|
Golden Bee posted:Played "Fighting Arts" or some huge, huge box dungeon crawler. It was okay but everything took too many options; it felt as if they combined the annoying movement rules of 3rd edition and the punitive parts of a CYOA. We had an hour and a half fight with a giant screaming stag w/ hands hanging out of its abdomen, and I hit the thing maybe twice -- every time I'd get close, it'd rush to the other side of the battlefield, where the rest of the team (who started over there) could do actual combat. Kingdom Death?
|
#
¿
Jun 9, 2016 01:19
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 29, 2024 10:39 |
|
|
Lightning Lord posted:I'm sure it's been discussed already but what do y'all think of Kaigaku, a game that appears to be an L5R clone with less doomed highborn manchildry? Do you like the Black Hack? Then maybe you will like the Black Hack with samurais, which is what Kaigaku is as far I can tell - at the very least it started as a hack of the Black Hack. I'm not especially sure OSR D&D is the best fit for L5R though. The promotion I have seen suggests it is supposed to be more historical and have less mythological elements than L5R also.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 23, 2016 14:15
|
|
|
The campaign for Dracula's Feast, a small social deduction game just launched. I don't know much about the game, or how it plays, but a friend of mine was the artist on the project, so the art is cool at least.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 5, 2016 00:01
|
|
|
Macdeo Lurjtux posted:But the game play itself is pretty bad, 90% of the random events are "roll a d10, on a 1-3 you die horribly, on a 8-10 you get a bonus". The game ends if your settlement survives 40 years and then your lanterns all go out and you die. This is one of the major problems; there is no real way to push the odds in your favour on most rolls and most rolls are set up so only getting 8-10 on a d10 does anything good for you. As a consequence, you are actively incentivised to not roll for random events if the game gives you a choice. This means you spend time rolling on charts to get an interesting sounding event and then choose not to engage with it because there's a higher chance you'll just get hosed over. There's also a bunch of stupidly, and unenjoyably, 'gently caress you' cards in the monster decks. Trap cards trigger at certain points when you damage a monster, essentially at random. I've played in battles where we were definitely about to defeat the boss but hit a trap card and got outright tpk'd. The trap cards don't add challenge, just the chance to get screwed by bad luck (spoiler: we took the trap cards out from then on). The game is not good, but my brother spent a lot of money on the Kickstarter (the only thing I can say in his defence is that didn't get any optional titty minis and has actively converted the minis he did get to reduce the more gratuitous stuff) so I have felt obliged to play it with him. We ultimately added a ton of house rules that made the game much more enjoyable, if not good. I will say this, the settlement building and crafting stuff is a cool idea, and the main thing that makes any of us interested in coming back for more - I wish a better designed game had those elements to it.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 11, 2016 22:49
|
|
|
As someone who has been a litigation lawyer, an RPG that even tries to approach anything like an actual courtroom situation sounds like simultaneously the most and boring and most infuriating game imaginable. There's probably a way to gameify it that could abstract most of the actual procedural stuff out though I suppose.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 26, 2016 22:27
|
|
|
As a for real alive human being who has played Kingdom Death on multiple occasions, I implore people not to back it. Not because it normalises sexual violence, not because it mistakes titties and eating poo poo for mature themes and not because it's full of dumb gross out sex and violence (although those are also good reasons not to back it, and I will judge you for backing a game like that), but because it is a terrible, trash fire game for garbage babies. The game is badly designed and not fun to play. It confuses mechanical difficulty for randomness. Literally every non-combat roll in the game works like this: 1-3 you get seriously hosed over, probably die; 4-8 nothing good happens, if you are lucky something bad won't happen; 9-10 something mildly rewarding happens. There is no way to meaningfully mitigate risk or modify rolls. The only way to mitigate against randomness at all is to have spare survivors. It sucks and it disincentivises actually engaging with the game's events. The boss fights are OK, but you repeat them so often they become tedious and repetitive quickly. Also, sometimes you hit a trap card and TPK instantly. You cannot ever win instantly, by contrast. The combat is slow, and has too much detail in the wrong places. Maybe on a computer it would be better, but processing by hand is a pain in the balls. The game wishes it was low level basic D&D, or a roguelike. Unlike those games, time just keeps progressing, and the difficulty (read how bad the random numbers gently caress you) increase even as you lose key survivors. It's bad and lovely, get a better game - for real, I'm trying to help you here.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 29, 2016 06:05
|
|
|
Falstaff posted:Hmm... According to this you're still short? Kickstarter is showing you the total pledges in US dollars, but the goal in Canadian dollars.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 18, 2017 06:21
|
|
|
HazCat posted:The slenderman expansion has a woman exploding into black oil-like gore. While wearing leather belts and nothing else. That's... not really rapey, so much as it is incredibly stupid. So, all of these extremely NSFW illustrations are in the rulebook or on game components: http://imgur.com/Ds95C81 http://imgur.com/TewkYn3 http://i.imgur.com/duDZa1a.jpg These all look like outright or strongly implied sexual violence to me. thefakenews fucked around with this message at 07:05 on Nov 18, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Nov 18, 2017 06:59
|
|
|
Bieeardo posted:So that's what I've been seeing today. Confused the gently caress out of me. I assume the intent is to show everything in the account's local currency. I am seeing goals in the creator's chosen currency, but the amount pledged in Australian dollars.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 18, 2017 07:54
|
|
|
DalaranJ posted:A 5 or 6 on any one dice, I assume? Not, the standard roll difficulty is success 5/6 of the time. Yeah, it's this. It's the same engine as Tiny Dungeons, I believe.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 14, 2018 09:26
|
|
|
crowtribe posted:Does anyone know if there are any preview or quick start rules for Tiny Wastelands? There is a sort of adventure/quickstart available for Tiny Dungeons 2E. It's not exactly what you are after, but the underlying rules system is the same. e: it is here.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 22, 2018 00:38
|
|
|
Kai Tave posted:With all due respect if you had misgivings from the start I'm not sure why you decided to throw your money at it anyway instead of simply waiting to see if it funded, and then if it somehow magically turned out good picking it up after it was released. I backed it early on, before it became evident how much of a shitshow it is. Then I decided to drop my pledge. And then I forgot to drop my pledge.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 2, 2018 12:20
|
|
|
FMguru posted:My experience with those terrible unending Forever Games (like Munchkin) are they go on until enough people become bored and start playing suboptimally in order to allow someone else to win and bring an end to all their suffering. This is me when forced to play Risk, but I do this from the start of the game. Risk sucks.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 19, 2018 23:17
|
|
|
Lemon-Lime posted:Did this get a rules preview? I looked at launch because I want to check that it doesn't just copy Defy Danger, but couldn't find one. There’s a preview linked in the first backers-only update. On a quick look at the basic moves, there isn’t a move remotely like Defy Danger. Like, there’s not even a move equivalent to Act Under Fire that I can see.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 21, 2018 13:51
|
|
|
malkav11 posted:I would maybe have paid $15 for it for convenience, but $25, let alone the full regular price? Nah. I'll just live without the tweaks. Unless he does a digital errata thing, as you suggest - it's not like he's never done PDF anything for Burning Wheel, he just refuses to do the books that way for...reasons. Just to be pedantic: there have been PDF releases for Burning Wheel, including the 'Hub & Spokes' pdf and a couple of adventures.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 14, 2019 01:33
|
|
|
malkav11 posted:Yes, that's what I was saying? So it is, I misread.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 14, 2019 01:57
|
|
|
Lemon-Lime posted:It's OSR, so I automatically have to ask how many of the people involved in this are Nazi-adjacent before I decide whether to back it or not. Can't speak to everyone involved, but people like Michael Prescott, Johnstone Metzger and Evey Lockhart are very much from the anti-Nazi part of the OSR.
|
|
#
¿
May 12, 2019 03:12
|
|
|
Doctor Zero posted:You know, every year when I have to take my corporate Conflict of Interest training I always think, "this is such basic common sense poo poo, why do we have to do this every year?" but thanks to this thread, now I know why. It's been a lovely week at work, and somehow the thread is still talking about this, so I guess I'm gonna go ahead and make this dumb fuckin' post. There are a lot of people in this thread throwing out the equivalent of "I am not a lawyer, but this is definitely a conflict of interest". Well, I am a lawyer, and a lot of the things posters in this thread are trying to frame as a conflict of interest are not actually conflicts of interest in any real sense. The essence of a conflict of interest is that there is a conflict between a person's own interests and a duty that they owe to some other person. Luke Crane's position at Kickstarter does not mean he owes any special duty to backers of his projects. Kickstarter employees do not owe any special duty to backers. The only duties Crane might owe backers are contractual obligations in respect of delivery of his projects, but in that respect he owes the exact same duties as any other project creator. Crane's position at Kickstarter does mean that he might well have the ability to skirt the rules of Kickstarter, or get away with conduct that other project creators would not. He might, therefore, be better positioned to get away with not meeting contractual obligations to backers. If he took advantage of that ability he would absolutely be abusing his position, and the fact that he could do so means his employment with Kickstarter should be disclosed in his project descriptions. But that isn't a conflict of interest arising from his employment with Kickstarter, because that employment does not give rise to any additional duty to backers. It is pretty clear that Crane does have a conflict of interest as between him and Kickstarter. His business interests absolutely could give rise to a conflict with his duties to perform his employment in accordance with his employment contract. However, it appears that Kickstarter doesn't care about that, and it isn't actually the issue posters in this thread are worried about. No one actually gives a poo poo if Luke Crane hurts Kickstarter. Anyways, Luke Crane is a big dumb dickhead baby who sucks at customer service. And Luke Crane definitely could abuse his position at Kickstarter for personal gain, and he should disclose his employment, but not because he has a conflict of interest with backers. Thanks for reading my dumb post.
|
|
#
¿
May 21, 2020 08:58
|
|
|
Joe Slowboat posted:I'm sort of curious then - is it inaccurate when people describe journalists with connections to a corporation reporting on that corporation as having a conflict of interest? Or does that particular profession carry an extra burden or duty towards the public? Basically, those disclosures are often treated as basic business ethics/avoiding conflicts of interest, but that seems to fall under much the same category? Thanks for the clarification. I would argue that it's not really accurate to call it a conflict of interest, but it is accurate to call unethical. Of course, in an informal sense people call it a conflict of interest, and the same logic could be used regarding Crane and backers. Which is the arguable flaw in my previous post. Edit: ultimately the meaning of words is determined by usage and, like the phrase "duty of care", people use conflict of interest in a way that differs from it's original sense all the time. So arguably I was wrong all along. thefakenews fucked around with this message at 09:13 on May 21, 2020 |
|
#
¿
May 21, 2020 09:06
|
|
|
Jeb Bush 2012 posted:well also the assumption that the version you learnt in law school precedes its plain language usage is probably wrong Given the term “conflict of interest” is an abbreviation of a principle developed by the British Court of Chancery, I think it’s safe to say you are wrong here.
|
|
#
¿
May 21, 2020 10:06
|
|
|
moths posted:Nobody is talking about the legality, though. I'm not talking about legality either. There are all kinds of conflicts of interest that aren't illegal. This particular instance doesn't meet the definition of a conflict of interest as framed, and I think it's a good idea not to misidentify it as one. I mean, what's your point here? That it's wrong to say someone is incorrect? That it's not appropriate to talk about what a conflict of interest actually is?
|
|
#
¿
May 21, 2020 13:00
|
|
|
moths posted:It's technically incorrect from a very specific perspective, and might not fit all definitions of a conflict of interest but Firstly, this is disingenuous horseshit. It isn't technically incorrect from a specific perspective, it's just actually incorrect. It's hardly irrelevant to discuss what a conflict of interest actually is in a thread discussing whether a person has a conflict of interest. Second, I already very clearly stated that Luke Crane should disclose his employment with Kickstarter, and I agree that failing to be transparent about it negatively affects his credibility both in his role at Kickstarter and as a project creator. Should I not post because I only partially disagree with people?
|
|
#
¿
May 21, 2020 14:15
|
|
|
Haystack posted:You're probably not wrong about the legal side of things, but you're being pedantic so don't expect to get a backpat or anything. I’m not sure I agree that it is pedantic. I don’t think using a term like conflict of interest correctly is a minor thing, though reasonable minds might differ. But I’m not looking for a pat on the back, I’d be quite happy being ignored, I’d just prefer not to effectively be told I’ve done the wrong thing by posting it at all. Like, it’s not a ton of effort to scroll past my one post if you don’t give a poo poo. moths posted:If it's the wrong term, what's the correct phrase for an unprofessional non-disclosure of things that should be disclosed? You could say it’s a lack of transparency, or misleading and deceptive, or unprofessional or unethical. You could definitely call it shady, shonky or dodgy. I mean, you can call it a conflict of interest if you want, I can’t stop you and won’t attempt to any further, but I don’t think it would be accurate. Edit: I guess my thing is, using a term like conflict of interest in a loose and informal manner harms its value as a legal/ethical concept because the vaguer and more broad its meaning becomes the less use it has as a standard by which conduct can actually be analysed. Like, the point of identifying a conflict of interest is that a conflict of interest is necessarily, by its nature, improper. The broader the meaning, the more likely it is to encompass conduct that is not improper per se. thefakenews fucked around with this message at 14:51 on May 21, 2020 |
|
#
¿
May 21, 2020 14:40
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 29, 2024 10:39 |
|
|
moths posted:I was aiming for (but probably missed) this with the "mass/weight to a physicist" comparison, but as a law-person you're much more primed to these distinctions than the average person. It was more the "drive-by" part of that comparison that I took as provocative. But whatever, it's cool. No need to apologise. So...Kickstarter though, how good is it?
|
|
#
¿
May 21, 2020 15:02
|
|