|
Lemon Curdistan posted:I'm okay with this. Hopefully he decides he's getting rid of the separate Effect roll too, he wasn't 100% sure last I'd heard. How's this work? Choose one die to be your action score and one to be your effect score?
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2015 23:34
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 24, 2024 11:54 |
|
|
DalaranJ posted:How's this work? Choose one die to be your action score and one to be your effect score? You don't choose, at least in the last version he was kicking around, but basically yeah. The highest die becomes your degree of success and your second highest die becomes your degree of effect.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2015 00:28
|
|
|
And if you only roll one die, your Effect is considered to be 1. I much prefer it this way (I hate having two separate rolls) and it opens up interesting design space in letting certain things (i.e. items or having max pips in a skill or whatever) let the player pick which die to use instead of it being automatic.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2015 00:48
|
|
|
I wasn't sold on every action in the game being at least 2 rolls when I'm coming from Apocalypse World's "everything you need to know in 2d6", so this is good news to me.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2015 01:37
|
|
|
Tangentially related news: the soundtrack for Sunless Sea has been released on iTunes/Bandicamp/Google Play/elsewhere. It's distillated awesome and a great thematic fit for Blades in the Dark.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2015 05:41
|
|
|
Our Blades in the Dark PbP has just completed its first Score, if anyone would like to see the system in action. Another idea I had for a BITD reskin was 80s movies. Play a gang of action movie stereotypes in Miami - smuggling cocaine, gun-running through the keys, steal important computer hacking secrets and redirect money into the Kai Tave posted:You don't choose, at least in the last version he was kicking around, but basically yeah. The highest die becomes your degree of success and your second highest die becomes your degree of effect. I like this! I was already off-the-cuff deciding whenever an action would need an effect roll or not - having that built-in would be a nice bit of streamlining.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2015 05:52
|
|
|
Lemon Curdistan posted:And if you only roll one die, your Effect is considered to be 1. I'm wondering what will happen to some of the pieces of design that will be removed in this case. But I certainly agree that one roll resolution is going to be better than the current strategy. I'm looking forward to the next document. I guess I'm sort of glad I haven't started playing yet.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2015 06:28
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:I like this! I was already off-the-cuff deciding whenever an action would need an effect roll or not - having that built-in would be a nice bit of streamlining. DalaranJ posted:I'm wondering what will happen to some of the pieces of design that will be removed in this case. But I certainly agree that one roll resolution is going to be better than the current strategy. To add more to this that I sort of glossed over, he also trimmed down the number of "Effect stats" to four and for the one-roll version changed how they work. Instead of diamonds in an effect granting you dice to roll, since obviously that would defeat the point, diamonds in a particular Effect type grant a scaling modifier. Everyone starts with one diamond in Force, Insight, Maneuver, and Power which give you a -1 to the result of the associated effect score (i.e. if you roll a 6, 4, 1 and had a -1 in Insight then you would use the 6 for determining success and then the 4 would be used for effect, which the -1 would turn into a 3) and then as you add more diamonds the modifier goes to +0, +1, and +2 and two, three, and four diamonds respectively.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2015 06:42
|
|
|
Kai Tave posted:To add more to this that I sort of glossed over, he also trimmed down the number of "Effect stats" to four and for the one-roll version changed how they work. Instead of diamonds in an effect granting you dice to roll, since obviously that would defeat the point, diamonds in a particular Effect type grant a scaling modifier. Everyone starts with one diamond in Force, Insight, Maneuver, and Power which give you a -1 to the result of the associated effect score (i.e. if you roll a 6, 4, 1 and had a -1 in Insight then you would use the 6 for determining success and then the 4 would be used for effect, which the -1 would turn into a 3) and then as you add more diamonds the modifier goes to +0, +1, and +2 and two, three, and four diamonds respectively. Wouldn't that mess up crits though if you had two 6s? I'm interested to see how it turns out with the change, Harper is one designer I definitely trust though.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2015 14:42
|
|
|
I'm regretting backing this now. Changing your core mechanic after the Kickstarter... When does he expect to release the game? How can there be time to give a new core mechanic the playtesting time it needs? Seems like either we'll end up waiting a long time for him to test everything out or else the full release will be the playtest. Either way I think I'd have been better off waiting for retail and buying it then if it turns out good. I mean, the change is probably a good one, but I was under the impression that I was backing a game that basically already existed. It's totally legit to kickstart a game that doesn't exist yet, and I'm not saying anyone else should feel bad for backing. But my personal policy is to back games that are essentially complete already, and otherwise to wait for retail and reviews. I knew the rules not being out at the start was a red flag (for me) and I posted as much, but in the end I got caught up in the hype. Just to be clear: I do trust John Harper, and I expect it'll be good, but I'm justifiably leery of game kickstarters and I'd rather not have to put my trust when I could just wait and get the thing later.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2015 15:09
|
|
|
Jimbozig posted:I'm regretting backing this now. Changing your core mechanic after the Kickstarter... He hasn't changed the mechanic, stop being a gigantic baby. The single Action/Effect roll was something he put forward for consideration.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2015 15:10
|
|
|
Lemon Curdistan posted:He hasn't changed the mechanic, stop being a gigantic baby. The single Action/Effect roll was something he put forward for consideration. Oh sorry, maybe I misunderstood. I thought he was changing it? Everyone in here is talking like he is changing it or has changed it. I'm getting my news from this thread instead of G+, so my apologies if I'm confused. Also, how is it being a gigantic baby to acknowledge that kickstarters are inherently a gamble?
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2015 15:31
|
|
|
Plague of Hats posted:He's going to do one of those "late backers" things, so that might be it whenever that's ready. That's amazing news, I was pretty bummed to have missed it. Any info about where and when?
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2015 15:50
|
|
|
Jimbozig posted:Oh sorry, maybe I misunderstood. I thought he was changing it? Everyone in here is talking like he is changing it or has changed it. I'm getting my news from this thread instead of G+, so my apologies if I'm confused. It's been like two weeks since the kickstarter ended and you're already at "I regret this". Harper made big changes to all his games and it's never really slowed his progress, The Regiment had some pretty big changes in the last two versions and it was definitely for the better, and I for one did already find the double roll of action and effect a little iffy anyway. I'll take this over a dozen other tabletop kickstarter a that aren't even CLOSE to fulfillment promises (don't even get me started on Catacombs, which is almost 6 months late for simple loving components).
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2015 15:58
|
|
|
Fenarisk posted:It's been like two weeks since the kickstarter ended and you're already at "I regret this".
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2015 16:11
|
|
|
He seemed pretty clear to me that there was still significant writing to do, which is why I was hesitant myself. He's mused about changing an aspect of the core mechanic, but as long as he does the math right it shouldn't have a major development impact (especially if he keeps the fairly mediocre playbook moves), and he's got half a year to find out before crunch-time even starts to loom.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2015 17:00
|
|
|
There's also the fact that the quickstarts are also public playtest documents, which helps him find issues a lot faster than he would in a more closed-off playtest environment.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2015 17:03
|
|
|
Harper is a pretty proven developer, I wouldn't worry about him making stupid beginner mistakes.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2015 17:31
|
|
|
I would rather a game designer change stuff they feel isn't working...y'know, actually doing design stuff...than go "oh well, I already put one version out there so I guess it's set in stone" and release something sub-par. Rolling both to determine threshold of success and then rolling effect for virtually everything was not an elegant setup, neither was having six different Effect stats with unclear applications. If anything this would make me regret backing a project less, I have no idea why this would make someone think "oh boy, here we go again."
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2015 18:42
|
|
|
No, I agree with you. It's just telling me that in hindsight I should have just waited for it to be done instead of paying money now for something I won't be able to enjoy for months or more because of my other priorities. I have this instinct to "buy now" that I have fight because in reality it is better for me to buy the games now that I am going to play now instead of buying the games that I will eventually play. It's not like it'll be unavailable when I want to play it later.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2015 19:14
|
|
|
Jimbozig posted:No, I agree with you. It's just telling me that in hindsight I should have just waited for it to be done instead of paying money now for something I won't be able to enjoy for months or more because of my other priorities. You shouldn't contribute to Kickstarters then because "waiting months or more" is part and parcel of that particular experience, and even if John Harper was like "okay, I'm not changing any of this no matter how clunky it is, gogogo" you would still be waiting months or more for everybody to finish writing, laying out, and illustrating the approximately one bajillion stretch goals unlocked over the course of the Kickstarter.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2015 19:25
|
|
|
There are a bunch of Kickstarters where you're just pledging money for the author to be able to afford art and a professional editor on what is otherwise a completed game. 
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2015 20:05
|
|
|
The quickest turnaround I've ever experienced when Kickstarting a project has still been measured in months, which I believe was Night Witches which started their Kickstarter in October of 2014, released the final digital version in January 2015, and considered hardcopy fulfillment to be complete in March.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2015 20:10
|
|
|
Kai Tave posted:You shouldn't contribute to Kickstarters then because "waiting months or more" is part and parcel of that particular experience, and even if John Harper was like "okay, I'm not changing any of this no matter how clunky it is, gogogo" you would still be waiting months or more for everybody to finish writing, laying out, and illustrating the approximately one bajillion stretch goals unlocked over the course of the Kickstarter. So there are plenty of reasons to pledge to the right KS at the right time. I don't think this one met any of those for me, although it probably met many of those criteria for many people, not to mention all the folks who have a different set of criteria.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2015 20:26
|
|
|
My kickstarter expectations were set unreasonably high by Greg Stolze, before big kickstarters with tons of stretch goals were regularly a thing, where he'd normally start sending poo poo out the same day the funding cleared. And then I pledged to Far West, oops.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2015 20:30
|
|
|
Jimbozig posted:Yes, precisely. I shouldn't unless I am going to play it from the KS preview, or unless it needs my help funding to exist, or unless it's a fellow designer I want to support based on some personal connection, or unless I really want to read it right away for whatever design/research purpose, or if there is a stretch goal I want to help it hit, or unless the game is basically done and the turnaround time will be very fast. I don't know what any of this has to do with your initial post which complaining about John Harper changing system elements before the game is finalized. Since it sounds like you were uninterested in the project to begin with and have a whole shopping list of reasons why you shouldn't have pledged I'm not sure what your objection to him refining things before it goes to press is in the first place.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2015 22:33
|
|
|
unseenlibrarian posted:My kickstarter expectations were set unreasonably high by Greg Stolze, before big kickstarters with tons of stretch goals were regularly a thing, where he'd normally start sending poo poo out the same day the funding cleared. Yeah, Dinosaurs... in SPACE! was my first Kickstarter and it was incredibly well-done. Then I backed a bunch of terribly-run stuff.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2015 00:23
|
|
|
Y'all have to admit that if this wasn't both a professional designer with cred and an otherwise professionally run Kickstarter, this would be a big red flag, right? Like, "the game started being fundamentally rewritten after the Kickstarter closed" sounds bad. It's probably not, it's just game devs doing the sensible thing and changing a rule that received lukewarm feedback in an open playtest - which is good. I was ecstatic upon seeing the Kickstarter for Blades in the Dark as it was, conceptually, the RPG I've always wanted. I ran a session of it and it was... okay. It wasn't bad by any stretch, but it basically wasn't nearly as good as I thought it was gonna be. Part of that was the group getting used to the new system, but we all felt like we were fighting it to have fun. It looks so similar to PBtA and the fact that it really isn't PBtA at all really threw us. I still have high hopes for the game, but I've tempered my expectations.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2015 00:38
|
|
|
I wouldn't call "cleaning up the dice rolling on action resolution a little" fundamentally rewriting the game. Switching to a d10 dice pool and adding Robot Hitler from space and time is fundamentally rewriting the game.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2015 00:44
|
|
|
It's mind boggling to hear people saying that tinkering with a game post KS is a big red flag when Exalted 3E is a thing that should still be fresh in peoples' memories.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2015 00:56
|
|
|
Kai Tave posted:It's mind boggling to hear people saying that tinkering with a game post KS is a big red flag when Exalted 3E is a thing that should still be fresh in peoples' memories. On the plus side, I think this is a new record for the shortest time between the starting a game's thread and arguments about whether or not the rules are good.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2015 03:06
|
|
|
Kai Tave posted:It's mind boggling to hear people saying that tinkering with a game post KS is a big red flag when Exalted 3E is a thing that should still be fresh in peoples' memories. That's a pretty low bar you're setting, there.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2015 03:26
|
|
|
Plague of Hats posted:That's a pretty low bar you're setting, there. Seriously though, ever since the final-ish Ex3 leak hit everybody who was actually looking forward to it has generally had positive reactions to it but even they're going "this really could have benefited from another round of people going over it and clarifications" and instead what the Ex3 team did was spin lovely analogies about Christmas presents and then when the first leak hit rather than embrace it and use it as as an opportunity to build more hype and solicit feedback they went "ugh, no more semi-open playtesting PERIOD." Meanwhile John Harper is changing things that don't work based on playtester and community feedback after releasing an extensive quickstart that showcases the system, playbooks, and gives enough tools to actually run games before the Kickstarter even finished funding and that "sounds like a red flag" and is cause to regret backing it? Yeah sure, okay.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2015 05:34
|
|
|
Yes, the fact that the core mechanic was what needed revision based on playtester feedback is a red flag. Like, duh, obviously it is. Changing your core mechanic can have knock-on effects and can be very tricky. I don't know why you seem to think I'm saying that he shouldn't revise it. Obviously he should, and I've said that since my first post. It's still a red flag that he has to. And, again, I've said since my first post that I'm confident in his abilities that he will work this out. I don't know what you are still hung up about.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2015 12:41
|
|
|
Jimbozig posted:Yes, the fact that the core mechanic was what needed revision based on playtester feedback is a red flag. Like, duh, obviously it is. Changing your core mechanic can have knock-on effects and can be very tricky. This exactly. It's a problem that this had to happen. It's entirely a good thing for the game that it is and I don't think anyone here is complaining. All I'm saying is that I asked my friends to back this Kickstarter because I knew John Harper would do a good job and that the Quick Play looked good. They're less than enamoured with the system and probably aren't going to react well to hearing that the game is being rewritten, since that makes it sound like I was lying when I said the game was playable. Anyone who knows anything about game design knows that this is actually fine and it's only going to make the game better.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2015 13:45
|
|
|
Kai Tave posted:Seriously though, ever since the final-ish Ex3 leak hit everybody who was actually looking forward to it has generally had positive reactions to it but even they're going "this really could have benefited from another round of people going over it and clarifications" and instead what the Ex3 team did was spin lovely analogies about Christmas presents and then when the first leak hit rather than embrace it and use it as as an opportunity to build more hype and solicit feedback they went "ugh, no more semi-open playtesting PERIOD." I haven't been paying attention to Ex3; what happened with the rules?
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2015 16:39
|
|
|
Evil Mastermind posted:I haven't been paying attention to Ex3; what happened with the rules? An unfinished rules document got leaked once and this prompted the Ex3 team to immediately cancel what semi-open playtesting they were doing in retaliation. Then the rules got leaked a second time, a mostly complete draft sans art and layout. The general consensus seems to be that it's an improvement over Ex2 though it's still crunchy as hell, but a number of charms are full of "naturalistic language" that make their function more ambiguous than they should be and there's also stuff like BP/XP costs still being dumb in that classic way (y'know, where it's cheaper to raise things higher during chargen with BP than with XP later on so the system rewards you for hyperspecializing out of the gate) and Crafts having eleventy different variations on a dice reroller, nothing that's utterly gamebreaking (yet, give it time) but things that could clearly have benefited from a more open sort of playtest. Which it didn't get because something something Christmas presents. Jimbozig posted:Yes, the fact that the core mechanic was what needed revision based on playtester feedback is a red flag. Like, duh, obviously it is. Changing your core mechanic can have knock-on effects and can be very tricky. "This is a huge problem! Oh but I'm sure he'll work it out fine and obviously he should revise it. But it's still a problem!" I'm not even sure what your point in complaining is then if you believe that John Harper is doing something that's good and that he's professional enough to do it right. Also what knock-on effects would those be, exactly?
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2015 18:10
|
|
|
So it looks like we're still going to be waiting a while for an update, but at least it'll me a much more substantial one than we'd otherwise be getting? So that's cool. Which clearly just means it'll be full of terrible knock-on effects, but what can you do?
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2015 16:41
|
|
|
I liked the two rolls, but then I like games with lots of dice.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2015 23:57
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 24, 2024 11:54 |
|
|
Humbug Scoolbus posted:I liked the two rolls, but then I like games with lots of dice. I like rolling dice when it's interesting to do so, but while the actual skill roll itself combined with the three positions has a lot of interesting interplay in terms of "what do these results do to make the game more interesting/tense/exciting?" all the additional effect roll did was add "roll to deal damage" to virtually every task as an additional step and I can't muster even the slightest amount of care for losing something like that. A "roll to deal damage" that required every character to have an additional second separate layer of stats just to determine how well you could roll to deal damage on top of the stats you roll to determine your success threshold. It's basically the clunkiest part of an otherwise fairly trim and simple system and if it goes I'm not really sure that the game is losing much. I'm also hugely skeptical that this is going to have "knock on effects" to any significant degree given that the system isn't super complex with tons of moving parts and it's not like John Harper is going "poo poo, I better throw all of this out and start over again with card-based mechanics and a d30 dicepool kicker for flavor."
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2015 00:02
|
|