Review of Space & Steel
The Initial Impressions
A soft cover, perfect-bound, book weighing in at a slim forty-four pages of content (excluding the 1-page character sheet) and retailing for $8.00 (US), Space & Steel is a science fantasy roleplaying game (think Fritz Leiber meets Buck Rogers) that is self-published by Michael McMullan (via Lulu). My initial impressions of the product are as follows...
[Note: Space & Steel is also available in PDF format for the rediculously low price of $2.50. If you're on the fence about the game after reading this review, you may want to download the PDF file so that you can draw your own conclusions.]
Space & Steel gets to the point. It doesn't waste a lot of time with flighty philosophy or proselytization (something that I wish I could say of more independently published games) but, rather, gets right to what you paid the price of admission for -- the game. While I’m a professed fan of game theory, I also believe that discussion of said theory belongs in fora dedicated to discussing such things, not eating up space in a product being billed as a game (i.e., as opposed to a personal soapbox). Kudos to Mr. McMullan for staying on point.
The next thing that struck me was the opening fiction. I’m not usually a fan of fiction in game products, but Steve Darlington’s fiction surpasses that which I’m accustomed to seeing in other independently published games and it helps set the tone for the game’s default setting. Usually, after reading opening fiction in a game product, my willingness to read any further is severely diminished. This was not the case with Space & Steel -- conversely, Steve Darlington’s opening fiction actually convinced me to read further.
It seemed to me (on a quick read through) that Space & Steel was focused more on being functional for the sake of practicality than it was on being different for the sake of vanity (something else that I wish I could say of more independently published games). Don’t get me wrong -- new and/or different isn’t inherently wrong, but I see too many independent designers sacrifice playability for the peer prestige of doing something totally new, and that is a problem. Games are, first and foremost, meant to be played -– a fact not lost on Mr. McMullan.
Finally, I noticed that there seemed to be many sentence fragments in the chapters of the book dedicated to character creation and task resolution. This is a minor nitpick, granted, but I feel that it’s worth mentioning as some people take serious issue with grammar errors in game products (I’m not one of these people, but I do understand where they’re coming from).
Overall, my first impressions of Space & Steel were quite good. I’ve been looking for an entertaining, functional, and currently supported game of space adventure for some time now. In a market noticeably lacking such things, my initial impressions of Space & Steel left me thinking that it would be a welcome addition to the bookshelf of many a gamer. So, how did my initial impressions hold up?
Upon Further Inspection
While most of my initial impressions held firm after a thorough reading of Space & Steel, I did uncover some additional high points and a few unexpected low points during said reading. You can read about those highs and lows herein...
The Introduction
That’s right, the author’s introduction bears mention. Yes, the introduction includes the obligatory short form explanation of what ‘roleplaying’ is, but that’s not why it caught my eye -– it caught my eye because it also includes a brief discussion of how and why Space & Steel exists, as well as what sources of inspiration influenced its design. This isn’t something I see in many roleplaying games, although I see a place for it.
While such discussion is, arguably, unnecessary, I welcome it. Knowing why Mr. McMullan set out to design Space & Steel and what specific sources inspired him to do so (thus shaping his mental vision of the setting) will be invaluable to me as a GM. Not only do I get a ready-made list of pre-existing source material within the first five pages of the game, but I also get a very specific context through which to view the rest of the product, ensuring that I’m viewing it through the lens that author was looking through when he wrote it. It is, specifically, this last thing that merits further discussion.
Too often, I hear frustrated game designers complaining that people “don’t get” their games, or are examining them “in the wrong context” -– and I submit that this isn’t the consumer’s fault. Most games that I’ve read don’t provide a specific context in which to view them. A given designer may well have such a context in his head while writing a game, but unless he tells the consumer what it is, they’ll never know. Mr. McMullan lets the reader know, right up front, exactly what context Space & Steel should be viewed in.
The Setting
First, it’s worth mentioning that the setting of Space & Steel isn’t especially original -- and that’s okay. In point of fact, Space & Steel is not supposed to be a reinterpretation of classic space fantasy, but serve as an homage to it (thus, redefining the tenets common to that genre wouldn’t make any sense). Set amongst the scattered remains of a highly advanced intergalactic empire (Citun), well stocked with humanoid aliens, and brimming with plenty of vaguely defined pseudoscience, the game succeeds brilliantly in this capacity.
The sole complaint concerning the setting of Space & Steel that I have is this: there isn’t much of it. The setting chapter weighs in at exactly 7 pages, while the later ‘adventures’ chapter (wherein more setting information is revealed) weighs in at another 7 pages. That’s fourteen pages of setting information total. Granted, this isn’t a huge problem (and, in years past, it wouldn’t have bothered me at all), but as a gamer who has found my free time growing increasingly less in recent years, I’ve found that I now prefer more predefined detail in game settings, rather than less.
Having mentioned my sole complaint concerning the setting of Space & Steel, what setting information that the game does provide is both engaging and genre appropriate (I especially liked the widespread use of translation devices to explain away the fact that nearly all of the setting’s varied races can easily communicate with one another). It is (as the introduction relates) a fine blend of Burroughs, Heinlen, Bradbury, and old Flash Gordon serials - here’s hoping that the publisher has future plans to expand upon it.
Creating Characters
Creating characters for games of Space & Steel is easy, the systems being somewhat reminiscent of those found in Philip Reed’s vs Monsters (a game that I have much love for). In practice, I was able to whip up three characters of my own in less than 5 minutes (this being within twenty minutes of having first read the rules). I like rules that are easy to learn and implement, so it should come as no surprise that I found a lot to like in Space & Steel. Here’s how building a character for Space & Steel works...
First, every character has four basic Attributes (Physique, Intellect, Presence, and Daring). A player begins with twenty-four points to distribute amongst these four attributes, with no less than 1 and no more than 10 being allocated to any given attribute. Of these attributes, the function of all if self-evident with the possible exception of Daring (Daring can be used to re-roll certain task attempts, perform extremely challenging tasks, and resist the effects of pain or fear).
In addition to these four basic attributes, characters are also defined by Traits, unique, beneficial, qualities that make a character stand out in a crowd (e.g., extra limbs, psionic ability, extreme beauty, etc). A player begins with 10 points that they can use to either purchase such traits for their character from a pre-existing list, or build their own (a simple, flexible, system for doing so is provided). It is here that the opportunity for customization truly presents itself.
Finally, all characters have eight Health Levels (explained in the chapter dedicated to rules and task resolution) and a background (I think that we all know what this is). When creating a character, the game assumes that you already have some handle such extraneous facets of character creation in roleplaying games and, given the distribution method utilized by the author, I think that’s a fair assumption (not too many hobby newcomers are going to browsing Lulu for games).
I really like the simple, intuitive, system for creating characters, but its near complete lack of mechanical ties to the setting is a bit disconcerting. Space & Steel boasts exactly 3 traits or attributes that tie characters to the default genre and setting of the game - Daring (mentioned previously), Simple Telepathy (just what it sounds like), and Terrible Mind (a combat-oriented psionic discipline taught by the former Citun Empire). This isn’t necessarily a bad thing mind you, but I couldn’t help but feeling as though something was missing.
I see a missed opportunity to truly evoke both the game’s default setting and genre here. As it stands, the character creation system falls just short of being completely generic. I wouldn’t mind seeing (in a future revision of the game, perhaps) some more setting-specific traits designed with an eye toward evoking specific cultures or races dwelling amongst the ruins of the Empire. While such things aren’t strictly necessary, I think that they would go a long way toward bringing the setting to life for players and readers alike.
Resolving Tasks
Ostensibly, everything from combat to social interaction in Space & Steel is resolved using a variation of the same simple mechanic (this illusion is later shattered, but we'll get to that in a bit). Like character creation, this core task resolution mechanic is extremely simple. This mechanic consists of a player rolling two ten-sided dice, one of which they must declare their Action Die and the other of which they must declare their Support Die. Both dice are rolled simultaneously.
The primary goal is to roll less than a Target Number (i.e., the rating of the most relevant character attribute, plus or minus any modifiers) on the Action Die. This is the pass/fail portion of the resolution mechanic. If the Action Die result is less than the Target Number, then the character has successfully performed the action or won the task that they were initiating. If the result of the Action Die is greater than the Target Number, then the character has failed to perform the action or win the conflict that they were initiating.
After it has been determined whether an action attempt is a success or a failure, the quality of that success or failure is determined by reading the Support Die, with a higher result on the Support Die representing a more fantastic success or dire failure, and a lower result indicates less spectacular outcomes. The task resolution in Space & Steel is both simple and intuitive, but there is a tiny fly in the ointment.
What happens when a character rolls a result equal to the Target Number on their Action Die? I assume that this constitutes a failure, but the rules don’t make this clear – they only mention what happens if a player rolls less than or higher than a Target Number. Admittedly, it only takes a second to house-rule a fix for this, but the lack of mention in the rules could conceivably create some confusion. Perhaps this will be addressed in a future revision of the game.
Contested Actions
A simple and (mostly) sensible extension of the basic task resolution roll, contested actions (i.e., those actions being actively opposed by another character) are resolved by comparing die rolls made on behalf of both characters composing the two sides of the conflict. There are three possible outcomes:
1. If one player produces a result of ‘failure’, and one player produces a result of ‘success’, the character of the player who generated a success wins the contest by default.
2. If both players produce a result of ‘failure’, then neither character succeeds in the case of social conflicts or the character with the lowest Support Die result succeeds in case of physical conflicts.
3. If both players produce a result of ‘success’, then the character whose player generated the lowest Support Die result wins the contest.
Ultimately, the rules for contested action are useable, but have a small hurdle to leap where sensibility is concerned. Specifically, the second outcome above ignores results of ‘failure’ entirely where physical actions are concerned, declaring one character a clear victor. Again, this isn’t a flaw that takes much to house-rule, but the fact that it must be house-ruled to make sense in terms of the core task resolution mechanic bothers me (perhaps more than it should).
As per the core task resolution mechanic, I feel that it makes more sense to recognize failures in such instances, having one character simply fail less miserably than the other, rather than rewarding the one who fails less spectacularly with a decisive success. Turning a failure into a success runs roughshod over the established basic mechanic and, thus, saps some of Space & Steel’s mechanical elegance in doing so (that said, it’s not the worst offender in this regard – read on).
Combat Complications
As is the case in many games, combat receives a great deal more attention in Space & Steel than other forms of conflict do. The problem is that the default method of resolving combat actions departs noticeably from both the previously discussed core resolution mechanic and the aforementioned rules for resolving opposed actions. For all intents and purposes, combat resolution is its own system in Space & steel and, unfortunately, it undoes much of the intituive design that the game delivers early on.
First, in order to successfully attack and damage another character or creature, the player of the attacking character must not only roll lower than their Physique attribute on their Action Die, but (and here's where things get wonky) if the attack is a success, the result of this die must also be lower than the result of the opponent’s Support Die – apparently regardless of whether the opponent’s assumed Action Die roll to avoid being injured (more on this in a minute) was successful or not.
Reading the examples of combat at the end of the chapter (which aren’t worded very clearly themselves), I gather that an opponent’s Support Die is supposed to represent their attempt at active defense, but this is not made clear in the actual portion of the rules devoted to discussing combat resolution. More importantly, though, this deviates noticeably from both the previously stated rules for contested action and the core resolution mechanic unless one assumes two different things not implicitly stated in the rules:
1. A player is always allowed a die roll (i.e., a basic task resolution roll) to defend whenever their charcter is attacked, thus turning every attack into a contested action.
2. The opponent’s action to defend is successful, thus validating a die comparison.
Even then, however, we’re suddenly comparing Action Dice with Support Dice, rather than making the standard Support Die versus Support Die comparison to determine outcome quality. Patching the basic combat resolution rules to bring them back into line with both Space & Steel’s core resolution mechanic and the rules for contested action isn’t all that easy (in fact, it nearly requires a complete re-write of the rules as presented).
And that brings us to Maneuvers – simple tactical options that bestow die result modifiers based upon the posture (e.g., Full Defensive) or special maneuver (e.g., Charge) being executed by a character. Defensive maneuvers lower the result of a defending character’s Support Die, while offensive maneuvers lower the result of an attacking character’s Action Die. Indeed, it is the nature of Maneuvers that lead me to make many of the aformentioned assumptions that I did, as the rules don't actually explain how the the die rolling procedure for combat resolution differs from that in basic and opposed task resolution.
If there's one thing that the rules for resolving combat definitely need, it's more explantion. As it stands, how they work is unclear - that they depart from the mechanical standards of basic task resolution (and opposed task resolution) is obvious, but how they work and why is largely left to the imagination of the reader. For instance, we are told that in combat, the Action Die rolled on behalf of an attacking character must exceed the result of the Success Die rolled on behalf of his intended target, but:
1. Nowhere do the rules discuss under what conditions that the player of a character who is the target of an attack makes a die roll (I assume that they always make such a roll, but this is never actually stated, nor is it explained whether this die roll represents active or passive defense).
2. Nowhere do the rules explain why Action Dice (used to denote simple success and failure under the core resolution mechanic) are suddenly used to measure the degree of success (something that is the sole function of Success Dice, according to the core mechanic).
3. Nowehere do the rules specifically state what Action Dice and Success Dice represent in combat resolution, but since they work differently in combat, one is lead to believe that they represent different things (the way maneuvers works leads me to believe that they represent offense and defense, respectively, but this is just an educated guess).
In short, combat resolution in Space & Steel tends to be extremely confusing, in part because it is explained poorly and in part because it marks an extreme departure from the game's core task resolution mechanic. Arguably, some explantion alone would clear up a lot of the confusion, but I think that the game would benefit from utilizing the same resolution mechanic throuhout (after all, what's the point of establishing a core task resolution mechanic if you don't plan on adhering to it?). These are definitely things to think about for future revisions.
Finally, the rules for handling damage are a welcome change of pace after reading through the rest of the combat rules. Simple and easy to grasp, damage in Space & Steel utilizes fixed damage values for weapons and fixed protection values for armor – if a character is struck with a weapon, their player subtracts the static amount of damage associated with that weapon, less the protection value of any armor that they are wearing, from the character’s health levels. When these health levels are depleted, the character is dead. This is both simple and intuitive, as things should be.
The Continuing Adventure
As mentioned earlier, a portion of the ‘adventure’ chapter (squarely the domain of the Game Master) in Space & Steel is actually dedicated to revealing setting information (including why the secret of why the Empire collapsed and what dark secrets the Citun home world now harbors). Here’s where you’ll find the obligatory setting secrets, as well as some good suggestions for weaving them into an ongoing Space & Steel campaign. The two actual rule systems examined in the Game Master’s chapter are devoted to starship combat and character advancement.
While I’m a bit puzzled as to why the former of these two things wasn’t included in the chapter of Space & Steel devoted to rule systems, I’m sure that Mr. McMullan had a reason for including it where he did. The downside is that starship combat isn’t an entire rule system unto itself but, rather, a bolt on mod for the poorly explained combat resolution rules (so where it appears doesn’t matter a great deal as it’s still useless barring a better explanation of the rules that it’s designed to work with). Character advancement, thankfully, is a different story.
The mechanical advancement of characters in Space & Steel is handled via application of Game Master fiat coupled with organic story progression. This suits me just fine as it ensures that characters grow specifically because of actual in-game accomplishments, rather than because of an arbitrary meta-game rule structure. For example, regularly battling monsters in Space & Steel may give a player cause to raise their character’s Physique rating, but it would not justify their suddenly becoming a master basket weaver (for those who wonder, this is commonly cited as an artefact of level-based advancement). This is as it should be.
Other Considerations
Here’s where I talk about artwork, editing, layout, and other things that one may wish to consider (and things that readers have accused me of paying too much attention to in the past) before buying Space & Steel...
The Artwork
The artwork is very good for an independently published game (of special note are the black and white line art pieces rendered by Paul Daly). Indeed, I’m going to go so far as to say it’s downright sexy - Daly’s pieces in particular are quite evocative of science fantasy fiction (they remind me of Clark Ashton Smith’s work in Weird Tales). The clip art from Team Frog and OtherWorld Creations is slightly less appealing, but no less genre appropriate and far more fetching than what I’m used to seeing in many small-press games. I give the artwork selection in Space & Steel a big thumbs-up.
The Editing
This is probably the low point of the product. With the exception of some sentence fragments that ended up being less numerous than I initially thought, the grammar is actually handled quite nicely and spelling errors are non-existent (so far as I could tell). The problem is the author’s presentation of ideas. In some places (all of which have already been covered in this review), Mr. McMullan simply fails to convey his thoughts or intentions clearly.
I have no doubt that an editing pass by an impartial third party would have caught most (if not all) of these potential hurdles and, should the game be revised in the future, I wholeheartedly recommend that the author spend a few dollars (or trade favors) to procure such an individual and his services. Content editing isn't always necessary (as many publishers have discovered, much to my chagrin), but I wholeheartedly recommend that it is always examined as an option.
The Layout
The layout of Space & Steel is, first and foremost, functional. Laid out in two columns and sporting 12-point font, the text of Space & Steel is both easy to follow and doesn’t require me to squint or adjust my glasses in order to read it. Other than that, the layout isn’t terribly remarkable (but do I give it a big "Hooray!" for not using a tiny, headache-inducing, font size).
The Final Verdict
Ultimately, Space & Steel is a mixed bag. What the game does well (i.e., art, character creation, basic task resolution, etc) it does very well, but on the flipside of that same token, what the game does poorly is very hard to ignore. I can give Space & Steel a Substance rating of '2" and a Style rating of ‘4' with a clear conscience. It's not the great game that it could be with a bit more work (e.g., content editing and tighter mechanical focus on genre emulation), but it isn't a horribly bad game, either.
I feel that Space & Steel has tremendous potential, but that it probably should have made a few more playtest rounds prior to publication (possibly in wider circles). With a little bit of content editing (specifically where the section on combat resolution is concerned) and mechanics more evocative of the genre, I think that what is currently a slightly below average product could easily become a great product (I know that such a treatment would easily boost the game into my personal ‘Top 5', for instance).
As it stands, I think that Space & Steel will appeal mostly to those gamers who are looking for a science fantasy game with a wide open setting, who prefer largely generic rule sets, and who don't mind implementing house-rules to ensure that such a game runs smoothly. If brewing your own house-rules to patch a game’s rough spots sounds like a chore, if you prefer extremely detailed settings, or if you gravitate toward mechanics that are very obviously tied to a game's setting (or premise), then Space & Steel probably isn’t going to float your boat.
The great thing about Print on Demand services like Lulu is that they make introducing product revisions a snap ;)
[Addendum:
Prior to my submitting this review for publication at RPGNet, I sent a copy to the author. I think you may be impressed with his response (I was). Rather than hem and haw about my critique, he immediately addressed some of the issues that I mention, as follow:
1) He made some small edits to the description of Action and Support Die, making the part about their roles being different for combat its own sentence for each as well as bolding the words Attack and Defend for each: "In combat it changes slightly to represent their attempt to Attack their opponent." and "In combat it changes slightly to represent their attempt to Defend themselves." Page 24.
2) Added a sentence to the description of The Round (i.e., the outline of a combat round) that says, "All characters get to Attack or Defend unless they give up those options or are physically incapable." Page 26.
3) Under Contested Actions I changed the examples in parenthesis under #4 to "(when [italics]some[/italics] degree of success is necessary)" and "(when just being better than your opponent is acceptable)" Page 26.
Additionally, the author assures me that he is compiling a proper errata and clarification document based upon those conerns that I and others have mentioned. For what it's worth, I think that this degree of hands-on support is fantastic and a good indicator that Space & Steel is ready to take off like a rocket.]
A soft cover, perfect-bound, book weighing in at a slim forty-four pages of content (excluding the 1-page character sheet) and retailing for $8.00 (US), Space & Steel is a science fantasy roleplaying game (think Fritz Leiber meets Buck Rogers) that is self-published by Michael McMullan (via Lulu). My initial impressions of the product are as follows...
[Note: Space & Steel is also available in PDF format for the rediculously low price of $2.50. If you're on the fence about the game after reading this review, you may want to download the PDF file so that you can draw your own conclusions.]
Space & Steel gets to the point. It doesn't waste a lot of time with flighty philosophy or proselytization (something that I wish I could say of more independently published games) but, rather, gets right to what you paid the price of admission for -- the game. While I’m a professed fan of game theory, I also believe that discussion of said theory belongs in fora dedicated to discussing such things, not eating up space in a product being billed as a game (i.e., as opposed to a personal soapbox). Kudos to Mr. McMullan for staying on point.
The next thing that struck me was the opening fiction. I’m not usually a fan of fiction in game products, but Steve Darlington’s fiction surpasses that which I’m accustomed to seeing in other independently published games and it helps set the tone for the game’s default setting. Usually, after reading opening fiction in a game product, my willingness to read any further is severely diminished. This was not the case with Space & Steel -- conversely, Steve Darlington’s opening fiction actually convinced me to read further.
It seemed to me (on a quick read through) that Space & Steel was focused more on being functional for the sake of practicality than it was on being different for the sake of vanity (something else that I wish I could say of more independently published games). Don’t get me wrong -- new and/or different isn’t inherently wrong, but I see too many independent designers sacrifice playability for the peer prestige of doing something totally new, and that is a problem. Games are, first and foremost, meant to be played -– a fact not lost on Mr. McMullan.
Finally, I noticed that there seemed to be many sentence fragments in the chapters of the book dedicated to character creation and task resolution. This is a minor nitpick, granted, but I feel that it’s worth mentioning as some people take serious issue with grammar errors in game products (I’m not one of these people, but I do understand where they’re coming from).
Overall, my first impressions of Space & Steel were quite good. I’ve been looking for an entertaining, functional, and currently supported game of space adventure for some time now. In a market noticeably lacking such things, my initial impressions of Space & Steel left me thinking that it would be a welcome addition to the bookshelf of many a gamer. So, how did my initial impressions hold up?
Upon Further Inspection
While most of my initial impressions held firm after a thorough reading of Space & Steel, I did uncover some additional high points and a few unexpected low points during said reading. You can read about those highs and lows herein...
The Introduction
That’s right, the author’s introduction bears mention. Yes, the introduction includes the obligatory short form explanation of what ‘roleplaying’ is, but that’s not why it caught my eye -– it caught my eye because it also includes a brief discussion of how and why Space & Steel exists, as well as what sources of inspiration influenced its design. This isn’t something I see in many roleplaying games, although I see a place for it.
While such discussion is, arguably, unnecessary, I welcome it. Knowing why Mr. McMullan set out to design Space & Steel and what specific sources inspired him to do so (thus shaping his mental vision of the setting) will be invaluable to me as a GM. Not only do I get a ready-made list of pre-existing source material within the first five pages of the game, but I also get a very specific context through which to view the rest of the product, ensuring that I’m viewing it through the lens that author was looking through when he wrote it. It is, specifically, this last thing that merits further discussion.
Too often, I hear frustrated game designers complaining that people “don’t get” their games, or are examining them “in the wrong context” -– and I submit that this isn’t the consumer’s fault. Most games that I’ve read don’t provide a specific context in which to view them. A given designer may well have such a context in his head while writing a game, but unless he tells the consumer what it is, they’ll never know. Mr. McMullan lets the reader know, right up front, exactly what context Space & Steel should be viewed in.
The Setting
First, it’s worth mentioning that the setting of Space & Steel isn’t especially original -- and that’s okay. In point of fact, Space & Steel is not supposed to be a reinterpretation of classic space fantasy, but serve as an homage to it (thus, redefining the tenets common to that genre wouldn’t make any sense). Set amongst the scattered remains of a highly advanced intergalactic empire (Citun), well stocked with humanoid aliens, and brimming with plenty of vaguely defined pseudoscience, the game succeeds brilliantly in this capacity.
The sole complaint concerning the setting of Space & Steel that I have is this: there isn’t much of it. The setting chapter weighs in at exactly 7 pages, while the later ‘adventures’ chapter (wherein more setting information is revealed) weighs in at another 7 pages. That’s fourteen pages of setting information total. Granted, this isn’t a huge problem (and, in years past, it wouldn’t have bothered me at all), but as a gamer who has found my free time growing increasingly less in recent years, I’ve found that I now prefer more predefined detail in game settings, rather than less.
Having mentioned my sole complaint concerning the setting of Space & Steel, what setting information that the game does provide is both engaging and genre appropriate (I especially liked the widespread use of translation devices to explain away the fact that nearly all of the setting’s varied races can easily communicate with one another). It is (as the introduction relates) a fine blend of Burroughs, Heinlen, Bradbury, and old Flash Gordon serials - here’s hoping that the publisher has future plans to expand upon it.
Creating Characters
Creating characters for games of Space & Steel is easy, the systems being somewhat reminiscent of those found in Philip Reed’s vs Monsters (a game that I have much love for). In practice, I was able to whip up three characters of my own in less than 5 minutes (this being within twenty minutes of having first read the rules). I like rules that are easy to learn and implement, so it should come as no surprise that I found a lot to like in Space & Steel. Here’s how building a character for Space & Steel works...
First, every character has four basic Attributes (Physique, Intellect, Presence, and Daring). A player begins with twenty-four points to distribute amongst these four attributes, with no less than 1 and no more than 10 being allocated to any given attribute. Of these attributes, the function of all if self-evident with the possible exception of Daring (Daring can be used to re-roll certain task attempts, perform extremely challenging tasks, and resist the effects of pain or fear).
In addition to these four basic attributes, characters are also defined by Traits, unique, beneficial, qualities that make a character stand out in a crowd (e.g., extra limbs, psionic ability, extreme beauty, etc). A player begins with 10 points that they can use to either purchase such traits for their character from a pre-existing list, or build their own (a simple, flexible, system for doing so is provided). It is here that the opportunity for customization truly presents itself.
Finally, all characters have eight Health Levels (explained in the chapter dedicated to rules and task resolution) and a background (I think that we all know what this is). When creating a character, the game assumes that you already have some handle such extraneous facets of character creation in roleplaying games and, given the distribution method utilized by the author, I think that’s a fair assumption (not too many hobby newcomers are going to browsing Lulu for games).
I really like the simple, intuitive, system for creating characters, but its near complete lack of mechanical ties to the setting is a bit disconcerting. Space & Steel boasts exactly 3 traits or attributes that tie characters to the default genre and setting of the game - Daring (mentioned previously), Simple Telepathy (just what it sounds like), and Terrible Mind (a combat-oriented psionic discipline taught by the former Citun Empire). This isn’t necessarily a bad thing mind you, but I couldn’t help but feeling as though something was missing.
I see a missed opportunity to truly evoke both the game’s default setting and genre here. As it stands, the character creation system falls just short of being completely generic. I wouldn’t mind seeing (in a future revision of the game, perhaps) some more setting-specific traits designed with an eye toward evoking specific cultures or races dwelling amongst the ruins of the Empire. While such things aren’t strictly necessary, I think that they would go a long way toward bringing the setting to life for players and readers alike.
Resolving Tasks
Ostensibly, everything from combat to social interaction in Space & Steel is resolved using a variation of the same simple mechanic (this illusion is later shattered, but we'll get to that in a bit). Like character creation, this core task resolution mechanic is extremely simple. This mechanic consists of a player rolling two ten-sided dice, one of which they must declare their Action Die and the other of which they must declare their Support Die. Both dice are rolled simultaneously.
The primary goal is to roll less than a Target Number (i.e., the rating of the most relevant character attribute, plus or minus any modifiers) on the Action Die. This is the pass/fail portion of the resolution mechanic. If the Action Die result is less than the Target Number, then the character has successfully performed the action or won the task that they were initiating. If the result of the Action Die is greater than the Target Number, then the character has failed to perform the action or win the conflict that they were initiating.
After it has been determined whether an action attempt is a success or a failure, the quality of that success or failure is determined by reading the Support Die, with a higher result on the Support Die representing a more fantastic success or dire failure, and a lower result indicates less spectacular outcomes. The task resolution in Space & Steel is both simple and intuitive, but there is a tiny fly in the ointment.
What happens when a character rolls a result equal to the Target Number on their Action Die? I assume that this constitutes a failure, but the rules don’t make this clear – they only mention what happens if a player rolls less than or higher than a Target Number. Admittedly, it only takes a second to house-rule a fix for this, but the lack of mention in the rules could conceivably create some confusion. Perhaps this will be addressed in a future revision of the game.
Contested Actions
A simple and (mostly) sensible extension of the basic task resolution roll, contested actions (i.e., those actions being actively opposed by another character) are resolved by comparing die rolls made on behalf of both characters composing the two sides of the conflict. There are three possible outcomes:
1. If one player produces a result of ‘failure’, and one player produces a result of ‘success’, the character of the player who generated a success wins the contest by default.
2. If both players produce a result of ‘failure’, then neither character succeeds in the case of social conflicts or the character with the lowest Support Die result succeeds in case of physical conflicts.
3. If both players produce a result of ‘success’, then the character whose player generated the lowest Support Die result wins the contest.
Ultimately, the rules for contested action are useable, but have a small hurdle to leap where sensibility is concerned. Specifically, the second outcome above ignores results of ‘failure’ entirely where physical actions are concerned, declaring one character a clear victor. Again, this isn’t a flaw that takes much to house-rule, but the fact that it must be house-ruled to make sense in terms of the core task resolution mechanic bothers me (perhaps more than it should).
As per the core task resolution mechanic, I feel that it makes more sense to recognize failures in such instances, having one character simply fail less miserably than the other, rather than rewarding the one who fails less spectacularly with a decisive success. Turning a failure into a success runs roughshod over the established basic mechanic and, thus, saps some of Space & Steel’s mechanical elegance in doing so (that said, it’s not the worst offender in this regard – read on).
Combat Complications
As is the case in many games, combat receives a great deal more attention in Space & Steel than other forms of conflict do. The problem is that the default method of resolving combat actions departs noticeably from both the previously discussed core resolution mechanic and the aforementioned rules for resolving opposed actions. For all intents and purposes, combat resolution is its own system in Space & steel and, unfortunately, it undoes much of the intituive design that the game delivers early on.
First, in order to successfully attack and damage another character or creature, the player of the attacking character must not only roll lower than their Physique attribute on their Action Die, but (and here's where things get wonky) if the attack is a success, the result of this die must also be lower than the result of the opponent’s Support Die – apparently regardless of whether the opponent’s assumed Action Die roll to avoid being injured (more on this in a minute) was successful or not.
Reading the examples of combat at the end of the chapter (which aren’t worded very clearly themselves), I gather that an opponent’s Support Die is supposed to represent their attempt at active defense, but this is not made clear in the actual portion of the rules devoted to discussing combat resolution. More importantly, though, this deviates noticeably from both the previously stated rules for contested action and the core resolution mechanic unless one assumes two different things not implicitly stated in the rules:
1. A player is always allowed a die roll (i.e., a basic task resolution roll) to defend whenever their charcter is attacked, thus turning every attack into a contested action.
2. The opponent’s action to defend is successful, thus validating a die comparison.
Even then, however, we’re suddenly comparing Action Dice with Support Dice, rather than making the standard Support Die versus Support Die comparison to determine outcome quality. Patching the basic combat resolution rules to bring them back into line with both Space & Steel’s core resolution mechanic and the rules for contested action isn’t all that easy (in fact, it nearly requires a complete re-write of the rules as presented).
And that brings us to Maneuvers – simple tactical options that bestow die result modifiers based upon the posture (e.g., Full Defensive) or special maneuver (e.g., Charge) being executed by a character. Defensive maneuvers lower the result of a defending character’s Support Die, while offensive maneuvers lower the result of an attacking character’s Action Die. Indeed, it is the nature of Maneuvers that lead me to make many of the aformentioned assumptions that I did, as the rules don't actually explain how the the die rolling procedure for combat resolution differs from that in basic and opposed task resolution.
If there's one thing that the rules for resolving combat definitely need, it's more explantion. As it stands, how they work is unclear - that they depart from the mechanical standards of basic task resolution (and opposed task resolution) is obvious, but how they work and why is largely left to the imagination of the reader. For instance, we are told that in combat, the Action Die rolled on behalf of an attacking character must exceed the result of the Success Die rolled on behalf of his intended target, but:
1. Nowhere do the rules discuss under what conditions that the player of a character who is the target of an attack makes a die roll (I assume that they always make such a roll, but this is never actually stated, nor is it explained whether this die roll represents active or passive defense).
2. Nowhere do the rules explain why Action Dice (used to denote simple success and failure under the core resolution mechanic) are suddenly used to measure the degree of success (something that is the sole function of Success Dice, according to the core mechanic).
3. Nowehere do the rules specifically state what Action Dice and Success Dice represent in combat resolution, but since they work differently in combat, one is lead to believe that they represent different things (the way maneuvers works leads me to believe that they represent offense and defense, respectively, but this is just an educated guess).
In short, combat resolution in Space & Steel tends to be extremely confusing, in part because it is explained poorly and in part because it marks an extreme departure from the game's core task resolution mechanic. Arguably, some explantion alone would clear up a lot of the confusion, but I think that the game would benefit from utilizing the same resolution mechanic throuhout (after all, what's the point of establishing a core task resolution mechanic if you don't plan on adhering to it?). These are definitely things to think about for future revisions.
Finally, the rules for handling damage are a welcome change of pace after reading through the rest of the combat rules. Simple and easy to grasp, damage in Space & Steel utilizes fixed damage values for weapons and fixed protection values for armor – if a character is struck with a weapon, their player subtracts the static amount of damage associated with that weapon, less the protection value of any armor that they are wearing, from the character’s health levels. When these health levels are depleted, the character is dead. This is both simple and intuitive, as things should be.
The Continuing Adventure
As mentioned earlier, a portion of the ‘adventure’ chapter (squarely the domain of the Game Master) in Space & Steel is actually dedicated to revealing setting information (including why the secret of why the Empire collapsed and what dark secrets the Citun home world now harbors). Here’s where you’ll find the obligatory setting secrets, as well as some good suggestions for weaving them into an ongoing Space & Steel campaign. The two actual rule systems examined in the Game Master’s chapter are devoted to starship combat and character advancement.
While I’m a bit puzzled as to why the former of these two things wasn’t included in the chapter of Space & Steel devoted to rule systems, I’m sure that Mr. McMullan had a reason for including it where he did. The downside is that starship combat isn’t an entire rule system unto itself but, rather, a bolt on mod for the poorly explained combat resolution rules (so where it appears doesn’t matter a great deal as it’s still useless barring a better explanation of the rules that it’s designed to work with). Character advancement, thankfully, is a different story.
The mechanical advancement of characters in Space & Steel is handled via application of Game Master fiat coupled with organic story progression. This suits me just fine as it ensures that characters grow specifically because of actual in-game accomplishments, rather than because of an arbitrary meta-game rule structure. For example, regularly battling monsters in Space & Steel may give a player cause to raise their character’s Physique rating, but it would not justify their suddenly becoming a master basket weaver (for those who wonder, this is commonly cited as an artefact of level-based advancement). This is as it should be.
Other Considerations
Here’s where I talk about artwork, editing, layout, and other things that one may wish to consider (and things that readers have accused me of paying too much attention to in the past) before buying Space & Steel...
The Artwork
The artwork is very good for an independently published game (of special note are the black and white line art pieces rendered by Paul Daly). Indeed, I’m going to go so far as to say it’s downright sexy - Daly’s pieces in particular are quite evocative of science fantasy fiction (they remind me of Clark Ashton Smith’s work in Weird Tales). The clip art from Team Frog and OtherWorld Creations is slightly less appealing, but no less genre appropriate and far more fetching than what I’m used to seeing in many small-press games. I give the artwork selection in Space & Steel a big thumbs-up.
The Editing
This is probably the low point of the product. With the exception of some sentence fragments that ended up being less numerous than I initially thought, the grammar is actually handled quite nicely and spelling errors are non-existent (so far as I could tell). The problem is the author’s presentation of ideas. In some places (all of which have already been covered in this review), Mr. McMullan simply fails to convey his thoughts or intentions clearly.
I have no doubt that an editing pass by an impartial third party would have caught most (if not all) of these potential hurdles and, should the game be revised in the future, I wholeheartedly recommend that the author spend a few dollars (or trade favors) to procure such an individual and his services. Content editing isn't always necessary (as many publishers have discovered, much to my chagrin), but I wholeheartedly recommend that it is always examined as an option.
The Layout
The layout of Space & Steel is, first and foremost, functional. Laid out in two columns and sporting 12-point font, the text of Space & Steel is both easy to follow and doesn’t require me to squint or adjust my glasses in order to read it. Other than that, the layout isn’t terribly remarkable (but do I give it a big "Hooray!" for not using a tiny, headache-inducing, font size).
The Final Verdict
Ultimately, Space & Steel is a mixed bag. What the game does well (i.e., art, character creation, basic task resolution, etc) it does very well, but on the flipside of that same token, what the game does poorly is very hard to ignore. I can give Space & Steel a Substance rating of '2" and a Style rating of ‘4' with a clear conscience. It's not the great game that it could be with a bit more work (e.g., content editing and tighter mechanical focus on genre emulation), but it isn't a horribly bad game, either.
I feel that Space & Steel has tremendous potential, but that it probably should have made a few more playtest rounds prior to publication (possibly in wider circles). With a little bit of content editing (specifically where the section on combat resolution is concerned) and mechanics more evocative of the genre, I think that what is currently a slightly below average product could easily become a great product (I know that such a treatment would easily boost the game into my personal ‘Top 5', for instance).
As it stands, I think that Space & Steel will appeal mostly to those gamers who are looking for a science fantasy game with a wide open setting, who prefer largely generic rule sets, and who don't mind implementing house-rules to ensure that such a game runs smoothly. If brewing your own house-rules to patch a game’s rough spots sounds like a chore, if you prefer extremely detailed settings, or if you gravitate toward mechanics that are very obviously tied to a game's setting (or premise), then Space & Steel probably isn’t going to float your boat.
The great thing about Print on Demand services like Lulu is that they make introducing product revisions a snap ;)
[Addendum:
Prior to my submitting this review for publication at RPGNet, I sent a copy to the author. I think you may be impressed with his response (I was). Rather than hem and haw about my critique, he immediately addressed some of the issues that I mention, as follow:
1) He made some small edits to the description of Action and Support Die, making the part about their roles being different for combat its own sentence for each as well as bolding the words Attack and Defend for each: "In combat it changes slightly to represent their attempt to Attack their opponent." and "In combat it changes slightly to represent their attempt to Defend themselves." Page 24.
2) Added a sentence to the description of The Round (i.e., the outline of a combat round) that says, "All characters get to Attack or Defend unless they give up those options or are physically incapable." Page 26.
3) Under Contested Actions I changed the examples in parenthesis under #4 to "(when [italics]some[/italics] degree of success is necessary)" and "(when just being better than your opponent is acceptable)" Page 26.
Additionally, the author assures me that he is compiling a proper errata and clarification document based upon those conerns that I and others have mentioned. For what it's worth, I think that this degree of hands-on support is fantastic and a good indicator that Space & Steel is ready to take off like a rocket.]
