PDA

View Full Version : Can anyone tell me what is wrong with this game?



Soft Serve
07-21-2009, 06:59 PM
www.brandnewwar.webs.com (http://www.brandnewwar.webs.com/)

I made this (dur) in an attempt to create a rules set that could span sevreal eras. (Fantasy, WWII, you'll see the rest) And people are turning it down before even giving it a chance.

It's been called "a heavily house-ruled 3.5"

But the intention is a rules-light game to play for fun when enough bored people are in the chat. (Hence the several eras so you aren't confined to something you don't like, and the simple rules that are quick to pick up and play.)

So please read through that, point out the issues, and tell me honeslty any opinions.

Also I know it's not perfect, and it's not yet completed as much as I want.

(This applies to fantasy in that it has a "Fantasy" section. :D)

templeorder
07-21-2009, 07:46 PM
So, as with everything, its a matter of taste. If what you put forward works for you, then great. I don't see anything wrong with the rules or settings at first glance. They probably would not work for me. They are short on resolving a multitude of scenarios. The simplistic resolution will work for a lot of straight up fights, but i think will start to break down and be difficult to scale to sizes and stranger situations. The effects are very limited in scope and extremely combat oriented. In short, you probably built this to your taste and to suit the scenarios you have been working with. I would say play test it. Thats a tedious process but worth while. You can even play test yourself if you can get people to submit a bunch of different scenarios they would like to see the rules resolve.

Other than that, great effing job. It takes a lot to produce a system, and make it cohesive and flexible over time. You've gone beyond a lot of gamers and take the step into game design. Its not as easy as it looks, especially if you are committed to seeing the idea evolve. I salute you and all the other independent designers out there...

Soft Serve
07-21-2009, 08:37 PM
So, as with everything, its a matter of taste. If what you put forward works for you, then great. I don't see anything wrong with the rules or settings at first glance. They probably would not work for me. They are short on resolving a multitude of scenarios. The simplistic resolution will work for a lot of straight up fights, but i think will start to break down and be difficult to scale to sizes and stranger situations. The effects are very limited in scope and extremely combat oriented. In short, you probably built this to your taste and to suit the scenarios you have been working with. I would say play test it. Thats a tedious process but worth while. You can even play test yourself if you can get people to submit a bunch of different scenarios they would like to see the rules resolve.

Other than that, great effing job. It takes a lot to produce a system, and make it cohesive and flexible over time. You've gone beyond a lot of gamers and take the step into game design. Its not as easy as it looks, especially if you are committed to seeing the idea evolve. I salute you and all the other independent designers out there...

The rules are combat oriented because role-play was intended to be used for just about everything else. The entire setting revolves around you being a footsoldier in a massive war.

Thank you, I am trying to get something done with it before I have to move.

tesral
07-21-2009, 09:00 PM
Well if I don't want to play a foot soldier in a war? You start off with saying that characters are disposable. Right there I find this a turn off. My time of playing disposable characters is long gone. I'll do something else.

So yes, it is heavily house ruled d20, and a concept I don't find appealing from a personal point of view. There are better and more involved systems to do any of the above including d20 modern.

Over all impression, a reinvention of the wheel with a lot of missing spokes.

CEBedford
07-21-2009, 09:12 PM
"Disposable" characters is a double edge sword. Even in high PC death games that death has to be entertaining and mean something. In a game where death is a high likelihood it should be a feature of the game, not a punishment for being unlucky.

If you focus on death as a theme that's fine but it's only interesting if it's done for reasons like honor, love, duty, revenge, etc.

My WFRP players die amidst the bodies of their enemies, diving in front of a crossbow bolt to save a comrade, or vanquishing their rival as a deadly poison runs it's final course through their veins. When they're rolling up a new character I want them to look back and say, "Damn, that was a freakin' cool way to go!"

Death for the sake of your game being deadly is just a bad idea.

korhal23
07-21-2009, 09:26 PM
Posting this one over here too:

Well here's my initial impression, I'm just shooting this off the cuff as I read, so take it for what it's worth.

A heavily houseruled 3.5 is a good way to describe this, I think. For one, you basically ripped character creation right out of the pages of WotC's book, though obviously simplified by lack of feats or skills, and the lack of choosing gear.

Clearly, what you have here is just a wargame. Players will die, and are expected to kill and die in droves, and just pop in with a new character. I'm not opposed to the idea, and in fact I think it could be fun, but not for anything more than perhaps a one off. The system doesn't have the power to run beyond that.

That said, your setup is needlessly confusing. You differentiate what guns each class and race carry, but why? All your guns of the same subtype operate identically even across time barriers, defeating the purpose and making your charts needlessly cluttered. You also give no indication of the weapon ammo capacities, ranges... and for instance, shotguns you talk about how much damage they can put out, but since damage is determined by accuracy, well they just seem crappy, and by your rules, I'd run in with an assault rifle before I'd grab a shotgun. There's also some inconsistency in things such as why are greatswords heavy weapons and not edged? And again, if accuracy determines damage, SMGs don't suffer your "lack of punch". Also, any time a character gets hit, they have about a 50/50 shot of being taken out of the fight permanently, and the way your charts line up, I could get a graze that proceeds to take my head off (i.e., I get hit by an enemy who rolls 1 above my Def, then he gets an 8 then a 7 for the attack), and other simple inconsistencies on your attack table.

Frankly, your advancement rules reward being a coward. Regardless of my participation in the fight, I'll get edit points if I survive. The end. Ok guys, no, you go take that machine gun nest from the front, I'll hold down that other heavy bunker our last batch of characters already took.

So basically I see a mashing of d20 Modern and some light fantasy and scifi. You mention rank for squad leaders, but provide no rank structure (odd, since you've included worlds to use, sparse though they may be). If we play, say WWII this week, and Far Future next week, the game is going to be virtually identical because so many of the details will be exactly the same (my Kar98 from last week has the SAME stats as my plasma bolter this week!)... but really that doesn't make your game universal, that makes it somewhat weak.

The biggest problem I see is your core mechanic, rolling vs. DEFENSE with the difference also adjudicating damage, along with the simplicity of your weapons and everything being virtually identical in lethality creates a system too simple to be feasible.
--- Merged from Double Post ---
And Soft Serve's Reply

On the gun names ::The names of the weapons and their differentiation in nothing but that adds flavor and keeps it balanced. I like to keep American names on guns in WWII and Modern for the sake of flavor, as opposed to a generic "Bolt Action Rifle" But I don't want you to be at a disadvantage for taking the German or Japaneese sides.

Ammo Cap. ::I will fix the Ammo Capacities thank you for pointing that out. (I give the ammo capacities when I give the players their characters so we haven't been running around blind if your wondering.

Ranges ::The weapons ranges and such are uneccesary for their eras. It's assuming if you can see it you can shoot it, with a negative to a target being unrealistically far.

The Shotgun ::The shotgun has been updated, using the Endurance stat opposed to Perception. The shotgun also has different bonuses depending on how close the target is, making it deadlier at close range.

Greatswords ::Greatswords in the text meaning Claymores or other massive two-handed cleavers. They are technically edged but the STR mod works better for it I think.

SMG ::I will fix the SMG vs. AR issue. (Again at first I thought it was more about flavor, but it does need re-written.)

The 50/50 Death :: This is actually not the case. The enemy has to beat you by at least 5 to kill you in one shot. I made it this way because the game wasn't nearly lethal enough in the Fantasy setting for Warriors with shields who gained a +6 to defence and would take several stabbings in hands and other limbs only to be healed by the Apothecary/Shaman class and carry on like nothing happened. I also want this game to be remarkably difficult relying on teamwork as an amazing MUST for survival. Keep your sniper class back to spot ambushes, make sure your mage is quick to cast Shield, etc, etc. Teamwork will keep you alive in this game I have seen it done. But just like in real war you can do everything perfectly and just be in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Advancement ::Advancement is not set in stone. I would actually subtract stats from someone who intentionally dodged battle, and more often then not the PC's on their first mission are orderd by a Comanding officer. This NPC gives them orders helping them get accustomed to what is important in the game. If you cower in their order they'll kill you. This immediately snuffs that habit, and enforces the player who does take command to kill any direlect soldiers.

If they survived the Stat drain reflects punishment or demotion. I have already given double XP for the PC's flavorfully taking out a huge boss critter.

Universal-ity? :: Each era has distinct differences that make it unique (or will when I actually finish the eras completely.) There will be a ranking system, I haven't had time to finish it. There will be upgradeable equipment offering variety through the eras, and there will be squad leader bonuses, and better vehicles. Fantasy has the hand-to-hand LOTR, castle raids, WWII has the trench warfare, Modern has the Raw Firefight feeling I want it to have, Future has the Technological Warfare kind of feeling (the advanced sorta stuff like drones and what-not), and Far Future is supposed to revolve around Space Battles and ship raids. Zombie and Heist are just gloves for settings for fun, and are obviously unique. I know that they don't look like they live up to what I'm saying but they are either (A) in the makes to become that or (B) have to be played to feel it.

Thanks Korhal, I know that my defence looks like one big "well it isn't finished yet" but the critique is appreciated.

Soft Serve
07-21-2009, 09:33 PM
Well if I don't want to play a foot soldier in a war? You start off with saying that characters are disposable. Right there I find this a turn off. My time of playing disposable characters is long gone. I'll do something else.

So yes, it is heavily house ruled d20, and a concept I don't find appealing from a personal point of view. There are better and more involved systems to do any of the above including d20 modern.

Over all impression, a reinvention of the wheel with a lot of missing spokes.

That's mentioned because there is a very likely chance your character is not goign to survive. It's more of a warning then a theme, and when I NPC a commanding officer they give support and try to keep the PC's alive. Setting your stats to a position you don't fill (like STR maxed when you only use DEX or PER weapons) will get you killed, and working against your team makes survival impossible.


"Disposable" characters is a double edge sword. Even in high PC death games that death has to be entertaining and mean something. In a game where death is a high likelihood it should be a feature of the game, not a punishment for being unlucky.

If you focus on death as a theme that's fine but it's only interesting if it's done for reasons like honor, love, duty, revenge, etc.

My WFRP players die amidst the bodies of their enemies, diving in front of a crossbow bolt to save a comrade, or vanquishing their rival as a deadly poison runs it's final course through their veins. When they're rolling up a new character I want them to look back and say, "Damn, that was a freakin' cool way to go!"

Death for the sake of your game being deadly is just a bad idea.

More often then not the characters die because of stupid decisions that put them in easily ambushed areas. If they're working as a team the way they should they shoulden't have to sacrifice eachother. But the medic of one group will blindly rush to the aid of any other player so RP is still heavy in this game although it's obviously not necessary.
--- Merged from Double Post ---
Thank you Korhal I was going to do that.

korhal23
07-21-2009, 10:10 PM
Well, there's part of your problem right up front, the site doesn't contain all of your rules. So it looks to us like you're houseruling your own game lol.

Era would have an immense effect on weapon ranges. The M16 (standard issue) has an effective range of about 600 meters, while the M1 of WWII fame (standard issue) had only 3/4 of that. Though most combat occurs at close range, you still need solid numbers on ranges... "Eh, that'll do" doesn't cut it when the target is close to the end of the range.

And who's to say in the future smart guns which track and home in on targets won't exist, or even simply correct themselves for wind (which would be huge beyond short range) won't exist?

And frankly, if magic is in your world, it should be worth something to heal someone with it. It *is* magic after all. But your current system, healing mages are just combat medics from the past... they don't heal, they only make you feel better while you die.

I know what you meant by greatswords. Perhaps "Heavy Weapons" and "Finesse Weapons" would be better subheadings to more accurately reflect the contents.

Even with the change to shotguns, they still cap out at +4... I'll still take the +3 AR I don't need to aim over the +4 shotgun that is worth nothing beyond 40ft (the only gun you've given a solid range to, plus, why on earth does my endurance affect a shotgun's damage in the slightest?). I'm not saying that characters won't survive, like keeping the sniper way back. But you best believe Grunty McStrongBack the frontline grunt is going to be chopped to pieces unless the GM is gracious and ignores him in favor of picking off other NPC mooks around him. Quick to cast shield? How quick? You've given no indication of how time flows in your game so I assumed d20 style. Is that wrong? Because if it works like d20, your mage's reflexes never enter the equation.

I also saw no indication of grazes not being able to kill someone based on your hit locale roll. Maybe I read it wrong.

Also your advancement rule isn't indicated anywhere. Had I stumbled across your rules online, I wouldn't know to dock someone who hid out.

Sure, the different settings have different styles of war. But say our group in a Far Future war says "Hey everyone, let's dig big holes in the ground, just shorter than us, so they can't shoot us, but we stand up and shoot over the wall at them!" what's stopping that from feeling the exact same as a WWI game (except for probably getting a tac nuke up the tailpipe, but even that's different from getting hit by mustard gas how in a game this lethal?)

I also maintain this is less of an RPG than a wargame. I imagine RPing would go something like:
"Yup, I hate me some Krauts."
"Me too, Bob."
*BAM*
"No! Bob! You Kraut bastards killed Bob!"
*BAMBAMBAM*
and so on.

That holds no real interest for me for a long term campaign.

Soft Serve
07-22-2009, 01:31 AM
I'm not houserulling it's just not complete yet. Your looking at a Beta.

The mages can heal, and revive same as a medic. They don't temporary heal. I thought I fixed that line...

Endurance for Shotguns because I'm assuming the "fire-from-the-hip-to-be-cool" style of fireing. Endurance being your ability to resist kick and keep up accuracy. Perception just doesn't seem to work for it, considering how different it is fireing a pistol from a shotgun. Also it spreads out usefulness through attributes.

Heavy and Finesse do fit the intention better. Thanks.

Grunty McStrongback is going to be fine, because they are never asked to go running blindly into the HMG fire. If he does that with no cover, or back-up, or plan, then of course he's boned.

The mages shield is an instant cast. A dexterity check against the enemies attack will keep everyone alive for as long as they can keep the shield up.

Grazes = 1-5 Difference in the roll. They do little or no damage at all and only stun you a moment.

6-10 = A more solid hit. 1d8 to determine location. (7 & 8 will kill you. The rest of the results will impede your accuracy, movement, or defense)

11-15 = Critical wound, you can still see, breathe, interact, but you'll bleed to death shortly.

16-20 = Your boned, unless a medic/mage is right next to you.

Advancement is being added to the site. Theres no way you would stumble upon it in a google search you'd have to follow a link right to it...webs.com charges you to put it on google...:D

Your group in Far Future is going to be in space probably 100% of the time. I'm not sure where you'll find time to visit a planet and dig a hole there, particularly if you do visit a planet it will be by orbital drop right into a battle in progress.

A Role-Playing Game has different meanings depending on who you talk to but usually it can be agreed that an RPG has the same two distinctions that seperate it from other genres.

Assuming the Role of a character that you create/design in some way.
Advancement through levels, points, or a likewise system.
Which this game completes. Therefore it is an RPG. (to me at least).

This game is also IN NO WAY intended to hold up a long term campaign.

From my first post.


But the intention is a rules-light game to play for fun when enough bored people are in the chat. (Hence the several eras so you aren't confined to something you don't like, and the simple rules that are quick to pick up and play.)

It's a game I made so people in the chat can say "Hey remember that game Soft Serve made? The one with the elves in WWII and mages riding VTOLS casting bolt on the battlewalkers below? We should play that"

....alright not in so much detail it usually goes "Wanna start EoC or something?" but still...not a long-term campaign game. :rolleyes:

korhal23
07-22-2009, 08:39 AM
Well that's well and good, but you asked what we saw based off the site you linked, so I'm telling you what I saw based on that and without knowing how you personally have run this. And while I acknowledge what I'm looking at is incomplete, I'm still calling it as I see it.

Really, from the sound of what you're trying to make, your current rules sound like too much. Take Aces and Eight's example... the first 2 pages of the book are the quick game "Shootout" rules. Characters have the stats Accuracy, Speed, and Hitpoints, and they roll to determine if they carry a pistol or a rifle. The end.

Well I'm going to ask again, how much time passes in a round in your game? Because if it's d20's 6 seconds, of course Grunty McStrongBack will be fine as he dashes to cover unharmed. But if time is shorter for a round, he's going to have to be a lot more careful.

Mage shield is some kind of reaction to an ally getting shot at? Do they have to check to see if they can cast quickly enough or does it just always work? Because if it always works, the mage's reflexes still have no bearing on the fight.

I did however misread your attack table, I thought you always rolled on the hit location chart. Though again, where's the solid rule? "You'll bleed to death shortly" is a GM Fiat... and frankly I see no healing rule, no mechanics for the heal check. I see "You can be healed."

My problem here is that, in a game that's all about war and combat, you have a complete lack of solid rules for combat. Everything is GM fiat or "that'll do", and the total lack of diversity between classes renders most of them null. You have a damage chart, and yay, players die in the drop of a hat.

You say that you don't want someone to be disadvantaged by what side they pick, but what you fail to appreciate is that the difference in gear is huge in war. Aren't you one of the ones whose biggest complaint with 4E is how balanced it is? Sure, rifle A may have longer range, but rifle B packs more punch. But alas, rifle C was just invented and it's better than A or B in both categories. To remove weapon system superiority/inferiority is to remove a significant chunk of strategy. It doesn't make your game universal, it makes a weak core mechanic.

Soft Serve
07-22-2009, 03:19 PM
I have never played Aces & Eights so I woulden't know. How do the rules that are there come to you as too much?

The time in rounds is roughly 3 seconds, 6 seconds is a little much for a shooting game. (with some guns you could unload an entire clip in 6 seconds, meaning an enemy who ambushed you could soak you with bullets before you even moved.)


Shield :: This spell throws up a bubble for 10ft around the caster. This bubble is impregnable by any outside force. (bullets, rockets, debris from explosions, etc.) EXCEPT spells, and other people. This means a mage could very well light you on fire from outside your shield and anybody could walk in and bash you up with a sword. The shield can only be sustained for free until it takes damage. Then it becomes DC5 to sustain, then DC10, then DC 15, then DC20, etc. with Essence checks.

From my last post.


The mages shield is an instant cast. A dexterity check against the enemies attack will keep everyone alive for as long as they can keep the shield up. -- Provided they pass the check I should say.

I haven't yet decided how long is too long for a character to bleed to death. I'm thinking of a way to base it off the endurance stat.

Ok I see what you mean by it's all GM Fiat, but you haven't told me what you would do different, your just saying it's wrong. How are the classes not diverse? They each have their own equipment specs to different jobs.

Putting seperate stats for every single gun involved in my WWII and Modern Warfare game doesn't exactly make this an "Easy to Pick up, Rules Light" game. I'd rather just keep the gun names there for flavor and give them the same stats.

Because all guns will have the same stats doesn't remove any bit of strategy. It removes the "I would rather play the Japanese army, but for my plan to work I have to use this American gun" factor. Which is exactly what I want.

I didn't complain about how balanced 4E is, I've never played 4E. My only complaint with it is how it looks/feels like an MMO to me.

korhal23
07-22-2009, 05:08 PM
First off, I want to throw this out there, I really do like your concept, a lot. So all I really have is mechanics to pick apart.

Spycraft uses 6 second rounds, but Spycraft has a very over the top James Bond feel to the shooting action unless you modify the game with Campaign Qualities. So 6 seconds isn't a bad idea, but to a game as violent as yours is, yeah I'd say it's probably not so good.

You have extraneous and irrelevant stats is the big one. From the sound of it, you really just need a Accuracy, Defense, and maybe a perception stat. Then you have your gun bonus, and that's it. Characters are likely to pick one weapon and stick to it, so whether it's strength or dex or endurance or whatever that's causing them to be good with that weapon is irrelevant, mechanically.

Frankly, there's no reason to be specific about what gun the classes have, even as "flavor", unless you differentiate them in at least a few key areas: Range, Damage, Accuracy, and Capacity, bare minimum. Things like Reliability, Rate of Fire, and Weight also come to mind, but that's getting away from your vision for the game and into the game I'm presently writing. Removing differences between weapons does remove some of the strategy. Say I know the American Bolt-Action rifle I carry can outrange the Bolt-Action of the German I have in my sights. He's out of range, can't see me, and is walking towards me. My strategy here would be to keep looking out for other threats, but be prepared to open fire when he's well within my range but still out of his own. How could I go about such plans in your game? Seems the answer is I couldn't.
From a command perspective, you send in what you need to accomplish the mission, and no more so as not to risk lives unneccessarily. Weapon system superiority allows you to send in fewer troops knowing they'll create better results. Without that, the main command strategy is "Have more troops than the other guy." I realize your game has command all be NPCs, but still, gonna have to disagree with weapons being identical if you're going to call them by name.

The interesting thing about warfare technology is that it escalates and counters... Bazookas and Panzershrecks were different, but they accomplished the same function. Gewehr 43s and Springfields were different, but they accomplished the same function. Creating something your enemy can't rightly counter, such as the atom bomb, is a key component to war. So you won't get someone saying "I need that American weapon to pull off my plan", or if they really need it that badly, they can kill a soldier who carries it and go grab it.

Like I said, what you have on your hands here is basically a wargame. Sure, it's an RPG in that you control one person, I'll give you that. But it's also a wargame, first and foremost. That means combat MUST be codified. If you cracked open the new Warhammer edition, and it said on page 2 "This game is for three players, two to fight it out and a third to stand on the side and make up the rules as you go" and the rest of the pages were just flavor, you'd have the most unsatisfying wargame in history.

Your classes are mostly differentiated by the main gun they carry, and the one or two side items they have. However, your weapons are bland despite your "flavor text", and every last character role can be performed by a mage, and probably better. Mages have all kinds of spells, including healing (GTFO medic) and damage abilities (GTFO everyone else), more than likely all governed by one stat (hence the superiority)

Ok so it wasn't you, didn't mean to bring 4E into this, statement retracted, let's not go there in this thread. Also, I acknowledge I misread your post on the shield.

The reason I'm not offering up too many mechanics is, frankly, I don't want you to make my RPG before I do :P You wanted to know why people won't play your game, so I'm pointing out the flaws and inconsistencies I see, and this is really without studying it too hard. I don't expect your game to be perfect (hell, big game companies can't even get their books perfect on the first go, yay errata) but what I see is both unappealing and incomplete. I'm working on an RPG in the same kind of vein (though mine is only WWII, not universal, and I intend it to be crunchy) but to be honest I don't see a single mechanic that I'm going "Man, I wish I'd thought of that first!" What I see is an uninspired set of house rules to d20 modern that fail to bring anything new to the table, other than inordinate amounts of player death.

CEBedford
07-22-2009, 06:30 PM
This game is also IN NO WAY intended to hold up a long term campaign.

Don't write a game created to focus on short term or even long term play. Create a game that is fun which can be used however the reader wants.

When you create a game intended for short term play you doom yourself to not appeal to your widest possible audience. The only way to be successful with such a game is to create something so good that people enjoy it despite it's limited scope. Some games manage to pull this off but it's hard IMO.

Plus you'd be surprised how many people can take a typically short term game and create a sweeping campaign out of it.

Focus on the mechanics. Are they flexible? Are they fun to learn? Now I say "Are they fun to learn?" because simple or complex is not that big a deal. Some people like complexity and others don't, you'll rarely appeal to both crowds and it's probably easier to design a fun game if you pick one (simple vs. complex) and aim to do that well.

As long as your rules are fun to learn people will be happy to master them even if they're complex.

The most important focus to me is creating a game that creates possibilities. Don't say your game isn't intended for this or is intended for that. Just focus on making a fun and failry complete core set of rules and you'd be surprised what people will do with your work.

I hope my 2 cents helps. I have my own game systems tucked away that I work on every so often and I admire you for seeking feedback. I've never done that with my work.

korhal23
07-22-2009, 06:45 PM
Lol we've talked about guns in this thread so much the google ads at the top and bottom have changed into firearms training course ads.

Soft Serve
07-22-2009, 07:45 PM
The posters at www.penandpapergames.com (http://www.penandpapergames.com/) have decided to help me make this game better. Particularly Korhal, and Afflux. I give you a list of updates to come. (In order of priority)

Finish Everything (So I can edit it later)
Ranking System (So characters positions can be remembered before they change)
Talents (For a more "RPG" feeling)
Race Updates (Giving them 51 BP instead of the 45 they were built with)
Individual Weapon Stats (opposed to general)
Equipment Upgrades
Class Updates
More Solid Vehicle Rules
As far as already updated stuff the Shotgun and HMG is now ENDURANCE related. This is because fireing a pistol, or rifle is perception related as in you bring it up to your eye and fire. Shotguns are more fired from your shoulder and different, and the HMG is fired from the hip or shoulder, making endurance your attribute to resist kick and keep a steady bead. This also spreads usefulness through the attributes a bit.
What did I miss?

korhal23
07-22-2009, 08:14 PM
Sounds good. Keep us posted with updates, and we'll keep you updated with our impressions (or at least I will). You don't have to make your game super realistic or anything (obviously) and I'd suggest keeping it simple still... that is, after all the center of your game. I feel, however, that your current rules err on the side of being too light to be functional.

My suggestion is to focus on one of your time periods, say, Modern. Make that the CORE of your system, and then provide templates for the other time periods, rather than creating 6 interconnected RPGs all at the same time, and trying to balance the rules so they make sense in all time periods, because that just won't happen. This is, I believe, the cause of the issue I mentioned in the last paragraph: the current iteration is too scatterbrained and you need to reign it in and refine it before branching out.

Now, here's where I'm going to retract a touch of what I said. Having your super simple rules is not a bad idea, in fact, quite the contrary. Much like Aces and Eights vastly simplified Shootout intro, what you have on your hands here could, with some editing, be about on par with any set of QuickStart Rules I've ever seen. I agree with CEBedford though, you have to set your sights higher than QuickStart rules for a one-off if you want your game to leave any kind of mark on the folks who experience it, even if that's all they use it for.

Soft Serve
07-25-2009, 03:10 PM
Alright.

www.brandnewwar.webs.com (http://www.brandnewwar.webs.com)

There are still some updates left to do (Individual weaposn stats being a big one) but I got talents and upgrades down for the Modern Era only so far. The rules for weapons have been fixed a little bit more, and still are being smoothed out.

Jmkeylon
07-25-2009, 03:11 PM
personally I had a lot of fun playing this game. I look forward to playing it again!

korhal23
07-25-2009, 03:18 PM
Very nice start. Keep it up.