Working on a homebrew low space opera RPG, here's the Quick Start Guide.

[OlivettiFever]

I've been working on a tabletop RPG for the last few years now, hoping to spin it off into a CRPG at some point. I realized I'm much better at writing and graphic design than I am at programming games, so that's on the back burner for now; I've been spending an unhealthy amount of my non-work hours on the Corebook. I posted the character sheet to Reddit and a handful of people seemed interested in running campaigns for it. And then a bunch of people at work volunteered to playtest for me, so I realized I needed to make an easily-digestible version of it for people who don't have the time and inclination to read the extra 80 pages of flavor text, and so I can have a vaguely finished version of it floating about for people who want to play until I get the big one finished.

So I made a Quick Start Guide, much in the vein of the Free RPG Day QSG's you see flying about, but a bit more encompassing. It's got almost everything from the Corebook, just in a ridiculously compressed format (30 pages). So I figured I'd come to my favorite RPG forum and let you folks in on the pre-pre-release, see what you think.

The system is a bit like if d20 had a baby with SPECIAL, who was then raised in the woods by Traveller, Phoenix Command and WHFRP. There are six Attributes, each dictating a dependent score. Each dependent score is best performed at by a class. Each class has a group of four skills. The main skill in each group is universal (class skill for everyone) and modified by that attribute.

DEX -> Abilities -> Soldier -> Combat -> Aim -> DEX
AGI -> AP -> Scout -> Finesse -> Dodge -> AGI
CON -> HP -> Support -> Fitness -> Fortitude -> CON
INT -> Skills -> Techie -> Intellectual -> Willpower -> INT
PER -> Traits -> Spacer -> Environmental -> Awareness -> PER
CHA -> Assistance -> Ambassador -> Social -> Persuade -> CHA

https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B5j10LInyB4geDFlMzJ2bzRPVHc/edit?usp=sharing

There's a bit left to do, but I'd love to hear what you all think.

 

[CappenVarra]

Gave it a quick glance (no time for more), so just a few quick comments:

• The overall idea of a Fallout-y Buck Rogers is always welcome.
• I'm not particularly keen on the d20-inspired parts: giving sub-systems arbitrary names redefining common english terms ("feats" was the first and worst offender in 3rd ed), differentiating classes by giving every sub-system package to each one but in pools of different size etc. Elaboration might come or I might leave it as a personal preference
• While the geeky need to compartmentalize everything and put it inside neat system boxes is conductive to general design, I'm not quite sure the one you laid out here is right for the task... DEX "Abilities" vs. INT "Skills" vs. PER "Traits" - it seems a bit redundant and needlessly duplicated + the names chosen are not quite intuitive to be memorable as a system core should be.
• Also, the class names, hm... Perhaps Soldier should become a Sharpshooter or something to convey the role better, and differentiate it from Support (which is also quite generic and MMOish so I dislike it, but I'm not sure what the replacement should be) etc.
• I must have missed the multi-classing rules - are there any?
• Why go with class-based in something with the influences given at all? I kinda feel the d20 influence is the odd man out and detracts from the other parts...

 

[J1M]

It looks like you are designing yourself into a corner with the classes. What happens if you wanted to add a 7th class?

Document looks great in terms of presentation.

 

[OlivettiFever]

Gave it a quick glance (no time for more), so just a few quick comments:

• The overall idea of a Fallout-y Buck Rogers is always welcome.
• I'm not particularly keen on the d20-inspired parts: giving sub-systems arbitrary names redefining common english terms ("feats" was the first and worst offender in 3rd ed), differentiating classes by giving every sub-system package to each one but in pools of different size etc. Elaboration might come or I might leave it as a personal preference
• While the geeky need to compartmentalize everything and put it inside neat system boxes is conductive to general design, I'm not quite sure the one you laid out here is right for the task... DEX "Abilities" vs. INT "Skills" vs. PER "Traits" - it seems a bit redundant and needlessly duplicated + the names chosen are not quite intuitive to be memorable as a system core should be.
• Also, the class names, hm... Perhaps Soldier should become a Sharpshooter or something to convey the role better, and differentiate it from Support (which is also quite generic and MMOish so I dislike it, but I'm not sure what the replacement should be) etc.
• I must have missed the multi-classing rules - are there any?
• Why go with class-based in something with the influences given at all? I kinda feel the d20 influence is the odd man out and detracts from the other parts...

Thanks! This is honestly the best feedback I've gotten.

• Awesome! Glad to know there's a bit of a market for the idea.
• Fair enough. I'm in the process of adding in unique class-based abilities.
• That's totally understandable. I tried to make the dependent score names somewhat indicative of their role - i.e. Character Abilities are special things they can do, Character Traits are personality quirks and defining features- but it looks like I failed a bit. The short version - Abilities are combat maneuvers (generally active bonuses), Skills are fields of inquiry, Traits are character quirks (generally passive bonuses).
• Yeah, I was flailing a bit at "Support," but I didn't - and don't - know what else to call it.
• Multi-classing is hopefully going to be in. It's WIP, but it's a bit lower on the priority list. (That goes Knowledge skills -> Careers -> Quick Start Guide -> Adventure module -> other stuff -> Advanced Classes)
• There are a handful of reasons I went class-based.
  • First and foremost is the symmetry aspect. Having classes makes the flow-down much more aesthetically pleasing to me. I'm shallow.
  • Second is general ease of use. Point-buy systems can be a little intimidating to folks who aren't familiar with the ins and outs of RPGs. Having a role to play instead of making one yourself can be nice.
  • Setting was also a big reason. It's very space opera, so character archetypes played into it quite a bit. Firefly was a big setting influence - tramp freighter in wild space, every crew member performing a specific role to better their chances of survival.
  • Balance. For a minmaxer, HP/AP/Skills is probably the 'best' build, at least for combat. That doesn't mean Abilites/Traits/Assistance are bad. On the contrary, they provide considerable versatility, can compensate for character shortcomings by buffing a greater variety of characteristics, provide strength in numbers, etc. But as going straight for a brute-force power build does not necessarily require vast numbers of Abilities/Traits/Assistance, they're going to get dumped. And you could probably come up with an Abilities/Traits/Assistance character that could match them, but it would be quite a trick.
• That being said, there are already 'house rules' for a straight point-buy system in the Corebook. (Short version, you buy dependent scores that get maxed depending on your Attribute score.)

It looks like you are designing yourself into a corner with the classes. What happens if you wanted to add a 7th class?

Document looks great in terms of presentation.

Classes are less story-oriented and more mechanically-oriented, and the nice thing about the system as it stands is that there simply aren't any other mechanical aspects to specialize in unless you want to cross-specialize, which I've been working on with Advanced Classes.

And thanks!

 

[CappenVarra]

OlivettiFever,

A few proposed terminology changes aimed to make the overall system a bit less generic (since it's only going to work in a single setting with a single set of classes, making game terminology bring that specific setting to mind more effectively should be a good thing):

- Abilities -> Maneuvers. More obviously combat-tied, and based on a "hand" root just like Dexterity
- Scout -> Agent/Assassin + Spacer -> Scout. I think a class called "Scout" should be the one with Awareness, navigation and survival specialization etc. while the more combat-focused stealthy glass-cannon infiltrator needs a more fitting name... Spy or something could work as well for the latter, I guess.
- Support -> Heavy. Sure, the adjective-as-noun use is not brilliant english, but I don't think anybody in the 25th century cares much, and it worked well enough in XCOM... "Support" is just totally unfitting.
- Techie -> Engineer + Engineer trait -> Gearhead. Dunno, makes more sense to me, without any particularly smart explanation
- Assistance -> Teamwork. Seems more intuitive overall (for example, when looking at the chart at the bottom of page 9), could be just my impression.
- Ambassador -> Captain. Since the system seems combat-heavy, a diplomacy-based name seemed a bit off to me + since Teamwork (uhm, your "Assistance") is what the class epitomizes, I don't think a non-combatant name works. I can imagine a space diplomat specializing in persuasion, but then having the same guy give combat benefits to comrades brings the image down...

Hope some of this will be useful, have fun!