[RCFG] RCFG Ongoing Development!

[Raven Crowking]

Oh, and may I add that there was an incident of spontaneous mapping that occurred?!?

[Aus_Snow]

Originally Posted by Raven Crowking

Oh, and may I add that there was an incident of spontaneous mapping that occurred?!?

Sounds a bit dire. Everyone ok?

I assume you mean that one or more of the (non-veteran) players starting mapping the area their characters were in, with no prompting, etc. . .? Not a term I've come across, is all. Anyway, if so, awesome!

And in general, it sounds like RCFG does all you were hoping it would do. Well, enables & encourages the stuff you were hoping it would enable & encourage. Bleh, you know what I mean.

[Raven Crowking]

Originally Posted by Aus_Snow

Sounds a bit dire. Everyone ok?

I assume you mean that one or more of the (non-veteran) players starting mapping the area their characters were in, with no prompting, etc. . .? Not a term I've come across, is all. Anyway, if so, awesome!

AFAICT, I coined it for that post, and that is exactly what it means. And it was awesome.

It seems to me that relying on minis creates a "game space" that occurs on the tabletop, whereas a less-minis-reliant game creates a "game space" that instead inhabits an imaginary space. Mapping (esp. on the players' part) is an attempt to bring that imaginary space into more concrete existence. I view what occurred as evidence of a level of investment in the imaginary space that was missing (IME) with WotC-D&D. Especially when coupled with commentary at the table and after. It was, indeed, sweet.

And in general, it sounds like RCFG does all you were hoping it would do. Well, enables & encourages the stuff you were hoping it would enable & encourage. Bleh, you know what I mean.

Yep.

Thus far, it is exceeding my expectations. Of course, YMMV, in that it is a ruleset designed specifically to capitalize on my personal GMing strengths and bolster my personal weaknesses.

This Friday, a pdf of all Player's Guide work to date will be available.

RC

[Raven Crowking]

Also, it does not hurt that The Pod Caverns of the Sinister Shroom is excellent fun!

[Raven Crowking]

OK, I have a 221-page document (214 pages of "meat", cover, OGL, and character sheet) ready. I just need to upload it today or tomorrow, and then I will provide a link. You will see that I am still enmeshed in spell descriptions.


RC

[Raven Crowking]

http://www.danieljbishop.ca/RCFG%20P...20O2009PRR.pdf

EDIT: Comments are very welcome. If you don't want to comment here, please email me at ravencrowking at hotmail dot com. Thank you.

[Sanglorian]

I was surprised that for a game that seemed quite hotly anticipated there have been no responses on this thread. Are people discussing this game more elsewhere?

I recommend updating the first post of this thread, the thread title, the Facebook group and your website to attract more feedback.

I created a character (a dwarf illusionist 1) and flicked through some of the book. I have suggestions, but I'll warn you I'm probably not your target audience - I've become more interested in indie games over the past few years. Nonetheless, I hope you find my comments useful:

• I can't see the trees for the forest. RCFG feels like 3.5 with a few changes. Your genuine innovations and adaptations are hidden away in sidebars, in the combat chapter, in the spells appendix, and so on.
• Glossary is a wall of text. You need to start your document with what your game is about and what are the new and special rules that facilitate that. Put the glossary at the end and give me the terms I need at the starts of the chapters where I need them.
• 3.5 complexity compounds with pre-3E complexity. Instead of taking the simpler elements of 3.5 and the simpler elements of pre-3E D&D, it seems you've taken the more complex elements of each. Your 1E ideas are hidden by 3E rules bloat and the 3E simplifications are obscured by unnecessary 2E rules.
• A lot to digest. 3.5 gets away with its complexity because I know and play 3.5. RCFG takes 3.5's complexity but changes it - I don't know which 3.5 rules I've learned apply and which ones don't. I suggest creating a quickplay document - a la Basic D&D - of all the rules I need for levels 1 to 3.
• Monsters. I know this is a player's guide but until the Big Book of monsters comes out I need something to kill.
• Ability scores. It's unclear whether we can distribute our rolled ability scores however we like or if they're in order.
• Options bloat. Do we need that many weapons and armours? It threatens to slow down character creation considerably.
• Weapon training vs skill points. It was unclear to me what it meant to have weapon training and what it meant to have skill points in a weapon skill.

I'll give RCFG another look through next time I get the chance. If you have any questions about my feedback, feel free to ask.

[Raven Crowking]

Sanglorian,

Thank you for your comments! I have updated the thread title as per your suggestion. You may not be my "target audience", but I do appreciate your comments (which I will address shortly).

Again, my overarching goals for the ruleset are:

* easy to run sandbox games
* easy to rule/stat on the fly
* easy to use/adapt materials from other systems, including all versions of the world's most popular frpg
* easy to create both high-level and low-level characters
* flexible without sacrificing playability
* lower fantasy, less wahoo than 3.5/4e

Originally Posted by Sanglorian

I can't see the trees for the forest. RCFG feels like 3.5 with a few changes. Your genuine innovations and adaptations are hidden away in sidebars, in the combat chapter, in the spells appendix, and so on.

In play, it doesn't feel like 3.5 (to me and to the other playtesters). If you grab any 1e module and invert the ACs, you could try running the game on that basis as a trial. I would recommend determing monster Init bonuses ahead of time, usually +0, +2, or +4. +6 or higher for very fast creatures, -4 for slow creatures like zombies.

Some changes that might not seem important at first can really change the way play occurs.

Glossary is a wall of text. You need to start your document with what your game is about and what are the new and special rules that facilitate that. Put the glossary at the end and give me the terms I need at the starts of the chapters where I need them.

The actual release will have introduction pages numbered with Roman numerals, as well as contents pages & index.

3.5 complexity compounds with pre-3E complexity. Instead of taking the simpler elements of 3.5 and the simpler elements of pre-3E D&D, it seems you've taken the more complex elements of each. Your 1E ideas are hidden by 3E rules bloat and the 3E simplifications are obscured by unnecessary 2E rules.

Although 2e rules may be incorporated into the game by the enterprising GM, and 2e modules convert as easily as those of any other edition, there are no 2e rules in RCFG.

There is certainly a higher entry bar than with 0e, but that comes with additional complexity. Thus far, playtesting has indicated that by the third character most players can complete the process in 15 minutes or so.

A lot to digest. 3.5 gets away with its complexity because I know and play 3.5. RCFG takes 3.5's complexity but changes it - I don't know which 3.5 rules I've learned apply and which ones don't. I suggest creating a quickplay document - a la Basic D&D - of all the rules I need for levels 1 to 3.

This is probably a good idea.

Monsters. I know this is a player's guide but until the Big Book of monsters comes out I need something to kill.

I am still working on the BBoM & its preview (A Fistful of Monsters). I realize that this is an obvious need. Mea culpa. At least the game is free, so I'm not charging you for waiting.

Ability scores. It's unclear whether we can distribute our rolled ability scores however we like or if they're in order.

Either. I favour order as you choose, but some GMs prefer other methods.

Options bloat. Do we need that many weapons and armours? It threatens to slow down character creation considerably.

I suppose you don't really need that many options, and if I do a Starter version (as per your suggestion), I'll pare the options therein to a minimum.

Weapon training vs skill points. It was unclear to me what it meant to have weapon training and what it meant to have skill points in a weapon skill.

A character is considered to be Trained when he has at least one rank in any skill or weapon skill. Sometimes, a character can be considered Trained even with no ranks (such as fighters with Skilled at Arms). If you are not Trained, you take a -4 penalty to skill checks or attack rolls.

I'll give RCFG another look through next time I get the chance. If you have any questions about my feedback, feel free to ask.

I appreciate the feedback! XP to you! Please let me know what your further thoughts are!


RC

[Nellisir]

Originally Posted by Raven Crowking

A character is considered to be Trained when he has at least one rank in any skill or weapon skill. Sometimes, a character can be considered Trained even with no ranks (such as fighters with Skilled at Arms). If you are not Trained, you take a -4 penalty to skill checks or attack rolls.

You might try wording like Trained (0 ranks) to reflect fighters with Skill at Arms and similar abilities.

I've only had time to glance over the document; I'm slammed and flat out until December. Were there significant changes to races or classes since the last big preview? I noticed the HD penalty (rather an understatement, IMO) is still there for gnomes and halflings; I think I've casually mentioned that I disagree with this slightly.

Cheers
Nell.

Also, I agree, it does read as quite complex and similar to 3e, at least initially. Really good organization and layout may be the key here.

[Aus_Snow]

Still reading through it, slowly. Just haven't had much time, so sorry, it'll be a while before I have any feedback worth posting. Assuming I ever have any of that!

I will say that I like the look of it so far, though. No, it doesn't look 'finished', or 'polished' perhaps, but I wasn't really expecting that at this stage (of a for-free PDF release, of all things!) so no worries.

[Raven Crowking]

Originally Posted by Sanglorian

I was surprised that for a game that seemed quite hotly anticipated there have been no responses on this thread. Are people discussing this game more elsewhere?

You know, I have honestly been somewhat disappointed with the online response. Of course, I hope for more response from the full release, but still......view count vs. response is somewhat depressing, and has undoubtably slowed the work.

OTOH, home campaign is great, as is playtesting, and speeds the work. Maybe they balance each other out......?

As far as monsters go, I sent a link to the Facebook group with a provisional monster document, so there are a few critters out there. I can't remember if I included Animated Object.......? If I did, there is a gazebo fully statted up for your use.

In playtesting, I find that I can use 3.x monsters almost off the shelf (I change the damage range usually) as well as earlier edition monsters (I flip the AC). I can even convert C&C monsters on the fly. Of course, the game will be better with monsters specifically designed for it, but it plays very well even without.

IMHO, anyway.

Originally Posted by Nellisir

I've only had time to glance over the document; I'm slammed and flat out until December. Were there significant changes to races or classes since the last big preview? I noticed the HD penalty (rather an understatement, IMO) is still there for gnomes and halflings; I think I've casually mentioned that I disagree with this slightly.

Hi there, Nellisir!

The monk got a few changes due to higher-level playtests. The original Flurry of Blows was just too good.

Originally Posted by Aus_Snow

Still reading through it, slowly. Just haven't had much time, so sorry, it'll be a while before I have any feedback worth posting. Assuming I ever have any of that!

Hi there Aus!

I am very much looking forward to whatever feedback you might have.

I will say that I like the look of it so far, though. No, it doesn't look 'finished', or 'polished' perhaps, but I wasn't really expecting that at this stage (of a for-free PDF release, of all things!) so no worries.

Thanks!

[LostSoul]

I think there's less response than you would have hoped for because it is pretty complex, yet still appears very similar to 3e. There are a lot of changes made that you'd have to play out to see how they work - all the combat options, for example, are hard to imagine when you're not at the table. Those and the spells are hard to get an idea of how they work when you're not actually playing it.

[Herremann the Wise]

Hello Raven Crowking,

Just chiming in to say congratulations on finally releasing your Pre-release Player's Guide. I've just downloaded it and given it a skim through and it looks good - I'd make an index the first port of call though.

I'll post back when I can give a more thorough opinion.

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise

PS: I'd suggest starting a new thread with the download link in the first post. You might get more responses that way.

[Raven Crowking]

Originally Posted by Herremann the Wise

Just chiming in to say congratulations on finally releasing your Pre-release Player's Guide. I've just downloaded it and given it a skim through and it looks good - I'd make an index the first port of call though.

Thanks. An index is definitely in the works for the final document!

PS: I'd suggest starting a new thread with the download link in the first post. You might get more responses that way.

Good idea. I'll try to get to that this afternoon.


RC

[Raven Crowking]

Originally Posted by LostSoul

I think there's less response than you would have hoped for because it is pretty complex, yet still appears very similar to 3e. There are a lot of changes made that you'd have to play out to see how they work - all the combat options, for example, are hard to imagine when you're not at the table. Those and the spells are hard to get an idea of how they work when you're not actually playing it.

Next summer, a Big Open Sandbox campaign will be running in Toronto.

Just saying.



RC

[MichaelSomething]

Originally Posted by Raven Crowking

You know, I have honestly been somewhat disappointed with the online response.

Well be disapointed no more! I written a "review" of the RCFG for all to see! My review is not super comprehensive but I think it captures the basic idea of the game.

[LostSoul]

Originally Posted by Raven Crowking

Next summer, a Big Open Sandbox campaign will be running in Toronto.

Just saying.

Awesome.

That's really cool, I've wanted to game with you for a while now.