|
Len posted:How's the FFG Star Wars game? Crunchy as hell I assume? It's not super crunchy and has some cool ideas, but also has several major issues.
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2017 01:38
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 02:21 |
|
|
Kwyndig posted:So he picked his favorite child, big deal. I'd be more impressed (and confused) if he said something like Final Fantasy XI is the best Final Fantasy Game. Or if it wasn't a joke video. Well, duh
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2017 01:51
|
|
|
Len posted:How's the FFG Star Wars game? Crunchy as hell I assume? Shameless Plug
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2017 01:52
|
|
|
This is a pretty good article right here.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2017 01:57
|
|
|
kingcom posted:This is a pretty good article right here. Thanks, been writting some of these up for fun. Got another on MHR, Fellowship and the Atomic Robo RPG. Got one for Tenra Bansho Zero in the works.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2017 02:00
|
|
|
Covok posted:Getsuya, did you ever finish translating that game based on Yu-Gi-Oh-like shows? It popped into my mind recently and I was wondering how they tried to mechanically do that kind of game. This sounds fascinating, I'd love to know more. What game is this about?
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2017 02:22
|
|
|
Agent Rush posted:This sounds fascinating, I'd love to know more. What game is this about? It was a Japanese game called "Card Rankers." It was never translated to English, but Getsuya tried to do some demo games with Japanese titles that he would translate himself. The problem is it kind of ended up being too big of a project and it never got off the ground. I still got my character sheet from the doc he gave us with chargen rules. I don't have that doc he gave us, though. code:Also, Getsuya, if you ever read this, can you give me the name of that game I wanted to play where all you do is make cool one-liners to resolve conflicts? Covok fucked around with this message at 02:46 on Jul 6, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2017 02:40
|
|
|
So uhhhHHHHHHH, some nerds are getting together for this. One of them is an actual contract lawyer. I'm pretty excited. Friends of a friend so I don't know them personally but this is a rad idea. RPG contracts ahoy. Hopefully they'll have more info soon. https://www.facebook.com/rpgcontracts/?fref=nf "RPG Contracts offers Fantasy Legal Contracts to add flair to your role-playing game. Adventuring Party Charters, Wish Contracts, Hireling Contracts for NPCs, and Custom Fantasy Legal Contracts & Consultation, expertly detailed and customized to fit your game setting. We're coming soon, so stay tuned."
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2017 03:15
|
|
|
Any star wars RPG review that shouts out the light/dark side dice being carefully bespoke to fit the theme of the entire universe is probably one to listen to
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2017 03:31
|
|
|
I remember I ended up being the dinosaur guy
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2017 04:02
|
|
|
Len posted:I remember I ended up being the dinosaur guy Oh poo poo, you were in the "Let's Try Japanese RPGs" thing, too? I forgot about that. Man, it would have been fun it was a feasible. sexpig by night posted:Any star wars RPG review that shouts out the light/dark side dice being carefully bespoke to fit the theme of the entire universe is probably one to listen to I mean, how can you not mention that post Force & Destiny. Like, that mechanic is the main reason you can do mixed Jedi parities in this system, unlike every other official game, while also being true and blue to the series.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2017 04:03
|
|
|
Covok posted:I mean, how can you not mention that post Force & Destiny. Like, that mechanic is the main reason you can do mixed Jedi parities in this system, unlike every other official game, while also being true and blue to the series. The entire premise of spiritually and good vs evil, light and dark etc in the star wars setting gets encapsulated into a single dice mechanic and it alone justifies FFG's love of unique dice.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2017 06:14
|
|
|
having read that blood in the chocolate review I am actually, for real angry at the ennies and this entire loving hobby
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2017 09:17
|
|
|
lmao tabletop gaming is really loving bad
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2017 09:23
|
|
|
Reene posted:having read that blood in the chocolate review I am actually, for real angry at the ennies and this entire loving hobby I'm actually impressed how predictably gross it is. I had at least hoped for some novel awfulness, but it sounds like it's grotesque in exactly the ways you'd expect and no other way, with all the non-grotesque elements just being lazy and ill-considered. Also pretty mad at that author for bragging about representation when the character in question is just evil for no reason and then rapes a woman on-camera, complete with an apparently completely unironic line about "her twisted pleasures." Predatory lesbian stereotypes ahoy!
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2017 10:26
|
|
|
Reene posted:having read that blood in the chocolate review I am actually, for real angry at the ennies and this entire loving hobby One real weird thing - I was selling opposite Raggi at the UK Games Expo a month or so back and every single book on his stall was hardback, full colour, glossy etc, even Blood in the Chocolate. They're either really expensive for a small adventure or he's got a lot of money he's plowing into their production values. Plus, it seems a bit deceptive to sell a book on 'gory horror charlie and the chocolate factory' and then cram it full of Oompa-Loompa gang rapes and sexual violence, though I guess that's basically the LotFP brand at this point.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2017 10:59
|
|
|
We may rag on Raggi for all we want. LotFP sells. The glossy art, the polished print, those sell. People might buy some of those books even without reading them because they LOOK GOOD. We´re at such a sad state of commercialisation that we sell games based on their looks alone. Heck, it´s basically what works for every tabletop game ever, selling on the front cover alone. *Sigh* RPGs were a mistake.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2017 11:06
|
|
|
Mr.Misfit posted:We may rag on Raggi for all we want. LotFP sells. The glossy art, the polished print, those sell. To be fair this is fairly typical adverse selection behaviour.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2017 11:40
|
|
|
Why are nerds so opposed to fail forward? I suggested not using it and got accused of giving participation trophies and handholding even though I gave a suggestion involving consequences of failure instead of it just being a binary pass/fail check? Do these guys just want to sit around rolling dice, or do they want to make decisions and roleplay and stuff?
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2017 18:24
|
|
|
Moriatti posted:Do these guys just want to sit around rolling dice Look into your heart. Do they spend more of their chargen time maxing their build, or on fleshing out their character's history and motivations?
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2017 18:25
|
|
|
Fail forward means that when you try and hit something with a sword and miss at least SOMETHING still happens right? Because that would be infinitely better than nothing happening.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2017 18:33
|
|
|
Len posted:Fail forward means that when you try and hit something with a sword and miss at least SOMETHING still happens right? Because that would be infinitely better than nothing happening. I have it on good authority that "fail forward"  is when bears randomly appear everywhere.  Checkmate, magical tea partiers. 
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2017 18:38
|
|
|
Moriatti posted:Why are nerds so opposed to fail forward? The way you win a game is by deeply engaging the rule set, looking for synergies and loopholes and minmax points. You do your homework, and your reward for building and playing a maximized character is you have a better chance of bypassing obstacles and triumphing over opponents. Sitting around being frustrated and stuck is the just punishment for people who don't reading their rulebooks seriously. Under FF, even a failed die roll or skill test or whatever moves the plot forward and creates interesting complications, when fairness and logic and simple physics argues that the right to move the plot forward and do things belongs solely to those people who read the book, just as "A" grades rightfully belong to people who did all the reading and turned in all the problem sets.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2017 18:41
|
|
|
Subjunctive posted:Look into your heart. Do they spend more of their chargen time maxing their build, or on fleshing out their character's history and motivations? I don't know, this guy also lamented that the GM focused on the Minmaxer in his party rather than his character with "150 pages of backstory". ...That should've been the point I knew not to engage. Len posted:Fail forward means that when you try and hit something with a sword and miss at least SOMETHING still happens right? Because that would be infinitely better than nothing happening. YUP. That's exactly it. Strike!'s version is a Twist which is: The character doesn't get what they want and something happens that makes retrying the check impossible.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2017 18:43
|
|
|
I did a TRPG thread on another subforum and someone posted that the first and only time he played a tabletop rpg he got stuck and gave up when the party could not succeed on a roll to unlock a door for half an hour so yeah Fail Forward is needed
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2017 18:50
|
|
|
Yeah, I don't understand how you don't have a patrol come in or just tell the strongest guy that he can break the door down now.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2017 18:55
|
|
|
Moriatti posted:Why are nerds so opposed to fail forward? It's a mixture of many, many things my friend. First off, Fail Forward is a new concept so the old guard is instantly, vehemently against it. "These dang kids nowadays and their diceless systems and their storygames and their not liking Dungeons and Dragons" I'm being facetious, of course, for a spot of humour, but you get the picture. The OSR does produce some fun games, but it also has created an echo chamber that has supercharged grognards. Never underestimate the social effects of places where people can just hear their own dissenting voice on modern game design spit back to them from other people and how this can make their opinions extreme and unreasonable over time. Secondly, a lot of hard-line D&Ders buy into a lot of myths of D&D. "The GM is supposed to be the antagonistic god we fight against" is an idea I've had barked at me on more than one occasion when I was asked for GMing advice at my FGLS. I'd give good advice on working with your players, setting expectations, and remembering everyone is there to have fun, and, young and old, someone would jump in to voice this opinion and how I was being a wuss. I wonder if nerd-masculinity factors into it as well? That being tough as a GM makes up for not being tough everywhere else? Thirdly, people really, really don't get the concept. People think it means you can never lose so everything is easy and boring. Hence, participation trophies meme that you were told. That's not the concept. Fail Forward is actually a really old video game design concept that states that nothing should ever just "end" the game. Sure, you can die, you can suffer a setback, you can need to go a different route, but you should never be stuck in a situation where, no matter what you do, you can't advance. Video games realized this was bad design after people got frustrated at Adventure Games which were intentionally made to go into "unwinnable" states: states where, if you made mistakes, you could never complete the game unless you started all over, often without any in-game way of knowing. Fail Forward is a TRPG adaption of the concept that just means you should never let the players get in a situation where they're just stuck, with no way forward, and basically sitting around doing nothing. It's actually very old GM advice, believe it or not, but given in a different form and a slightly different solution. There were more reason, but I can't remember them now, for some reason.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2017 18:57
|
|
|
Covok posted:There were more reason, but I can't remember them now, for some reason.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2017 19:10
|
|
|
Yawgmoth posted:Failed a second int check.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2017 19:30
|
|
|
The usual objections I see to fail forward are: - it makes a failure feel like a critical failure; - you have to just plain fail eventually and when that happens you may have dug yourself into a huge hole.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2017 19:31
|
|
|
Covok posted:There were more reason, but I can't remember them now, for some reason. The only other reason I can think of is that there's a contingent of hard-liners for whom the ideal is that there's an "objective" game world that the GM represents and controls, and that the player characters (and by extension the players) should never be able to change anything about it outside of the realm of their characters' abilities. It's another side of the "verisimilitude" coin--the game world should exist entirely separately from player actions, and player actions should only change the game world when it's "realistic" that their character's actions would have that effect. In many games that bake in Fail Forward, the focus shifts from an objective game world to one where the game world is just a function of the narrative, and players have narrative control. It's the "bears magically appear" thing. If a player fails a check and as a result the players are attacked by bears that wouldn't have even shown up if the player succeeded that check (or, hell, didn't even make it), the hard-line D&D-types see that as the GM violating the objectivity of the game world because a totally disconnected in-character action "magically" made bears appear. From another angle, though, what happened was that bears appearing was the most interesting thing to follow that failed roll in the narrative, and so that's what happened, because the RPG being played is a story and stories should be interesting. The whole "simulationist vs. narrativist" thing is old hat and reductive, yeah, but I think it really applies in this case.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2017 19:32
|
|
|
FMguru posted:The way you win a game is by deeply engaging the rule set this is correct.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2017 19:34
|
|
|
When you roll the dice, the situation should change in some way.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2017 19:37
|
|
|
If your simulationist game can't handle fail forward, then your random encounter chart
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2017 19:44
|
|
|
It's not just that though. They fail the check, bears appear, the bears TPK the party and now the player who failed the check feels like crap because he/she ruined the adventure for everyone. It makes things much riskier.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2017 19:54
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2017 19:54
|
|
|
Bears fall, everyone dies.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2017 20:04
|
|
|
I'm really hoping someone earnestly thinks that both: 1) Fail Forward = Bears everywhere 2) This is somehow a bad thing? Like, Owlbears are the single greatest conrtibution to the hobby that D&D has made.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2017 20:15
|
|
|
hyphz posted:It's not just that though. They fail the check, bears appear, the bears TPK the party and now the player who failed the check feels like crap because he/she ruined the adventure for everyone. It makes things much riskier. How is that functionally different from the GM having planned that bears are nearby, and if the player fails the check, they don't notice the bears and get ambushed? The only difference is whether the GM planned it ahead of time, which is something the players probably shouldn't know at the time, right? That said, if you're playing in a group where the GM tunes a random encounter so that it can TPK you and then lets it be a TPK, you're playing with a group that isn't using fail forward in the first place. And fail forward should apply to more than just checks. In many cases, it also applies to losing a fight. If those bears TPK your players, and you're a GM who's adhering to the fail forward philosophy, it's not "welp, guess you're all dead, sucks to be you." It's, "You got beaten up pretty badly by the bears, but before they can finish you off, they're scared off by a flurry of arrows from the bushes. Through your pain, you can see bandits emerge, and they look like they can't believe their luck--some bears went ahead and mugged some poor saps for them! As you lose consciousness, you see the bandits rifling through your equipment. When you wake up, your bags are a lot lighter, and it looks like <insert MacGuffin here> is gone!" So now they track down the bandits to get the MacGuffin back. Nobody "ruined" the adventure--it just went down a different path.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2017 20:18
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 02:21 |
|
|
hyphz posted:It's not just that though. They fail the check, bears appear, the bears TPK the party and now the player who failed the check feels like crap because he/she ruined the adventure for everyone. It makes things much riskier.  However, the failure state in fail forward gaming shouldn't be "might die" unless you have hosed up several times in a row. Why are the bears causing a TPK instead of just being scary or costing time/energy to deal with? Just like in D&D, where you don't put a tarrasque on your random encounter table for lv 4 characters, you don't have "is eaten by a bear" on the possible failure events of unlocking a door. Unless you're unlocking a bear's cage.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2017 20:19
|
|