Topic: Frontier Revamped and Revisited
Started by: Sylus Thane
Started on: 10/3/2003
Board: Indie Game Design
On 10/3/2003 at 3:16pm, Sylus Thane wrote:
Frontier Revamped and Revisited
Well I've been steadily plugging away on Frontier which can be found here http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Lost_Horizon_Games/
in the files section. Sorry it's a yahoo group but it has to do till I get a site from RPGShelf.
Please remember it's still a WIP and the PDF has the beginnings of a general layout to get a feel for size.
Question I'm looking to get answered.
1. Does the Character Creation seem to flow and remain consistent?
2. Do Rules seem to flow and remain consistent?
3. Do you see any glaring holes or consistencies?
4. Just general thoughts and opinions in regards to Character creation, Rules, and settings.
Although I'm taking my time I'm steadily getting closer to when I can release it. Any help is greatly appreciated.
Thanks ahead of time,
Sylus
On 10/6/2003 at 2:50pm, Sylus Thane wrote:
RE: Frontier Revamped and Revisited
Just curious if anyone has had a chance to go through this yet or not? Some of the artwork has been thrown up on the group page as well as the timeline has been done and will be put up soon. Also the map showing the varying territories should be done soon as well.
Thanks ahead of time,
Sylus
On 10/7/2003 at 5:29am, Andrew Martin wrote:
RE: Frontier Revamped and Revisited
Sylus Thane wrote: Just curious if anyone has had a chance to go through this yet or not? Some of the artwork has been thrown up on the group page as well as the timeline has been done and will be put up soon. Also the map showing the varying territories should be done soon as well.
Thanks ahead of time,
Sylus
I'm unwilling to join the email list, just to gain access to the files. Perhaps you could open up access to non-subscribers? (It's very easy to do with Yahoo Groups, from my own experience.)
On 10/7/2003 at 2:08pm, Sylus Thane wrote:
RE: Frontier Revamped and Revisited
Sorry Andrew, I thought I had it as open as you can possible get. From going through the moderater settings I think I do. If you or anyone else knows how to change it to work better please let me know?
Thanks ahead of time,
Sylus
On 10/7/2003 at 4:23pm, Mike Holmes wrote:
RE: Frontier Revamped and Revisited
I'm not sure how to do it, but there definitely are ways to make it so that people not in the group can have access to the group's files for download. Seen it a number of times.
Perhaps you could post it to another site temporarily? I too am reluctant to join another group as I'm already in 15. Any more mail, and there'll be no way to keep up. I'm having to recieve things in digest form as it is. :-)
Mike
On 10/8/2003 at 12:21pm, simon_hibbs wrote:
RE: Frontier Revamped and Revisited
Mike Holmes wrote: I'm not sure how to do it, but there definitely are ways to make it so that people not in the group can have access to the group's files for download. Seen it a number of times.
The most permissive setting for file access on yahoogroups allows members to post, edit and download files. There doesn't appear to be a public access setting for files, or any other resource except the calendar.
Perhaps you could post it to another site temporarily? I too am reluctant to join another group as I'm already in 15. Any more mail, and there'll be no way to keep up. I'm having to recieve things in digest form as it is. :-)
You can join a group and elect not to recieve any messages from it by email, instead only reading messages from the group's web site. In fact that's what I normaly do. You get to choose this option when you join the group.
Simon Hibbs
On 10/8/2003 at 12:59pm, simon_hibbs wrote:
RE: Frontier Revamped and Revisited
Hree are some initial observations, I apologise fior their negative nature, although i have tried to suggest fixes in each case. None of these are game breaking problems though, only tweaks and minor fixes. What I've seen so far seems perfectly workable.
First off, calling the referee/GM the G.O.D is just silly. It perhaps incorectly makes me thing the author isn't taking the game seriously. If the author doesn't, why should I? There's even a paragraph early on reasuring parents that gamner aren't all satanists - and yet one of the players gets to be called G.O.D.?
The way the characteristic names have been abreviated seems awkward and unnecessery. If I have to learn a new set of acronyms or abreviations for another RPG system I'll scream. Speed is only 5 characters long, and there's another characteristic with a 6 character abreviation, so why abreviate Speed to SPD? It's just abreviation for the sake of it. I'd just use the full characteristic names and be done with it.
Body Points 1: You've got a characteristic called Body and a derived stat called Body. Very confusing.
Body Points 2: Why have a superfluous /2 modifier when you've already got a size modifier (that's always divisible by 2)? You could just combine the two modifiers, so instead of a Large character having BODY = ((X + Y) /2)) * 12 just have BODY = (X + Y) * 6. Much simpler.
Skill Points: The same as above, the divide by 2 is superfluous. Instead of dividing by 2 and then multiplying by 10, just multiply by 5 and have done with it.
The Education Rule seems poorly defined. If characters don't get enough skill points, then that should be factored into the initial formula that works out how many you get. There aren't any actual guidelines on what skills these extra points should be spent on.
Tasks difficulties seem excessive. If I have a stat of 5 and a skill of 5, I have a 50% chance of success at an Easy task. That doesn't seem so easy to me.
Compassion checks. Why are these reversed compared to other stat checks? What is the stat check testing for? Needs some explanation.
Initiatiove: Early on we determine an initiative modifier, but the rules on Initiative don't use it. Instead they effectively tell you to calculate it again.
Sorry, but I've run out of time at the moment. I'll see if I can get round to going through more of the rules and setting later.
Best regards,
Simon Hibbs
On 10/8/2003 at 1:34pm, Jack Aidley wrote:
RE: Frontier Revamped and Revisited
Hi Sylus,
First off, I'd like to apologise for the fact this is going to be a mostly negative post. There's clearly been a lot of effort spent creating this and I don't want to seem like I'm kicking you in the teeth.
I'd agree with all the points above, the contrived acronym G.O.D. really sets my teeth on edge. In fact if I was actually looking to obtain your game rather than critique I'd have stopped reading right there. Consider using a more normal term, such as GM, or Referee.
On to specific points I noticed:
Skills: These seem very inconsistent in their granularity. There's four skills for different types of sword, but one skill for all computer programming, for example, and one skill for sewing, but another for seamstress?
In several cases you have skills with requirements, for example, computer hacking requires computer programming requires computer operation. (Leaving aside my professional opinion that programming requires a great deal more skill than hacking). Now, each skill cannot be higher than it's requirements, and each skill 'higher' up the tree requires twice as many points. This, in effect, means that each point of computer hacking requires six times as many points as learning 'Genetics'. This seems an enormous increase in cost. Surely the skill level limitation is enough on it's own without the additional multiplier?
Speed: Speed is way overpowered, I would say. Speed 10 allows you no less than TEN times the number of actions of speed 5. This will surely mean that speed is the single most valuable stat (incidently, why is STAT capitilised throughout your text?) in the game, and unlike the other stats increases in value geometrically rather than arithmetically. I think you should reconsider your actions per round system altogether, or at the very least make the increase rate much lower.
Setting: Your back-history begins in 2004. That's next year dude! By the time someone's into a decent campaign your back-history will already be invalidated by reality. I'd say you should never write fictional history that'll happen in your lifetime. (Remember Dark Future? It was set in 1995).
I hope you'll find this critism helpful, rather than purely destructive.
On 10/8/2003 at 4:18pm, Mike Holmes wrote:
RE: Frontier Revamped and Revisited
I'm still pretty sure you can make files available publicly. I've downloaded from groups in this manner myself for just the purpose we have in this case. I admit that I can't remember an example, however.
You can join a group and elect not to recieve any messages from it by email, instead only reading messages from the group's web site. In fact that's what I normaly do. You get to choose this option when you join the group.Forgot aobut that. Makes the other point somewhat moot. So I joined up.
Here's the notes I have:
-Not a lot has changed that I can see from the previous edition, and most of my criticisms from then still remain. Many people have pointed them out already.
For example, the G.O.D. thing. I won't belabor the point other than to say that I still agree with the other posters here.
-Stat generation: just some statistical notes
Method 1 produces an average of 6.3 per stat (given rerolls for 1s and 2s). That's between Excellent and Superior on average for all stats, though, obviously you'll tend to get a wild range as there's no curve at all. That is, you'll see as many 3s and 10s as you will any other number. The typical character will have one of each.
Method 2 produces an average of 6 to 7, of course, depending on exactly how many points the GM allows.
Method 3 produces an average of 5.67 per stat on an average roll, with a standard deviation that would allow an average of from 4.9 to 6.5. Much narrower, and much lower than the completely random method. Why roll one less die? It's not a player choice, so it can't be a penalty.
-Why does the Body (HP) calculation have it's own section? Why shouldn't it be with the rest of the secondary stats in the "finishing touches" section?
-For skill points, you have a calculation, but the point out options that the GM has to raise or lower that amount. Why not just say that the GM sets the amount, and suggest the calculation as a jumping off point? In any case, if playtesting has found that the calculation gives too few points, why not just increase the number in the calculation?
For more modularity, when you do create the skill and stat packs, consider putting them in the setting notes. That way they're never in the way of a player looking to create a character in one setting and not the other. And if you ever add another setting, it'll be handled the same as the other two. You might want to separate skill lists this way, too.
Also, for the cost of skills, the multipliers are prohibitive. Why take a x3 skill when I can get three x1 skills? Most other systems that have differing costs make the differences marginal. That is the ratio is likely to be more like 3 to 4 than 1 to 3.
-What happens if a difficulty modifier reduces the character's effective skill below 2? If it's 1, is a roll of a 1 still a crit? If it's zero or less, does the character get to roll at all to get the crit success? The rules are ambiguous on this point.
Stat checks say that you have to roll a d12 below the stat. Does this mean that a character with a 1 can never succeed on a stat check?
-Initiative is not at all clear. I think I could make a workable system from what you have, but it doesn't lay it out in anything like a clear progression of steps that people require to learn such rules. And, again, the super-powerful speed problem hasn't been fixed.
The Cinematic option seems to be in the way. It needs to be placed in it's own section outside of the normal resolution section to avoid confusion.
-Under armor it says:
If armor should take damage then the amount is subtracted from the armor value.When does armor take damage? Or, from another POV, when does armor not take damage? In any case, how this is accomplished is only indicated in the examples. One should not have to reference examples alone to find out how to use a rule. An example adds to the written rule for clarity.
In any case, the idea that armor ceases to protect in proportion to the damage done seems a tad wonky. I mean, consider your example in which 4d10 armor becomes 3d10+6 armor. 3d10+6 is actually better than 4d10 on average by half a point. One point of damage would make it 3d10+9 which is 3.5 points more effective on average. I'd poke my knife in and make that modification myself right away.
Further, just because a bullet has gone through a helmet with enough force to go out the other side and through three more, doesn't mean that the helmet can't be picked up by the next soldier and used almost as effectively as it was by the first soldier. The rules would make it useless. Odd. This seems to assume that armor can be completely shredded by large amounts of damage from a single shot. It's like subsequent shots are following through the same holes.
-Wound modifiers aren't explained, but I think I get them. That is, the % on the chart is the percent of total damage compared to Body, right? You never say if damage is cumulative or not. Each has problems. If damage is cululative in this system, then a character can be killed by having his hand hit repeatedly. If it's not cumulative, then I see characters living through a dozen massive chest wounds. I mean, the average human has a 40 body. A solid blow that hits with a margin of 5 with Battle Axe (whatever that is) will do about 36 points of damage. Not quite enough to immobilize the character. So, do two of these cause death? How about two similar hits to the hand?
-The experience system is conflicted. It tries to be realistic with the "tick" bookwork, but then also awards metagame with the kudos. Consider going with just one or the other. Also, there's no guidelines for Kudos. If I give you 1000, and you give me 1000 back, is that OK under the rules? It would be novel, at least, to allow that.
As for the costs, the chart seems to indicate negative numbers, and doesn't say if these costs are cumulative, or the direct cost for each level. That is, if I go from Trained 1 to trained 2, does that cost 10 (the difference having been paid to get to level 1) or 15 points (what's listed as the cost)? In other words, does it cost 15 or 20 points to go from zero to level 2. And what's the difference between the trained and untrained columns? Represents having concurrent training going on outside of play (that's my best guess).
-Several of the player species in Dawn of the Magi get bonuses to their stats. Sometimes quite substantial. And some can fly! Why would anyone play a human?
Also, do these bonuses allow the PC to break the 10 max for stats? Jinn are listed as starting with a 3Dex and 1 Spd, though I think these are supposed to be +1 and +3 respectively from their description. Anyhow, if I have a character with an 11 SPD (and you can bet that all non-random Jin will if allowed to and using non-random point placement of stats), then do I go 3 times per round? Same on the low end. What happens if a stat goes below 1?
That's all the notes I have about the completed stuff.
Mike
On 10/8/2003 at 4:26pm, Sylus Thane wrote:
RE: Frontier Revamped and Revisited
First to everybody that suffered through the yahoo groups, Thanks. I tried to find something better but my freeservers account went belly up for some reason and doesn't want to upload anything.
Also I'm not going to take anything said on here as destructive, only Constructive. I asked for opnions and I'm going to take them all to heart.
1. The term G.O.D.
I can see where that may set people on edge. What may have always worked for my group may not be the best thing to put in a book. Perhaps a better term to use would be Director. It still follows with the original meaning of showing how much work a GM may have to do.
2. Skills
Part of that may just may have been me being tired when typing up the skill list and having double things listed that mean the same things.
A couple of the points do make sense however and may need looked at.
Jack put in an example of there being sewing and seamstress. I could see that I could put in their being two different types of skills, General and Professional.
This would then play into the questions of skill cost and simply have it that we lose the level and extra point point cost requirements and simply have it that general skills are one for one and that professional skills are twice as much. Then it could made so that you are only required to have certain general skills (no specific level) for specific professional skills.
As for the different sword skill examples put in by Jack, I am with Jake Norwood that different types of swords require their own kind of style to learn and use.
Jack:
I agree on the timeline dates and that is something I should have caught. Part of it was from us extrapolating a possible future. I will get that fixed as soon as possible. It should be easy enough to just alter the dates and add a couple different events.
Speed. I'm not sure what the best way to fix this problem is. reavaluating the whole thing may be the best option. Any suggestions?
Simon:
I agree with the points you made on stats. The word being capitalized is actually a bad on my part in using it to keep track of where I mention things to see if I had overused it. Also I agree it is simple enough to just spell them out. I think I was just trying to mentally save character sheet space.
I agree that the use of BODY and Body Points can be confusing. It may just be simplest to change it to be Wound points.
As for the divide by 2 and then size modifier, I agree adding the two together should be the simplest way to fix it and streamline it out.
Compassion, compassion checks are reversed to show that it is harder to do something cruel for the more compassionate than the less than.
Initiative. that was a bad on my part. The initiative modifier is meant to be subtracted from your roll to allow you to begin acting that much faster. But I am not sure if it is all that necessary or not, It will most likely have to be reavaluated considering Jacks speed questions.
Simon and Jack:
Thanks guys for taking time out of your day to look things over for me. I truly appreciate it. Please let me know if I've answered any of your questions or if there are more.
Thank you for the help,
Sylus
On 10/9/2003 at 9:24am, Jack Aidley wrote:
RE: Frontier Revamped and Revisited
Hi Sylus,
Glad you could respond to criticism so positively. It speaks highly of you.
As for the different sword skill examples put in by Jack, I am with Jake Norwood that different types of swords require their own kind of style to learn and use.
My objection is not that you have different skills for different swords, but that you then don't have different skills for (e.g.) different martial arts, or different programming languages. Now, it may be that your intention is to closely model the use of melee weapons and not much else; but I don't get that impression from your game.
I think you should try and get an even level of 'granualatity' across your skills. While using different kinds of swords is, indeed, a different skill. Do you think it's actually more different than using the different kinds of polearm? Or learning different programming languages? Or, indeed, programming for different applications? (Being a programmer by trade, it's an area I know something about, which is why I tend to use it in examples).
What I'm trying to get at is not that having four sword skills is dumb, but that splitting the sword skill up in this way, while leaving other skills as broad sweeps seems rather inconsistent.
Speed. I'm not sure what the best way to fix this problem is. reavaluating the whole thing may be the best option. Any suggestions?
Personally, I'd drop it altogether. I've never seen any system that used a speed mechanic like yours effectively. Having more actions is just too good. You've only got one skill based on Spd, so dropping it shouldn't take too much other stuff with it.
Perhaps a better term to use would be Director. It still follows with the original meaning of showing how much work a GM may have to do.
That would make me happy.
On 10/9/2003 at 5:24pm, Mike Holmes wrote:
RE: Frontier Revamped and Revisited
Speed. I'm not sure what the best way to fix this problem is. reavaluating the whole thing may be the best option. Any suggestions?
I've said this before, but I still think it bears putting out there. Simply make the ratio of the differences less.
[code]Speed Rounds between attacks
1 12
2 11
3 10
4 9
5 8
6 7
7 6
8 5
9 4
10 3
11 2
12 1[/code]
The problem is that this still encourages maximizing the stat, as there's an increasing return for each expediture. The change here only balances this out somewhat with other stats. To get a more proportional sequence, you have to have a curve like:
[code]Speed Rounds between attacks
1 100
2 50
3 33
4 25
5 20
6 16
7 13
8 12
9 11
10 10
[/code]
This increases attacks as closely as possible to the same rate at which Body increases HP (while still keeping things in integers). That is, going from 1 to 2 Body doubles HP, and going from 1 to 2 Speed with the above chart doubles your number of attacks. HP and attacks double between 5 and 10 ratings. Etc.
Mike