This is cool. I like the idea high level, but I can see some problems depending on specific implementation and or sheer volume of possible rules variations they can pick and choose from.
Yes I also saw that as a concern,. I have done my best to make such rules streamline and often will offer the stream lined version for those who are less a fan of crunchy and prefer speed.
For a really systems driven player like myself, i'm not sure I like the vague xp rules or other players handing them out, but my profile is probably a complete 10% minority, so depending on precise implementation for many that could be a really good thing.
Good news, the book goes on to be more specific, but to summarize it is for good role playing, good ideas or generally engaging very well with the group. The GM can veto and the GM hands out the majority of the exp, plus there is more for combat and creation.
I love this conceptually. Though system level concern is that with such high customizability it's really hard for intra party balance. Though if it's more of a a Blades in the Dark style or PbtA style game than D&D style game that might matter.
Here is where i depart from other systems. One of the biggest beefs I had with DnD was dragons. Gargantuan mighty beasts of terror and might...teeny tiny hp pool of 122 HP. Now I know they had all sorts of ways of explaining them but to me....not soo much. Balance to me, ruined immersion. Why was the dragon so weak? Nah the giant lizard should be something no one wants to encounter, even a young one should be scary. Throw that kind of balance out the window. Instead, make it situational, make it skill based, make your creations give you an edge. I found relying on game balance to be a crutch. So, I replaced it with strategy.
Head to head a player, and party in tow, will most certainly get destroyed by a dragon. Instead planning, training and preparedness are key. Not too many dragon slayers in my system lol
I like the notion of always being challenge and risk in theory, I think most people theoretically like that, but in practice I think you'll find some profiles that take whatever losses the risks force really hard.
One of my well known mechanics involves criticals. I have seen some critics of critical hits when used against the players. They are simply part of the risk of combat. I have done SCA style combat and held my own. Thankfully I was the only one to suffer any kind of serious injury. I know they happen, even when you do not want them to. Once again they are optional if you absolutely detest them. There is also a stream lined version and one based specifically on weapon types and effects, again optional and that last one has been moved to expansion land.
For me it really depends on the exact implementations. I can usually see the pros and cons of doing things either way so it's hard to judge much just conceptually - not prying just stating how I operate.
That is why I value the opinion of those who have played the game. Once they see how it is implemented then they can appreciate the mechanic in its actual form.
I guess the biggest takeaway for you is make sure you are having your game evaluated by different player profiles and not just the same ones. Especially if it's people you know that you can classify, knowing what the different player profiles like and don't like about the game will drive some interesting tension in your refinement decisions.
This I agree with. As I stated I have just a few more things to do before I release it to the public, and I will make doing test sessions for people to try. I want to have a lot of interaction with the public and have them be a part of this project as well.
