|
To be fair that thing looks like a sandwich.
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2014 19:33
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 27, 2024 23:02 |
|
|
Alien Rope Burn posted:The solution is not to have wild animals in your home, like cats or children. Or use your cats as props. My cat is a black turkish angora, so holding her in my arms while running a game of Monsterhearts make me look like some kind of a gothic Bond villain.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2014 19:43
|
|
|
Yawgmoth posted:Like, do you play Settlers of Catan with dinner plates and forks?
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2014 19:55
|
|
|
occamsnailfile posted:It's not so much my ability as it is that of myself and anyone I might ever actually play with--I mean are you saying you've never lost a piece to a board game? Yes, obviously, put your toys away when you are done, but stuff gets displaced sometimes, and with RPGs the expectation is not 'here are several things you need to keep in a specially designed box'. Does WHFRP3 come with a box? I am not interested in WH fantasy so I have never examined it. Yes, the Core Set of Warhammer comes in a big box you can put everything in (and a dumb cardboard insert that you'll probably recycle immediately as is the FFG way).
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2014 19:56
|
|
|
The other side of tokens and PDFs is oh god how am I going to put together all the stuff for The Clay That Woke.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2014 21:44
|
|
|
When did "action economy" become a thing that started being considered as part of design/balance? It seems like its acknowledgement as a mechanic is a fairly recent one, say during 4E?
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2014 21:54
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:When did "action economy" become a thing that started being considered as part of design/balance? It seems like its acknowledgement as a mechanic is a fairly recent one, say during 4E? 3e, actually! 3e introduced actual, actions as opposed to AD&D and Basic's "you can move, and you can attack." The additional actions were, of course, typically used to punish non-spellcasters or buff spellcasters - at first all 3e did was chance spellcasting to a Standard (outside of summoning) and attacking to a Full Action, so that only spellcasters could move and still take their turn. Later, Swift and Immediate actions were added, typically to better boost new types of spells. The "action economy" was the idea that players want to maximize the number of actions they can take; spellcasters were stronger because they could simply do more things. A fighter can full attack; a wizard can move, cast a spell, cast a swift or quickened spell, and then cast ANOTHER spell as an interrupt on the baddie's turn. In 4e, when caster superiority was largely taken out back and Old Yeller'd, this stuck around; the difference is that now any class can (potentially) do it. It's why rogue multiclassing and power swaps are so popular; rogues get a minor action attack. This grew to be more and more important as people started to push into bigger novas to attempt to end the fight on the first turn (which was sorta encouraged by the bigger, more damaging, but less healthy enemies starting in MM3), and as more and more powers were made as minor actions (initially it was far more rare and special). A rogue who can attack as a standard AND as a minor is going to be doing better then a rogue who can only attack as a standard. 5e still has it, it just desperately lies to you about it and pretends it isn't there by not actually codifying it as a "minor" or "swift" action, and instead manually reprinting on every goddamn power that it's a bonus action.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2014 22:09
|
|
|
Yeah, I remember seeing in the 3.X Optimization community (min-maxers) of the devastating potential of action economy manipulation.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2014 23:04
|
|
|
Couldn't find the indie thread so I'll ask it here: Hillfolk (or the Dramasystem in general) makes you decide what areas your character is strong at or weak in. In addition, you get three stake tokens: green, yellow, and red. When you're trying to overcome an external practical obstacle like an avalanche or something, which token you stake on it influences how many cards you draw to meet it. Do your actual character strengths play into that at all? I can't see that they do - they're only mentioned in player-to-player conflicts.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2014 01:50
|
|
|
Glazius posted:Couldn't find the indie thread so I'll ask it here: I remember being confused about this as well, but I was never able to find a reference to how the strong/middling/weak affected external obstacles.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2014 03:38
|
|
|
Thought we had a Paranoia thread but couldn't find it- anyway, there is a New Kickstarter for a New Paranoia, designed by James Wallis with an apparent emphasis on being easier, faster, etc. Gonna be a boxed set with cards and dice and wipe-away character sheets. It looks like it's gonna be focused on "Classic" play but discussion on an RPGnet thread revealed that they may at least try to put some words on running "Straight" games in the Gamemaster material. The thing's already funded with 39 days to go. Not entirely sure how good this will be compared to XP, but I pledged anyway.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2014 19:54
|
|
|
How do I pay with real money, I don't have any squiggle bucks?
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2014 20:05
|
|
|
It's mostly being picked on in the Kickstarter thread.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2014 20:15
|
|
|
Hey I've just been gifted a copy of the Burning Wheel. Does this play as well as it reads? (amazingly.) It seems like what I thought D&D was when I was 14. Just in advance I have already played dungeon world and while I love running that system I also love tight, mechanical interactions between players and systems and DW is kinda light for my tastes. (I loooove ApocWorld, but that is because it is better.)
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2014 19:54
|
|
|
Impermanent posted:Hey I've just been gifted a copy of the Burning Wheel. Does this play as well as it reads? (amazingly.) Burning Wheel is a very tight system that does pretty much everything it promises to do. That said, it's also a very complex system with lots of fiddly bits. Thankfully, it's also got built in dials. Based on my experience of running it, I recommend you first get your players used to everything, and I mean everything, that goes into making tests: the basics of dice rolling are quick to get used to, but you also want to give your players a lot of experience with marking tests for the sake of advancement so that it becomes second nature to them, and you also want to remind them of the fact that they can make tests either carefully, patiently or quickly. Also, helping and ForKs should come up at some point. Once you've got that down you can start slowly introducing some of the game's more involved systems. Duel of Wits is definitely the easiest of the game's various subsystems, so get your players in a situation where they have to argue a case. I don't recommend trying the Fight! system for the first couple of sessions; if combat does come up, use one of the simpler alternatives, like bloody versus tests or something. It's a really good game, but at the same time it's got a lot of complexity that I personally just don't want to deal with, given that I have precious little gaming time to begin with. If you've got a group who have a lot of time and motivation to learn a more involved system, Burning Wheel can be extremely rewarding.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2014 20:32
|
|
|
I always love when someone describes an indie game as "what I thought D&D would be when I was a teenager". I need to get around to reading my copy of BW one of these days.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2014 20:55
|
|
|
Impermanent posted:Hey I've just been gifted a copy of the Burning Wheel. Does this play as well as it reads? (amazingly.) Short answer: no. Long answer: Ratpick covers it pretty well. Burning Wheel is unique in that it essentially starts from the same conceptual idea of RPGs as a storygame, but has as much complexity and sub-systems as old school designs. It's very fiddly and very complex. Those can be good things, but it's a lot to take in, particularly since its storygame like foundation means the systems tend to work very differently than most crunch heavy games. Additionally, it's designed in a way that you really can't use every single subsystem and option at the same time. It's not that they don't work or that they don't work well together, but there's so many of them that it becomes impossibly unwieldy. Think Rolemaster, but because of how the systems work it's not easily condensed to a set of reference tables. That isn't a problem once you get a hang of how things do work, but it can trip you up as you're learning the game. Be prepared to spend some time twiddling with the dials Rapick mentioned to get it where you want it. Another note is that the world is very low fantasy and has an unabashedly Tolkienesque approach to character races. Elves are just flat out better at the beginning, for example, but humans tend to be more adaptable and advance a bit quicker. This is baked in pretty deeply for the ruleset so it's worth keeping in mind. Characters just aren't built for big epic post-Tolkien high fantasy adventures, especially not right out of the box. Adventuring in Burning Wheel tends to be much more how Bilbo describes it in the Hobbit - "Nasty disturbing uncomfortable things!" Now, that might all sound good if you're looking for a system with depth and complexity. The low fantasy aspect is very much a game style preference question too. To be honest while I present these issues as cautions, they're not why I say Burning Wheel doesn't play as awesomely as it reads. The issue I have with Burning Wheel is that it's kind of boring and obtuse. There are a ton of skills and they're written to be rather exclusive despite having really minor differences, and you don't get enough points to actually have a comprehensive background in any particular job. For example, there are different skills for rowing and sailing and navigation and tying knots and commanding a ship. There are ways to adjust the skill list sure, and the game is designed to let you improve skills by doing them so not having a skill doesn't mean you can't get it, but it still feels a bit off. Worse is that in several cases there are lists of qualities, skills, etc that don't actually have descriptions. Just names. On some level this is okay, because the idea is they should be self explanatory and malleable, but it doesn't really work. Some of them are actually pretty drat obscure, and the way they get used is specific enough that at least a little description is necessary to make it work. Worse, some of the ones with description do extra things for you. Additionally, you tend to fail a LOT early on. This helps you improve your skills but can be kind of frustrating. The issue here is that it doesn't jibe well with the backgrounding that goes into character creation. You have a character with a history... who generally sucks at the things you supposedly have been doing for your life before becoming an adventurer. It's not like ApocWorld where you are, from the start, really good at some things. It's also a really hard book to reference at the table. BW can be a really rewarding experience and some of the concepts are downright mind-blowing once you get a handle on them, particularly if you're used to traditional RPG design (less so if you're playing a lot of modern indie games), but it is a twelve year old game and has it's share of warts. Its also got very specific vision of how to play. You can adjust the details, but it's not a game that you can hack - in fact, it's less hackable than something like D&D. It tends to break badly if you mess with things too much. Personally, if you like what you see and want to play D&D style games with it, I'd suggest checking out Torchbearer. EDIT: Rereading what I said, I was more negative than I meant to be. I am a big fan of Burning Wheel as a concept. It isn't a game that meets the needs of what I want when I play an RPG, but not because it's poorly designed. For the most it accomplishes what it sets out to do, and there's definitely an audience for that. And even if you don't like playing it or even much like how it does things, BW is definitely useful as an inspiration for design. I do have specific mechanical issues with it, and I think even for someone who wants what BW is selling the learning curve and the character development curve mean you have to put in too much time before it actually starts becoming fun. I once likened it to Final Fantasy XIII in that regard, and I stick by that analogy. Particularly because despite it's issues, I played the hell out of FFXIII and enjoyed it still. But it's not immediate, out of the box amazement. Comrade Gorbash fucked around with this message at 21:26 on Oct 28, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2014 21:15
|
|
|
Ok, Would your assessment change if I told you that I and my fellow players regularly play big, meaty boardgames like Mage Knight, the 'Gric, and Twilight Struggle? Systems mastery is not usually an issue for us. Additionally - torchbearer also looks very intersting (and more supported/modern.) Is there anything it specifically does well? Is there anything missing from it that burning wheel offers? I have also been reading the Mouse Guard RPG, which just isn't light enough to be dungeon world level for me while also not being involved enough mechanically to give me the meaty experience I want. edit: Also, thanks all for the thoughtful, insightful, timely replies!
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2014 21:32
|
|
|
My main memory of my one abortive attempt to play Burning Wheel is that I built a knight, a 30 year old professional knight who had a liege lord, owned property, was landed, was the son of a noble, owned armor and weapons and horses and everything. He did not have enough money to buy a potato. Literally. I did not have enough starting money despite having deliberately picked options that would give me property, titles and patronage to buy a single meal of cheap peasant fare. What's more, trying to buy that meal would drain the last of my money, but if I tried and failed to buy that potato enough times, I would actually get money from somewhere permanently. I don't even know. I like the idea of Burning Wheel, in the abstract. It's just I feel like the rules are utter AIDS in the worst sort of fantasy heartbreaker way.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2014 22:18
|
|
|
Doodmons posted:My main memory of my one abortive attempt to play Burning Wheel is that I built a knight, a 30 year old professional knight who had a liege lord, owned property, was landed, was the son of a noble, owned armor and weapons and horses and everything. He did not have enough money to buy a potato. Literally. I did not have enough starting money despite having deliberately picked options that would give me property, titles and patronage to buy a single meal of cheap peasant fare. What's more, trying to buy that meal would drain the last of my money, but if I tried and failed to buy that potato enough times, I would actually get money from somewhere permanently. I don't disagree with you, because I think Burning Wheel's resource rules are some of the head-scratchingest I've seen, but there's this particular bit hidden in there: Saying Yes to Resources posted:Say Yes to Resources tests if a purchase is clearly within the character's means and there is nothing at stake - failure is an annoyance or inconvenience rather than a dramatic twist. The "Say Yes or Roll the Dice" rule is one of the most important to Burning Wheel: if rolling for something won't achieve anything beyond the game grinding to a halt and the characters being inconvenienced for no real dramatic reason, it's probably not worth rolling.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2014 22:41
|
|
|
On the other hand Mouse Guard has many of the same concepts, paired down in complexity, and runs like a dream from the first session on. You just have to get used to feeling like you're railroading adventures, or drift a bit from rules as written.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2014 23:01
|
|
|
Impermanent posted:Ok, Would your assessment change if I told you that I and my fellow players regularly play big, meaty boardgames like Mage Knight, the 'Gric, and Twilight Struggle? Systems mastery is not usually an issue for us. I agree with Gorbash on BW pretty much word for word, right down to 'give Torchbearer a go if Burning Wheel seems interesting'. I'm less charitable about it than he is, though; I think the concepts are amazing but system mastery isn't going to help you because the system itself is irredeemably busted in pretty much every way.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2014 23:10
|
|
|
Impermanent posted:Ok, Would your assessment change if I told you that I and my fellow players regularly play big, meaty boardgames like Mage Knight, the 'Gric, and Twilight Struggle? Systems mastery is not usually an issue for us. I'm going to completely disagree with the posters above me and say that from what you've posted it sounds like you are the perfect audience to try it out. Three problem I've had with BW is simply that it turns some people off, and when that person is one of the regulars in your group, well... Guess you're playing something else. The game is not busted at all, but it totally assumes you know about failing forward and trusts you as a GM not to describe the expert marksman missing the barn door. If the expert rolls his 6 dice and manages to get no successes, then come up with some other twist that involves him failing to get his intent even though he obviously was capable of making the shot. Maybe somebody bumped him or somebody cheated him or whatever. There are lots of failed rolls, but when the GM is on the ball, that can be a big positive. And also most newbies forget to use the rules for working patiently or carefully and make the game harder by that omission. New players also lack the system mastery to marshal all available dice from helping, linked tests, etc. I will admit that starting characters have poo poo-all for wealth. I guess you'd better go make your fortune!
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2014 23:49
|
|
|
Impermanent posted:Ok, Would your assessment change if I told you that I and my fellow players regularly play big, meaty boardgames like Mage Knight, the 'Gric, and Twilight Struggle? Systems mastery is not usually an issue for us. Not really. While I personally prefer RPGs that aren't that complex in their rules, I do really enjoy those kinds of boardgames as well. I wouldn't go as far to say it's completely broken as potatocubed did, but the core argument is correct: the issues with BW are baked into the game in a way that getting more familiar with it will never totally solve. Impermanent posted:Additionally - torchbearer also looks very intersting (and more supported/modern.) Is there anything it specifically does well? Is there anything missing from it that burning wheel offers? I have also been reading the Mouse Guard RPG, which just isn't light enough to be dungeon world level for me while also not being involved enough mechanically to give me the meaty experience I want. Mouse Guard is probably the cleanest implementation of the BW concepts, and it gets a lot more involved than it appears on first blush. It brings fewer mechanics into play on a per action and per session level, but there's a tremendous amount of depth to the game. Additionally, as I mentioned there's just no real way to bring all of the BW mechanics into one campaign without getting buried in them, so the MG isn't as "light" comparatively as it seems. It's more that MG isn't tune-able the way BW can be. You can really only use MG to play MG, so if you aren't looking for that it won't work. Torchbearer has a couple of specific differences. First of all, it's a game specifically designed to do dungeon crawling, old school D&D type adventures. BW can do those but not well - it's really designed for a slower pace. It also cleans up a lot of the extraneous systems from BW that didn't get much use, and cut out of the fat in others, if only because TB has the advantage of a decade of lessons-learned from BW to draw on.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2014 00:20
|
|
|
As long as your GM knows what they're doing and you don't use Luke Crane's stupid dice terminology, anyone can pick up and play Mouse Guard. Gorbash has got its number - it gets a lot deeper really quickly, especially in a full-fledged combat, and it's pretty firmly tied to its setting. You'd have to think of something to change Natures to and you'd probably want to mess with the character generation options to port the game itself over to plain ol' hack n' slash. Torchbearer does a great job of dungeon-crawl-as-resource-management-minigame, and is also closer to the platonic idea of D&D than the real deal. It's definitely an adversarial GM vs. PCs kinda deal in my experience, but sometimes that's pretty fun. Like, the deal with Crane's games is that they do the one thing they are supposed to do pretty to very well, they have a bunch of unnecessarily weird and obtuse jargon, and their layout is inevitably very pretty and totally unusable. If that sounds like something up your alley, pick one at random and go to town.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2014 00:42
|
|
|
The party had a serious, going to come to blows argument between two characters, and Mouse Guard was the first game I played where the mechanics handled it quickly, comprehensively, in a way that was entertaining to the other players, and most importantly, involved one character winning and both players feeling good with the outcome. It was a Saul on the road to Damascus moment
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2014 00:52
|
|
|
Basically play Mouse Guard. You could also play Risk of Rain with one of these Steam keys. Don't say I never did nothin' fer ya. https://www.humblebundle.com/s?gift=Gvfme2GpPFRptRXK https://www.humblebundle.com/s?gift=aW46ra7R5za2wGZE https://www.humblebundle.com/s?gift=B3bHd2Vkxm5aSzR2
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2014 00:57
|
|
|
Jimbozig posted:I'm going to completely disagree with the posters above me and say that from what you've posted it sounds like you are the perfect audience to try it out. Three problem I've had with BW is simply that it turns some people off, and when that person is one of the regulars in your group, well... Guess you're playing something else. The game is not busted at all, but it totally assumes you know about failing forward and trusts you as a GM not to describe the expert marksman missing the barn door. If the expert rolls his 6 dice and manages to get no successes, then come up with some other twist that involves him failing to get his intent even though he obviously was capable of making the shot. Maybe somebody bumped him or somebody cheated him or whatever. There are lots of failed rolls, but when the GM is on the ball, that can be a big positive. And also most newbies forget to use the rules for working patiently or carefully and make the game harder by that omission. New players also lack the system mastery to marshal all available dice from helping, linked tests, etc. I dunno dude, I get what you mean but I feel like if the GM has to constantly throw the players a bone and twist the narrative to explain why these professional adventurers are retarded shitfarmers mechanically, and the players have to search and scrimp for all the bonuses they can get just to be effective, there's something wrong with the game. I really want to like BW and I want to give it a second chance, but that first game was such a negative experience all around I'm not sure I can convince the GM to run it again - and he's the one who bought Burning Wheel, Magic Burner and Monster Burner in the first place.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2014 01:03
|
|
|
grassy gnoll posted:Basically play Mouse Guard. Also, claimed. Many thanks grassy gnoll.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2014 01:04
|
|
|
Doodmons posted:I dunno dude, I get what you mean but I feel like if the GM has to constantly throw the players a bone and twist the narrative to explain why these professional adventurers are retarded shitfarmers mechanically, and the players have to search and scrimp for all the bonuses they can get just to be effective, there's something wrong with the game. I really want to like BW and I want to give it a second chance, but that first game was such a negative experience all around I'm not sure I can convince the GM to run it again - and he's the one who bought Burning Wheel, Magic Burner and Monster Burner in the first place. Yeah, it's not an issue of "they fail at even basic tasks" because as Ratpick pointed out, there's the "Say Yes or Roll the Dice" rule. It's that you have to stretch that rule to the breaking point because, especially at the start, you're more likely to fail than pass anything you do have to roll for. And even all that scrimping and searching only gets to you to a reasonable likelihood of success.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2014 01:34
|
|
|
Nooo I got sniped. SO I want to run Nobilis for new people. What's the biggest stumbling block people generally run into when describing the rules?
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2014 02:00
|
|
|
Comrade Gorbash posted:Yeah, it's not an issue of "they fail at even basic tasks" because as Ratpick pointed out, there's the "Say Yes or Roll the Dice" rule. It's that you have to stretch that rule to the breaking point because, especially at the start, you're more likely to fail than pass anything you do have to roll for. And even all that scrimping and searching only gets to you to a reasonable likelihood of success. That doesn't match up with my experience at all. My BW games had a good mix of successes and failures. Taking the time to do a thing carefully when you don't have any time pressure isn't scrimping, it's just using the rules. Many of the rolls are opposed, so it's not like the NPCs have skills any better than the PCs - you should have even odds on those even if you don't bother to try to work as a team or anything. Same goes for all the extended conflicts. But what it really sounds like is that your GM had trouble setting obstacles. With a starting skill of 4 for one of your better skills, you get one die from somewhere (between helping, working carefully, related knowledge, and spending Artha, if you can't find just one extra die then you are not even trying to play the game. Might as well whine about 4e because all you did was melee basic and it was no fun.) So you're rolling 5 dice. Most of the obstacles should be routine (80% chance of success) or difficult (50% chance). Those seem reasonable. If you are trying something that is "extremely difficult" for somebody skilled to do, then your odds are about 20%. And you can always improve those odds if you're willing to spend your points. If you use your weaker skills, either find more dice from somewhere, spend some of the points you have, or just be happy with your challenging test towards advancement and see what the GM has in store for you. Also, the skills and obstacles in Mouse Guard are the exact same as in Burning Wheel. To say that BW is a broken fail-fest and in the same breath recommend Mouse Guard is utter nonsense. Complain about how resources are fiddly and complain about the super-specific skills if you want to say that MG is better than BW because MG actually addressed those issues. I'm a huge fan of both games and I have experience with both and the session that had the most failing for the players was a Mouse Guard session, not BW. It was still fun, even though several townsfolk were killed launching an assault on a Beaver dam and one of the guardmice was eaten by a fox. I also wanted to talk about Torchbearer. Torchbearer is based on Mouse Guard's system, so if you don't think Mouse Guard has enough crunch then I don't know if Torchbearer would go any better for you. Basically the game is just Mouse Guard with a D&D skin and pages upon pages of random tables. I don't know if you think pages and pages of random tables is a pro or a con, but it is what you'll find. Some people love em, some people hate em.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2014 05:29
|
|
|
grassy gnoll posted:As long as your GM knows what they're doing and you don't use Luke Crane's stupid dice terminology, anyone can pick up and play Mouse Guard. Gorbash has got its number - it gets a lot deeper really quickly, especially in a full-fledged combat, and it's pretty firmly tied to its setting. You'd have to think of something to change Natures to and you'd probably want to mess with the character generation options to port the game itself over to plain ol' hack n' slash. I used to think Crane's jargon was unnecessary as well, and then I met him at a convention and heard his lecture on the philosophy that informed his games: he's of the mind that RPGs are ultimately games of language, and because of that whenever he designs a game he tries to come up with a language specific to the game he is designing. There's a reason why failures are called "Traitors" in Mouse Guard (because it's a thing that Saxon says in the comics). Apparently this philosophy informed him even more when designing Freemarket, because he wanted every game mechanic in the game to be expressed in terms that the characters themselves could use in in-universe discussion. I haven't played Freemarket, so I don't know how well he achieved that goal. I actually kind of agree with him to a point: I think setting a specific vocabulary for your game goes a long way to inform the feelings evoked by the game, and if you've set a clear vocabulary for your game from the get-go it doesn't even have to come at the expense of clear and unambiguous rules writing.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2014 09:47
|
|
|
Jimbozig posted:That doesn't match up with my experience at all. From what you've said here, that was probably true. What can I say, it was everyone's first time playing BW.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2014 13:41
|
|
|
Doodmons posted:From what you've said here, that was probably true. What can I say, it was everyone's first time playing BW. Yeah, and nobody can deny that the system has a steep learning curve. My first time turned out a bit rough in a totally different way. One of my players didn't really believe that other characters should be able to use social skills to convince him to do anything. Well, if we are playing "The Sword" and we can't get him to buy in to the social PvP aspect, then things aren't going to go great for that scenario. He was fine when we played a game without that PvP stuff later. But then my friends are a bit weird. Everyone here was a bit mystified when I came back to report that they all hated Dread. They like crunchier games, what can I say.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2014 13:55
|
|
|
Benagain posted:Nooo I got sniped. SO I want to run Nobilis for new people. What's the biggest stumbling block people generally run into when describing the rules? I think the biggest hang-up people have comes when they don't realize how much of the game is front-loaded into character creation. You can figure out what your players want the game to be about from their choices of Bonds, Estate, and Estate Properties, and use that to steer. (Similarly, most of the setting is defined when you define the cast of NPC Powers. Questions like "what happens when you die" can be answered by deciding what the Power of Souls, or Death, or Rebirth, or whatever, is like.)
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2014 14:10
|
|
|
Libertad! posted:Yeah, I remember seeing in the 3.X Optimization community (min-maxers) of the devastating potential of action economy manipulation. But people were min/maxing mechanics that gave extra actions long before then in games like Champions (where a melee brute force 'brick' character was optimal with the SPD the book tries to recommend for fast martial artists, who in turn really needed to have levels recommended for speedsters...) or Shadowrun (where any character who expected to ever be in a fight needed to blow half their essence on reflex enhancers).
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2014 00:44
|
|
|
It turns out that when you're playing a game, being able to take more than one turn at a time is really handy.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2014 01:21
|
|
|
Rand Brittain posted:I think the biggest hang-up people have comes when they don't realize how much of the game is front-loaded into character creation. You can figure out what your players want the game to be about from their choices of Bonds, Estate, and Estate Properties, and use that to steer. Actually slightly different spin on that question. I've got a group of novice roleplayers who I've run a couple of very successful dungeon world games with, some fiasco and dread, but that's it. They want to play gods. Would it be easier to run them through Part-Time Gods, or Nobilis?
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2014 06:32
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 27, 2024 23:02 |
|
|
Scion 
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2014 06:37
|
|
