I have written the Greatest Role-Playing Game of All Time.

Not really. But it's fun to say. In fact I have so much fun saying it that I put it in as a subtitle.

Anyway, Toast is [URL=http://www.simplephrase.com/toast6]here[/URL] and despite the rude and crass way in which it is presented, I would be interested in reading reactions to it.

A note: Donjon, by Clinton R. Nixon, has a combat system that rocks my world. So I stole it. I include a plug for Donjon in the document, but Clinton, if you wish to object to my use of your (excellent) ideas, PM me and we'll talk about it.

After reading the second swear word in the text, I skimmed to the end and didn't bother with it any further. I'd suggest taking them out.

Whoops, I forgot to mention that. Warning to sensitive readers: There's a few cuss words.

Sorry about that, Andrew.

You, or perhaps I, also seem to be confused:

In the game rules Ethan wrote: The masses don't have the time or the inclination to read and learn this game. In fact, the only reason this game is online in the first place is to ease distribution to my group.

Hi Ethan,

I’d like to first expand on Andrew’s comment, which I partly agree with, but I’m taking it in a slightly different direction. I think that the text could use some revision if you are really interested in what folks outside your game group have to say about it. You may not be—in fact, as Jasper points out, the “Presentation” section pretty much says so. I think that the tone of that section, more than the swearing itself, will garner a specific reaction from a lot of people. While I’m personally not particularly sensitive about swearing, I am put off when it’s directed at me. From your tone in the forum post, and the fact that you’ve posted a link asking for opinions, I’d guess that you are genuinely interested in constructive feedback. But once I get to the text itself, I get a different vibe. There’s nothing wrong with a conversational tone, but I can only be told to “fuck off” so many times before I stop caring about your game. Really.

I suspect that I’m not the only one.

However, I do have a question about the game itself, and I mean it in the most constructive way: “What’s the point?”

What is the game about? What am I supposed to do with it? What’s a game of “Toast” supposed to look like? Why “Toast?” Right now, I see a sketch of a game rather than a game. It reads like your personal notes. In one place, I see an advancement system that gives advancement for failed rolls because “people learn from their mistakes.” But then, under missile ranges, the text says, “Note that this handling of range is not realistic. If you want realism, fuck off.” So is the game supposed to realistically simulate, uh, something, or not? I just don’t know, and that makes it difficult to offer any real comments. I don’t know what your goals are for this game, and that limits my ability to give you any useful feedback.

So my main comments are: revise the language and the tone. If you’re going for humor, trust me—it may be funny to tell me to “fuck off,” but I don’t know you well enough to think it’s funny to be told to do so. Ditch the whole section on gender, if you’re interested in people taking you seriously. The game isn’t long enough to need it. If you just use “he,” that’s fine. But you’re turning off some people who might give you good feedback by insulting them. Hmmm. Also, it seems that every section comes with a final comment of the sort that “whatever is ambiguous in the game, uh, that’s the GM’s job.” That’s fine for you, if you’re the GM and it’s your game. But I’m not interested in a game that basically tells me to fill in its holes.

Andrew and Jasper’s comments are short, and there’s a reason for that. If you put more care into the game, I think you may find that other people will put more care into their comments.

Rich

Regarding the game itself:

Is there a reason that you have to roll for "impossible" or "stupid simple" actions, besides some kind of continuity of mechanic? A 1-in-12 chance doesn't look to me like "impossible" at all. If you say Impossible, you should mean it. Similarly, something painfully simple, IMO, shouldn't be touched by the resolution mechanic.

Second, what made you choose to have a large set of statistics that you then derive much fewer numbers from, and use those in resolution? What value do the original statistics have? It seems like you're just putting an extra, unnecessary layer of complication, further muddled by numerous formulae and mathematical acrobatics, onto your game.

Fair questions, Jasper. I didn't take it as harshness, so no worries. :) There are two reasons I posted this to the Forge.

1. I stole Clinton's ideas, and I wanted to make him aware of that and give him a chance to tell me if he has a problem with it. I could have PM'd him on it, but

2. This community is cool, and I felt like sharing. I guess I don't really consider the Forge to be "the masses" so to speak. You're more of a really extended role-playing circle that I move in.

Obviously, Toast as it is currently presented won't appeal to everyone, and it isn't intended to.

What do I hope to achieve by soliciting opinions? Dunno, really. Maybe some ideas, maybe some suggestions, maybe a chance to talk about my RPG baby of the past couple years, maybe a bit of external validation. Or not. Really, I see Toast at this point as a mostly complete thing, so I'm not really looking for design advice. Hmm.

I guess it boils down to a simple message: "Hey, Forge! Here's what I did!"

If anyone's interest is piqued, I'll be pleased as punch to talk about it. If not, hey, that's cool too. I already know I'll get gaming mileage out of Toast, and as the introduction suggests, I'm not too worried about it. :)

Hi Rich.

Regarding the point of Toast:

Simulate any sort of reality:
Well, not really, but I do like mechanics to make some sort of "sense." So, yeah, people learn from their mistakes? Quasi-realistic, maybe. But for combat ranges, I'm comfy with a sensible abstraction. I don't see a need for realism there, and that's what I was addressing in that playful suggestion at the end of the Ranges section.

Tell total strangers to fuck off:
Not really the point, but I consider it a fringe benefit. Disclaimer: Don't take it seriously. You can if you want, but I would politely suggest against it.

Show my game group the rules by which I expect to run games:
Here we come to the crux. That's the point.

As it stands, I can see your point of view that it is a framework of a game rather than a game. That's sorta the point, and I'm not going to argue about that. I've used Toast in the past mostly for running games in Harn, but I can easily picture using it in other settings and styles of game, and indeed, I intend to. I guess Toast could be regarded as a toolkit that I tend to favor.

four willows weeping wrote: Is there a reason that you have to roll for "impossible" or "stupid simple" actions, besides some kind of continuity of mechanic? A 1-in-12 chance doesn't look to me like "impossible" at all. If you say Impossible, you should mean it.

Second, what made you choose to have a large set of statistics that you then derive much fewer numbers from, and use those in resolution? What value do the original statistics have? It seems like you're just putting an extra, unnecessary layer of complication, further muddled by numerous formulae and mathematical acrobatics, onto your game.

I have some specific comments, but first two more general concenrs:

You say that you consider it basically complete, and that it's basically a framework for you to work with. Is it your aim for other people (besides your immediate group) to use the system? I understand that you've "put it out here, and that if anyone feels like using it, fine" (so to speak). But do you want to make it easier for other people to use? Appealing for people to use? If not, and if you're completely satisfied with it, I don't know how we can help you.

Assuming the answer to that is no... as Ron asks, what's the point of the game? I know it's a generic kind of system without setting. But I guess my real question is: Why do you use this system? Why would anyone use this system? What do you see its advantages over other games being? Is there something it's supposed to do well, or another game that it's supposed to "fix" maybe? If it's just a generic system, I can still offer a little advice (as I'm sure others can), but without some direction, we won't reall be able to tell you where to go....

(If it were someone else, I would here again caution that I don't mean to put you down.)

Now, some more specific issues:

The extra layer of complexity with the attributes: have you thought about other ways to do it? Maybe it's not necessary. Instead of having X number of attributes, and then two derived scores, start each character out with the derived scores as their main attributes. Then make give the characters "edges" that modify those basic attributes. Just +1/+2 or something. It seems a little cleaner somehow.

(This is most of what I had to say, but a guest has just arrived, so I'm going to have to skidaddle for now. Apologies.)

Ethan,

Personally, I don't mind swear words in a source book. While some people might expect a certain level of professionalism from a source book, it's by no means mandatory.

However, two things. One, the almost obsessive use of the word "fuck" would most certainly detract from what you are trying to do, which (I assume) is present a set of rules. Of course, if your only intention is to use this game for yourself and your friends, then it shouldn't be an issue.

Two, and this is similar to Rich's post, telling the reader to "fuck off" is certainly not beneficial. Even if your reader tends to cuss a lot (as I do), you can't go around telling them where they can stick it. I didn't care much for it. Again, this is moot if the game is only meant for yourself and your friends.

If the game is meant on for you and your friends, then it didn't need to be posted here. If it's going to be posted here, it should be written with more people in mind than you and your friends.

As you have surely seen by now, this thread has generated more negative feedback- mainly about your word choice, not about the rules. This is detracting from any constructive criticism.

Enough of that.

Your system seems pretty good. It's obvious you spent a good amount of time working through your equations. I think it's safe to assume you sat down and figured up the numbers to make sure the system stays balanced. For that reason, I'm putting my faith in you that your "skill-up" system works at least decent.

I have a concern that the actual use of the initiative system demands too many dice. I don't know what an average Initiative score would be, but since each player involved in combat is rolling a number of dice equal to their initiative score, this is certainly more d12's than I have ever seen on a table top.

You said any kind of dice works, as long as they are all the same. I don't think a wishy-washy approach to a rule is good. If any source book I ever picked up said "roll these dice... or these dice... whichever... they're all good," I would think the developers didn't bother to decide.

While I'm not here to tell you how to run your own game, I would suggest just picking a dice type. Probably a d6, since they're common and easier to put in order. A lot of actions might happen at once and that will make combat more chaotic, but it keeps with the realism you have in your mechanics. Realistic combat is chaotic.

I would like to know if your "skill-up" system is designed to advance players quickly or slowly. Will characters become god-like after a few adventures, or will it take a long time?

Again, I'm not looking for help - the system's pretty much done for all intents and purposes. If the only reason to post a message in Indie Game Design is if you're looking for design advice, then I apologize for misusing the forum, and I'll say again for clarification:

Hey Forge! Here's what I did!

So. If anyone wants to talk about the game with me, that would be cool. If you don't give a rat's ass about the game, then don't comment on it. It's that simple. If you see the cuss words and think to yourself, "this guy's an asshole," please don't feel compelled to criticize me about it. I am well aware of the fact that I am an asshole and don't need it pointed out. :)

So. Onward and forward.

Jasper:
All good questions. The design goals of the game are listed below:
- Allow for a lot of Attribute rolls
- Have skill levels partially dependent on attribute levels but minimize the traditional problems of that approach
- Allow the GM freedom from worrying about character advancement at all and put it all in the player's responsibility
- Use 12-sided dice, the neglected bastard children of all dice bags

So, with these design goals in mind, I'll answer the question, "why do I use this system?" Well, it meets my design goals, and amazingly enough my players seem to like it. And after a couple years of off-and-on use, I am comfortable with how it works so that I can think in it. "Why should others use this system?" If they like it, they should use it. If they like certain aspects of the system, they should feel free to steal the ideas they like. But I'm definitely not trying to sell the system to others, and that should be pretty obvious from the language used. :) I'm just throwing it out there for digestion. Again, if that's a no-no in the Indie Game Design forum, then I apologize.

As far as the derived stats, there's a bit of evolution there. See, in prior versions of Toast, I had a buttload of averaging attributes. On the fly. During the game. Gods, what was I thinking? So, the derived attributes put a few calculations in the char-gen step, and preserve some of the flexibility of the old system, without needed a calculator at the gaming table. (!) I hadn't considered the idea of edges and flaws, because I've never liked the concept as presented in Shadowrun, GURPS, Fudge, and various other systems. Thanks for the suggestion, though. I assure you I'll keep it in mind.

Gwen:
Initiative:
Figuring the Attribute levels will hover around ten, the "typical" Initiative will be 6-7. If someone maxes out Agility and Perception, Initiative will be 13. More d12 than you can shake a stick at. Which was one of my design goals listed above. What did the lowly d12 do to deserve such neglect? It's time to give the dodecahedron its due. In response to your wishy-washy claim, I can see your point. But, in my own defense, I did pick a die type. d6 would certainly work, though, and I don't see a problem with pointing that out in the rules.

About Skill-Up: I can tell you that it works great. I used to worry about experience point rewards and all that crap. Now it's the players' responsibility, and I'm very happy about that. As to the quickness of advancement: In the prior version Toast, you rolled a Skill-Up if you used the skill, and that seemed a bit fast. Doing Skill-Ups only for failed skills slows it down a bit. Advancement rates will also depend on the skill list, and how broadly focused it is. I plan on using GURPS skills in the future, but the old version of Toast was geared specifically to fantasy and had a narrowly focused list.

If anyone is curious, the old version of Toast (5.2, I think) is here. Toast 6 streamlines things quite a bit, and incorporates the combat system from Donjon, which rocks.

Usually the d12 gets abuse because they're usually only available in the D&D Tube. Sold individually, you look at the cost and just want to vomit in confusion. I'm all for giving the odd dice their day in the sun, however.

I originally thought that there was potential to abuse the skill up system, in that a player can attempt to use each of their skills so they get a skill-up roll for each one at the end of the game. For example, if they have archery, they might just run around shooting arrows at trees until the fail, then stop and move onto the next skill.

However. this obviously isnt roleplaying and would be frowned upon. I then though that the players would try to be more subtle and work in their skills whenever they could, but then I realized this isn't a bad thing. Working to find a practical application of each skill is probably going to add more depth to the character.

Gwen, that's kinda funny because you basically outline the thought processes I had when developing the Skill-Up system to a t. In playtesting sessions, there was a little bit of that "shooting trees at random" syndrome until the players settled down a bit, got used to the system, and started getting into their characters. After that, it was all good.

Ethan's gotten the point by now, but the only game I know of that has gotten away with the "gratuitous profanity but still quite funny" is Kill Puppies for Satan. It works because it's in context with the tone of the game itself.

First, Ethan, what sort of feedback were you expecting when you asked for "reactions" to it? You are getting just what you asked for. And, yes, the Indie Game Design forum is, as it happens, all about design. See the sticky at the top of the Forum. As such, it’s not a long leap to assume that a design posted here is looking for design comments. Further, you have a real game that you intend (and apparently use) for play. Which makes it just the kind of thing that should be here. So, again, it should be no surprise that you’ve gotten the comments that you have.

That said, I have some "reactions" that I’d like to share.

I’ll take a different POV on the whole profanity issue (which has probably been blown way out of proportion already). My view is that all words are good words. Yes, even racial epithets and the like. It’s only in the use that a word can become bad. How? By using it to abuse someone specifically, or to miscommunicate, or do other bad things. I think that Ethan has used them to communicate successfully enough. And, obviously he’s of the ilk that feels that one shouldn’t feel abused by terms on a page that weren’t directed at anyone specifically. And he has somewhat of a point there.

Still, however, there is an art to words. As such, even expletive deletives can be used well (see John D. MacDonald for some excellent examples). You, Ethan, have not used these curses well, and have come off as a bit juvenile (or perhaps lazy), IMO. Whether or not your intended audience for play minds this or not, this is the response that you will get when asking for "reactions".

Now, on to the mechanical details:

First, why not just say "# of Attributes * 10.5" instead of the longer formula that you have ffor points to distribute to Attributes? There are other oddities with some of your other formulas as well. Combined with the "always round down" rule, they are problematic. That is, you require division twice in some cases where it could be simplified to once. I assume that you round at each division (the text seems explicit in this). If that’s the case, more break points are created than are necessary.

For example, the Body Mod is:
(((STR + AGI + DEX + PER) / 4) - 10) / 2

which is equivalent to:
(((STR + AGI + DEX + PER) / 8) - 5)

except for the rounding. That is, if I have scores of, say, 9, 10, 9, 10 for a total of 38, using your method, that comes out to a 0 (zero) Body Mod. Using the equivalent method (but rounding only once), these scores provide a Body Mod of -1. Essentially, with 11 as the average Attribute, the equivalent method puts the average total, 44, in the center of the zero range. As opposed to your original method which puts it at the upper third of that range:
[code]
Total Orig. Equiv.
Stats Bonus Bonus
1 -5 -5
2 -5 -5
3 -5 -5
4 -4 -5
5 -4 -5
6 -4 -5
7 -4 -5
8 -4 -4
9 -4 -4
10 -4 -4
11 -4 -4
12 -3 -4
13 -3 -4
14 -3 -4
15 -3 -4
16 -3 -3
17 -3 -3
18 -3 -3
19 -3 -3
20 -2 -3
21 -2 -3
22 -2 -3
23 -2 -3
24 -2 -2
25 -2 -2
26 -2 -2
27 -2 -2
28 -1 -2
29 -1 -2
30 -1 -2
31 -1 -2
32 -1 -1
33 -1 -1
34 -1 -1
35 -1 -1
36 0 -1
37 0 -1
38 0 -1
39 0 -1
40 0 0
41 0 0
42 0 0
43 0 0
44 0 0
45 0 0
46 0 0
47 0 0
48 1 1
49 1 1
50 1 1
51 1 1
52 1 1
53 1 1
54 1 1
55 1 1
56 2 2
57 2 2
58 2 2
59 2 2
60 2 2
61 2 2
62 2 2
63 2 2
64 3 3
65 3 3
66 3 3
67 3 3
68 3 3
69 3 3
70 3 3
71 3 3
72 4 4
73 4 4
74 4 4
75 4 4
76 4 4
77 4 4
78 4 4
79 4 4
80 5 5
[/code]

Basically, the way you have it creates an unnatural curve. Was that intentional? It would seem to me easier, and more effective to use the equivalent formula.

In any case, these are largish breakpoints (8 point, or larger range). Which is ameliorated somewhat by the fact that you have to put in so many stats to get one of these Mods. Still, I’d guess that the average player is probably going to concern himself with trying to hit totals that are splits like 48 in one group and 36 in the other, or 56, 28 for extreme characters. This seems very artificially limiting.

Can Attributes be improved?

The statement that "Study Skills" can be improved by failing seems odd. Let’s say that I roll my Geography Skill, and fail to know the capital of Montana. How does that make me more likely to know it next time? At the very least, I’d have to ask someone or look it up? Or is the roll considered to imply that some study has occurred.

Further, can’t people learn from success as well? If a person does something really well, he can remember to do it that way again next time. Perhaps you could allow for a roll when a character gets a "Kick" that’s described as a success or something. Just a thought.

Another idea is to allow any result to be a potential learning experience. In that case, to slow down progression, just require some number (three ?) of uses to occur before a roll can be made.

I’d agree with some of the others here that the results of the resolution system seem somewhat chunky. For example, any character with a skill of up to ten or an Attribute of up to fifteen has the same chance to succeed at a "hard" task (roll a "Kick" and pray the GM calls it a success). But if that’s OK with you, then I suppose that’s not a problem. Just seems odd.

I like the combat in general, but then again, I like Donjon.

What happens in combat if a Defender cannot Dodge or Counterattack? For example, he’s unconscious. Auto death? Roll against some low low target and apply damage?

If you made the Body Mod add directly to damage, instead of adding dice, then you could allow for a negative Body Mod to count. Only in the case of really really weak characters would this make the lightest weapons completely ineffective. Anything else just modifies the range. Which seems intuitive.

As to the use of the system, let me approach it from another POV again. What do you use the system for? What sort of game do you personally play with it? You seem to be short a magic system, so I suspect that Fantasy is going to be problematic at this point, no?

Mike

Mike Holmes wrote: First, Ethan, what sort of feedback were you expecting when you asked for "reactions" to it? You are getting just what you asked for. And, yes, the Indie Game Design forum is, as it happens, all about design. See the sticky at the top of the Forum. As such, it’s not a long leap to assume that a design posted here is looking for design comments. Further, you have a real game that you intend (and apparently use) for play. Which makes it just the kind of thing that should be here. So, again, it should be no surprise that you’ve gotten the comments that you have.

...I’d guess that the average player is probably going to concern himself with trying to hit totals that are splits like 48 in one group and 36 in the other, or 56, 28 for extreme characters. This seems very artificially limiting.

Can Attributes be improved?

The statement that "Study Skills" can be improved by failing seems odd. Let’s say that I roll my Geography Skill, and fail to know the capital of Montana. How does that make me more likely to know it next time? At the very least, I’d have to ask someone or look it up? Or is the roll considered to imply that some study has occurred.

Another idea is to allow any result to be a potential learning experience. In that case, to slow down progression, just require some number (three ?) of uses to occur before a roll can be made.

I’d agree with some of the others here that the results of the resolution system seem somewhat chunky.

What happens in combat if a Defender cannot Dodge or Counterattack? For example, he’s unconscious. Auto death? Roll against some low low target and apply damage?

If you made the Body Mod add directly to damage, instead of adding dice, then you could allow for a negative Body Mod to count. Only in the case of really really weak characters would this make the lightest weapons completely ineffective. Anything else just modifies the range. Which seems intuitive.

What do you use the system for? What sort of game do you personally play with it? You seem to be short a magic system, so I suspect that Fantasy is going to be problematic at this point, no?

ethan_greer wrote:

...I?d guess that the average player is probably going to concern himself with trying to hit totals that are splits like 48 in one group and 36 in the other, or 56, 28 for extreme characters. This seems very artificially limiting.

I'm not sure I understand what you're trying to say here. There are no suggested methods of point allocation in the text, and I certainly don't see a problem with the player min/maxing the process to get the mods they want. How is this limiting?

The concept being that negative reinforcement is more effective than positive reinforcement, yeah, I'd say if a character tanks a Study Skill roll it's a reasonable assumption they'll crack a book. To take it to the extreme for purposes of illustration: If the person asking for the capital of Montana gouges your eye out for not knowing, I'll bet you'd know it the next time they asked you... :)

We tried this and it didn't work - Tally marks all over the place, forgetting to keep track, and that "shooting random trees" factor...

Basically, I've found Toast to work well for my group which consists of an eclectic membership, all of whom are friends outside of the gaming. The high percentage of "special" results ensures a somewhat wild and unpredictable flavor to the stories, sometimes humorous, sometimes surprisingly dramatic.

Mike Holmes wrote: You are only likely to ever see characters with +1/0 and +2/-1 for their Mods. This means, as far as these statistics go, you'll only ever see 4 characters.

And picking the same door repeatedly. This is indicative of a GNS problem in intent vs. use. That is, you seem to want Sim, but the system is producing Gamist attitudes.

What player behavior do you want the advancement system to produce. Because it's the only reward system that you've presented, and as such will inform a lot of play.

If you have no concerns, then why put it up to public scrutiny?