Looking for feedback on my Game Bloody Quest.

[Tony Pettersen]

I just looked over the sample portion on DTRPG...and your professional editor owes you several more passes. Honestly, I was having trouble understanding what each of the character sheet elements were about, when I realized that I had, by that point, still no idea how the game is played, so the character sheet elements couldn't mean anything.

I was also a little concerned when I read, on the DTRPG description, that battles last from "20-40 minutes," but that's a whole separate post.

BTW...your graphic designer deserves a raise

That’s cool and thank you for the feedback. But the battles are really quick when you get your head around it.

What specifically did you have troubles understanding?

And yes Margo is one very talented artist

 

[GMMichael]

Reply-edit: I wanted to understand what I didn't understand, so I read enough DTRPG to find out that there are three books. The full-size preview comes from the Player's book, and it looks like the quick preview comes from the Core book. I'll assume that the Player's book makes sense after reading the Core book. However, I'm not sure that new players will want to read two books to be able to play the game. Again, I'll assume that the core book is a real page-turner, so both players and GMs will breeze right through it on their way to their respective books.

After downloading and reading some of the Core book...I found lots of the definitions that begin the Player's book. They made more sense with the additional explanations in the Core book, but now it looks sort of redundant. I appreciate the presentation of fundamental glossary terms right up front, but as the newbie reader, I'm still asking "for what do I need these terms? How is this game played?"

So you might throw a simple game demo up front or a short discussion of how to actually play, and then spend some time explaining the terms that are needed to play the game? That would give them more context.

 

[Tony Pettersen]

Reply-edit: I wanted to understand what I didn't understand, so I read enough DTRPG to find out that there are three books. The full-size preview comes from the Player's book, and it looks like the quick preview comes from the Core book. I'll assume that the Player's book makes sense after reading the Core book. However, I'm not sure that new players will want to read two books to be able to play the game. Again, I'll assume that the core book is a real page-turner, so both players and GMs will breeze right through it on their way to their respective books.

After downloading and reading some of the Core book...I found lots of the definitions that begin the Player's book. They made more sense with the additional explanations in the Core book, but now it looks sort of redundant. I appreciate the presentation of fundamental glossary terms right up front, but as the newbie reader, I'm still asking "for what do I need these terms? How is this game played?"

So you might throw a simple game demo up front or a short discussion of how to actually play, and then spend some time explaining the terms that are needed to play the game? That would give them more context.

So front of the book like a demo game with illustrations of photos of people playing the game while making references to the stats and the like? So it’s more of a case of the way the information is presented in the core book right up that threw you off and having a more “ease of access” approach with it would be the way to go ?

While Iv got you here do you think it should be 3 separate books or one big one? We’ve still got a ton of content and the setting to work on as well.

 

[GMMichael]

Just add more context, in whatever way works for BQ. It feels like you're laying the lego blocks out in front of me, without first telling me what I'm supposed to build.

Regarding how many books - look at what worked for similar projects. I think the RPG trend is to put everything in one book. D&D and Pathfinder are on the old model still. Or maybe it's the new model, since video games are trying to move away from one lump sum, and instead charge multiple smaller sums for smaller products over time.

 

[Tony Pettersen]

Just add more context, in whatever way works for BQ. It feels like you're laying the lego blocks out in front of me, without first telling me what I'm supposed to build.

Regarding how many books - look at what worked for similar projects. I think the RPG trend is to put everything in one book. D&D and Pathfinder are on the old model still. Or maybe it's the new model, since video games are trying to move away from one lump sum, and instead charge multiple smaller sums for smaller products over time.

Ok I’ll try and think up of some ways to make it easier to understand from the get go with how to play the game, I’ll add it to the list of things to implement in the full release. I think that makes a good bit of sense, if I’m going to have more or less the same information twice in two different books I might as make the first one more of an induction to the basics. I’ll also throw in a lot of examples with art to go with it explaining Situations.

Also in regards to the release of books I’m on the fence with. I like the idea of having the books separate so more content can be added to later. I like the idea of having the rules of how to play then interchangeable settings. But then again printing costs would be reduced with one big book. But I’m personally not a fan of 500+ pages of rules and lore like a 40k book or something

 

[Tony Pettersen]

Just add more context, in whatever way works for BQ. It feels like you're laying the lego blocks out in front of me, without first telling me what I'm supposed to build.

Regarding how many books - look at what worked for similar projects. I think the RPG trend is to put everything in one book. D&D and Pathfinder are on the old model still. Or maybe it's the new model, since video games are trying to move away from one lump sum, and instead charge multiple smaller sums for smaller products over time.

I’d actually be interested in hearing what you think about it after playing it. You’re pretty easy to get feedback from.

 

[GMMichael]

Feedback, yes. Playtesting, not so much. I don't seem to live in a fertile role-playing environment, so I don't want to keep you waiting for that one

 

[Tony Pettersen]

Feedback, yes. Playtesting, not so much. I don't seem to live in a fertile role-playing environment, so I don't want to keep you waiting for that one

No sweat. I’m glad for the feedback either ways and added it to the list of things to look into. It’s nice to get independent feedback. Gauging people’s reactions or direct feedback to an rpg is really hard face to face, because so much of a rpg depends on the gm style and player pool anyway. Not to mention the face to face environment with a player and the designer makes for it difficult to get honest feedback. I’m not gonna lie when I say it’s nice to get a lot of face to face flattery about their enjoyment of the system when it’s sincere, just hard to know what direction to go sometimes with a project this big

 

[Tony Pettersen]

I’m jumping In to the new build right now. Any feedback on rules would be great now