|
Dr. Lunchables posted:I want a physical map to show players though. The pdf files don’t help me too much. Can’t you just go to a print shop and print it out?
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2021 16:55
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 27, 2024 23:00 |
|
|
The new t2k looks dope and I like they went an alt history background instead of something dumb like DPRK in Cincinnati. I also love the production value of a proper boxed set with dice and maps and counters. Shame I can't think of a single person who would want to play it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2021 16:59
|
|
|
MazelTovCocktail posted:Can’t you just go to a print shop and print it out? That’s a questionable level of legality. I’ve had print shops question stuff before when they see a trademark or a copyright.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2021 17:09
|
|
|
Dr. Lunchables posted:That’s a questionable level of legality. I’ve had print shops question stuff before when they see a trademark or a copyright. Well it’s for your own personal use from your own copy, so I’d say it’s fair use, but also you can just remotely do it and pick it up. I’m sure for the major ones that the employees wouldn’t either pay attention and/or care about remote print jobs.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2021 18:44
|
|
|
My physical copy of T2K showed up today! I would try to get in on a game with you people, but I don't think I could consistently make the time. I'm just stockpiling games until that mythical free time appears in my life.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2021 22:51
|
|
|
I would be absolutely down to clown in a roll20/other online game of T2k. If it's not too silly I kind of had the idea to play an NCO/CGO who's so ra-ra get them commies make the world safe for democracy that he's gotten Captain Ahab about fighting WWIII even in the midst of continually mounting evidence that it's stupid and futile.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2021 02:33
|
|
|
I would also hypothetically be interested in getting in on this.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2021 04:12
|
|
|
Blade Runner is live. https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1192053011/blade-runner-the-roleplaying-game
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2022 21:42
|
|
|
Gonna probably try running an Alien Cinematic scenario here soon. One thing that has me raising an eyebrow at is the "calling PvP" ruling. Where a player who may be antagonistic to the rest of the party due to following their personal agenda loses control of their character and has to be given a separate PC to play with instead. Does this work well in practice? It seems odd and counterintuitive. If I'm playing a traitor like character in a game I don't want to suddenly stop playing them the moment it gets revealed I'm an antagonist. But maybe it's built that way on purpose? It's hard for me to think of this scenario ahead of time without just thinking it's a lame way to resolve it. Has anyone else run these scenarios? Did you do it differently?
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2023 18:57
|
|
|
DarkAvenger211 posted:Gonna probably try running an Alien Cinematic scenario here soon. One thing that has me raising an eyebrow at is the "calling PvP" ruling. Where a player who may be antagonistic to the rest of the party due to following their personal agenda loses control of their character and has to be given a separate PC to play with instead. So the reason for the rule is both to add dramatic impact to the decision, and not make the decision an easy one, as well as encouraging the party to stick together, to prevent situations where you have to juggle two separate parties with conflicting interests, and to prevent people just being killed out of the blue too early in the story. I would strongly suggest you keep to the rule, because all the times where I've heard people not sticking to it have been horrible. The game is not built for PvP, it is a PvE party-based game and the game rapidly deteriorates (like most RPGs, to be honest) if you allow PvP to occur. You just have to treat characters in Alien as extremely expandable, especially in cinematic play, so going from one character to another should be encouraged and the GM should tell their players not to worry too much about losing their character, either by death or by going antagonistic.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2023 19:13
|
|
|
Tekopo posted:The issue with not having this rule present in the game is that if it is not present, you end up splitting the party a lot earlier, and also have to rely on the PvP rules which are difficult to get right for a system which is as crunchy and rocket-taggy as Alien RPG. I have heard horror stories of people leaning into their antagonistic agenda too much as part of their play (for example, scientist characters just trying to get people killed from the get go, and the game just turns out to be a glorified PvP game instead), so the reason for the rule is to make the player playing that specific character really think hard about when they are going to betray the party, and only do it at a saliant point in the story when it would have the most impact. It definitely makes more sense if the players go in with the notion that they're here to tell an interesting story, and not to make sure their character "wins" the scenario so to speak. Like as a GM I would want the player that's plotting against the party to eventually do that thing, but as the player it seems almost counterintuitive to do it especially if they just turn into an NPC right after. But as I'm reading these scenarios I'm seeing there are plenty of other characters to be given if yours goes rogue or dies.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2023 15:14
|
|
|
DarkAvenger211 posted:It definitely makes more sense if the players go in with the notion that they're here to tell an interesting story, and not to make sure their character "wins" the scenario so to speak And, as you said, the scenarios have a list of characters that can be used if your one seems to die. Keep in mind that the game and scenarios encourages antagonistic characters to stay with the group until the third Act (which is the "poo poo hits the fan" act in all scenarios). As well as that, I usually only NPC a character if direct, physical fights happen and there is the possibility of one character dying. I've had situation where someone obviously went evil, but was out of reach/still able to do their own thing, so I didn't NPC the character yet.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2023 15:39
|
|
|
I don't know how likely it would happen in any of the prewritten scenarios but how would it play out if it were half the party turning on rest? I can imagine that it's possible for someone to convince other party members to join them, especially with the different NPC character motivations that may put more of them in a more antagonistic role.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2023 15:49
|
|
|
It's certainly possible, but again it's pretty easy to designate one part as the main group and the other as the splinter, and NPC accordingly.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2023 16:07
|
|
|
I've almost finished reading through Chariot of the Gods and it almost becomes more confusing to me to take that ruling into account. There are so many possible shifting allegiances that could happen, between the Monterro crew, The Cronus crew and the marauders from the Sotillo. That and there's a secret android PC who could have their goals aligned with some players if those players also want to sabotage the Draconis Strain. And if not then they may not entirely be hostile to each other unless one actually tries to stop the other. The book even says "If the other PCs destroy Lucas’s physical body, he ceases to be a PC and turns into an NPC". Then uploading himself to the ship mainframe after. But what's strange is that with the PVP ruling even if they don't destroy Lucas's body wouldn't he still become an NPC because he's going against the group? Is the NPC ruling supposed to only come into effect after the first time they have a physical confrontation with each other? Or after a scene where they're obviously going against the group (but not necessarily in a hostile conflict)? I haven't run anything yet so I can't really say exactly how it will play out but I'm having a hard time figuring out at what point I would "call pvp" when it's clear that different PCs could be actively shifting between 3 different potential groups in this scenario
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2023 15:36
|
|
|
DarkAvenger211 posted:I've almost finished reading through Chariot of the Gods and it almost becomes more confusing to me to take that ruling into account. In terms of the scenario I've never seen the need to bring in the Sotillo, and it's meant only really to be brought in if a lot of people died in Act II and you don't have enough NPCs left for Act III, but all of the games I've played of Chariot never required those extra bodies and I think they actually can detract from the game. If enough people have died that you really do need to bring in the Sotillo, there won't be enough people left alive to really have 3 different sides to the story, and ideally you want to kill the exisiting people (and maybe leave one alive) while the Sotillo comes in. As for Lucas, yes, if he becomes actively hostile to the group, then he would be NPCed. The rule does state that you have one round of combat before you get NPCed as well, IIRC. The main point of the rule is to prevent outright PvP between players, so don't use it if people plot against each other, and if the parties are split and not in direct conflict, don't NPC either, and only worry about it when there is direct, physical combat occuring. Although the rule is meant to prevent party splitting early, it's not such a big deal by the end of Act III, when poo poo is hitting the fan and most PCs will die anyway. So only worry about it if direct combat is occuring and don't NPC until then.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2023 15:55
|
|
|
This is all good stuff. Thanks! Got a couple more questions out there. What exactly are supposed to be some of the consequences for failing some mandatory rolls? I'm very much used to fail forward systems these days but there's not really a lot of guidance here. Like what happens if the crew fails the Heavy Machinery roll to break into the initial air lock? They need to get in for the rest of the story to happen but there's no suggestion on what a failed roll here means. Same with a lot of the other rolls around repairing the ship and whatnot. And roughly how long did it take you to run this scenario? I know the book says 4 - 5 hours but I'm getting some wildly higher numbers from other people online so I'm guessing it's actually a lot longer than that.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2023 16:19
|
|
|
The system does have an aside on how to deal with failures, but it boils down to "keep the story moving": Due to the three act nature of the game, one of the best tricks that I learnt in order to keep the story moving but still make the rolls meaningful is to just shift the consequence to the third act, because the third act has a sense of finality that allows you to have pretty drastic consequences. So, for example, let's say they try to break into the initial air lock and fail: don't stop them from going through the air-lock, but maybe it's now unavailable as an entry/exit port in the future. Or maybe they create a weakness in it that, in Act 3, finally gives in and the entire upper deck of the ship is now open to the vacuum of space. Or somebody gets injured or stressed while doing the action, or they break a tool while doing it. Or they use too much air while attempting to do it (which ties in with it taking too long). The consequences are pretty open in terms of the game itself. It depends on how fast you are/your group is in taking. I think I did about 4-6 session, 2 hours per session when I ran it myself, with each Act taking either one or two session each.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2023 16:59
|
|
|
I started reading Dragonbane; it seems great. It gets right down to business, the system is straightforward, and it’s funny without being sweaty about it. It’s shot to the top of the games I’d run if I had the time and energy list. Also, in a weird bit of kismet, I recently got into the old Carl Barks Donald Duck comics, so I’m fully on board for the  factor.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2023 12:24
|
|
|
I am currently very obsessed with Alien, and their the RPG. I'm actually going to be running the starter box next week at the LGS for spooky Halloween month stuff. Hopefully doable in about 4 hours?
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2023 02:08
|
|
|
If you don’t fudge dice rolls, Chariot of the Gods can absolutely cinch up in 4 hours’ time.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2023 03:50
|
|
|
The starter campaign in the rule book is doable in about 4 hours and probably will take far shorter. I feel Chariot of the Gods is a bit of a squeeze in 4 hours, especially if you want your character to explore in Act 2. I think I clocked at about 2 hours per act when I ran it last time, and IMO that's a good time frame.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2023 06:57
|
|
|
Maybe I'll try the main book one then. I'll have to go read it. E: Although for a one shot, I'm not sure how much exploring I actually want them to do. 3 Action Economist fucked around with this message at 11:35 on Oct 4, 2023 |
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2023 11:21
|
|
|
If you run Chariot, drop a certain part of Act 3 entirely and it's 4-5 hours easy. Act 3 isn't necessary unless it's the start of a campaign. Edited for clarity. CobiWann fucked around with this message at 02:09 on Oct 8, 2023 |
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2023 19:01
|
|
|
Act 3 is the end of the scenario where everything comes together and the PCs are in a fight for their life. There is something that you can drop from Act 3 that I won't spoil but you will need to do Act 3 regardless of if you want to run a campaign or not.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2023 19:13
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 27, 2024 23:00 |
|
|
I read the adventure on the rulebook for my wife, kids, and one of their friends, and I think that's what I'll go with on Tuesday, too. It definitely took longer than I thought, and I can tell the starter box would take much longer.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2023 01:05
|
|