Three Sandys walk into a bar. One is a reviewer, another an editor, and the third an entrepreneur. They open a book called C.A.S.T.E., and immediately disagree with each other.

The Reviewer's Tale

Backstory: I was asked, nay paid, to do a thorough review of C.A.S.T.E., courtesy of last month's stunt column. Here's my review of this game's pre-release copy, and more. The plus is that this book (C.A.S.T.E.) was interesting enough that I went beyond the call of the contract, to really start imagining what it could be.

I have a dream. It's a simple dream. In my dream, I read a good homebuilt RPG and don't immediately think, 'dear god, not other attempt to replace D&D'.

C.A.S.T.E. is a tidy little system, burdened by poor organization and the typical homebrew urge to define oneself through comparison with the past, rather than stating plainly why it's good. Sentence two yields the motive "to simplify the character sheet", and later comments talk about how it "hopes to take power away from point saving". Far better to move that to an appendix, for those interested in the game design history. Let the intro have the game goals, succinctly.

The basic rules takes 9 pages, unfortunately, it's not 9 sequential pages, but gets interrupted by a bit too much minutia. Never Flee until you've learned to Attack, that's what I say. Nevertheless, the brevity of the rules is heartening. A good restructuring round with a ruthless editor will be a painful but good step for this game.

One advantage of reviewing a pre-release is you can ask questions of the author. Thus I received the heartening news that there is likely to be a 5-page primer. Given I think the system elegant at 9, getting down to a 5 is a nice thing, and I would argue, a necessity in today's web-download short sharp shocked society.

And if I can suggest a wish list, the half-page 'social battle modules' rules tucked into page 37 should go into the main system. I love systems that encourage non-weapon competition, and this also gives an example of what CASTE can provide that other systems don't-- a break from the dungeon crawl. A small organization change that can highlight this games potential can only be a good thing.

Moving to the creation of Talents, specific things you can do, the fun begins. C.A.S.T.E. operates in that niche between heavily table-ized systems (such as D20 or C&C) and more freeform 'define thyself' games such as OtE and Everway. You get to completely define yourself yet it's well parametrized by examples and limits on powers. It's a bit like open-ended Champions, in that there are many ways to approach a Talent .

Basic mechanics follow a reasonable check:
            D20 + stat +/- Difficulty > 15

Why 15? I have no idea. 15 is an unusual number to choose. The author indicates it makes the numbers come out nicely, in that a typically challenge requires you roll a 10+ on d20. Okay. I'd prefer a target of 20-- catchier and more marketable-- but I'll give on this point to numerical simplicity.

However, in Battle, why are turns 6 seconds? I hate to be a relativist, but different challenges have different granularity. Seems too much like "because D&D used it". Likewise with "at -10 hp, you're dead". Another D&D legacy, with no apparent basis for why it's -10 and not, oh, -sqrt(pi).

I'm nitpicking with the details, but the homebrew feel does permeate this work. I can't figure out its reason for being. It's a nice set of rules, but it doesn't make me want to sit down and play a game. It's still rather abstract. There's a disconnect between the goals-- to make a fast, flexible multigenre RPG focusing on character customization-- and inspiring me enough to sit and use it. Perhaps I'm dim and need more hand-holding, but either a path or an example might be welcome here. Bonus points to CASTE for not having gaming fiction, though!

I do like the "build anything" nature of this game, and its simplicity. The advice to players and GMs isn't revolutionary, but comforting and accurate-- rules are just a guide, the point is to have fun and explore, take risks.

As a sample, I did my poor man's playtest. I took the first two sample characters I could find, and put one of them guarding a bridge and the other trying to cross. Thus it was that Sir Gregory of Fisher, a level 9ish retired captain, was barred by Pantamaranthesis, a level 5ish Warlock.

I should have skipped ahead 1 character-- I like inclusion of Frank Attle, level 1 middle manager and lover of stamps. But Frank has a handgun so he's more threatening to Fisher than one would think, besides, I said I like to take the first two characters listed.

The result of Sir Gregory versus Panta went unsurprisingly in Greg's favor, with a mild bias depending on who attacks first. Greg has a good to-hit and a sword that puts you to sleep, Panta's main edge is slowing you with rock barriers while prepping the heavy spells. But Greg can soak up a lot of punishment, so he gets across the bridge. I should have gone with Frank instead.

This little exercise did show the fun of having rich characters with lots of neat options and frills. It certainly wasn't fair, and I'm still not entirely sure how to go about creating a character, much less getting to level 9ish. But as a fan of the 'roleplaying' stance, it's fun to run a "Who'd Win".

Ultimately, in its current form, I can't see myself getting around to campaigning with this. It's a tidy set of rules, mechanics, and a few examples, but I don't see a game. Give me some tools or a hook or a reason that screams out "use me, I'm not just elegant, but I'm necessary".

Call me curious for the next draft. It has potential, but it's not major league yet. Given a good team able to create some hooks, settings and ready-to-run stuff, though, it could be a contender.

For the curious, the URL for this is www.c-a-s-t-e.org.

The Editor's Tale

Suggestions:

Rename the first 4 paragraphs of 'Introduction' to 'History' and move it to the end. Move the rest of the intro to somewhere in the middle. A reader doesn't need to know where the game came from, at least not to start off. Nor do they need to know they can break the rules, until they have an idea of what the rules aer. Get right into it--

In 'System Basics', first mention of Items has to be 'Equipment', that's what the letter derives from.

In 'Playing the Game', Difficulties gets 1 paragraph, but they're the heart of resolving checks. A table might help here.

Impossibility gets leaped into rather abruptly. The author's intent, gathered from offlist discussion, seemed to be to help GMs define 'impossible' rather than simply having to rule by fiat "you can't try it". It does run the risk of codifying what is still the GM's call. So I question the mechanics, including forbidding players. Let the GM forbid things, rather than force it in the rules. Or, if you want it embedded in mechanics, perhaps the degree of impossibility is simply the number of successes (at -20) you'd need to do it: Impossibility 2 means you must roll 2 successes, etc. Then it's codified and likely impossible, but still can be attempted. Mixing the two-- you can't do it, and here's how-- seemed odd. That said, it's a minor point.

Moving to 'Talents', why are Enhancement Talents also known as Meta Talents? Stick with one term, it's more clear.

The PC & GM section (pages 31-33) need to be moved earlier, before Battle and Talents and all the details. They're closer to an introduction than the Introduction was.

Modules (pages 34-37) likely need to be earlier to, as they are what you can do with the game.

Organization:

• Break out the Building stuff (creating talents, skills, spells) from the main text.
• Emphasize the brevity of the mechanics by getting it down to 2 pages.
• Resist the urge to define Names and Terms to appear Unique. KISS.

The Entrepreneur's Tale

Motivation: Who would use this, and why would they ditch D20 or FUDGE or True20 or d6 for it? What would motivate someone to learn Yet Another System? In short, why should people care?

Right now, it's a 'how to cook' book, sans recipes. Change it to a kitchen (or a restaurant). Build a community. Take it away from a monolithic book, 'The Word of CASTE'. and re-cast it as a DIY project. Slice it up and put the content up on a Wiki. Use a Creative Commons license (CC, attribute, non-commercial) to encourage others to experiment. Make web tools for building templates, skills, add-ons. Have user rankings for mods. Figure out how to use it with, oh, the Torque RPG engine or some iPhone or Facebook app. Make it useful so people try it, then make it indispensable once people commit to it.

Emphasize its:

• simplicity and elegance
• modularity
• build-your-own aspect

IP: A system isn't useful without a setting, but then again, a setting your audience doesn't want is just as useless. Run a contest, mixing WotC's high end New Setting Search (winner: Keith Baker's Eberron) with the pro-creator fun of 24 Hour RPG. The C.A.S.T.E. 24 Hour Setting challenge:

"Using a self-chosen 24 hour timeframe, write a setting and the accompanying talents and mods needed to play in it. Every time a new entry arrives, it gets a quick pass/fall. Those that pass-- most of the entries, likely-- go up for a prize. For each 10 passing entries that accumulate, you and your 2 partners vote. Top winner of each round gets a $25 prize."

And who are these partners I mention? Find some. Build a team. It can still be for fun, but you'll need people to bounce ideas off of. People who have a stake in it, not just pundits.

Or, if this is all too much work... just release it as is into the wild. Put it under a CC license, hope others pick up on it, then move on. But whatever you do, don't release it as a book. A new small generic RPG system book, you're talking 400 copies, max.

Make a CASTE community. Give creators a reason to care. Promote the good and advise the poor. Make the focus on gaming, not system.

C.A.S.T.E. is debuting at www.c-a-s-t-e.org.

Until next month,
Sandy
sandy@rpg.net

Got a fav RPG topic? My take on your topic to this audience, $99, ask sandy@rpg.net