Thoughts On Version 0.3

[samwise7]

Like I said there were a lot of comments.  I don't think I got them all down, but I tried to get most of them.  Our group grew a little bit, and everyone showed up, so there were a bunch of players there for the playtest.

Does Combat Training give extra Hit Points at 1st level, or only starting at 2nd level?

The fluff for Humans got some comments, and people said that Humans living to 100 was too high.  They also felt that Humans were probably a bit too powerful with that +4 to stats.

There is no list of languages in the game.  I know it is a generic RPG without a setting right now, but they were kind of shocked to not see language options in the rules.  We just went with traditional racial languages from D&D.

The game NEEDS a character example, and the character generation section needs heavily revised.  You need to put in everything that can be bought with Character Points in one section, so players know they have to spend CPs on Spells, Combat Moves, Talents, Skills, Stats (via a Talent), etc.  The organization of the whole PDF was put into question, and it was difficult to find rules because they would often be in sections that didn't at first come to mind, and it wasn't listed in the Table of Contents, and it doesn't have an Index currently (but I think you said it will have an index when it is said and done).

As the GM running it for the first time, I forgot to check the Armor Rating of the monsters, hehe.  They wiped the floor with them, but that was my mistake.  They group was interested in running another session soon to run it correctly, but they showed some interest in doing so, which is good.  These were the same guys that weren't as interested in giving HARP a second try (I tried, I really tried back then).  They really like that this feedback might eventually shape the RPG.

One player at the beginning said something to the affect of, "Why should I care about this RPG?  There are tons of fantasy RPGs out there, so why should I change to this system.  The game is going to have to be different from those other RPGs to make it worth me taking the time out to learn it or play it.  On a cool note however he felt that the way weapons had base damage + scaled damage, the boon + snags, the 2D10 & Imploding/Exploding mechanic were different enough so that it felt like it was a new take on fantasy so that it wasn't just another fantasy heartbreaker. 

Everyone at the table thought that movement should be increased in the Racial description.  They all said it felt like they were traveling in slow motion.  They are all used to being able to move 30 feet and then attacking, where as in Novus most of them could move 5' or so with 1AP and then attack.  Those players will a lower Speed could only move 2' per AP and attack in the same round.  There was also some question on if they could "run" two times this amount for 1AP, and it looked like you could as it was in the AP costs chart.

One player played a Dwarf Cleric, and he had some strong reactions to the game.  He DIDN'T like the fact that spells could fizzle with a bad casting roll.  He also didn't like that some spells have two rolls to successfully cast them (roll to cast, & roll to beat DEF).  He also didn't like that his Cleric had to also have a high Willpower stat to be a competent spellcaster in addition to the two stats that were mentioned in the Cleric description.  He pointed out that the Mystic had Willpower as the two favored stats while the Cleric didn't, and he felt that the Mystic was a "better build" because of that.  It felt weird to him that his Wisdom wasn't the stat needed to be a good spellcaster, and it REALLY irked him.  He said he built what he considered the standard Dwarf Cleric and it wasn't nearly as good as he had envisioned it to be.

Some of the other players as well mentioned that it felt weird that their main stats listed for their magic-user classes didn't have Willpower in the list, as it is the main thing that affects how good their skills are for casting spells.  I would suggest that casters have Willpower listed as a third stat in the description.  It threw off some people, and they had to go back and revised their characters again.  That was also the case with the fighter that wanted to have certain skills, and found out that they used different stats than he expected them to have.

So, everyone said that they wished that Spellcraft was like Magecraft in that the stat associated with it should say [Varies] and be dependent on what class you have.  They also didn't like that Spellcraft and Magecraft are too similar and got confused many times throughout the night.  Change the names of the two skills so they aren't so similar.  Perhaps Spell Casting & Mage Craft. 

I mentioned that I assumed you wanted to have a magic stat, so that every spellcaster wasn't a one trick pony with a very high stat and that stat determining most of what was necessary for that character.  The player with the Dwarf Cleric felt like the combination (or the way he put his stats) didn't give him the results he wanted, and he felt like it was a worse choice than say the human mystic.

There was a general sense that your writing style tends to use words that are also RPG specific terms in places where you shouldn't use those words, and should use more distinct sounding words that hold their own meaning.  The use of "Favored Stats" and "Favored Skills" threw several players off.  They suggested replacing Favored Stats with Suggested Stats.  They also thought it was weird that you described Talents with the word "skills."  There were other instances of overusing the same words for different things, but I can't remember them right now.  The main point was to make each different part of the system have distinct names that can't be confused with other parts of the system.

Backgrounds threw off a lot of the players, because unlike me they never played HARP and were coming at the game from a different perspective.  They were confused as to what Backgrounds gave them, and that EVERYTHING STACKS with Backgrounds, Classes, Combat Training Talents, etc.  When something gave them several Favored Skills, they assumed that they were talking about skills that was given to them by their Class.  My video helped them, but that was more because I understood where you were coming from (having played and ran HARP) but it wasn't stated clearly that way in the rules.  They mentioned that I seemed to understand the "Spirit" of the rules a lot better than them, because they had only read the written word, whereas I had spoken with you over the years and played your previous game.  You need to translate that "Spirit" into actual words in the RPG so that everything is clear and makes sense, even if you have to repeat yourself in different places in the rules, because repetition helps with retaining the knowledge of the rules themselves.

I think because we come from the Rolemaster/HARP background for the most part there are some implied parts of the rules that D&D 3rd/3.5ers just don't get because that isn't what they were used to, and it threw them for a loop, or didn't make much sense to them until it was explained.  One player was almost disturbed that he had so many favored skills as a fighter and not a lot of CPs to put in them, because he got them from his background, class, and combat training talents.  The freedom scared some of them a little, as they weren't used to that.  I thought it was a strange reaction (as I adore freedom and character choices during character creation, but I guess some others don't like it as much).  I do think it is something that they will like when they get used to it, and several of them mentioned that making a character for the 2nd time will be much easier having had a little experience in the 1-shot.

Cont in next post.

[samwise7]

Each Class Description should list the Casting Stat for that Class.  We had a hard time finding where the stats for the casters were listed.  Again, they felt strongly that the Spellcraft Skill should be renamed and be associated with the Casting Stat for that Class.

The players wanted me to type this, "Accounting isn't fun."  They didn't like that there were so many coins in the game, and thought it was a weird decision to have 5 different kinds of coins.  Many of them said to have a silver or gold standard with one or two different types of coins, so they would only have to convert from one type of coin to another, or at most to two different types of coins.  Several of them said they would love a game to have a Silver Standard, with copper coins, and gold would be good if they were carrying around with them lots of wealth in the form of coins.  You could bump this up and have Gold as the standard, with silver below that, and Platinum for carrying large amounts of coin wealth with you to reduce the encumbrance.

So yeah, they said have two types of coins or three at the most, and not five different kinds.

There was a lot of things mentioned about the character sheet.  There was no space to put in the Speed Bonus to the DEF (they put it in Misc).  The character sheet says "+Lvl" in the saves vs. column.  The ".vs" part of that messed them up as well, as they thought that was the TN for that save.  Maybe revise it to say Save Bonus.  Most were used to having a number they had to save against, or roll under, instead of it being a bonus.  It messed with them a little. 

Remove the cost column on the character sheet.  They would much rather have a column for putting in the ranks from their backgrounds because later when they went to buy ranks, they didn't remember which ones were bought ranks, and which ones were free ranks when they were trying to count up how many CPs they had spent so far.  So having a background ranks column, and a skill ranks column might help.  Also, there should be some sort of check box for which skills are favored and which are standard skills.  We just underlined them or put an asterisk beside them, but they said that would make the character sheet better.

They said as players, the importance of the character sheet is the one main thing they depended on, especially if they sat down as new players.  They wanted more room under each of the skills for those "hidden skills" that are in the skill descriptions.  Instead of putting all the blanks below those skills, they felt blanks should be under the parent skill so that they were all in the same place.  This was especially true for the weapon skills of the fighters who had many different favored skills because of background, class, and combat training talents.  So make more room under combat skills for them.

The cost column they said was useless, because you can look on the chart for the cost of skills, and it took up a spot they would much rather have for background ranks.

There was a little confusion with free ranks from background, and bought ranks, and how they both stacked together.  I found myself saying, Everything Stacks throughout the game.  It was weird for them, but cool once they understood that.  When they got more Favored Skills, they confused them with Favored Skills they already had.

Combat Training Talents - They were slightly confused that the Talent gave them additional Favored Combat Skills, and that those new skills got the +2.  They thought maybe their other combat skills also got a +2 bonus, but from what we read it only looked like those 3 additional ones.

Someone mentioned that in the Shield Training Talent, it should say that you only get that +1Def bonus if you are using a shield.  I think it was from a literal reading of the text that made him point this out.

In the Magecraft skill description there is an error.  You can have more than 8 spells at first level.  If you use the formula listed, you can have a lot more if you can afford them that is. 

Learning Spells - A character may learn a maximum number
of spells equal to his level + 3 + the number of ranks he has
in the basic Magecraft skill. Thus, a first level spell user may
know up to 8 spells. Please note that this only dictates how
many spells the character may know in total.

So, at 1st level you would have 1 + 3 + X number of spells.  X is the number of ranks you can have in your Magecraft skill.  The only limit as to how high that skill can be, is what your Stat is.  So if you have a 18 Stat in your Casting Stat for your Class, and you can manage to afford 18 ranks at first level, then you could have 22 spells at first level.  Now granted, I know that skills get more expensive as you have more ranks, and that spells have a cost in CPs too, but the max isn't 8 by any stretch of the imagination.  Cont in next post.

[imported_Rasyr]

Here are replies to some of the things mentioned in your post. I am trying to keep the size of this reply down to a managable leve, so don't feel bad if I miss responding to something.

Does Combat Training give extra Hit Points at 1st level, or only starting at 2nd level?

This is actually something I was thinking about. Currently, it is supposed to start at 2nd level, but I don't see any problems with it starting at first, it just means a few extra hits for PCs.

The fluff for Humans got some comments, and people said that Humans living to 100 was too high.  They also felt that Humans were probably a bit too powerful with that +4 to stats.

Okay, I can reduce the human age to 80 easily enough, and we have already discussed the possibility of reducing the stats from +/-5 to +/-4 for the other races. That would require reducing the stats for humans as well.

There is no list of languages in the game.  I know it is a generic RPG without a setting right now, but they were kind of shocked to not see language options in the rules.  We just went with traditional racial languages from D&D.

Languages are more of a setting issue. But you are right that I should at least have some languages listed.

The game NEEDS a character example, and the character generation section needs heavily revised.  You need to put in everything that can be bought with Character Points in one section, so players know they have to spend CPs on Spells, Combat Moves, Talents, Skills, Stats (via a Talent), etc.  The organization of the whole PDF was put into question, and it was difficult to find rules because they would often be in sections that didn't at first come to mind, and it wasn't listed in the Table of Contents, and it doesn't have an Index currently (but I think you said it will have an index when it is said and done).

Everything you spend Character Points on, that is skills, Talents, Combat Moves, and Spells. That seems to be a bit much for all in one section.

HOw about, if I include a couple of new Talents. One for learning Spells, one for learning Combat Moves. Have them be listed as "Trainable" and the cost as "varies", and then the specific Talent can refer players to the proper section.

Do you think that might work?

As the GM running it for the first time, I forgot to check the Armor Rating of the monsters, hehe. 

For shame.... 

One player at the beginning said something to the affect of, "Why should I care about this RPG?  There are tons of fantasy RPGs out there, so why should I change to this system.  The game is going to have to be different from those other RPGs to make it worth me taking the time out to learn it or play it.  On a cool note however he felt that the way weapons had base damage + scaled damage, the boon + snags, the 2D10 & Imploding/Exploding mechanic were different enough so that it felt like it was a new take on fantasy so that it wasn't just another fantasy heartbreaker. 

That is always a hard question to answer. Like we have also said, "we are not trying to re-invent the fireball", we are simply trying to put together a game that is fun, flexible, and relatively easy to play.

Everyone at the table thought that movement should be increased in the Racial description.  They all said it felt like they were traveling in slow motion.  They are all used to being able to move 30 feet and then attacking, where as in Novus most of them could move 5' or so with 1AP and then attack.  Those players will a lower Speed could only move 2' per AP and attack in the same round.  There was also some question on if they could "run" two times this amount for 1AP, and it looked like you could as it was in the AP costs chart.

Okay, will definitely take a look at that. Afterall, we aren't really trying for realism here, but also we don't want to go too much overboard.

Running is one of the things I have to fix. Yes, you can move 2x while running for 1 AP, but I need to add in a nagative modifier to all other actions performed in the same round (like a -3 per AP spent running).

One player played a Dwarf Cleric, and he had some strong reactions to the game.  He DIDN'T like the fact that spells could fizzle with a bad casting roll.  He also didn't like that some spells have two rolls to successfully cast them (roll to cast, & roll to beat DEF).

Okay, right there is a problem. He should NOT have been making 2 separate rolls. I thought we discussed this previously. In fact, the Open Beta v. 0.3 has a side-note on page 38 that specifically addresses this and it basically says:

For those spells, only 1 roll is made. First you compare against CTN. If successful, then you compare that SAME number against foe's DEF, and then resolve as any other attack.

So, everyone said that they wished that Spellcraft was like Magecraft in that the stat associated with it should say [Varies] and be dependent on what class you have.  They also didn't like that Spellcraft and Magecraft are too similar and got confused many times throughout the night.  Change the names of the two skills so they aren't so similar.  Perhaps Spell Casting & Mage Craft. 

Changing it to Spell Casting would be simple enough, and not require any major re-organization of the character sheet (I have made a couple of changes already - for the "Save vs." section, changing the header to "Save Mod." and for the Base DEF, I have removed the 15 and put a line, and to the left of that added "(15 + Spd Bonus)" so that that is easier to understand as well.

As for the stat... Chaning it to be the "Power Stat" for the School of Magic does make sense as that stat could be more of a relfection of the spell casting style. While Mystics use Willpower, a Wizard recites incantations (along with a few gestures), and Mages trace sigils of power in the air (with minor incantations), while Clerics intone prayers and use their faith to help shape the power...

Consider the stat to be changed to the Favored "Power Stat" for the class.

There was a general sense that your writing style tends to use words that are also RPG specific terms in places where you shouldn't use those words, and should use more distinct sounding words that hold their own meaning.  The use of "Favored Stats" and "Favored Skills" threw several players off.  They suggested replacing Favored Stats with Suggested Stats.  They also thought it was weird that you described Talents with the word "skills."  There were other instances of overusing the same words for different things, but I can't remember them right now.  The main point was to make each different part of the system have distinct names that can't be confused with other parts of the system.

Yup, still a lot of rewriting that needs to be done... sigh...   

Backgrounds threw off a lot of the players, because unlike me they never played HARP and were coming at the game from a different perspective.  They were confused as to what Backgrounds gave them, and that EVERYTHING STACKS with Backgrounds, Classes, Combat Training Talents, etc.  When something gave them several Favored Skills, they assumed that they were talking about skills that was given to them by their Class.  My video helped them, but that was more because I understood where you were coming from (having played and ran HARP) but it wasn't stated clearly that way in the rules.  They mentioned that I seemed to understand the "Spirit" of the rules a lot better than them, because they had only read the written word, whereas I had spoken with you over the years and played your previous game.  You need to translate that "Spirit" into actual words in the RPG so that everything is clear and makes sense, even if you have to repeat yourself in different places in the rules, because repetition helps with retaining the knowledge of the rules themselves.

Yup, adding clarity will make things a lot easier on the players...

I think because we come from the Rolemaster/HARP background for the most part there are some implied parts of the rules that D&D 3rd/3.5ers just don't get because that isn't what they were used to, and it threw them for a loop, or didn't make much sense to them until it was explained.  One player was almost disturbed that he had so many favored skills as a fighter and not a lot of CPs to put in them, because he got them from his background, class, and combat training talents.  The freedom scared some of them a little, as they weren't used to that.  I thought it was a strange reaction (as I adore freedom and character choices during character creation, but I guess some others don't like it as much).  I do think it is something that they will like when they get used to it, and several of them mentioned that making a character for the 2nd time will be much easier having had a little experience in the 1-shot.

afraid of freedom??

Wow! heheh

[samwise7]

The players mentioned that they were glad that there was no instant negative feeling to the game, that they felt at other times when I tried to show new RPGs to them (I tend to like a lot of different RPGs).  So they were happy that it seemed interesting enough to want to keep playing it.

They suggested putting the Talents before the Skills section, and that they would like to know in the rules stated very clearly everything that they can spend CPs on in one place, preferably in the character creation section, and restated again when you explain the character creation process in more detail.

They suggested adding in Disadvantages or Flaws to give you extra XP during play, or to give out more CPs at character creation.  They said these can sometimes be used to break a system, but they also add a level of fun to a game.  They also suggested that a character could take a penalty to their stats to get more CPs.  I'm not so sure on that last idea, but a few of them mentioned it.  Perhaps on a 1 for 1 basis (-1 Stat +1CP, or some other formula).

There was a lot of back and forth between skills and stats, and having to revise where they put their stat numbers.  Maybe put in the character creation section that where they put their stats greatly affects what their skill totals would be.  This was made worse when they chose Talents after they put in some skill ranks (hence the Talents before the Skills section).  Maybe mention that players should look at the skills and see what skills they want, and notice what stats affect those stats.  Basically, they had to work out and change somethings.  A few of the players had a slight difficulty making their character based on their concept, and felt their ideas had to bend to the system, and not the system bending to their idea.

They suggested maybe putting in something that mentions converting a Certain Other Popular RPG's modules to this system.  Maybe that would be better as a free download though.

The players were frustrated that not all of the main skills weren't on the character sheet.  They understand that having all the Lore skills, or Craft skills might be too much, so they just wanted to mention to put in more blanks, or to put in the more commonly used sub-skills on the sheet.

The Archer said that Rapid Reloader should be purchased by all ranged weapons characters, because it was that good.

Again, they wanted to emphasize the following, "WORDING, WORDING, WORDING!"  There were parts that needed clarifying, and more organization.  Choose your words carefully, so that each thing is distinctive and can't be confused with something else. 

They wanted a Master List of skills and their associated Stats.  Again they were wanting this especially for character creation.

They liked the idea of a Snag and Boons handout sheet and said it should be in the PDF, though they weren't comfortable choosing their own Snags.  They thought this should be the domain of the GM, because they said most players would choose the least negative one on the Snag list every time.  They said players that like to role-play things more might choose nastier ones though.  They also said that there needs to be more Snags and Boons. 

They did feel however that the Spell Boon Increase Targets was pretty powerful.  It was fun though, especially when you can spend Fate Points to give you the upper hand to get those Boon Points.

Cont below.

[imported_Rasyr]

Each Class Description should list the Casting Stat for that Class.  We had a hard time finding where the stats for the casters were listed.  Again, they felt strongly that the Spellcraft Skill should be renamed and be associated with the Casting Stat for that Class.

Okay -- will consider..

The players wanted me to type this, "Accounting isn't fun."  They didn't like that there were so many coins in the game, and thought it was a weird decision to have 5 different kinds of coins.  Many of them said to have a silver or gold standard with one or two different types of coins, so they would only have to convert from one type of coin to another, or at most to two different types of coins.  Several of them said they would love a game to have a Silver Standard, with copper coins, and gold would be good if they were carrying around with them lots of wealth in the form of coins.  You could bump this up and have Gold as the standard, with silver below that, and Platinum for carrying large amounts of coin wealth with you to reduce the encumbrance.

So yeah, they said have two types of coins or three at the most, and not five different kinds.

Will consider -- but I would like to point out that many of them are coming from a D&D background, so that may be coloring their perceptions as well.

There was a lot of things mentioned about the character sheet.  There was no space to put in the Speed Bonus to the DEF (they put it in Misc).  The character sheet says "+Lvl" in the saves vs. column.  The ".vs" part of that messed them up as well, as they thought that was the TN for that save.  Maybe revise it to say Save Bonus.  Most were used to having a number they had to save against, or roll under, instead of it being a bonus.  It messed with them a little. 

As I noted in my previous post, I have already made some changes to the character sheet. Specifically changing the header "Save vs." to "Save Mod.", and changing the DEF section so that the Base is "(15 + Spd Bonus)" rather than just 15.

Remove the cost column on the character sheet.  They would much rather have a column for putting in the ranks from their backgrounds because later when they went to buy ranks, they didn't remember which ones were bought ranks, and which ones were free ranks when they were trying to count up how many CPs they had spent so far.  So having a background ranks column, and a skill ranks column might help.  Also, there should be some sort of check box for which skills are favored and which are standard skills.  We just underlined them or put an asterisk beside them, but they said that would make the character sheet better.

I will start another thread regarding the changing of the cost column to a BG column.

They said as players, the importance of the character sheet is the one main thing they depended on, especially if they sat down as new players.  They wanted more room under each of the skills for those "hidden skills" that are in the skill descriptions.  Instead of putting all the blanks below those skills, they felt blanks should be under the parent skill so that they were all in the same place.  This was especially true for the weapon skills of the fighters who had many different favored skills because of background, class, and combat training talents.  So make more room under combat skills for them.

Smack them upside the head for me...

The cost column they said was useless, because you can look on the chart for the cost of skills, and it took up a spot they would much rather have for background ranks.

I will agree that the cost column became more superfluous once we added in the sliding cost scale...

There was a little confusion with free ranks from background, and bought ranks, and how they both stacked together.  I found myself saying, Everything Stacks throughout the game.  It was weird for them, but cool once they understood that.  When they got more Favored Skills, they confused them with Favored Skills they already had.

That Favored Skill confusion was due to wording. It should likely specify that the player chooses a Standard Skill to convert to a Favored Skill, in addition to what he already has.....

Combat Training Talents - They were slightly confused that the Talent gave them additional Favored Combat Skills, and that those new skills got the +2.  They thought maybe their other combat skills also got a +2 bonus, but from what we read it only looked like those 3 additional ones.

Yes, only those specific skills that are made Favored get the bonus. I have other clarifications to make on that in the Class section as well.

Someone mentioned that in the Shield Training Talent, it should say that you only get that +1Def bonus if you are using a shield.  I think it was from a literal reading of the text that made him point this out.

The Shield Training increases the DEF mod from a shield that the character is using by +1. I will look at the wording, in case it is somewhat unclear or could be misleading.

In the Magecraft skill description there is an error.  You can have more than 8 spells at first level.  If you use the formula listed, you can have a lot more if you can afford them that is. 

There are several errors in the Magecraft skill description. Specifically where it mentions "spell lvl".

As for the number of spells, I originally based that on from when I had limits on the number of ranks that could be purchased per level (i.e. no more than 4 ranks per level for Favored skills), which would have added up to 8 ranks).

Considering that players have to pay for the spells as well as the ranks in Magecraft, it is likely that the allowed number of spells is going to usually be greater than the actual number the player has...

I will rewrite that to be an example of how many a character might be allowed to have, rather than as an absolute like it currently is written.

Negative Stat Modifiers don't seem to affect a lot of things in the game.  They all thought this was weird.  They affect Saves and Skills but they don't affect movement, or some other things.

If we increase teh base speed per AP, then we can allow negative modifiers to affect movement (i.e. you cannot have somebody who moved -1 foot per AP). And I think they affect DEF -- will double-check to be sure).

Does Initiative use the Imploding & Exploding rules?  It didn't seem to say.  I thought at first that they were non-explosive, but the players said that didn't make much sense.  So we used Imploding & Exploding Initiative, but we only did it once per combat encounter.  We did use the initiative system listed in the book, even though it felt really weird at first (especially for the GM).  They seemed to like Action Points, but they did say that it was less simple than other versions of combat in other games.

Less simple, maybe, but it also allows for more flexibility in what can be done. It is a toss-up, flexibility versus simplicity. I tried to balance the two...

Are Saves +1/2 Level Rounded up, or are they +Level.  If they are the first, then the character sheet needs revised, it just says +LVL.

Saves are + Level. Character Points are "15 + 1/2 level", but I have been considering dropping that, and putting it back in later as an option. 15 CP per level seems like plenty to me and with the increasing costs, that means slower dev at higher levels, and it also means longer until they reach the rank caps (which I have also been considering increasing by 50% - 100%)

Is there a Haste Spell in the game?  I thought there was, and I thought I remember reading that it gave out 10 APs worth of action per round, but we couldn't seem to find it.  Did that get removed at some point?

Currently, no, there isn't any Haste spells. However, there is a Potion of Haste....

The players also mentioned having 6 pregenerated characters in the back to use as NPCs and so that they could also be used by players that just wanted to sit down for a 1-shot.

First level Characters?

[samwise7]

In the Talent Section, the players said that it would be very helpful to list which Races and Classes get the Talents for free.  One of the players bought Combat Training even though he had it for his Class.  He figured it out and changed it though. 

For AB or Attack Bonus, make sure to emphasize that this total is the skill total for whatever combat skill you are using.  They were looking for some "Base Attack Bonus" D&D-like number instead of their skill total for whatever weapon they were using.

"Accounting isn't fun."  They wanted me to repeat that.  Cont below. 

[samwise7]

They wanted an Index.

A couple players didn't like that spells could fizzle (having D&D backgrounds where spells just go off automatically), but other players liked that, since they said high level casters became minor deities after a certain level in the older games, even 3.5 D&D.  I think it came down to preference on whether they liked automatic spells or a chance to fail.  I also mentioned that the bad guys would also have a chance to fail, which adds a new element to encounters.

The mystic has Willpower listed as one of his main two stats, and the Dwarf Cleric player mentioned that it was easier for him to sink higher stats into his two main skills and profit more from it than himself.  He was conflicted on how some of the things all work together like I said, and I think he might have different preferences to things that Novus is trying to be different in.  The fact that each spell roll is only one roll (not the two I thought) might make a huge difference though.

Diversity vs Specialization.  Because of the freedom inherent in the system, players have the choice to deversify where they spend CPs or to specialize them.  The players that diversified their skill ranks noticed that it was harder to achieve the TNs because of the dice mechanic (the numbers are more towards the center than just a 5% chance for all of them like they were used to).  Maybe make note of that somewhere in the rules.  The exploding dice mechanic though did seem to help in that regard. 

Armor Rating could be a problem, if the AR got high enough.  At some point a character with tons of AR may never have damage get past that AR to hit him.  It didn't happen in the game, but I know I've seen it happen in other games that use AR/DR etc.

Specialized spellcasters seemed to fair much better than those that spend CPs in different places.  But again, if you are specialized in one thing, that means you suck in many other areas, and this would balance out more so in a campaign than a 1-shot.

The Stats in the PDF aren't the same order as on the Character sheet.  Another complaint was that the Stats SHOULD BE IN ALPHABETICAL ORDER.  Since there are 8 of them, several players asked why they weren't in alphabetical order, and for them that was a pet peeve of D&D with the non-logical order of how they were lined up.  I also agree that they should be in alphabetical order (I was glad that Lamentations of the Flame Princess did that for instance).

They liked the noteably different mechanics of the no damage dice roll, the scaled damage as being +1 for every 1 over the TN, and how the Boon Points can add to it as well.  They LOVED that a big dice roll equaled more damage.

They liked Boons, but they were worried they might be overpowered, or maybe they were just unused to having that much control over what happened in combat.  I think it will grow on them though.  They did say that they seemed to happen more often than they thought they would.  It was also interesting to note that Snags didn't always mean that you failed at the dice roll attempted. 

Another thing that became apparent to me, and to them, was that the mechanic is weighed in the favor of Boons than to Snags.  Just think about that for a moment, because I didn't notice it until I did a full session of Novus.   Basically what I am saying is that Imploding dice aren't as bad as Exploding dice are good. 

If you roll a bunch of Exploding dice in a row, you can get some really high dice totals, since that is a +10 you get for every 10 you roll (obviously).  What was interesting is that if you roll a 1 for a Snag that is only a -1, and if you roll another one after that, it's only a -1.  So even if you roll a bunch of Impoding dice in a row and keep rolling low numbers, they really aren't that bad (which was relieving to me).  It made me like the mechanic much more than I originally did.  I kind of detested it at first (sorry, I did).  hehe.  It has grown on me, and on the players.  If a player rolls a 1 and then it implodes as a 10, then things do get rough, but you have a 1 in 10 chance of that happening.  Overall they really liked the dice mechanic with their experience of it. 

[imported_Rasyr]

The players mentioned that they were glad that there was no instant negative feeling to the game, that they felt at other times when I tried to show new RPGs to them (I tend to like a lot of different RPGs).  So they were happy that it seemed interesting enough to want to keep playing it.

Cool!

They suggested putting the Talents before the Skills section, and that they would like to know in the rules stated very clearly everything that they can spend CPs on in one place, preferably in the character creation section, and restated again when you explain the character creation process in more detail.

Hmm... not so sure about this, BUT one thing that I could do is to perhapve create that master skill list they wanted, and perhaps put it and a couple of other lists (talents, combat Moves, spells, etc.) in the beginning of the spending CP section, and then point folks to the proper section accordingly for a more detailed description.

They suggested adding in Disadvantages or Flaws to give you extra XP during play, or to give out more CPs at character creation.  They said these can sometimes be used to break a system, but they also add a level of fun to a game.  They also suggested that a character could take a penalty to their stats to get more CPs.  I'm not so sure on that last idea, but a few of them mentioned it.  Perhaps on a 1 for 1 basis (-1 Stat +1CP, or some other formula).

Maybe later, as an option, but not in the core rules. One of the main reason for not including Flaws to begin with is that they are usually used for min/maxing and then totally ignored later.

If included later as an option, then it allows each individual GM to decide, rather than them having to argue against not allowing them.

There was a lot of back and forth between skills and stats, and having to revise where they put their stat numbers.  Maybe put in the character creation section that where they put their stats greatly affects what their skill totals would be.  This was made worse when they chose Talents after they put in some skill ranks (hence the Talents before the Skills section).  Maybe mention that players should look at the skills and see what skills they want, and notice what stats affect those stats.  Basically, they had to work out and change somethings.  A few of the players had a slight difficulty making their character based on their concept, and felt their ideas had to bend to the system, and not the system bending to their idea.

As mentioned above -- perhaps master tables of every in one spot, with references to the relevant sections...

They suggested maybe putting in something that mentions converting a Certain Other Popular RPG's modules to this system.  Maybe that would be better as a free download though.

I think that would definitely be better as a free download...

The players were frustrated that not all of the main skills weren't on the character sheet.  They understand that having all the Lore skills, or Craft skills might be too much, so they just wanted to mention to put in more blanks, or to put in the more commonly used sub-skills on the sheet.

Huh? All of the MAIN skills are on the character sheet. Some skills have sub-skills, and I did not include specific slots for every single subskill, but it is doubtful that anybody would ever try to get every one.

The current list of skills on the character sheet lists ALL of the parent skills and gives a few specific slots for each that has subskills. But there is no way to list every single subskill.

For example, the Combat Skill currently has 22 specific possible subskills (including Combat Styles). And that is ONLY those listed in the book. If you factor in 1 skill for each "unique" weapon, other combat styles, and other possible weapon groups currently NOT listed, and that could easily double or triple.

Under Crafts, we list 13 possible crafts, but that is simply the tip of the potential iceberg, there could be dozens and dozens of others that players might think of. We gave a few examples, but players are not limited to them.

The character sheet simply does not have the space to put too many blanks under each possible skill that might have specific subskills.

Now, I can add maybe one or two more lines to some of the skills in the list, but that would be all (and those come off the blank lines at the bottom, and I want to leave at least 10 blank lines at the bottom!!!

The Archer said that Rapid Reloader should be purchased by all ranged weapons characters, because it was that good.

Which means that I need to take a closer look at it. To either lower its power a little bit or increase its cost.

Again, they wanted to emphasize the following, "WORDING, WORDING, WORDING!"  There were parts that needed clarifying, and more organization.  Choose your words carefully, so that each thing is distinctive and can't be confused with something else. 

Yup....

They liked the idea of a Snag and Boons handout sheet and said it should be in the PDF, though they weren't comfortable choosing their own Snags.  They thought this should be the domain of the GM, because they said most players would choose the least negative one on the Snag list every time.  They said players that like to role-play things more might choose nastier ones though.  They also said that there needs to be more Snags and Boons. 

Page counts.... Final page count is what determines final prices.

And yes, there needs to be more Snags and Boons. But likely not in the core rules... 

They did feel however that the Spell Boon Increase Targets was pretty powerful.  It was fun though, especially when you can spend Fate Points to give you the upper hand to get those Boon Points.

Then perhaps that one should cost more Boon Points...

[samwise7]

I'll let you respond to things, and then I will go through and clarify the player's thoughts, and answer the questions you posed to me.  It was interesting what their thoughts were, and how some of them differed from mine.  Overall playtesting this RPG has been fun, interesting, and a learning experience.  Thanks Tim.

[samwise7]

I just popped into the chat room, and I'll hang out there for awhile in case you wanted some instant talk on the stuff I posted.

[imported_Rasyr]

In the Talent Section, the players said that it would be very helpful to list which Races and Classes get the Talents for free.  One of the players bought Combat Training even though he had it for his Class.  He figured it out and changed it though. 

Ouch, that might be too much.... Is this another thing that d20 does with Feats? Are they simply spoiled by not remember what their character already has?

Remember, I am trying to balance against keeping the product as small as possible.

For AB or Attack Bonus, make sure to emphasize that this total is the skill total for whatever combat skill you are using.  They were looking for some "Base Attack Bonus" D&D-like number instead of their skill total for whatever weapon they were using.

Yup

There are no musical instruments listed in the Equipment section.  The Minstrel character wanted to make sure to mention that.  Medieval instruments were mentioned as the instruments to include.

Okay, something I need to add. A few instruments (drum and lute to be sure, maybe a lap harp or horn of some sort).

With the Explosion Mechanic, on the 1/100 chance that you roll two 10s on both dice, do both dice explode?  I said they did, but we didn't see that listed in the rules specifically. 

Yes, each die is treated separately when it comes to explosions/implosions (except when one implodes and the other explodes). So, if both explode, then you reroll both and add it all together...

There is some mix up on whether or not you can spend Fate Points after you roll.  In the example given you can spend them after you roll, but the rules say you have to choose before you roll.  The players suggested that you let them use Fate Points whenever you want, which would mainly be after you roll the dice.  If for balance reasons you think they should only be spent before you roll, then you need to revise the example, and clarify that.

Yeah, the wording right now sucks... Basically, once you spend a Fate Point (or multiple Fate Points), you cannot spend more for the same roll. However, you CAN wait until after your normal skill roll before deciding to spend fate points on that roll.

What you cannot do is roll, spend a Fate Point (and roll a die for that spent point), and then decide to spend another Fate Point for another d10 roll to add to the total).

The Fighter character liked that his 2nd attack happened at the end of the round, he said it felt more realistic.

I also need to note that if more than one character gets multiple attacks, with the additional attacks happening at the end of the round, then they should be resolved in init order...

There was some complaint about getting boon points for each of the two rolls needed for some spells, but it turns out that I was doing that incorrectly (since there is only one roll for each spell).  Whoops, I'll make sure to clarify that in an email to the group.

Unless the Stat for Spellcraft changes, they suggest that Elves be revised.  They are supposed to be a magical race of beings, and they suck at casting spells in this version.  Dwarves are better at spellcasting than them, because they don't have a negative to willpower.

Yeah, am heavily leaning to making it the Magic stat.....

The Dwarf Cleric felt that his CTNs were higher than the Mystics, and it generally seemed unfair to him.  I suggested that maybe they be slightly reduced, or that the spells be modified so that they are lower.  I'm not sure how the TNs for spells were calculated.  He said that many of his just seemed higher...

Actually, his CTNs are higher. But then again, he has more powerful spells as well. The CTNs for spells were all calculated using the rules from Libram Novus #1 - Spell Bases.

For example, the Divine Bolt spell (listed as Divine Light in the attached image that shows the comparison) does double damage versus demons, devils, and undead. While the Mystic Bolt spell does not. The CTN of the Divine Bolt spell is 20, while for the Mystic it is only 17.

Double damage against 3 major types of foes for an extra 3 on the CTN?? Please, he gets the benefit in the long run there...

Another thing a player noticed, what there is decidedly more dice rolling going on in this game, especially with the exploding and imploding dice.  It wasn't necessarily a bad thing, but he did say that it was something he definitely noticed compared to other RPGs.

They said that the game wasn't as intuitive to players as some other games are.  BRP was mentioned as a game that was much more intuitive than Novus, and that Novus has a learning curve to it.  That learning curve could be reduced however, they said, if the wording of the document improved, or was organized better.  They did mention the organization a lot, and wording.

Yeah, well we already knew that wording definitely needed major work.. hehehe

They wanted an Index.

On the list of things to do....

A couple players didn't like that spells could fizzle (having D&D backgrounds where spells just go off automatically), but other players liked that, since they said high level casters became minor deities after a certain level in the older games, even 3.5 D&D.  I think it came down to preference on whether they liked automatic spells or a chance to fail.  I also mentioned that the bad guys would also have a chance to fail, which adds a new element to encounters.

And coming from an RM background, the idea of there never being any chance of screwing up a spell seems unnatural. Then again, in D&D, you also memorize spells, and have to track which ones you can cast, and how often each day, which you don't in Novus. So, the possibility of fizzle is the price to pay for the freedom of choice in which spell they cast when they want to cast it....

Diversity vs Specialization.  Because of the freedom inherent in the system, players have the choice to deversify where they spend CPs or to specialize them.  The players that diversified their skill ranks noticed that it was harder to achieve the TNs because of the dice mechanic (the numbers are more towards the center than just a 5% chance for all of them like they were used to).  Maybe make note of that somewhere in the rules.  The exploding dice mechanic though did seem to help in that regard. 

Yup....

Armor Rating could be a problem, if the AR got high enough.  At some point a character with tons of AR may never have damage get past that AR to hit him.  It didn't happen in the game, but I know I've seen it happen in other games that use AR/DR etc.

Yes, that is a concern, and something to keep an eye on. The most likely solution is to make sure that ARs don't stack too much, escpecially for multiples on the same location.

Specialized spellcasters seemed to fair much better than those that spend CPs in different places.  But again, if you are specialized in one thing, that means you suck in many other areas, and this would balance out more so in a campaign than a 1-shot.

Yup, that is always the case in Specialization versus Diversification....

The Stats in the PDF aren't the same order as on the Character sheet.  Another complaint was that the Stats SHOULD BE IN ALPHABETICAL ORDER.  Since there are 8 of them, several players asked why they weren't in alphabetical order, and for them that was a pet peeve of D&D with the non-logical order of how they were lined up.  I also agree that they should be in alphabetical order (I was glad that Lamentations of the Flame Princess did that for instance).

Let's see what everybody else has to say about putting them in alphabetical order (though I would still prefer to keep the physical stats separate from the mental ones (4 of each)).

They liked Boons, but they were worried they might be overpowered, or maybe they were just unused to having that much control over what happened in combat.  I think it will grow on them though.  They did say that they seemed to happen more often than they thought they would.  It was also interesting to note that Snags didn't always mean that you failed at the dice roll attempted. 

You were doing them at 10 points over TN, correct? Remember, every 5 points we discovered was too often..

Another thing that became apparent to me, and to them, was that the mechanic is weighed in the favor of Boons than to Snags.  Just think about that for a moment, because I didn't notice it until I did a full session of Novus.   Basically what I am saying is that Imploding dice aren't as bad as Exploding dice are good. 

Yes. as I have explained before THAT is intentional.

If you roll a bunch of Exploding dice in a row, you can get some really high dice totals, since that is a +10 you get for every 10 you roll (obviously).  What was interesting is that if you roll a 1 for a Snag that is only a -1, and if you roll another one after that, it's only a -1.  So even if you roll a bunch of Impoding dice in a row and keep rolling low numbers, they really aren't that bad (which was relieving to me).  It made me like the mechanic much more than I originally did.  I kind of detested it at first (sorry, I did).  hehe.  It has grown on me, and on the players.  If a player rolls a 1 and then it implodes as a 10, then things do get rough, but you have a 1 in 10 chance of that happening.  Overall they really liked the dice mechanic with their experience of it. 



Glad to hear that...

Because the system is 2D10 it tends to reward skilled players above lucky players (unless they have Exploding dice that is).  Maybe mention that somewhere.

Yes, will be sure to add that in someplace...

There was some complaint that Melee takes 4AP while shooting a bow costs 2AP.  I mentioned that it takes 3AP to reload, but then the Archer character mentioned the Rapid Reloader Talent.  The suggestion was to reduce the Melee AP down to 3.

Will consider. Will already be looking at the Rapid Reloader talent itself. And it may be that the talent is too powerful overall.

See I told you I had lots of feedback, and they noticed things that didn't bother me, or that I didn't notice. 

Hence the reason for the Open Beta -- as other folks will notice things that all you guys did not. Best to get as wide a variety as possible in the feedback..

[imported_Rasyr]

I hope everything comes across in the tone of trying to make the game better. 

For the most part it does.. [attachment[/attachment]

[samwise7]

Everything you spend Character Points on, that is skills, Talents, Combat Moves, and Spells. That seems to be a bit much for all in one section.

How about, if I include a couple of new Talents. One for learning Spells, one for learning Combat Moves. Have them be listed as "Trainable" and the cost as "varies", and then the specific Talent can refer players to the proper section.

Do you think that might work?

Hmm, what I meant to say was to perhaps put a small paragraph somewhere at the beginning of the character creation section with page numbers to everything they can spend CPs on, so they know what all of their options are, and where everything can be found in the PDF.  This is the page that they will keep their finger in while they are looking at the more in depth sections that have all of the Combat Moves, Skills, Spells, and Talents listed. 

I'm not sure if I like the new Talents idea or not...  Huh.  I liked that you used Talents for Languages though.  My concern is that Talents for buying spells and combat moves would further confuse the issue...  "Are they Talents, or are they Combat Moves, or are they Spells?"

I'm not sure I like the Talents idea... 


What I pictured was something simple like this:

Spending Character Points

"You have 30 Character Points (CPs) to spend on a variety of exciting options for your character.  You can spend CPs to buy Combat Moves (Page W), Skills (Page X), Spells (Page Y), and Talents (Page Z).  Please see the pages listed above for a more in depth treatise of your options."

You could briefly discuss and define what each option is, or just leave it at that, and have them check the relevant sections that have all the information.  It would probably be good to have a cursory description though, so when they read it later there is an, "Oh, that's right, I read what they were before." kind of moment.  That with a step by step character creation example I think would do wonders for the game.  I was just reading Chaosium's Runequest II, and they had a step by step example character as you went through the steps, and it seemed to help show more of the "Spirit" of the game that I talked about before.  I think some people just need a good example to finally grasp what it is that the game is trying to do, and the way in which it does it.   

    So yeah, they said have two types of coins or three at the most, and not five different kinds.


Will consider -- but I would like to point out that many of them are coming from a D&D background, so that may be coloring their perceptions as well.

That is exactly why they want less coins, and again because, "accounting isn't fun." 

If we increase the base speed per AP, then we can allow negative modifiers to affect movement (i.e. you cannot have somebody who moved -1 foot per AP). And I think they affect DEF -- will double-check to be sure).

Yes, like I said they thought the movement should increase per AP from what it is currently listed in the racial information.  I thought there at least two or three mentions of how negative stats didn't affect something, I thought DEF was another one that the Negative Speed stat didn't affect... let's see...

Defense (DEF)
This is the Target Number that an attacker must equal or
beat in order to make a physical attack against a character. Your
character's Base DEF is equal to 15 + your character's Speed
Stat Bonus + 1/2 of your character's level (rounded up). A
negative Speed Stat Bonus is always treated as if it were a zero.

Yeah, they thought that having a negative Speed SHOULD affect how easily you get hit.  If you are slower than someone else, you should get hit (or at least that was the feeling from everyone at my table).

Saves are + Level. Character Points are "15 + 1/2 level", but I have been considering dropping that, and putting it back in later as an option. 15 CP per level seems like plenty to me and with the increasing costs, that means slower dev at higher levels, and it also means longer until they reach the rank caps (which I have also been considering increasing by 50% - 100%)

Having it as a static number would be simpler, and it is easier to remember.  I like it.  You get 30 CPs at 1st level and 15 every additional level.  I like it. 

    The players also mentioned having 6 pregenerated characters in the back to use as NPCs and so that they could also be used by players that just wanted to sit down for a 1-shot.

First level Characters?

Yeah, I would think 6 1st level characters would be a great addition to the game, since most games will start out at 1st level (especially with it being a new game).  If you name these characters, you could then use them as examples throughout the text. 

Hmm... not so sure about this, BUT one thing that I could do is to perhaps create that master skill list they wanted, and perhaps put it and a couple of other lists (talents, combat Moves, spells, etc.) in the beginning of the spending CP section, and then point folks to the proper section accordingly for a more detailed description.

If there was a table with all of the Combat Moves, Skills, Spells, and Talents, and their costs, that would be a very helpful table.  If there was a page reference, or a brief summary for what they do, that might be good as well (if that is feasible).  The Master Skill List would be a great addition as well.

Perhaps putting in the Talent description which class and race gets the Talents...

Ouch, that might be too much.... Is this another thing that d20 does with Feats? Are they simply spoiled by not remember what their character already has?

Remember, I am trying to balance against keeping the product as small as possible.

It might be too much to ask for, but it also makes it easy for a GM to look at the Talents section and see which Classes get which Talents for free, as well as be a helpful reminders to players what classes get which ones.  You could perhaps make this a free download if you don't want to put it in the PDF.  It could be a table of all of the talents, and which Classes get them for free.  Maybe another free download of what skills each Class gets as well (but I don't think many people would actually need or want that).  I don't think D20 does this, but I'm not familiar with 4th Edition.

Let's see what everybody else has to say about putting the Stats in alphabetical order (though I would still prefer to keep the physical stats separate from the mental ones (4 of each)).

I think the breakdown of physical and mental stats is a hold out from Rolemaster that doesn't really need to be there.  If you still want to have the Physical Stats first followed by the Mental Stats, then I suggest putting the Physical Stats in order, and then putting the Mental Stats in order alphabetically. 

    They liked Boons, but they were worried they might be overpowered, or maybe they were just unused to having that much control over what happened in combat.  I think it will grow on them though.  They did say that they seemed to happen more often than they thought they would.  It was also interesting to note that Snags didn't always mean that you failed at the dice roll attempted.


You were doing them at 10 points over TN, correct? Remember, every 5 points we discovered was too often..

Yes, we were using 10 over the TN for Boons, and 10 under the TN for Snags, and both happened fairly frequently throughout the night.  I'm not saying it is a bad thing, it was just something we didn't think would happen as often as it would.  It was more comparing what we expected with what actually happened when we played it.  It showed to me that experience with a system definitely has its place, as compared to just reading through the rules.

[samwise7]

On another note, Saving Throws were thought to be "hidden" in the rules, even though I see they are on Page 4.  Maybe put that information with the Stats or in the Secondary Stats section?

[imported_Rasyr]

On another note, Saving Throws were thought to be "hidden" in the rules, even though I see they are on Page 4.  Maybe put that information with the Stats or in the Secondary Stats section?

That is a good suggestion -- revisiting it in the Secondary Stats section...