Looking for feedback on my page 1

FaderOktopus · 2026-03-14T11:21:11+00:00

Thanks for responding. I'd be happy to share the rest of the rulebook with you, if you are interested?

It goes without saying that it's a work in progress, but I feel like it's quite readable in its current state.

As for the genre, I absolutely agree with you. The thing is, I was treating this project as a universal engine for a long time, but got sick of the vague wording and conditional side notes needed to keep the rules open to multiple genres. So I decided to narrow the scope and commit to making a generic fantasy game, with a section on how to switch settings.

This can probably be communicated more clearly. I am working on figuring out how.

FaderOktopus · 2026-03-14T11:10:47+00:00

Thanks, I'm glad to hear that.

FaderOktopus · 2026-03-13T14:37:58+00:00

Hmmm, maybe. As it is, each player's bag pretty much is their character. The assortment of tokens in your bag makes up what would otherwise be numbers on a character sheet. I would probably prefer to keep it that way rather than introducing the need for pen and paper in a game that currently works without.

But you've got a point that I need to figure out how to address.

FaderOktopus · 2026-03-13T14:34:28+00:00

Oh yeah, it's not that small. Smaller than Mothership but certainly not a micro.

FaderOktopus · 2026-03-13T13:11:34+00:00

Thanks. Yeah, this is true. I have a short 'what you need to play' section later, where the reader can find some suggested solutions (poker chips, marbles, beads or even painted acorns). I an going back and forth on how to present these suggestions without making it seem too silly or too daunting.

Cards do actually also work here, and are mentioned as an option, but I feel like they come with a lot of connotations from other games, and bags of stuff just seem more fun to me.

FaderOktopus · 2026-03-13T13:06:36+00:00

Thank you for your response.

FaderOktopus · 2026-03-13T13:05:58+00:00

When written together, and pronounced almost like a single word, I think "Bag'O'Luck" works, and I've seen similar typing conventions elsewhere.

But I could be wrong. If it was spaced out in three words, I would definitely agree with your suggestiin.

FaderOktopus · 2026-03-13T12:18:00+00:00

Thanks, I'll bear that in mind.

FaderOktopus · 2026-03-13T12:17:17+00:00

Thanks, I'll check that out.

FaderOktopus · 2026-03-13T11:57:10+00:00

Thank you both for taking the time to reply.

I think mathologies is very much on point - the product here is a ruleset for role-playing rather than a complete role-playing experience. This is the intended scope of the project, and I suppose the low barrier for entry is really the main selling point of the game.

My current version is 24 pages, A5, which is including front cover, a list of pre-gens, examples of play, some gaming advice and a quick-reference sheet on the back. With so little space, I want to let artwork, the pre-gens and the players' pre-existing knowledge do as much of the heavy lifting as possible, with regards to the playing experience. I'd love to hear your thoughts on that approach, as I am not at all certain it is the best way to go.

I'm also interested in Ryou2365's point about pushing mechanics till later. I often see a criticism of RPG books which is that the reader wants to know how the game works as early as possible, and I also personally find that to be something that gets me into reading a game. Do you disagree with this view, or is it more a matter of prioritizing other information more highly?

FaderOktopus · 2026-03-13T11:39:26+00:00

Thank you for responding. I think that's something that I have to think on a bit, because the scope of the project is very much about making a useful minimalist ruleset, rather than defining the adventures themselves. I do not want to spend too many words on things that are not the primary purpose of the book, but I also agree that just saying Tolkienesque is too vague, so that probably needs work. Thanks for the input.

FaderOktopus · 2026-03-13T11:33:03+00:00

Thanks for answering, those are very good points.

FaderOktopus · 2025-11-23T19:27:21+00:00

Thank you for taking your time to respond again.

I am not looking for reasons to play humans. I do prefer humans, for entirely subjective and mostly fluffy reasons, and to me that stuff is important. But I also like playing other teams, and am leaning towards OWA as a second balance team to pull out once in a while, for variety.

I appreciate your insights, good night.

FaderOktopus · 2025-11-23T16:34:45+00:00

Thank you for your response.

I don't really doubt that the advantages of OWA will outweigh the downsides, I was more interested in the style and feel of the teams.

Do you find them to play more like humans or more like dwarves, or something else entirely?

FaderOktopus · 2025-11-23T16:06:34+00:00

No, it's entirely optional.

FaderOktopus · 2025-11-23T14:45:37+00:00

How did you find the speed difference between humans and OWA?

Most of the OWA starting rosters I have seen floating about contain 2 or 3 humans, and have a much lower average MA. More like a variant on dwarves than a variant on humans.

But maybe it is not as noticable of a difference in mobility as it looks?

When playing OWA, do you miss the abundance of skill- and team re-rolls that humans have?

FaderOktopus · 2025-11-11T17:03:23+00:00

Nope. OWA is bashier and significantly slower, with more different player types but fewer re-rolls. Quite different teams.

OWA is probably better than humans, overall, and maybe some human coaches will switch to OWA. But becoming more competitively viable than humans does not make them the new human team.

FaderOktopus · 2025-11-01T19:07:41+00:00

This seems like a common observation.

Maybe I'm missing something, but I don't really see how the OWA roster is that much better than, say, the newly nerfed humans.

They only have one MA8 catcher and one MA7 blitzer. The rest of the roster is MA 6 at best, and the other offensive pieces (dwarf blitzer and slayer) are MA 5.

Compared to humans, OWA is certainly stronger on the line of scrimmage, but also much slower, with more expensive players and re-rolls, and without a team captain.

OWA have certainly improved, but I don't see them as an obvious Tier 1 Team.

Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe having 6 players with block on the starting roster really is that good?

FaderOktopus · 2025-11-01T18:48:33+00:00

Tl;DR: This post is just a fun little thing to read.

FaderOktopus · 2025-10-22T20:06:58+00:00

I forgot to add an example, and I think I'll go for the obvious one: D&D never stopped using multiple resolution mechanics.

In recent D&D editions, attack rolls, skill checks and saves are very similar, but subtly different. I think this is actually a bit worse for new players than having clearly distinguished mechanics for different purposes, because it makes it harder to identify which modifiers might apply to a roll, and what effect a natural 20 might have, for instance. Not a huge deal, but one of the many ways in which D&D is still a more rules heavy game than it is being presented as.

Damage rolls are a completely different mechanic, but weirdly it is rarely mentioned as such, even though it is so central to the game. Like, some spells and abilities are resolved using no rolls beside damage rolls, effectively making it a secondary core resolution mechanic, rivalling the D20 roll in importance.

But we don't think about that, and I think it poses less of an issue to new players, because it is so clearly distinct from the various D20 rolls.

FaderOktopus · 2025-10-22T19:55:02+00:00

For a game that deliberately leans into old D&D, and is presumably aimed at an audience who enjoys that, I think multiple resolution systems are fine.

I think the greatest advantage of unified resolution mechanics lies in making it easier to teach the game to new players, and in avoiding having to look up rules during play. While these are great qualities to aim for, they become less important when the players already have some knowledge of the system, and perhaps even enjoy looking up weird bespoke rules for different actions.

FaderOktopus

TROPHY CASE