|
!Klams posted:Everyone bangs on about Gloomhaven helper, but I swear, Gloomhaven Dungeon Master is just a billion jillion times better? Its pretty, but wow does it waste a lot of screen. Only being able to display 4 monsters at a time is just awful.
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2018 21:50
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 13:05 |
|
|
!Klams posted:Everyone bangs on about Gloomhaven helper, but I swear, Gloomhaven Dungeon Master is just a billion jillion times better? It also doesn't do the server/client thing.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2018 22:40
|
|
|
dwarf74 posted:No? It lacks the key functionality of (1) tracking player-side initiative and health/xp/conditions and (2) drawing the monster tactics and doing that math, too. Oh, I find the 'tracking player-side initiative' thing on an app excruciating. There are only 4 of us and we only have one character each, it's really easy to see where we slots in between monsters, actually faffing around putting our initiatives up every round just feels like a massive hassle to me. I guess this is probably the key difference, and if you find it easier to put it up, I guess GHH would be better. I don't know what you mean about drawing the monster tactics though? It totally does that? And in a much cleaner (in my opinion) way.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2018 23:08
|
|
|
!Klams posted:Oh, I find the 'tracking player-side initiative' thing on an app excruciating. There are only 4 of us and we only have one character each, it's really easy to see where we slots in between monsters, actually faffing around putting our initiatives up every round just feels like a massive hassle to me. I guess this is probably the key difference, and if you find it easier to put it up, I guess GHH would be better. I don't know what you mean about drawing the monster tactics though? It totally does that? And in a much cleaner (in my opinion) way. It's kinda clumsy. I don't like how it runs turns. e: maybe it's just whatever you're used to but GH gives a good demarcation between turns. You go to the next round, and then the players put their own initiative in. And then the monsters are drawn in. Yeah I mean it's better than some other programs, but there's no way in which this is as functional or user-friendly as GH. dwarf74 fucked around with this message at 23:22 on Dec 15, 2018 |
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2018 23:15
|
|
|
Fashionable Jorts posted:Just completed quest number 12, and it was the most frustrating thing we've had to do. 12 is the worst scenario we've done in the game and nothing since has come close to how loving awful it is. Except for scenario 11.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2018 23:31
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/cephalofair/status/1074070008924422144?s=21
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2018 23:45
|
|
|
White Elephant indeed.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2018 00:33
|
|
|
GH has an option where you just slide the players around instead of actually inputting initiative values.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2018 00:44
|
|
|
Oozes were a mistake.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2018 01:20
|
|
|
We had a our first retirement tonight. I retired my Spellweaver and unlocked Sun. After doing a scenario with Sun...  I really like it. I need to do a little research about what enhancements to gun for, etc, but it left a great impression on me. At level 3 it already felt much more poweful and useful in our group comp than my level 8 Spellweaver did.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2018 05:08
|
|
|
I only need to collect (I think) 7 coins to retire my Cragheart next session and unlock Three Spears. (Which I know nothing about beyond "real good") Getting coins is hard as a Cragheart so I can't wait to frustrate the poo poo out of my fellow players and gently caress off looting while they kill the monsters.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2018 17:05
|
|
|
LMAO Agrias120 posted:We had a our first retirement tonight. I retired my Spellweaver and unlocked Sun. After doing a scenario with Sun... Sun: Pretty much everyone will tell you to save up 100 gold to add +1 shield to the bottom of Defensive Stance. It's not mandatory or anything but it's hilariously powerful and one of the most cost effective enhancements in the entire game. Get Boots of Striding and always take cards with good bottom moves to compensate for the movement reduction and then just bonk people in the dome with your shiny hammer. Always be the door opener with your fastest initiative cards. Have fun not caring what's on the other side of any door. Elephant Ambush fucked around with this message at 18:01 on Dec 16, 2018 |
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2018 17:54
|
|
|
Unlocked Eclipse Why even bother playing the game?
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2018 19:57
|
|
|
Another option for Sun for boots is (Prosperity 4) Comfortable Shoes, since they make your default bottom action move 3 (before Defensive Stance).Reik posted:Unlocked Eclipse Why even bother playing the game?
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2018 09:20
|
|
|
Our Eclipse spends every scenario never ever getting attacked, and killing whatever the biggest elite monster is on the map every few turns. It's not exactly a thrilling class. Not even on the few turns where he's not invisible, because he's also packing (event reward spoiler)a Flea-Bitten Shawl.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2018 11:00
|
|
|
Mine is only level 5 so I can't yet chain invisibility for that long or execute elites. It's pretty well balanced at this point, but I'm only 14 XP off getting my level 6 execute and I haven't done my solo scenario next either. Tonight Eclipse and Sun knocked over 59 for Sun's personal quest. We were both quite tired and one or two things got mulliganed. Also after drawing the same city event 3 times in a row we did an extra reshuffle of the deck and drew the same loving event. So we mulliganed that too. Closing in on 50 scenarios in the game and we're not too interested in yet another bar fight.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2018 13:50
|
|
|
Eclipse looks like one of those characters that is really fun to play but maybe not so fun to be in a party with. I played one in my solo campaign and it was pretty fun, but I can see how what they do might fall flat with the rest of the party.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2018 20:03
|
|
|
My party didn't mind my Eclipse being around. Being able to reliably kill Flame Demons and other annoying monsters was a welcome addition to the team Though I did shelve him for a Two Minis, who I just recently retired. I'm hyped to play Saw.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2018 20:39
|
|
|
!Klams posted:Everyone bangs on about Gloomhaven helper, but I swear, Gloomhaven Dungeon Master is just a billion jillion times better? That's what we've been using. It seems super good so far.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2018 21:02
|
|
|
The other 3 players in my group consistently refuse to donate to the Great Oak. Very frustrating.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2018 02:31
|
|
|
LongDarkNight posted:The other 3 players in my group consistently refuse to donate to the Great Oak. Very frustrating. Look man, items and enhancements are expensive. Also hi thread, I'm the one who thinks angry face sucks to play, fite me nerds.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2018 02:48
|
|
|
Any ausgoons got storage suggestions?
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2018 02:54
|
|
|
LongDarkNight posted:The other 3 players in my group consistently refuse to donate to the Great Oak. Very frustrating. I got accused of being a "tree hugger."
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2018 03:24
|
|
|
Cassa posted:Any ausgoons got storage suggestions? I did YASS via a fishing equipment website. Going to Bunnings or getting jewellery / craft storage boxes is another option. Folded Space has reasonable shipping to Australia if you want an actual insert.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2018 03:46
|
|
|
Corbeau posted:Look man, items and enhancements are expensive. We're at prosperity 5 and have been for a while. Can't get new items if you don't tithe.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2018 03:56
|
|
|
Enhancements are not a loving spoiler. They are in the loving rulebook.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2018 04:09
|
|
|
I'm considering running a cooperative Let's Play of Gloomhaven on the forums and I'd like this thread's input on a key component. The idea is: - have each player take charge of a single hero for a full adventure, allowing and encouraging full thread suggestions/discussion; - after each adventure is completed, the next X players get in charge of the heroes; - have full thread participation for each town/road event, town management, adventure choice, upgrade selection, etc; - minor conditional variables are acceptable when submitting orders (IE: use action A on X; if it's dead already, use it on Y instead). I would run the game at a +1 difficulty, since the heroes have full knowledge of what each other is doing at the very least. I thought about how to handle enemies and I have 2 options I would like some input on: 1) Have the enemies always go last, in their own order of initiative, after every player action for that round; the players don't know which ability card the enemies are going to play for that round, but they have full knowledge of their own position and action outcome at the end of their actions. PRO: easy to manage. CONS: risk of "alpha strike" if several different groups of enemies are present; less close to the real game experience. 2) Resolve the round normally, but reveal the enemies ability card for that round to the players. Knowing their own initiative for the round, the players can expect an outcome for the enemies abilities and act accordingly. PRO: more similar to the real game flow. CONS: the planning on the players side has to be even more complex/consistent, or their orders may become illegal. Which option would you recommend? I'm also open to other suggestions to allow asynchronous gameplay.
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2018 15:26
|
|
|
So given how many people mess up the scenario level rules, I made a quick thing, but I am not sure it's much easier to read due to how the table body is an input rather than the expected output.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2018 16:25
|
|
|
That Italian Guy posted:I'm considering running a cooperative Let's Play of Gloomhaven on the forums and I'd like this thread's input on a key component. Having monsters always go last will make any monster ability cards with shield or retaliate on it do nothing. You could have the players submit their two cards as well as which top and bottom to use and in which order, and then resolve their turn as if they were using monster/summon AI. For instance, a level 1 Brute could submit: Initiative: Provoking Roar Bottom: Grab and Go Top: Provoking Roar And then we resolve their turn as if they were a monster that drew the ability card: Initiative 10 Move 4 Attack 2 Disarm You could let them put in those basic if-thens like Top- Leaping Cleave Bottom- If no adjacent enemies, use Spare Dagger Bottom as Move 2, else Spare Dagger bottom as printed. Having players resolve as if they were using monster AI could also force players to use cards or items they wouldn't normally use, as certain cards such as Balanced Measures wouldn't be as powerful under monster AI. You'd have to let players prioritize looting or opening doors as monster AI doesn't account for those. For example, if they played: Top-Leaping Cleave Bottom- If no adjacent enemies, use Spare Dagger Bottom as Move 2 (Loot), else Spare Dagger bottom as printed. Then if there were no adjacent enemies, they would Move 2, but instead of focusing on an enemy, they focus on a hex with coins or treasure in it. And if they did: Top-Leaping Cleave Bottom- If no adjacent enemies, use Spare Dagger Bottom as Move 2 (Door), else Spare Dagger bottom as printed. Then if there were no adjacent enemies, they would Move 2, but instead of focusing on an enemy, they focus on the nearest unopened door. Reik fucked around with this message at 17:03 on Dec 18, 2018 |
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2018 16:44
|
|
Reik posted:Having monsters always go last will make any monster ability card with shield or retaliate on it do nothing. You're right, of course. That said, I'm afraid having the players action resolve through the basic monster AI could make the game _too hard_ for the players, but a "soft" version of said AI could work - allowing the players to pick a preferred target and a preferred final location for their movement. I would still prefer a system that guarantees the players some level of knowledge about the enemies actions, as this would make it more interesting for player and thread participation. A combination of option 2 from my previous post, mixed with some kind of player AI (with preferred target/movement spot) could work! Something like: Initiative from card X Top card X Bottom card Y Preferred target: A, if dead B Preferred movement location: xN, if impossible yN A solid system for contingencies is probably going to make or break the game though - as it has to be decent enough to avoid player frustration with missed actions, while still being simple enough for no one involved to go insane. That Italian Guy fucked around with this message at 17:22 on Dec 18, 2018 |
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2018 17:08
|
|
|
why do you need players to know what the enemies are going to do, more than they would with the rules as written?
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2018 17:21
|
|
homullus posted:why do you need players to know what the enemies are going to do, more than they would with the rules as written? Two reasons: 1) A player can adapt and use the opposite top/bottom effects (or just part of them) to react to an unexpected monster action, but that's not possible in a world where all the input from the players has to come upfront, unless we want to go into a 50 line contingency order format. Having to stick (mostly) to a preselected course of action, I would like for the players to be able to make informed choices instead of going in "blind". 2) Better thread participation/theorycrafting: having more information should lead to a more interactive planning phase. I'm afraid having to account for every possible scenario "blind" could be a bit overwhelming and lead less experience players to be just passive observers. That Italian Guy fucked around with this message at 17:47 on Dec 18, 2018 |
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2018 17:43
|
|
|
That Italian Guy posted:2) Better thread participation/theorycrafting: having more information should lead to a more interactive planning phase. I'm afraid having to account for every possible scenario "blind" could be a bit overwhelming and lead less experience players to be just passive observers.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2018 17:46
|
|
|
All of this seems very complicated. Why not 1) Players post their cards (adjusting difficulty +1 due to communication as noted) 2) Monster cards revealed 3) Players re-state their actions with more clarity and specificity in light of revealed cards as normal ("oh poo poo, I'm gonna use the top action of X instead") 4) round resolves accordingly. It'll take two rounds of posting but I think the other discussed options above are waaay too complex and dumb. You're turning everyone in the party into (two minis spoiler) the Bear. Half the game or more is movement, that's what makes it a tactical game.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2018 17:51
|
|
|
On the one hand, I can see why you'd want to streamline things to make the thread go smoothly, but the game you're proposing is not Gloomhaven. Just have everyone submit their action cards ahead of time. When you start resolving the round, you can pause until the first player is present and go from there. Having an Action Queue worked really well for the PbP games of BSG.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2018 17:57
|
|
|
dwarf74 posted:Enhancements are not a loving spoiler. Woah, Spoil that! Not everyone knows that there’s a rulebook. (Ok, maybe that applies mainly to some of the questions on BGG and not here, but some of the newbie experiences I see make me cringe a little) I also really like the idea of doing a gloomhaven LP thread. Based on trad games D&D experience in the past, I’d say the approach of picking cards and setting your planned action and a simple contingency should work well 90% of the time, but with an option like “hey, I’m planning on going before the cultists and doing X, but if that doesn’t happen I’d like to post and change my action”. That should hit a pretty nice balance of keeping things moving and not having people feel like they’re wasting turns if they don’t plan perfectly. It’ll also probably depend a lot on the classes though, because someone like a spellweaver may have more complex decisions with element use etc than a brute with an always be punching stuff strategy.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2018 17:57
|
|
|
That Italian Guy posted:Two reasons: I think the answer is pretty obviously that you should run the turns as they appear in the rules, with people submitting their card choices and leading card info to you, you revealing their initiative counts alongside the monster initiative count and combat AI, and then having people take their turns. Any savings you foresee in executing their turns with pre-planned actions is more than lost in that pre-planning stage and in the obvious side effects of your rule changes. How is thread participation lessened by the game RAW? The spectator input comes when the cards are revealed and people need to make the best of the cards that were chosen and the evolving situation.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2018 18:00
|
|
EDIT:Hieronymous Alloy posted:All of this seems very complicated. Why not This sounds like a very sensible solution. It definitely keeps it closer to the source as well. Only thing I'm afraid of is how to keep a consistent update schedule if someone misses their turn/part of their turn  That Italian Guy fucked around with this message at 18:08 on Dec 18, 2018 |
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2018 18:02
|
|
|
Yeah gotta agree with Hieronymous. I get that play by post is famously hairy when trying to get people to post in a timely fashion when it's their turn, and doubling that could create some real logistical issues. But all these compromises sound like you're severely messing with the intended design of the game. Knowing monster abilities before picking cards will lead to a steamroll that is also less fun, just pick the most optimal cards for the exact situation and never have to worry about adapting on the fly. Screwing with intended order likewise doesn't make things quite as automatic since there could still be late round super moves from monsters, but makes the game significantly easier by removing shielding/retaliate/early round plan spoilers. And taking an kind of autonomy from the players is just a non-starter because the opposite will happen and best intentions will turn into a slapstick comedy (like, every non-attack action like healing will move a player into melee with a monster if you use those rules!)
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2018 18:04
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 13:05 |
|
|
That Italian Guy posted:EDIT: You might not be able to get each full round done in a single day, but it should be a very reasonable goal to aim for. One round a day is pretty fast by PbP standard.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2018 18:17
|
|