Mike Sands, Jason Pollock, Stefan Tyler and myself got together here in Wellington to play test the latest draft of 'Duty & Honour' by Neil Gow. First off, there were a lot of positives expressed round the table but, as is the way of these things, there is a lot of stuff that needs re-written, changed or fundamentally altered in some way. Then again, that's only to be expected, as the game is still at a very early stage of development and I believe this was the first external play test.
I took the GM seat and Mike, Jason and Stefan all had character sheets in front of them. Deciding who was going to be the officer was easy: neither Stefan nor Jason wanted to play an officer and Mike wasn't bothered either way, so it ended up in Mikes lap. This raises a question: what if no one wants to play the officer?
The questions at the start of character creation are a bit of an odd mixture. Without doubt, it's the place to have them, but there are some odd choices and wording to deal with. Question 4 was deemed to be looking too far ahead into the character creation process and nobody felt it was worthwhile answering, while question 5 fell into the same boat. Further examples associated with the questions might also help, as the wording at the moment is fairly vague.
In the nationality list, it was noted that what you get for being Iberian is exactly the same as for being Irish, so the choice between the two has no game mechanical impact. The religion list, when compared with professions, nationalities and so forth, was felt to be very brief: perhaps there could be a bit more differentiation OR a little more text explaining the brevity. Oh, and there are two Chapter 7s. The second one should probably be 8.
Now, everyone in the group wanted to play characters who were relatively inexperienced. One was a young ensign who was only a year into his career, one was a runaway American who had been in a rifle regiment for two years and one was a young criminal who had been in service for one year. As written, the game only mentions recommended minimum terms of service a fair bit into the text. Perhaps this could be put earlier in the text? There seems to be a sweet spot for length of service that lies between too little (not enough experience to be effective in challenges) and too much (far too many points to spend). I think revision needs to take place here.
By this stage, though, people were getting a feel for their characters and seemed to be enjoying the process of character creation. It was commented that the creation system was interesting and did provoke you into coming up with interesting histories for the characters and with NPCs that flesh out the game world. These were seen as pretty definingly good points of the system so far.
Another big positive was when we came to the creation of the first batch of missions. Again, this was felt to be a really excellent part of the game that gave you a bit of story to work with to get you started, some insight into what the long term themes might be and an immediate situation to get you thrown into the action. All very positive.
Then is came to actually using the mission/challenge system. Neil, I do think this bit of the game needs, more than any other area, a really substantial re-write and re-think. It seems that the game is working when you are GMing with your group, which is a common thing to have happen. But when we decided to go through a few challenges were came up against to some real problems.
OK, first off: what to Measures do in challenges? The text is in no way clear about what effect they have, if any. Mike and I imagined that they would add to you pool of cards for a challenge, but the text didn't really tell us this. or, if it did, we missed it. Which leads to another issue: challenge rules are too bitty and split up throughout the text at the moment. there was a lot of flicking back and forth, which caused confusion.
Now, on to the main problem, which relates to the military mission. I'm not clear what is actually intended here, but this caused a great deal of debate around the table. We started off with a basic military mission, which was this:
Mission: Force the French cannon train down the wrong road so they can get ambushed by the rest of the regiment.
Challenges: 4
Compulsory: Sending the cannons down the wrong mountain road.
Deadline: Sunset
Reward: Pick of the loot
Failure: Regimental reputation will be injured
The first challenges was to head across the dusty hillsides, all the while keeping out of the gaze of the French scouts with spyglasses on top of the hills. Now, we were unclear if there should be one pool of cards for all the PCs, one thing each or what, so we went with everyone drawing a hand against my hand which represented the French scouts. But this made no sense, because if one person lost, then the scouts would see them and the game would be up. So, even if 2 were successful, it was pointless.
We discussed this a fair bit and reasoned that there needs to be a tighter and more direct integration between the Military Missions and the Skirmish Rules. This maybe something you do already, but it isn't in the text, so here's the suggestion that came out of the play test:
When a group of PCs are engaging in a challenge for a Military Mission, things should be broken down like in the Skirmish Rules, like this:
1st Challenge: Get across the dusty hillsides without being seen by the French scouts
PC 1: Persuade the men to bootblack up the shiny parts of their uniforms
PC 2: Use skill to find out the best way across the hillside, using natural terrain features
PC 3: Silently cut the throat of a French scout
Final Part: make it across the hillside
This would use the skirmish rules where you have a number of individuals challenges equal to the PCs +1, where the last challenge is always the decider, but where the other sub-challenges have a card influence on the final endgame.
In this case, everyone gets to have input into the individual challenges that go to make up an overall military mission. I would dump the skirmish rules as a separate entity and make them part of the military mission set-up. So, if you want to play a quick skirmish, then play it out as a 1 challenge military mission. From our short play test, it certainly seems that the challenges, especially in relation to the all important military side of things, needs a radical revision.
There's more to come (like actually posting the characters and their missions), but that's off the top of my head before I turn in for the night. I'm sure Mike will be along with some of his observations. I don't think there is anything to be downhearted about here: the game is heading in the right direction and is received a lot of praise round the table. Mission creation was well like, character creation was positive (but does need some clean up) and the themes and structure of the game are good.
Cheers
Malcolm
Wow
Submitted by Neil Gow on Mon, 26/11/2007 - 12:10.
First - thanks for doing this. Second - I'm glad that at least some of it made the players happy. Thats the entire point of the exercise after all. Now, point by point...
What if someone doesn't want to be an officer?
Honestly, that one has never crossed my mind. I was too focused on too many people wanting to be an officer. There are two options. There are alternative structures you could use (Sergeant and Privates springs to mind) which would allow the players that flexibility. Or you could just say 'Look guys, someone has to be the officer. Thats the way the game is set up.' I know that sounds a little harsh but it's roughly the same as saying in Cold City 'actually, I want to be South African.' You CAN do it, but the rules heavily suggest that you shouldn't. I think the alternate Sgt/Pvt structure should have a mention though. Good call.
Questions at the Beginning or End?
Is this a case of (a) the wrong questions, (b) the questions being in the wrong place wholesale or (c) the questions needing to be spread out amongst some of the rest of chargen. I've had mixed feedback on this. People have liked the questions but they haven't been sure as to where they can go.
Nationality and Religion
Good call on the Iberian/Irish issue. The religious one is something that I want in the game (because it was an important issue at the time) but I am lacking a bit of knowledge about expanding into other branches to religion or indeed sub-dividing Christianity down a little more.
Length of Service.
Yes. Thats something I have noticed too. A new recruit is almost unplayable whereas a ten year veteran is exceptionally strong. I want to be able to mimic the literature and have new recruits and veterans alongside each other and there be a palpable difference between them but I struggling with the balance issue. The obvious one is to just say 'ok, minimum four years' but thats rather crude. I'll take advice from wiser heads on this one.
The Challenge System
Measures - specifically Guts and Discipline - have very specific jobs in Challenges. If you missed them, then thats a problem in and off itself. The card pools are created from
Talents + Reputation (if appropriate) + Trait modifier + Other mods.
That obviously needs to be said somewhere as well.
However, I am really liking that suggestion about integrating the Skirmish rules as the Military rules. That makes all sorts of sense and gives a lot of control over to the players. We've played a fair bit with the Skirmish rules and they absolutely work as intended so they could be a good model for the rest of the stuff.
(Just as a note I would have had the group nominate one player to be the lead for the Challenge and drawn their cards against the French. If the officer was the officious type he could demand that he was the one that planned and lead the stealth move rather than say, the conscripted woodsman. You could also have had someone augment their cards with say, their Institution Reputation (Regiment) and risk appearing a buffoon for getting spotted.)
However, the fact that this was ambiguous is damning in itself and your solution is both in-theme and very elegant. Thanks.
I don't think there is anything to be downhearted about here: the game is heading in the right direction and is received a lot of praise round the table. Mission creation was well like, character creation was positive (but does need some clean up) and the themes and structure of the game are good.
I have to admit I was BRICKING myself about this. I had visions of the entire game burning on a fire somewhere with people cursing you that you had wasted their time. I've put a lot of work and research into the game and this sentence above makes it all worthwhile. It gives me a lot of incentive to make it better and get it sorted.
Thanks for the feedback and the advice.
Onwards!
Neil
Take the King's shilling at http://www.omnihedron.co.uk/dutyandhonour/
Not a whole lot more to add...
Submitted by Mike Sands on Mon, 26/11/2007 - 18:27.
Malcolm pretty much covered everything that I remember coming up last night.
Specific comments:
- Religion
I'm not so up on the different stereotypes associated with religions at the time either. However, I think the list could be expanded a bit by splitting out 'Protestant' into 'Anglican', 'Church of Scotland' and 'Other Protestant'. You could probably go into more detail with the others if you wanted to, but that should give enough differentiation. Possibly giving the option of 'Jewish', even.
- Length of service/effectiveness
You'll probably just need to play around with this to balance it. To mitigate our issue (all three characters pretty raw), more front-loaded points from before you enlisted might help. Either that, or give everyone a larger amount of abilities/measures on enlistment and less per year of experience.
- Talents
Going through these, a lot felt too specific and (given the inexperienced characters) we didn't qualify for a bunch that needed pre-requisites. The latter may not be a big deal, but I would have preferred a shorter list of more general talents.
- Regiment generation
This was a good fun, but we ended up without defining any officers. I'd suggest that each group should always make up some seniors - the NCO in direct charge of the enlisted characters, the officer immediately superior to the player officer and the regimental commander, perhaps?
Character generation went really well, too. Starting with no real ideas for a character, the process quickly built an interesting guy who I'd like to play.
The generation of missions really helps build onto this, and I think that these are the best part of what you have. The split between military, promotion and personal works well and I can imagine that trying to make challenges apply to more than one will weave the characters' stories together. We discovered that maybe this needs a little more explanation of who does what - in particular, choosing the number of challenges, the compulsory challenge and the rewards and penalties for success and failure. In our case, we agreed on the number and compulsory challenge, had players decide on the rewards and GM on the penalty for failure.
Excellent stuff
Submitted by Neil Gow on Mon, 26/11/2007 - 19:36.
Thanks for the extra comments Mike.
I really an pretty clueless about the different shades of Christianity although I reckon a little book reading with shift that. The idea of shifting the balance of the points around so that it hangs more on previous history and enlistment rather than service is a good idea. I'll play around with some numbers tonight and see what I would need to have to make a passable Perkins (the new young character in the Sharpe stuff).
Thats the second time I have been given the 'too long' feedback on the talents. I'll consider what can be done about that. Would more packages (as suggested by Andrew K.) which people simply take be more appealing?
Great idea about regiment generation as well. Thats something that can easily be added into the mix.
And now, shamefacedly, I have to admit that in the rush to get this out there was another piece of the game that I missed out and that was the rules and guidance for the creation of Missions. And that's really the centre of the game. I'd been doing it all with a general load of GM handwavery and knew that it was needed. Indeed, I've been doing it generally the way you arrived at. Sorry for the omission!
Loads of good stuff from this test. I know I say it alot but I really appreciate your time and effort.
Thanks
Neil
Take the King's shilling at http://www.omnihedron.co.uk/dutyandhonour/
Random thought
Submitted by Matt on Mon, 26/11/2007 - 21:43.
For balancing veterans. I wonder if you could work in some kind of lost comrades thing, where the longer you've served, the more people from your initial recruitment have died on the way, while your guy survived... And use that somehow in regiment generation? Or as a burden that might affect certain rolls?
Not sure that's a coherent idea, but something about it seems to match the feel...
-Matt
Realms Publishing
More on talents...
Submitted by Mike Sands on Tue, 27/11/2007 - 02:35.
Thats the second time I have been given the 'too long' feedback on the talents. I'll consider what can be done about that. Would more packages (as suggested by Andrew K.) which people simply take be more appealing?
I think maybe fewer points to spend and somewhat more generic talents might work better. So maybe give people three to five choices, and have them a little broader. For instance, maybe just one talent for each social class that gives you some useful stuff. Plus something like Specialist: [combat type] that gives you some advantage with one of musket/bayonet/sword/pistol/brawling, rather than individual ones.
Consolidate the ideas into fewer talents and choices, basically.
That way, people can pick 'Big bruiser' or 'Sneak thief' or 'Image-conscious officer' and get a few relevant things, with less picking through the list.
The Characters
Submitted by Malcolm Craig on Tue, 27/11/2007 - 09:52.
Just for the sake of completeness, here are the characters as they turned out on the parade ground:
Colin Paynes
English, Protestant (Anglican), Social Class: Church, Regiment: 60th Rifles, Profession: Rifleman
Guts: 1, Discipline: 2, Influence: 1, Charm: 0
Age: 19
Rank: Ensign
Talents
Awareness: 2, Command: 2, Diplomacy: 2, Riding: 1, Soldiering: 3, The Arts: 2
Traits
Education, Languages (French, Latin, Greek), Natural Fencer, Strong sword arm, Fearless
Reputations
Major Wittering: 1, 60th Rifles: 1, Sergeant Major Barker: 1
Dan Barker (I think)
Irish, Protestant, Social Class: Criminal, Regiment: 60th Rifles, Profession: Rifleman
Guts: 2, Discipline: 0, Influence: 1, Charm: 2
Age: Unknown
Rank: Private
Talents
Awareness: 2
Gambling: 2
Larceny: 3
Romance: 1
Scavenge: 1
Soldiering: 2
Traits
Cut Purse, Crack Shot, Scoundrel, Thief in the Night, Blameless, Swimming, Dead Eye
Reputations
Captain Smith: 1
The Military Black Market: 2
Sally Jackson: 1
Plus one other that was blurred when I got round to transcribing the sheets
Jack Munroe
American, Protestant, Social Class: Artisan, Regiment: 60th Rifles, Profession: Rifleman
Guts: 3, Discipline: 1, Influence: 3, Charm: 0
Age: 20
Rank: Private
Talents
Awareness: 3, Haggle: 2, Profession (Smith): 2, Scavenge: 2, Soldiering: 4
Traits
Swimming, Read & Write, Cheat Death, Crack Shot, Sharpshooter, Known Around Camp, Strong As An Ox, Handy In A Scrap
Reputations
60th Rifles: 3
The Rank & File: 3
Mathilda: 1
Colonel Barnabus: 1
Cheers
Malc
Contested Ground Studios
Nice Characters
Submitted by Neil Gow on Tue, 27/11/2007 - 11:48.
Those characters illustrate the good and bad parts as mentioned perfectly. They are characters which look full of story potential - I particularly like the burly American Jack Munroe.
However statistically they would probably get smushed into little pieces by the game mechanics. Thats not what I want to happen. Its historically accurate but not in keeping with the source material.
I crunched some numbers last night and I can definitely front-load the chargen a little so that you get more for your formative years and basic training/conscription (watching Sharpe's Regiment for the umpteenth time helped. I love that episode) and tone down some of the stuff you get simply for hanging around for a long time.
This will also deal with some of the things I have seen run out of hand with veteran characters like an absolute smorgasbord of Reputations to draw upon at quite high levels.
Lots to think about but I really appreciate now the value of these external playtests. If only someone would set up a website where we could get more and focus on the process a little ....
Neil
Take the King's shilling at http://www.omnihedron.co.uk/dutyandhonour/
Once you have a new draft...
Submitted by Mike Sands on Wed, 28/11/2007 - 02:45.
...my group will be happy to give D&H a decent run (even without Malcolm pushing it on us). Actually I am just speaking for myself but I'm sure everyone else will be keen given the fun we had making up characters the other night.
Number Crunch
Submitted by Neil Gow on Sat, 01/12/2007 - 12:03.
Just did the number crunch exercise on the lowbie and high-end characters.
In the old version the poinst spread between one year and ten years was 17 - 71 (all things being equal on the chances of pulling an ace in the previous campaigns)
In the new version I have:
- Introduced the base stat as 1 rather than 0
- Added another 2 points by virtue of Social Class
- Added another 2 points by virtue of Soldiering Profession
- Added a 8 point Conscription basic training (and Officer Training)
- Reduced the experience by virtue of experience (which stood at 1 Measure, 1 Talents and 1 Reputation) from 3 to 1 (ie. you choose 1 of them rather than one of each!!)
This drops the points gap to 31-67 and puts a raw recruit, fresh off the training ground at roughly the same level as a three year soldier in the previous version. A five year veteran is the equivalent of a six year veteran from the previous version.
Thats evened things out a bit and makes noobies a lot more survivable.
And thats the product of playtesting! Woot!
Neil
Take the King's shilling at http://www.omnihedron.co.uk/dutyandhonour/
Good stuff
Submitted by Mike Sands on Sat, 01/12/2007 - 18:17.
That sounds like it deals with the issues we came across pretty well.
What about really long term veterans? Say I want to make a sergeant who is in his 50s and enlisted at 15... giving him maybe 40+ years of experience. Is that going to break anything?
Yes
Submitted by Neil Gow on Sat, 01/12/2007 - 18:56.
Oh God yes, that would shatter it into a million pieces.
The fix is easy really. All that I could do is change the 'years of experience' bit to 'conflicts of note' instead. That way you can have quite a young character who has lived through HELL and has loads of experience in a young body, or a long lived veteran who has stood on guard at his Colonels residence for three decades.
I'll play around with how that works but its a very good point.
Neil
Take the King's shilling at http://www.omnihedron.co.uk/dutyandhonour/
Long timers
Submitted by Mike Sands on Sun, 02/12/2007 - 01:38.
That's probably the way to go.
Especially as, before the beginning of the war with revolutionary France, there were (if my generally untrustworthy memory serves) a few periods with very little action. A really long haul veteran like that is probably going to have a couple of decades of nothing but drill and garrison duties... maybe a special rule for characters who go back that far would be enough.
Another Successful Playtest
Submitted by Neil Gow on Mon, 03/12/2007 - 09:45.
We took another shot at the revised character generation last night with an idea of creating characters that could actually be played and it worked much better than before. We had a new tester (redben) and his inclusion and new set of eyes raised a number of insightful questions. We discussed Loot and some of the semantic creases that could be ironed out to make the game easier (like changing Talents to Skills so that it is an easier differentiation from Traits)
We ran through a skirmish between three English and three French soldiers which worked perfectly. We adopted Malcolms idea that all military challenges should use the Skirmish rules and it was spot on. We went through some of the healing rules as well (the first sortie against the French ended with both sides retreating and the English Captain maimed. He delievered a sterling speech to his men about it only being a flesh wound (Guts Challenge) and then returned to the fray Injured - the second assault was far more successful and they retrieved the hidden map in the grain silo)
We also tried a player vs player challenge where the Officer caught the Corporal smuggling. Stakes were set and the Officer added his Reputation as a Provost. He lost and the reputation was damaged. He then tried to 'repair' it with a Diplomacy check against the Provost Marshall to explain his actions ... and failed, critically. His reputation was not DEAD and he had to decide upon an entire Mission which would redeem him. This was exactly as I imagined it and worked really well.
We then discussed some of the game balance issues especially the 'double bubble' issue of Influence and Charm which were seen as maybe a little too potent. There was another game balance issue but I will spin that off into a different thread.
And finally we thought out, as an afterthought, how much work would be needed to add some maritime features to the game (very little) and other genres that the system could use (loads)
and that was that.
A great night for me and hopefully my testers. It really felt as if we were making steady and constructive progress throughout the evening and that the changes that have been suggested by Team NZ have really enhanced the game.
Neil
Take the King's shilling at http://www.omnihedron.co.uk/dutyandhonour/