Three Years in the Making...

This weekend was session zero of my first PoL adventure, and I got some chargen feedback:

• There was some confusion about whether a particular martial artist attack (Reaping Blade Strike) requires a particular handedness, or a particular type of weapon. Will have to clarify that, maybe create a new weapon keyword so I don't have to use the awkward 'non-off-hand weapon' term.
• There was some confusion resulting from differences between character sheet terminology vs. rules terminology. (Related to attack bonuses.)
• Example character sheets / pregen PCs were suggested.
• A couple of the players felt unsure whether they had finished character creation, and so requested a chargen checklist.

It was a bit of a rocky start, but I'm looking forward to next session!

C4 said:

Always wanted to see Seattle...is it a cliche that I'm a fan of Frasier?

Click to expand...

beats me... I only watched it a few times myself.

C4 said:

This weekend was session zero of my first PoL adventure, and I got some chargen feedback:

• There was some confusion about whether a particular martial artist attack (Reaping Blade Strike) requires a particular handedness, or a particular type of weapon. Will have to clarify that, maybe create a new weapon keyword so I don't have to use the awkward 'non-off-hand weapon' term.
• There was some confusion resulting from differences between character sheet terminology vs. rules terminology. (Related to attack bonuses.)
• Example character sheets / pregen PCs were suggested.
• A couple of the players felt unsure whether they had finished character creation, and so requested a chargen checklist.

It was a bit of a rocky start, but I'm looking forward to next session!

Click to expand...

Sounds quite productive to me!

I want to read this, because it's in my wheelhouse. I'll do my best to make time for it.

I didn't realize that the doc was so short. I read it, and have a few points of feedback.

The first thing that jumped off the page for me was the use of D16 for some damage rolls. It's an odd die type that I've never seen before, so I don't think it will see much, if any, use. I expect most people will sub in a pair of D8s, which is fine, but it seems a needless complication.

The second thing is that, while clearly evocative of 4e's style, and without having anything further than the 2-page PDF to go on, a lot of the content sounds like a 'renaming of things' to do an end-run around the legalities of straight up copying 4e. That's fine, but may end up legally problematic, but IKD, because IANAL. Other things in that vein seem to read like, "it's like this other game, but with added levels of granularity." Which, again, can be fine, and I would like to someday see the whole thing to judge in context, but could also turn out to add needless complexity to an otherwise elegant design.

I don't want this to sound overly negative; far from it, I hope that you will view my criticism as constructive. I haven't read any of the "meat" - and this teaser doc made me want to, so mission accomplished in that regard.

I also like the idea of pushing more expanded use of the condition track. It was under-utilized in the framework of 4e and it sounds like you have good ideas to leverage it. The promise of Modularity is also hugely appealing to me. My tastes will vary campaign to campaign, and modular rules would also allow the game to be adaptable to a larger audience, in theory. This is the great downfall of 5e; its complete failure to meet this target.

Aesthetically, the document looks really nice; easy to read as well as stylish. Much better than the typical "black serif font on white page" that you usually see with self-published material.

Nemesis Destiny said:

The first thing that jumped off the page for me was the use of D16 for some damage rolls. It's an odd die type that I've never seen before, so I don't think it will see much, if any, use. I expect most people will sub in a pair of D8s, which is fine, but it seems a needless complication.

Click to expand...

Thanks, I meant to add a comment about where to buy and die substitutions, but had forgotten in the excitement of getting this out!

I'm somewhat quirky with dice -- we have every even-sided from d4 to d12...and then we jump to the d20. WHERE ARE THE MISSING THREE?! Like I said, I'm somewhat quirky. I still haven't found anyplace selling d18s, but oh well, the way PoL weapons turned out the two additions do nicely.

Nemesis Destiny said:

The second thing is that, while clearly evocative of 4e's style, and without having anything further than the 2-page PDF to go on, a lot of the content sounds like a 'renaming of things' to do an end-run around the legalities of straight up copying 4e. That's fine, but may end up legally problematic, but IKD, because IANAL. Other things in that vein seem to read like, "it's like this other game, but with added levels of granularity." Which, again, can be fine, and I would like to someday see the whole thing to judge in context, but could also turn out to add needless complexity to an otherwise elegant design.

Click to expand...

Hm, which part suggests added granularity? I'm guessing condition tracks and monster castes.

Nemesis Destiny said:

I also like the idea of pushing more expanded use of the condition track. It was under-utilized in the framework of 4e and it sounds like you have good ideas to leverage it. The promise of Modularity is also hugely appealing to me. My tastes will vary campaign to campaign, and modular rules would also allow the game to be adaptable to a larger audience, in theory. This is the great downfall of 5e; its complete failure to meet this target.

Click to expand...

I have a pile of variants that I need to sit down, neaten up, and then PDF.

One of the uses I put condition tracks too, resilience/vulnerability to conditions based on monster caste, I ended up shifting to that pile of variants due to it getting a bit wordy to include in each and every stat block. Which I guess makes that bit of the Foreword a bit misleading, but this absolutely will be one of PoL's modular variants.

Nemesis Destiny said:

Aesthetically, the document looks really nice; easy to read as well as stylish. Much better than the typical "black serif font on white page" that you usually see with self-published material.

Click to expand...

Thanks! I've been thinking about paying an artist to make some PoL art to give it that visceral oomph, but haven't pulled the trigger yet...

C4 said:

Thanks, I meant to add a comment about where to buy and die substitutions, but had forgotten in the excitement of getting this out!

I'm somewhat quirky with dice -- we have every even-sided from d4 to d12...and then we jump to the d20. WHERE ARE THE MISSING THREE?! Like I said, I'm somewhat quirky. I still haven't found anyplace selling d18s, but oh well, the way PoL weapons turned out the two additions do nicely.

Click to expand...

I think it has to do with geometry and the platonic solids, etc, with the exception of the d10, but they're so useful for generating 1-100 that they pretty much needed to happen.

It's cool if you want to use other quirky dice though, I'd just present it as very optional, as in, make it a footnote, because it's an added bar to entry.

Hm, which part suggests added granularity? I'm guessing condition tracks and monster castes.

Click to expand...

Yes, off the top of my head, those were the things that suggested it. In the case of Condition Tracks, I think it's potentially very good, but in the case of monster castes, I think it has potential to add too much complexity for too little benefit. I could be wrong though!

Thanks! I've been thinking about paying an artist to make some PoL art to give it that visceral oomph, but haven't pulled the trigger yet...

Click to expand...

I'd wondered about that. Art choices can be critical in setting the tone that you're after and can have a big effect on your audience, but it's not always a deal-breaker if some don't like your art choice. For example, I hate the art of Wayne Reynolds, but it didn't stop me from enjoying 4e. However, if you put a lot of anime-style art in, it may turn people off from using it to run a gritty S&S game. I think variety is key here.

C4 said:

I'm somewhat quirky with dice -- we have every even-sided from d4 to d12...and then we jump to the d20. WHERE ARE THE MISSING THREE?!

Click to expand...

The better solution is to stop at the d12 and ignore the d20 (or rather, only use it as a d10). It's what we did in our Earthdawn campaign. It makes for a much smoother progression.

Jhaelen said:

The better solution is to stop at the d12 and ignore the d20 (or rather, only use it as a d10). It's what we did in our Earthdawn campaign. It makes for a much smoother progression.

Click to expand...

Yeah, that's what I would do. In HoML I assigned damage dice to classes, instead of weapons, so strikers generally get a d12, most defenders and leaders are getting d10, some lower damage leaders and defenders get d8, and most controllers get d6, though some of those have a d8 as well.

It really simplifies things! Much less looking up exactly what dice to throw at the table. It also gives a lot more flexibility in weapon choices. Each weapon adds a damage bonus of from 1-3 points, but since it only applies once to the total damage roll instead of improving ALL the damage dice of weapon attacks as it does in 4e, its a lot more palatable to wield a dagger, the most you can lose is 2 points of damage vs some large weapon. OTOH for low level PCs generally wielding [W] damage attacks in 4e the difference in HoML is about the same (IE a d6 vs a d12 is 2 points of damage in that case, which is the same as the difference in HoML between a dagger and a great sword).

C4, will you be showcasing more of your ideas? I'm especiall curious about your new tiers. I was developing things along that way: from WFRPG-style peon, to generic adventurer, to full-fledged adventurer (with a class), to recognized hero, to parangon (who can design new powers), to leader, to off-screen legend.