(I was sure that I had posted this bit earlier, but looking through the posts it seems that I had skipped this entry when transferring the posts from my word processor to the blog...so there may have been a bit of a disconnect earlier. Sorry about that,) I like consistency in my game systems, rather than subsystems here and there each functioning in different ways and slowing the game down as players adjust. But, there are things that are natural and things that are supernatural, so I’ll accept some variation in the mechanisms driving the magic in a system compared to the mechanisms driving the mundane. Much of a character’s development through the spheres of magick is basically an expansion of flavour text and narrative potential. At the lowest levels most spheres can sense the mystical energies associated with them, at higher levels subtle manipulations occur along specific lines, and at higher levels more powerful and more diverse effects may be harnessed. Spheres can...
Comments
Each describing some aspect of the game that either fell flat or just didn't gel right in play. Such as maybe giving each player a single move to speed things up (rather than the current 2 move structure)...suggesting to increase the icon size on cards (so they are more easily readable across the table)...adjusting font to something more legible (especially given the font size on the cards). There were a few mechanism feedback ideas as well, comparing the gameplay to existing products on the market.
This degree of critique is what I think most game designers crave.
But generally, any feedback is good feedback. I don't care what form it comes in.