mark2v wrote:
Im really looking for soem constructive critisism. I feel my ideas are sound if not a bit scattered, and hammpered by the fact i am honestly a very bad writer.
If any one has the time plaese take a look and tell me what you think.

OK, first, don't put yourself down. Let us do it for you *wink* *wink*

Kidding aside, welcome to the Forge. A good place to start is to tell us a little about your game and your intentions so we can read it within the context of what you were trying to do. That usuually helps.

mark2v wrote: Im really looking for soem constructive critisism. I feel my ideas are sound if not a bit scattered, and hammpered by the fact i am honestly a very bad writer.

Hi, Mark. Welcome to The Forge. I've been reading through your PDF file. I think it could be improved by taking the time to use consistent formating through out the PDF, and by spell checking and grammar checking the complete text. If you've done this all ready, I'd suggest deleting your additions to the word processor's spell checking dictionary. :) I'd remove the "yellow post it" notes that are scattered through the text as well and turn them into regular paragraphs.

There's something wrong with the PDF conversion as the PDF consistently opens at page 2 instead of page 1. There's also a problem with local file names appearing with the "cover" image. I like the cover image, it seems evocative. Unfortunately, the cover doesn't seem to match up with the textual content and layout. It might be easier to simply delete this part for now and work on the text separately.

I'd remove Health and Health Points as they're a different system from the other attributes, and your expressed desire seems to be for a "simple" system.

Attribute names need to be consistent instead of overlapping significantly. Or perhaps this is a formatting problem? I'm very unsure, which indicates that there's a problem here on page 5.

Consider having attributes being the same as skills, and consider having extremely broad skill groups --I've found this very handy in some of my game systems.

For your attribute scale, you've got four main bands, each with different ranges of description. This seems excessively detailed, given your desire for a simple system. I'd suggest using Fudge's word scale here with it's + and - numerical scale. A attribute that isn't specified is assumed to be Fair or zero. This would eliminate the need to spend points just to get a "average" character, and instead concentrate player effort on describing the differences between their character and the average person. Using the Fudge scale concept would also make super powers a lot easier as well.

For special items and equipment, I'd really suggest you take a look at Hero Wars / Heroquest (there's a light version on the Gloranth site). This game system allows building equipment as if it were a character decriptor.

Combat suffers from a significant problem. The simplistic tactic to defeat one opponent is to spend all points on just one strong blow, in order to defeat the opponent before it has a chance to strike back. Combat also has the problem that the Agility attribute is a better attribute to buy at character creation time, as it helps to gain the initiative and so gain first strike. I'd suggest that combat be exactly the same as action resolution. I don't think you need a "special" combat section. See Mike's standard rant on this subject, which I think is very applicable for this game.

For damage and death, consider using a increasing negative pool instead of hit points. So as the character is being defeated in a contest, the success margin is a negative modifier to future contests. This can continue until the margin is so large, that the character can no longer prevent the other character from succeeding.

For tasks that are impossible (As defined by the GM on page 20 of the PDF), consider using a hidden target number of infinity, so that players are always defeated rather than having the player ask "Can I spend some points?". That way, the player and character is unsure.

Consider using two types of values for tasks; an active or attacking value and a passive or defending value. A big rock blocking the cave entrance that is impossible for any human to roll aside would have a infinity level of passive resistance to being rolled aside, but an active value of null as it doesn't "attack" the roller.

Also, allow the player to describe character actions to act just like extra "points" in action resolution, and allow the player to take complications (like injuries, obligations, agreements and so on) for the character if the player really wants the character to succeed.

I think the Dockets option is a good idea. I think the variable costs to make changes are a bad idea though. Instead, consider making the cost just one docket and allow players to bid for or against the proposed change, this way the players can self-regulate to match the desired setting or style.

Also consider rewarding players during the game with dockets, instead of just giving the dockets out to players just because the players are present at the table and haven't got any. I've found that a suitable reward mechanic encourages player participation. For example, rewarding players who take up GM functions (like descring scenery or proposing a plot complication for the character) with a docket for each.