• 1
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 10
 
doc-t
Posts: 99
Joined: Wed 30 Jun 2021, 09:07

Re: Feedback Thread for Coriolis: The Great Dark Quickstart

Mon 15 Apr 2024, 00:40

pg. 32, "The death save is not an action in itself." Does this mean, the death save can not be pushed?

What is the meaning of "in itself"? How does it change the interpretation of that sentence? What is the difference between "The death save is not an action." and "The death save is not an action in itself."? I don't get it...
 
doc-t
Posts: 99
Joined: Wed 30 Jun 2021, 09:07

Re: Feedback Thread for Coriolis: The Great Dark Quickstart

Mon 15 Apr 2024, 00:51

pg. 35, "All conflicts are not combat." This is not correct, there are conflicts that are combat. I guess, "Not all conflicts are combat." was intended. Or I am to dull to get the Shakespearean drift.
 
doc-t
Posts: 99
Joined: Wed 30 Jun 2021, 09:07

Re: Feedback Thread for Coriolis: The Great Dark Quickstart

Mon 15 Apr 2024, 01:01

pg. 15, attributes and derived scores. Sorry, my mind boggles that attribute #1 and #2 lead to one score, #3 and #6 result in the second, and #4 and #5 result in the third derived score. Can the attributes please be listed - in the rules and on the character sheets - in a sequence that ties #1 and #2, #3 and #4, and #5 and #6. Str, Agi, Log, Emp, Per, Ins would be a consistent sequence.

Also, the sequence of attributes in the paragraph explaining Blight is not the same as in the previous list. Please stick to the same sequence.

Sorry for my nitpicking.
 
biribiri
Posts: 13
Joined: Sat 07 Oct 2023, 14:59

Re: Feedback Thread for Coriolis: The Great Dark Quickstart

Tue 23 Apr 2024, 21:34

- the delve felt quite board gamey and took a lot of rolls before reaching a meaningful interlude. Might be down to me making more of each event as a GM, of course.
My group hated this aspect of the quickstart and after playing the Delve, 3 members of the group cancelled their pledges. It was far too board-gamey to me, and turned into: roll some dice, subtract some resources, repeat. There were few, if any choices, to made and if the Delver rolls had few success then there were constant blight armour rolls, which quickly became tedious. The events had the chance to make the delve interesting, but again often turned into roll a dice, subtract a resource. The narrative events (the lights above and the radio chatter) were good, but the events needed more meat to them to make them interesting.

I haven't played it, but I had the same feeling listening to the Red Moon Roleplaying actual play. The delve part was just a string of linear dice rolls and skill checks without much purpose or meaningful decisions.
 
Jizmack
Posts: 111
Joined: Fri 12 Feb 2016, 23:48

Re: Feedback Thread for Coriolis: The Great Dark Quickstart

Sun 28 Apr 2024, 22:55

AIMED FIRE (p. 28)
The rules require a full round action of aiming to gain a +2 modifier to range attack.
However, you can also freely move to a neighboring zone, into or out of engaged range during your action.
Does this mean you can move while aiming?
If so, that means you can move and aim in one round, then move and fire in the next round with a +2 modifier, correct?
 
User avatar
paulbaldowski
Posts: 15
Joined: Fri 05 Oct 2018, 17:31
Contact:

Re: Feedback Thread for Coriolis: The Great Dark Quickstart

Mon 13 May 2024, 13:01

I had great fun running the game at a local convention — and creating some extra tabletop bling to excite the players.

As it was a 3.5-hour convention slow, I started in medias res with the characters en route to the fissure and threw in flashbacks to introduce sub-plots, background, clues, etc.

There are small errors on the pre-gens, like Messima has Burglar in the list of Talents but Driver in explanation of Talents. This in particular became obvious right away as when I asked who was driving, no one knew... as the player with Messima was looking at the list of Talents!

The Bird is listed as having four energy on the sheet but three energy ("at the start of the campaign") in the text (page 48).

There are an array of small errors that will undoubtedly be fixed with another edit or three (e.g., "Permission to use lethal force" on the mission briefing, which my players took as a loophole to allow them to shoot to kill).

Delving and the role of the Delver and the interaction between delving, blight, events and supply needs a lot more explanation. It has been touched on in earlier comments regarding the benefits from a good Delver roll - so they dodge blight, reduce supply expended, or just move further and, therefore, decrease the number of potential events encountered.

For example, I ruled that they didn't reduce Blight exposure along the route but that Supplies were only consumed per Delve move rather than Delve Marker. A good Delver can use minimal supplies and increase the chances of getting to the end of the delve and back without running out.

I would love Rope removed from sheets/equipment, as it messes with my head when thinking about Supply. If you use up one Supply doing strenuous activity, like climbing, for some reason, I thought this might include rope. But I guess it's for consumables like water and food to compensate for the strain. If Players need to track Ammo, Rope, Supply, and Blight, this is turning into a resource management board game, and that might be a step too far.

But, overall, I and the players thoroughly enjoyed the session - and here are a couple of pictures, one from the session and one of my Supplies all prepped!

http://www.justcrunch.com/wp-content/up ... 590421.jpg
http://www.justcrunch.com/wp-content/up ... scaled.jpg
Symbaroum Resources: www.theironpact.com | Official Free League Merch: www.allrolledup.co.uk/product-tag/free-league/?orderby=price
 
psullie
Posts: 80
Joined: Sun 12 Dec 2021, 22:42

Re: Feedback Thread for Coriolis: The Great Dark Quickstart

Mon 03 Jun 2024, 22:14

I ran a session of the Sky Machine at UKGE on Sunday. It was very enjoyable and the players really got into the intrigue and backstory of the opening act.
But I have to say the current Delving mechanic just doest fit. It has a completely different feel, more like a board-game than an RPG and it was huge buzz kill. The game went from a dark and gritty sci-fi to math-rocks 101.
The main complaints were that it focused too much on the Delver, yet the dice rolls didn’t really seem to matter. Supply consumption was simply mathematical and too predicable, with no player agency. The same was felt with Blight, it was too abstract for the players to engage with, it is essentially ‘every few markers you make an amour roll and take x damage’ regardless of any decisions taken by the players.
Given that both FbL and Alien have far better resource/supply mechanics pulling one of these into the game would make far more sense. If this doesn’t change I think this will be one change I’ll be making.
In the finale the PC’s opted to shoot it out (I think driven by the near boredom by the constant and pointless feeling dice rolling of the delve) with the antagonists. The combat system is really sharp, the one action economy works really well with the hard core sci-fi.
Feel League, please re-think the Delve mechanic or it risks becoming the Ship City’s interstellar iceberg!
 
timgray101
Posts: 25
Joined: Fri 14 Jan 2022, 19:01

Re: Feedback Thread for Coriolis: The Great Dark Quickstart

Tue 04 Jun 2024, 12:12

Hm. I think part of the issue is that they've adapted the One Ring journey rules, but in that you're passing through a varied landscape and the events are opportunities for Middle-earth to show up in the story, which if you're playing TOR is something you want. Whereas down a hole is always down a hole.

It'd be worth refocusing on what story elements and tone they want the delve to evoke. Presumably suspense and danger are among the biggest.

So some combination with the stress system from Alien, for instance. Or they could use supply dice for resources. Or spend supply points as a way to fend off other bad things. (It's a while since I read it, so that might be in there.)

And I remember from reading the QS that characters other than the delver seemed to have little to do. Again, the roles worked better in the wilderness in TOR. They could be replaced by some sort of group travel roll, with opportunities for results to indicate things happening to individuals.
 
Riversnake
Posts: 54
Joined: Fri 01 Nov 2024, 22:11

Re: Feedback Thread for Coriolis: The Great Dark Quickstart

Fri 01 Nov 2024, 23:45

Hello,

I am reading through the quickstart and would like to offer some thoughts, corrections, suggestions and questions. Apologies beforehand if I have misunderstood or missed something obvious.

I’d like to note that while some of these notes may, or may not, be able to be deduced, my experience with Runequest, for example, where designers had the attitude that players need to figure out unclear things for themselves, have a distinct disadvantage (showed by the endless rules questions in the forums). That disadvantage is that the GM may think that they have missed something, and spends a lot of time trying to find something that isn’t there.

While I promote better phrasing at times, I apologise for my own grammar. :-)

Also note I have never played any Free League games, so I am coming from a perspective of not knowing the rules of the previous Coriolis or Alien etc. in that I can’t draw conclusions from previous experience of what something means at times.

That being said, it is certainly an enjoyable read and I am looking forward to the full game.

Here we go:

Keepsake p.16
The last sentence is confusing the way it is phrased, and needs to be rephrased. You can’t push a 1, do you mean to say you can push one of the 1s with a keepsake? If so, why involve a hope in the explanation? Or does it mean you can use the keepsake once instead of using a hope?

How much to pack p.16
Refers to wrong page

Difficulty
Will tests sometimes require two successes for a success? I take issue with that each test, despite difficulty, is successful at least 1 out of 6. It makes characters feel less specialised.

General note
Can you choose not to take an action and wait to take a potential reaction instead like blocking or dodging (where is this stated?), or have your action be triggered by an event, like when the creatures come around the corner I run forward and attack. This latter/part works well in 5e.


Zone Features p.25
Cluttered - perhaps it is better to have to roll agility if you move quickly in this type of area instead of just entering into the zone (like half speed or higher)? It would make more sense.
Dimly lit - what do you mean by “equally difficult” and “can’t pass through the zone”? Does it mean they are at -2 or impossible? Unclear.

Retreat p.25
You cannot block it. But you can dodge it? How does that work? Do you fall down on the spot? Can you move 2m extra on a success? Or perhaps, slightly more logically, if you opt to dodge your move is cancelled and on a success you can move only 2m? Unclear.

Full auto p.28
Maybe I am nitpicking, but the text is slightly unclear if all three attacks are needed for a reload to be necessary. Could you attack twice and not having to reload?

Reload p28
So does it take an action to reload if you do it after full auto?

Armor p29
Can armor be broken in combat? It would make sense if its effectiveness could be reduced by crits.

Using the bird’s abilities p.49
Is the companion assigned a person always a companion or can the companion be changed immediately next turn if the companion dies?

Crit table p31
Gouged eye - there is no time limit
Impaled heart - would prefer “impaled heart or head” destroyed or similar as the text, to have a choice as a GM on 66 it would be useful for beginner GMs
I would also prefer you had a result where you could die every round (and one on a stretch) to increase tension and hard choices in a fight situation
With broken back and neck, it states that a logic roll must be made in time and has a recovery time only. Is the recovery time - after successful use of the logic roll - and otherwise it is permanent? The text about crits doesn’t clarify these things well nor does the crit text make it clear.


Death p 30
Here you mention a death save could be forced each round, but the table has no such result. Too bad. Missed opportunity as stated before.

Broken and Critical Injuries p.30
The text on stabilizing critical injuries previously states that the logic roll takes the same amount of time as the time limit (great, means you have one roll only) but here the text states it takes two separate rolls to get one on their feet and another to stabilize a lethal injury. I guess it is explained in a clear enough way, as long as we understand it is not possible to do the two rolls with one action of the time limit, right? Or does one action do both rolls?

Crit effects p.31
Is a broken arm healed automatically or does it need a logic roll to heal in the amount of time stated? I assume it is the latter because that would make sense, but what happens on a failed logic roll and how long does it take to fix a broken arm with a logic roll? It may seem like I am nitpicking, but I think the less a GM need to improvise the better, because they might be looking in rules for something that doesn’t exist (and would need improv or common sense instead) the better. Maybe I have missed something.

A helping hand p.33
An action is a very short amount of time. It would be nice if this could only be attempted once per shift. Can they try this action once per round otherwise? Does it actually just take a round?

Mental injury table
Alcoholic seems illogical or possibly unclearly phrased, or both. Taking damage from not drinking is strange, as well as becoming dazed. It would make more sense if they lost hope by not drinking and judgment by drinking, so to speak, where drinking is the least worst option, normally…
Can mental injuries be healed? I guess the full game deals with this. Either way, I hope some conditions are not easily cured at all, or take a long time of therapy, as they benefit roleplaying.

Explosions and falling p.36
I’m surprised the explosions or falling don’t cause any critical injuries, as stated, because explosions especially are known to do that. Though perhaps the grenades themselves will have this listed. Either way, maybe a crit threshold should have been included anyway (saying unless a weapon has one). Still, a note of this seems to belong here. Perhaps falling should have a higher crit threshold than explosions but certainly you can die outright from a high enough fall… as the rules are now, you can’t die at all, only be broken... I’d even argue that area of effect attacks like explosions (or falling) could cause several critical injuries at once. Does armor protect from a fall?

Getting help p.37
Similar as with despair. How many times can this be tried? And is an action here similarly just one round…??

P.36 and p.37 Broken by blight and blight manifestations
On 36 it sounds like you may suffer a blight manifestation and on 37 you do suffer one.
…new blight leads to damage instead. Damage equal to the blight level or two damage? If it is stated somewhere else, please refer to that page. Things like that make for much easier reading and less confusion.
…when already broken (by damage?) - could be clearer

Blight table
I wouldn’t mind two or three more effects . In campaigns, especially if you do more than one, variation is king to keep players and GMs interested. Of course, you could change the blight effects in later campaigns as the nature of it changes, perhaps, but… again, in Call of Cthulhu their shock table is the most common complaint from players. They feel the results are boring as they come up so often, being so few of them (except if you roll phobia, I guess).


Delving
Depth seems to be counted also sideways not just depth, or the map handout as well as the delve table won’t make sense. The delve table in the adventure has two results on 20 though. It seems delving one marker can go both diagonally and sideways, not just in terms of depth. Otherwise the delve event table doesn’t match with the map. The map is about 12 deep so d6+12 is only 18, if you count the top layers of the map, which I think you don’t. However, it would be more accurate if a delve would be described in length traversed for that reason, not in depth, or that an explanation would be there.
Or is it depth only (not markers travelled) and because if the same result comes up, we go down the event table anyway? If that is the case, it might be, it looks a bit strange with a 20+ result as you can’t reach 21 anyway. So logically depth is not always referring to depth. Am I wrong? Unclear.


General question of blight effects:
As a GM is the blight attack meant to be described to players as both physical or just mental? Do you see the delver whole suit being covered by frost or is it more a matter that he came near the frost and it mostly affectsbthe mind or even space and matter itself metaphysically only? Is the bird physically removing blight or is it a mental thing going on?
Last edited by Riversnake on Sat 02 Nov 2024, 00:34, edited 1 time in total.
 
Riversnake
Posts: 54
Joined: Fri 01 Nov 2024, 22:11

Re: Feedback Thread for Coriolis: The Great Dark Quickstart

Sat 02 Nov 2024, 00:08

Feedback on Delving Mechanics for Coriolis Great Dark Quickstart

I believe the game would benefit from a rework of the delving mechanics. Instead of the current system, which feels more like a board game with repetitive attrition effects, I suggest designing adventures that focus on room-by-room exploration, similar to classic dungeon crawls. This approach would offer players a sequence of specific problems to solve with different potential solutions, creating a richer roleplaying experience.

Roleplayers generally prefer immersive storytelling over mechanics that feel “board game-y.” Currently, the delve design—especially the abstract loss of supplies—feels too vague to inspire imagination and concrete roleplay moments. For instance, losing supplies could be made more engaging if it represented something tangible, like damaged light sources or broken tools. While the gradual loss of resources like damage, hope, and heart isn’t without merit, it would be more compelling if players encountered unique problems along the way that required creative problem-solving.

Repeatedly marking off supplies with minimal context can feel tedious, creating extra bookkeeping with minimal narrative payoff. To address this, one option could be reducing the frequency of rolls while increasing the stakes of each one. This would allow players to progress deeper into the delve with fewer interruptions, but with greater consequences at critical moments. Staging specific, meaningful events along the path would also add variety and excitement.

A similar approach is being adopted in the latest D&D Monster Manual update, where monsters have fewer hit points but deal more impactful damage. Applying this principle could make each delve encounter more intense and meaningful.

Finally, incorporating follow-up consequences and different solution paths for specific encounters could give players the sense of agency they seek in an RPG. Roleplayers engage with these games to use their imagination and interact with dynamic challenges, not just to roll on tables and suffer abstract penalties.

I’d like to suggest some alternative ideas for the delving mechanics. Making the blight feels semi-intelligent, and can attack equipment categories (referred below as gear groups, like lighting equipment) under certain circumstances in a spooky way. Shifting the supply system to split it to represent several specific item groups could significantly enhance the immersion and roleplay potential. For instance, if the blight reacted dynamically to the players’ actions—perhaps attacking vital resources like oxygen or light sources when they interact incorrectly with alien structures—it could create high-stakes situations. Also, certain situations are more prone to accidents and wear on equipment on failed rolls. Imagine players needing to repair life support while hearing ominous sounds approaching. This would add a real sense of drama and urgency.

Another enhancement related to that idea would involve organizing equipment into essential categories, or gear groups: climbing gear, food and water, scanning equipment, blight protection, oxygen supplies, and healing tools. Durability of these gear groups would become a key aspect, with gear taking damage from events like combat, critical hits, blight effects, or accidents during climbs. For example, losing oxygen wouldn’t just be a vague penalty—it could result in specific consequences, like characters feeling exhausted if oxygen supplies are low.

To streamline this, supplies could be divided into specific categories (e.g., oxygen, light, protection, etc.) with quality ratings for each group type instead of pooled “supply points.” This would allow players to prepare with a unique loadout. For instance, 3 points in lighting might mean they have backup headlights, flashlights, and batteries, whereas 2 points in oxygen would indicate a limited air supply, and only 1 point of something could represent a bad supply of it, with potential problems, like bad tools, bad oxygen, bad lights, bad blight protection etc. 0 would mean non-functioning and less than 0 means destroyed. Running low on these could trigger varied consequences, like penalties (or possible death) on certain rolls if oxygen, and penalties or blindness if light runs low (1) or out (0).

In terms of mechanics, an individual-based supply system with group categories of equipment could give players more control over equipment management. Each character could choose to prioritize particular gear based on the demands of the delve. For instance, one character might invest in high-quality light/vision equipment and moderate climbing gear, while another focuses on oxygen reserves and protection. The first climber might be able to chart the way, making climbs easier for the rest, or even automatic on a good success. If an item group takes damage, characters would now have meaningful decisions about how to repair it, possibly reducing another character's item group's quality to repair the group. For example, if one character’s light fails, another could try to “share” their light and electronics with a logic roll, by downgrading their own quality one step (and if successful raising theirs).

This system could be numerically simple: equipment rated as “good” could be a 3, “normal” as 2, and “low” as 1. Each level would reflect specific resources: a “2” in lighting might include functional headlights and a backup flashlight, while “1” might represent only a low-powered flashlight. Events or mishaps could damage these supplies, requiring players to manage repairs or find workarounds. Critical hits might also damage equipment, adding a realistic and impactful layer to combat encounters. For instance, damage to oxygen would mean serious survival threats, whereas a damaged protection suit could expose a player to environmental hazards.

In addition, random events could impact specific types of equipment, using a simple roll to determine what’s affected (e.g., 1 = light, 2 = oxygen, 3 = suit, etc.). Reduced durability could mean an item is unusable once it hits zero, with further damage potentially harming the player. This would give players tangible decisions, as they manage not only limited resources but also equipment durability, with specific items or upgrades providing benefits that can aid problem-solving in creative ways.

These adjustments could make each delve feel more like an RPG dungeon experience with real stakes and imaginative problem-solving, instead of resembling a board game. This focus on roleplay could also help the game earn a stronger word-of-mouth reputation, appealing to players who prioritize immersive storytelling, which is basically everyone into RPG:s.

I understand that every redesign brings its own challenges. A more individualized supply system, for example, might require simplifications to avoid excessive bookkeeping. One potential solution I suggest is to let each player manage their own supply ratings (like light, oxygen, protection suit, etc.) rather than sharing pooled resources, as mentioned. These quality ratings could add dice to relevant rolls, making equipment effectiveness tangible. Under certain conditions, a GM might decide that additional equipment or gadgets attached to an item also degrade if the primary equipment is damaged (if it goes from 1 to 0 for example).

Another simpler option would be for supplies to dwindle down as you have designed it, but if you lose a significant chunk of your supplies in one go, or have a critical attack on supplies, so to speak (and accident), a supply disaster is rolled, and consequences come of it. I am not sure this system would be better for immersion, but it is an interesting thought.

Overall, I’m a bit uncertain about supporting the game as it stands, mainly due to the current delve design. I would love for the game to be a smashing success, and so much of that work goes into the core design. An update on any plans to rework these delve mechanics would be appreciated, especially if they’re aiming to better promote roleplay. While a blend of RPG and board game can work, having the delve—the core feature of the game—lean too much toward board game mechanics risks making the gameplay feel repetitive. If early feedback points to it feeling somewhat dull already (like feedback here and from me suggests), this could pose a significant issue. Shifting to a more dungeon-like experience with problem-solving at its center rather than random events, and. with interesting social interactions with ancient computer systems or “spirits” (or whatever), could give players a richer narrative experience in the delve.

If you get any inspiration from this and would like to pitch ideas privately, I am very happy to do so. Either way, I wish you the best of luck with it. I’d be happy to put some time on it to present ideas better without needing any rights or compensation. I just want a great game, which I am sure it will be.
  • 1
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 10

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests