Hi all,

I'm new here so I hope I'm not treading on anyone's toes, or breaking any rules by posting this.

We've been working on a fantasy RPG.

It is still a work in progress, but we've done a good bit of writing and revising and a bit of playing, and we think it's getting close to being ready.

We're offering it to anyone to review and peruse, and to let us know what they think.

As time goes on, we'll be adding more content - more rules, supplements, a play test pack for any that really want to take it through its paces, and even some campaign setting information - and eventually we will looking at raising the funds to publish. Until then, everything is available for free - though in an unfinished state, free from any of the nice art and some systems that the finished article will have.

First off, this game is inspired by, and can be said to be derived from the 3rd edition of the world's most popular role-playing game - that'll be DnD.

It is not, however, an update, upgrade or otherwise house-ruled or altered version thereof. DnD doesn't need changing, it does what it does brilliantly (though slightly different in all of its various guises). This game (the rules and materials provided for it) is not compatible with any other gaming system. We tried, it just doesn't work. We do too many things differently. It is its own system.

Too make life easier on any readers coming from that system, I will highlight some of the similarities and how they are different. If you assume this is another game plus whatever feature, you'll get very confused and it won't work. It's best to trust us.

So, this is a 2d10 plus skill roll over based system. At heart, the mechanics are very simple, not even remotely original, and, to be frank, rather dull. They are supposed to be. We see the core mechanic, not just as a vehicle for simulating the game's world, but also (and more importantly) for simulating the game's tone and feel. The underlying mechanics are as slight and unobtrusive as we can manage because, the underlying layer of the world, the foundation we assume and accept is deliberately mundane. What the protagonists of this game will do however, is not mundane. As such, you will find that the narrative aspects of your character (his aims and ideals, her life and time, and his destiny - their fates) will bend, break and beguile the core mechanic. Because those are the interesting bits.

We use race (and ethnicity, background and homeland) and class (and skills, and talents and proficiencies) to ground our characters and define their roles. We have four core races (at present), dozens of ethnicities, numerous homelands and considerable cultural variation and influence. We have seven classes (we won't have more) that cover the core callings of our heroes (unimportant characters and creatures are classless), 19(ish) skills to represent ability and many talents, advantages and proficiencies. We blend specialisation and generalisation, but we don't limit choice. Narrative does. Which is as it should be.

We have a level based magic system. Two actually. We use Wizardry to learn magic and cast pre-defined spells. We use Sorcery to beg power and manifest free-form effects, through diabolical (sometimes) pacts and deals. We also have songs, oaths, bonds, curses and other little hints of magical influence.

We have turn based combat, but we don't really have turns. Combat is unpredictable and roving. Through the use of phases (melee, ranged, magic and movement) we can shift the focus of the action as a camera pans through a scene, zooming from melee to missile fire to spell-casting to recovery. Everyone acts on everyone turn! We have deadly combat. Sometimes very deadly. The majority of a character's common abilities (marital prowess, magical potency, knowledge and athleticism and so on) are defined through skills, so certain aspects don't generally change. Health and vulnerability is one example. The greatest swordsman shouldn't really expect to lose a duel, but stab him in his sleep, or send a horde of goblins after him and he's as dead as you or I. And getting hit usually hurts. If you want to survive a fight you'll want to avoid getting hit. If you want to slay a dragon, you'll have to find a way beyond combat.

We have magic items, but they are few and far between. Our mundane items very quality, and an expertly crafted sword is about as the only bonus you're going to get. Our magic doesn't usually add to normal abilities, it adds them. It does the same old things in new better ways, and a few new things too.

Ok. So, that's enough of me talking (well, typing) and you want to get on with the reading. No problem. Here is the link.

Welcome Porphyry. You just posted it in the wrong forum is all. The main Role Playing Games forum is for general discussion of RPG gaming and games. We have a Design, Development and Game play forum that is more appropriate for this kind of threads where you go about playtesting, designing your own game or rules, and so on.

Don't hesitate to have a look around the site to get to know its layout a bit. If you have any question, don't hesitate to either post on the Help Desk at the bottom of the board, or PM one of the mods or admins who I'm sure will be able to point you in the right direction whenever you have a doubt.

In any case. Don't sweat it, I'm just going to move this thread where it belongs. Welcome, mate.

Thank you, and thank you.

Obviously, the correct forum was listed two spaces under the one I chose AND I missed it!

Thanks for moving it. I've been reading through some of the threads here and I like the community. Hopefully, they'll like  us too!

Simon

Hi, and welcome Porphyry.
 
Had a quick look over the system (I try to have a look at most things passing through this subforum, though its been busy lately). Interesting.
 
Lots of mostly very minor comments so I'll dotpoint them.
 
*I didn't like the renamed attributes - I think given that the design is still so similar overall to 3.5, its mainly just confusing to change the names. Also, before reading the attribute section in detail, I'd assuming Will was Wis and Presence was Cha, rather than the other way around.
 
*I didn't like some of the racial abilities e.g. 'elfin blood' and 'Elfin Lore, +2 to Lore (Elfs) skill rolls'. The first seems redundant, while on the second...possibly there needs to be some sort of 'common knowledge' rule that covers this since it seems somewhat over-defined. Also, what if I want my dwarf to have been raised by humans....? I like Dwarrow as a dwarven language name, though.
 
*like weapon proficiencies
 
*quite liked the 'ending a rage requires a test' for the berserker (I always die a little inside when someone wonders aloud if they should rage now or next round).
 
*warrior talent switching looks like this might be painful - flipping through the rulebook mid-combat to pick a better feat ? A universal manuever system might be better (there's a thread on this on rpg.net currently that might be of interest).
 
Oh also, one question regarding the design - why 2d10 rather than d20 ?
 
Hope this helps.
 
Cheers,
BSJ.

Hi there. Thank you for taking the time to look over our game and ask about it. The feedback is very much appreciated.

I'll take each of your points in turn.

This does look similar to 3.5. But it isn't. It's deceptive how similar they look, despite how differently the vast majority of features function. We have noticed that almost everybody (despite our efforts to tell them otherwise - that's not a gripe, I occasionally do it myself) sees it and thinks '3.5 with house rules'. It isn't and that approach provides a lot of problems and mistaken assumption (a couple of which will be discussed below). Again, please don't take this as criticism, we deliberately changed the names of everything with even a slightly different function in the hopes that the natural inclination to assume this game as 3.5 plus (or minus) will be thwarted.

Our attributes do fill very similar mechanic roles as the standard six, but different thematic ones. We think they fit our game better this way.

Elfin blood comes in handy for a lot of narrative elements as well as some mechanical ones. Certain features (due to heritage and the like) only function, or function in specific ways for creatures with certain blood and heritage.

Cultural traits are selected by the player during creation to represent the character's varied background and upbringing. The racial lore ones, for instance, represent examples available to that particular race. This system exists largely so that you can have a dwarf raised by humans. In this case, you wouldn't take the dwarfish lore cultural trait, you'd pick one that better represents the dwarfs human upbringing.

I too like dwarrow!

I too like weapon proficiencies too!

The defining feature of an uncontrollable rage is that it is uncontrollable. We wanted to model that.

We have universal manoeuvres (they're called special attacks). Talents are special class related abilities. IE. only a warrior (with the exception of wily thieves) can have a warrior talent. Some of these allow warriors to use special attack in new and interesting ways. Talent switching represents the ability that all warriors (as masters of martial technique) have in being able to reprogram themselves to prepare for a specific combat. Additionally, it is not practical to change talents during combat - it is specified as requiring at least a minute to execute a talent switch - the warrior needs a little time to practice the technique.

Also, bear in mind, combat functions quite differently in this game then it does in 3.5, it also fills a different role.

I'm just about to post on that very thread. Stay tuned!

2d10 for two reasons (primarily). Firstly, the statistics better suit the role of our mechanics. Secondly, it allows us to use our fate mechanic, which is possibly the most important aspect of the game - it's in the 'the basics' chapter.

I hope that helps. Any more questions, or if I haven't explained anything clearly enough, please ask away! I'd really appreciate it.

Simon

PS. Thanks again for posting.

NP. Hmm OK...fair enough on the talent switching then, and probably the cultural system. 'Elfin blood' still strikes me as something that would work without the ability name - perhaps just writing other abilities to say 'prerequisite: Elf, though then there's half-elves to consider.
I'm still convinced its a 3.5 variant since a majority of the framework is still there. Don't take this the wrong way from my end either - I've seen some systems that were pretty weird. There are worse systems for it to look like.
 
On the 2d10 - I did notice the fate section; mind you, looks like 5E 'advantage' does the same thing but still based off d20. I usually prefer d20s because the odds are easy to calculate (and shift consistently when a modifier is added) and its easy to roll more than one at once, but whatever works for you, really.
 
Also, I'm not sure what you mean by your attributes fill 'different thematic roles'?

Referring to creatures by blood type is large just a narrative preference really. Our elves, for instance, aren't really elves per se. They're a really distant relative to that breed, significantly watered down due to changes in the world, and through inter-breeding with humans (amongst other things). What makes an elf an elf, for instance is something in its heritage, represented by something in its blood. Also, when we talk about having a pre-requisite such as 'being an elf' what exactly is it that defines an elf's 'elfness'? It is something in its blood.

Also, a half-elven creature is essentially a human with some (but not all) elven blood. Its a neater way of combining racial heritage, We can have 'prerequisite: elfin blood', rather than 'prerequisite: an elf, a half-elf, an elf-kin (or whatever)' and so on.

I'm not disputing the games heritage,one of its inspiration or the fact that it does present a lot like a 3.5 variant. I am saying, however, that this a dangerous assumption - particular as it effects the way in which you read and understand the various mechanics. The comparison between fate and advantage, for instance is one example. Advantage (in my understanding) represents a bonus/penalty provided through beneficial/detrimental circumstances. That is not the idea of fate - we have circumstantial modifiers for that. Fate represents the narrative element of character choice. Fate does not represent a circumstantial (or situational, or whatever) bonus (or penalty) to a particular task or activity, it represents the effect that a narrative purpose has on the game. A roll is modified because it is easier or harder to accomplish, a roll is fated/ill-fated because it should/should not be a success based on the creatures defined character (as in personality, morals, motivations etc).

A D20 provides interacts with statistics very differently than 2d10. With a d20 the odds of rolling above 10 (for example) are 50%, as they are (more or less with 2d10) but the odds of rolling a middling score (10.5 and 11, respectively) are not the same. 2d10 grounds the dice roll in mediocrity (ie. it increases the chance of an average roll) and this is an effect we want. The mechanics for this game are not the primary focus, rather they provide more of a backdrop against which the narrative can be contrasted.

It is easier to combine multiple rolls with d20s, but this is only (really) a very marginal advantage.

Presence is not a stand in for wisdom. It serves very similar roles (identical in some places) but it is not the same thing. Part of the emphasis on this game not being 3.5 (+/-) is to avoid these assumptions.

I honestly can fully understand the strong pull towards 3.5 (+/-) but it really is a dangerous approach to take. It comes with too many baseline and assumptions and expectations that significantly colour one's understanding of the various systems and sub-systems. A considerable amount of the game's theme and dynamic is changed. For instance, overall characters in this game are significantly weaker (as in less powerful) in this game than they are in 3.5, but (we feel) have a much broader range and depth of abilities. 3.5 (can be said) has a considerable focus on killing things, whereas in this game, there is a much stronger focus on trying to stay alive.

I'm not trying to criticise 3.5, nor am I trying to start a 'we are different/better than 3.5 because...' debate. I'm trying to highlight the problems that trying to understand the mechanics of this game in light of that one will have. They are considerable. We have shields and armour (for instance) but they do different things. We have mechanics special attacks but they fill different roles. We have attack rolls, but they are generated very differently. We have different weapon proficiencies and skills (as you have noted) but this to better represent our combat system and how we imagine combat to be, rather than to 'clean up' anything in 3.5.

I hope that helps.

Simon

OK - thanks for the clarifications. Fair enough on the races too then, if you're going to have a lot of racial mechanics that build off this.

IIRC the 2d10 gives you a v-curve (1% chance of a 2 or a 20, 2% of a 3 or 19, 3% of a 4 or 18, etc.), so that the average results (10 or 11) are most frequent. Hence when making a roll, each additional +1 on a roll gives slightly less benefit than the one before. High difficult rolls are harder unless a character also has a reasonable bonus i.e. DC 18 with a +0 is 15% likely with d20, 6% likely with 2d10. This does necessitate more care when designing the difficulties and bonuses system - unless you intend being Fated to often affect this - but I would concede that it does have some effects that are desirable (diminishing returns; ability to have a small bonus give a noticeable improvement in the odds but still not go past 100% when stacking more than one of them).

Advantage appears to be used in 5E more to represent circumstance penalties, but mechanically isn't dissimilar to being 'fated'. It would be easy to imagine a aystem where being 'fated' was one example of a circumstance bonus/penalty, for instance.

Anyway, will be interested in hearing more as you continue to develop the game.

You are correct about the 2d10 bell curve. d20 gives an even chance of any particular number being rolled, whereas 2d10 increases the odds of an 11 (an average result) being rolled. Each incremental bonus (or penalty) has the effect of shifting that bell curve. So, a +2 bonus (for instance) will still have a bell curve, but the average will now be placed around 13. 2d10 actually removes a little of the randomness - or at least should (according to statistics).

Fate and DnD advantage aren't all that dissimilar mechanically (in terms of them both being multiple dice roll techniques - the associated odds and extent of modification are quite different), but our applications of them are considerably different.

I'm glad I could help. I hope you enjoy what we're working towards.

And thanks again for the posts and the questions. Any opportunity to talk about the game is really good for us (and quite enjoyable for me). We appreciate it greatly.

Simon

We've added a feature to our wordpress site called 'ramblings'.

Essentially, it is a series of blogs expounding some aspects of our system (and eventually setting) and the motivation behind those choices.

I've just uploaded our first 'rambling'. This one is the first in a series detailing our philosophies regarding characters (PCs and NPCs), character creation and modularity.

We hope you check it out and let us know what you think.

As usual, you can post in this thread or any of our others that are littering the inter webs, or you could start a new one. As ever, feedback is greatly appreciated.

Simon

Did anyone get a chance to go over the 'ramblings'?

If so, how did it go? Was it useful at all?

We'd love to hear your views.

Simon

Hi everyone,

Thanks for those of you who have taken the time to have a read of rules draft - especially those who made multiple visits.

We're about to begin a series of significant changes to our rules, but we'll leave them up as they are at the moment. Those drafts show many of the seeds of where this game is going.

Some of these changes require significant re-writing and we'll be taking the opportunity to work on our layout, editing process and general writing style.

We hope you'll like the changes and we'll keep you posted as we go along.

Simon

PS. We'll be continuing with our series of ramblings to explain our design choices and motivations, and hopefully we'll include a good smattering of sneak previews regarding our changes.

For those still interested (we know there's a few of you), we've started adding our new rules to our wordpress site. Initially, uploads will be slow (hopefully at least biweekly) and slightly fragmented, but we're hoping to get material to you as quickly as possible, including a pack of stuff needed so you can actually play the game.

The first upload core rules, revised covers the very basics including task resolution, fated tests, escalation, attributes and skills AND even features examples.

We hope you'll check it out, and, as always, let us know what you think. I can't say this enough, but we always, always welcome feedback, especially now we're going through some changes. Please, please let us know what you think.

Simon

As someone happy to help but very lazy, perhaps feel welcome to repost any specific design questions or notes here you want zeroed in on and analysed?  Or if there's been substantial revision I'll have a look again (I did have a look at the ramblings, however).

Also, apologies for any trauma caused by our earlier discussion. Saw the rpg.net poll but didn't reply so as not to bias this...curious as to what results you got, though actually interesting that it got moved since the people in Open would probably reply a bit differently to those in the D&D subforum..

Cheers,
BSJ.

Hey BSJ,

No trauma at all. I certainly hope I didn't come across in anyway that made you feel like there was any.

What's uploaded at the moment is just the task resolution system, and a description of the attributes and skills. I'd hoped for some views and criticism of them, but I think it was wrong of me to put them up in isolation. The urge to view them as 3.5± is very strong when they're considered in isolation - particularly as I know how they are within the context of the entire game system.

We have two responses on the poll last I checked. Both careful reads of the rules, one from the perspective of it being quite similar to 3.5, one from the perspective of it being quite different.

Please feel free to vote, we're looking for bias! To be honest, though, I wish I hadn't posted the poll, I think it pushes us further into the 'are we a rebranded 3.5 crowd'.

And yeah, I don't know why it got moved either. I'll email the mods today and see. If they think it goes there, it is their decision (and we respect their collective wisdom). It does skew our viewers somewhat though. We have a second thread in the rpg.net game development section which we hope will bring a broader audience.

Otherwise, we hope you're well.

Thanks for the feedback, we hope you'll keep it coming.