Playtesting

You are currently browsing the archive for the Playtesting category.

Welcome back!

Duel of Volker the minstrel and Ilsan the monk...
Image via Wikipedia

Ok, so with the help of Chuck and Mike, I feel a bit better about a few things. But when I was trying to write up a concise summary of the combat rules last night, I ran into a few snags.

Like was documented in Starting Over… and Starting Over… Further tweaks, the basic mechanic for the MARPG revolves around these points for skill, characteristic, and combat resolution checks…

The idea is to roll on 2d10 and get a number below the designated target, which is always the characteristic or derived characteristic value involved, added to any ranks in an applicable skill, and modified by environmental or opposition effects. Sounds tough, but it boils down to:

[Characteristic or Derived Characteristic value] + [Ranks from applicable Skill] +/- [Modifiers]

For example, if we have our Tracker with a Mind characteristic of 5 and a Tracking skill at 3 ranks, by default any “tracking” he tries to do will have a target number of 8. If the rain washes away the tracks, the GM may make things more difficult (-2). Or if there’s a layer of snow that the quarry has walked through, the GM may make things easier (+2). And if the quarry is smart enough to try and cover her own tracks, she can roll against her own Tracking skill to do so. Success on her part would make things more difficult for the Tracker, and failure would make things easier.

If the character has no applicable skill, the target is based solely on the characteristic value and any modifiers from the GM or any opposition.

Success or failure is determined by comparing the die roll (2d10) to the target number. Roll the target number or less and you succeed. Roll above and you fail. The Quality of Success or Failure (QoS or QoF) can then be used, as in the quarry’s case, to make an opponent’s task easier or more difficult.

Great, so that handles the skill or characteristic action resolution. Not too tough. Pretty consistent even.

Now we apply it to combat.

As its bare essentials, combat boils down to one opponent trying to do damage to another. The damage may be direct, as with a sword in his hand, or indirect, as in a trap laid for a pursuer.

So let’s say our Tracker has caught his quarry, a female thief who took something from his employer. She is wearing leather armor and carrying a short sword. The Tracker is wearing chain mail and carrying a longsword. (Let’s forget for a moment that most trackers would probably wear less noisy armor while stalking prey.)

Each character has Hit Points (HP) like in most other systems. In MARPG, HP is equal to the character’s Body characteristic value times 4. So since each of our characters has a Body of 5, each has 20 HP.

Let’s talk about armor and weapons for a moment.

  • Armor has two main values (beyond weight). First is the number of Armor Points (AP) it has, This is equivalent to the number of HP a character has. Second is the Absorption Rate (AR), which notes how much damage the armor can take to itself in a single blow before the strike cuts through the armor to the character’s HP. For instance, a suit of Chain mail has an AR of 6 and an AP of 48. Soft leather armor has an AR of 3 and an AP of 24.
  • Weapons also two main values beyond weight. First is the Strength (Body) needed to wield the weapon. Second is the Damage Potential (DP) of the weapon. For example, a long sword has a Strength to Wield (StW) of 6 and a DP of 8. A knife only has a StW of 1 and a DP of 6. A short sword has a StW of 3 and a DP of 7. (Values for StW and DP may change.) A character with a lower Body score than needed to wield a particular weapon will drop the DP of the weapon an equal amount.

With these ideas, let’s look at our Tracker and his Quarry. Both have a Body characteristic of 5. The Tracker is wielding a long sword (StW 6) so the DP in his hands will go down by 1 for the weapon and be 7. On the flip side, if the woman he’s tracking (Body 5) is wielding a short sword (StW 3) and has no issues getting the max damage for the weapon.

Now let’s talk about how armor affects each character.

  • Each character has a “passive defense” (PD) as a derived characteristic value equal to the total of their Body + the AR of any armor they’re wearing divided by 2. So the formula is (Body + Armor’s AR)/2. If the character isn’t wearing armor, their PD is equal to half their Body characteristic value (rounded up). PD is similar to the concept of an Armor Class (AC) in other systems.

So with that in mind, our Tracker has a PD of (Body 5 + Chain AR 6) / 2 = 5.5. We’ll round it up to 6. His Quarry has a PD of (Body 5 + Leather AR 3) / 2 = 4. The Tracker’s armor will obviously absorb a bit more damage than our thief.

Really we’ve only added a few new ideas to the basics we discussed earlier in the post.

Our Tracker now looks like this:

Tracker

  • Characteristics: Body (5), Mind (5), Soul (6) (we’ll talk about these in another post)
  • Derived Characteristics: HP (20), PD (6)
  • Skills: Swords (Body) (4 ranks) (default target 9), Tracking (Mind) (3 ranks) (default target 8 )
  • Items: Chain Mail (AR 6, AP 48), Long Sword (DP 7)

And our Quarry (thief) looks like this:

Thief

  • Characteristics: Body (5), Mind (6), Soul (5) (we’ll talk about these in another post)
  • Derived Characteristics: HP (20), PD (4)
  • Skills: Swords (Body) (6 ranks) (default target 11), Tracking (Mind) (2 ranks) (default target 7)
  • Items: Leather Armor (AR 3, AP 24), Short Sword (DP 7)

(Acronym reminder: HP = Hit Points, PD = Passive Defense, AR = Absorption Rate, DP = Damage Potential)

Now let’s walk through a bit of combat. The Thief heard the Tracker coming, and is not surprised. She has her sword out and is ready to defend herself.

Let’s ignore initiative here and just say that the Tracker goes first. He’s going to attack the Thief with his long sword. The Tracker’s player rolls a 5 on 2d10. The Tracker’s Quality of Success (QoS) is Target 9 – Roll 4 = 5. Great. It’s a hit!

The Thief can choose to actively defend with her short sword (i.e. parry the blow), dodge, or take the hit and strike the Tracker. She chooses the last option. The GM rolls a 7. The Thief’s QoS is Target 11 – Roll 7 = 4. It’s another hit, but the Tracker tagged her as well.

Though the thief didn’t defend herself, she has her PD on her side, which is 4. And she has her Leather Armor on, which has an AR of 6.

Here’s where my questions come in… Should the Thief’s armor absorb all 6 points of damage, doing 6 points to its AP of 24? Should her PD kick in, absorbing 4 points (to where exactly?) and letting 2 points get through to her HP?

In the next round, the Tracker chooses to attack again with his long sword. He rolls a 8, which means a QoS of 1. Not a great hit, but a hit nonetheless.

The Thief decides not to let him just smack her again, so she parries with her short sword. She rolls a 3, which means a QoS of 8.

Her parry beats his attack and she manages to avoid any damage.

Moving to the third round, the Tracker attacks again. He rolls a 10, which means a QoF of 1. He missed.

Not waiting to see if he was going to miss, the Thief dodges, which is a Body characteristic check. She rolls a 6, which gives her a QoF of 1. It’s ok though, his attack missed anyway. And on the other side of the Dodge, she attacks with her short sword. She rolls a 2 (natural 1 and 1 on 2d10) for a critical success. Critical success means she gets all 11 points of her target number. Her short sword has a DP of 7 however, so she can only do 7 points of damage maximum.

Again, my question is… how does damage get computed? The Tracker has a PD 6 and an AR 7 for his chain armor. Should the armor absorb all 7 points of damage? Or should it take 6 and have 1 get through to HP?

On the flip side of this, it doesn’t seem fair that a Critical Success in this case would only allow the thief to do her maximum. Should she perhaps do the same amount of damage as her target number, which would be 11? This would be tantamount to finding the chink in his armor and exploiting it.

So what do you think?

–Fitz

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]
VN:F [1.9.3_1094]
Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
  • Technorati Favorites
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Digg
  • Delicious
  • Share/Bookmark

Tags: , , , , , , ,

Just like the rest of life, sometimes it’s time for a do-over. Thus begins a new chapter in the life of Moebius Adventures (MARPG) games.

Dice for various games, especially for rolepla...
Image via Wikipedia

Here’s the scoop. We have a streamlined system. It needs to be tested seriously. So who better to take a look at some of the mechanics than… you! That’s right, it’s time YOU got into the act here.

First, I want to welcome you (back) into the fold. The next series of articles will focus on some core mechanics, character creation, and then how to apply those bits to various genres. After all, MARPG is a cross-genre, universal roleplaying game. Tough to tell that when all we’ve seen so far are examples for fantasy settings.

I WANT your feedback. If you think this sucks and is too difficult, let me know. I’m looking for frank opinions with suggestions on how to make things better. The goal here is to create a solid base mechanic for a variety of settings so gaming groups can pick up the system and play just as easily in a cyberpunk setting as they can in a low-magic fantasy setting. Or if they want to do epic space battles such as in Star Wars or Star Trek or make more intimate “cowboys in space” games like with Firefly, it moves quickly with them.

Like in all roleplaying games, your MARPG character is a set of properties – characteristic values (Mind, Body, Soul), derived characteristic values (Hit Points, Luck Points, Reality Check, and so on), and skills with ranks. All these values do is provide a framework for behaviors, abilities, and experience. They’re just numbers on a page. It’s up to the player and GM to bring the player (PC) and non-player characters (NPCs) represented by those numbers to life.

As a player or GM, in addition to a PC or NPC, you’ll need two d10s. We’re not talking huge sets of dice here.

The basic mechanic is the same for all skill checks, characteristic checks, and combat rolls. You have a target number you have to roll below with 2d10 and modifiers.

The target number comes from the character himself for most actions, with modifiers from the GM for things like weather, fatigue, item quality, etc. In the case of opposed actions, it becomes a battle between the quality of success or failure between opponents.

Bird tracks on a frozen lake
Image by Paul Williams (Iron Ammonite) via Flickr

For example, if a tracker is looking for animal signs and tracks in the woods, it’s a simple skill check. The GM may make the attempt more difficult or easier based on conditions such as how recent the tracks were made, if there was fresh snow, if snow or leaves covered the tracks, and so on.

Let’s say the Tracker has a Tracking skill of 3 ranks. Tracking relies on knowing what to look for and how perceptive the character is, so it’s a Mind-based skill. Let’s say the Tracker has a Mind of 7. By default, without any modifiers from the GM, the target number is 10.

To determine success or failure, you roll 2d10, add modifiers, and compare the total to the target.

In the case of the Tracker, let’s say he rolls a 13. He failed the attempt, so he’s unable to find his quarry.

Roll two 1′s and you have a critical success. Roll two 10′s and you have a critical failure. Compare the total to the target number to determine the Quality of Success (QoS) or Failure (QoF). If your total was above or below the target, your QoS (if below) or QoF (if above) is the difference between the target and the total. If your total is equal to the target, the GM can decide whether the act was directly opposed and it was a draw or if the act was unopposed and it was a success.

QoS = Target Number – Total Die Roll
QoF = Total Die Roll – Target Number

For the Tracker, his QoF was 3. He missed the target by 3 (Total Die Roll 12 – Target Number 10 = QoF 3).

Let’s say he rolled a 3 on 2d10. That would mean he succeeded in finding tracks. In that case, his QoS was 7. He made it by 7 (Target Number 10 – Total Die Roll 3 = QoS 7).

Now let’s say the Tracker is looking for someone deliberately trying to obscure signs of their passing. The Tracker’s opponent uses her Tracking skill at rank 4 and her Mind characteristic value of 5 for an unmodified Target Number of 9. The GM rolls 2d10 and gets a 5, for a QoS of 4. This makes the Tracker’s job harder.

The Tracker’s unmodified Target Number is 10. But since it’s opposed, the QoS becomes a modifier on the skill check making it more difficult. Now the Tracker’s Target Number is 6 (Target Number 10 – opponent QoS = 6). The Tracker would have to make a great roll to get a six or less.

* on the left: German Reitschwert, circa 1530,...
Image via Wikipedia

Let’s add another wrinkle. The Tracker finds the woman he’s been searching for in the woods and a battle begins. Each opponent has a sword and some ranks in the Swordsmanship skill.

The Tracker surprised his quarry and gets to attack first. His quarry can only Parry with her sword or Dodge to get out of the way. The Tracker’s Swords is at 4 ranks and his Body is a 5, for an unmodified Target of 9. His quarry has Swords at 6 ranks and a Body of 5 for an unmodified Target of 11. Both opponents roll 2d10.

The Tracker rolls a 5, for a QoS of 4 (Target Number 9 – Total Die Roll 5 = QoS 4). His quarry has a -4 modifier to her Target to make it a 7. The GM rolls a 9 for a QoF of 2 and the woman takes 2 points of damage…

This pattern of comparing QoS and QoF is repeated throughout the system now for skill checks, characteristic checks, and combat. One mechanic simplifies the rules greatly, while still providing the flexibility and uniqueness of character strengths and weaknesses to appear in sometimes unexpected ways.

In the next article, we’ll talk about character creation and the flexibility available for quickly creating PCs and NPCs for any campaign.

What do you think? Leave me comments here on the blog entry or send me e-mail directly at fitz (at) moebiusadventures (dot) com. I’m looking for negative and positive feedback here – so let ‘er rip!

–Fitz

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]
VN:F [1.9.3_1094]
Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
  • Technorati Favorites
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Digg
  • Delicious
  • Share/Bookmark

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

After 15 years or so of working on the Moebius Adventures system as we designed it way back when, it’s nice to have your eyes opened by intelligent players who can provide constructive criticism from a different perspective. Instead of approaching the game as a static memorial to a fallen comrade, it should remain vibrant and alive as Sean would have wanted it. (You can see some of the previous playtest articles here, here, and here.)

Rules TextUsing these simplified and revamped rules, I’m going to go back to my “Wizardry 101″ concept and see how things shape up with a built-in, quick start set of rules for combat as well as how to handle some introductory magical concepts. Once I get the quick start rules module written, I’ll apply it to a slightly tweaked sample adventure and throw it out there so I can playtest some more and ask you kind folks to look at it and provide feedback as well.

Does anyone have any war stories about playtests? I’m interested in first-hand testing as well as testing from outside groups. I hope to learn from these stories and maybe even write up an article on best practices if I get enough feedback.

Anybody? Anybody? Bueller? Bueller? Either leave me a comment here or send me an e-mail at fitz (at) moebiusadventures (dot) com. I’d love to hear from you.

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]
VN:F [1.9.3_1094]
Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
  • Technorati Favorites
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Digg
  • Delicious
  • Share/Bookmark

Tags: , , , ,

Hi all…

So Tuesday night, through the Colorado Springs RPG Meetup group and the nice folks at Gamer’s Haven, I ran a sample adventure as a playtest opportunity. We had 6 folks, plus myself, so we had a great turnout this time and an amazing amount of input.

  • RPG DiceShannon was nice enough to arrange everything on the CSprings Meetup board and book a table at Gamer’s Haven. She played the thief Kress.
  • Johnny played the fighter Hans, battle axe in hand.
  • JP played Father Goul, the priest of the group.
  • Frank played the guard Rod.
  • Nathan played the huntswoman Andra.
  • And Arpie played the huntsman Andrax. (I’d run out of characters, so we improvised.)

It was a great mix of players, some of whom have game design experience, which led to some very interesting conversations about game mechanics and impressions of the system based on the quick start summary of the rules and the character sheets.

Among the food for thought provided was:

  • The d12 mechanic for characteristic and skill resolution didn’t work well. After a 45 minute discussion of bell curve distributions for die rolls, we ended up with using 2d6 for the rest of the night. A 2 or 3 was a critical success and an 11 or 12 was a critical failure. The goal was to roll as low as possible under a target characteristic score (either the characteristic we’re “checking” or the highest characteristic for the skill).
  • The “feet per action” mechanic didn’t really work when we moved it to a hex map. We changed it to “hexes” per action, where a hex was 5 feet across. I believe some of this was due to a misunderstanding about how possible actions worked in combat, but we just went with it.
  • It came up that it would be nice if characters who were cooperating on a task requiring a skill (such as Tracking) gained a bonus for working together. Since party collaboration is a great goal in gaming, we decided that if cooperation was declared, each character would roll their skill separately and gain a +1 on the attempt. And all characters cooperating would then gain the best roll for that action.
  • The other main thing that came up was that 16 characteristics seems like far too many and the Random characteristics (Beauty, Wealth, Family, and Luck) should roll into other characteristics (like Beauty could be considered part of Charisma) or become separate entities (like Luck could simply be a pool of points a player could buy with XP or at character creation).

I think all of this is great. I really appreciate having the input of other folks. Sometimes I wonder if I’ve been wearing blinders when dealing with some of the “system” aspects, so it’s nice to see things with fresh eyes.

The whole process has kick-started some serious noodling over the rules and how I could simplify the mechanics to keep things fast, easy, and open so players can focus on roleplaying and creativity. We’ll see where it leads me.

Man on FireI owe a big thank you to Shannon and everyone who showed up, as well as Gamer’s Haven for providing us a table on a Tuesday night!

Before I sign off however, I have to relate a story from the end of the session that will stick with me for a while.

The group had attacked the brigand stronghold and dispatched the four useless guards patrolling within the partially ruined/rebuilt walls. Among the buildings are the ruins of a crumbled tower with an open doorway and stairs descending into the ground…

Hans, axe in hand, bravely headed down the stairs into the darkness. Near the bottom he heard the movement and growling of something large. He smelled it too – the musky scent of an animal den was unmistakable. But he couldn’t see in the dark, so he climbed back up, grabbed a torch, and headed down again…

Meanwhile, Andrax had come up with the idea of dousing one or more of the straw-filled mattresses in the guard’s bunk house, tossing it to the bottom of the tower stairs, and letting it smoke out anybody who might be down there. So, oil-soaked mattress in hand, he went down the stairs…

During this time, Hans had been attacked by the far-too-large wolf and was fleeing back up the stairs, axe and torch in his hands. Running up, he stumbles into Andrax with the oil-soaked mattress, setting it and them on fire, with both of them falling back down the stairs to the bottom. The wolf took a number of steps backwards and had a WTF moment. :)

It was a classic “you got your chocolate in my peanut butter” moment as the torch met the mattress… :)

–Fitz

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]
VN:F [1.9.3_1094]
Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
  • Technorati Favorites
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Digg
  • Delicious
  • Share/Bookmark

Tags: , , , , , , , ,

Hey all…

RPG DiceThat’s right… We’re having a playtest in Colorado Springs at Gamer’s Haven tonight from 4pm to 8pm. There’s a bit more information here about this event. There’s a few folks signed up even, which is better than the last time I tried this. :)

Hopefully I’ll get a chance to write up how it goes later in the week!

–Fitz

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]
VN:F [1.9.3_1094]
Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
  • Technorati Favorites
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Digg
  • Delicious
  • Share/Bookmark

Tags: , , , , , ,

Hi all…

Just thought I’d let everyone know that there’s a good discussion going on on the Forums around playtesting the character creation rules.

Check it out here and weigh in if you’re interested!

http://forums.moebiusadventures.com/viewtopic.php?t=8

TTYL

–Fitz

VN:F [1.9.3_1094]
Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
  • Technorati Favorites
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Digg
  • Delicious
  • Share/Bookmark

Hi all…

I’ve posted a summary of how the 1st playtest in Colorado Springs went last night. Was a little disappointed by the lack of attendance, but it was still useful in that we went through some combats and chatted a bit. You can find the summary on the forum at:

http://forums.moebiusadventures.com/viewtopic.php?t=7

Check it out and let me know what everyone thinks.

Thanks for your help!

–Fitz

VN:F [1.9.3_1094]
Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
  • Technorati Favorites
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Digg
  • Delicious
  • Share/Bookmark

Hi all…

Just thought I’d pass along that I released draft 3.5 of the Core Rules book to the small cadre of playtesters who had shown interest. I’ll be very curious to see the results of this pass and hopefully only need to make minor tweaks based on suggestions, but who knows. I’m open to change.

Also still hoping to get this final draft completed by the end of October with artwork and cover and get it to Lulu for publishing of the review copy before we release it into the wild. But I’m getting very excited that we’re this far in the process after only a few months.

The Moebius Adventures game has sat dormant long enough. It’s time to show the world how cool some of this stuff is and get it into the hands of people who will enjoy it!

Have a great weekend and I’ll post results of tonight’s playtest in Colorado Springs and other playtest/review comments as they come in.

Thanks!
–Fitz

VN:F [1.9.3_1094]
Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
  • Technorati Favorites
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Digg
  • Delicious
  • Share/Bookmark

Hi there!

I’ve already posted this note in the forum (http://forums.moebiusadventures.com), but thought I’d post it here as well to try and get some feedback… I wanted to try and identify what we’re looking for in terms of feedback from playtesting of Moebius Adventures games. Nothing too formal, just a few broad categories we’d like to make sure get covered.

1) Character Creation – Did you use it? If you created new characters, how long did it take to create them? How did it go? Did any questions arise during the process? Were players happy with the characters that were created? Other comments/questions?

2) Skill Resolution – While running the sample adventure (or another adventure), how did skill resolution go? Was it easy to determine success and failure? Did any questions arise? Other comments/questions?

3) Combat – While running the sample adventure (or another adventure), how did combat go? Was it a straightforward process? Was it easy to determine if a strike was successful enough to get through the defense (parry, dodge, armor)? Was it easy to determine damage based on the quality of the hit success? Did any questions arise? Other comments/questions?

4) Sample Adventure (if one was included in the book and you chose to run it) – While running the sample adventure, did your group touch on all the aspects of running a campaign in the system? Skill resolution, combat, roleplaying? Did the adventure make sense? How did things progress? Were the adventurers successful? Any other comments/questions?

5) Other… Overall, what did you think of the experience? Would you do it again? Is it a system you would look to in the future for fantasy or modern roleplaying? What did you like? What didn’t you like? What suggestions can you make to improve the product?

That’s it… We just hope that you enjoy playing the game and can provide us back some feedback from your experience.

Thanks in advance for playtesting and let us know how it goes!

–Fitz

VN:F [1.9.3_1094]
Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
  • Technorati Favorites
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Digg
  • Delicious
  • Share/Bookmark

Hi all!

Thought we’d let you know that we’ll be having our first open playtest in Colorado Springs at Gamer’s Haven on Saturday, October 6 at 7pm.

Here’s a link to their site: http://www.gamershavenco.com/

We’d love to see you if you’re in the area. If not, we’ll be sending out PDFs to playtest groups around the country early next week and would love to get your input also! Leave a comment on the blog or drop me an e-mail at info@moebiusadventures.com.

Thanks!
–Fitz

VN:F [1.9.3_1094]
Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
  • Technorati Favorites
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Digg
  • Delicious
  • Share/Bookmark