Here is the mostly complete chapter on making your adventurers. Existing EABA players can compare the structure to the prior version for ease of use. New arrivals to the playtest have a brand new sandbox to take a dump in...

Differences to note:
1) Altered point structure from EABA v1
2) Abstracted weight system (optional) for encumbrance
3) Abstracted money system (optional) for purchases
4) New traits like "Neat Trick"

I figured I get this chapter out in time for the weekend, so people had more free time for the initial reading and responses, of which I expect there will be many.

Edit: July 8 2011
The file has been changed to the latest version. Many changes and tweaks based on comments have been implemented. Some have not. I lightened up all the backgrounds from 30% from 20%, but they are still coming out far darker in the pdf than in the page layout program. As an example, the added watermark is 20% red, which should be the same shade as the background red on page 3.7, but is not. That's a problem on my end, but I am trying to address those who found the color backgrounds too intense.

So, go check if your pet peeve got addressed or your suggested got implemented! If you are reading this for the first time, this version of the file addresses comments made up to about #186 (page 10). Comments on this version will probably be after that.

Edit: July 16 2011
The version attached to this message reflects the latest tweaks. I'm still having problems getting the color balance right on the backgrounds. The green and red are about right, the blue still needs some work. In addition, the icons need to be given transparent backgrounds. I think my distiller settings made the standard black text a little muzzier, but that's not important at this point. The content and language is the key things. There are a few finicky misplaced graphics that got through this edit, I'm working on them now.

some of the changes:
advantages reworded
major section icons added as visual bookmarks
basic and advanced character design folded into one section
character sheet allows for 10 skills
savings and income added to character sheet
character sheet examples inserted into text
encumbrance tweaks
sample character (Durnok) fully stat'd out

Edit: July 29 2011
This is more or less the final form, unless someone spots something awful that needs to be changed. Boons and banes is still incomplete, pending the powers chapter comments, and I have not yet stat'd the probably 6 pre-designed characters. You can get a good idea of the final character sheet appearance by zooming in on things.

Had a quick read-through, and I like the new scale for AP and SP. Separate points for powers is also feeling pretty good. The abstracted system for income and savings doesn't exactly float my boat, but I certainly can understand those who want to get rid of the "pay two copper farthings to the barkeep, plz".

Had a good read through, and generally very good stuff, well-laid out.

Some specific comments:

1) Leadership skill - I feel this could be usefully broken out into two skills, one retaining the name Leadership, and being used to deal with issuing commands or getting obedience/cooperation by force of personality or perceived personal authority from individuals and groups. The second might be called Influence, and be more in the area of interpersonal relationships, rapport, that sort of thing, generally focusing on a softer approach.

Maybe its just that I have a hard time with the idea of Oratory and Seduction being specializations of the same skill...

2) Training packages - I would make it clearer that more then one skill package can be taken, if desired. (If in fact that is the case.)

I like the grey bars used to show major topic headers ... one of the things I disliked about the original EABA was that you couldn't tell the difference between such things ... well, not as easily, as the Triangles meant to do such things were used for Notes and other things as well. I find this preferable, anyway.

Phil McGregor

If I understand it correctly, and I am just starting to read it in detail, I don't at all like what seems to be an increased coarseness in the Attribute and Skill point purchase system.

IF I understand it correctly, then it would seem that the new system will dramatically cut down on the number of skills you can have at a reasonable level ... which, FWIW, I thought that even EABA 1.1 didn't do an entirely wonderful job of.

For a medieval fantasy game, or a pickup game not expected to last more than a few sessions the number of skills were OK ... barely ... but for a game meant to deal with an extended campaign and with an extended modern or SF campaign, no, it didn't work well. The Skills were simply too broad, and, therefore, there were too few of them.

Now, with this change, there will be even fewer.

You may be able to model some of this with Free Skills, Specialisations (except for their relative pointlessness as written ... +2 Specialisations and simply take +1d to the core skill? Works for some things but not for others, I would expect)

Then, with Packages, why limit to 3 +0d skills?

When I did my Army Reserve training, many years ago, we were familiarised with the SLR (FN FAL) Rifle, the F1 SMG, Browning Hi-Power pistol, M-72 LAW, Hand Grenades and the M-60 GPMG and had the chance, depending on the specialty you chose to pursue, to familiarise with more infantry support weapons or, as in my case, Communications (Radio, Telephone etc - all at about +0d level, I'd say: which makes, depending on how you slice and dice things, Rifle +0d, Pistol & SMG +0d, Infantry Support Weapons +0d [or, possibly, Your Nation's Personal Infantry Weapons +0d and Your Nations Infantry Support Weapons +0d), Basic Military Tactics +0d, Communications +0d and Military Regulations and Culture +0d - for a whole lot more than 3 at +0d) ... rules don't allow a reasonable representation of this ... IMO at least ;-)

The way EABA v1.1 worked, while not perfect, seems (to me) to be far better than the way V2 has been pointed in this area. But its probably like not liking X.Y page numbering, I suspect ;-)

Still and all, my group won't be adopting it as is, but will retain the v1.1 model, with some modifications.

B)

Phil

Well, I'm open to suggestions...

A "skill", even in EABA v1, represents a significant investment of time in learning that ability, enough so that it should be a broad enough knowledge for that amount of time. Any point-based system will have some degree of coarseness. Yes, you can take someone who has never used a gun before and give them the basics of safety and operation in an afternoon, but you cannot really say that this is a game-useful level of skill, otherwise, PC's being PC's, within one year, every PC would have 365 new skills...

And the rules do explicitly say that some genres will have some of the skills broken down into multiple types. A fantasy campaign could have multiple skills for different melee weapons. A modern campaign could force multiple skills for different firearm types. This is very genre-dependent, so as part of the EABA design philosophy, the basic rules should not force choices where the choices are irrelevant or meaningless. James Bond does not need to know the difference between a glaive and a main-gauche. Conan does not even know about guns, let alone the difference between a machine pistol and a flintlock rifle.

The limit on the number of starting skills is an artificial one, and I'm open to arguments against it. The idea was to make sure a starting character had a strong focus.

The way it is currently designed is what I thought was best. If there is a better way, I need to be shown what it is, since if I'd seen it to begin with, I would have designed it that way.

admin wrote:


Yeah, I get that. What seems to me to be a ... limitation? ... specifically with Packages is the limitation to three sub-"skills" only. Now, while my Army Reserve training was hardly comprehensive, it *did* consist of (over two years) the equivalent of 2.5 months training (about 6 weeks in camps during Uni hols plus training on weekends for the rest). +0d skills would cover the smallarms and +0d the support weapons (LAW and GPMG), +0d; the Tactics, +0d for Military Rules/Law etc. coupled with "specialist" training in Signalling, also probably +0d. That's at least four, depending on how you want to slice it, and the Signals training was probably +0d+1 by the end.

Basic Training in the Regs is, what, 90 days? More? And they're doing it probably more intensively than we Chocos were ... I just think that the limiting it to three is ... too limiting. YMMV.

As someone else mentioned, there's also the issue of whether you can take more than one package.

If you assume that Basic Training is something like - Your Nations Infantry Smallarms, +0d; YN's Infantry Support Weapons, +0d; TN's Basic Infantry Tactics, +0d and YN's Military Culture (Laws and Regs), +0d ... what about specialty training beyond that?

The Signals package I took was one of several options available - Mortar, Driving and Servicing, Signals just the three I remember. I understand that these were additional courses that normally took place after Basic. They would probably be rated as Radio Comms, +0d; Telephone Comms, +0d; Comm Security at the very least (this was an Infantry Battalion Signals company course, so there was basic theory of comms but no real technical/repair stuff beyond knowing to turn Squelch on and off and changing the battery.

Now, yes, beyond those two Packages, further training over a standard regular enlistment (6-8 years, IIRC) would have bought some or all of those up to a higher level, and more training in more specialised areas would likely have been available ... but that can be subsumed in Age trait. The initial packages, representing, as the Australian Army (perhaps humorously ... and very much optimistically ) referred to me after a year (and about 6 weeks of training) being a "Trained Private" (as opposed to "Recruit Private") ... and I was qualified as a Company Signaller after the second year (again, optimistically).

Most Army Reserve units were expected to be fully trained and ready to be sent overseas (or into combat) within 90 days of a DoW or other callup. Which we all thought was an insanely optimistic assumption.

admin wrote:


OK. I missed that bit! I did say it was the first read through of the rules. That sets my mind considerably more at rest ...

admin wrote:


This approach might be better for beginning and/or casual gamers ... but it really doesn't seem like what my bunch would like. The more detailed approach of the V1.1 rules is more our cup of tea ... so that's probably my blindspot ... I can see that ...

I'd really rather see a rejigging of the EABA V1.1 rule level of detailed control, however, as an option if possible ... though it's probably like the page number thingy, I guess? Or even as an advanced rule? Or even a separate chapter for "Advanced" Character creation?

That's what I am getting at ... the changes seem to overly simplify things ... or, at least, that's the impression I get ... but I didn't have a huge problem with the level of detail/control that we previously had, either ... so maybe I am just obtuse

Phil

They're good points. And if the rules were set in stone, I would not have put them out for review and comment. So, tweaks and adjustments and clarifications to what you see are near-certain. I'll hold off on these until a lot more feedback comes in, however.

Os there a board problem with this? I'm tried to post a reply here twice and it seems to not be showing up.

I'd have to go in and check the settings, but the forum might have a default "bad language" filter. No idea if that would make a difference on your posts, but it is just a thought.