Forum

Also read the whole quickstart this weekend (which is probably an indication how excited I am for a new Coriolis game, since I usually read my RPG stuff in small slices before falling asleep).

The general verdict is similar to what Kaybe said: there's a lot of potential in this game and I appreciate that you shared the quickstart so early - I think with a couple of iterations this can become a great game.

But let's go into detail:

Design/Layout

I think in this department you are more or less set. Readability is much improved over both the older Coriolis 3H books, but also newer things like Alien. I especially appreciate that the font size is large enough again to read it on a 12.9" tablet without resorting to landscape orientation and scrolling (this was/is a major issue with The One Ring for me). I would even say, the TGD layout is the best I have seen from Free League so far (and I was already pretty impressed by Tales from the Loop, Vaesen and Forbidden Lands).

There are three minor complaints I have, but IMO that doesn't need to be a priority until the book is finalized:

1. there is an issue with font spacing on p. 65 - the distance between the full stop and the letters A and F seems to small
2. some info blocks, especially if there are a lot of them, can make the reading order a bit unclear (examples would be p. 41 or p.47)
3. having numbers both as a word and as a number (e.g. "four (4)") seems like unnecessary duplication.

Illustrations

You cannot go wrong with Martin Grip illustrations, so just like layout, I think you are good here.
Only thing I noticed is that maybe the illustration on p. 10 looks a bit too much like a processions of followers of Prios (from Symbaroum).

General Concept/Premise

If I would summarize the general concept in a few words, it would probably be "Symbaroum, in space, with a Coriolis influence". While this may sound like we have seen all of this before, I think the combination is a good one. Travelling through a dark and potentially hostile space, exploring ancient ruins full of dangers, but also precious artifacts, dealing with a mysterious plague that seems to have befallen the people that built them, and all of that enriched by multiple competing factions - I feel even if not groundbreaking, that's a a pretty solid recipe for a good game.

Core Mechanic

Having only attributes and talents, but no skills is unfamiliar for a Year Zero game. Also, as Kaybe mentioned, it seems the ties between some attributes and talents might be close enough to contemplate going back to skills as separate entities. But fundamentally, I think having just attributes and talents (and gear) could work.
The main problem I see here, and that is already surfacing in the Sixth Sense talent, is that some talents can be quite strong, and that this design approach runs a higher risk of introducing game breaking combinations than the more traditional attribute + skill + (modifiers from) talent approach. I think especially the Symbaroum Advanced Player's Guide should be taken as a warning sign here (essentially this can start an "arms race" between players and GM that IMO hurts the verisimilitude of the setting).

Attributes and Derived Scores

Attributes and the derived scores (Hope, Health, Heart) are, unfortunately, the first area where I have notable issues:

1. The naming of the attributes currently is misleading and not a good match for their use in conjunction with the game. This might just be something where the semantics of the original word in Swedish are different, but IMO:
   1. Logic does not seem to be a good fit for an attribute that seems to be mostly used as knowledge/education (both about the world and about operating technical devices). Plainly labeling it Knowledge seems better to me. Or if a more general term is desired, Reason or Intellect probably works, too.
   2. Insight seems to be used mostly with the semantics of Willpower/Resilience and should be named accordingly.
   3. Looking at the critical tables on p. 34, the underlying concept seems to be Mental Health/Stability (sometimes also named Sanity due to the Call of Cthulhu heritage); naming the attribute Stability or Mental Stability would make this clearer. This would IMO also fit better with Stability being the sum of Knowledge/Reason and Empathy.
   4. Similarly, the semantics of Heart are unclear in the context of the game. If I get it correctly, this is supposed to represent how much your character is in touch with reality, perceiving it as it is and not in distorted ways induced by Blight infection. I am not sure about the best word here. The best thing I can think of right now is Acuity. But maybe other people have better suggestions.
2. Also, the conceptual/semantic separation between the four mental attributes, especially between Logic and Insight doesn't seem clear-cut enough. But this might already be resolved when both get renamed.
3. In terms of Recovering/Hope, the Helping Hand on p.33 feels great - both mechanically, but also in terms of game theme; however, for the paragraph on p. 21 where you are supposedly helping a comrade, it is both unclear how this is supposed to happen procedurally, but also how this should be imagined in-game. I feel this either needs more explanation or should be dropped entirely.

Units of Time and Space

On a related note: I think the wording of the different units of time needs work, too. Judging from Dragonbane, I frequently confuse Stretch and Shift (and I have heard that from other people, too). Also, especially Shift is not something that is meaningful in a setting like Coriolis TGD (it does make a bit more sense in a military setting like Twilight 2K). I tend to go with Segment (of a Day) or Quarter Day (as in Forbidden Lands). But maybe others have better suggestions here, too.

Similarly, I think the closest range for zones should be renamed. Engaged, to me, is a state, not a distance. And stating something like "you are at Engaged range of the explosion" sounds quite odd. Suggestion would be to use either Arm's Length (as in Forbidden Lands).

Initiative/Action Economy

The action design seems to be borrowed from Dragonbane and I don't think I'm a fan. Compared to other Year Zero games which have the Fast/Slow action design, having only Movement + Action seems like a step back (especially if initiative is determined every round). I see three major advantages of the Fast/Slow (or Minor/Major) design:

1. Fast actions are more general and thus can fit both movement, but also switching weapons, picking up something from the ground, etc.
2. The Fast/Slow design allows for more tactical options for both a single player and the group (e.g. maneuver to a better position and attack or take a harder swing and potentially do more damage)
3. Since active defense is used, Fast/Slow encourages people to act and not be too defensive, since they can still "save" the minor action for defense

I do like the idea of taking Ferocity from Dragonbane (essentially it was also already present in Forbidden Land's Book of Beasts, but IMO it's a good idea to spell this out).

Added later: If you feel you have to go with a single action per round design, please consider moving to opposed rolls as in Blade Runner.
Besides the points raised above, my main concern is: spending their one action on defense and then siting around until the next round is not a lot of fun for players. IMO designs that allow people to be and feel active are always the better option for TTRPGs.

Helping Others

Automatically getting one extra base die if someone is helping feels a bit simplistic. Maybe it would be an option to let people roll for their approach to help and with a success, one die would be added, but with more than one success, two dice could be added.

The part about helping others with Hope (p. 21) is not clear to me. Neither rules-wise nor conceptually. Initially I thought this would be about consoling another explorer once you catch your breath. But this doesn't align with spending additional Hope depending on the number of 1s rolled. And in fact, when reading the section about recovering Hope on p. 33 it became clear, that this is probably not what is meant on p. 21.

My current feeling is that the section on p. 21 should be dropped. Or, if it has to be kept, it needs more explanation on the situation in which this is used, but also what is supposed to happen here in the game world.
I do like the part on p. 33, though. Feels very thematic.

Combat: Dodge/Block

Currently, Block seems strictly inferior to Dodge. This could be fixed by dropping the sentence "Excess successes have no effect." from the first paragraph on p. 27 and thus allowing people who block attacks to take at least some action against the attacker. The "Extra successes" box below the paragraph also seems to indicate that this is the intention of the rule.

Revised after v1.1 update: In the revised version, Block seems to make more sense. I still believe, it would be better to combine this with a Fast/Slow action design or alternatively have opposed rolls that allow dealing damage to the attacker (see above).

It also seems that, contrary to other Free League games, the effect that you are prone after dodging seems to have been dropped. IMO this should be added back, and dodging while being prone should impose a -1 or -2 penalty. Otherwise dodge seems unreasonably effective.

Combat: Ranged Combat

The model where you always only reload after combat or when you fired full auto seems a bit simplistic. I understand that combat is not the focus of Coriolis TGD, but maybe it would still make sense to look at something like Twilight 2K's ammo dice.

Smaller things:

1. If a Fast/Slow action model is used, maybe it would make sense to reduce the bonus for aiming with a Fast action to +1
2. While reading I was wondering if there are heavy weapons for which ammo is counted per shot (i.e. something like a rocket launcher)
3. It is not quite clear from the description of reloading, if some weapons need more than one round to reload

Combat: Armor/Defense

Judging from the Pre-Gens, typical Armor values seem to range from 1 to 3. Since Coriolis TGD probably doesn't have shields or dedicated helmets like Forbidden Lands, but seems to use the same model of rolling for damage reaction through armor, this makes the game quite deadly.
On the other hand, the concept of not counting armor against encumbrance encourages always wearing the heaviest armor. IMO that is a bit against the theme of the game, where you would e.g. expect Scouts to wear lighter armor.
The most straight-forward option would probably be to increase the average defense value of armor and also consider it for encumbrance. However, at least for the former, moving to a model where Armor does fixed damage reduction (which potentially degrades when a hit gets through) would also be an option.

Smaller things:

1. I believe the abbreviations AR and BP used later on stand for Armor Rating and Blight Protection, but this is never spelled out.

Combat: Critical Injuries - Physical

I was initially quite concerned about the deadliness of the criticals, but the revised table in v1.1 already looks better. My major concern here is that any permanent effect could still effectively take a character out of the game, since they will be a lot less fun to play when they are blind or missing an arm. This might still be intended to enforce the danger in the world, but IMO that should be a very conscious decision in the game design and if this is kept, the full rules should probably include a bit of advice on retiring explorers and keeping the game interesting for the players.

Smaller things:

1. It is not clear to me what "Yes -1" in the Lethal column is supposed to mean, e.g. in line 61/Severed arm.
2. I'm not too fond of the word Death Save as it is heavily tied to Dungeons&Dragons, 5th edition in gaming discussions. Maybe a better word can be found.

Social Conflict: Negotiating Position

Only a small thing, but there is a bonus for presenting your case very well. But there is no penalty for presenting your case very poorly (e.g. in a way that is very likely to offend the NPC). This is probably fine, but I was wondering if this is an oversight.

Hazards

I assume more hazards will be added in the full rules. One thing I was definitely expecting here is ice.

Blight: Recovering from Blight

It seems odd that you can only sanitize broken explorers from Blight. I get that it is probably for mechanical reasons, but still it seems counter-intuitive without further explanation.

Blight: Blight Manifestation

The Indigo eyes effect on a 21 feels rather harsh for such a low roll, given that it's permanent. Maybe it would make sense to limit it to a few days.

Creatures and Adversaries: Fear & Social Conflict

I understand that scaring off major enemies feel odd, but still this feels like a missed opportunity. Using specific strategies to scare away particular beasts would open up the game to more creative strategies than just combat and flight. Maybe this could be revised and extended a bit.

Creatures and Adversaries: Behavior

Since adversaries already have Behavior, it could potentially be interesting to extend this into a form of Reaction Roll as it can be found in old-school D&D as well as newer OSR titles. This could create interesting source of emergent stories.
Similarly, I feel it would be great if adversaries had an equivalent of a Morale score against which the GM could roll, and conditions under which this would happen. Alternatively, they could have at least suggested conditions under which they retreat (maybe to only attack later from a better position).

The Delve

So first of all, I want to reiterate that I think the concept of the Delve has a lot of potential. I'm a fan of OSR games/the OSR game design philosophy and Coriolis TGD has me pretty excited about how this can be translated to a SciFi/space scenario (yes, there's Mothership, but TGD has a special appeal).

The description in the quickstart raises a number of questions for me, though:

1. I feel that one of the major factors that makes both old-school dungeons and the TGD delves exciting is venturing into the unknown - into a realm that holds both dangers and riches, with both increasing the deeper you go. However, the Deep Scanner seems to take away a lot of that excitement since it goes 10 to 15 markers deep. Intuitively I would expect that scanning would probably go only one or two markers deep, and that repeated scanning is required, but also takes time and supplies.
2. Connected to that: currently it seems that, while there is attrition of supplies, there is no element of deciding to either carefully move down, but at the cost of more resources/supply, or push ahead harder, but at greater risk of facing dangers. This is also something that I feel would enrich the Delve gameplay.
3. The concept of Markers seems to imply that the ruins have already been scouted before. I am not sure if that's the intention because it seems that only takes away from the excitement of going to new, unexplored places.
4. It seems that currently good rolls for scouting only mean less events, but not use of less Supply. This feels a bit add odds with the idea of Supply between a central element of attrition (right now IMO, it is mostly Health/Hope/Heart attrition)
5. It is currently not clear to me what the Garuda device is, and if a Deep Scan is required before sending the Bird or not (also what if the Deep Scan fails: can the Bird still be sent?)
6. Some of the Pre-Gens have Rope in their inventory. But it's not clear how much of that would be expended on the way down.

Smaller things:

1. Since Supply includes food, air and water, I was wondering how their consumption is supposed to work in Blight-infested ruins.

The Bird

I like the concept of the Bird and how weird it really is. However, I feel I would need a bit of explanation on how the Bird clears an area of Blight.
Also: do the stats of the Bird ever increase? (maybe that's something for the full rules, though)

The Sky Machine

The scenario is IMO a bit linear, but probably still fine for a quickstart.
I am a bit concerned that a number of the Events during the Delve seem to mostly focus on attrition, but do not generate new situations. At least not until you get to the deeper levels. My feeling is that maybe multiple random tables would help here.
Also, the Blight Crawlers already seems quite dangerous (which is probably intended) and there is a suggestion that characters might flee. However, there are currently no rules on flight and pursuit in the quickstart. This might be something that only comes in the full rules, but I feel it would be quite helpful since Coriolis TGD seems like a game where retreat should always be an option.
Finally, especially the confrontation with the rival team seems especially deadly. At the same time, I don't feel that professionals like the Black Toad team would fight to the death. So here again it would be helpful to have rules and guidance as to when they would consider retreating.

Smaller things:

1. The Blight Crawlers are described as "black fist-sized iridescent beetle-like creatures (that) can sometimes be found crawling over barnacles on ships...", but this seems to be something that works on water-bound ships on Earth, but not on spaceships.
2. It would potentially be good to have a reminder on p. 67 how Blight attacks are supposed to work.
3. On p. 69 it is stated that the dust reacts to the position of the sphere. But it is unclear how characters would find out about this since touching the sphere causes damage.

Deadliness in General

At the moment the game seems quite deadly. To a certain extent, this is probably intended. However, I feel that it could become a problem for an ongoing narrative if characters die too often. Now I'm personally also onboard for a high-lethality "mega delve" campaign with repeated expeditions to the same ruins, but a) I'm not sure how much this sentiment is shared outside people with an OSR affinity, and b) this might become an issue to what is planned for the Flowers of Algorab campaign (and further ones). So it might be necessary to tune down deadliness a bit (the major adjustment would probably be the effectiveness of armor).

Delve Design in General

As hinted above, I think Coriolis TGD Delves seem to share a few things with old-school dungeons (where you venture into a mythical and dangerous underworld with the intent to plunder its riches and learn its secrets , and where often you have to outsmart both environment and adversaries instead of going for direct combat as you would in new-school dungeon designs). And I feel there's a few practices that Coriolis TGD could adopt to make delves more interesting:

1. Having multiple entries into the ruins, and also multiple connections between the different parts of said ruins. Essentially, instead of a rather linear dive down as in the quickstart scenario, the ruins would resemble more closely a branched cavern network.
2. Having specific random tables for different levels/segments of the ruins to facilitate emergent stories during the Delve.

I also think the option to retreat and come back to a ruin multiple times would be beneficial. But since base and forward camps are mentioned already, it seems that this is also on the list for the full rules.

Closing Thoughts

As mentioned above, I feel there is a lot of promise in the Delve and Coriolis TGD in general. The main areas where I hope improvement could be made are attributes/wording, the action economy and the ruin design for delves. If those are achieved, I think Coriolis TGD will become a truly great game (and maybe also a rule set that then could be backported to the medieval/fantasy realm for a potential second edition of Symbaroum).

Page 37: Recovering from Blight -- Getting help:
Sanitizing + equipment bonus make you recover one Heart (not Blight) for each success. Do you roll Logic + equipment bonus? Or just gear dice? As of now, no ability is mentioned in the text.

First all, being a big lover of 3H, The Great Dark is a surprise about many things. At the beginning, i was a bit disappointed but once the digestion completed, i started to see the beauty of this new horizon.
i'm sure that when the final core book will be out, because of the feedback and correction will be taken into account, it will be a gem. Lots of things will take sense.
Instead of talking about the rules that would need coorection and improvments (lot of people are very good at this), i would like to draw your attention on something very subjective but i 'd like to share.
The colors are all beautiful, also the art. However there is one thing for me unbalanced. The layout of some pages seems unfinished because of a big blank. Probably the purpose is to be clearer, refined but a bit too much for me.
Let me share with you some ideas that could embillished some pages from my point of view.

Comments on the adventure.

- Handout 4 text: correct Registred to Registered.

- State explicitly what a marker is, with reference to the scan map. We don't know.

- System quantities are normally given in numerals - there's no need to list it as a word ('four') as well, and it adds confusion. This applies throughout the QS.

- If there's no blight in the structure, might be clearer to add some (0) hexes to the scan - but I suspect there is.

- Arriving at the structure, is the delving process still in effect, or are they just operating normally?

- Mention possibility for PCs to know blight crawlers' nature and weaknesses? Is there a roll?

- Be a little clearer on the aftermath. We kind of already know the artefact is part of something else - where does that lead, in terms of realisations or further steps?

Thanks for the updated downloads!

Psst, on Messima's character sheet, the Burglar talent should be Driver. (Forgot to mention before.)

Thank you for the update.

Please either use the Fast/Slow action economy, or switch defensive moves so that you only need to call for block/dodge if *hit* and not before the attack. If you keep it as is, one of two scenarios will happen:
- No one will ever block or dodge because it blows their entire turn on a maybe.
- Everyone will do nothing but block or dodge on a maybe because they are scared of being hit, regardless if they are or not, and combat will drag on forever since no one will ever attack.

If you wish to use the Dragonbane action economy, then please use the Dragonbane defense reaction rules.

If this is not changed, I'm positive this will become house ruled by *everyone*.

one of two scenarios will happen:
- No one will ever block or dodge because it blows their entire turn on a maybe.
- Everyone will do nothing but block or dodge on a maybe because they are scared of being hit, regardless if they are or not, and combat will drag on forever since no one will ever attack.

I disagree.

Block or dodge is a reaction, so you decide to take it if and when you are being attacked. You are not always being attacked so you don't always have to block/dodge. And if the odds are so stacked against you that nothing happens except you being attacked over and over again, you either get pummeled to death, so be it, or wait for the initiative, take a risk, attack and perhaps get damaged or not, or flee. Explorers live a dangerous life. There are risks to take. If the PCs don't want to take risks, they should avoid combat or stay home.

Many Creature attacks, as far as we can tell from the quickstart, can't be dodged or blocked, so this discussion is almost a non-issue anyway.

I like the Dragonbane/TGD combat simplification over slow/fast turns. It results in faster combats while maintaining meaningful choices and incentivises to enter combat only as a last resort and when having better odds.

I love the updates and LOVE the printer friendly character sheets.
Now blocking makes much more sense.
Great job!!!

The only thing not convincing me is the Markers.
I think that using Waypoints would be simpler, clearer and more realistic than using squares or hexes.
Delve roll = number of Waypoints traveled before an event occurs.
This would allow map makers to place Waypoints at fixed or variable distance from one another.
Moreover, it would prevent questions such as: can I move diagonally?

one of two scenarios will happen:
- No one will ever block or dodge because it blows their entire turn on a maybe.
- Everyone will do nothing but block or dodge on a maybe because they are scared of being hit, regardless if they are or not, and combat will drag on forever since no one will ever attack.

I disagree.

Block or dodge is a reaction, so you decide to take it if and when you are being attacked. You are not always being attacked so you don't always have to block/dodge. And if the odds are so stacked against you that nothing happens except you being attacked over and over again, you either get pummeled to death, so be it, or wait for the initiative, take a risk, attack and perhaps get damaged or not, or flee. Explorers live a dangerous life. There are risks to take. If the PCs don't want to take risks, they should avoid combat or stay home.

Many Creature attacks, as far as we can tell from the quickstart, can't be dodged or blocked, so this discussion is almost a non-issue anyway.

I like the Dragonbane/TGD combat simplification over slow/fast turns. It results in faster combats while maintaining meaningful choices and incentivises to enter combat only as a last resort and when having better odds.

I disagree with you, the original poster had it correct for all my experience at tables running games.

It is bad enough that you lose your action defending, it is a non action so a player will effectively do nothing for there turn… that is just not fun/boring.. but it is acerbated by the fact that you need to state you are defending prior to the attack being rolled… so as the original poster says you could have wasted your whole turn for nothing if the attacker misses… making a bad situation worse.

This is meant to be a game people enjoy, i do not know anyone who has passed through my tables who enjoys doing nothing… in other game systems that use a simple punishing defence mechanism i have observed that players dont bother to defend thus it turn combat into a rocket tag… in other words boring….

The combat system really needs a look at… Crits are greatly improved in this new version, from there killer prior version

But 1 action a round, may be slightly faster but it also turns defences into boring… Dragonbane has the same problem.. this is made worse by the heroic abilities that allow defences for ‘free’ (yes I know it cost willpower) and you can still act that round. Those heroic abilities are overpowered and insta buys when available

Give us back our 3 ap or 1 fast 1 long options… what we have at the moment is painful, and doesn’t feel like coriolis

Since it's not immediately evident from the way things are displayed here: I updated my post #21 with the rest of my feedback.