Testers Needed for Starsigns


Homebrew and House Rules


Hello. I am in need of GMs who are thinking of starting a new game session to test a creation of mine, that being Starsigns.

Before I explain what those are, allow me to preface this with an explanation. Due to a combination of stale game play and rigid class structures, and the Trait system being...shall we say, expansive, I have created an entirely new system to incorporate into character creation.

My Starsigns are designed to replace the Trait system entirely (Bullied characters with Rich Parents, anyone?) With this system, we are no longer tempted to comb the rules for hours seeking out that perfect +1 bonus, or come up with reasons why it doesn't exist to validate our begging the GMs. In turn, we're no longer required to spend time researching endless Traits to make sure the players didn't misread something. Sure there are other ways to handle this; banning Traits altogether, for example. But, my group likes fun.

Now, characters select a Starsign to be born under, and each one provides several choices to enhance a character concept. By removing the utter flexibility of Traits, Starsign abilities tend to have a bit more oomph to them. These can be small bonus to numbers, or the lifting of certain restrictions on character ideas that would normally take several levels to pull off, and probably aren't very good by that point. As with all things though, I want to make sure my Starsigns aren't causing more problems than they cure.

If anyone is interested in a system like this, I would love feedback that I can incorporate into my Starsigns to promote healthy game play. However, since I don't actually know any of you as people, the only way I can prevent false data from occurring is to be selective in my process. Meaning if you'd like to use my system, send me a message so I can ask you a few questions. In their current phase, my Starsigns will not be made public.

I have been working on these Starsigns for months. This is not a system I spewed out over night. I need the best data I can get.

Thanks!

Brief summary of Starsigns:

The Heart of the Cosmos: Tuning you out is not an option. Mediation benefits everyone...but mostly you.

The Jeweled Ring: Necessity bred invention. You perfected it.

The Knight: Get in there and fight, maggot!

The Magician: For my next trick...I'll need a volunteer.

The Thief: For the discerning PC in you.

The Lover's Locket: You protect far more than a simple picture.

The Caduceus: Side effects may include healing, attribute restoration, temporary hitpoints, and First Aid that does something. Ask your GM if The Caduceus is right for you.

The Ascension: Your metaphysical awareness takes skills to the next level. Or you can Transcend a skill and show the world there's more than one way to skin a cat.

The Unchecked King: Squares? Turns? Movement?? Pieces!? Waiter! "Check" please!

The Hunter: Keep your eye on the prize. Oh, and watch your step.

The Peasant Girl: Homegrown goodness to shore up those weaknesses.

The Fatal Spiral: You must be a glutton for punishment. This WILL all end in tears.

The Lost Sign: 404. Page not found.


I am fairly new to this game, so I wouldn't be the best for this experiment, but can I just talk about the Fatal Spiral for a moment. This WILL all end in tears? I am crying already.

RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 16

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Not to be rude, but what exactly is there to test?

You have a good design goal here, but there's no game mechanics here. Only a list of vague descriptions that come off as a bad joke.


AVoltoro wrote:
I am fairly new to this game, so I wouldn't be the best for this experiment, but can I just talk about the Fatal Spiral for a moment. This WILL all end in tears? I am crying already.

Haha, why are you crying already?


Cyrad wrote:

Not to be rude, but what exactly is there to test?

You have a good design goal here, but there's no game mechanics here. Only a list of vague descriptions that come off as a bad joke.

Er...awful jokes aside, did you have a chance to read my entire post? I mentioned that in their current phase, I would not be making my Starsigns public. I don't want random feedback on them from every Tom, Dick and Harry. That's why I said, if any DMs were thinking about starting a new game, I'd be thrilled if they would message me so I could ask them a few questions about their level of experience. I would send those selected DMs the full document with all the data and design structure. I'm trying to shape my Starsigns in the best way possible, and I don't want to get "false" data from someone with no actual experience in DMing. Sorry for any confusion!

RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 16

Soliciting a private playtest strikes me as rather odd. It's already fairly difficult to get playtest data -- especially when I'm not even sure you have playtested this yourself. Making it private only shoots you in the foot.


Cyrad wrote:
Soliciting a private playtest strikes me as rather odd. It's already fairly difficult to get playtest data -- especially when I'm not even sure you have playtested this yourself. Making it private only shoots you in the foot.

A fair assessment. But I would counter that I'm only interested in factual data, not opinions. Convincing a skeptical person that my system has or has not been playtested serves no practical purpose. Perhaps I set my standards rather high, desiring a controlled test, but I'm willing to take that risk. Thank you for your concern though.

RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 16

Vanity wrote:
Cyrad wrote:
Soliciting a private playtest strikes me as rather odd. It's already fairly difficult to get playtest data -- especially when I'm not even sure you have playtested this yourself. Making it private only shoots you in the foot.
A fair assessment. But I would counter that I'm only interested in factual data, not opinions. Convincing a skeptical person that my system has or has not been playtested serves no practical purpose. Perhaps I set my standards rather high, desiring a controlled test, but I'm willing to take that risk. Thank you for your concern though.

I'm concerned because whenever I see someone ask strangers to playtest for their new homebrew content, most of the time the designer never playtested the content themselves. That's pretty crazy, like a software engineer who doesn't run their code until it reaches the QA department. Exactly what kind of "factual data" are you looking for? Can you give me an example? As an art form, game design is subjective by nature, and I have trouble imagining how a GM will provide a playtest report that doesn't consist of their opinions and subjective observations.

I don't mean to be condescending, but it's hard for anyone to help you if you're taking this approach where you refuse to give any information unless someone "proves" themselves as an experienced GM. Why those standards? Why not players or even inexperienced GMs or other designers? Getting data from multiple perspectives is vital for a game designer. A Disney Imagineer even wrote a book on that.


I think I'm seeing the root of the issue here, but correct me if I'm wrong.

"most of the time the designer never playtested the content themselves". You're suggesting that, due to past experiences, I am very likely to be following that pattern. In order to break that pattern, I must verifiably demonstrate that I am somehow above that.

This, I believe, is where we diverge. I am only seeking qualified GMs who are interested in the concept of my system; that being a replacement for Traits. If one is not interested in said system, then, as far as these boards are concerned at least, why are we speaking at all? That's why I haven't published the Signs for public perusal.

"That's pretty crazy, like a software engineer who doesn't run their code until it reaches the QA department." Another assumption tied into the above.

I did not, in accordance with your example, simply right down a few words and here we are. I've worked on this for months and, as I implied, subjected my Signs to my group. Simply, as you're suggesting, creating something and throwing it onto the internet for someone else to alter, is the same as if I hadn't created it at all. A fantastic waste of everyone's time, wouldn't you agree?

"game design is subjective by nature, and I have trouble imagining how a GM will provide a playtest report that doesn't consist of their opinions and subjective observations." This is where I misspoke.

I said I did not want opinions, when I should have said I did not want unqualified opinions. As the creator of the Signs, I understand that every test I personally run them through must be, by its nature, biased. This is unhelpful. I have no foundation in which I can fall back on to support the Signs' existence. I need data from others to form that backbone. Once I have enough data from a controlled test, my Signs will be made public for anyone to use or comment on as they see fit.

"Why not players or even inexperienced GMs or other designers? Getting data from multiple perspectives is vital for a game designer. A Disney Imagineer even wrote a book on that." The proverbial meat and potatoes of the subject.

As a forum user, let alone a D&D-based one, you must be keenly aware of the problems that arise due to interpretation of rules. It happens too often that useful, or even correct, tidbits are completely over-flooded by a tidal wave of people who have an opinion. Having to pick and choose which comment has factual standing and which does not is an exercise in frustration, and costs time that could better be spent reading every rule Pathfinder ever created on my own. Not that I have that in me, but the time would be better spent that way.

When new medicines are created and finally stabilized they don't simply release the product into the world just to "see what happens". There are controlled tests which produce the best results possible. While I understand this is not medicine, I would remind you that my example differs in scale, not in kind.


Vanity wrote:
When new medicines are created and finally stabilized they don't simply release the product into the world just to "see what happens". There are controlled tests which produce the best results possible. While I understand this is not medicine, I would remind you that my example differs in scale, not in kind.

I somehow think that the reasons behind not unleashing new drugs for testing into the world and you not releasing your homebrew have some minor differences in motive/kind.

If you ever decide to post it publicly, glad to give it a read, and decide after my initial reaction whether or not to give it a go.

My knee-jerk reaction just based on your overview is "But why?".

Vanity wrote:
By removing the utter flexibility of Traits...

Versatility is the reason I prefer 3.P to 5E. If I wanted to dumb the system down, I'd use 5E.

Your summary of the various signs is fluff, which will lovely for players, is completely useless from a mechanical standpoint to judge. If you want people to effectively apply to playtest your homebrew, especially without giving them much information regarding it until they "prove themselves" to you, then good luck. Hope you get the data to support you.


Sangerine wrote:
My knee-jerk reaction...

Ah, then my methods are working.

Sangerine wrote:
Versatility is the reason I prefer 3.P to 5E. If I wanted to dumb the system down, I'd use 5E.

I value versatility. Please don't misunderstand, this isn't my attempt at bringing the game closer to 4E or 5E. I just think the Trait system could be better refined. Which is what I set myself out to do.

Sangerine wrote:
Your summary of the various signs is fluff, which will lovely for players, is completely useless from a mechanical standpoint to judge. If you want people to effectively apply to playtest your homebrew, especially without giving them much information regarding it until they "prove themselves" to you, then good luck. Hope you get the data to support you.

My summary is designed to be fluff. It's there to touch on the niches that the Starsigns fill, not provide you with their composite data. If everything you read in my initial post was not enough to entice you, then you aren't interested in my system. That's perfectly acceptable. I don't want any feedback from people who aren't interested.


Vanity wrote:


Ah, then my methods are working.

Is your method intentionally preventing any view of actual mechanics so that people have to judge based on fluff? o-0 Odd way to entice potential testers.


Dotted for future interest (sorry, I don't feel like playtesting)


Sangerine wrote:
Vanity wrote:


Ah, then my methods are working.
Is your method intentionally preventing any view of actual mechanics so that people have to judge based on fluff? o-0 Odd way to entice potential testers.

Haha. I'm having a hard time telling whether you're just hovering on the line of being scathing, or if you're just innocently asking questions with tongue-in-cheek humor, but I always give the benefit of the doubt.

My method is preventing people who suffer from knee-jerk reactions to be allowed to voice their opinion, or at least that's my goal. If, after reading my original post, the first question that popped into your head was "But why?" then you are not qualified to give feedback in a meaningful way.

It's hard to put into words. A lack of interest in the subject itself produces poor results from the person taking the test. You admitted to seeing little point in my endeavors ("But why?"), which is perfectly reasonable. And, due to method of setting up my scheme as I did, it screened you out as a potential tester , despite you appearing to be reasonable, intelligent, and (maybe?) humorous.

I do understand your prediction though. My plan might backfire, I might never get good quality data, and my Starsigns might never have the opportunity to benefit from some good perspectives.

But, at the end of the day, that really doesn't affect me.

RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 16

Vanity

It does you no favors to be unusually haughty, defensive, and condescending to people that genuinely care and want to help you. That kind of attitude isn't welcome here. Especially in a forum dedicated to collaboration, sharing, and providing feedback for homebrew material.

I ask my questions out of interest and a desire to help you. I need to know what steps you already taken to test the material. If these steps are flawed, then any data you gain will also be flawed. Especially when your playtest methods sound like they hurt you more than help.


Cyrad wrote:

Vanity

It does you no favors to be unusually haughty, defensive, and condescending to people that genuinely care and want to help you. That kind of attitude isn't welcome here. Especially in a forum dedicated to collaboration, sharing, and providing feedback for homebrew material.

I ask my questions out of interest and a desire to help you. I need to know what steps you already taken to test the material. If these steps are flawed, then any data you gain will also be flawed. Especially when your playtest methods sound like they hurt you more than help.

I have been neither haughty, defensive, nor condescending. If anything, I think I've been extraordinarily patient. I have clearly set out the terms in my original post, I have explained my decision making process several times to both yourself and Sangerine, and I have not resorted to the standard fare of name calling, foul language or anything of the sort. I am using this forum exactly as it's intended.

I do understand that verbal to textual conversations sometimes lose something in translation, but I do not believe this conversation has yet taken that turn. You (both) have inquired about my methods from a standpoint of concern, and I've explained why I made them. If you are getting aggression or anything similar out of it, then I certainly apologize; that was not my intent.

I appreciate both your interest and your desire to help.


This sounds partially like at least the flavor of Monte Cook's Noumenorea, the setting of the Ninth World.


Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
This sounds partially like at least the flavor of Monte Cook's Noumenorea, the setting of the Ninth World.

I'm afraid I'm not familiar. Is that comparison a good thing or a bad thing?

Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Homebrew and House Rules / Testers Needed for Starsigns All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.
Recent threads in Homebrew and House Rules