Playtest Feedback 4/1

LucasC

First Post
This post is feedback from two weeks of gameplay. If you're interested in the story the players are engaged in you can read the play reports here.

General Information
  • 7 pcs
  • 2 personal combat encounters
    • The first vs. a single XP 25 monster and the second vs. a pair of XP 32 monsters.
    • The PCs were not challenged by either battle but I’m slowly moving into these fights as I have no idea what they can actually handle yet.
  • 1 spaceship encounter
  • Total XP earned: 27 each

Combat
We used the new, lower derived defenses. No one liked it. Basically everything swung the opposite of what it had been. They could hit with almost every attack.

Some key effects of the change:

  1. Nobody bothered to use any of the positional effects to get bonus attack dice
  2. Players without a strong SOAK (or w/out any SOAK) were incented to try and find cover as they now felt very vulnerable

My players haven’t really enjoyed the feel of either of the two core systems presented but they did prefer the prior version to the latest.

I asked the guys to post some feedback on our own message boards, here’s a few direct quotes (replaced people’s names w/their characters):
  • [Morrus] needs to decide if it’s a game where hitting and missing is more in line with reality (what he had) or follows a lot of other games where hitting/missing is not truly representative of what actually happens but rather a means to enjoy combat.
  • I think there's a lot of stuff that needs to be done to fix combat, from modified soak to diverse weapons to working out the math for defenses.
  • I think the reason that the defenses are such a huge issue comes back to D6s. Each time you add a rank in a skill you get an effective +3.5 to hit. It’s hard to make defenses account for such a huge range. [J5] was rolling something like 8d6, for an average roll of 28, while those of us without military training were rolling between 3 and 5d6, for an average roll of 10.5 - 17.5. Even with old defenses [J5] would hit almost every time, plus he had abilities that let him do extra damage. Something else needs to be done; either a static modifier instead of extra dice; a standard to-hit progression with marksman giving a less significant bonus; or something to make combat skills less enticing while not also trivializing defense. Note that if I had taken all psychic skills and loaded up Telepathy I could stun people with the same sort of efficiency as [J5] can blast them; though I'd take damage for it. The one difference with the psychic powers is that there is a diverse set of skills necessary if you want to use different powers, though it would be easy enough to make a "superhero" with a signature power that focuses on a single school of psionics.

Psionics
  • Need to consider the cost of some psionic powers – the damage is precluding people from using certain powers – possibly lower damage or even allow some powers to be used free
    • for example if you use Telepathy you take 3 damage. This is just to send a short message. A telepathic character would be expected to do this constantly but in reality they can only do it a few times before they fall unconscious.
  • Any power that attacks a defense other than AGI or WIL is going to be problematic as it circumvents the games in-built defense system. An easy fix for this is probably to substitute the attacked ability on the defense table (so, if a power attacks END, check the defense table for what your derived END would be)
  • Inflict pain has some conflicting rules
    • On a successful PSI vs. MENTAL DEFENSE attack, the target falls prone, and is stunned for 2 turns, taking a -2 die roll penalty to all actions and unable to move from his current location. (page 205)
    • Stunned: no actions are allowed. (page 109)
  • Does mind probe work on an unconscious target?
  • Do you have to speak a common language for mind probe to be effective?

Miscellany
  • Too many rivals and not enough contacts are being generated during character creation – what should be a positive is more often a negative.
    • As an aside, when I was generating character histories I liked this concept of contacts too much so I gave everyone at least one meaningful contact.
  • Players feel like starting skills are not diverse enough (I think someone else mentioned this and I argued against them earlier!)
    • One suggestion is to look at giving two skill choices at each career, one combat skill and one non-combat skill
      • Another quote from our internal boards: I think careers/backgrounds should either automatically grant a "vital" skill like those that give bonuses to speed, initiative, to-hit/damage, psychic to-hit, etc. or give a limited choice of them in addition to a choice of more flavorful, limited use skills like engineering, first aid, computer use, etc. Some non-combat type skills should probably be open to all careers.
  • Players feel like combat skills, particularly marksman, are essential choices when the skill shows up in a list of options
  • Players feel like SOAK should overlap not stack (the ogron has a SOAK of 15)
  • Armor needs more diversity – I think you should consider limiting damage to a discreet list of types and assigning every armor the type of damage it SOAKS
    • As it is, the SOAK rules are producing odd results. For example, Kevlar armor seems to protect against sonic damage.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

We used the new, lower derived defenses. No one liked it. Basically everything swung the opposite of what it had been. They could hit with almost every attack.

Some key effects of the change:

  1. Nobody bothered to use any of the positional effects to get bonus attack dice
  2. Players without a strong SOAK (or w/out any SOAK) were incented to try and find cover as they now felt very vulnerable

I strongly suspected that would happen (which is why those suggestions haven't hit an actual playtest document yet). I'm glad to get feedback on that this quickly.


I asked the guys to post some feedback on our own message boards, here’s a few direct quotes (replaced people’s names w/their characters):
  • [Morrus] needs to decide if it’s a game where hitting and missing is more in line with reality (what he had) or follows a lot of other games where hitting/missing is not truly representative of what actually happens but rather a means to enjoy combat.
  • I think there's a lot of stuff that needs to be done to fix combat, from modified soak to diverse weapons to working out the math for defenses.
  • I think the reason that the defenses are such a huge issue comes back to D6s. Each time you add a rank in a skill you get an effective +3.5 to hit. It’s hard to make defenses account for such a huge range. [J5] was rolling something like 8d6, for an average roll of 28, while those of us without military training were rolling between 3 and 5d6, for an average roll of 10.5 - 17.5. Even with old defenses [J5] would hit almost every time, plus he had abilities that let him do extra damage. Something else needs to be done; either a static modifier instead of extra dice; a standard to-hit progression with marksman giving a less significant bonus; or something to make combat skills less enticing while not also trivializing defense. Note that if I had taken all psychic skills and loaded up Telepathy I could stun people with the same sort of efficiency as [J5] can blast them; though I'd take damage for it. The one difference with the psychic powers is that there is a diverse set of skills necessary if you want to use different powers, though it would be easy enough to make a "superhero" with a signature power that focuses on a single school of psionics.

There's another way to approach this, too -- methods to improve DEFENSE. As the system stands at present, you can increase your attack dice pool a lot, but your DEFENSE is relatively static, excepting cover. The upcoming combat tricks section introduces some of that.

As you've no doubt figured out, this particular item is probably the most important thing to get right (and you've been incredibly helpful with this process: there is no substitute for actual playtesting).


  • Need to consider the cost of some psionic powers – the damage is precluding people from using certain powers – possibly lower damage or even allow some powers to be used free
    • for example if you use Telepathy you take 3 damage. This is just to send a short message. A telepathic character would be expected to do this constantly but in reality they can only do it a few times before they fall unconscious.
  • Any power that attacks a defense other than AGI or WIL is going to be problematic as it circumvents the games in-built defense system. An easy fix for this is probably to substitute the attacked ability on the defense table (so, if a power attacks END, check the defense table for what your derived END would be)
  • Inflict pain has some conflicting rules
    • On a successful PSI vs. MENTAL DEFENSE attack, the target falls prone, and is stunned for 2 turns, taking a -2 die roll penalty to all actions and unable to move from his current location. (page 205)
    • Stunned: no actions are allowed. (page 109)
  • Does mind probe work on an unconscious target?
  • Do you have to speak a common language for mind probe to be effective?

Noted. Psionics have taken a back-seat so far (and is very incomplete), but this initial feedback is useful. I'll use that as I design the system - thanks!


  • Too many rivals and not enough contacts are being generated during character creation – what should be a positive is more often a negative.
    • As an aside, when I was generating character histories I liked this concept of contacts too much so I gave everyone at least one meaningful contact.

Interesting. Even with a difficulty of 10? The idea is that the average human will have 50% each. Is the issue that CHA scores are tending to be low?

  • Players feel like starting skills are not diverse enough (I think someone else mentioned this and I argued against them earlier!)
    • One suggestion is to look at giving two skill choices at each career, one combat skill and one non-combat skill
      • Another quote from our internal boards: I think careers/backgrounds should either automatically grant a "vital" skill like those that give bonuses to speed, initiative, to-hit/damage, psychic to-hit, etc. or give a limited choice of them in addition to a choice of more flavorful, limited use skills like engineering, first aid, computer use, etc. Some non-combat type skills should probably be open to all careers.
  • Players feel like combat skills, particularly marksman, are essential choices when the skill shows up in a list of options
  • Players feel like SOAK should overlap not stack (the ogron has a SOAK of 15)
  • Armor needs more diversity – I think you should consider limiting damage to a discreet list of types and assigning every armor the type of damage it SOAKS
    • As it is, the SOAK rules are producing odd results. For example, Kevlar armor seems to protect against sonic damage.

I think you'll like what's coming - many of the combat skills are actually disappearing completely, and the combat tricks system will serve to handle those aspects. That directly addresses a few of the things you've been mentioning.

By the way - how was the new SPEED calculation?
 

Oh, incidentally, regarding this note:

The PCs were not challenged by either battle but I’m slowly moving into these fights as I have no idea what they can actually handle yet.

It sounds like the document could use some guidelines on creating appropriate challenge encounters. Right now, while things are fluctuating a bit, that's harder to do, but when things settle down I'll be sure to include a solid encounter creation section. From your description ("a single XP 25 monster and the second vs. a pair of XP 32 monsters") you're definitely going easy on them.
 

Interesting. Even with a difficulty of 10? The idea is that the average human will have 50% each. Is the issue that CHA scores are tending to be low?

I'll have to check character sheets and then get back to you on the CHA question however I think most of them are entering play w/the starting CHA of their race.

Consider this track -


  • Species: Ogron/Venetian/Spartan or Android (CHA 2 or 1)
  • Careers
    • Navy Brat - +1 rep
    • Military academy
    • Assassin +1 rep
    • Assassin +1 rep
    • Infiltrator +1 rep

If you want to play a sneaky assassin-type character. That is a viable route through the careers. That pathway creates 4 different opportunities for you to gain a contact. However none of those careers offer an increase to CHA. The Android with a CHA of 1 is probably done in and the others are not well off.

Now, if you change up the starting race to human, borian or felan, you will end up with a different result.

By the way - how was the new SPEED calculation?

This worked great. Actually we all forgot about it after we made the character sheet adjustments and it felt pretty much like we expected. The boost from AGI and RUNNING is a nice bonus too.

It sounds like the document could use some guidelines on creating appropriate challenge encounters

It definitely could use this. I figured at some point you would add it. In the meantime I'm keeping notes on the encounter XP totals and the PC advancement to use for my own guidelines. I can share this with you.

--

One more thing I forgot to mention. My group really likes the single-exploding die mechanic. No one has used any LUCK yet but that's at least partially due to the fluctuating combat difficulties. The lone exploding die comes into play regularly but doesn't seem to tilt things like it did when they all exploded.
 

Couple of more thoughts on the contacts / rivals -

Players tend to see the things listed on their career choices as bonuses for their character.

If the player rolls up a contact, that's exactly what they get. They have a (small) in-game boon and a nice roleplaying opportunity.

On the flip-side, if the player rolls a rival, they get no in-game boon and in fact get a negative. It still provides the same roleplaying flavor but what they approached as a positive (REP +1 and a contact) now becomes a negative.

Some possible options to consider -
  1. Disassociate this from CHA directly - maybe allow a higher CHA to add bonuses to the roll but not form the basic difficulty
  2. Weight the roll heavily in favor of contacts (maybe 75/25 or something similar)
  3. Always give a contact and have a roll to see if you also get a rival
  4. Assign them together, something like - contact (then) contact + rival (then) contact (then) contact + rival (etc.)
 

I think there's an argument that if someone specifically chooses a very combat oriented low-CHA career progression (especially if they do so five times in a row! That's hardcore!) then a few disadvantages from low CHA aren't out of place. Similarly a character who focuses on CHA might not be do good at shooting and stuff.
 

No disagreement there.

However, did you mean for everyone that climbs the ranks in the military careers to do so at the price of collecting a bunch of rivals? None of the military careers give CHA but many of them give REP.

On the flipside you could go be a full-time navy character and gain the same rep bonuses but do so while getting CHA bonuses out of the careers so you can have some contacts instead of all rivals
 

No disagreement there.

However, did you mean for everyone that climbs the ranks in the military careers to do so at the price of collecting a bunch of rivals? None of the military careers give CHA but many of them give REP.

On the flipside you could go be a full-time navy character and gain the same rep bonuses but do so while getting CHA bonuses out of the careers so you can have some contacts instead of all rivals

You're right; we can certainly tweak the military careers a little. Maybe not unsociable types like assassins, but certainly for regular navy types.

BTW, I think I'm going to have to give you a mention in the book. You've been incredibly helpful, and you're a wonderful playtester.
 

So I've been thinking about the variation in dice pools you (and others) have mentioned.

Tightening the range appears to be the priority here. One way to accomplish this is to limit the stacking of skills. This would also have the effect of making characters take a wider range of skills.

So here's what's on my mind: characters can only take a skill once per tier (a tier is an advancement thing that comes in later, but not relevant to starting characters). This means that they'll only get +1d6 to rolls (plus equipment and positional benefits). That will have the effect of reducing the overall range of dice pools quite a lot, likely from 2d6-4d6 on the attribute with +1d6 for skill. That's much narrower than the existing range of 2d6 to about 7d6.
 

I think some limiting could be good. Not sure if 1 rank will be too restrictive though. We can give that a roll next Tuesday.
 

Remove ads

Top