Hi. We've been working on a system for a few months. It's almost finished, and I was hoping we might be able to get some constructive criticism on the game.

It can be found at http://www.mirimatyalie.org in PDF format. It is a genre-independent system that we plan to use as the basis for more genre specific core books.

The system incorporates several things we're rather proud of (perhaps too proud of :). Here's a basic overview in hopes of enticing a few more of you to visit the site:

1). The core system falls under an open license, so anyone can take it and do whatever they want with it, so long as credit is given to the original authors. We plan on releasing a print version at some point in the future, when we feel that demand is high enough to make it worthwhile.
2). The system uses a single, scalable mechanic that only requires simple addition and subtraction while still preserving proper bell-curve and logarithmic properties. No complicated charts, multiplication, or division are needed. It may seem slightly confusing at first, but once you learn it, you've learned it all.
3). The system is classless and levelless. Character generation is driven by the players' vision of their characters, not by some class or template.
4). The "XP paradigm" has been abandoned. Skills are increased through use and through rewards for playing one's character well.
5). Through the use of modular rules, the system scales from simple story-telling to complex and detailed combat. However the GM likes to run his/her games.
6). The optional rules contain a dynamic magic system for use in fantasy and other such genres. It allows magic to remain fresh and unpredictable while providing enough of a framework to prevent chaos and confusion.
7). The optional advanced combat rules deal with such things as armor partial-coverage, damage to armor, multiple damage types, and specialized attacks without adding any more complexity than needed.

Gee, that sounds more like an advertisement than a request for criticism... Anyway, any comments any of you have would be greatly appreciated.

Thank you!

Welcome to the Forge,

People, I can't think of how to say what I have to him in a non-alienating way. Can anyone help me out?

BTW, your game does have very nice art and layout. I was very impressed by the PDF.

Mike

Mike Holmes wrote: Welcome to the Forge,

Mike Holmes wrote: People, I can't think of how to say what I have to him in a non-alienating way. Can anyone help me out?

Mike Holmes wrote: BTW, your game does have very nice art and layout. I was very impressed by the PDF.

I have some questions, bla.

What goals did you have in mind when you wrote this? Why did you choose to make a 'genre-independent' core system, rather than a system focused to represent one kind of play? Is it your belief that through this system, you can bring about any kind of play one desired?

In light of that question, consider the choices you made. In how many literary genres are combat and magic integral parts with their own independent tropes, worthy of having subsystems for in a roleplaying game designed to emulate them? Given this, do you feel it necessary to include subsystems of this kind in a generic game? Yes, I see that the magic system is optional. Nevertheless, it sets a precedent, as does the (optional?) cambat system.

You ask a few interesting questions at the beginning of the Character chapter. Tell me, why is it that these things are simply "often useful", rather than, say, integral, mechanical parts of the character? You provide some frightening admonitions, like "AP should only be given out for good roleplaying", but then don't give us a rubric for deciding what 'good roleplaying' is. You say that AP shouldn't be given out for overcoming obstacles, but clearly this is what AP allows you to do; if AP is a roleplaying award, shouldn't it give you exciting new roleplaying opportunities?

Greetings bladamson,

And welcome to The Forge!

bladamson wrote: Hi. We've been working on a system for a few months. It's almost finished, and I was hoping we might be able to get some constructive criticism on the game.

Hey B. Lee,

Welcome to the Forge. I am sure part of what Mike is getting at is an invitation to read the articles, especially the ones about fantasy heartbreakers.

Having read the rules, I would say they are pretty bog-standard with no obvious problems. Somewhat like Rolemaster without so much detail.

LaTeX is great, but it does weird things with fonts. Maybe it is just the default font, but the type always seems too frail. I would suggest playing with it a little to find something a bit more readable. The layout is clean and to the point. Also, the term you are looking for is 'plain text', not flat text.

My question for you is: Why would I play your game? I read your design features, but they tell me what your game is not. I want to know what it is. When you can tell me, quickly and concisely, why I should play your game, you will be in the money.

Later,
Grant

four willows weeping wrote:
What goals did you have in mind when you wrote this? Why did you choose to make a 'genre-independent' core system, rather than a system focused to represent one kind of play? Is it your belief that through this system, you can bring about any kind of play one desired?

four willows weeping wrote:
In light of that question, consider the choices you made. In how many literary genres are combat and magic integral parts with their own independent tropes, worthy of having subsystems for in a roleplaying game designed to emulate them? Given this, do you feel it necessary to include subsystems of this kind in a generic game? Yes, I see that the magic system is optional. Nevertheless, it sets a precedent, as does the (optional?) cambat system.

four willows weeping wrote:
You ask a few interesting questions at the beginning of the Character chapter. Tell me, why is it that these things are simply "often useful", rather than, say, integral, mechanical parts of the character? You provide some frightening admonitions, like "AP should only be given out for good roleplaying", but then don't give us a rubric for deciding what 'good roleplaying' is. You say that AP shouldn't be given out for overcoming obstacles, but clearly this is what AP allows you to do; if AP is a roleplaying award, shouldn't it give you exciting new roleplaying opportunities?

ThreeGee wrote:
Welcome to the Forge. I am sure part of what Mike is getting at is an invitation to read the articles, especially the ones about fantasy heartbreakers.

ThreeGee wrote:
Having read the rules, I would say they are pretty bog-standard with no obvious problems. Somewhat like Rolemaster without so much detail.

ThreeGee wrote:
LaTeX is great, but it does weird things with fonts. Maybe it is just the default font, but the type always seems too frail. I would suggest playing with it a little to find something a bit more readable. The layout is clean and to the point. Also, the term you are looking for is 'plain text', not flat text.

ThreeGee wrote:
My question for you is: Why would I play your game? I read your design features, but they tell me what your game is not. I want to know what it is. When you can tell me, quickly and concisely, why I should play your game, you will be in the money.

Thanks for the review. :)

Kester Pelagius wrote:
By page 21 I was going "D@mn! That's it?". Seems like something is missing, which I suppose is the point. Gives us just enough of a 'taste' to make us curious, or hate what we've seen if we're jaded about this sort of thing I suppose. But that, dear friends, is something for you to decide on your own.

Why does your game choose all its examples from a genre you admit you are tired of?

Why the open license?

Mark Johnson wrote: Why does your game choose all its examples from a genre you admit you are tired of?

Mark Johnson wrote: Why the open license?

bladamson wrote: Besides, copyrighting a mechanic doesn't work. For something like a mechanic, you need a patent or it needs to be intellectual property. I think intellectual property laws are unconstitutional, so that leaves a patent. Which is probably more trouble than it's worth and may be unpatentable anyway.

Unlike Mike, I'll be brutal.

What does your game do that a dozen other games designed along precisely the exact same lines don't? ie: Why are you proud of having reinvented the wheel?

Why do you claim that character creation is driven by player vision of their character, when it is clearly NOT driven by such, but by either a point-buy system meant to inspire the mythical beast called "game balance" or random rolls of the dice?

How does your system avoid the regular pitfalls of skill-based games and encourage the creation of realistic characters with coherent skill-sets rather than characters created with min-max effects in mind.
Or does it not attempt to encourage/discourage such at all? Does that bother you?

Why do you claim the "XP paradigm" has been abandoned when it also has clearly not been, simply renamed to "AP" which continues to drive the exact same carrot-and-stick point-buy/min-max character building methodology utilized by D&D and does not contribute to "good role-playing" or "characterization" but instead focuses mechanical character improvement as central?

Why do you oppose and contrast "complex and detailed combat" with "simple storytelling"?

What is the actual use of section 1.1.1? I can completely skip this part of character creation and it has no actual effect on the end product -- note that arguments about "your character won't be realistic/have plot hooks" are not the point. Think long and hard on this: there are no mechanical rewards or reasons for a player to even bother with section 1.1.1 -- "Concept" can be ditched completely without changing game play one iota, making it fluffy, useless, wasted text.

The game reads like D&D-cum-Harn. Why would I play this specific game over Harn? Or the other dozen games that handle things exactly the way this game does?

I'll be less of a bastard in my next post, I promise! Please try not to be defensive about the above questions and implied judgements, my honest point is to get you thinking about your design. If you like your design and you are proud of it, that's cool, but it may not be doing what you think it is doing.

Defintely read "Fantasy Heartbreakers" by Ron Edwards and "More Fantasy Heartbreakers" as well. No, your game isn't "Fantasy" or you don't intend it to be...no matter what the genre is, it is definitely a "Heartbreaker."

Take some time to think over your answers, and I look forward to hearing your responses and thoughts!

bladamson-

My impression: Markedly crunchy.

I'm reminded of tables from the ol' DMG, with charts for things like the damage various lycanthropes take when breaking Hulk-like through their armor. Or the illumination radius of a bullseye lantern.
I don't believe anyone on the planet memorizes all of these tables, and I hope no one on the planet would halt play to look something like that up.

(There's a chart for what to do when your armor's on fire.)


For me, even the chart explaining how a prone target is different from a kneeling target is too much.
I don't know whether it is for you or not. With 80% of the text being "optional," I don't know what this game really is.

What do you think is necessary and good and streamlined and clear? (You're the game designer, after all!)


"Several months of training to improve a skill"
-- Folks aren't going to put their characters out of action just to bump up a skill. Therefore this is a between-adventures thing. So everyone can just agree to take 6 mos between adventures to bump up a skill. Why not? The rules are suggesting and rewarding this.


This is what I say: cut out everything you don't think is 100% necessary, and see what you've got. I have the sense there's a good sensibility buried between sections 3.0.3 and 3.0.4.
Don't try to please anyone but yourself (that is, no base covering) and, er, see what self-pleasure can do for you. (?.)
It may end up being generic, or it may instead strongly facilitate the post-apocalyptic thing you've said you really want to do.

This is my own take against generic systems - if you want a p-a game, mirima tyalie has lots of useless stuff in it. And lots of stuff you'd need isn't there.
We've got "verbal, somatic" instead of mutations and MadMaxmobiles, know what I mean? So it's (by definition) going to be an imperfect fit. Why not instead make a game that takes the parts you love about p-a and makes that a priority, all front-and-centerlike?

Because mirima isn't going to replace gurps, and it isn't going to replace fudge. It just might be a p-a game of choice, but only if you work like a devil to make it deliver a kick-ass p-a experience.


-Matt

Oh - the medieval feel for me comes from having the vast majority of weapon and armor lists be medieval. And the full page picture of a castle on page one. And, too, that the name sounds fantasyish.

Greetings bladamson,

bladamson wrote: Thanks for the review. :)

The best feedback one can give, IMO.

Kester Pelagius wrote:
By page 21 I was going "D@mn! That's it?". Seems like something is missing, which I suppose is the point. Gives us just enough of a 'taste' to make us curious, or hate what we've seen if we're jaded about this sort of thing I suppose. But that, dear friends, is something for you to decide on your own.

What do you feel is missing? Content? What am I missing?

Also, your comparison between mulled cider and spiced ale. Should I read that as "dry and boring" or something else? Can you tell me more specifically what problems you have with it?

If you could clarify the "mideval feeling" of combat, I'd be greatly appreciative. I've been trying to stay away from that, and I'd like to fix it. :)

Mark Johnson wrote: If you can't copyright a mechanic and you aren't patenting your invention why do you need a license? (Especially given your views on intellectual property laws.)

greyorm wrote: Unlike Mike, I'll be brutal.

greyorm wrote: What does your game do that a dozen other games designed along precisely the exact same lines don't? ie: Why are you proud of having reinvented the wheel?

greyorm wrote: Why do you claim that character creation is driven by player vision of their character, when it is clearly NOT driven by such, but by either a point-buy system meant to inspire the mythical beast called "game balance" or random rolls of the dice?

greyorm wrote: How does your system avoid the regular pitfalls of skill-based games and encourage the creation of realistic characters with coherent skill-sets rather than characters created with min-max effects in mind.
Or does it not attempt to encourage/discourage such at all? Does that bother you?

greyorm wrote: Why do you claim the "XP paradigm" has been abandoned when it also has clearly not been, simply renamed to "AP" which continues to drive the exact same carrot-and-stick point-buy/min-max character building methodology utilized by D&D and does not contribute to "good role-playing" or "characterization" but instead focuses mechanical character improvement as central?

greyorm wrote: Why do you oppose and contrast "complex and detailed combat" with "simple storytelling"?

greyorm wrote: What is the actual use of section 1.1.1? I can completely skip this part of character creation and it has no actual effect on the end product -- note that arguments about "your character won't be realistic/have plot hooks" are not the point. Think long and hard on this: there are no mechanical rewards or reasons for a player to even bother with section 1.1.1 -- "Concept" can be ditched completely without changing game play one iota, making it fluffy, useless, wasted text.

greyorm wrote: The game reads like D&D-cum-Harn. Why would I play this specific game over Harn? Or the other dozen games that handle things exactly the way this game does?

greyorm wrote: I'll be less of a bastard in my next post, I promise! Please try not to be defensive about the above questions and implied judgements, my honest point is to get you thinking about your design. If you like your design and you are proud of it, that's cool, but it may not be doing what you think it is doing.

greyorm wrote: Defintely read "Fantasy Heartbreakers" by Ron Edwards and "More Fantasy Heartbreakers" as well. No, your game isn't "Fantasy" or you don't intend it to be...no matter what the genre is, it is definitely a "Heartbreaker."

Good points Garbanzo, I will definitely take them into consideration. It _does_ smell too much like fantasy.

Kester Pelagius wrote: 1) A lot is missing, which I assumed would be addressed in later 'supplements'. 2) There's lots of things that you could include, but then again... 3) A clear vision of what you want the game to be?

My advice to #3: Plant tongue firmly in cheek and run with it. Refer to my previous 'favorite armor type' comment. Play that up.

Hmm.. My initial answer I thought to give was: Mulled cider is. . . warm and smooth. Spiced ale is sharp. . . and well it's grog. You down it by the pewter mug full, whereas a mulled cider can be sipped and appreciated. But I think the more pertinent answer is to the last question: 'Can you tell me more... ?'

Yes. Problem is, and I mean this, my answer will just blend into the background noise of the other questions here. You've mentioned so far all that you are trying not to have your RPG be, or rather portray, yet when you come right down to it fantasy is basically pseudo-medieval settings with magic. Hard to make a fantasy RPG without those elements.

Even if you set it in the Bronze Age, people will still call it a 'medieval' kind of game. And for good reason, the combat is essentially the same, only the implements and types of weapons change. Marginally so.

That said I'd ask you this:

Do you want your game to be sword and sorcery?

Think carefully. You may be tempted to say you want your game to fit any potential setting. Problem with that tact is that it's not the 'game' but rather the 'game rules' that really provide the impetus for how the setting functions. Game rules are the physics of your game reality.

Grab a sheet of paper and ask yourself this:

"What physics do I want present in my game?"

Think about your answer. Make a list. If you want magic, write that down. If you don't, write it with a line through it. When done look at your list. What you will have are a list of in game properties that will need rules to address how they operate. Thus, if you include hand grenades, you'll need rules for how to toss them, how they explode, yada yada yada.

Hope that helps.

bladamson wrote:

greyorm wrote: Unlike Mike, I'll be brutal.

Excellent. :)

Well, I suppose _any_ rpg is at some level a reinvention of the wheel. And the concept behind the mechanic isn't something new. I suppose the biggest things are the implementation of skill advancement through use and having armor coverage and damage integrated in such a way that they act mostly transparently.

I take it there are other mechanics which have done this? Pointers please. I've not seen them and would very much like to.

This reflects the fact that, even if someone has an IQ of 180, they are not in any way shape or form going to be able to passably program a computer if they've never done it before.

And the concept section is meant to make the player think about what skills the character should have.

In my opinion, in any system the GM should have final call on if a character is sutable or not. If a player designs a character with an unrealistic set of skills, the GM should ask for an explanation of "why". If it's not answered sutably, disallow the character. If the player _does_ answer it sutably, then sure, allow it. There will always be something the player hasn't munchkinized that can be used to knock the character down to size.

That sort of systematic abuse of a game by munchkins should be swiftly and harshly dealt with by any GM, no matter what system.

On the flip side, the GM should also work with the players during character creation, offering suggestions on how their characters might be better fit into his world.

This is a good point. I feel more and more like those nasty AP should be removed entirely. But some other method of rewarding a player for role-playing well ought to be put in. I'm open to any suggestions.

Well, I prefer my combats to be fairly detailed. My SO-sometimes-GM prefers her combats to be more abstract, more like a dramatic encounter if you will. We tried to allow the rules to scale to both.

I can't help but feel that the purpose of that question went over my head. If so, please yell at me. :)

I'm of the opinion that a player with a better developed character will be more rewarded in the playing of their character than one who has a not so well developed character.

My intent is that the GM work the character's concepts into his game such that the characters have an actual stake in the outcome of the events they engage in, rather than just being bystanders as they might be if their concept is not well developed. The player with a well developed character will therefore feel a greater sense of accomplishment when overcoming an obstacle or obtaining a goal that relates to his character.

Please point me to these games.

Hah. Go ahead and be a bastard. I'm rather dense and might miss the point otherwise. I appreciate the input.

1). The book is not meant to be sold for profit, at least by itself. Perhaps a print version alongside some sort of content in the future, but the licensing scheme and indeed the shortness of the work make it seem not financially feasable to try.

2). It's not meant to be something "new" or "revolutionary". Just a marked improvement over the subpar mechanics that are circulating out there (d20 with it's linear progression, or [any multitude of roll XdY and add stat+skill mechanics] with it's fixed bell curve). There's the argument that the mechanic doesn't make the game, which I agree with. But a good mechanic can't hurt.

3). The license is such that the text can be taken by anyone and "fixed" if you will. And then incorporated into whatever they want, so long as any changes they make are also freely redistributable.

While on this topic, I will express my dissatisfaction with the OGL and it's faulty claim of openness and point everyone here:

bladamson wrote: Excellent. :)

I suppose the biggest things are the implementation of skill advancement through use and having armor coverage and damage integrated in such a way that they act mostly transparently. I take it there are other mechanics which have done this? Pointers please. I've not seen them and would very much like to.

The mechanic is built in such a way that _skills_ are what define the character. And the concept section is meant to make the player think about what skills the character should have.

It seems like many are suggesting that the "concept" section be heavily linked to the rest of the character creation process? How might one go about doing this?

In my opinion, in any system the GM should have final call on if a character is sutable or not.

On the flip side, the GM should also work with the players during character creation, offering suggestions on how their characters might be better fit into his world. Perhaps suggestions to that effect in the text?

This is a good point. I feel more and more like those nasty AP should be removed entirely. But some other method of rewarding a player for role-playing well ought to be put in. I'm open to any suggestions.

I can't help but feel that the purpose of that question went over my head. If so, please yell at me. :)

I'm of the opinion that a player with a better developed character will be more rewarded in the playing of their character than one who has a not so well developed character.

My intent is that the GM work the character's concepts into his game such that the characters have an actual stake in the outcome of the events they engage in, rather than just being bystanders as they might be if their concept is not well developed. The player with a well developed character will therefore feel a greater sense of accomplishment when overcoming an obstacle or obtaining a goal that relates to his character.

So no mechanical reward no, but rewards nonetheless.

Once again I feel like I might be missing the point...

Greetings greyorm,

Just passing through.

greyorm wrote: And now I present the question: if skills are the important, defining factor in the game, do you really need attributes?

Greetings bladamson,

bladamson wrote: I think I have a pretty good idea of what I want my game to be (not to be confused with the MT mechanic). Postman-esque (the book, not the movie) with some wierdness would perhaps be the most concise way to put it. The initial goal is to get a nice mechanic built though, and use that for the eventual creation of the game.

bladamson wrote: I was initially expecting feedback on the mechanic itself, interesting that so much so far has been genre related. Not sure what to think about that.

bladamson wrote: So, here's my question. The "mideval-fantasy tone", is it reflected just in the tone of the writing and examples given, or does it pervade the mechanic?

bladamson wrote: It's hard to see these things from this side of the glass, if you know what I mean.

Hmm, ok.

What's worth keeping then?

I like the statistical properties of the Xd10 (or d12 or d20) equal to or lower than a stat to produce successes. Gives a nice bell curve that is stretched logarithmically when skill increases. Higher or lower stats bend the curve to either side.

I guess what I'm asking is, would it be best to throw it all out and start over, or to try to fix what I've got? I'd rather not throw out all that work, but if it is doomed to never be useful to anyone I suppose I might as well.

Well, I shouldn't say throw out, maybe instead finish right quick and move on to something else.

Ah, yes, I was going to comment on that.
The game isn't bad, the mechanics don't "suck," and the style it (and you) appear to be shooting for are just fine. Honestly, it's all good. Is it all good for the current game? That's a different question!

The only real "problem" with the game is the Incoherency in the mechanics: create Coherency by tweaking the rules to support the desires you've already expressed (ie: what you want the Concept to do; the desire for meaningful play that involves the characters; etc) and you'll have yourself an excellent game.

In fact, the items we've already discussed are probably good places to start: here's what my plan of action would be to first read, alot. Meaning, "Read alot of other games." Read them for their systems and their game goals.

Then I would go about doing these three things (in no particular order):

Making Concept central to who the character is mechanically (if you stick with skills, and there's no reason not to, this would entail having Concept define the skills the character could/would have...there are, of course, many other ways to do this).

Tackle the AP issue and decide if you want them as a metagame mechanic, and in what form? If not, then drop them, or redesign the rules to reflect characterization (or whatever you decide "good role-playing" concretely means) as the priority.

Figure out how to make those plot hooks you mention (ex: "My father's laboratory has been ransacked! We must find the thieves!") mean something mechanically so as to pursue the goal of meaningful charcter-centered play.

And most of all, give it time! You have a good, solid foundation you can build on -- or you may find the construction doesn't support your ideas well enough. Either way, you'll have made a great deal of progress in your design.

Yeah, personally, I'd be torn at this point. You have a lot of good stuff, so I'd be tempted to work it out. Then again, I've said before that everyone ought to do a heartbreaker. That is, you've already passed one initiation if you kust keep this game as it is. And you could move on to something else.

I guess it comes down to whether this particular game still gets your blood rushing. Does the idea of it complete as you envision it still get you going. If so, I'd rework it until it's better. If, OTOH, there's some other idea that you have brewing that's really firing the old neurons thinking about it, I'd tuck this game away, and start work on the next project.

But that's me. You'll have to decide for yourself. Is there enough in your current game to work off of? I think there is. You'll just have a ways to go. Starting with all the things that Raven mentioned.

Mike

My intent is that the GM work the character's concepts into his game such that the characters have an actual stake in the outcome of the events they engage in, rather than just being bystanders as they might be if their concept is not well developed. The player with a well developed character will therefore feel a greater sense of accomplishment when overcoming an obstacle or obtaining a goal that relates to his character.

Make this a mechanic! This is the coolest sounding text you've written so far about what your desires for actual play of the game are. Now make your game support it by mechanics that highlight the stakes

Use something like a Kicker (from Sorcerer), but centralize it as a mechanical entity that affects the results of play!

A couple of suggestions to steer the game in the direction you want

As already pointed out, whilst you have a section of the character creation process devoted to character concept, it doesn't mean anything in play. Here's a suggestion.

You want to use the skills to define the character, yes? Why not have a short description after each one describing why they have this skill. For example, for a high archery skill you could say "Slew a fierce troll with a shot through the eye" or for a character with a mediocre leadership skill "laed hunting parties back in his home village".

If you do that you have soemthing on the character sheet that tells you what the character is like and FORCES the player to think about what their character is.

In order to make the player put some effort into these, give a mechanical reward based on them. Say - the character acts as if the skill was one level higher when you can draw a direct parralele between the description and the task at hand.

For example, the archer might get the +1 when aiming at vary small targets and the character with leadership might get it when dealing with rustic folk. Of course exactly what they apply to isn't very clear cut, which means it is the player's responsibility to explain why its so important. This a good thing, for example:

"I shot that troll through the eye while my companions distracted it. I waited patiently for the perfect shot" to explain why they would get the bonus during an ambush situation.