Interesting.

I wonder if I can fit instructions for that somewhere, like when gear/Relics/artifacts come into play you can grab am index card and write some notes/ draw a picture. I think this would be especially handy for multi-session play.

I also want to add more thematic descriptions to the gear but I don't know where to find the room!

I want the pistol to not just be a pistol, I want it to be a "variable ammunition multipurpose device" Thematically speaking, "Its launches flares, embeds adhesive nav positioning dots, launches grappling spike and micro-line, emits anti-impact flame retardant foam, and acts as a small blow torch, oh yeah and it shoots bullets."

I want there to not just be armor but to have an exo-suit, with micro assist electro-gel motors and built in emergency environmental seals. But yeah where would I put all that? 

Characters I tried to make and had difficulty
Daniel Jackson, Stargate - couldn't find anything for archaeologist or language expert
Louise Banks, Arrival  - again, language expert

While its true, these two don't jump off the page mechanically, they still work it just feels indirect. If a player wanted to play either of these character I would have them pick "Keen, advantage: aliens" and make sure to put some points into looking closer and influencing someone.

It doesn't say "linguist," (there are no professions listed at all now) but the in the character motive section they might put seeking and the GM asks the question: "You have always had a talent for spotting what? You are looking for something in particular out there, what is it?" The player would hopefully say "language" or "symbols" and their looking for "ancient aliens." The motive is picked first and covers a lot of the thematic character stuff.

gone through and marked it up again. Few typos remain and few places I think the text could be tighter (but already makes sense).
I liked it enough to try making a stock set of characters.


Three problems:

1) Savant - tech, gear, hacking all feels like the same thing. Its not clear to me what situation one aspect would apply and the others would not. Maybe move hacking/code-breaking to Cunning?

These are left intentionally for the players and GM to decide on. It can feel similar, but there is negotiation between player and GM. Gear is the stuff you bring with you, hacking is software, do they overlap? Maybe, that's not really a problem though. Its flavor not mathematical balance. Its a way for character to do things their own way, it doesn't much matter that similar outcomes can be achieved by other methods.

2) Cunning - similar problem. when would trickery apply and bluffing couldn't?

Same answer

3) Something a bit more mathy and nuanced:
a) Team player grants +1 to your aid to someone else. More powerful but less reliable then...
b) Persusive, leadership allows you to roll with advantage to aid/interfere with someone you lead?

These are flavor not mathematical problems, It up to your game, but to me leadership is not aiding another player, aiding is doing something to help, leadership is tied to influence, it is getting your way, its inspiring others to action, is there overlap sure, its not really a problem though. If similar results are achieved through different methods that's not really a problem

c) Keen, people allows you to roll with advantage to ai/interfere with anyone?

"to figure these out" its tied to looking closer. Its specific to figuring people out, their motivations, their reasons for things. If you want to act on this reasons thats another matter. 

No way to edit. huh.

I don't know what you mean.

Yeah, fix those first two things up and maybe think about the third and gimme a new character sheet, I'll be happy to run this as a one shot on https://roleplayinggames.slack.com/

I don't know what you mean about a new character sheet. All you need to play is here in the document. Its intentionally a mico-rpg there are no playbooks, it's all very tightly packing in there.

If you want to play test it, awesome, but I'm not going to change the document for your playtest. In fact I am going to hold off on any major changes until after I get some playtesting feedback.

Thanks for your interest.

By the way I like the concept also (which is why I weighed in). I've had a similar concept in the back of my mind for years, I mean i don't know how similar since I haven't seen any specifics of yours. But I hadn't been thinking of it as a game, more of novel concept really. So I'm interested in what you come up with.

oh, so, I just discovered Uncharted Worlds, it looks like it does something that is at least in the spirit of what I'm going after... well, that is on my list. The concept still looks like it would need a lot of careful testing, but, I'm happy to find something that is headed in the right direction best I can tell.

I think that while you can totally go modular, its important to note what you will be losing and what you will be gaining. A modular approach certainly allows for more player creativity with their character right off the bat. This works better with players more comfortable with making up their own concepts, but can be a little daunting for new players. On the other hand you loose a little of the convenience of character creation, a player only needs one page to create their entire character and it speeds things along quite a bit.

I would also note that you don't loose the ability to make really unique combinations with the single playbook method, the players (and the GM for that matter) just need to be willing to re-interpret the flavor and description text. They usually call this playing against the stereotype, but this is just culture its not written anywhere I don't think. But after a while everyone understands I can play the "Savy" playbook but instead its a "Botanist" or whatever. On the flip side new players have a sterotype to build on, it makes the game feel more approachable.

The difference between these Origins and DW's races though is, that, they really are separate from "Class", and there's a list to choose from for each Origin, er... race. This separate race and class thing is very common in other RPGs (it makes me think of templates from D&D), but, I can't think of another PbtA game that does this.  I'm wondering, if this really not "kosher" to do, or is there perhaps another PbtA game that has done this sort of "pick your superpowers from here, but use this for your main Playbook"?

I think an origin can totally be included on a single playbook. Think of your Dungeon world example, it might feel limiting to you at first, but you can do quite a bit more than that with yours. Once you have a playbook concept you can include Origin options right there, and they can be written in such a way as to give a lot of leeway but still fit with the playbook concept. Like you said you were considering only having an origin, so you could make half the playbook origin options. And if a player really prefers an origin on a different playbook instead you can simply let them take it. No need to redesign the game.

Honestly I would try to ditch the idea that your origin moves and your other character moves are different things, the character concept is one cohesive idea. Some character concepts are about the past, and some are about the future, some are about being an outsider, etc. Think of what defines the playbook and think of options would help flesh out that definition. Look at Apocalypse world, the Hardholder playbook is very different from the Brainer, because one is defined by the settlement they lead, the other by how they go about messing with people. There doesn't have to be one template for character playbooks, in fact they should feel very different and should ultimately serve the fiction your trying to create.

Anyway that's my two cents on modular design (sorry for the text wall). You could also completely do away with playbooks and just have everyone pick two options from a single list. Bam nano RPG style. It all depends on the kind of play your looking for.

Hope that helps.

Hi there, thanks for the interest.

I will get to those typo's and grammar errors in a bit, I appreciate the heads up.

As for theme, I would say its meant to be adventure. At times it should definitely lean towards thriller, but not really horror, Trippy at times? for sure. I think our knee jerk reaction is to see horror anytime we see space sci-fi space stations because that's how cinema has trained our perceptions. I mentioned the Ringworld novels in the post, maybe there isn't a movie/television equivalent. You mentioned Stargate Universe and I think this would definitely be close to the theme of fun but still dangerous.

As for aspects of colony politics, those elements are there if you want them, but are meant to be backdrop and to narratively create a sense of remoteness, the rest of the galaxy isn't going to be swooping in any time soon. Other than that I would say, that I purposefully left thematic elements up to the players. If the answers you get from the worldbuilding/character questions head towards the colony stuff, include more of it. If they gloss over other elements ignore them. The first two pages are meant as a GM guide of sorts. However you are absolutely correct that playtesting is required and I imagine that section of the doc will grow to include tips for common misconceptions.

Mechanically there are no stats, but you do have boxes that denote a bonus. So I suppose there are implied stats. I think this is a subtle but important distinction. Its meant to look like a video game, the horizontal bar fills up and you're better at that category of tasks (I'm not sure if that came across). As for advantage, it does need playtesting, but I like it as is. The skills that denote advantage are fairly narrow, so it shouldn't be a constant thing.

It should feel a little like dungeon dungeon-delving-in-space. But with open ended awe and exploration as a a goal rather than a down and dirty hex-by-hex crawl.

Thank you for your feedback!

Wow, this has been a fascinating exchange for me. In large part because I have had friends who have brought up similar concerns. I have literally heard the "too limiting" in some ways, and yet "to broad" in others. I too had some trouble at first and honestly didn't really "get" a lot of nuance until I starting making my own hack (Though I learn something new every time I read stuff like this, brovo with these explanations by the way).

But there is totally something to "get." I more recently explained away the "too limiting, yet to broad" by saying to myself, explicit text in rules as written is the stereotype, if you don't feel like being adventurous just do exactly that, otherwise treat that stuff as a guideline or inspiration and go nutz.

But for the record I will say this. There is a lot of... "culture" for a lack of a better word that makes AW or pbta work, implied/learned stuff. The advantage for trad games is that you know very explicitly the authors intent as defined by a 500+ word rule under the appropriate chapter heading, so when you do disregard it, you at least feel pretty clear on which part of the game your breaking and why. In these games I think people never even get the context of why a thing has a limiting way of describing it. A lot of newcomers aren't going to be comfortable breaking a rule they don't understand, and yet don't really like the rule as written, hence feeling like they don't get it.

Great stuff, it sucks that there hasn't really been any "ah-hah" moments but still, we do well to remember not to take well worn concepts "from our perspective" for granted (not that I am saying anyone here did that :)).