Hi folks

I've only recently discovered the Forge and it looks like a good place to share my humble first draft rules for a game which I am developing. The game is called Casefile: ZODIAC and it is a weird 1970s espionage game.

I prefer working on background over system but I have just posted the system for the moment. I wanted a simple system that gives everyone their own specialisations, but doesn't have people counting bullets or calculating fatigue points. My players wouldn't stand for it.

I am concerned that the rules manage to be simulatenously confusing and over-written. I was wondering if they made any sense at all???

Anyway, the first draft of the rules is available at:
http://www.vulaw.net/sentai/zsys.pdf

The finished version will be over a hundred pages long and has lots of background. We are currently working on some groovy art for it as well.

I will probably publish online as a free pdf.


Scott

Welcome to The Forge, Scott!

My players wouldn't stand for it.

I am concerned that the rules manage to be simulatenously confusing and over-written. I was wondering if they made any sense at all???

Hi Scott,

You know, regardless of the material itself, something struck me about your post ... it leads to the question, who's your audience? If you use your own play-group as the audience, you might find yourself in the trap of trying to please people who know you personally - which historically, isn't a strong way to go about designing a game.

If, on the other hand, your audience is a semi-abstract group of people "out there" who share specific aesthetic interests with you, then you might be surprised to find quite a pre-prepped crowd who go "Oh wow!!" when they see your stuff.

To go with this second method, however, it's important to articulate to yourself just what those specific aesthetic interests are ...

Anyway, all that was pretty abstract. I'll be back later with comments on the material you linked to.

Best,
Ron

I like the idea, '70s supernatural espionage. That's slick. I want to play that game; evil geniuses are even cooler when they're evil genuises with demons.

Before starting on the things that I thought, I want to know, what was the design goal behind this system? Did you want to make a game that lets you play cinematic super-martial-artist-techie-macguyver-meets-crouching-tiger-demon-tamer spies, or a game that has a gritty espionage feel, with a streak of mysticism and the supernatural?

System concerns:
The actual resolution mechanic is rather hard to interpret. It seems very similar to Synthesis, by Mike Holmes, so you might benefit from taking a look at that. It has a very strong discussion of its mechanic. On that, how important, really, is Spy Rank? Zero to three extra coins isn't going to have any kind of epic effect, when you have zero to four coins coming from three other sources for any particular ability. What was your reason behind including it?

Depletion of Decans: I love the idea of tally depletion, but it feels incomplete: Why does Decan depletion skip straight up to Element, ignoring Sign? Would it not be possible to unify this, allowing drain at all four levels of specificity, with increasingly profound effects as the drain approaches the centre of the circle?

Are the decans sub-abilities of the Zodiac, like the Zodiac are subordinate to the Elements, or can you freely associate decans and Zodiac? The rules seem to imply the first interpretation, but I could find no specific discussion of what decans matched which signs, until I reached the character sheet. I notice that you alphabetize the decans in their description, without linking them to Zodiac. This confused me and damaged the idea of their subordination to the signs. If the first interpretation is the case, then you could have a really cool character sheet design with concentric rings, with Spy Rank in the very centre and the abilities branching out around it, with each Decan way out at the edge.

What does Specialist do? Or Terror, which looks like it could be replaced by the use of multiple skills in succession. Heck, a whole bunch of Decans have widely differing mechanics, like Scuba which does nothing by itself but is a cap on other abilities. Do you really need exactly one abiliity that works like that? It could be a very powerful mechanic, I think, if generalized and used more widely. Scuba and spacesuits might have been really exciting in the '70s, but what espionage film will choose to have a scuba scene, when they can put in a Spandex-clad martial arts scene instead?

Advancement: What is the benefit for raising a Sign, if it forces you to lower its Decans? What does it mean to be a mystic quest or a shift in campaign power?

Color concerns:
A thing on naming: Your decan terms are inconsistent, but don't have to be. You have abstract nouns {Sufism}, terms for people {Commando}, verbs {Seduce}, and even adjectives {Covert}. I feel strongly that naming of game terms has a lot of effect on gameplay; it should be thought about carefully. D&D3e would be very different if they had dropped the idea of AC and simply called that element 'DC to hit this target'.

Now, since your examples seem to use the Decans as nouns, why not name them all as nouns? "Roll your Seduce against his Intrigue" just doesn't feel as good as "Roll your Seduction against his Intrigue", IMO.
Granted, this isn't perfect; Covert is especially problematic, because it doesn't really have any other forms in common use. Why Geomancology rather than Geomancy? Why Sufism rather than Yoga, Meditation, Mind-over-Matter, or some other more widely-used term? Alternatively, why bother with defined Decans at all? Your Zodiac is closely defined enough that it should be possible for players to invent Decans for their particular character, without going all over the map.

All the nitpicking aside, I think you have an exciting premise and a great mechanical basis for an interesting game.

Wow, quick response – thanks guys!

OK, onto the specifics. I guess it is always hard to figure an intended audience with games you write. My players are very system hostile, simply refuse to learn systems, mine or anyone else’s. This works for us as they trust me to make arbitrary decisions on everything that would ordinarily call for a diceroll. This can be frustrating though…

One reason why I would like to get other people to have a look at the rules is to make sure they look reasonable, I am unlikely to get my group to do anything resembling a rigourous playtest. So I guess I am writing not just for my group but for others who may like/need a system for the setting (my real reason to write).

Every espionage system I have seen has annoyed me. They usually make token reference to source material but then descend into a hardcore gun-porn exercise which isn’t really my bag. I particularly dislike systems that let you have gadgets or have contacts, then require you to list them during character generation.

I do want a fast and loose, minimal system, I don’t really like "rules for their own sake" that much myself (my training is in law, I’m pretty sick of rules fetishism). Can’t deny they can bring a sense of urgency and uncertainty which you just can’t get when the ref is making decisions.

The goal is definitely OTT camp, but the three levels of spy rank will hopefully allow some grades in this, from Mission Impossible to outright super powered stuff. The Spy Rank stat is merely one of four components, but it is hoped to have an overall effect – to model the kind of Mrs Peel/Bond who has a bit of knowledge about everything.

I have been working on a mandala style character sheet which still looks too crap but will hopefully be useful.

On the decans, they do fall under specific houses (yeah making the list alphabetical is confusing – will fix) and I am open for discussion as to which ones could be replaced, as long as they match the element/house themes. I love the idea of Scuba, it is big with the setting, but I agree that it may be a bit dull for many people to include in their games. Perhaps the rules should mandate that there MUST be a scuba scene each game and give players special experience points for it … <ahem>

I particularly like four willows weeping’s idea of players deciding on their own three decans, but including a list of possible options as a starting point. Not sure if this just makes this more difficult to get started though…

I will examine all your kind comments thoroughly and work on knocking this thing into shape.

I will stick the background up soon, for those who dig that kind of stuff. I thought it was best to keep the two halves separate for the moment.

Hi again

The Casefile: ZODIAC background material is at:

http://www.vulaw.net/sentai/zbnd.pdf

Again it is early draft material but it might answer some questions about what style the system is aimed at.

Scott