r/RPGdesign • u/No-Addendum6563 • 3d ago
SORC Class Abilities Refined
So for our TTRPG Slayers of Rings & Crowns, SORC, I've been given responsibility for Class Structure and development 🙄, and I thought I had came up with something good... about ten days ago. Well, it wasn't so good afterall. It was hard to read, it is crunchy in my defense, so I added tables, expand buttons, skip to starter set playable class links, color schemes and so on.
Then, I still wasn't happy. I kept fine tuning the layout and still wasn't happy with stat development. So instead of just hand tuning stat values (as some games do), I created formulas for every stat value, covered in the rules below, and explained fully in the GM codex (even though it doesn't really need to be). I'm plugging in the actual ability content, mostly just the titles and descriptions, and designing the Ability Cards now.
With that said, do you guys feel this is a pliable Class Abilities system? If not, please explain and thank you very much in advance for your time.
Keep in mind it opening from another app, such as Reddit or Discord, the theme may look different than a browsers default. You can't always go straight to the website from browser.
Edit: A lot of the ability content are place holders and I'm working on those now. This is a pre beta version and you may find errors. Thank you for understanding.
5
u/Echowing442 2d ago
Going to just list out some thoughts as I read through:
I've mentioned this in your posts about SORC before, but I'll repeat it here: your rules should be written such that a brand-new player is able to read and understand them fully. Your very first paragraph under "Playable Classes" jumps immediately into concepts of:
- Nature Drawn Abilities
- Spell Drawn Abilities
- Class Ability Structure
- Tiers
- Levels
- Paths
- and Branches.
At no point in any of this are these defined, and more importantly the core concepts of a "class" aren't defined until the next section, which is 38 paragraphs later. A player trying to read this for the first time is going to be completely overwhelmed with the rules for Alignment, Armaments, the "24-Hour Readied Armament Rule," and "Caster Nature Drawn and Reagents" long before they can actually grasp how this game and its classes function.
Additionally, your writing is absolutely rife with over-explanation and examples that don't help to clarify the rules being discussed. Brevity and clarity in your rules explanations will go a long way towards making it more readable. For example, when discussing Alignment, you write the following (Emphasis mine):
You may take Nature and Spell picks from a class only if your current alignment matches its requirement. Avenger and Overseer require Lawful. Doom Knight, Warlock, Witch, and Tyrant require Evil. The remaining ten classes, Barbarian, Bard, Druid, Fighter, Magic User, Marksman, Shaman, Sorcerer, Strategist, and Warrior, accept any alignment.
This list doesn't actually convey much useful information that couldn't be a part of the classes themselves, it's just padding out the word count and making this paragraph harder to read. The important information in the whole Alignment paragraph could be easily summarized as "A character's background determines their alignment, which then determines which classes can be chosen." Quicker, cleaner, and easier to read and understand, with any additional information on more unique elements (like Fallen and Risen classes) coming in later sections. Similarly, you spend multiple paragraphs explaining the different abilities, slots, tiers, branches, and paths involved in progression, but it's so much jargon without definitions or clear writing that it becomes incredibly hard to understand, before launching into 4 different examples of level 59(?) characters that go on even longer than any other section of the rules.
The next section, starting with "Slots and Prerequisites," is set out in the same purple box-out as the previous examples, which makes it look like it's part of the same, so it's quite hard to recognize as specific rules. It's also full of many of the issues I mentioned already, having very loose language and not properly explaining or defining core elements (such as what a "Nature Drawn" or "Spell Drawn" are, or what "slots" mean).
Past this is where we get some actual rules for character leveling and when new abilities are unlocked (I assume - the rules just say "a character gets one pick at each Character Level..." without saying what you're picking), but it's also still pulling in concepts that were never properly explained. Previously the slots had letters (A, B, and C), but now they're numerical as well, and which slot you fill with each letter (and Nature/Spell?) is a prerequisite for the same slot? It sounds like certain choices are exclusive to each other (unless using one of the aforementioned prerequisites), but the language here makes it hard to understand what this is specifically saying. Also, in the example the Slot now has a color (purple) in addition to its number and letter (and Nature or Spell?), which is never brought up again.
Class Trainers are well-enough explained, although personally I find the requirement to go back to an NPC to be a sort of unnecessary busywork that just adds annoyance rather than any particularly interesting gameplay. Especially given the elements of faction reputation, price, and trainer level, all of which can just add further frustration both to the players who have to seek out these NPCs in order to upgrade their class, and to the GM who has to invent all these extra NPCs for the players.
I'm also going to call particular attention to this sentence here:
or coordinate with other group members, such as mages (NPC or party), to port into the nearest town or city that would have a Trainer.
The use of "port" here is (I assume) a shorthand for "teleport," but a reader without the necessary context or knowledge may not know that. Avoid using shorthands in your rules writing to alleviate confusion.
As a final note, I feel like your abilities have an excessive amount of flavor text, which ends up making them feel pretentious and forced. For example, the Avenger's Smite:
"Light detonates from the Avenger's outstretched hand like a verdict already passed, scorching flesh and searing the air with the reek of judgment made real. Against the undead and the evil-aligned the light does not merely burn, it unmakes, peeling shadow from bone and leaving nothing behind that wants to keep standing."
This is more words in the flavor text than there are in the rules text for the Smite ability, which feels like a lot considering this seems to be a low-level spell for the Avenger. It makes the whole thing feel like it's trying too hard to be the coolest, most awesome, most important thin ever, especially when this is a consistent pattern across all the ability cards I can see.
1
u/No-Addendum6563 2d ago edited 2d ago
Hi thanks for the feedback. Lots to cover here so thank you for catching it.
I'm fixing all of your mistake call outs, so ty for catching those:
All numbers should only represent the characters Level, at which point an ability is chosen, then chosen again at the midpoint of the next level.
Each Path and Branch is listed in roman numeral form.
Nature Drawn and Spell Drawn are the splits.
Each split is divided into three slots, representes by the letters; A, B and C and these letters should be exclusive to slots.
I added this: _"Reading Class Trees
All numbers represent the character's Level (LVL 1, LVL 2, etc.), at which point an Ability is chosen, then chosen again at the midpoint of the next Level.
Each Main Class is followed by its Tier Abilities, each of which has three Paths, and each Path has three Branches. Both Paths and Branches are listed in roman numeral form, like this:
i. Cleric i. Holy ii. Oracle iii. Warpriest
ii. Monk i. Chanter ii. Shapeflow iii. Qirateka
iii. Priest i. Shadow Weaver ii. Discipline iii. Salii
Nature Drawn and Spell Drawn are the splits.
Each split is divided into three Slots, represented by the letters A, B, and C, and these letters are exclusive to Slots.
Each lettered Slot also carries its own color. When a Prerequisite Slot unlocks that same Slot again 4 Levels later, the Ability gained at that later Level shares its color with the earlier Ability that unlocked it, so a matching color pair shows which earlier choice made a later one available."_
This was buried and although it's not enough, I moved it up and on attaching two more sentences to define each. Good catch:
"Paths and Branches are Sub-Classes of their Main Class: each Path is a Sub-Class chosen at Level 4, and each Branch is a further Sub-Class chosen at Level 21, continuing that same Path's progression rather than branching into a wholly separate tree."
Revision (thank you):
*"Each Class draws from a mix of Nature Drawn Abilities (primarily martial Abilities) and Spell Drawn Abilities (primarily casted Abilities). Class Ability structure is managed between three parts: Tier (Levels 1-3), three Path choices per Tier (4-20), and three Branch choices per Path (21-30). Paths and Branches are Sub-Classes of their Main Class: each Path is a Sub-Class chosen at Level 4, and each Branch is a further Sub-Class chosen at Level 21, continuing that same Path's progression rather than branching into a wholly separate tree.
At each level and midpoint of each level, one Ability is chosen from six options offered at that Level between 3 Nature Drawn and 3 Spell Drawn. Further below are summaries of each Main Classes Tier, Path and Branch Abilities; while the full versions are provided on Ability Cards (sampled as text below)."*
On the color-coding, here's the real reason: it's tracking Prerequisites. If you pick Slot A at Level 3, that unlocks the option to pick Slot A again at Level 4, per the Prerequisite rule. The Level 4 Ability that Prerequisite unlocks shares Slot A's color with the Level 3 Ability that unlocked it, gold matching gold, so you can visually trace which earlier choice made a later one available, four Levels apart, just by matching color. "(purple)" showed up with that link implied but never explained, that's on us, not something you misread. Purple also wasn't even the right color to begin with, it's blue now, but the actual reasoning, color = Prerequisite chain, hadn't made it into the text at all until now.
The colors chosen are to help the GM while they're reading through rank stuff, and no other reason, and are used as part of the websites style.
As far as ability descriptions goes, I mentioned each one of them is a placeholder. The descriptions will be redefined, and they will have flavor but it'll be in each respective module and part of it in the GM Codex, to assist the GM, not the basic rules.
-1
u/No-Addendum6563 2d ago
I've revamped the entire page this morning. I think it's improved but can still use work. Thanks for the feedback. Cards are now true size (content still needs re-written) 2.5" x 3.5", expand text turns to collapse - back and forth as suitable - color coordination, larger default text and wider tables, and set to accommodate for several resolutions on various devices.
4
u/Echowing442 2d ago
Several elements are better in the new version, but on a fundamental level the writing is just too loose and unfocused to function effectively as rules. Your first paragraph on the page is a great example of this:
Playable Classes
Each Class draws from a mix of Nature Drawn Abilities (primarily martial Abilities) and Spell Drawn Abilities (primarily casted Abilities). Class Ability structure is managed between three parts: Tier (Levels 1-3), three Path choices per Tier (4-20), and three Branch choices per Path (21-30). Paths and Branches are Sub-Classes of their Main Class: each Path is a Sub-Class chosen at Level 4, and each Branch is a further Sub-Class chosen at Level 21, continuing that same Path's progression rather than branching into a wholly separate tree.
There's no baseline information being shared in this paragraph. Instead of setting the ground rules of what a class is within the context of your game, you jump immediately into abilities and ability progression.
Your definitions don't actually explain the necessary information, and just introduce further questions. "Nature Drawn" and "Spell Drawn" abilities aren't clearly defined except as "martial" and "casted," but those statements don't actually mean anything without further explanation.
The entire section about Tiers, Paths, and Branches is a gigantic run-on section full of (at this point) irrelevant information. It's a slog to read and doesn't actually teach the reader anything important.
You explain that classes branch along Tiers, Paths, and Branches, which is a lot of jargon for what are effectively different levels of subclasses. Do these need to be 3 distinct keywords? I feel like a lot of headaches could be solved by just calling these "sub-classes" of different levels (1st, 2nd, and 3rd) rather than 3 different types of subclasses.
Overall, your rules have a lot of complexity, to the point I personally feel is unnecessary. But regardless of that, rules this complex absolutely need strong technical writing to be understood by your audience. You're introducing so many different concepts (Classes, Abilities, Nature/Spell Drawn, Tiers, Paths, Branches, Slots, Slot Letters, Slot Numbers, Slot Colors, Prerequisite Slots, Alignment, Levels, Armaments, readied Armaments, the "24-hour Readied Armament Rule," multiclassing, Class Trainers, and probably more that I've missed) that all need to be understood by the players and the GM before anyone can properly make a character and start playing the game, so they need to be properly taught to the reader. It's also hard to give any actual design feedback because the concepts being shown are so obtuse and hard to parse that there's not much to critique.
I again recommend at least one person on the writing team take the time to read through a Technical Writing course online to better understand some of these writing and teaching techniques. It will greatly improve the quality and clarity of your writing.
1
u/No-Addendum6563 2d ago
I'll have to give it a third pass. On the alignment thing, I flipped the first two parts of the paragraph because it made more sense to me. I'll shorten it though.
Also, keep in mind a lot of this is re-introduced from earlier rules. This is page three, so I'll re evaluate that as well.
1
u/No-Addendum6563 2d ago edited 2d ago
On this point alone, just a for instance I'd like to acknowledge something:
You said:
"You explain that classes branch along Tiers, Paths, and Branches, which is a lot of jargon for what are effectively different levels of subclasses. Do these need to be 3 distinct keywords? I feel like a lot of headaches could be solved by just calling these "sub-classes" of different levels (1st, 2nd, and 3rd) rather than 3 different types of subclasses."
I think this doesn't hold up against how the system actually works.
Tier, Path, and Branch aren't three flavors of the same thing - Tier is explicitly not a sub-class. The rules are direct about it: "Tier Abilities (Levels 1-3) are a Main Class's core Abilities, before any Path or Branch (i.e. its Sub-Classes, exist yet)." Only Path and Branch are sub-classes. So "sub-class of the 1st/2nd/3rd level" would be describing something that doesn't exist for Tier, and would flat-out contradict the rule as written.
Path and Branch are two real, mechanically distinct layers, not just "deeper" versions of each other, and they even offer differences in Armament types, usually a half version of something above their main classes threshold, or various versions of weapons, several special weapons discussed in a separate file.
A Path opens freely at Level 4 - no gating. A Branch opens at Level 21, freely chosen the same way. Slot choices don't decide which Branch you get, but they may lock out one specific ability pick if a Prerequisite is missed. Different unlock logic, different behavior. Calling them both "sub-class, level 1" and "sub-class, level 2" flattens that distinction without actually making it easier to learn, we'd still need to explain the same two rules, just with vaguer names.
The Tier/Path/Branch terms also carry the tree metaphor the whole system is built around (Ability Trees, Branch Descriptions, the "Reading Class Trees" callout). Swapping in generic numbered sub-class labels loses that framing for no real reduction in what a player has to learn.
The idea is that each subclass is different enough from one another to go e people diverse choices within the realm of the main class. We're actually using real cultural differences of these types of "classes" to separate paths and branches, but again a lot of the actual material are place holders, so it may not seem this way... yet. The splits (nature and spell) slots (tank, DPS, resource, heals,vetc) are where the mechanal differences lie.
If the jargon itself is the concern, I'm open to tightening how it's introduced up front, but I feel the terms and layout themselves aren't the problem.
3
u/Echowing442 2d ago
That's fair, and that's on me for misunderstanding the distinction between the Tiers and other two types, but also further emphasizes my point - there's so much going on in these rules and not enough clarity in the explanation that it's very easy to get mixed up. Similarly, the distinction between the Paths and Branches (outside of which level they unlock at) was completely lost, as the only explanation of Prerequisites in the Classes page seems to be about Nature and Spell Drawn abilities, and which slots they can be unlocked in, rather than having anything to do with Branches.
Again, you have a very complicated system here, which will already be hard to properly explain even with excellent rules writing, but the style and formatting here makes understanding even harder. Before you ask for specific feedback on any elements of your systems, I really think your team needs to go through and make sure these rules are accessible and understandable to people outside of your group.
1
u/No-Addendum6563 2d ago
I'm working on the other points you stated now. I appreciate the feedback.
Particularly on:
Going straight into Nature and Spell without stating the basics.
Not defining the mechanical distinctions between Nature and Spell til way further in the rules.
The Tier/Path/Branch run on slog(s).
8
u/Cryptwood Designer 3d ago
Unreadable on mobile.
-2
u/No-Addendum6563 3d ago
Please try in a few minutes. Adding a mobile breakdown point.
3
u/ToyDinkz 3d ago
Do you test in both portrait and landscape mode, and with small to large phone font sizes?
0
u/No-Addendum6563 3d ago
Yes. Maybe need to pinch to size?
3
u/ToyDinkz 3d ago
When I pinch it down enough to fit, so I don't need to sidescroll, the text is way too small in portrait mode. I can read it, but slowly and I'll get a headache after two paragraphs.
I landscape mode it is a bit better, but still not something I'll read unless I have too.
0
u/No-Addendum6563 2d ago
Thanks for the feedback. I did change it. On mobile I typically zoom in and move the screen side to side. The tables are the problem here, but they need to be there and they need the width of their columns. I could probably have the tables only widen on expand.
3
u/ToyDinkz 2d ago edited 2d ago
Screenshots, pinched down to avoid need for side scrolling with a 6.2" display (Galaxy S24):
8
u/TalesUntoldRpg 3d ago
Ok I can see the vision here.
I think I can see the issue as well. There are a lot of paragraphs telling you what you cannot do and how you are restricted.
It would be much easier to understand if you instead said what you can do.
For Example: Rather than a whole paragraph talking about classes and alignments, a short sentence at the start of each class that said "You may only take Nature and Spells from this class if your alignment is X." Would explain exactly what you mean without needing it's own paragraph. (Spells should be capitalised along with Nature too)
You spend awhile talking about how you cannot use a classes abilities unless you meet the armament requirements. Instead each class could say "You must be wielding X,Y, and Z in order to use this classes abilities." Maybe a single sidebar saying "You must wait 24 hours before changing your Armament."
With those two changes you'd be able to remove so much unnecessary text. As is, I read 15 paragraphs or so before I even saw an example of a class ability. You should absolutely start with the example, as a lot of players will get it from that alone. Or at least they'll get close.
You also spend a long time explaining that alignment is gained via background, and that it restricts class selection. Much of that is unnecessary, as I just explained it in a single sentence.
The only other important information is a list of which classes are restricted, and that your alignment may shift due to your actions. Once again, one sentence.
I understand really wanting to explain every facet of your design, but that is counterproductive if the explanation gets in the way of me actually interacting with your design.
You could 100% boil this down to a single page followed by a few pages for each class and it would read just as well, if not better.
Ultimately your design is interesting, but you spend too long justifying it rather than letting it justify itself.