Very cool. Congrats to both RPG Pundit and Bedrock.

Quote from: B.T.;536629I know this is a D&D game, but could we get more info on the system?

You will, eventually.  I'll be creating a Q&A thread sometime shortly.

Meanwhile, I can say that the game is quite similar to AD&D, though it also has significant differences: skills, totally different magic system, ascending AC, some differences in the combat system, etc.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPundit;536780You will, eventually.  I'll be creating a Q&A thread sometime shortly.

Meanwhile, I can say that the game is quite similar to AD&D, though it also has significant differences: skills, totally different magic system, ascending AC, some differences in the combat system, etc.

RPGPundit

I assume you are going for a Panrtheistic Vedic feel?  With a magic system tied to this?  Or will a concurrent Shramana-like approximate also exist supported by the mechanics?

Quote from: LordVreeg;536788I assume you are going for a Panrtheistic Vedic feel?  With a magic system tied to this?  Or will a concurrent Shramana-like approximate also exist supported by the mechanics?

Both and neither.  The first times I thought of doing a game set in a pseudo-India, I gave tons of thought of how I would apply real-life knowledge of hinduism and buddhism into the mechanics of the game, and tried to work out all kinds of complex elements into the mechanics.

Then I realized this was a trap.  What's more, I realized that the setting should no more make use of real-life hindu/buddhist philosophies as D&D makes use of real western-pagan/christian theology; most people wouldn't actually want to get that far into it.

So what the system is going to have is a setting that (like the Vedic culture itself, and very much unlike some of the later "Hindu" religious movements) presumes that the Gods are actual and separate physical entities, traditional paganism in other words and not the kind of later evolution that happened to create panentheism.
It will also have a system of rituals (priest magic), secret energy-manipulation techniques (the magic of siddhis, who can be either renunciates or householder magicians) and Enlightenment Powers (which either of the above can obtain). The Yogi also gains his own special set of powers which are none of the above.

RPGPundit

Also, I'm now at 177 pages, and slowed to a crawl.  Really, I just have the introduction to write now, and I've hit a complete writers' block as to what to put there.

RPGPundit

On the plus side, we ran the very first playtest last night, it went fairly well.  Already led to a couple of little adjustments.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPundit;537577On the plus side, we ran the very first playtest last night, it went fairly well.  Already led to a couple of little adjustments.

RPGPundit

PLaytests are like that.  
Amazing the things that get uncovered.  My main skill based ruleset has been i use for 25+ years, but we just made a major tweak with the 'shield use' skill...I think a good GM keeps their eyes open for ways to make a better game, a bad GM just goes with the rules thinking someone else 'knows better'.

Quote from: LordVreeg;537627PLaytests are like that.  
Amazing the things that get uncovered.  My main skill based ruleset has been i use for 25+ years, but we just made a major tweak with the 'shield use' skill...I think a good GM keeps their eyes open for ways to make a better game, a bad GM just goes with the rules thinking someone else 'knows better'.

Yes, and when you happen to BE that "someone else", it can be a challenge. However, I'm quite willing in this case to listen to all advice; there are some areas right now I feel very satisfied with, and others that I know can have room for tweaking.

RPGPundit

Quote from: LordVreeg;537627PLaytests are like that.

It's an intimidating chair to be sitting in.

During the single (Sadly )playtest session of something I was working on, I realised (A little too late) that I shouldn't be arguing with one of my testers as to why what I had wrote was wrong, I should have been listening. The rest of the session was much more constructive when I was acting on that.

Quote from: Ladybird;538143It's an intimidating chair to be sitting in.

During the single (Sadly )playtest session of something I was working on, I realised (A little too late) that I shouldn't be arguing with one of my testers as to why what I had wrote was wrong, I should have been listening. The rest of the session was much more constructive when I was acting on that.

Arguing also wastes time. Even if the playtester is wrong, you want as much feedback as possible. You are not there to debate every point raise dby playtesters (some will be valid, others will not apply to the game in question and still others will just be way off).

But there are times when it is important to know if you can justify a mechanic or a decision about the overall system and one of e best ways to do that is to let one of you players challenge you and to offer a response. i have a few people in my group who I am comfortable doing this with.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;538147Arguing also wastes time. Even if the playtester is wrong, you want as much feedback as possible. You are not there to debate every point raise dby playtesters (some will be valid, others will not apply to the game in question and still others will just be way off).

But there are times when it is important to know if you can justify a mechanic or a decision about the overall system and one of e best ways to do that is to let one of you players challenge you and to offer a response. i have a few people in my group who I am comfortable doing this with.

I know! And these are friends who know their stuff, and the only reason they were there was because I'd asked them to help, and they'd stepped up. So, yeah, arguing with them was stupid of me.

Quote from: Ladybird;538148I know! And these are friends who know their stuff, and the only reason they were there was because I'd asked them to help, and they'd stepped up. So, yeah, arguing with them was stupid of me.

I think it is a natural impulse to want to defend what you designed. Everyone is a bit different. I tend to be pretty thick skinned, so I can usually stomach criticism pretty well.

Striking the right balance of listening and staying focused on a vision is hard though. One downside of my thick skin is sometimes I pay too much attention to other peoples' seemingly reasonable proposals so I have to regroup every once in a while and do a "focus check".

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;538151I think it is a natural impulse to want to defend what you designed. Everyone is a bit different. I tend to be pretty thick skinned, so I can usually stomach criticism pretty well.

Striking the right balance of listening and staying focused on a vision is hard though. One downside of my thick skin is sometimes I pay too much attention to other peoples' seemingly reasonable proposals so I have to regroup every once in a while and do a "focus check".

HAHAHAHA....
SO true.

I am, as I said, still tweaking, but it is a rare rule that does not get one of my players at least ready to get into it..at least to really understand it...and there are about 40-odd players now on those email alerts when a rule changes.  
Especially when you need to nerf something.  Ouch.  Blowblack.

But it all makes for a better game.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;538151I think it is a natural impulse to want to defend what you designed. Everyone is a bit different. I tend to be pretty thick skinned, so I can usually stomach criticism pretty well.

Striking the right balance of listening and staying focused on a vision is hard though. One downside of my thick skin is sometimes I pay too much attention to other peoples' seemingly reasonable proposals so I have to regroup every once in a while and do a "focus check".

Yes, the key is to maintain the vision of what you want your game to be, and take advice that is concurrent with making that vision work better.

For example, some of my playtesters are admittedly not old-school gamers; and thus some of their advice as to how it could be "better" (though in fact they're quite self-aware of this and trying to check for it) might really not be so much about "better" as about "less old-school", and that's not something you want to implement.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPundit;538267Yes, the key is to maintain the vision of what you want your game to be, and take advice that is concurrent with making that vision work better.

For example, some of my playtesters are admittedly not old-school gamers; and thus some of their advice as to how it could be "better" (though in fact they're quite self-aware of this and trying to check for it) might really not be so much about "better" as about "less old-school", and that's not something you want to implement.

RPGPundit

That is it exactly. For example if I am making a gritty "characters can die from a single stab wound" kind of game, someone telling me they want 90 more HP so they can survive multiple encounters a day is a perfectly legiimate opinion but it is an opinion that doesn't match the design goal.