You know, I really wasn't sure how I'd like this game...I wasn't sure if it would have much that I couldn't get with T&T or RC D&D, but, by damn, I have to admit, this is a really good rules-light game.  Yeah, I don't think the layout is friendly enough for starting gamers, and there are some quirks here and there, but between stunting and the group combat, this is a game that runs fast, encourages teamwork, creativity, and tactics, and combines a lot of good, old-school vibe stuff that clicks pretty well.  I think this just may be one of my faves of the past year.

So has anyone else given it a shot yet?  I figured if you had, this board would probably be the best place to discuss it.  What did you think?  Any parts you would have improved?  How did your sessions go?  Would you introduce any other races/features? Let's talk shop.

I've read through most of it and made some characters.  After I try some mock combats and use the dungeon generator, I might write up a review.
 
I agree that the writing/presentation slows it down.  On the whole, the rules are very solid and push things in a different direction than any version of D&D.  The group combat aspect makes it very different, not in a good or bad way - some will like it, some won't.
 
Magic is very interesting - can be very tough/painful but if you can get to a point where you can cast a decent spell with very low risk, you could be a serious force.

I participated in the second playtest phase, and while I failed to get a few sessions going by the time the test was finished, I did send a small critique to the Pundit which resulted in (or at least contributed to) a few changes.

Let's get a small pet peeve behind me: Aliases as author names suck (Take this, Voltaire!). I can live with regular pseudonyms (or nom de plumes), but internet logins just don't do it for me.

Now that we've got that covered, my main problem was with the numbers used in FTA. Considering that every participant brings an average of 10 to the table (3d6), the little they add on top of that almost doesn't matter. It's a numbers game, where a lot of henchmen will save the day and heavily-armored knights can't compete with a bunch of peasants. Also, people not contributing to the combat adds (archers, mages) can be reather problematic.

This lead to quite a bit of "gaming the system", both from player and GM side. In Tunnels & Trolls the numbers (especially on higher levels) favor heroes. With FTA, the distinction isn't that big. Yes, stunts can help, but the chances aren't so high.

For a game with such an outset, I missed the "wading through mooks" feel. The new rules with the variant dice try to fix that, but at some point, this will bring players from easily going through goblins to a orc TPK.

My players didn't particularly like the implied gaming style, so we didn't do as much playtesting as I wanted to. We did test the combat with several variants, though (more henchmen, less but more powerful enemies).

With the rise in levels, the "adds" become much more important. They rise linear-fashioned, whereas the average ten remains.
This effect can even be felt after going just up to second level.

It takes quite a while until a seasoned fighter is equal to two lesser enemies. This would be better if armor would actually be worth something to a fighter. Compared to T&T, you're toast much too easily.

I think that´s a feature, not a bug.

EDIT: Not that I want to praise it. i´m just saying that it was intended this way.

That's the way I see it, too. Like I wrote above, my players just didn't synch with the premises. Neither as heroic or as simulationist as they generally like. Outcomes seem a bit too fixed for seasoned strategy games

I think it pushes a big part of combat to use terrain, magic, and tactics so that all of your side participates and not all of the other side does.  That's reasonably realistic but not something most fantasy rpgs focus on as much.  
 
Sosthenes, you said armor wasn't worth much?  On mainly reading so far, it seems like armor is decent - the drawbacks aren't much unless you want to be a character who jumps around a bunch.  A shield is kinda meh though, at least for melee- more or bigger weapons increase your roll as much (thus reducing damage) as the shield absorbs but the shield doesn't help add to enemy damage if you win.

Quote from: NicephorusI think it pushes a big part of combat to use terrain, magic, and tactics so that all of your side participates and not all of the other side does.  That's reasonably realistic but not something most fantasy rpgs focus on as much.  
 
Sosthenes, you said armor wasn't worth much?  On mainly reading so far, it seems like armor is decent - the drawbacks aren't much unless you want to be a character who jumps around a bunch.  A shield is kinda meh though, at least for melee- more or bigger weapons increase your roll as much (thus reducing damage) as the shield absorbs but the shield doesn't help add to enemy damage if you win.

I agree about the shield. Historically a shield is more important than armor. OTOH, Pundit isn't concerned with emulating the real world so much as he's trying to capture the feel of the original generation of fantasy RPGs, and they certainly de-emphasized the use of a shield.

-clash

Quote from: NicephorusSosthenes, you said armor wasn't worth much?  On mainly reading so far, it seems like armor is decent - the drawbacks aren't much unless you want to be a character who jumps around a bunch.  A shield is kinda meh though, at least for melee- more or bigger weapons increase your roll as much (thus reducing damage) as the shield absorbs but the shield doesn't help add to enemy damage if you win.

My primary point of comparison is Tunnels & Trolls, where a warrior in good armor is a force to be reckoned with and can actually manage to lose a round and take damage for the group. Apart from sheer survivability, this was always a nice story factor, as you could really imagining the mighty-thewed, iron-clad hero taking the damage for the rest of the group. In FTA it's better to divide it between the members (who have damage) and then it won't take much away from the total amount suffered.
I think giving it higher encumbrance, but more protection would be the better trade-off for some playing styles.

EDIT: This would be a nice system for a Beastmaster

Quote from: SosthenesEDIT: This would be a nice system for a Beastmaster

Holy Crap!  You just made my day!

I've run a few mock combats and here's my impressions so far.  It's fairly simple but it plays quite differently than D&D due to the group combat system.
 
The situation around the first round can be key.  If a biggish monster manages to go one on one with a character on round 1, that could be it for them, especially at first level.  
 
Aside from the first round, I think monsters with a nasty attack that requires damage (such as poison) are less threatening than in D&D.  With D&D, even when the outcome is assured, there's the chance of a lucky hit.  If you dogpile such a monster in FtA, the strong central tendency of the large number of dice makes it highly unlikely that they'll ever win a round.
 
I tried a giant spider and they can be scary depending on the circumstances.  Web was able to immobilize some of the party so that they couldn't gang up on the spider.  Other  monsters that can control movement will likely be scary too.
 
High dex is very powerful if you make good use of the declare last, move first rules.  If you have reasonable room to maneuver, you can treat a round like a (American) football play, and mass your side in one place while leaving some enemies doing nothing.  For example, suppose you had 4 players vs 8 goblins - all those dice are going to make the goblins scary.  But if you move such that 3 of the goblins have no one within 5 feet, they don't get to roll.   I'm going to try a single fast monster to see how much trouble they'd be.
 
I'm not sure what to make of the effectiveness of missile fire so far.  It has the benefit of being able to choose who receives damage but you also can't gang up so you can wind up doing little or no damage if the monster has decent armor.  But missile fire comes before melee so if you can drop the opponent, they don't get to roll melee. I made a 1st level halfling rogue with a total modifer of +9 with a sling - vs. a goblin with 11 defense and 3 DR, that's averaging 5 pt a round.  But I think missile fire might work best for concentrating fire for a round or two on a key opponent before melee starts.  Missiles are also good for suppressing spellcasters who aren't using rapid casting.