|
I am just geninely curious what you meant by "gravity is lost on me"? Like, I didn't follow what you meant by that.
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2017 07:28
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 23:12 |
|
|
Strikers NG+ playtest notes are complete. We could have dug into the Callbacks more, but it was a fun session. My players did get pretty lucky at avoiding Scars, so they mostly picked up benefits. Based on their comments though, they still regarded Callbacks as a risk/reward situation. As a result, they were playing conservatively to avoid tempting fate. That said, if we were able to play a second session (the interest is there, but it wouldn't be until the weekend of the 10th...) they're comfortable enough with the system that at least one of them would probably make some rash callbacks.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2017 08:49
|
|
|
This pains me but im gonna have to drop out. Urgh and i really wanted this to work out.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2017 13:37
|
|
|
Hey, yo, Agent Rush, I just want to confirm that you weren't offended by anything in that recording. I know we can be a little blunt at times and I hope you didn't take offense.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2017 18:00
|
|
|
Covok posted:Hey, yo, Agent Rush, I just want to confirm that you weren't offended by anything in that recording. I know we can be a little blunt at times and I hope you didn't take offense. I haven't heard it yet. I read through the notes earlier, I was going to listen to it either today or tomorrow. Just to ask, did you go over how Positioning or Strikes worked during it? Even if the answer is "They didn't". EDIT:Tell tokenbrownguy thanks for playing the game! EDIT2: I've listened to the whole thing, it was pretty great! Good to hear some of my instincts on what needed to be changed and added are right, and also some stuff I hadn't considered like a more explicit description of the tone I'm shooting for. I'm just sorry we couldn't record our session of your game, Covok. Thanks again for the playtest! Agent Rush fucked around with this message at 04:35 on Feb 28, 2017 |
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2017 23:22
|
|
|
Covok posted:I am just geninely curious what you meant by "gravity is lost on me"? Like, I didn't follow what you meant by that. You autocorrected to "spaceninja"
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 09:43
|
|
|
Since there seems to be a little bit of confusion, the late pass I did was a fanfic at the top of my game doc.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2017 02:30
|
|
|
Alien Rope Burn posted:Since there seems to be a little bit of confusion, the late pass I did was a fanfic at the top of my game doc.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2017 03:57
|
|
|
GUNS Playtest Notes 2 Hey Covok, we got the chance to play Act 2. I told the players about Archetypes being Facts, that Gun Tricks let them reroll any number of dice, and that Manuevers were immune to Complications. They definitely appreciated that. Here's some of the questions that came up during the game: Act 2: The difficulty for the checks at the end of the scenes seems really high, is the intention that players will only partially meet their goals? We tried it out RAW and all the players failed every check by at least three successes. The math as it stands requires either 100% successes on seven dice, or multiple 10s on four or more dice. We also tried out setting the difficulty as the number of successes needed by the end of the three scenes, but found that we needed to raise the successes required as they reached the goal by the second scene. Can you use your Gun Trick during the goal scenes? We tried both being able to once per scene and once per goal (three scenes). The latter seemed to fit better, giving the player a chance to recover without making the scenes trivial. Can you spend Tension on these rolls? If the Power Level Increase is supposed to be unlikely to succeed, maybe it shouldn't come right after the boosted General fight. Misc. Suggestions: Have you considered a Critical option for attacks, say if one side gets 5 or more successes than the other? Is there any way for a player to reduce an opposing dice pool, or do players only increase their own? I don't know if we'll be able to play again, I hope this helps you out. I'll clarify any points if you need me to.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2017 04:54
|
|
|
Looking to do a playtest trade by tomorrow evening if I can, it's when my gaming group meets and we could try a thing. Sorry for the short warning on this, I've been behind on keeping up, but I figure it's best to at least try.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2017 06:50
|
|
|
Alien Rope Burn posted:Looking to do a playtest trade by tomorrow evening if I can, it's when my gaming group meets and we could try a thing. Sorry for the short warning on this, I've been behind on keeping up, but I figure it's best to at least try. I'd be willing to give this a shot, since I'd like to try out your game! Is From Hell's Heart just being a three-player going to be a problem for you?
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2017 07:05
|
|
|
Alien Rope Burn posted:Looking to do a playtest trade by tomorrow evening if I can, it's when my gaming group meets and we could try a thing. Sorry for the short warning on this, I've been behind on keeping up, but I figure it's best to at least try. What time is "tomorrow evening", and what time zone? I'd like to give being a villain in your game a try.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2017 07:18
|
|
|
If Davin's up for it, he can have priority; I'm still trying to get my promised RoR playtest done (hopefully tomorrow night), so I probably shouldn't put more on my plate.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2017 07:20
|
|
|
Antivehicular posted:I'd be willing to give this a shot, since I'd like to try out your game! Is From Hell's Heart just being a three-player going to be a problem for you? That's hard to give a concrete answer. Technically I have four players (not including myself), but some have been out sick with the awful cold that's been making the rounds here in the Midwest. If everybody shows (unlikely, but possible) it'd be an issue but if it's three people plus myself, I can step aside and just present the playtest. I just put in a e=mail inquiring about who's doing to be available tomorrow. Right now I'm going to be acting as if playtest is the plan, but I'll let you know if I hear different. Davin Valkri posted:What time is "tomorrow evening", and what time zone? I'd like to give being a villain in your game a try. Oh, I'm referring to enlisting my tabletop group, not an online session. Not to say I wouldn't be up for something online if it falls through.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2017 07:32
|
|
|
Oh, okay. Sorry. (I don't have a live tabletop group and my schedule/time zone might be wacky, so I'm not sure how Gendai no Kami's going to be tested.)
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2017 07:34
|
|
|
I have most of the week off for a staycation so if somebody needs an extra body to help out with something online I'd be willing to give it a shot, I'm pretty busy tomorrow (Wednesday) and Saturday until the evening. Figure I may as well toss that out there.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2017 07:50
|
|
|
Just to confirm Covok, Unknown Armies is fantastic.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2017 12:12
|
|
|
Antivehicular posted:I'd be willing to give this a shot, since I'd like to try out your game! Is From Hell's Heart just being a three-player going to be a problem for you? Looks like I have a full house tonight, which is to say four players + me. Any suggestions around that?
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2017 17:33
|
|
|
Is it too late to reboot? The playtest confirmed and revealed a lot of issues with my current design, and even if I keep the virus concept it's most likely going to be radically different from what I had before.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2017 22:17
|
|
|
Alien Rope Burn posted:Looks like I have a full house tonight, which is to say four players + me. Any suggestions around that? Could try it with two Pilot/Robot pairs, maybe? I'd actually be interested to see how that runs. You'll probably need to modify the Endgame table results, but play it by ear and let me know how it goes. I was actually considering adding rules for more players, so this could be really interesting.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2017 01:20
|
|
|
I got your note in the middle of playtesting From Hell's Heart - my solution was to make it a dual-pilot robot and just have each pilot with 2 hopes instead of 3. That didn't impact the math any (and it all went a bit sideways anyways), and I just worked to proctor and present the game. I have the recording and the character sheets, and I'll see about getting them over tomorrow with my thoughts. But consider it tested here!
Alien Rope Burn fucked around with this message at 04:22 on Mar 2, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2017 04:18
|
|
|
Alien Rope Burn posted:I got your note in the middle of playtesting From Hell's Heart - my solution was to make it a dual-pilot robot and just have each pilot with 2 hopes instead of 3. That didn't impact the math any (and it all went a bit sideways anyways), and I just worked to proctor and present the game. I have the recording and the character sheets, and I'll see about getting them over tomorrow with my thoughts. But consider it tested here! Cool! I'm really interested to see how things went. Quick update on my end: we're working on chargen for Requiem of Rose now, and the plan is to play tomorrow night. Looks like it'll be a three-player game, and I'll try to get as many of the nights done as possible, ideally up to a Spiegelnacht. Currently we two PCs with Knowledge blights and one Coziness blight, and every PC took Academics 4, so Spiegelnacht might get... flee-y.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2017 04:31
|
|
|
Yeah, I'm bowing out of this: there are other things that I'm doing and I couldn't figure out how to make the concept work. It did give me some great ideas for other, less anime projects, so maybe next time.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2017 05:42
|
|
|
Agent Rush posted:Is it too late to reboot? The playtest confirmed and revealed a lot of issues with my current design, and even if I keep the virus concept it's most likely going to be radically different from what I had before. Feel free to.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2017 08:00
|
|
|
TheSoundNinja posted:Feel free to. I'll need new ad copy, right? Anything else?
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2017 01:28
|
|
|
Alright. I promised to playtest From Hell's Heart, and so I have. We honestly only got through a bit less than half of the game in total because we just weren't really feeling it tonight, but we still played enough to get some thoughts together on the game, and you can find the full logs here. On a whole, it felt pretty unguided. We knew the scenes were supposed to be short, but we didn't really get a feel for how they were supposed to go. Do we have a back and forth conversation, or do we just do the basic "Person A establishes the scene, Person B resolves stuff"? Because it feels like there should be more direction and guidance here than just "do some freeform RP", but there kind of isn't. I'm not saying more mechanics, necessarily. Just more direction and a better idea of what a scene should look like in the first place. The one combat we did kind of had the same problem but worse. We didn't know how in-depth to go with the RPing and there were enough mechanics to make it feel like we should have more guidance than "Person A establishes, Person B resolves" but not enough to give us that guidance. Also, it's worth mentioning that some form of codified stake-setting would probably be useful. It can be purely fiction-based if you want, but it's hard to pick between getting creative control at a cost and losing when what happens when you lose isn't really known beforehand. As one last note, this didn't really get tested because we kind of ran out of steam after one fight scene and didn't bother continuing because ARB had a full playtest too, but I don't really get why the Enemy would spend a Sacrifice or Frenzy token. Well, I do in theory. It's just that I have narrative control of the start of every fight, and I have narrative control of the end of every fight unless someone takes it from me, and there's nothing about what happens in between besides the vague sense that we'll be RPing stuff. If I want a bad thing to happen, I could just... have a bad thing happen while I have narrative control. There doesn't feel like there's any particular reason to spend a token to take narrative control when I'm just getting it back anyway during the next fight scene. It's weird, and I still don't really get it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2017 03:32
|
|
|
 Very well, We recently finished the playtest for BFoY or Burning Fires of Youth and I suppose my notes should be able to shed some light on what exactly happened. The game went about 5 hours, more or less, and while we did have some fun, some confusion was created. But lets go through piece by piece. We started with an introduction into the setting and background of the game. This led to instant hilarity when my group claimed knowledge of the game series that its supposedly created from as a tabletop RPG but thatīs more of a sidenote. Next we went into character creation. This became confusing fast. Some of the explanations in the rulebook need rewriting, as especially the bonus mechanics that are supposed to explain why you should key this or that tile-suit to your game was unclear until the real gaming moment. Also, just like normal gaming, most attributes out of five become useless the instant players decide to focus on a few for their character based on the fighting style. Character creation was the longest chunk for my group and took quite a long time, both to understand the implications of the abilities and the different variants when creating fighting style and super power. The wrestling mechanic in specific needs a rewrite badly, as the player choosing it thought it sounded interesting but "hella confused", to paraphrase her reading it. After character creation and explanations, which were mostly the general big range, we went into the example module delivered with the game, as everyone drew their hand and was introduced. Vignette-style scenes introducing the characters was fast and loosely played, the PG-mechanic of passing grades as base check works well and letting players choose by themselves how to solve some scenes led to instant hilarity again as often times the most "rebel" approach was favored. Sneak by the teacher? Bah, I just waltz past. Audacity in Ignorance! Comedy. This also led to two instances where the players failed a check and had to have someone to their left tell what exactly went wrong. While amusing at first, the fact that the GM is included in this did not work out as well as it might have read, as the GM already does the general talking about the world and giving this over to the next player in line for example involved a greater number of players. Afterwards, we went into the series of combat encounters. Starting with some posturing and whiny Shinji, players went into combat. This is where it got especially confusing for many, as my group was mostly a first-time mahjong-group and the experience found with it was that "wow, this is convoluted" mostly reigned supreme. In combat, dealing a point of harm was rather easy, but using a Counter or Negate becomes quickly worn out as the entire group begins to scramble for teamwork possiblities, looking through their hands whether anyone else can counter or negate a counter and thus help in such situations. The other thing is that players go through their hands very, very quickly, and a single card refill at the end of a combat round doesnīt suffice. One player advised maybe using a complete discard-hand-refill-complete at the end of every combat round. This is specific came from the person with mostly lower-value cards which meant that most general attacks were difficult and had to be countered instead which on the other side meant that he had to counter for everyone else if possible. The other thing was that my group was very frustrated by the fact that you build up these supernatural powers but canīt use them, because you donīt get a dragon or wind card due to card luck. And that quickly tires out as a game about fighting demons, for love or rivaling gangs in 20xx Japan should be much more involved in super-powers and that was missing if what you require is a good card draw. Finally, from a GM point, I was perplexed at the complexity of the example henchmen enemies in the example adventure, Nishikiri and Sakai, as their write-up is mostly too complex for its own sake and really requires a differing method of connotation. Anything that goes closer to the minion group connotation of "use attribute value X, done" and maybe a sentence about their look was very good. Though the Hair was great. My group loved, unequivocally loved the idea of silly hair being part of both character creation and general character makeup. I do hope that helps. Iīve brought up a few other, smaller points before to Hedningen personally, mostly rules-related, so this should fill the "other" side. Edit: You can find a recording of the entire playtest at LINK Mr.Misfit fucked around with this message at 14:54 on Mar 4, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2017 12:47
|
|
|
Agent Rush posted:GUNS Playtest Notes 2 So, I saw this before, but didn't have the time to respond so let me do so: 1) Thanks for doing two rounds! That was a lot more than you needed to do and it's a big help! 2) Yeah, I probably just hosed up the math on that. It isn't supposed to be that hard. Thanks for calibrating. I'll tinker with these things and see what ends up working. 3) I never considered either using Gun Tricks or Tension points. I'll give that some thought. That's one of those "forgot those interact" things. 4) Yeah, sounds like I really need to tinker with the difficulty I set up. 5) Hadn't considered it, but it is certainly something to consider. 6) So far, only the later. Never really considered the former. Well, outside of hurting your opponent's fact which, effectively, lowers their dice pool.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2017 16:48
|
|
|
Agent Rush posted:I'll need new ad copy, right? Anything else? No need, though I would appreciate it for your game if you made it to the finals: we'd be reading it. EDIT: Caught up on posting links to each playtest report submitted up to this point. TheSoundNinja fucked around with this message at 19:15 on Mar 3, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2017 19:06
|
|
|
So me and my regular playgroup playtested... A recording of the session is available here. As a warning, it's a large file at nearly 175 MB (and about two and a half hours). (Warning: contains jokes about nudist piloting and blatant IP theft of kaiju monsters.) Also, here are the pilot sheets and the robot & enemy sheets Creating characters wasn't too troublesome, and Part 1 went relatively well. The basic structure was enough for players to work with and ham it up for awhile. Some folks struggled with finding the right time to go in and seize their prompts. Part 2 is where things really started to go off the rails. I think having to consider hopes / values in the middle of a thick back-and-forth was too much for folks and they had a much easier time grasping onto something concrete like sacrifices / frenzy, and between that and our limited time frame things went sideways in favor of mass destruction and general silliness pretty quick. (Which isn't to say it wasn't silly throughout, but silly-er.) In general I feel almost more like having some way to resolve scenes at the end where you can stop and reflect somehow on how the scene has gone might go better. I had to push for folks to do Part 3 at all, knowing that failure and world destruction were all that were left. We were a little unclear on whether or not it was somehow possible to earn multiple tokens in a scene, and whether or not players were supposed to be aware of the tables / results from the outset or not. I think it also might help to have some uncertainty in the final scene. Similarly, I wasn't sure what spending sacrifice / frenzy tokens (which may as well be the same thing, they have the exact same effect) by the enemy really did for them either. If there were some ability for them to seize some control they don't already have, that'd be a thing. Maybe allow them to counter hope tokens, somehow, and force the robot or pilot to come up with another hope or value - or sacrifice / frenzy - to counter. After the recording ended my players wanted to emphasize they did have fun! But it felt more like a loose RP exercise without a lot of guidance past Part 1 rather than something with a much in the way of "game" elements.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2017 21:34
|
|
|
Alien Rope Burn posted:(which may as well be the same thing, they have the exact same effect) Personally, I appreciated Frenzy and Sacrifice tokens being different, just because they gave a bit of guidance on what succeeding at a cost looks like for the Pilot and Robot. Still, you could definitely differentiate their uses a bit. However, that plus your Robot sheet does make me remember another problem my playtest had. Namely, a really easy Value to come up with is wanting the Pilot to be self-sacrificing and willing to tough things out and etc, which makes things really difficult when you're trying to figure out if an action should cause you to take a Sacrifice token or count as fulfilling the Robot's self-sacrificing Value. It almost feels like you accidentally powergamed when you take a Value like that, only instead of being more powerful you get to make a judgement call that could legitimately go either way and it's just not something I'd want to think about.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2017 21:51
|
|
|
Covok posted:So, I saw this before, but didn't have the time to respond so let me do so: You're welcome! Also, one of the players suggested examples of play for each section. A few of those would definitely clear things up.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2017 22:03
|
|
|
Well, here are playtest notes for Legend Divide. It was quite an interesting game to go through! Even if it took me way too long to get my notes from the session and post session player responses.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2017 22:17
|
|
|
Guess who' has two thumbs and was too anxious to look at their playtest notes until just now!DNA Cowboys posted:Strikers NG+ playtest notes are complete. We could have dug into the Callbacks more, but it was a fun session. My players did get pretty lucky at avoiding Scars, so they mostly picked up benefits. Based on their comments though, they still regarded Callbacks as a risk/reward situation. As a result, they were playing conservatively to avoid tempting fate. It's good to know most of the complaints were about my rushed, incredibly cut down Cortex+ Action write-up and a sub-par sheet layout instead of a fundamental flaw in the stats or anything like that. I'm definitely going to need to have more player and GM advice, though. Also add slightly more info to the character sheet, despite my lack of layout skills and general lack of editing tools in Google Docs. Anyway, I'm not going to say no to a second playtest. Sure, it's basically right before the deadline, but I'm an anxious weirdo who's probably going to procrastinate like hell so you might get any potential feedback in before I finalize things. Besides, it's heartening that you'd want to do a second session in the first place.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2017 06:26
|
|
|
Had the chance to play Mysterious Hero Legacy last night with my group. There were some hang-ups which I'll be getting into in a moment, but the basics is that we all had a pretty good time with it, and it's definitely the root of something pretty neat. For this playtest, I had a group of three players, each with varying degrees of familiarity with Tokusatsu and/or Fate Accelerated. The first major hurdle was during the character creation process. Because there's no real setting to the game, or a basic set down of what a Tokusatsu/Sentai story consists of, one of my players ended up having little to spring board off of. It was difficult to come up with Eras without more solid examples, though we eventually developed some. There was also some difficulty in determining what a Super Stunt looked like mechanically. We settled on keeping the same formula for a regular Stunt, only with the bonus being +4 or +6 with a cost, or the special ability occurring twice during a session, or three times with a cost. While the players had no real trouble with it, the draft could use some consistency in using its terms for the Legacy's aspects, as later parts of the document refer to what clearly should be the Legacy's Flaw as its Trouble. Despite the issues, the players enjoyed creating characters, and created two Scions each: their current Scions and a past Scion. The Legacies were: Dynamo Yellow, a thrill seeking Legacy that is best at Quick approaches, with a tendency to die young and powers granted from Wild Speed. Its signature move is a flurry of punches that all land on the targets at the same time. Its Scions were Katsuhiro Blaze, a rowdy Toku fan and loyal grandson living in the Era of Steel and Glass, and Atomu Blaze a dashing river pirate living in the Era of Iron and Cloth. Goliath Green, a rough and tumble Legacy that is best at Forceful approaches, with a tendency to make themselves an easy target and powers granted from Super Strength. Its signature move is a phantasma gauntlet that appears as the user is throwing a right hook, and connects with its target at full power. Its Scions were "Buddy" Buchanan, a professional hockey player and reluctant hero living in the Era of Steel and Glass and Annag MacDougal, a proud warrior living in the Era of Bronze and Gossamer. Gentleman Buster, a sophisticated Legacy that is best at Careful approaches, with a tendency to be bound by social conventions and powers granted by Unparalleled Precision and Planning. Its signature move is a powerful blow that can knock out enemies. Its Scions were Jaku von Ivanivich, a wealthy and powerful aristocrat living in the Era of Steel and Glass and Sir Alphonse of House Siccara, a shipwrecked sailor with mysterious powers living in the Era of Iron and Cloth. The session that followed mostly consisted of testing MHL's new combat system. The players found little need for Skill Tags and preferred to use their Aspects and Stunts whenever possible. From the Game Master's side of the table, I liked the simplicity of Enemies compared to FAE's regular system, but I could never quite get a hang of what would be an appropriate Target Number for a Foe or a Toughie. I had settled on a +2 for Minions and going up by one for each stronger class, which seemed to work all right. Having enemies move after the player is convenient, but I felt like I could use more defined Attack Options to keep the enemy attack patterns fresh. A few enemies were Worthy Opponents, where I learned that the basic Armor system works, as well as Rallying. Combat from the player's side of the table by all accounts felt satisfying, especially in terms of building Power to use Signature Moves. In game, they really did feel like heroes pulling off finishing moves and signature attacks, and I really enjoyed their use. Unfortunately, I never had a lot of good chances to invoke any Legacy's Flaw enough to test out the Flashback and Advancement system. That said, we found nothing wrong with it at first glance, though one player wished there was a faster way of implementing a flashback, perhaps with an alternate rule for shorter, convention-style games. In conclusion, the game basically works due to the strong engine of Fate Accelerated, and what the hack adds to the game is interesting and fun. However, the game could use some consistency in its terminology and some more mechanical guidelines, as well as some example Legacies, Scions, and Eras to help players with the creation process. I hope this helps you with your next draft, Comrade Gorbash, and I'm willing to answer any questions you might have. Free Cog fucked around with this message at 07:41 on Mar 4, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2017 07:16
|
|
|
I finished a playtest of Requiem of Rose tonight. I don't have the full log up yet (I'd want to clear it with my players), but there wasn't a ton of mechanical material in it; we only had time to play out one night or so with a 3-PC cast. (All three PCs had Academics 4, two with a Knowledge Blight and Eggy Ravens and one with a Coziness Blight and a Hatscrab, but their flavor was more distinct and we got a broader spread of NPCs.) The big issue we had with the game, and that my players identified, was not being sure how things are supposed to be paced and how much the PCs are supposed to be able to get done in a "working day." Are all seven days intended to be played in one sitting? How long should a day run, and how much should the PCs be allowed to do? The seven-day cutoff means that I suspect time and PC action economy are supposed to be tight, but we weren't really sure, and we ended up spending several hours playing one day. It'd really help to have some guidance on this. I had a few other rules questions, although some of them may just be me being dense, but here goes: * How should actions be handled that are potentially in contention but aren't Conflicts with NPCs? We were running the murder plot, and obviously, the PCs were pretty keen to investigate. I adjudicated this with just having them roll appropriate stats, but should this be more "if they do it, do it" and guided by fictional positioning, with dice only coming into play for NPC conflicts? * I feel like the Blossoms system could stand to be explained in a little more depth, especially when it comes to interacting with NPCs. The impression I have about the Blossoms system right now is that PCs should be gaining knowledge of NPCs' Blossoms via actions like Research, which allow them to predict the NPC's allegiance and choose conflict actions appropriately. Also, for Sharing Blossoms, it seems like right now there are several Blossoms you can share but which the NPCs can never possess (Love for Aesthete, Knowledge for Revolutionary, and both of the sharables for Sardonian Spy). Is the intent that the PC Blight Blossoms can be slotted in for Personal? Also, is it assumed that players should know and be using the knowledge of which Blossoms correspond to which NPC allegiances? I assume as much, but I figured I'd check. Gaining and spending Blossom could also be clarified. You don't actually have a pool of Blossom "points," right, just a number of Blossoms, each with its own descriptor? Is there a limit on what kind of Blossoms PCs can and should be gaining? For spending, which I think is just for Betray, "spending" a Blossom for Betray is using the knowledge of that Blossom for your own ends, with it being "spent" because you can't readily use it for betrayal again? * Also, it seems like Allying should take more than just learning the NPC's Blossoms, even if that more is just "roleplay it out." This is at the extreme end of the scale, admittedly, but two out of three PC Research checks against NPCs hit four successes, basically by virtue of having three Academics 4 PCs and them rolling hot. Like I said, probably extreme, but how hard is it supposed to be to get allies? * A bit about Blight and Docent: if I'm reading this correctly, for all Docents, the initial Midnight Ritual that gets you Docent 1 doesn't actually consume Blight. This should probably be added to the Perform Ritual rule specifically, instead of just in the Docent skill lists. (I presume this is so players can get to Docent 5 and still have Blight 1.) I'm not sure this is stated anywhere in the rules, but I'm guessing that if you hit Blight 0 via spending it on Desperate Prayer/Docent powers/failing Grigor/eating all your cake/going to the bathroom and someone eating your cake/etc., you're removed from the game via gory demonic transformation or being Docent-devoured or some such? It might be worth it to note that -- or, alternately, to note if you're not actually allowed to spend/eat below Blight 1. * It might be useful to clarify the ways that Spiegelnacht can end. My guess right now is that the only options are "kill all dice of the Squad," "betray and kill your Docent," or "die," but is that correct? Can PCs potentially succeed via flight or stalling? Also, do Empire Loyalist allies still give dice to the Squad by existing, or does the fact that they're allied cancel that out? * Super-minor, but during initial Thorn determination for the Court, it says "Health = Military," but later it states that all NPCs have 3 Health. Which is correct? EDIT: So this isn't just harping about rules, I did want to mention that the flavor of the game worked really well! My players were very into the world as described and it was fun to riff on as a GM. We had a good time and there's definitely some great potential in this game. Antivehicular fucked around with this message at 10:08 on Mar 4, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2017 08:09
|
|
|
I officially don't have time to continue working on this so I gotta drop. It ended up not being.... in the cards.
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2017 16:09
|
|
|
K Prime posted:I officially don't have time to continue working on this so I gotta drop. It ended up not being.... in the cards.  On a different note, only a few hours remain for playtesting is what I would say, but I have an insanely busy week this week. I'm working 12 hour days from Monday to Thursday, and they involve me getting to bed at 8a every night. I'm giving everyone one more week for playtesting. Cutoff is now March 12th at 11:59p CST
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2017 22:34
|
|
|
Thanks to the updated deadline, my group will be playtesting Free Cog's game Armilage on Tuesday. Playtest notes should be posted later in the week.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2017 01:09
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 23:12 |
|
|
Our Space Adventure Hero playtest has ended, we went through character creation and ran a few scenes. I'll post the playtest notes tomorrow.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2017 04:27
|
|