Well, as promised, I've got something up on the web this week. However, not as promised, this is not a second pass but still very much a first draft, and it's rough rough rough. Real life intervenes - I'm really busy and haven't had a chance to really sit down and hammer the manuscript into better shape. Apologies, and thanks to anyone willing to slog through my disjointed meandering prose... :)

Click here to check it out.

Here's where you can help me if you are so inclined:

- I'd like some feedback on the organization of the document, specifically the order in which the different sections are arranged.
- I could use some sample descriptors, better/more interesting than the sucky ones I've got down currently.
- How're the mechanics? Do you like them? Why or why not?
- What do you think of the way I handled the Vices?
- What do you think about character advancement?

I realize that's a pretty broad swathe of questions, but at this early stage of the design, I'm not lasered in on any particular aspect of the system. Any comments welcome.

First, I have to say that I was originally uninspired by the concept. But what got things turned around for me was the movies you listed. Whereas Sorcerer & Sword is patently against Beefcake Barbarianism, this game embraces it. Which I think is a great idea to base a game upon, personally. Light and fun.

ethan_greer wrote: - I'd like some feedback on the organization of the document, specifically the order in which the different sections are arranged.

- I could use some sample descriptors, better/more interesting than the sucky ones I've got down currently.

- How're the mechanics? Do you like them? Why or why not?

- What do you think of the way I handled the Vices?

- What do you think about character advancement?

Holy crap, Mike. You rock.

Mike Holmes wrote: I think [the Descriptors are] not terrible. I do worry that with "Dragons" as a suggestion for Beast Lore, that you'll never see "Beekeeper". That is, some of these descriptors are just more appropriate to the sort of characters that one is envisioning by the time they get to the descriptors. "Alert" is one that's so often critical in RPGs that it'll probably get taken a lot. There's nothing wrong with this, except that in the case of players who lack creativity, you're going to get a passel of similar characters. Which may be problematic.

You could mandate round-robin descriptor selections as a fun fix. That way only one character gets to be the "strong" guy.

Injury gives -2 or -4 to all rolls. I assume this means that these penalties are subtracted from the pertinent stat, not the roll itself. Assuming that's true, then what if my stat is reduced below 2 by penalties? Do I still succeed on a 2 (this is what I'd assume from the rules, but you may have intended otherwise).

While the characters cannot die, I can see them getting incapacitated a lot if they get into a lot of fights as fighting is very balanced. That's to say that unlike a lot of games with fighting, the characters in this game do not have much of a mechanical advantage (this assumes NPCs are created equally to PCs, which one has to assume from the text). I'm thinking that fights are going to be common, no? Is it intentional that characters will not do well in these situations?

I'm torn between the fact that the source material characters are the way you describe them, and the idea that it would be cool to have characters do stupid things for their vices. Perhaps there's a third angle that could be worked in.

Make the roll to gain an ability opposed by the current level of the ability. That way it's easier to raise poor abilities, and harder to raise higher ones.

Also, as this is "like" purchases, can you make more than one with the -2 penalty? Are these penalties separate from the purchase penalties, or additive with them? The latter would be problematic, as I think players will opt for ability increases over equipment any day.

On Abilities, first, I think that Wisdom seems out of place. Call it Will, or Perception, or both, or whatever, just not Wisdom. It just seems to me that a truely wise character wouldn't have gotten into this line of busisness in the first place.

Also, as an alternate gteneration method, why not just say that the player has 49 points to distribute (with the same caps, and mentioning that seven is the average)? I'm just curious.

It's interesting to note that the highest Mastery a starting character can have is seven, and that's by having all stats balanced at seven. Was that an intentional statement? Very Tao.

I'd make "retirement" mandatory at Mastery 8. This allows for a definite ending point to shoot for, though one that can be approached as quickly as the player desires.

On purchasing Magic items I assume you forgot some penalty for buying them? Otherwise why buy a +0 Sword when I can buy a +50 Sword just as easily?

I like the open admittance of the "party" as a genre convention, and other such rules. I think that such will be very effective in play. I can really see this game working with published materials well, and making them more functional than most systems (even the ones they are designed for) would.

You ought to acknowledge Donjon. If it wasn't an actual inspiration, it should have been. Some very similar ideas.

ethan_greer wrote:
I like that round-robin idea a lot. The whole Descriptor thing needs work, obviously. Beekeeper was mostly a joke. I just braindumped some Descriptors out there. As I said, it's rough. :) And now that I think about it, Alertness probably needs to be its own Ability, especially considering how often I use it when I run games...

Your impressions are accurate. 2 always succeeds, even if your injury penalty takes your Ability down below 2. Likewise, 12 always fails, even if your Ability with modifiers is 12 or more.

I'm not sure about these mechanics, to tell the honest truth. I like the spread of abilities, but the dice mechanic... I just don't know. That's something that I'm going to look at when I start playtesting.

This is another case of the rules being in first draft. Basically, right now I'm thinking that combat rolls will only happen when the characters are facing a challenge. So, random guards at the evil henchman's stronghold will fall like wheat to a scythe, no rolls necessary. Likewise, you won't roll Prowess to take out a group of random goblins or similar beasties. On the other hand, when fighting significant NPCs (including fell beasts such as giant snakes), that's when the Prowess rolls will happen.

I'm torn between the fact that the source material characters are the way you describe them, and the idea that it would be cool to have characters do stupid things for their vices. Perhaps there's a third angle that could be worked in.

Not sure what you mean here. Could you clarify?

Potato, Patata. In the end, I'll probably include both descriptions and allow the individual to decide how they want to think of the process, since functionally it makes no difference.

so I'll have to take your word for it that it's Tao...

I'd make "retirement" mandatory at Mastery 8. This allows for a definite ending point to shoot for, though one that can be approached as quickly as the player desires.

Interesting. I just may do that.

Hmm. Hadn't taken any ideas from Donjon, at least not intentionally. It seems another read of my copy is in order.

Mike Holmes wrote: Basically what you suggest needs to indicate things that are of the same general relevance in terms of coolness. That's all I'm getting at.

To make a better example, I think you'll see a lot of dragonriders over, say, horseriders. The idea of controling dragons is just that much cooler than, well, any others I can think of.

You're missing my point. Sure you can make a mook rule and put that in. But shouldn't a Giant Snake get really good stats? The way the characters are created, the way it's stated, they are totally average. The snake will be better than them along with all other major protagonists. If the characters are meant to be of a "heroic" calibre, just say that the "average" human is a 6 instead of seven. That way you can rationalize good NPCs being only on par with the PCs. Instead of easily dwarfing them.

I think you're on the right track. That said, I wish at least one other person would come in here and tear up my perspective. To give some contrast to the discussion.

Anyway, the only other point I have is to say that I like the descriptor idea. Doubles the detail about each character. You just need to find a good way to rein it in appropriately. Anyone got an idea there?

Mike

Taken as a whole, the game is very good. Obviously in the next draft you may want to nail down a more... hmmm... specific? or detailed section on magic. Even if it is window dressing, it would be possible to make magic that secret and forbidden thing that the characters never trust. Maybe all practitioners of magic have one green eye and one red eye? Though that may run into setting a bit.

One thing I am very impressed with is the monetary system. I myself lioke detailed ones with coins and exchange rates but your seems just as detailed but in a different way. I am not sure if that is of your own devising or inspired but either way its cool.

sean
ADGBoss

ADGBoss wrote: I am not sure if that is of your own devising or inspired but either way its cool.

Thanks, ADGboss. The magic section is definitely on the list of things to flesh out! It's one of the last things I wrote, when other things were starting to force my attention...

As for the monetary system, I guess I have to give some credit to Clinton R. Nixon, both for Donjon (now that Mike pointed it out, I remember the inspiration...Funny, that...) and for the comments about monetary systems in this thread. It just got the ideas bubbling about, and the Thugs and Thieves system is what came out...

A couple of thoughts that I had:

1) The stat spread. It seems a bit high for my tastes. I don't have a probability chart for 2d6 in front of me, but it seems that once a player has 9 in a stat, probabilities are rather heavily in their favor. There are only, what, 4 rolls that will result in 10, 11, or 12? On the other hand, 7 or below will show up more often than not, it seems.

I suppose the question here is, how important is advancement and the search for better equipment to Thugs & Thieves? If it's not so important, then no big deal, but if it's important to the idea of the game, you might want to give more room for advancement from the start. Otherwise, with Mastery tied to the lowest stat, people will only raise their lower stats (which could be fine, given playtesting).

2) I think I'd like to see Vice figure more actively in the game. Maybe something to the effect of a Mastery roll whenever presented with an opportunity to indulge in the Vice (the town you're camping in on the job has a brothel, or the man you're supposed to assassinate invites you over to his house for a toke). Also, is there a mechanic for losing Mastery? Not sure if that would help or hinder the design, honestly, but I'm curious. :)

OVerall, I like it a lot. I think there are some definite Donjon and InSpectres influences, especially in the abstraction of money, which I like a LOT. The game as written has a tight, clear focus and a clear idea of how it should be played. A few tweaks and it's very playable, I think.

Jay

Hey Tar,

1) There's a 16 percent chance of rolling 10+. There's a 58 percent chance of rolling 7 or less. I hear your concerns about the spread. Just something that'll need tested... I want one more revision under my belt, and then I'll start playtesting.

2) That's not a bad idea. I'll have to mull it over. In the meantime, Vices can figure into the game by providing possible adventure seeds in and of themselves. For example, getting thrown into the local drunk tank. However, that's hardly formalized in the mechanics...

InSpectres? Never read it, although the more I learn about it, the more I'm inclined to.

ethan_greer wrote: 1) There's a 16 percent chance of rolling 10+. There's a 58 percent chance of rolling 7 or less. I hear your concerns about the spread. Just something that'll need tested... I want one more revision under my belt, and then I'll start playtesting.

2) That's not a bad idea. I'll have to mull it over. In the meantime, Vices can figure into the game by providing possible adventure seeds in and of themselves. For example, getting thrown into the local drunk tank. However, that's hardly formalized in the mechanics...

InSpectres? Never read it, although the more I learn about it, the more I'm inclined to.

ethan_greer wrote: InSpectres? Never read it, although the more I learn about it, the more I'm inclined to.

On retirement at 8: I'll say it out right, bad idea. Groups who reach Mastery 8 and want to stop will stop. Groups who reach mastery 8 and don't want to stop will ignore that rule completely. So why include it? The only result I can think of is some pig-headed GM not letting a campaign continue once the PCs reach mastery 8 even though the characters want it because "it's in the rules".

On buying magic items: I think a simple penalty to the roll (or Mastery when making the role, however you want to phrase it) would be an easy, smooth fix. Maybe -1 or -2 for tings like potions depending on GM fiat, and a penalty equal to the bonus provided for things like magic weapons and armor.

Average Human Stats at 6: I'm completely in favor of this. I've never liked 'average' characters, if I want real life, I'll, well, get off the computer for once, or something, I guess . . .

Maybe you could have a rule on selling items for other items. For instance, you could sell a +2 sword to get +2 on your next roll to purchase some stuff, as long as it's made quickly. Or maybe you could sell valuable items to make a purchase roll when you haven't gotten a paycheck recently?

You know, this is one of those games that has more support for the theme, than for the setting. For instance, I could use T&T to play gangsters in New York. I like that. Heck, I like this whole game. Great work!