Normally, I determine how to structure an adventure for a game system by looking at one of the preexisting adventures for the game.  The problem I've had with coming up with adventures for Mistborn is that there are NO adventures available - the closest you get is a single encounter.

I think the lack of adventures available from Crafty Games is the reason why I haven't seen any Mistborn being offered at local cons or by individuals.  Until there's something out there that people can use as a model, it's really hard to put an adventure together.

Creating adventures for MAG is a bit of a strange beast, mainly because the system at its core is about the Crew's story - not one that is made for them ahead of time. In my personal opinion, following a pre-printed adventure is not the best example of how the game is actually intended to work.

That said, officially I know exactly why people want pre-printed adventures and know they're useful for folks looking to kickstart a campaign. We do have 3 adventures in the can (in various stages of editing and revisions), and 2 more in writing now. We're *finally* clearing out one of the great logjams of production (editorial + layout) so you should begin to see those dribble out this summer

So I was reading this thread http://www.crafty-games.com/forum/index.php?topic=3303.0 and it seems Guard from different sources stack (fine, the bonus stacks are just explained for attacks and skills). The question is, why the Two-Weapon Guard Feat (Adventure Companion page 124) says you can treat one Guard bonus to defense as an insight bonus?

That thread is out of date. Guard no longer stacks, and it was errataed when we released second printing. That's why Two Weapon Guard is written the way it is

One increase per Long Breather is the intent. Yes that means a Mistborn or Keeper can't rapidly be good at lots of metals, but that is also the intent

See, I always considered Medium BAB to be "the standard".  I never had problems in combat as a Face, Sleuth, or Scout.  To me, it's the line.  Not full.  Full BAB, to me, is the killing equivalent of PHD. 

Couldn't have said it better myself. While many seem to think characters without BAB are sub-optimal in combat, the truth is those with full BAB are simply specialized in combat. The game can and does assume Med BAB as the "average."

So without knowing what you are doing in terms of classes, feats, skills, etc - hopefully you are retaining enough customization for some characters to be "the same, but different"?  Can it be pushed further by having a choice made at low level that significantly shapes a specialization within the class?

Yes, of course on both fronts. Probably even more so than our current system

[The Good, the Bad, and the Alloys]

The Good, the Bad, and the Alloys
A legendary stash of lost metals is rumored to be hidden on koloss lands, deep in the Roughs. Rustle up your Crew and risk it all for fame and fortune in this Alloy of Law adventure.

• Thursday, 3pm-7pm
• Friday, 10am-2pm
• Friday, 7pm-11pm
• Saturday, 3pm-7pm

Given the presence of an Alloy of Law adventure, should we keep an eye out for product announcements...?  

Not at this time, no.

[would be more useful to more people.]

This IMO is why the number one fan-made modification on License to Improvise over time has been Origins, even though something like monsters is infinitely better documented, easier to do, and would be more useful to more people.

That may have been true at the beginning, but by this point Origins are typically the better documented phenomena., and this is because your last point strikes me as being wrong. Pregen'ed NPCs, by and large, are useful only to a subset of the audience: typically the GMs running the games, which I'd guess would optimistically be maybe a 5th of your total base. There's no denying that being able to cut and paste from a bestiary into an adventure is useful, and there are folks like Paddy doing a yeoman's job converting other d20 creatures, but what's the utility of that to the average player? They'll have to talk to it or kill it regardless of who came up with it, and there's something to be said for presenting your players with a custom job they're not sure how to metagame.

I think you're missing my point, or at let dwelling on it far more than I ever intended. My point simply was, Crafty has never officially released an Origin building guide (the point in LtI, by the way, are ok but not the same we use officially) and that critters have a more robust and openly documented system. While yes there are more players than GMs, you can only ever use an Origin once per character, whereas you can drop a monster into any game at any level in any size group. That's why I made a whole host of comments after this first sentence supporting my point. Plus, you know, it's an opinion.

Can we get back to character building discussion now?

Compounding Twinborn are in the same basic boat in Alloy of Law's rules. Both Compounding Twinborn and standard Twinborn are Strong Powers choices, but the standard Twinborn starts out with a Stunt while the Compounder does not. The way we balance Compounding is that in its most basic form works kind of like a Stunt, in that it gives a crapload of charges - the crazy stuff we see (or infer) from the books exists as a special set of Stunts available only to Compounders.

This seems a good way to do it. Although there are still character types that are very hard to balance and fit well into a group. Especially feruchemical gold and electrum (with or without compounding).

That is, for better or worse, an issue with the story, and not so much the game. Brandon made some powers patently better (Allomantic Pewter, anyone?) than others (Allomantic Aluminum, anyone?) so I call it a feature. To deliberately or non-intuitively cripple those Powers by the rules would make for a far more scathing critique than putting the balance of power on the Narrator and his story.

EDIT: Also, are you happy to tell us what power rating ferrings/twinborn would have?

Not at this time, no, as we are not in final edited text for those sections yet.

Generally speaking, we don't "penalize" character concepts. After all, a Mistborn is not penalized for having access to all Allomancy - rather, he simply has to choose Strong Powers and start with one less Stunt and a lower starting Rating than a Misting for his choice.

Compounding Twinborn are in the same basic boat in Alloy of Law's rules. Both Compounding Twinborn and standard Twinborn are Strong Powers choices, but the standard Twinborn starts out with a Stunt while the Compounder does not. The way we balance Compounding is that in its most basic form works kind of like a Stunt, in that it gives a crapload of charges - the crazy stuff we see (or infer) from the books exists as a special set of Stunts available only to Compounders.

In the end, neither option is "weaker" than the other...at least, no more so than a Misting or Ferring is weaker than any other (e.g. the difference is based on Power choice). Just like the Mistborn in the classic era, that Compounder will probably simply be investing more of his Advancements into gaining Stunts instead of boosting his Ratings, Standings, or Attributes or grabbing useful Traits.

Sadly, there are no "minor mechanical choices" in an RPG - and frankly, that's for the best. Every choice should matter. Reactions to Origins (and many other parts of the system) are simply reinforcing that universal truth.

+1 (naturally). As an additional caveat, those choices should at all times be ones that people want to make, not have to make...especially when that choice is not a simple 'tick the box' option.

Players want to choose classes. They want to choose feats. These decisions matter and have a big impact on play. But do they want to choose whether they get the bundle that has +2 Cha, +2 Wis/charming/beguiling/Basic Combat Expert and a specific Style feat, or +3 Cha/charming/Crunch! and a Basic Combat feat? Not really. They want to make parts of that decision - the ones that matter - but not to choose between what may well be two "sub-optimal" options for them. And sub-optimal means "not worth the time or brainpower I could be spending playing."

This IMO is why the number one fan-made modification on License to Improvise over time has been Origins, even though something like monsters is infinitely better documented, easier to do, and would be more useful to more people. Those who have the interest in learning find it rewarding and get to design something that fits their vision exactly - but for the rest of us (about 95%), we simply don't have the time to do so and are "stuck" with a series of inordinately tough decisions. The new system makes the payoff both nuanced and desirable enough folks will want to make the handful of choices required to build an Origin.

Great feedback, Alistair! No whining implied. In fact, you should be very happy with the direction I've chosen to take on this front...

Well, in the absence of some variety/complexity of effects & a resource pool as currency for trade-offs, it could be quite tricky to give any real texture to non-human Origins... A concern I suspect Spycraft³ doesn't have to wrestle with .

That is something I've already taken under consideration, in the case we choose to use the SC3 system as a code base for other genres at a later date. There are plenty of opportunities to not only allow freer Origin options but to give folks more, not less, of what they want out of races/species at the same time.

Then we try to work out the origins.   To be honest, with the benefit of hindsight that maybe wasn't available before, this bit is kindly fiddly and annoying.  Its the point at which someone always suggests using another system.  Sometimes people find exactly what they need quickly and it works well.  Other times it's the awkward juggle of trying to get the right bonus feat, mechanics that are helpful, and a theme that still matches with the initial idea for the character concept.  Someone will get stuck trying to workout whether their fantasy city pickpocket has beguiling/charming, or cheap-shot/intimidate, or ambush-basics/trap-sense, then decide whether he also has natural-elegance/parry, or charming/cheap-shot, or something else.  People who know the rule options really well might enjoy this mental gymnastics, but its about this time we really want to just start playing.  It feels like choosing a theme, that has stat shift and a skill bonus would be good enough.

Sorry if this comes across as a whinge.  Like I said the first two steps are not a problem, and the first step has everyone really excited.  So if you are looking at a new system that builds from simplicity I really hope you re-asses the origin mechanic, or build in some kind of compatible short cut for the pick-up gamers.

Great feedback, Alistair! No whining implied. In fact, you should be very happy with the direction I've chosen to take on this front...

We've got approvals on a number of the supplements, and are moving close (in one case, very close) to finally getting them out. No needs for buckets of money - we're excited to get these guys out into the wild ASAP!

It's been a few weeks, so I thought I'd check in and see if "close" has moved to "very close, and/or if "very close" has moved to "any day now"...

First supplement is awaiting layout - once we get that done we can release. So the answer is "I don't know anything better than 'soon'"

I'm going to be a heretic here and say that I think that the Pointman has a problem, in that it's trying to be two things that don't necessarily overlap.

*taps nose with finger*

[what is you favorite part of the Pointman?]

Hey gang,

I'm out of town this weekend, but I have a question for you to ponder:

what is you favorite part of the Pointman? Any edition is fair game, but I'd like you to confine your answers to a single theme of feature.

Thanks in advance!