|
mllaneza posted:Maps are cool. Dungeon maps are hella cool. Mapping makes sense when the entire game is the dungeon and it’s frequently changing around you to create new play opportunities. It doesn’t make any sense for one-use dungeons.
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2019 14:44
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 11, 2024 00:55 |
|
|
My decision to polish and publish a project I've been working on has given me new respect for layout people. I think I hate InDesign more than life itself.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2019 15:04
|
|
|
Ilor posted:Back on topic: theironjef, good point on Chainmail being the roots of D&D. But it's probably worth noting that there was a stretch in there where D&D got away from maps and miniatures and grid-based movement and tac-sim, and the only thing you used graph paper for was mapping a dungeon (also: why did we ever do this as players? What were we thinking?). That era - arguably starting around brown/red box and going until some time in 2E AD&D - was when a lot of folks (myself included) were introduced to role-playing as a concept. And much of my early experience definitely fell squarely into the realm of "number go up," but somewhere along the way the focus changed. I think a lot of that had to do with people actually digging in and examining "Game Theory (tm)" as a thing, and coming to some interesting conclusions about "what are we actually trying to accomplish here, and what mechanisms best foster those goals?" You're equating the house rules you used in the late 80s/early 90s as a universal experience for D&D nerds (and probably working in some unresolved belief that the internet has farted out about the game being a videogame now). It's never not been a tactical simulator, it just used to be a worse one. I'm also an old dude who's played every edition and get my primary roots worked in during 2e, I just remember that we were kludging the poo poo out of it to make it playable while hiking. Come on, lightning bolt bounce calculations? Half the spells being cones? Movement in inches? Every edition has been a war game sim. You just got all rosy about one because you were a kid then.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2019 15:07
|
|
|
theironjef posted:You're equating the house rules you used in the late 80s/early 90s as a universal experience for D&D nerds (and probably working in some unresolved belief that the internet has farted out about the game being a videogame now). It's never not been a tactical simulator, it just used to be a worse one. I'm also an old dude who's played every edition and get my primary roots worked in during 2e, I just remember that we were kludging the poo poo out of it to make it playable while hiking. Come on, lightning bolt bounce calculations? Half the spells being cones? Movement in inches? Every edition has been a war game sim. You just got all rosy about one because you were a kid then. And just to be clear, I'm not holding any edition of D&D out as a paragon example of TTRPGs. With the hindsight of game theory I think it's pretty clear that they are garbage games that absent massive marketing and unrelenting nerd nostalgia would have long since died on the vine. But they introduced concepts that were revolutionary for their time and deserve credit where it's due. But looking back on it now? Oof. Those games were awful and we were awful at running/playing them.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2019 16:17
|
|
|
I think the idea that a ttrpg needs to primarily have rules for influencing the narrative is just wrong. Don’t get me wrong, games that are mechanically focused on the narrative are fun as much as games that focus on producing satisfying combat. I think saying “TTRPGs need to be story games otherwise they might as well be board games” is unnecessarily purist and is conflating your personal preferences as some sort of universal truth of game design
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2019 16:37
|
|
|
I don't think it needs to be "primarily" narrative. What is a TTRPG? It's different things to different people, obviously (all well and good), but there are certainly some elements we can agree on, yes? And maybe I am too influenced by The Forge, which was very clear in its use of gaming terminology, terminology that's probably not broadly shared here. I don't want to imply any kind of purism, and certainly the lines between board game/card game/wargame/role-playing game can and have been blurred. But it still leaves the fundamental questions of a) what is it that players in your game are going to do, and b) what are the best mechanics to capture those actions? And that is universal for game design, RPG or no.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2019 17:02
|
|
|
I roll 4dF for Pokemon Dueling and get a 2. I'm going to spend a Fate Point to invoke my Vicious Charizard Aspect, as well as tag a free invoke of my I Hate Hunter Aspect. Comparing my result of 6 to the PokeFate Ladder, I got an It's Super Effective result!
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2019 17:28
|
|
|
thetoughestbean posted:I think the idea that a ttrpg needs to primarily have rules for influencing the narrative is just wrong. Don’t get me wrong, games that are mechanically focused on the narrative are fun as much as games that focus on producing satisfying combat. I think saying “TTRPGs need to be story games otherwise they might as well be board games” is unnecessarily purist and is conflating your personal preferences as some sort of universal truth of game design
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2019 17:35
|
|
|
Ilor posted:I don't want to imply any kind of purism, You said that D&D isn’t a role-playing game, what is that but purism? Seriously, you need to step back and look at your posts and think about how you’re coming across.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2019 17:43
|
|
|
Splicer posted:All rules influence the narrative. Every single rule in the game in some way influences the narrative. There is no such thing as a narrative-neutral ruleset. Well, yes. However, it’s a matter of focus, and my point is that a system that focuses on combat mechanics is no less valid than a system that focuses on replicating the feeling of CW’s Riverdale
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2019 17:49
|
|
|
thetoughestbean posted:Well, yes. However, it’s a matter of focus, and my point is that a system that focuses on combat mechanics is no less valid than a system that focuses on replicating the feeling of CW’s Riverdale Only if those combat mechanics are in service to the game's themes. If you make a game about hosting dinner parties and include 200 pages of combat rules and options, it doesn't matter how mechanically clever those combat options are, you've made a mistake.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2019 17:55
|
|
|
Combat for combat's sake is fun and I shouldn't need to justify that opinion.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2019 17:57
|
|
|
IronicDongz posted:Combat for combat's sake is fun and I shouldn't need to justify that opinion. This depends pretty significantly on the the combat system, I would think? There are systems where combat is a huge pain for no real payoff of fun, and systems where combat is immensely fun.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2019 17:59
|
|
|
Lemon-Lime posted:Only if those combat mechanics are in service to the game's themes. Yeah, the shadowrun problem. The way the mechanics are setup incentivize certain behaviors. If combat takes the majority of the game session, then combat in incentivized, even if the game in theory would like you to do other things. On the other hand if combat is unpredictable and deadly, it combat is disincentivized even if the game is supposed to have a combat focus. Similarly, advancement should follow the behaviors you want the players to pursue. 3.5 has giant tables of rules for how to calculate xp gain from combat and traps, while only having a throwaway paragraph for gaining xp any other way.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2019 17:59
|
|
|
Lemon-Lime posted:Only if those combat mechanics are in service to the game's themes. Pokémon as a series has been fundamentally about combat since day one. It is by no means a stretch to say that yes, the combat would be in service to the theme of “Pokémon battles are fun to do”
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2019 18:00
|
|
|
thetoughestbean posted:Pokémon as a series has been fundamentally about combat since day one. It is by no means a stretch to say that yes, the combat would be in service to the theme of “Pokémon battles are fun to do” It's literally a game inspired and made by people who put bugs to fight each other inside aquariums and poo poo
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2019 18:01
|
|
|
Lemon-Lime posted:Only if those combat mechanics are in service to the game's themes. On second thought a game about hosting a dinner party that also has 200 pages of combat rules sounds amazing. What kind of wild dinner parties are happening
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2019 18:15
|
|
|
Something out of Saki or a similar contemporary writer, I'd imagine.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2019 18:19
|
|
|
thetoughestbean posted:You said that D&D isn’t a role-playing game, what is that but purism? Let me ask you this: do the D&D rules as written support a pacifist character getting XP advancements as well as a character who is killing monsters and taking their stuff? thetoughestbean posted:Pokémon as a series has been fundamentally about combat since day one. It is by no means a stretch to say that yes, the combat would be in service to the theme of “Pokémon battles are fun to do” Also: Great! But what happens when you're not in combat? How much time are the PCs going to spend not in combat? How is the story around what the PCs are doing going to be structured, and how are conflicts that result from that going to be resolved? If the answer is, "duh, combat" then why not just play Pokemon and be done with it?
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2019 18:21
|
|
|
Dedicate 2/3 to combat, keep type effectiveness and discreet moves, similar to 4e or Gamma World or Strike or any number of other existing and good systems. The downtime should be devoted to exploration, contest, bonding exercises and training with your pokemon, ideally with mechanical rewards based on how the scenes go. This seems pretty obvious?
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2019 18:34
|
|
|
Lemon-Lime posted:Only if those combat mechanics are in service to the game's themes. D&D isn't a combat and magic game because it contains page after page after page of combat and magic rules, it's a combat and magic game because it contains page after page of combat and magic rules while talking to people boils down to is "Eh I dunno roleplay it? Or cast a spell on them we have spells for that."
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2019 18:44
|
|
|
Ilor posted:No, I didn't. I said it wasn't about role-playing. Lemon-lime and fool_of_sound have the right of it - the vast majority the rules in D&D are dedicated to killing monsters and taking their stuff. The mechanics of a game influence and incentivize certain playstyles and player behaviors, so while you can have role-playing experiences in the context of those rules, it doesn't change the fact that the game is about...killing monsters and taking their stuff. So yeah, it's a role-playing game, just not a terribly well-designed one. Ilor posted:If the answer is, "duh, combat" then why not just play Pokemon and be done with it?
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2019 18:47
|
|
|
Moriatti posted:Dedicate 2/3 to combat, keep type effectiveness and discreet moves, similar to 4e or Gamma World or Strike or any number of other existing and good systems. Moriatti posted:This seems pretty obvious? But it would be pretty rad if huge numbers of tweens' and teens' first exposure to RPGs was a smooth transition from a card game they already know and love. I think the smartest play might be to do something like Sentinels of the Multiverse, where there are separate, additional decks for things like the environment and the opposition, and have those cards integrate seamlessly with the actual Pokemon card game. And have a deck devoted to story elements that links the battles together. Thus, you'd have a card-driven RPG (where draw order is your randomizer) that builds upon the mechanics of the card game. Done righ, you wouldn't even need a GM. gently caress, I would play that, especially as a way to get my kids into RPGs.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2019 18:50
|
|
|
Splicer posted:Don't be that guy. Even a game that slavishly replicated pokemon down to the tiniest detail would play differently at a table with friends than on a PC on your own. One of the differences would be "It is terrible", but still.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2019 18:52
|
|
|
Ilor posted:No, I didn't. I said it wasn't about role-playing. Lemon-lime and fool_of_sound have the right of it - the vast majority the rules in D&D are dedicated to killing monsters and taking their stuff. The mechanics of a game influence and incentivize certain playstyles and player behaviors, so while you can have role-playing experiences in the context of those rules, it doesn't change the fact that the game is about...killing monsters and taking their stuff. So yeah, it's a role-playing game, just not a terribly well-designed one. Okay, a lot of things to unpack here. First of all you said that D&D was really just “at best a fantasy tac-sim game.” Do you not see how that smacks of purism? Second, having a satisfying crunchy tactical combat system doesn’t mean you can’t have good rules for role-playing, either. That being said, a world or story that focuses on combat should probably have the bulk of its rules be about combat, and Pokémon, in most of its forms, focuses on combat. (Combat isn’t life or death stakes, either, most of the time it’s like challenging somebody to one-on-one basketball, so using it as a go-to option for settling conflicts isn’t bad like you make it out to be) As for your question, I don’t think D&D ought to support hardcore pacifist characters in the same way that a Pokémon system shouldn’t have to support a PC that doesn’t want to have Pokémon, in the same way that Lancer shouldn’t support a character who refuses to get into a mech. I’m not sure what you’re trying to prove there. As for your last set of questions, in Pokémon, a character would spend their time traveling, talking to NPCs, solving mysteries, etc. I don’t believe that those sorts of things need in-depth rules, especially in something like Pokémon. For the tone of something like Pokémon, lighter rules for interacting with the larger world outside of combat would probably be important. I would probably have the trainer characters have 3-4 social stats and encourage the players to think of outside of the box approaches to using their Pokémon, stuff like “I have my Poochyena track down the missing mayor by scent”, that sort of thing, but I don’t think having in-depth rules for something like that would fit the tone of the game world. And finally, as for why not just play the video game and be done with it, well, there are people who want to have a narrative that’s customized to them, with a backstory and character they thought up themselves, and the ability to shape the narrative in ways that you can’t in the games.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2019 19:16
|
|
|
Ilor posted:Let me ask you this: do the D&D rules as written support a pacifist character getting XP advancements as well as a character who is killing monsters and taking their stuff? Depends which D&D. An OSR or 4e D&D PC (and not even counting the "pacifist" cleric ) can do spectacularly well under the rules as written. In the case of the OSR you get roughly 80% of your XP from loot rather than killing monsters, and in 4e you can get serious amounts of XP from skill challenges. Other editions? Not so much. But getting back to Pokemon in specific to me the biggest problem is not that it's combat heavy, but how solitary the combat is. In the games there's only one PC - and in the cartoon although Ash has Misty and Brock, and Jessie & James have each other and Meowth (and a Team Rocket RPG sounds fun) even the combat is The Decker Problem writ large; when Ash is fighting; even if it's the most fun combat system in the world what's everyone else doing? Even if they are playing the Pokemon in the fight you only have one active at a time.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2019 19:27
|
|
|
neonchameleon posted:Depends which D&D. An OSR or 4e D&D PC (and not even counting the "pacifist" cleric ) can do spectacularly well under the rules as written. In the case of the OSR you get roughly 80% of your XP from loot rather than killing monsters, and in 4e you can get serious amounts of XP from skill challenges. Other editions? Not so much. Pokemon does have multi battles with multiple pokemon on one side at the same time Andrast fucked around with this message at 19:33 on Oct 23, 2019 |
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2019 19:29
|
|
|
neonchameleon posted:But getting back to Pokemon in specific to me the biggest problem is not that it's combat heavy, but how solitary the combat is. In the games there's only one PC - and in the cartoon although Ash has Misty and Brock, and Jessie & James have each other and Meowth (and a Team Rocket RPG sounds fun) even the combat is The Decker Problem writ large; when Ash is fighting; even if it's the most fun combat system in the world what's everyone else doing? Even if they are playing the Pokemon in the fight you only have one active at a time. There’s been multiple games that have had more than one Pokémon working together at a time. There’s been Pokémon Mystery Dungeon, Pokémon Conquest, Double and Multi-battles in the main games, the space is definitely been explored before.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2019 19:32
|
|
|
thetoughestbean posted:As for your question, I don’t think D&D ought to support hardcore pacifist characters in the same way that a Pokémon system shouldn’t have to support a PC that doesn’t want to have Pokémon, in the same way that Lancer shouldn’t support a character who refuses to get into a mech. I’m not sure what you’re trying to prove there. It should have room for characters for whom battling and defeating gym leaders isn't their driving goal though. Pokemon breeders and contest coordinators and researchers and stuff.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2019 19:32
|
|
|
fool_of_sound posted:It should have room for characters for whom battling and defeating gym leaders isn't their driving goal though. Pokemon breeders and contest coordinators and researchers and stuff. I hadn’t really thought about that. I’d probably say that being a breeder would probably not work as ttrpg, but a researcher would probably still engage with catching/battling. Contests would probably be best introduced in a supplement of some sort, just because it would be so mechanically different than battling while still being worth exploring
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2019 19:37
|
|
|
Ilor posted:I think the smartest play might be to do something like Sentinels of the Multiverse, where there are separate, additional decks for things like the environment and the opposition, and have those cards integrate seamlessly with the actual Pokemon card game. And have a deck devoted to story elements that links the battles together. Thus, you'd have a card-driven RPG (where draw order is your randomizer) that builds upon the mechanics of the card game. Done righ, you wouldn't even need a GM. I think you're describing something a lot like the Arkham Horror LCG, but with Pokemon. Which wouldn't be a bad thing, if it existed. potatocubed fucked around with this message at 19:41 on Oct 23, 2019 |
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2019 19:38
|
|
|
thetoughestbean posted:Okay, a lot of things to unpack here. First of all you said that D&D was really just “at best a fantasy tac-sim game.” Do you not see how that smacks of purism? And I'm not even making any value judgments there; if you want to play a game that is about killing monsters and taking their stuff - especially one where you can see measurable progress in your character's abilities to do so - then D&D is aces and will deliver a play experience that you will enjoy. That's great! It's also a different thing from, say, a FATE game where your character's very freeform Aspects are explicitly used by both the player and the GM to drive the story. thetoughestbean posted:Second, having a satisfying crunchy tactical combat system doesn’t mean you can’t have good rules for role-playing, either. thetoughestbean posted:That being said, a world or story that focuses on combat should probably have the bulk of its rules be about combat, and Pokémon, in most of its forms, focuses on combat. (Combat isn’t life or death stakes, either, most of the time it’s like challenging somebody to one-on-one basketball, so using it as a go-to option for settling conflicts isn’t bad like you make it out to be) thetoughestbean posted:As for your question, I don’t think D&D ought to support hardcore pacifist characters in the same way that a Pokémon system shouldn’t have to support a PC that doesn’t want to have Pokémon, in the same way that Lancer shouldn’t support a character who refuses to get into a mech. I’m not sure what you’re trying to prove there. OK, so to bring this back around to a notional Pokemon RPG, you have to decide which non-combat activities you'll support in the game and how those will be adjudicated/resolved. Ergo, you have to decide what the game is about. I'm not telling you what it has to be or should, I'm saying whoever is making this game needs to actually decide that and support it in the game's mechanics. So far all people have really talked about is the combat system (which is already better done in CCG/computer game). And I'm pointing out that if 95% of what you want to do is already captured in the card/video game, well... Is this making more sense? thetoughestbean posted:And finally, as for why not just play the video game and be done with it, well, there are people who want to have a narrative that’s customized to them, with a backstory and character they thought up themselves, and the ability to shape the narrative in ways that you can’t in the games. potatocubed posted:I think you're describing something a lot like the Arkham Horror LCG, but with Pokemon.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2019 20:25
|
|
|
Everything I know about Pokemon I've picked up through cultural osmosis, but I would play a Pokemon co-op LCG.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2019 20:26
|
|
|
Ilor posted:So the original question of "why hasn't anyone come out with a good Pokémon TTPRG?" can probably best be answered by saying, "because they are too busy trying to reinvent Pokémon itself, only without a computer to track all the numbers" rather than going back to the drawing board and designing it from the ground up as an actual TTRPG. the real answer is "for all the time I spend working on a pokemon RPG, I could instead work on something I can sell for money" I shat out the basic premise of a functioning game with questionable math in like twenty minutes, what's going to stop me from polishing it further is all the other poo poo I could be doing
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2019 20:34
|
|
|
Ilor posted:Totally agreed, so those backstory and character and narrative elements have to have mechanical support in the rules to be useful. Things don’t have to be mechanically useful to have value to a game! When I make a character idea or backstory I don’t make it so I’ll get a bonus here or there, I make it so I have a character that I find compelling! Role playing will happen regardless of if the game has in depth rules for role playing. For goodness’s, sake, there are numerous games that are mostly about combat. I wouldn’t tell somebody who wants to make a mecha game to not bother because loving Armored Core exists, and I wouldn’t tell people to not bother playing a dungeon crawler because Roguelikes exist. You keep conflating your personal preferences as the only way to view games and it’s impossible to talk to you
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2019 21:03
|
|
|
Hostile V posted:Y'all have been chasing this conversation for days on end and now y'all are just getting petty and slapping at each other. Walk away for a
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2019 21:09
|
|
|
Ilor posted:the only thing you used graph paper for was mapping a dungeon (also: why did we ever do this as players? What were we thinking?). In my group, we were thinking "our 2nd level Rogue and our Elf together only have like a 15% chance of noticing secret doors, but if we meticulously map the dungeon we might be able to spot the empty gap on the map where the secret area is, so we can then spend in-game multiple days searching 10' segments of wall over and over till we find it" and occasionally also "this lets us mark where the trap is because the DM is not going to remind us that the trap we avoided is still there when we say "ok we are backtracking" so we gotta explicitly say "we are backtracking and when we get *here* we go around the trap the same way we did on the way in, with the rope and the shelves propped against the wall". And I'm kinda glad, too, because looking at the dungeon maps 30 years later is fun as hell.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2019 21:09
|
|
|
Loomer posted:My decision to polish and publish a project I've been working on has given me new respect for layout people. I think I hate InDesign more than life itself. It will delight you to learn that InDesign is the least awful layout application ever made. QuarkXPress, now that's a piece of poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2019 21:12
|
|
|
Kamala's cycle of running a Star Wars game (but never actually doing it.)
Legacy Primer: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1dD1eWGyrkzsO74SUF9FgGjq29EZ3nDOd/view?usp=drivesdk AU: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1skNsl7F9gAvxKUCJFhaeg8zXkrHiK6BfYdXbAotZKx0/edit?usp=drivesdk *google history of searching for pbta and fate hacks* Hmm, I think I'm on step 14 right now.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2019 21:15
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 11, 2024 00:55 |
|
|
grassy gnoll posted:It will delight you to learn that InDesign is the least awful layout application ever made. QuarkXPress, now that's a piece of poo poo. i keep seeing people talking about how affinity is supposed to be better than indesign, any thoughts on that one?
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2019 21:16
|
|
