as a printed book (kind of unlikely) I'd have to bundle up the Core rules and a Kithbook.

I'm working on Duergar now - they are turning out better than I originally thought with a clan structure and all sorts of nifty object/wealth orientated disciplines that I think suit them quite well. I really think the modular design will end up being a big plus for the system.

Edit: opps, you posted something more while I was writing a reply.

Attributes: The archetypoes are pretty limited as it is. I was just trying to leave *something* to the player's discretion.

Fate Point: Fuzy. Yes. I am always about half-a-decison away from just nixing fate points altogether. They are a holdover from when the mechanic was a much more important element in the game.

The cults and Glorantha connection is well spotted. Way back when I had Runequest explained to me as a game about cults and mysterious order - when I came to play it I was kind of dissapointed in the execution. The cults as I've outlined here are a little more how I'd hoped the Glorantha cults had been - only less detailed.

Playtested? Not as much as it should be. The core rules have been playtested pretty well - but - of all the various Disciplines have only five or six have been well tested. I haven't even got a group of players past third or fourth level yet myself - basically I just seem to have no time to play these days.

Valamir
Sorry about that.

Damn Geocities. They limit how many hits you can have in an hour or something similar. I am going to have to go with a more professional outfit. Oh well. As the error message says: try again later if it is not too much trouble.

Chris

Hey Chris, this is much nicer to read than the word documents, and I think you cleaned up stuff as well, haven't you?

Random comment 1: By calling the drowned dead "Draupnir" you gave them the same name as Odin's ring which would make 9 new ones every day. The name is very fitting for the dead otherwise since the name means "the thing that drips" or "the dripper". I understand that this might be intentional.

Random comment 2: I miss the descriptions of how the common animals, how sentient they are, how they think, how good they are at magic and so on.

I can't speak about the system (since I haven't gotten into it yet), but the source material you have is amazingly good. So good that I wouldn't have felt the need to start up Ygg if I would have had this game.

(However, Ygg today is different from what it once were, so I still feel there's a reason for me to make it. I wish there was some way I could trick you into co-designing Ygg with me actually ;). A lot of my thoughts on Ygg stuff, especially the magic and the magic-ness of things are almost identical to what you have for Wayfarer's Song)

The source material alone makes it one of the most exciting fantasy games to come along in a long time.

I uploaded them to my site (the three WS documents). Get them here:
http://www.8ung.at/ygg/song/wayfarers_song.pdf
http://www.8ung.at/ygg/song/character_sheet.pdf
http://www.8ung.at/ygg/song/kithbook_mortal_men.pdf
Let me know if this isn't appropriate Chris? I'm just putting them there until your site is in order.

That is fine Pale Fire - actually quite wonderful of you. It is certainly in the spirit of the whole free distribution thing so go right ahead.

Anyone having problems with my site can download from Palefire's then...

Thanks

Chris

How much of this is playtested Chris? The rounds and actions seems like something that could work in theory but which would have problem in practice. That's only what it seems.

Your "increased difficulty" is actually a version of a mechanic used a little everywhere. If you rephrase it you can actually keep rolls for simpler actions than the default. Right now you have:

Very Easy - No test of Attribute required
FairlyEasy - One Attribute Test required to pass
Fairly Difficult - Two consecutive Attribute Tests required to pass
Very Difficult - Three consecutive Attribute Tests required to pass
Impossibly Difficult - Four consecutive Attribute Tests required to pass

This is the same mechanic as saying:
Fairly Easy: roll one die
Fairly Dificult: roll two die keep the highest
Very Difficult: roll three die keep the highest
Impossibly Difficult: roll four die keep the highest

Obviously this can be extended on the other side of the range, which many games do, including Ygg:

Easy: roll two die, keep lowest
Very Easy: roll three die, keep lowest
and so on.

(If low is good and high is bad that is)

Attack roll is again similar to what I have in Ygg, although you seem to do some acrobatics to get it. In Ygg you have to roll 7+opponent skill-your skill on a D12 to hit. For some reason you have bumps of 2 in your system. A little inelegant perhaps, but it works no problem I think.

Ooops, didn't see that this didn't hold for opposed tests. My bad, then it's different from Ygg after all.

Combat seems a little dry since it's very simulationist bashing and parrying, something worth thinking about perhaps. A lot in the combat mirrors stuff in Ygg, although Ygg as far as I see is a bit simpler, a bit cruder... for example I only have "Flesh Wound, Serious Wound and Mortal Wound" where you put in 5 levels. For Ygg I tried to reduce detail as much as I could without destroying the point of the mechanic. Did you have any particular philosophy when it came to judging granularity or is it arbitrary?

Finally two things: The first is that magic in general has been much easier to read and get an overview of than in the old draft.

The second and last is wishing something for the next version of the game in terms of layout. To avoid repeating myself, I'll just point you to the thread. It's here

Chris --

I think that the game would be easier to read if the text was in two columns. Other than that, it looks great so far -- it just screams myth on every page. Planning on adding any art to the pdf's?

- Jay

J. Backman wrote: Chrit just screams myth on every page.

Just got a chance to start getting into the download today, so in response to your questions...

1) Downloads fine
2)Seems to read just fine. No serious "Dear God, burn my retinas!" issues popped up.
3)Um, I'll get back to you after I get to dig into it deeper.
4)I like the simplicity, don't necessarily dig the mechanics themselves. I also gotta back up Mike on the big up for slathering the game with myth and legend.

Chris

First off - thanks for the interest and feedback on the game. J. Backman - yes, it would look better in columns, but at the moment the thought of reformatting the entire game is just too much. If and when I get around to making it look a bit more professional I'll use two columns for most of the text.

Mike and Bankuei: thanks for the feedback. The mythic element I suppose an important 'what makes this fdifferent' aspect.

Palefire

Okay, you're going to make me work fro my post. I'll see if I can answer some questions...

PALEFIRE
How much of this is playtested Chris? The rounds and actions seems like something that could work in theory but which would have problem in practice. That's only what it seems.


It is reasonably well playtested - but not as much as it should be. The action systems works in practise in my experience, and is fairly close to the action system in Riddle of Steel which I've not played but has got a lot of acclaim. Anyway you can always impose a more rigid rounds system if you like.

PALEFIRE
Your "increased difficulty" is actually a version of a mechanic used a little everywhere. If you rephrase it you can actually keep rolls for simpler actions than the default. Right now you have:

Very Easy - No test of Attribute required
FairlyEasy - One Attribute Test required to pass
Fairly Difficult - Two consecutive Attribute Tests required to pass
Very Difficult - Three consecutive Attribute Tests required to pass
Impossibly Difficult - Four consecutive Attribute Tests required to pass

This is the same mechanic as saying:
Fairly Easy: roll one die
Fairly Dificult: roll two die keep the highest
Very Difficult: roll three die keep the highest
Impossibly Difficult: roll four die keep the highest

You have a good point. The main difference between a cumulative test and a dice pool is that a cumulative test is open ended. You can keep passing dice rolls until you fail. In the above example it is not particualrily important but for opposed contests of fortitude, willpower etc, a cumulative test comes into its own.

Another nice thing is that a cumulative test only requires 1d10. Every player in the game (as the rules stand now) should only ever need 1d10 to play with ease.

Obviously this can be extended on the other side of the range, which many games do, including Ygg:

Easy: roll two die, keep lowest
Very Easy: roll three die, keep lowest
and so on.

(If low is good and high is bad that is)


PALEFIRE
Attack roll is again similar to what I have in Ygg, although you seem to do some acrobatics to get it. In Ygg you have to roll 7+opponent skill-your skill on a D12 to hit. For some reason you have bumps of 2 in your system. A little inelegant perhaps, but it works no problem I think.

Ooops, didn't see that this didn't hold for opposed tests. My bad, then it's different from Ygg after all.

***

I think I follow you here. The bumps of two just seem to work out okay in play. Taking the bumps down to one would require doubling the length of the table - which I could do I suppose. No particualr reason why not...

The combat mechanism (which can be used for any contest of skills - chess, swiming, sprinting, whatever) is one of the more odd mechanics in the game - I hope I've explained it well.

Bascially it is a system where the target number is based upon the reletive differnece in skill level between your skill and the difficulty of a task you are attempting. In an opposed test one of the players (the challenger or aggressor) nominates a level of difficulty and both players test their skill at this level. The consequences can go either way however. A challenger is not immune to being injured by a character he has attacked.

Did that make any sense. In practise the mechanic works smoothly and without issue. I also like that players begin talking about difficulty and skill in terms of rudimentary, basic, average... etc... rather than numbers once they get used to the system.

PALEFIRE
Combat seems a little dry since it's very simulationist bashing and parrying, something worth thinking about perhaps. A lot in the combat mirrors stuff in Ygg, although Ygg as far as I see is a bit simpler, a bit cruder... for example I only have "Flesh Wound, Serious Wound and Mortal Wound" where you put in 5 levels. For Ygg I tried to reduce detail as much as I could without destroying the point of the mechanic. Did you have any particular philosophy when it came to judging granularity or is it arbitrary?

***

Fair enough comment. My only guide for granularity was to keep the number '5' a fairly common constant in the system. Why? I've no idea, it just kind of evolved that way and made sense.

PALEFIRE
Finally two things: The first is that magic in general has been much easier to read and get an overview of than in the old draft.

***

Thanks

PALEFIRE
The second and last is wishing something for the next version of the game in terms of layout. To avoid repeating myself, I'll just point you to the thread. It's here...

***

I check that out.

Chris

Any hope seeing you use the quote tags soon Peregrine? It got awfully messy reading some parts ;)

First, the spotlight thing, how well does it work with interruption style actions? What about dramatic interrupts? What I mean by that can be found in this thread. I'm interested in how your game behaves in situations such as those listed in that thread.

Peregrine wrote: The main difference between a cumulative test and a dice pool is that a cumulative test is open ended. You can keep passing dice rolls until you fail. In the above example it is not particualrily important but for opposed contests of fortitude, willpower etc, a cumulative test comes into its own.

I think I follow you here. The bumps of two just seem to work out okay in play.

Peregrin wrote: The combat mechanism (which can be used for any contest of skills - chess, swiming, sprinting, whatever) is one of the more odd mechanics in the game - I hope I've explained it well.

Peregrine wrote: Fair enough comment. My only guide for granularity was to keep the number '5' a fairly common constant in the system. Why? I've no idea, it just kind of evolved that way and made sense.