This is a thread for general rules; everything from Basic Moves to the way the advancement system works, to stuff about factions, debt and favor.

This is the thread for the latest beta publications of Uncharted Worlds. It'll usually include a link and possibly a short description of the changes.

Version 0.75
Version 0.82
Version 0.83

Record number of mechanical changes in this one, stuff I'm really happy about. I feel very confident with this version, and I hope you guys like the changes.
0.83 Changelist:
- Changed Debt/Favor system
- Changed Standing (reputation) system
- Changed Acquisition standard move
- Added Barter standard move
- Added Wild Jump standard move
- Changed Assessment standard move
- Removed Codex Entries
- Added Data Points
- Updated templating of Face Adversity standard move
- Updated templating of Get Involved standard move
- Rewrote Launch Assault and Open Fire to be clearer
- Quick start rules
- Removed separate 'Gadgets'
- Changed Gear system
- Folded Gadgets into 'Career Kits' for Gear
- Changed Crew system
- Skill changes:
- - Academic: Learning
- - Clandestine: Interrogation
- - Commercial: Trade, Procurement, Broker, Bribe
- - Explorer: Survivalist
- - Industrial: Dismantle
- - Personality: Fame, Contacts, Performance, Subversion
- - Scoundrel: Criminal, Schemer, False Identity
- - Starfarer: Traveller, Cosmopolitan, Calibrations
- - Technocrat: Upload (removed), Technophile (added), Data Manipulation, Coding, Hacking
- - Cast time of Wild Jump reduced to 5 seconds, but cooldown increased to 60 seconds. Mana cost remains the same.

If anyone's interested in the reasoning behind any of the changes, or has any questions about them (or spots any parts of the rules I missed with my updates (like Industrial: Tinker)) please feel free to post!

Coming up for 0.84:
- Revamping/rewriting ship gameplay rules (finally!)
- Premade characters
- Quick Start scenarios
- GM Moves

The “handful” of Crew is left specifically vague. Consider them to be extras in a movie/show. You get a few named secondary characters (the 3 ones you name/define at the start) and there may be others who are tertiary. It leaves both the GM and the player a bit of leeway. I’m a fan of not getting too bogged down in hard rules, being just vague enough to allow the GM to stretch to their most comfortable position.

From playtest experience, while it is a bit odd when more than one player picks the same Skill, it doesn’t overly impact the quality of the game. That said, the main duplicate skills are because Origins are entirely composed of duplicates from the careers (well, except for the individual Stat boost). I feel it would be more detrimental to limit who can take what skill. If two players feel that their character concepts benefit from the Reputation skill, then so be it.

Subversion: Technically, the first part of subversion is rather redundant with the changes to Assessment; I’ll be sure to change that. A Seduction/Charm basic move exists already; it’s one of the ways you can make an Assessment of a person using your Influence or Physique, or how you can Face Adversity using your Influence or Physique. It’s not a Move in and of itself, it’s a way that you can accomplish a Move. Subversion allows you to use a Codex Entry about someone (gained through making an Assessment) to manipulate/control them.

Performance: Thanks! That one went through a few revisions until I found something I liked. Glad it works for you.

Gadgets Slot: :P Already changed in the next version.

Scoundrel: That’s interesting! In the dozen+ playtests I’ve done, Scoundrel hasn’t been selected all that often (the lowest being Military, the highest being Explorer). Though obviously that’s just personal experience, it would be cool to track that. Maybe a poll or something :P Is it the theme of Scoundrel or a particular skill that attracts you to it?

Experiment/Tinker: This one is a bit risky if the GM plays with Rules-As-Written. However, the limiting factor will be the setting itself, and it is definitely constrained by GM approval. Creating Green Lantern rings should not be an acceptable goal unless the table agrees that it fits with the setting. The implicit requirement of all the Moves is acceptable, reasonable goals and methods. Previously mentioned was using Launch Assault to take on a mech with a stick. That kind of stuff is disingenuous, following the letter of the rules rather than the spirit. I’m of the opinion that insulating the Moves in layers of caveats and restrictions greatly limits their flexibility, making the system as a whole far too rule-heavy.

Faster: Ah good catch, that’s a throwback to when combat was more detailed/crunchy. I’ve already rewritten it, but I forgot to paste it over the old one. The new ‘Faster’ is a lot less mechanics driven and a lot more narrative/descriptive; it allows you to describe yourself doing things a normal human couldn’t accomplish; catch bullets, run up walls, jump super far. Basically cyber-ninja.

Again, thanks for your feedback. The big thing I’ve taken away from these is what I need to cover in the more in-depth description of the moves and the overall philosophy of the game. Stuff like the implied rather than explicit social Moves and the table-approval of ‘freeform’ moves need guidelines how to adjudicate them.

Hoooooly crap that is some stellar feedback! Thank you so much! I'll try to write up my thoughts on it once I've given it the consideration it deserves, but right off the bat: fantastic stuff.

Whoops! Thanks for the heads up,  the link was indeed borked. Fixed.

And yeah, that is indeed the way larger combats work in Uncharted Worlds; the camera is 'pulled out', and the roll determines the result of that encounter, not the granularity. This allows the participants and the GM to describe the combat the way they see fit. It was a pretty big philosophical decision that happened a few months ago. I grew less enamored with the 'whittle down hitpoints' style system, and felt that narrative should definitely trump numbers. That's why enemies don't have hitpoints at all; (to swipe a line from J M Straczynski) they die at the speed of plot.

So far, it's worked well to keep the story flowing; that said, combats have never been the most exciting part of RPing for me, and I totally get that some prefer a bit more granularity.

Hi there Vincent/Lumpley, could I bother you for a hack forum for Uncharted Worlds. Been working on it for a year, and as I get more playtests I feel like it would be a good place to divide up the feedback and various development.

Thanks!
- Sean Gomes

Uncharted Worlds v0.75 available here

Couple of big changes;

- Open Fire and Launch Assault are now "10+ you succeed, 7-9 you succeed but the GM chooses 1 or more consequences" like other moves. I know I explained my reasoning for having a player-chosen consequence even on a 10+, and I still feel that it was sound reasoning, BUT I received the question so often from various sources, that I grudgingly accepted that it doesn't feel right. Players weren't grokking it. So I changed it; 10+ is a lot nicer, 7-9 is considerably harsher.

- Faction reputation descriptors. Debt and Favor are still in the game, but players now have a semi-fixed word that describes what a Faction thinks of them. This descriptor is used by the GM to give them a cue when they play as the Faction. Descriptors come in five varieties; great, good, neutral, bad and terrible; earn enough Favor with a Faction, and you can choose a new, better descriptor (example: you were considered 'Mistrusted (Bad)' or 'Dangerous (Bad)' by the Galactic Police, but after earning enough Favor with them, you can go from Bad to Neutral; maybe you'll choose to be 'Useful (Neutral)' or 'Cautious (Neutral)'. Check out page 18 for more info.

Plus there are a bunch of smaller changes, like shuffling around the career skills, having a fixed amount of 'Narrative Wounds' (wounds defined by words rather than numbers), adding Codex Entries (a permanent information-based +1 that you gain through the Assessment move, to reward curiosity)  and changing the way Get Involved works (it now upgrades a roll from 6- to 7-9, or 7-9 to 10+, rather than just giving a +1).

If folks have the chance, I invite any of you to give the rules a read-through; I'd sincerely appreciate any and all feedback, suggestions or questions. I'll be popping in regularly to answer any queries while I prepare myself for the next phase of development (seriously, it surprises me just how much anxiety the whole Kickstarter/publishing causes me. If anyone has any experience or advice about <i>that</i>...)

Thanks for the questions! I'll try to address them as best I can :)

How are finding the harm rules work? I'm very interested in whether the various injuries types are compelling enough.

So far the injuries have been a great boon for myself as a GM to raise the stakes. I had a character who took a pretty big fall, and ended up with a mangled arm and bleeding wound in his helmet. From that point on, he was forced to Face Adversity for a couple of pivotal actions; Once using Physique to overcome the pain of his twisted arm to climb a ladder (partial success; ended up tearing more muscles and doing further damage. Hope he has enough Favor to request a surgeon). The other using Mettle, to take a shot with his pistol despite the blood that was leaking from his forehead into his eye. In this way, the injuries play like the Fate System's 'Tags'; something to compel at just the right (i.e.: most disastrous) moment.

Personally, I really enjoyed it. "Seeing" the state of the players after a particularly action-packed session felt nice. Heck, more than one player took pride in their scars and bruises, and it added a lot of flavor when interacting with NPCs.

Also, how does enemy armor or shields play out, or other force disparities? As written, I don't see anything that would account for that. I seem to be just as likely to "take out" a heavily armored foe with a stick as I am to take out a nekked dude with a las cannon.

In theory, yes. This is my "16 hp dragon"; there's a very nice article about how in Dungeon World, the dragon only has 16 hp; in theory it could get one-shot by a level 1 character with a lucky hit. BUT what's important is not its stats, but the puzzle and danger and unapproachable aura it has. Just because they can mechanically, doesn't mean they should be able to narratively. In the same way in Uncharted Worlds, armor on enemies is a purely narrative convention. It's there to add color, and/or to add an extra component to the "puzzle" of overcoming the current situation. If a player would go after a Titan Suit -wearing space marine with a stick, he wouldn't roll anything; there's no way he's going to succeed. What does he think he is, an Ewok? In more questionable situations (conventional weapons vs heavy armor, or enemies with superior cover, etc), my question would be "how are you overcoming their armor?" or "they're really well entrenched behind cover, how are you going to get a good shot at them?".

As for the nekkid dude v. las cannon... well, I probably wouldn't even ask for a roll either. Dude be dead, yo.

Another observation/question:  both of your basic moves for violence work like this...

Roll +stat.  On 10+ succeed but pick 1; 7-9 succeed if you let the GM pick 2.
 - There are a number of surviving enemies
 - The attack causes unwanted collateral damage
 - Your side suffers harm during the attack
 - Your side ends up in a dangerous/costly position

Overall I really like this, but I'm concerned that there's never any "clean" success.  Say it's just me and another guy in a gun fight on the ship.  I can never just take him out, right?  On a 10+, I have to pick something.  So I either pick "there are a number of surviving enemies" (meaning he's still up and--I assume--fighting) or one of the other options that escalates the situation.  I roll 10+ again, same situation.  Etc., etc.  The fight can't end unless I accept some cost or escalation.

How does that work in play?  Is that what you want?

That is indeed part of the design. The thing is, the violence moves are very "big picture", compared to more traditional combat rolls. They represent a phase or possibly the entirety of an exchange of violence. A single roll of "Open Fire" could translate into multiple exchanges of small arms fire while dodging and moving from cover to cover. I encourage my players to play out/describe the results of the roll as a series of action sequences without further rolling; we know the results, now we want to see how we're going to get there. It allows for some fun action without worrying about rolls or outcomes (since we know how it's going to end), and we collectively try to steer the unfolding events towards that conclusion. Don't know if you saw that Elevator Scene from Captain America 2: Winter Soldier previews in theaters? I see that as a single "Launch Assault" roll, telling us that he's going to succeed, but will take some damage. Then the whole sequence plays out, he gets bashed a couple of times, but ultimately he gets to be a badass.

I definitely didn't want "clean" fights. A gun fight between two people ending in one dead and the other completely unscathed and with no consequences doesn't move a story forward. "Your side ends up in a dangerous/costly position" could happen a LOT later, when your opponent's family/clan/Faction/lawyers show up to dismantle you. Or heck, maybe you'll just get arrested by local authorities. Or maybe one of your NPC crew members greatly disaproves of your use of deadly force.

As for "surviving enemies", that one is a bit two-edged. It's probably the cleanest, if you think about it. Surviving doesn't necessarily mean able-bodied or actively violent. When summarizing, you omitted the most important part of the violence Moves: "Describe your goals and tactics". You can't succeed if you don't state what you want to accomplish. Now, obviously if you just want the guy dead, then taking "he survives" kinda goes against your stated goal. But, again, these moves are representative of an extended encounter; surviving enemies could be fleeing or withdrawing, or they could be surrendering, or injured, or incapacitated. But they're still alive, and now you have to deal with that situation.

Ultimately, if the fight is one-sided/simple enough that you can take out the enemy without cost or consequence, then it's probably not an Open Fire or Launch Assault; it would be a simple Face Adversity.

Hope that answers your questions! If you have any more, shoot them my way; I try to check these forums at least once a week (busy busy!). I appreciate the interest! :D