|
The new version of impulse Drive is updated, with slight changes to the rules, the handouts reorganized to give access to information more easily, and -Clean versions of all documents, that don't have the background to save ink when printing. •22/10/2016: Moved Lob Grenade from basic universal Moves to Drifting. •Clarified in explanation of Firefight that “Play it cagey” may be chosen more than once. •Renamed Session Debrief to Roll Credits, and added line about marking Season Burn and Ticks. •Renamed First Session to Pilot Episode. •Vandern Derelict Adventure has been updated to follow version 3.0 rules. •Clean versions of all documents have been created to ease the burden on printing. •Documents have been reorganized for less handouts and more easily found information. 
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2016 14:07
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 19:46 |
|
|
Magpie Games put up their Kickstarter campaign for Bluebeard's Bride, a Gothic horror game based on the fairy tale of Bluebeard.  Bluebeard's Bride is a PBtA game, but they did a couple of interesting things with the mechanics - for example, the game is mostly diceless, and the players play aspects of a single person's psyche (so it's kind of a semi-Jungian horror version of Everyone is John). They've already met their funding goal ten times over after just five days, but there's some cool stretch goals I hope they meet. They put up the beta ruleset on DriveThruRPG, so you can start playing the game ASAP (as long as you already understand PBtA).
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2016 19:58
|
|
|
How would you handle unarmed fighting in Impulse Drive? Fisticuffs are a pretty big part of just about any life action space show I can think of, but the only mention of unarmed fighting is the note in skirmish saying the SM shouldn't allow it if the character is unarmed facing someone with a monosword. Would "1 harm, skirmish, silent, stun" be about right? Servetus fucked around with this message at 23:14 on Oct 25, 2016 |
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2016 23:09
|
|
|
Servetus posted:How would you handle unarmed fighting in Impulse Drive? Fisticuffs are a pretty big part of just about any life action space show I can think of, but the only mention of unarmed fighting is the note in skirmish saying the SM shouldn't allow it if the character is unarmed facing someone with a monosword. That's pretty much it. If those involved are in even footing, use skirmish. If an NPC has a PC at severe disadvantage (the NPC is a big robot or in power armor or has a proper skirmish weapon and the PC isn't particularly skilled in unarmed combat) use keep your cool. If the PC clearly outmatches the NPC, look at Intimidate or even Merciless to see which applies. If the PC chooses to dismay or impress their opponent, the opponent may give up, or run, or be open to being intimidated or manipulated. Often, throwing a punch isn't about getting into a punch-out. It's about lashing out, or intimidating someone. Look at the players intent to see which move is most relevant, and has the most relevant outcome. Other gear or mods may affect that damage. You could allow the PC to activate the roll on their power armor or super strength mod to deal more harm, that's a call for your group to discuss at your table.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2016 01:46
|
|
|
Pththya-lyi posted:Magpie Games put up their Kickstarter campaign for Bluebeard's Bride, a Gothic horror game based on the fairy tale of Bluebeard. On the one hand, I really, really like this concept. On the other hand, I kind of don't want to give Magpie Games my money after that Zak S debacle. On the one hand, it's not like the whole company is responsible for the actions of the idiot at the top. On the other hand, what is this if not a clear example of voting with my wallet, the closest thing to a moral choice you can make in front of awful people selling things?
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2016 12:21
|
|
|
How many loving hands do you have?
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2016 15:39
|
|
|
paradoxGentleman posted:On the one hand, I really, really like this concept. On the other hand, I kind of don't want to give Magpie Games my money after that Zak S debacle. It's Marissa Kelly's baby, if that makes any difference. I don't know what happened with Magpie and Zak S, but if it was one or two particular people there she might not have been on board with that.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2016 03:22
|
|
|
No idea what will be in it, but Monsterhearts 2nd Edition is getting a kickstarter released on Halloween for those of you dig it!
DemonMage fucked around with this message at 03:34 on Oct 27, 2016 |
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2016 03:31
|
|
|
malkav11 posted:It's Marissa Kelly's baby, if that makes any difference. I don't know what happened with Magpie and Zak S, but if it was one or two particular people there she might not have been on board with that. I'm not sure that's 100% correct. Isn't Whitney Beltran (Strix) the lead writer?
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2016 03:59
|
|
|
DemonMage posted:No idea what will be in it, but Monsterhearts 2nd Edition is getting a kickstarter released on Halloween for those of you dig it! I thought she left the industry. Any word on changes? I know she wanted to tweak stuff like the ghoul/mortal's dynamic. Wrestlepig fucked around with this message at 04:04 on Oct 27, 2016 |
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2016 04:02
|
|
|
Nope, only thing I know is the tweet about it being put up on Halloween: https://twitter.com/skittishgorgon/status/790636584827654144 I just figure there's enough people here who seem to like it, that they'd want to keep an eye out for it. DemonMage fucked around with this message at 04:28 on Oct 27, 2016 |
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2016 04:15
|
|
|
rumble in the bunghole posted:I thought she left the industry. "Just when I think I'm out, they pull me back in."
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2016 04:27
|
|
|
DemonMage posted:Nope, only thing I know is the tweet about it being put up on Halloween: https://twitter.com/skittishgorgon/status/790636584827654144 
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2016 04:48
|
|
|
Magpie still has content due for US, let alone Masks. Finish what you start, guys.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2016 05:26
|
|
|
rumble in the bunghole posted:I thought she left the industry. Any word on changes? I know she wanted to tweak stuff like the ghoul/mortal's dynamic. Last summer she posted some proposed rules for asexuality and those on the ace spectrum (demi/semi/gray/else), to address the ace erasure in the first edition, along with a survey for those on the spectrum. Link. This was posted publicly, but keep in mind that it was months ago and may or may not reflect the current state of the rule.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2016 10:59
|
|
|
There's apparently an updated version. It references an updated variant of Shut Down, that was apparently in the second skins; I have those, though, and can't find it. Was it just posted in an update or something?
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2016 15:02
|
|
|
Someone made their own "improved" ruleset, but it sucks because they got rid of "getting rid of others strings on you". It resulted in skins like the Giant which has moves like "You have a giant dog" or "You can eat people whole" and lets you roll 2d8 instead of 2d6.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2016 17:37
|
|
|
Caedar posted:I'm not sure that's 100% correct. Isn't Whitney Beltran (Strix) the lead writer? She's collaborating with Kelley and Sarah Richardson (who's run most of the Actual Plays floating around online, though many of them are based on older versions of the rules). They met at an all-women game jam at GenCon 2014, came up with the idea for Bluebeard's Bride there, and have been working on it ever since. According to the KS page for BB, the PDFs are going to come out in May 2017, while the physical books will come out in July. I suppose we'll have to see if they can deliver. E: FWIW, I'm okay with waiting for the BB books to come out, even if it's much longer than they promised, because I believe 1) in the concept and system and 2) that they'll deliver eventually. I understand that not everybody feels that way. Pththya-lyi fucked around with this message at 17:47 on Oct 27, 2016 |
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2016 17:40
|
|
|
Golden Bee posted:Someone made their own "improved" ruleset, but it sucks because they got rid of "getting rid of others strings on you". It resulted in skins like the Giant which has moves like "You have a giant dog" or "You can eat people whole" and lets you roll 2d8 instead of 2d6.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2016 17:42
|
|
|
spectralent posted:There's apparently an updated version. It references an updated variant of Shut Down, that was apparently in the second skins; I have those, though, and can't find it. Was it just posted in an update or something? Golden Bee posted:Someone made their own "improved" ruleset, but it sucks because they got rid of "getting rid of others strings on you". It resulted in skins like the Giant which has moves like "You have a giant dog" or "You can eat people whole" and lets you roll 2d8 instead of 2d6. Yeah, a guy by the name of Ross Cowman changed almost every basic move and it's pretty bad. I have to admit, seeing Avery talk about basing the new edition's rules off them isn't something I'm a fan of. But maybe it'll be better then what Ross came up with? Since they're just house rules, I figure it can't hurt to post them for reference. Let me know if I should take these down though: quote:Turn Someone On quote:When you shut someone down, roll with cold. quote:When you lash out physically, roll with volatile. quote:When you run away, roll with volatile. quote:When you gaze into the abyss, roll with dark. So off the top of my head, it probably fucks with the String economy (you can no longer make people lose Strings on you unless you have a Skin move that lets you do that, Shut Down becomes better for getting Strings instead of a defensive move to remove them, you can't get Strings from Lashing Out, and Run Away doesn't have the option of giving a String), and the Gaze is just making it so you don't get as much on a 10+ as you normally would.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2016 18:31
|
|
|
Yeah, that strikes me as weird. I had assumed there must be some other Shut Down she was referring to.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2016 19:54
|
|
|
Evil Mastermind posted:Wow, missing the point on the mechanics and the tone of the game. That's pretty impressive. Eh. Making playbooks that don't fit with the core game at all is less of a problem when you're also making fundamental changes to the core mechanics. I don't like the Giant or the move changes either, but let's not judge it by standards it's not trying to meet. Heliotrope posted:Yeah, a guy by the name of Ross Cowman changed almost every basic move and it's pretty bad. I have to admit, seeing Avery talk about basing the new edition's rules off them isn't something I'm a fan of. But maybe it'll be better then what Ross came up with? Honestly, I'm not that worried about Avery taking some inspiration from that? Those moves are way worse than the quite frankly amazing core moves from Monsterhearts 1e, but Turn Someone On is the lynchpin of the entire string cycle. If Turn Someone On needs to be changed to make it not be insulting to asexuals and people who have a set orientation they want for this character*, and it does, then the entire moveset needs to be changed or it's going to be worse from getting haphazardly changed. As it stands, this is one of the only real attempts at totally reworking Monsterhearts' core moves, so Avery might as well take what inspiration she can. *Yeah, I know. I'm laughing at people who are afraid of their characters becoming gay as hard as the rest of you. But if one of the players is deeply uncomfortable with men flirting with her, there needs to be a better way to deal with that than everyone playing a man agreeing to not use one of the key game mechanics on her character.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2016 20:08
|
|
|
Aside from the 7-9 shut down having "you come off as a jerk" those are all worse versions of the original moves.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2016 22:24
|
|
|
The come off as a jerk thing is just a clunky way of doing what should be a string or condition.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2016 22:42
|
|
|
Lurks With Wolves posted:Honestly, I'm not that worried about Avery taking some inspiration from that? Those moves are way worse than the quite frankly amazing core moves from Monsterhearts 1e, but Turn Someone On is the lynchpin of the entire string cycle. If Turn Someone On needs to be changed to make it not be insulting to asexuals and people who have a set orientation they want for this character*, and it does, then the entire moveset needs to be changed or it's going to be worse from getting haphazardly changed. As it stands, this is one of the only real attempts at totally reworking Monsterhearts' core moves, so Avery might as well take what inspiration she can. I dunno; I feel like Monsterhearts really clearly signals what it's about. It's not even an unexpected aspect like sex in AW is; there's sex in Twilight, the book about the 2pure4u husbando. I can totally understand if someone's a trauma survivor or ace or something and finds those aspects upsetting or uninteresting, but on the other hand if I had to pick a game to play with someone with absolutely no interest in sex the game about teenagers having really ill-advised nookie would be one of the ones I'd probably try and avoid. Like, if I had someone in my group who was super phobic about blood references I'd probably not play vampire with them, rather than try and remove blood from vampire.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2016 23:19
|
|
|
Really, that alt version of shut down is super awful, for the previously mentioned reasons but also because two out of three options straight up end interactions, with the third forcing a pretty hard swerve in it. The ACE rules are sort of interesting, but they got me feeling a little sketchy with the reference to the new shut down.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2016 23:29
|
|
|
I think the asexuality rules are pretty bad. They go against one of the core themes of the game, where you aren't in control of your identity. It also doesn't really give you a good way to get strings unless you go with the dumb custom rules, so it's not great mechanically. There's nothing for asexuals getting pressured into interacting with a sexual world they don't belong to. If the player wants they can just flip the asexual switch off for whoever they want, without any mechanical or social cause, or loss of control. IMO if you wanted to represent asexuality you'd be better off making a specific playbook for it, or make an advance where you get a firmer understanding of who you are.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2016 00:51
|
|
|
rumble in the bunghole posted:I think the asexuality rules are pretty bad. They go against one of the core themes of the game, where you aren't in control of your identity. It also doesn't really give you a good way to get strings unless you go with the dumb custom rules, so it's not great mechanically. There's nothing for asexuals getting pressured into interacting with a sexual world they don't belong to. If the player wants they can just flip the asexual switch off for whoever they want, without any mechanical or social cause, or loss of control. I'm just guessing, but it sounds like you only read the first draft. I had a similar reaction to the first posted ruleset, but the second posted ruleset linked in the comments does it better. We'll just need to wait a few days and hope the kickstarter has a preview draft to see how the moves have changed to see how it might work in practice.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2016 01:09
|
|
|
I've been a bit more sold on the idea from conversation with some friends (the most notable reason being that, as one of my friends justly pointed out, most people don't pay any goddamn notice to what the book warns people not to do unless there's dice involved, so it makes it a mandatory conversation, which I think is ultimately the necessary step regardless). That said, I do think it's a shame it's not (possibly also) the theme of a playbook; I can see an argument that making ace people monster is probably bad but the rulebook does this for the depressed and people on the spectrum, so if it were handled with similar levels of care it'd probably be a really good addition to the game.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2016 01:10
|
|
|
rumble in the bunghole posted:I think the asexuality rules are pretty bad. They go against one of the core themes of the game, where you aren't in control of your identity. It also doesn't really give you a good way to get strings unless you go with the dumb custom rules, so it's not great mechanically. Monsterhearts' biggest strength is its laser focus on the theme. The carnal, savage metaphor at its core is designed to make you and your characters a little uncomfortable. (That's why we have the X card.) There might be a game without it but it'll be painfully obvious that it has lost its way.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2016 01:15
|
|
|
This is so simple that I assume there must be something hideously wrong with it, but for ace-friendly play, why not just slightly change the Turn On flavor to be less sexual? Phrase it as "Get Someone's Attention," say, and make it about gaining recognition and social currency. Change the "they give themselves to you" option to something social-status-y -- "they publicly praise or acknowledge you," maybe? I do agree that removing the sex element potentially guts Monsterhearts, but it seems like you could replace it with the adolescent drive for social recognition and have something at least a little feral. What is this variation doing about Sex Moves?
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2016 01:31
|
|
|
rumble in the bunghole posted:The come off as a jerk thing is just a clunky way of doing what should be a string or condition. Right. I feel like "you come off as a jerk" would fit well in with the original move (on a 10+ [same as usual], on a 7-9 you come off as a jerk so [same as usual]). Capfalcon posted:Really, that alt version of shut down is super awful, for the previously mentioned reasons but also because two out of three options straight up end interactions, with the third forcing a pretty hard swerve in it. That's part of the problem with the new Turn on as well, with just "leave" being on of the 10+ options? How is that interesting? How does that advance things in any way? Someone getting really turned on, flustered and trying to leave could be interesting, but at that point it seems clearly a good reason to run away from the situation. No, just, leave. I don't think the ACE moves work with the game as it is, it isn't designed to be a game where you actually are sure about your sexuality. You might think you're only into guys, and then you get turned on by a girl, and then you have to deal with what that means. Was it a one time thing? Did what the girl do remind you something you find attractive about guys? Maybe you actually are interested in girls? Are you bisexual? Why did all the other times a girl did that did it not turn you on? Or the same if a turn on fails, you have someone attractive, who should be attractive, showing interest in you and being sexual, but you aren't responding, even if you did before, why not? Does something about them repel you? Is your sexuality changing? Is something wrong with you? with them? rumble in the bunghole posted:I think the asexuality rules are pretty bad. They go against one of the core themes of the game, where you aren't in control of your identity. It also doesn't really give you a good way to get strings unless you go with the dumb custom rules, so it's not great mechanically. There's nothing for asexuals getting pressured into interacting with a sexual world they don't belong to. If the player wants they can just flip the asexual switch off for whoever they want, without any mechanical or social cause, or loss of control. Basically what you just said, yeah. There's definitely a way to work it in well because the issue of confusion about why you aren't being turned on by things that everyone says you should be works well with the mess of the game, but I don't think these do it. You shouldn't go into a MH game knowing your characters identity and sexuality, just what they think it is (if that). A growing up move where you figure out your sexuality and can change the effects of a turn on move against you by a (or both) genders would feel powerful fictionally and mechanically, or a playbook built around being asexual in a sexual (with a good overlay of monster metaphors) world which changes how turn ons work against you (and maybe from you) and the confusion, isolation and pressure from that both seem like better ways. edit: seesh teach me to only check for new posts once. GodFish fucked around with this message at 01:40 on Oct 28, 2016 |
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2016 01:37
|
|
|
worst part of the crabby shut someone down move is the following interaction You have at least one string on a person. You shut them down and roll a 9. Spend that string to turn that 9 into a 10 and immediately get the string back while getting the 10+ fictional result. The crabby moves really are moves made with little understanding of what the string economy does.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2016 02:04
|
|
|
I think having rules specific to Ace characters, regardless of what they are, misses something fundamental about Turn On, which is that it never tells you that you're turned on. On a 10+, they get a string -- which could represent something sexual, but is intentionally abstract, and could just as easily represent embarrassment or social otherness or something. On a 7-9, you get a choice of ways to react, only one of which has anything to do with sex, and one of which is "give a string" -- again, completely devoid of specific connotations. If your character is asexual, just don't pick to give yourself*. Maybe getting hit on makes you irritated or nervous, or maybe others nearby think you're a dweeb, but the rules never require you to be attracted to anyone. *Another option, of course, is to interpret "give yourself to them" in some non-sexual way. Sex is not the only way to give yourself to somebody, especially in a game with vampires in it. e: I do have one problem with Turn On, though, and that's that a 7-9 is supposed to be a mixed success or a success with a cost or whatever, and Turn On's 7-9 is pure upside no matter what. e: v Yes, the person rolling it is doing something sexy, but the person being rolled against doesn't have to. megane fucked around with this message at 03:10 on Oct 28, 2016 |
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2016 02:58
|
|
|
megane posted:I think having rules specific to Ace characters, regardless of what they are, misses something fundamental about Turn On, which is that it never tells you that you're turned on. It kinda does though. It's called "Turn Someone On," and the rules explicitly state that it's sexual.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2016 03:09
|
|
|
There's nothing in the mechanics that states it has to be sex (depending on semantics about the trigger of turning someone on), but it's a particularly popular interpretation in play. If Teen Wolf takes off his shirt and rolls a 12 it's gotta be hard to roleplay Ace rimmer deferring to his leadership skills.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2016 03:15
|
|
|
RAW "Turn someone on" is fictionally passive. You can just narrate your character being sexy (catching the sunlight in your hair, wearing a nice outfit) instead of flirting. Nthing Asexuality as a fit for the Ghost or Unicorn, not a core move.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2016 04:25
|
|
|
rumble in the bunghole posted:There's nothing in the mechanics that states it has to be sex (depending on semantics about the trigger of turning someone on), but it's a particularly popular interpretation in play. If Teen Wolf takes off his shirt and rolls a 12 it's gotta be hard to roleplay Ace rimmer deferring to his leadership skills. I mean, in this theoretical example, I think the Ace option is watching something you know, intellectually, is supposed to be attractive and just... not really caring. Which sets off a whole new chain of teenage uncertainty along the lines of "Wait, is something wrong with me?" that translates pretty cleanly into a string.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2016 04:27
|
|
|
megane posted:e: v Yes, the person rolling it is doing something sexy, but the person being rolled against doesn't have to. rumble in the bunghole posted:There's nothing in the mechanics that states it has to be sex (depending on semantics about the trigger of turning someone on), but it's a particularly popular interpretation in play. If Teen Wolf takes off his shirt and rolls a 12 it's gotta be hard to roleplay Ace rimmer deferring to his leadership skills. But the move isn't "Impress Someone" or something like that, it's Turn Someone On. It's kind of weird to interpret it this way where you can say "Actually it's not that I'm turned on when you successfully used Turn On." In the rules, there's this section under the mechanics of Turn Someone On: quote:This move implies something about sexuality, and particularly teenage sexuality. We don’t get to decide what turns us on. When you make a move to turn someone on (with a character action or with scene description), the other player doesn’t get to exclaim, “Wait, my character is straight! There’s no way that’d turn them on.” That’s a decision that we as players can’t make for our characters. The dice are going to be the ultimate referees of what is and isn’t sexy for these characters. Their own sexuality will confuse them and surprise them; it’ll show up in unexpected places and unlikely situations. Regardless of the results of the roll, however, each player still gets to decide how their character reacts. Being turned on by someone doesn’t imply or demand a particular reaction. And in the Queer Content section there's this: quote:If Lukas rolls to turn on Jackson, and succeeds, then we know that Jackson has been turned on by another guy, at least this once. It doesn’t replace what was previously true about Jackson, necessarily, but it does add a new dimension to the character. Maybe Jackson’s still straight, maybe his relationship with his girlfriend is still as stable as it’s ever been, but we also know about these other feelings he’s experienced.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2016 21:53
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 19:46 |
|
|
Sorry for the doublepost, but there hasn't been another post for the past few days. The new edition of Monsterhearts is up on Kickstarter If you donate, you can get a "sneak peak" document that has the new version of the moves and the skins. One of the big things is that the Chosen has been removed, and you can no longer Manipulate An NPC (you have to spend a String to be able to do so now). As for the basic move changes: I don't really like them. Hard to say why without posting them, but I feel like the way the moves originally worked were fine. It is a version for playtesting though, so it's possible they'll be changed again.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2016 17:42
|
|