I finally got to playtest Asteria Rising. Feedback seemed overall positive from the two players. Mechanics are what all my notes were on. I'm going to use the character names the players picked for anonymity, Rutabaga & Q. Not all these notes will make sense as there have been changes to the game since the last update on this blog. I haven't posted for some time though and thought you all could use something to read.
I’ve deduced a couple things from the play test. First, character creation by rolling or using the set up standard array is quick. I am quite pleased to know that despite how involved character creation can be for a table-top mine is able to be done in 30-45 minutes for people who are not familiar with the game.
Second, I found that the playtesters would pick Combat Prowess, Skills, and Character Traits based solely off of the name. Most are descriptive enough in their names to where not knowing their exact role in game mechanics doesn’t cause issues for the players. I.e. athletics deals with physical feats not directly related to combat; intrigue deals with something related to deviousness or politics; hacking is clearly computer stuff; so on.
Third, Rutabaga
enjoyed that with class bonuses to Combat Prowess or Skills she could go above the maximum level of 20. I had debated with myself a fair amount if that should be allowed or not. I decided that if someone like Rutabaga wanted a 24 in Mechanics and 25 in Hacking rather than spread those points out for versatility I should let them. It also clearly hindered Rutabaga in areas were she could not use those highly specialized skills, as her character was outside of their element. Rutabaga didn’t feel punished, but anxious to find creative ways to use those abilities.
Fourth, they had some regrets in where they allocated their numbers, but only when they got bad rolls. When they succeeded on really difficult rolls, Rutabaga succeeding on a 1/20 chance roll, they didn’t regret where they placed numbers at all. Rutabaga
and Q were also very pleased when they succeeded those difficult rolls as it felt like a true accomplishment.
Fifth, the players seemed really pleased with how firearms allowed combat to be spread over a larger area, yet also how melee weapons did a lot more damage. It’s balance measure I implemented. The more range a weapon has the less damage it does. However, a sniper rifle will do more damage over time than an arming-sword because there can be up to 700 yards of space where the sniper rifle can attack, while the arming-sword needs to reach an opponent first.
Sixth, the players seemed neutral to how armor worked. They liked that Armor Class (A.C.) absorbed damage, when it was them taking damage. They didn’t seem to get the point of armor types giving resistances [half damage] and weakness [double damage] to certain weapon types.
Seventh, they liked that they had a pool of abilities to pick from regardless of the class they picked. One person opted for an extra attack and another a stun effect.
Eighth, I’ve determined that the Engineer is the most difficult class for beginners. The class features are very powerful; however, the player did not keep track of the utilities. They rarely used their weapon feature [allowed them to switch damage types] nor drone [allowed them to scout and do skill rolls even during combat]. It is a powerful class but also the most involved.
Ninth, it took players a couple rolls to get used to the dice system. The rolls use a twenty-sided dice, yet it success is not determined the same way as in Dungeons & Dragons, which they were more accustomed to. One player figured it out after three rolls; the other took twelve to adjust.
The playtest was successful. The players really did enjoy themselves and want to play again. That desire is the most useful information, as table-tops are expected to have replayability. True, there are one-shots [one time sessions], but people do play campaigns [a series of play sessions] or multiple one-shots.
