|
|
Post by grinnenbaeritt on Sept 25, 2019 13:34:37 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Pawel on Sept 25, 2019 20:32:02 GMT
Solid effort, mate! The sheet looks very neat. And the character is certainly intriguing!
|
|
|
|
Post by grinnenbaeritt on Sept 27, 2019 11:53:41 GMT
Solid effort, mate! The sheet looks very neat. And the character is certainly intriguing! Thanks! I've added my adaptations of the other two sample characters from the free download to the original post. I've taken some liberties with them, especially with the tracks..which I reduced to three generic ones "Bravery, Sanity and one wild-card (usually loyalty, be it to a group or organisation)  It was an interesting exercise, although I noticed some discrepancies in the attribute focuses, which didn't match, not quite sure this was by design or not? I'm still to be convinced about how easily this skill system will work in play, since, although I like the "loose" descriptors*, it does mean that there will be far more adjudication of behalf of the GM. However, I'll try and pre-gen a couple of other characters, then run a short taster game at our gaming club to see how it works out. * for the same reason, I'm not convinced about the current intended application of the focuses... I can see it being abused, to the point that their effect would make it simpler to raise all the attributes by one. My own feeling is that they should instead be "triggered" and the player then gets a +2 bonus (instead of +1). However, if the test using that bonus then fails, then the character must use a point of strain. I'd also increase the strain points available by adding pairs of stats together before then referencing the same table to determine strain e.g. sum psyche + cognition for MENTAL, coordination + physique for PHYSICAL |
|
|
|
Post by Pawel on Sept 27, 2019 17:24:27 GMT
I think you're quite right, the GM will certainly need to be at the helm of things. Easy enough for me, as my players don't even touch their stats during RPG sessions - just character creation and between sessions.  But yeah, this is some great playtesting there, mate. |
|
|
|
Post by grinnenbaeritt on Oct 22, 2019 14:44:35 GMT
Had a chance to run a "taster" scenario as a "convention" game (roughly 4 hours).... but using a "trimmed V3 Version".... slightly house-ruled. 1. I only used characters that had one focus per attribute. When making the characters I limited the focus options to two per attribute 2. I marginally increased the amount of Strain available (both mental and both Physical were summed before looking at the table) 3. An applicable bonus from a focus was +1, however could be increased to +2. This +2 bonus was "free" if the combined stat & skill wasn't greater than 5 and the resulting check was a success. However, if the combined stat & skill was 6+, or a check was failed, then it cost one strain of the appropriate type.. ========== The play-test was very successful. Two of the 4 players had played the system several times before (v2), they liked the reduced amount of attributes, but commented that the "vagueness" in having focuses could lead to issues... especially when combined with the more all-encompassing descriptive skill-usage and interpreting which might be used. One expressed a preference for more rigid skills descriptors. I'll post the scenario here, with the characters (once I've tidied them up. They are not "official" because I guessed at a lot of the generation stuff ) |
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Oct 31, 2019 3:30:44 GMT
Looking deeper into the character sheets, and having to guess at the character generation part.. it looks like it builds following v2 in characters having an origin, a Background, an Education and a number of Professions depending upon level of play. Is this right? I'm assuming the varying options/names for the skill sets fully detailed in the rules. Also, at first glance it (the layout of sample characters) appeared to be rather confusing, at least with respect to a player then selecting an appropriate skill when asked to test... I can imagine the delays and confusion when using pre-genned characters... how did it go during the play-tests at conventions compared to a more formal character sheet? I'm working on one of my own..(a direct copy of one of the three sample characters) to use in a home play-test. I'm just fitting the equipment details on it, I'll post it here (if I can manage it ) when I've finished. Yes, we are retaining the Origin, Background, Training, etc. connections to character skills. We have always really liked the way it frames and details a character's backstory as part of character creation. Skillsets are described in the Quickstart Primer. The books will have long lists of usable examples, but they are intentionally something we are allowing/encouraging players to make up for their characters. This allows for the diversity and breadth of realistic people in a realistic world. It allows for as much specificity and creativity as a player could want, and it means every character will be unique - like real people. This skillset system is more narrative than in v2, but still crunchy enough to support the BP setting. In play, the system is actually pretty intuitive, and runs fast and smooth. The feed back from con demos has been uniformly positive. I am even running a game for some of my students (I'm a teacher in my day job) who have never played PRGs before and they were off and running from the first die roll. |
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Oct 31, 2019 3:42:00 GMT
Had a chance to run a "taster" scenario as a "convention" game (roughly 4 hours).... but using a "trimmed V3 Version".... slightly house-ruled. 1. I only used characters that had one focus per attribute. When making the characters I limited the focus options to two per attribute 2. I marginally increased the amount of Strain available (both mental and both Physical were summed before looking at the table) 3. An applicable bonus from a focus was +1, however could be increased to +2. This +2 bonus was "free" if the combined stat & skill wasn't greater than 5 and the resulting check was a success. However, if the combined stat & skill was 6+, or a check was failed, then it cost one strain of the appropriate type.. ========== The play-test was very successful. Two of the 4 players had played the system several times before (v2), they liked the reduced amount of attributes, but commented that the "vagueness" in having focuses could lead to issues... especially when combined with the more all-encompassing descriptive skill-usage and interpreting which might be used. One expressed a preference for more rigid skills descriptors. I'll post the scenario here, with the characters (once I've tidied them up. They are not "official" because I guessed at a lot of the generation stuff ) Awesome! I'd love to read how it went. There is a need for moderator adjudication, but in my opinion no more than in any skill test based game, and it's less intrusive. With more traditional, limited skills there are always issues and judgement calls around moments like - "I didn't spend any points on drive, can I still start a car and drive across town?" or "I have handgun skill, can I figure out how to use this machine gun?" These sorts of issues require even more definitive adjudication, and are eliminated by these broader skill sets. It may be controversial for me to say it, but I think "no" - when used judiciously and kindly is an important part of the GM's toolbox. If you say yes all the time, there is no challenge. If something is out of bounds, just say "no." |
|
jakob
New Member
Posts: 15
|
Post by jakob on Nov 23, 2021 17:24:27 GMT
Just a quick rules-question from re-reading the quickstarter:
Is it correct that, if you roll a test for the general level of a skill, you only ever roll 1d10?
if, for example, you have Spy>Disguise>Intrusion, and you're trying to do something that you would generally consider a part of the "Spy" package (like fast-talking a guard or deciphering a code), but that doesn't line up with any core or specialty level of that skill, you'd roll 1d10, right? So there's no way of acquiring "specialty" level competence at just being a Spy in general?
Also, I understand that "core" is supposed to narrower than "general" and "specialty" is supposed to be narrower than "core", but does "specialty" have to be a subset of "core"? For example, could my skill also look like this?: Spy>Disguise>Codebreaker. Both "Disguise" and "Codebreaker" work as subsets of "Spy", but "Codebreaker" is most definitely not a subset of "Disguise".
|
|
|
|
Post by Pawel on Nov 23, 2021 19:05:18 GMT
Just a quick rules-question from re-reading the quickstarter: Is it correct that, if you roll a test for the general level of a skill, you only ever roll 1d10? if, for example, you have Spy>Disguise>Intrusion, and you're trying to do something that you would generally consider a part of the "Spy" package (like fast-talking a guard or deciphering a code), but that doesn't line up with any core or specialty level of that skill, you'd roll 1d10, right? So there's no way of acquiring "specialty" level competence at just being a Spy in general? Also, I understand that "core" is supposed to narrower than "general" and "specialty" is supposed to be narrower than "core", but does "specialty" have to be a subset of "core"? For example, could my skill also look like this?: Spy>Disguise>Codebreaker. Both "Disguise" and "Codebreaker" work as subsets of "Spy", but "Codebreaker" is most definitely not a subset of "Disguise". That's right. When rolling against a general skill set, a player rolls 1d10. When testing a core skill set, they roll 2d10, and when rolling a specialty test, they roll 3d10. Acquiring a high level of competence at being a spy in general is done by increasing the Spy> Core> Specialty rank. Players should be able to explain how each level of the skill set relates to the previous within the realistic context of the skill set as a whole. If your spy's core area of expertise is disguise, intrusion is the context in which their disguise skill is best applied. But please remember that you can arrive at various Specialty skills from various different directions. If you feel your spy character would be best described by having an Intrusion and a Codebreaker Specialty in their skill sets, perhaps give them Electronics > Computer programming > Codebreaker? If you'd like to arrive at the Codebreaker Specialty from the Spy direction, you could give your character a Core skill aimed at utilising all sorts of stuff James Bond gets from his pal Q and then specialise further in utilising electronics and spy tricks required for cryptanalysis. Something like: Spy > Gadgetry > Codebreaker |
|
jakob
New Member
Posts: 15
|
Post by jakob on Nov 23, 2021 20:26:46 GMT
Thanks, going through several general skills to arrive at several specialisations kind of makes sense ... I'm used to systems that, if they have specialisation, allow you to take multiple specialisations under one skill, so I was a little bit confused.
|
|
