|
I'd really dig a shonen adventuring party rpg. One Piece and stuff I haven't read like Fairy Tail seem like good fits. You'd need some good rules to give weight to super-giant attacks and Power Levels, as well as just managing the tendency towards solo fights, so just fate or gurps wouldn't fit great.
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2017 02:41
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 00:18 |
|
|
rumble in the bunghole posted:I'd really dig a shonen adventuring party rpg. One Piece and stuff I haven't read like Fairy Tail seem like good fits. You'd need some good rules to give weight to super-giant attacks and Power Levels, as well as just managing the tendency towards solo fights, so just fate or gurps wouldn't fit great. Sounds perfect for mutants and masterminds.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2017 02:49
|
|
|
Someone run a Fairy Tail game where I marry Erza Scarlet
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2017 02:50
|
|
|
rumble in the bunghole posted:I'd really dig a shonen adventuring party rpg. One Piece and stuff I haven't read like Fairy Tail seem like good fits. You'd need some good rules to give weight to super-giant attacks and Power Levels, as well as just managing the tendency towards solo fights, so just fate or gurps wouldn't fit great. Sorry friend, you just missed the Exalted 3 Kickstarter.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2017 04:37
|
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:2/3 of those are incredibly bad. maybe i'm not using the right words but i mean it in the same way you wouldn't use D&D to play horror or romance. and yes the anime's mentioned do have some similar themes but they're so dissonant cramming them together is really weird to me.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2017 04:47
|
|
|
That Old Tree posted:Sorry friend, you just missed the Exalted 3 Kickstarter. It wouldn't work for a few reasons. 1. No room for Usopps or Tony Tony Choppers, or more goofy stuff 2. The power system doesn't fit, it's all rocket tag, perfect defense and picking rote charms from a list rather than creative applications of powers on the fly, pain fueling your burning spirit and personal convictions over set virtues 3. It's got nothing to do with the shonen genre aside from PCs being powerful and vague manga influences. Exalted are closer to Shonen Villains than anything else. I also don't like the core mechanics and setting but that's beside the point. If I actually did it I'd probably just do a 13th age campaign and start at a higher level. The Escalation die, backgrounds and Icons are a step in the right direction, even if the setting and D&D stuff don't fit and you'd need really good Martials. Wrestlepig fucked around with this message at 05:22 on Jan 9, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2017 05:15
|
|
|
Elfgames posted:maybe i'm not using the right words but i mean it in the same way you wouldn't use D&D to play horror or romance. That's more genre and you could do either in D&D, they'd just be somewhat disengaged from the mechanics because D&D lacks the mechanical base to do introspection and interpersonal interaction well. But you could have a set of mechanics that embraced all of those series, especially since they rely on dual escalations of inner and outer conflict (Utena being a mild outlier) and a lot of teen emotionality.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2017 05:18
|
|
|
rumble in the bunghole posted:It wouldn't work for a few reasons. Chopper is obviously a reverse Lunar and Usopp definitely has Solar-level archery at this point.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2017 05:21
|
|
|
remusclaw posted:I was just trying to cover bases on relatively open systems by using those. More, what I am asking is what makes it a better anime game than whatever your favorite system happens to be. What about the rules makes it particularly anime? It has very pretty artwork, I guess? I gave OVA a few tries, though I didn't find it all that anime or even very fun. The dice system encourages a lot of super swingy results, which kind of works if you're into the slapstick tone that the game's going for. The character generation is loose, but there's very little stopping you from breaking the combat system in it's knees (or to make a character completely useless in a fight, since combat and non-combat traits share the same "pool" of points). Again, if that doesn't bother you, it's great for creating games where the ancient samurai with the lightning-based sword style can exist alongside the pasty otaku nerd with a robot girlfriend. It's probably nowhere as bad as BESM, but I feel it would be a lot better to just pull a generic system out of a hat and find the right dials towards the particular anime genre you want to go for.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2017 05:32
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2017 06:10
|
|
|
Allip had to be one of the laziest made-up names for a monster ever.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2017 06:25
|
|
|
I know at least one version of the Tarrasque would simply reform somewhere else 24 hours later if you tried that. Probably not the 3.5 version, because lol 3.5, but one of the other ones. Also they're leaving out the fact that first you have to find an Allip, which isn't that easy because they don't make more of themselves. Honestly the things are normally just nuisances, they're utterly incapable of even hurting you and at best they can knock you out. Even if you fail the save versus their hypnosis ability, since it can't actually talk, all that happens is you stand there like an idiot for 2d4 rounds.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2017 06:46
|
|
|
Ominous Jazz posted:Jojo is the best super hero comic, period. Speaking of Panic at the Dojo...anyone heard any updates from Gnome since mid December?
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2017 07:03
|
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:That's more genre and you could do either in D&D, they'd just be somewhat disengaged from the mechanics because D&D lacks the mechanical base to do introspection and interpersonal interaction well. If you're not engaging with the mechanics then you're not playing the game
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2017 11:30
|
|
|
Kwyndig posted:I know at least one version of the Tarrasque would simply reform somewhere else 24 hours later if you tried that. Probably not the 3.5 version, because lol 3.5, but one of the other ones. Not to mention all it proves is that the editors of 3.5 forgot to include "ability drain" on the tarrasque's big list of immunities (which includes energy drain and ability damage). I mean, obviously the intent would be that the Tarrasque would be immune to that, it just so happens that one slipped through the net.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2017 12:03
|
|
|
Elfgames posted:If you're not engaging with the mechanics then you're not playing the game Then, uh, a significant part of play in any RPG doesn't consist of gameplay, such as any time you play out a conversation.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2017 12:38
|
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:Then, uh, a significant part of play in any RPG doesn't consist of gameplay, such as any time you play out a conversation. If you go an entire scene without using mechanics, I'd say it could certainly be argued that you've stopped playing the game for a while. Personally, I would say that playing an RPG consists of roleplay (the decisions you make for your character) and mechanics (the defined capabilities of your character within the minigames that the RPG provides), each feeding into the other. If that feedback loop stops for a prolonged period, then you've basically slipped into either pure roleplay or pure gameplay. E: Actually, that's a bit narrow, since a game like Diplomacy specifies periods of discussion that take you away from any mechanics for extended periods. Those discussions feed directly into the decisions made in the main gameplay, though; I suppose the real question is how often D&D will generate the same strong link between roleplay and mechanics when taken outside its usual focus. Zandar fucked around with this message at 13:28 on Jan 9, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2017 13:16
|
|
|
Kwyndig posted:I know at least one version of the Tarrasque would simply reform somewhere else 24 hours later if you tried that. Probably not the 3.5 version, because lol 3.5, but one of the other ones. You can summon an allip whenever you want with summon undead iv once the wizard hits level 8, at least. Also lol, allips are one of the legendarily awful design choices of 3.5 and very devastating to parties at their listed challenge rating (3). They're incorporeal undead (at a level where barely anyone will have good magical gear) that permanently drain the wisdom score of anyone they hit with a touch attack. I don't know where that image is getting the idea that you're only unconscious for 24 hours when your wisdom score hits 0, because as far as I'm aware you're in a permanent coma until someone can get you to a cleric that knows the restoration spell (the 4th-level spell, lesser restoration won't cut it). Even if you were only out for 24 hours, you would be a vegetable after you "woke up" so it's moot anyway.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2017 13:28
|
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:Then, uh, a significant part of play in any RPG doesn't consist of gameplay, such as any time you play out a conversation. You've phrased this like you think it isn't true.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2017 14:23
|
|
|
thefakenews posted:You've phrased this like you think it isn't true. Well, I think any model of RPGs which concludes that substantial parts of the activity of role-playing are extraneous blubber is one that encourages a dysfunctional approach to design where everything must be gamified, and is one that assumes RPGs are basically board games rather than a category of game on their own.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2017 14:42
|
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:Well, I think any model of RPGs which concludes that substantial parts of the activity of role-playing are extraneous blubber is one that encourages a dysfunctional approach to design where everything must be gamified, and is one that assumes RPGs are basically board games rather than a category of game on their own. You can do freeform roleplay while playing a board game as well; lots of players make up a personality for the "general" they're playing as in war games. The difference between RPGs and board games is that RPGs have you make decisions about your character that affect their capabilities in the mechanical part of the game. If you keep an IC journal for your general, that doesn't mean you're playing the game while you're writing it after the battle. That's fine! Activities surrounding actual play are fun too. Similarly, having a conversation which doesn't change anything about your character's capabilities or their situation in subsequent play is some (presumably fun) freeform roleplaying surrounding the actual play involving mechanics. And these activities aren't extraneous, of course; games should be taking them into account, because part of the appeal of both wargames and RPGs are the stories they generate. That's the other part of the feedback, where the results of the mechanics inform the roleplay. Honestly, though, this is pretty tangential to whether D&D is a good fit for romance. The real issue is that when you try to make them fit, you're essentially paring D&D down to a pretty rules-light skill system for the majority of play (except maybe someone has Charm Person, which is... probably not ideal), and there's probably going to be another system that's been designed specifically as a rules-light skill system which will run more smoothly.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2017 15:10
|
|
|
Kwyndig posted:Also they're leaving out the fact that first you have to find an Allip, which isn't that easy because they don't make more of themselves.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2017 15:16
|
|
|
Zandar posted:You can do freeform roleplay while playing a board game as well; lots of players make up a personality for the "general" they're playing as in war games. The difference between RPGs and board games is that RPGs have you make decisions about your character that affect their capabilities in the mechanical part of the game. This just leads us to demanding people roll for every task, since someone just automatically getting on a horse to ride it is not playing the game, but it becomes part of the game if you have to roll for it, even if you would automatically succeed by the rules. This is what I meant by gamifying everything- in order to make discussions about tactics or plans part of the game, you have to be rolling or have elaborate speaking rules, else it's just a distraction from the game which ought to be eliminated as a waste of time.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2017 15:18
|
|
|
I don't think it's an indictment of D&D to say that there are things it just doesn't cover in its rules, but are things that people regularly engage with regardless. For the longest time you just didn't know what was supposed to happen if the players talked to The King besides whatever you made up on the spot, but it's used as a framing device for when you enter the dungeon and you start engaging with the rules-based, mechanical side of the game again. The issue is when you like talking to The King so much that you start playing entire sessions about talking to The King, and hold it up as a point of pride that you've gone through whole sessions without escaping the framing device. Indeed, when the framing device becomes the main activity you're engaging with, maybe it's time to look at a different game.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2017 15:19
|
|
|
With board games, you're using out-of-system role-playing to arrive at and justify in-system actions. It's just more codified in an RPG, so what's the point of playing if you're not engaging in the game part of it?
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2017 15:30
|
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:This just leads us to demanding people roll for every task, since someone just automatically getting on a horse to ride it is not playing the game, but it becomes part of the game if you have to roll for it, even if you would automatically succeed by the rules. This is what I meant by gamifying everything- in order to make discussions about tactics or plans part of the game, you have to be rolling or have elaborate speaking rules, else it's just a distraction from the game which ought to be eliminated as a waste of time. You'll note that I didn't, in fact, demand that people roll for every task; I said that games should take the surrounding activities that come with them into account. In fact, part of a game's design should probably be to determine how much time players are expected to be engaging directly with the rules and to design those rules accordingly. In any case, getting onto a horse would generally change how you interact with mechanics in following scenes. Bargaining with a merchant affects the resource-management minigame. Choosing whether to take a slow, safe route to the enemy's fortress or a quick, dangerous one will probably affect encounters on the way and when you arrive. Lots of decisions while roleplaying interact with the game, it's just that deciding to ignore your crush because you saw them with another girl might well not.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2017 15:32
|
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:This just leads us to demanding people roll for every task, since someone just automatically getting on a horse to ride it is not playing the game, but it becomes part of the game if you have to roll for it If the rules state that trivially easy actions should not be rolled for, or in fact that certain actions can be passed by "Taking 1" (in fact a cornerstone of the Cypher System and d20, to certain degrees), then you can still "engage with the rules" without having to roll for everything.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2017 15:40
|
|
|
Zephirum posted:With board games, you're using out-of-system role-playing to arrive at and justify in-system actions. It's just more codified in an RPG, so what's the point of playing if you're not engaging in the game part of it? These people you're describing are real motherfuckers and if any of them pop into this thread I'll spread their nose across their face. But I dunno why we'd talk about them all of a sudden. Zandar posted:You'll note that I didn't, in fact, demand that people roll for every task; I said that games should take the surrounding activities that come with them into account. In fact, part of a game's design should probably be to determine how much time players are expected to be engaging directly with the rules and to design those rules accordingly. So on the one hand, we still have it passed down from the hand of God that these activities cannot actually be part of play, and the true nature of gameplay is in contextless activity without any purpose or reasoning behind it, but on the other hand we also have the statement that the context is suddenly part of gameplay now because the game state no longer consists solely of the raw gears and their interactions. How do you resolve this contradiction? gradenko_2000 posted:If the rules state that trivially easy actions should not be rolled for, or in fact that certain actions can be passed by "Taking 1" (in fact a cornerstone of the Cypher System and d20, to certain degrees), then you can still "engage with the rules" without having to roll for everything. Or this is a statement that those activities are not part of gameplay, alternatively.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2017 15:59
|
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:This just leads us to demanding people roll for every task, since someone just automatically getting on a horse to ride it is not playing the game, but it becomes part of the game if you have to roll for it, even if you would automatically succeed by the rules. This is what I meant by gamifying everything- in order to make discussions about tactics or plans part of the game, you have to be rolling or have elaborate speaking rules, else it's just a distraction from the game which ought to be eliminated as a waste of time. if there are rules/benefits for riding a horse then choosing to get on one is engaging with the mechanics. also who said that everything has to be 100% gameplay? i'm just saying if you're going to play a game and then not use it's mechanics then you aren't playing the game. If you're going to make D&D characters and then freeform rp about romance there's really no need to create D&D characters.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2017 16:24
|
|
|
Nuns with Guns posted:You can summon an allip whenever you want with summon undead iv once the wizard hits level 8, at least. Also lol, allips are one of the legendarily awful design choices of 3.5 and very devastating to parties at their listed challenge rating (3). They're incorporeal undead (at a level where barely anyone will have good magical gear) that permanently drain the wisdom score of anyone they hit with a touch attack. I don't know where that image is getting the idea that you're only unconscious for 24 hours when your wisdom score hits 0, because as far as I'm aware you're in a permanent coma until someone can get you to a cleric that knows the restoration spell (the 4th-level spell, lesser restoration won't cut it). Even if you were only out for 24 hours, you would be a vegetable after you "woke up" so it's moot anyway. Like I can remember the difference between ability damage and ability drain, I was going off the picture. The fact that 3.x even had two similarly worded powers that, in the short term, did the same thing was just bad design anyway.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2017 16:30
|
|
|
Elfgames posted:if there are rules/benefits for riding a horse then choosing to get on one is engaging with the mechanics. also who said that everything has to be 100% gameplay? i'm just saying if you're going to play a game and then not use it's mechanics then you aren't playing the game. If you're going to make D&D characters and then freeform rp about romance there's really no need to create D&D characters. I can play Dominion without any kind of metagame awareness (though I'd be pretty bad at it). But I can't play Burning Wheel with only an awareness of gameplay as it is being defined (I actually literally can't do so since character motivations are central to play) and so we have this dilemma where a definitionally extraneous element to the game itself is also necessary to engage in gameplay.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2017 16:32
|
|
|
it's not extraneous if it's a necessary part of gameplay
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2017 16:42
|
|
|
Elfgames posted:it's not extraneous if it's a necessary part of gameplay But you are arguing that it isn't gameplay! gently caress! Do you even think about these things before you type them?
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2017 16:47
|
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:So on the one hand, we still have it passed down from the hand of God that these activities cannot actually be part of play, and the true nature of gameplay is in contextless activity without any purpose or reasoning behind it, but on the other hand we also have the statement that the context is suddenly part of gameplay now because the game state no longer consists solely of the raw gears and their interactions. How do you resolve this contradiction? They are part of play, and I never said otherwise. I only said that "having a conversation which doesn't change anything about your character's capabilities or their situation in subsequent play is some (presumably fun) freeform roleplaying surrounding the actual play involving mechanics", and I haven't changed that stance. I did use "gameplay" to refer to directly interacting with the rules at one point, so that's probably confused the issue; sorry about that. The unique thing about RPGs is that they're essentially an interface between two separate activities: freeform roleplaying and... some game, whether a card game, an FPS, a very simple dice game or Jenga, which acts as a resolution mechanic. In the course of play, there is a feedback loop. Say that as part of your roleplaying, you get on a horse. That affects how you interact with the rules of the game. Let's say that as a result of these mechanics, your horse is spooked by a fireball and bucks you off. You decide that your character now has a deep distrust of horses; the result of the mechanics has influenced your concept of your character. Due to this, you never put any points into riding; your roleplaying has again influenced your character's capabilities within the rules. If you have a conversation that only affects how you see your character, and doesn't change how you're going to interact with mechanics, then it's roleplaying influencing roleplaying - it's not part of that feedback loop, it's just straight roleplaying. Which, again, is fine and expected; different RPGs have different amounts of this feedback loop (computer action RPGs, for example, often limit it to class choices and putting points into skill trees). But if the amount you interact with the rules differs from the amount that the designers expected you to, it's likely that parts of the rules will need changing to stay fun, in which case it probably wasn't the best fit in the first place.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2017 16:53
|
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:But you are arguing that it isn't gameplay! gently caress! Do you even think about these things before you type them? no you're just not understanding, i said Elfgames posted:If you're not engaging with the mechanics then you're not playing the game therefore since creating a motivation is engaging with the mechanics in burning wheel it is part of gameplay
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2017 17:02
|
|
|
Zandar posted:They are part of play, and I never said otherwise. I only said that "having a conversation which doesn't change anything about your character's capabilities or their situation in subsequent play is some (presumably fun) freeform roleplaying surrounding the actual play involving mechanics", and I haven't changed that stance. I did use "gameplay" to refer to directly interacting with the rules at one point, so that's probably confused the issue; sorry about that. This argument leads to the conclusion that all games should have extremely narrow foci such that designer intent can be readily comprehensible so that we can be sure we are dedicating the proper amount of time to acting and not improper amounts.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2017 17:05
|
|
|
I mean, you could easily make the argument that because every group interprets a game text in their own particular way they're playing related-but-distinct games. That interpretation layer between the rules and what actually happens in play is what's key to RPGs, in my opinion: outside of the most strict storygames, every RPG requires some level of interpretation and rulings outside what's in the text. From the moment you add an element that wasn't in the book, however minor, and that addition has an impact on your play experience, you've drifted from the text. So you can't really point at a group and say they're playing the game wrong, unless there's discord within the group; instead, the most you can do is point out where they've diverged from the basic game.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2017 17:27
|
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:This argument leads to the conclusion that all games should have extremely narrow foci such that designer intent can be readily comprehensible so that we can be sure we are dedicating the proper amount of time to acting and not improper amounts. Well, most games do have pretty narrow foci, and in a perfect world where there were an infinite number of free RPGs available (and a really good filing system), I suppose all games should be infinitely narrow so that one of them perfectly suits your group and campaign. Since that's not the case, though, games have a focus depending on the audience they're trying to reach, and generic systems have an appeal as a cheap way (in terms of both money and time to learn systems) to run campaigns in a variety of genres. Designer intent being readily comprehensible is absolutely a plus, though. One of the major strengths of Apocalypse World was that it told you why the system worked the way it did, and the ways in which changing certain assumptions would break things without reworking other parts of the game. Also, games which use sessions as breakpoints often start to strain if people aren't using resources at the expected rate, so how much time gets dedicated to acting can actually affect how well a game runs.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2017 17:28
|
|
|
Zandar posted:One of the major strengths of Apocalypse World was that it told you why the system worked the way it did, and the ways in which changing certain assumptions would break things without reworking other parts of the game. Agreed with this - IMO it's a mistake to try and provide a full and complete ruleset that forces people to play the right way, when instead you could just explain the reasoning behind something and allow them to make whatever allowances they need to in order to hit the desired play experience.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2017 17:31
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 00:18 |
|
|
Flavivirus posted:So you can't really point at a group and say they're playing the game wrong, unless there's discord within the group; instead, the most you can do is point out where they've diverged from the basic game. Actually, you underestimate my power sir.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2017 17:37
|
|