Red Mists: a swords & sorcery game looking for feedback

[vivsavage]

I hope this is the correct forum for this...

I'm looking for feedback on Red Mists, a swords & sorcery RPG I've written that uses the Meta Dice I've created (image below). Please leave me any feedback here, and feel free to generate a character. Thanks!

 

[crazy_monkey]

This looks pretty interesting after a quick going-over. I'm not a fan of using custom dice, but regular 6-siders would work fine if the others aren't available.

I would rename "Wits"; to me, that doesn't capture acuity or awareness. I'd just call it awareness, unless I'm not properly understanding it which I may be - why wits instead of reflexes for bows?

How do Impulses work? The second paragraph of the writeup and the description of the individual impulses seem to contradict. (Or, reading the example, players can use them both ways?) For the section on page 10, do those replenishment rules only come into play when players spend a point to change the die, or do they also replenish when a players uses a point to re-roll a die?

In Clash, it says to subtract the defender's pool from yours, and add one. In the earlier section on opposed rolls you roll all of each, and the defender's dice can cancel success of equal or lesser value. Which is right?

For Sorcery, any character can attempt any brand of sorcery with no prior training? (Or, all characters are assumed to have training in all brands?) It feels like there are gaps in the brands - are they intended to be the full gamut of capabilities, or a non-exhaustive list of suggestions. If a sorcerer wants to create light, light a candle, or have a book float from the bookshelf to his hand, how would that fit into the brands?

 

[vivsavage]

This looks pretty interesting after a quick going-over. I'm not a fan of using custom dice, but regular 6-siders would work fine if the others aren't available.

There will be a future version that doesn't use custom dice. This version uses them to support the dice I've created, shortly to appear on Kickstarter.

I would rename "Wits"; to me, that doesn't capture acuity or awareness. I'd just call it awareness, unless I'm not properly understanding it which I may be - why wits instead of reflexes for bows?

Wits is awareness as in 'keep your wits about you.' It's meant to reflect acuity, so that's why I use it for bows. I didn't use reflexes because I didn't want to make that stat over powerful.

How do Impulses work? The second paragraph of the writeup and the description of the individual impulses seem to contradict. (Or, reading the example, players can use them both ways?) For the section on page 10, do those replenishment rules only come into play when players spend a point to change the die, or do they also replenish when a players uses a point to re-roll a die?

Ah, that's a mistake! I'll go back and fix it -- good catch!

In Clash, it says to subtract the defender's pool from yours, and add one. In the earlier section on opposed rolls you roll all of each, and the defender's dice can cancel success of equal or lesser value. Which is right?

Another mistake The former is correct, while the latter is optional.

For Sorcery, any character can attempt any brand of sorcery with no prior training? (Or, all characters are assumed to have training in all brands?) It feels like there are gaps in the brands - are they intended to be the full gamut of capabilities, or a non-exhaustive list of suggestions. If a sorcerer wants to create light, light a candle, or have a book float from the bookshelf to his hand, how would that fit into the brands?

Those type of utility spells aren't used in the game. I wanted the magic to reflect the nature of the source material, where stuff like that doesn't really come into play. Daily use magic doesn't exist.

Thank you very much for taking the time to read this! If you have any further comments and suggestions, I would love to hear them.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Wits is awareness as in 'keep your wits about you.' It's meant to reflect acuity, so that's why I use it for bows. I didn't use reflexes because I didn't want to make that stat over powerful.

That's always a good thing to keep in mind. Reflexes has a history of being too powerful in any game where it exists.

Wit is synonymous with cleverness, though. Using it in the manner you suggest is going to annoy people.

 

[vivsavage]

That's always a good thing to keep in mind. Reflexes has a history of being too powerful in any game where it exists.

Wit is synonymous with cleverness, though. Using it in the manner you suggest is going to annoy people.

It's possible! I'd like to play test it first and see what people think. 'Wits' is used a lot on the Conan stories and it usually means keeping your wits about you, meaning being aware. Awareness or Senses would work as well, but they aren't evocative to me. Anyways, have you had a chance to read the pdf?

 

[The Crimson Binome]

It's possible! I'd like to play test it first and see what people think. 'Wits' is used a lot on the Conan stories and it usually means keeping your wits about you, meaning being aware. Awareness or Senses would work as well, but they aren't evocative to me. Anyways, have you had a chance to read the pdf?

Looking it over, three things jump out at me within the first ten pages:

1) Wits and Cunning are synonyms, and I would have difficulty keeping them straight. It's kind of like how D&D uses Intelligence and Wisdom, and even though we mostly have that figured out by now, there are still issues where it's unclear.
2) Likewise, Ferocity and Guts are very similar. I get that Ferocity is mostly offensive and Guts is mostly defensive, but it's not something that makes any intuitive sense. It's hard for me to imagine a character who has very high Ferocity and very low Guts, or vice versa.
3) I'm in no position to judge this game. It's clearly not aimed at me. The whole "yes, and..." or "no, but..." results just scream that you're trying to shape the narrative, where I only care about games on the Simulationist end of the scale. I can't play a game where the stakes are spelled out ahead of every roll. The whole thing just gives me a headache.

 

[vivsavage]

Looking it over, three things jump out at me within the first ten pages:

1) Wits and Cunning are synonyms, and I would have difficulty keeping them straight. It's kind of like how D&D uses Intelligence and Wisdom, and even though we mostly have that figured out by now, there are still issues where it's unclear.

After considering this, I've decided to change Wits to Instinct.

2) Likewise, Ferocity and Guts are very similar. I get that Ferocity is mostly offensive and Guts is mostly defensive, but it's not something that makes any intuitive sense. It's hard for me to imagine a character who has very high Ferocity and very low Guts, or vice versa.

What about Savagery and Courage?

3) I'm in no position to judge this game. It's clearly not aimed at me. The whole "yes, and..." or "no, but..." results just scream that you're trying to shape the narrative, where I only care about games on the Simulationist end of the scale. I can't play a game where the stakes are spelled out ahead of every roll. The whole thing just gives me a headache.

Fair enough. I must disagree with you on one point, however: that of a forced narrative. Yes/and, no/but, et al, are no different from concepts of failing forward, critical hits/failures, etc. The rules also state the you do not have to dictate potential outcomes in advance beyond what success or failure would mean. Anyways, thanks for the feedback. Greatly appreciated!