A new quickie system - comments appreciated

[Peregrine]

Hi all,

Mythosystem is a quick little system I worked together in some downtime during Wayfarer'sSong burnout.

You can find the download link here

Feedback more than welcome...

Chris

PS: I'm thinking of changing from d10 to d20 to give a bigger range for resolution. A goodidea?

[Andrew Martin]

Originally posted by Peregrine
Feedback more than welcome...

Need to run a spell checker over the text on this page: http://mythogames.150m.com/folder_01...stem_intro.htm There's a number of letters swapped around.

PDF:
Page 1: "monies" sounds a bit old fashioned. Perhaps "profit"?

Page 4: It might be an idea to have a page on social contract and another on agreeing on a setting and perhaps style of the game before this page? That way the "Limitation" section would become almost redundant.

Using "bullet" for traits might cause hasty people to dismiss your game system as a White Wolf Storyteller reject. :-/ Perhaps it would be better to remove the bullets? (I and others did so regularly when playing WW games).

Might need to add a section of explaining that "yes, there is no points system!"

"When Good Traits Turn Bad" needs to be paired with a section titled "When Bad Traits Turn Good"! I've had a player who regularly converted "bad" traits to "good" traits and some times vice-versa.

Page 5
The skills points system seems boringly conventional given the refreshing change of no points system for the eight traits. Again it makes the game look like a WW rip-off. :-/

Page 6
The subjective/objective system should be expanded to the earlier traits and skills systems, allowing them to use subjective/objective systems.

Page 7
Weapons & Armour doesn't fit with the rest of the equipment. Weapons & Armour has lots of game related stats, yet other equipment doesn't.

Page 8
I like "The Test of Skill".

Originally posted by Peregrine
I'm thinking of changing from d10 to d20 to give a bigger range for resolution. A good idea?

It might make it seem a bit too much like HeroQuest then.

Page 11
"Dead" for the worst result on the Stamina seems excessive to me! How about substituting "Unconscious" and progressing to the Health scale for Stamin "wounds"?

I feel that armour and weapon stats are inappropriate here. I think it's better for players to allocate character points to their weapon and/or armour to better represent the power of the weapon or strength of their armour or the quickness of the character's dodge.

Page 14
Instead of a set number of spells per level of Sorcery skill, I feel it would be better to simply have each spell as a descriptor like the skill system and use that for spells. The levels of power, "Low Sorcery", "High Sorcery" and "Arch Sorcery" should really be upper limits decided by the group concensus, which is build on the page before page 3.

Page 15
The limits to the various levels of Sorcery could be virtually eliminated by using the skill contest system and allowing Fatigue levels to be used for re-rolls and as extra resources to be thrown into a conflict.

Page 19 & 26
"Toil" in the Spells of Sorcery seems wrong? Perhaps it should be "Toll"?

Page 21
Character advancement seems very slow. I think it would be better to simply remove the section. Replace it with something on changing one's character around.

Just my opinions.

[Balbinus]

There isn't a space for passions on the sheet as far as I can see.

More later.

[Peregrine]

Yikes, quick feedback there Andrew. And a lot to look at...

Page 4: It might be an idea to have a page on social contract and another on agreeing on a setting and perhaps style of the game before this page? That way the "Limitation" section would become almost redundant.

Nice idea. I'll work something along those lines into the opening intro.

"When Good Traits Turn Bad" needs to be paired with a section titled "When Bad Traits Turn Good"! I've had a player who regularly converted "bad" traits to "good" traits and some times vice-versa.

Also a good point. Tick.

Page 5 - The skills points system seems boringly conventional given the refreshing change of no points system for the eight traits. Again it makes the game look like a WW rip-off. :-/

I couldadd a paragraph or two about subjective skill choice. Just pick and choose along the subjective lines Fudge suggests. That'd be easy enough. If you've a more interesting suggestion I'm all ears.

Page 6
The subjective/objective system should be expanded to the earlier traits and skills systems, allowing them to use subjective/objective systems.

Page 7
Weapons & Armour doesn't fit with the rest of the equipment. Weapons & Armour has lots of game related stats, yet other equipment doesn't.

You're right that it doesn't fit well with the rest of the game. I like the idea that the conventions of weapon size and whatnot simplydon't matter. It makes sense in an offbeat/heroic way that a dagger of dwarven design with a razor edge could have a maximum wound of 5 whereas a beaten up old, notched and rusty broadsword might only have a maximum wound of 2. Hmmm.

Now to get a little more out there... I was considering dispensing with expansive lists of equipment altogether and introduce two stats, Wealth and Belongings.

1) Both would be rated 1-10
2) You can change points at a 1:1 ratio between them as long as you have a market to hand to buy and sell.

Whenever you need to buy/pull something out of your bag you make a d10 test of the appropriate stat with a simple modifier. Something like this...

Plentiful +2
Common +0
Rare -2
Exotic -4
Priceless -6

The player could then keep track of only those things he *wants* to keep track of. Okay, I know I have a broadsword so I'll make a note of that so I don't have to roll again - but as for the snare cord, I can always test my belongings for that later.

Maybe a depletion mechanic where both Wealth and Belongings loose a rank at the end of a game to represent basic expenditure and wear and tear? Buying more ranks with Exp would be a possibility...

I like "The Test of Skill".
It might make it seem a bit too much like HeroQuest then.

I can't claim that HeroQuest isn't an influence here. The major difference mechanics-wise is that in Mythosystem the amountof aciton points that you wager relates to difficulty and degree of victory if you win. In HeroQuest difficulty (as I understand it) is figured seperately and the degree of success determines the degree of victory.

I prefer to think that a high wager carries high risks and a high payoff. Still, gotto give credit to HQ for the concept shift about skills and action points. I love the idea that any contest of skill can be as tactical and dramatic as combat...

"Dead" for the worst result on the Stamina seems excessive to me! How about substituting "Unconscious" and progressing to the Health scale for Stamin "wounds"?

Fair enough. I'm also worried that in real game terms four ranks of health aren't going to be enough to keep heroes alive. I considered going with my wound-as-trait system from Wayfarer but thought wound levels would be easier.

Page 14
Instead of a set number of spells per level of Sorcery skill, I feel it would be better to simply have each spell as a descriptor like the skill system and use that for spells. The levels of power, "Low Sorcery", "High Sorcery" and "Arch Sorcery" should really be upper limits decided by the group concensus, which is build on the page before page 3.

Page 15
The limits to the various levels of Sorcery could be virtually eliminated by using the skill contest system and allowing Fatigue levels to be used for re-rolls and as extra resources to be thrown into a conflict.

Page 19 & 26
"Toil" in the Spells of Sorcery seems wrong? Perhaps it should be "Toll"?

Interesting.

I couldplay around with the mechanics a little more and make Low, High and Arch Sorcery suggestions for categoriesbut as it stands I split them up to allow for both the innocuous sort of spells that are really little more than flashy, sometimes helpful special effects and the more powerful, kill-em-dead spells without needed a huge amount of scaling and number-crunching.

So would the number of sorcery spells you can invent for yourself still be based on your Sorcery SKill, or could you invent as many spells as you like but they cannot exceed your Sorcery skill? Another approach would be to rate spells by difficulty instead of treating themas independent skills - hmmm - dunno.

Interesting idea about using fatigue for re-rolls. As it stands spells as weilding in contests of sorcery skill,much like weapons as weilded in battle. Or at least that is the concept I was going for.

Toll is much better than Toil. I had trouble thinking up a decent name for that.

Page 21
Character advancement seems very slow. I think it would be better to simply remove the section. Replace it with something on changing one's character around.

Maybe. I'ma bit old fashioned when it comes to Charad. As a player I still like the idea of a clear path of progression. Even if it is quite slow. I could always play around with this.

Thanks Andrew, lots of good stuff there.

Balbinus... erm, er, yeah, Seems I forgot to leave a space for Passions. Too much of a rush.

AND (throwing a bit of Wayfarer in here) if anyone has any suggestions for magic for Swamp-Havened Aelfan I'd be very happy. So far I've given swamp aelfan charms that revolve around the natural perils of swamps (swamp-lights, bogs and sink-holes) but I need more. All the other havens are finally done, though I ditched Twilight in the end and added Mists instead. Woods might need some work.

Chris

[Peregrine]

Just playing around with the possibility of making magic more freeform.

As long as the players and GM can basically agree on the spheres of influence that orders should have,and given that magic can always boildown to a test of skill, the actual pyhysical affect of a spell could be limited by a simple step-up ladder.

Something like...

Rank One: Innocuous: Sublte and harmless magic. Changing the colour of smoke, summoning ballsoflight, conjuring playful illusions.

Rank Two: Playful: Tricky, irratating or meddlesome magic. Pranks and nasty tricks. Could subdue but not injure?

Rank Three: Dangerous: Capable of harming or subduing foes, or healing friends. Still has to obey laws of nature - kindof like how Gandalf says in tLotR 'even I cannot burn snow!'

Rank Four: Commanding: Capable of commanding nature, characters, elements and so on within the laws of nature.

Rank Five: Miraculous: Capable of breaking or perverting the laws of nature. Changing flesh to stone, shapeshifting into a hawk, conjuring fire out of thin air, raising the dead making a tower float away into the air.

Characters could be limited by their rank in a given order. A Pyromancer ***** coulkd pervert nature and summon fire from thin air. A Pyromancer *** could use the fire from a burning torch to harmor injure enemies. A Pyromancer * would only be able to change the colour of fires, maybe summon harmless globes of ephemeral light or play with smoke.

Fatigue could be thrown in to scale up power. So that a Pyromancer * couldspend four Stamina levels to be able to cast a ***** rank spell.

The only problem is that there still really has to be some kind of limitation or guideline regarding targets, area effects range etc. Otherwise the power of a sorcerer is kind of limitless even at low levels.

Might work.

I was also thinking of giving player characters arms and armour based on their combat skill and then allowing the playerstodefine what exactly they own. The rationale being that a character who has spent a lot of time honing their combat skill is more likely to have the tools of the trade.

Just some ideas.

Chris

[Cranach]

I've read your document, and got you some feedback:

Generally, I find there's an imbalance in overall rule-implemenation.

It's quite detailed about some things
(range of thrown weapons & bows, skill points cost, spell points cost, xp etc.)
but on the other hand completely freeform (for example with traits and passions).

You might want to write down a short definition of a chosen trait/passion beforehand,
at character creation, so there's little discussion about what it can or cannot do later on in the game.
All players will have the same basic idea about the Trait.
Still freeform, but defined. Also

- The distinction between traits & passions is vague

Not how they're handled, but what they are.
One clear distinction might be that a Trait is in fact a fulfilled/acquired passion.
Eg: Dragon Hunting is a passion, but becomes a trait (experienced in it) when fulfilled.
Just an idea.

- The ranged weapon table (minimum/maximum distance) makes little sense

Bows and slings are definately underrated, the spear (javelin) is overrated.
Do you really need such a fine resolution that measures distance in "paces"?
It feels unfitting to the system.

- Title: A game of Magic and Make-belief

To me the title suggests a much more heavy magic setting - perhaps with an interesting twist to it:
Magic is either real or an illusion, but this is dependant on the caster as well
as the subject. (Superstition = Magic vulnerability)

Just a random few thoughts about it.

Cranach

[Peregrine]

The system really doesn't seem to be winning the hearts and minds of those who read it... oh well, this is why I post here. Get some feedback and find out what others think is a bit screwy.

Thanks for the feedback there Cranach.

Generally, I find there's an imbalance in overall rule-implemenation. (range of thrown weapons & bows, skill points cost, spell points cost, xp etc.)
but on the other hand completely freeform (for example with traits and passions).

You might want to write down a short definition of a chosen trait/passion beforehand,
at character creation, so there's little discussion about what it can or cannot do later on in the game.
All players will have the same basic idea about the Trait.
Still freeform, but defined. Also

Interesting point and I think one that is echoingother comments although in a more forthwith way. I can certainly get rid of some of the detail - if that would be an improvement?

As for spells I'm almost certainly goingto ditch the spell-building idea in favour of a freeform system. I'm not sure exactly what yet, but it could be as simple as this...

Affinity: Choose one or more affinities for your magic. Affinities are natural spheres. Fire,light and smokemight be one. Animals might be another. Undead another. I might provide a list of ideas.

You can only work magic that is related to your affinities.

Test of Skill - Based on a simple scale. Something like...

Subtle: Average
Noticable: Difficult
Remarkable: Very Difficult
Awe-inspiring: Arduous
etc
etc

A Contest of skill using sorcery largely takes care of itself excpet for the problem that magic should perhaps be able to target multiple opponents at once. How many? Howis this dealt with? I need to mull over this.

The distinction between traits & passions is vague

I could probably drop Passions. They are kind of covering the same base in a way. My original idea is that Traits represent what you are,and Passions represent goals - what you want to be. Now the idea that Passions are trait objectives is interesting... could put a different spin on charad. Might have to change the name to Objectives or Goals or something as Passions might not fit.

The ranged weapon table (minimum/maximum distance) makes little sense

Bows and slings are definately underrated, the spear (javelin) is overrated.
Do you really need such a fine resolution that measures distance in "paces"?
It feels unfitting to the system.

I could drop the detail easily enough. Some vague guidelines might be better suited to the system.

To me the title suggests a much more heavy magic setting - perhaps with an interesting twist to it:
Magic is either real or an illusion, but this is dependant on the caster as well
as the subject. (Superstition = Magic vulnerability)

The title was an afterthought when creating the title page. The game is meant to be fantasy-generic so I can't get into mechanics or ideas that would be more setting specific. (Although you idea is kind of cool - very Eirk the Viking).

Thanks for the feedback. The system obviously needs some reworking.

GENERAL QUESTION
Can I take it that on balance people wouldlike to see the game become more freeform/loose/intrepretive?

Chris

[Lost Cub]

No offense Peregrine, you are a great designer, but it seems to me that you copy White Wolf's style (of writing, presentation, layout) too much. That's a shame, because you obviously have many fresh ideas of your own to offer.

Other than that, I like what I see, although I don't know how it would work in actual play. I'd love to try it though...

LC

[Peregrine]

Thanks for the kind feeback Lost Cub. I guess I am still stuck in the writing mindset that saw 90% of games read like WW supliments around 1995 to 2000ish.

I guess that having not really developed a personal style is mostly to blame. Strangely enough I've only ever played a white wolf game, um let me count, twice? The influence mostly comes from having bought Changeling 1st ed. early on and read it and re-read it. The only othert major game that I prettymuch read cover to cover was MERP.

Maybe I shouldread some other more recent games to see how others are doing layout and design now.

Oh, well at least I don't add crappy game fiction...

Now I am just ruminating about nothing. I am currently 'fixing' problems pointed out in Mythosystem and might have a version 2 up some time soon. Pretty much stalled on the Aelfan kithbook if anyone is wondering what is happening on that front - or at least moving very, very slowly.

Chris

[Ardwen]

I haven't much to add. I'll just emphasize some points.

Your layout certainly has some WW feel to it.

A combination of detail mixed with areas of loose, free form mechanics - this must be changed.

For me the system still reads like Wayfarer's song in a way.

Oh...speaking from experience, having players decided on 8 traits of their own is very time consuming. I run a simple system of Tim Kirk's, where they only need three broad skill areas. That is bad enough

Providing suggestions (as you have done) does help of course.

I really don't see this system as any different from other things you have done. It doesn't have a fresh feel about it.
The task resolution mechanics are very similar to your old stuff.

Sorry.