Content Play Test/Evaluation Guidelines

1. I would have to look of the rules every time of resolve an action using them and even then may need GM arbitration.
2. multiple readings required or occasional reference back, examples needed and probably discussing with game group to get a specific interpretation.
3. Not necessarily intuitive (cannot be understood only in context); Can be understood from a single reading of a manual or online guide. An example may be required, and/or one to two references back to the rules.
4. I can understand the rules in context and only need a single read to get the main points.
5. The rules are self explanatory; no context needed, everything required to understand is contained within a single section and easily understood in one reading.

1. Disallows certain actions by its very nature; adds more than seconds or more than 2 calculations to resolving a specific action; not easily reducible through repetition or mnemonics.
2. Does not allow for “novel” means of manipulating action resolution; Sacrifices logic and may reduce experience through disbelief; adds new calculations or 5 to 10 seconds in resolving a specific action in a way which cannot easily be reduced
3. Adds another facet to an existing caluculation to resolving actions; calcuation is easyily incorporated into final outcomes; new calculations can easily be reduced through repetition
4. Adds to or enhances core type resolutions; calcuations are based on easily defined (one time, etc.) numbers and adds less than 5 more seconds (usally an item based value) which can be reduced through repetition and easy menonics. Some parts can easily be extended (built on) for all actions or extended situationally.
5. Aspect is core to resolution and is one of the primary forms; reoslution and calculation is all under 5 seconds and is easyily incoporated into game flow. All parts can easily be built on or extended.

1. Cannot be done; too integral to resolving outcomes.
2. Can be done, but all other aspects of features suffer
3. Can be done, some small features (such as realism) may suffer but should be done universally to avoid confusion
4. They can easily be applied provisionally; recalculating parts of resolution somewhat easy
5. Game could be played without it; recalculating resolution in same time or less

1. New means with no close correlations elsewhere in rule set.
2. Introduces new extension to something similar in the existing rules.
3. Uses multiple means, all existing to determine resolution. Some extrapolation required to fit in context.
4. Uses multiple means without any work to fit within context; or single means with some abstraction to adapt.
5. Uses single means; Leverages every aspect of an existing means

Things to Consider (outside mechanics):

• Context
• Usefulness

1. The mechanic inherently allows its advantages only to those following a specific archetype or concept.
2. Restrictions are mostly based on attributes and are realistically available to all, but directed towards a concept or archetype. Some high end or extended mechanics are limited to archetypes or concepts.
3. Mechanic is obviously aimed to enhance multiple concepts or archetypes, but is open to access to some level by most others.
4. Most of the benfits can be accessed by any character, limited benefits can be achieved by all concepts and archetypes, but involve minor allocation of CP and efforts to develop the character.
5. Mechanic provides consistent benefits to all; criteria for achieving benefits is easily achievable by all with no restrictions based on aptitudes) and without significant impact on developing the character.

1. Impossible – Actions (and skills or items) involved and resolution outcome do not match even on a fundamental level. Obviously forced for balance or other reasons.
2. Potential for negative resolution is inherent or imminent through limitations imposed or lethality; This level of realism make me either afraid to attempt related actions
3. The level of lethality or reality detracts from me consistently incorporating it into activity, and I would find myself avoiding situations where its is absolutely required
4. Rules are based on known and understood science laws; specific rules may play a little loose with time, distance, etc but are fairly close to reality in operation, if not exactly in specific resolution. I find the level of realism enhances my decision to take actions where the mechanics are required
5. The realism is incorporated so tightly and in such an intuitive manner that it’s seamless and positively impacts other mechanic facets (balance, etc.)

1. Ends any other product enhancement or mechanic development
2. Cannot be built on directly without major effort
3. Leaves minimal ability to build on and/or effort is marginal to do so
4. Leaves little room for enhancement of product/mechanic itself, but lots of extension room for building on
5. Leaves many places for enhancements and extensions

1. Impossible to determine where one section ends and another begins or where one (part of) a mechanic is distinct from another.
5. Easily differentiate materials and where other product content is integrated. Mechanics (or portions thereof) can easily be referenced without their dependencies or connectedness.