Beyond: Adventures in Hazardous Space

"Beyond is a sci-fi RPG, based on the successful Apocalypse World and Dungeon World systems, that's all about playing the sorts of space adventures that make for great TV, movies and books."

The flavour: co-op adventure on the edges of known space and Beyond.

The design goal: produce the system I’d love to use for RPG'ing any (or all) of my favorite future space TV shows, movies and books

A few of the design principles I’ve endeavored to follow:
•   The characters are the stars of the show
•   Back the fiction all the way
•   Any character can do (or try to do) anything (aka ‘railroading sucks’)
•   When tech can do everything, Expertise rules
•   Future tech, alt tech, aliens, starships, sci-fi combat, space settings - they’re all cool but keep the complexity to the fiction
•   Players can use their favorite setting, including all its own tech
•   Borrow techniques from successful TV shows and movies
•   Death to accounting
• (And again) the focus is on the characters and what they do

What Beyond isn’t:
• Military sci-fi – think Firefly rather than Starship Troopers
• Full Cyberpunk – Beyond has implants and hacking, but not cyber-reality
• Post apocalypse/alt-earth – Earth is just another planet (probably)
• Social/political – more action focused (every character can influence but the overall flavor is co-op adventure)

I'm sure there's a lot more work to be done, especially around things that we've taken for granted or and getting key concepts across to people who aren't familiar with the game.

There's also a whole lot still to come, mainly for the GM (Episodes, Factions, NPCs, Foes, Locations, Adapting Beyond, Hazards, etc.), but there's more playbooks I want to add for players plus a ton of examples and of course things like quick ref Player and GM sheets.

However, there should (hopefully) be everything here you need (assuming a willing GM) to play and enjoy some sci-fi adventuring based on the Apocalypse.

All feedback gratefully appreciated:
- What do you like?
- What doesn't work as well as it should?
- What’s good enough? 
- What wants or needs to be better??
- What needs major surgery?

https://drive.google.com/folderview?id=0BzRDxotrnPmTS1MxMnZDZW5GcVE

Now at player draft version 1.33: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BzRDxotrnPmTNGktN1NLclh0am8/view?usp=sharing

Underlying content is proving robust, but have clarified wording in several places (most notably on the basic moves and dropped one basic move), reorganized a few parts to make it easier to navigate, and made other tweaks.

Also, we're looking for 1-2 more people for the core playtest group.  Gaming is via video Tuesdays 4pm PST / 7pm EST. 
If you would like some sci-fi gaming and are good with providing feedback, please get in touch.

This is cool - good work! You've got some really well-designed class moves - pretty much all the rolled moves on the Hotshot for instance. One thing sticks out straight away and I think it needs to be rebuilt completely - the Expert stat. If everyone has Expert +3, and their class moves roll+Expert, they're going to miss less than 10% of the time! That might be your intention, but I personally try to keep failure a threat if I'm having them roll at all. I mean in the first place, your players should only roll when an uncertain outcome is interesting. If you think a class should be able to succeed at something 100% of the time - if you think the possibilities offered by giving the player that power are more interesting than uncertain outcomes - just remove the roll and give them a guarantee: "When you do this, this happens."

(By the way I'm getting my probabilities from AnyDice. AnyDice is a really great website for sorting out probabilities and everyone who's designing a game should use it!)

That aside, consider getting rid of your Expert stat entirely - there's no problem with having 4 stats. Monsterhearts does, and it's fantastic! And really, I don't think the game would suffer if the Hacker rolled+Geek or +Sharp for their moves instead of +Expert. Do you?

Right now your setting creation mechanics on page 6 are very vague and unhelpful. Johnstone has a really, really good setup for creating new settings in his game Evil of the Stars - take a look at it! So instead of saying "Are there aliens? Friendly? Unfriendly? Both? Can you play them as characters?", offer a set of evocative choices like Johnstone does there - have something like this:

"The aliens... (Choose 1 or 2)

• Do not exist. We are alone in the universe.
  Are long dead.
  Are basically like us.
  Are disturbing and incomprehensible. (Basically for these last two - can you communicate with them or not?)

Then you could have a questionnaire on the degree to which the galaxy is integrated - is there a big empire, is there some kind of galactic federation, do people generally keep to themselves except for trade and geo(astro?)political concerns, etc.

More broadly: On stuff like the Captain's move Starship:

"When you lose your ship and spend time searching for a replacement ship, roll +Expert."

Don't just say "spend time" - tell us how much time. Also, let the player pick their own Advantages for the replacement ship and leave the Disadvantages to the GM. Maybe get rid of the roll and say "Pick 3 advantages, the GM picks a disadvantage and you can get the ship in a day or so." Given their ship is the core of their class, the Captain should be guaranteed consistent access to a ship of a certain quality.

Also, try to avoid moves which give a simple +1 - stuff like the Hotshot's move Ace. If you're going to give a +1, give it to specific actions or circumstances, like doing cool stunts or fighting on when the odds are against you. Use it as a way to encourage certain behaviors - +1 to Talk Them Around with intimidation and violence, for instance.

Lastly, you've also got around 4 names for the MC - Creative Director, Collaborative Director, Producer, Game Master. Have one term and stick with it. Director & Game Master feel a bit too dictatorial for me. Script Editor could work - they're the biggest cheese in serial TV shows as far as I can remember, like the director is for movies.

And you know, the fact that I felt compelled to comment at all is a good sign! The idea's got some juice in it - keep working and it'll be great.

P.S. The NIP idea is really interesting.

Thanks Spigot, really helpful feedback.

You're entirely right about the setting creation mechanics being too crude.  An evocative questionnaire is definitely where this is going (I too think Johnstone Metzger has done a great job with his setup for Evil of the Stars).  I just need to get a few other things tidied away first and get my head clear again for this part. 
I love your suggestions - Mind if I use them to help me reboot this section?

The Captain's Starship move used to say "spend a week" but I dropped it as being too prescriptive - looks like it needs to come back again.  Starship wasn't the only move this happened to - I'll have a dig through and put time parameters back in again.

Your advice on making +1 bonuses specific to certain actions or circumstances is good.  That’s the case for some bonuses but not others - I’ll have a look at those (and hope play testing will shake out any that are still too broad).

The whole Attributes, +Expert and +bonuses question gets really interesting. 
The character attributes we normally associate with RPGs ’re make sense in a world where there is little technology.  But what do you when you have settings full of tech that can make any attribute redundant?

• Need to do some heavy lifting? Use a grav lifter
• Need to shoot a rapidly moving target? Use smart ammo
• Need to access some obscure information? Use a search engine
• Need lightning fast reactions? Get a reflex upgrade
• Want to make the best decision about something? Consult an AI
• Etc.

The ‘social’ attribute is the only one that survives this sort of assessment, and that’s only because humanity hasn’t yet worked out how to make computers good at social interactions – when we do…

I could have made the attribute system in Beyond cope with things like reflex upgrades.  But the attribute system is a very crude instrument to use for the enormous range of character enhancements possible in the settings people are likely to play in Beyond.  The moves system, on the other hand, is ideal for this: it can be as fine grained as we want and is much more descriptive to boot.

I’ve gone with the approach that the character’s expertise is king (when technology can do anything, the determining factor becomes how well you use it to perform different tasks = expertise); their natural attributes a poor second.  Rather than abandon attributes entirely, they’ve been retained to add dimension to the character’s actions outside their areas of expertise.

Using +Expert for all playbook moves is also a conscious design decision based on the idea that tech will do what it does, irrespective of who activates it.

The result is that, in Beyond, characters are defined far more by the moves they take than by their attributes.
This is different to how most of us are used to attributes working – a point that may need to be explained clearly in the rules.

What, then, are the best values for +Expert and the other attributes?  Running the math, gives the following:

• +3 is probably the sweet spot for a characters expertise: successful a lot of the time but with the occasional fail (~50% chance of a 6- every 8 rolls)
• +2 is the sweet spot for a favoured attribute: successful most of the time, but expect a fail every few rolls (~50% chance every 3-4 rolls)
• +1 is a good place to be for anything you want them to do ok with: mostly successful but fails are frequent (~50% chance every 2 rolls)

Should +Expert start at +2 and require a character development spend to get to +3? The only ‘benefit’ that comes from starting at +2 is that the character has a higher failure rate until they upgrade to +3 (which they will do at the first opportunity if they are playing their class).  Is the game better for requiring that higher failure rate?  I suspect not – hence the decision to start at +3.

Another to getting to the +3 level and is to cap Expert to +2 and let players take the +1 ongoing for a move they can get from a Level Up.  This would mean that +Expert rolls will have regular failures, and even those the character has invested in will fail about every 8 rolls. 

On reflection, capping attributes at max +2 but allowing moves to be pushed to +3 (or even +4) in selected situations may work better overall.

There’s more around the differences between class moves and basic moves and the + levels that are suitable for each of these, but I won’t go into that now.

On stats: I think "expertise" vs. "natural attributes" is a false dichotomy. Stats can mean anything you like! Why not stick the NIP thing on them? You've got a grav lifter, that's P-Handy. You've got the internet hooked up to your brain, that's I-Geek. Yes, you can do stuff way better with tech than without, but you're not trying to simulate a universe here - you're trying to make a game. There should not be one stat which is clearly way better than the others.

I like the focus of it being like a TV show. I think you still need to hone in on the theme a bit more, though. The list of genre options is a little too broad, and the moves and other rules can't possibly support all of them unless there's something a little more concrete than just "cinema" over top. What is it about sci-fi TV shows that you want to highlight?

Differentiating the source of special moves is a neat idea, but (aside from me wanting everything in alphabetical order if possible) the acronym NIP is too close to a slur against Japanese people for me to feel comfortable with it. Not intentional, obviously, but it's kinda hard to unsee on my end.

And again. more helpful feedback, thanks :-)

Currently doing a rework of attributes and bonuses:
- will have Geek, Handy, Sharp and Vibe only, capped to +2. 
- Expertise will become +1 bonus added to rolls for class moves.
- all moves will be based on Geek, Handy, Sharp or Vibe.

Thanks for pointing out about NIP - I'll change that around.  PIN ok?

PIN looks fine. Kind of "tech-y" too (or "not primitive" at least), because of PIN numbers.

Attribute (Expertise) and PIN changes done, plus a bunch of other things. 
All the feedback here (and elsewhere) is proving very helpful, thanks :-)

Playtesting again today. Will put a new version up after I've had a chance to process whatever comes out of this session.

Playtesting with some more classes identified a couple more changes that are worth rolling out some of the other classes too.
The revised attributes/expertise worked really well - even the most sceptical player is happy with it.

Also making progress on more classes - these won't be in the next release but are on their way.

Hopefully just a few more days (other parts of life keep impinging) till the next version is out.

p.s. If you're new to Beyond, suggest you wait for the next version as the changes are widespread.

Here's the latest version of Beyond (vA1.42) 

Biggest changes are:
- Rework of Expertise/Attributes and bonuses (the revised version works nicely in play)
- Changes to the basic moves (one removed, two rewritten and at least one other tweak)
- All the classes have been updated (mainly around starting moves, but other changes as well)
- Also added names thanks in the doc to feedback contributors (Spigot, do you want me to use your name, if so, what is it?)

Currently working on the setting creation and more character classes. 
Ongoing task of making the text more thematic.
Still to follow up on Spigots observation about too many different titles for the GM.

My first question is, what's the difference between this and Uncharted Worlds? What sort of stories does this do differently?

There's obviously room for multiple AW hacks in closely related genres, but Monster of the Week and Monsterhearts tell very different stories.

My first question is, what's the difference between this and Uncharted Worlds? What sort of stories does this do differently?

There's obviously room for multiple AW hacks in closely related genres, but Monster of the Week and Monsterhearts tell very different stories.

That's a good question.

I don't know Sean Gomes' Uncharted Worlds very well, but it looks like we're trying different takes on a similar setting.  (There's also Johnstone Metzger's Evil in the Stars, John Ryan's Rogue Trader Apocalypse, and others that appear in the brainstorming forum.  I guess many of us have been influenced by similar sources and have similar gaming interests.)

Beyond, is focussed on personal adventure, with an emphasis on personal stories and tech.  There are no trade rules in Beyond, nor are there rules for power/influence. The faction rules that are in development are more like fronts to help flesh out the setting, rather than being central to the play.  Starships are a major part of the setting but entirely optional as far as the characters are concerned (it's been bothering me that the first class people see when they scan through Beyond is the Captain with its ship based emphasis - but with that many classes it makes sense to put them in alphabetical order, so that will just have to wait until I have some classes with names that go ahead of it in in the alphabet).

My impression of UW (I've only done a quick scan over it), is that it's more space opera oriented, with an emphasis on trade, factions and power/influence.   The Intro blurb emphasises "The ship is home" and "Debt makes the galaxy go round" (which is very different from Beyond's emphasis on personal stories, aliens and tech).

I wish Sean all the best with Uncharted Worlds and if Beyond wasn't as far developed when I first noticed UW I'd be happily helping him with it.  However, given the potential for overlap between the two, I've been deliberately staying well clear.

(FYI, Beyond has its genesis in a Traveller conversion for Savage Worlds I put together in 2010, that soon evolved into something more.  I started hacking Dungeon World shortly after our local gaming group adopted switched to it - my first exposure to Apocalypse Powered gaming and I'm hooked - and the two threads quickly merged into the early (internal) Apocalypse powered drafts of Beyond.  Looking back over my drive, there's over 50 drafts/reworkings of Apocalypse powered Beyond that predate the version I first posted here, and more than twice that number from its Savage days.)

Does this answer your question?

I like your clear and direct writing style and would like to see more Tools to generate settings and Adventures.

I like your clear and direct writing style and would like to see more Tools to generate settings and Adventures.

Working on that (just been a bit busy with the rest of RL).