'The referee may allow combined Move Actions such as moving and drawing a weapon on a successful Quickness check.'
This strikes me as excessively harsh. I would house rule this in my games. This is why your players all hate you. 😉
Just let people move for pete's sake. You only have 2 actions and you're spending both on movement. Don't allow a chance for my hero to fumble while simply drawing his sword. This goes back to 'when and why do we roll dice?' The intended flavor of the game is heroic action, the rules should conspire to make PCs look heroic.
The generosity of this "clause" is clearly lost on you or - perhaps - needs another line of text. It allows you to combine two Move Actions into one action if you make your Quickness check. So, you are not spending both actions on a Move. If you did, you would not have to make a Quickness check. How it goes in play (again, a few more words are needed in rules)...
Hostilities ensue, the character declares that he will draw his sword and Charge leaving one action to Defend if needed. First, he makes a Quickness check. If he fails, he has two options: (1) Charge and draw as two actions, but don't attack and be left with no action to Defend; or (2) draw and hold his ground (one action) and hold one action to Defend.
This is important because it speaks to readiness. If the character had his sword out, the scenario is irrelevant.
It also speaks to weapon type. If the character was armed with light weapons that can be drawn as a Free Action, no worries. Additionally, if you are Grond the Destroyer armed with heavy weapon it is a Complex Action to unsling the thing. So, would I allow Grond to combine a double Move and readying his maul? Yes, but he would have to make the Quickness check and either way, he is out of actions.
Scribe of the Adventure System
The text in ver 1.23 clears this up pretty well. I suggest specifying the two moves combine in a single Standard action just to avoid any confusion.
I also find it a little weird that other cases where you combine two Standard actions into one are all Advanced actions, but the Move option includes this as a Basic action. You want people who are Shaken (no Advanced actions) to be able to combine moves?
(Incidentally, looks like Shaken and Stunned were deleted from ver 1.23 in the Conditions section on page 30. Accidental?)
One other point that isn't entirely clear. As written, for any Success Check, a "roll of a one is a Critical Failure and may have consequences." Well, here is one specific case where I'd really like to know the consequences, both as the GM and as a player. This looks like a pretty risky maneuver if a 1 on the Quickness check means my sword goes flying across the battlefield or I fall on my face. I like the tactical choice, but only if the consequences for crit failure are clear.
Lots of rule systems out there call for fumbles then give basically zero guidance on how to handle them. Rise above, my brother.
I modified the text slighty to include the Standard Action. Yes, it is intentional that Move, in all it's forms, is a Basic Action.
Great catch, re-added Shaken and Stunned.
Regarding Critical Failures, the myriad possibilities are simply too many to describe that is why there is a referee. What, if any, consequences occur is entirely dependent on what is being attempt and the circumstance. It is important to note, however, that there are numerous rules that do specifically state the consequences of a Critical Failure.
As a meta-statement regarding many of your broader "how to referee" comments, I want to be clear that I think the guidance is valuable, but I don't feel the Core Rules is the place for it. My vision is for the rules to be clear, but as spare as possible. I do understand that many games include what you are describing, but I made a considered choice out of the gate that the Adventure System was not going to include that type of information. There will be no "what is a role-playing game" verbiage included. The Core Rules are a technical manual for the mechanical execution of the games action. Spare, so that there is no barrier between the users and the technical information they are after. In short, as an experienced game master and designer, if I would have rolled my eyes and skipped it to move on to the technical information, it will not be in the Core Rules. We will shortly, however, have a blog for exactly that type of meta information and I would welcome your contributions. The articles can be specific to the Adventure System or more generic. In that way, we present the information to those who find it useful, but exclude it from the technical presentation of the game.
Scribe of the Adventure System
