|
Evil Mastermind posted:Hey, remember at the tail end of the last chat thread and I mentioned this? This looks dope
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2017 16:59
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 23, 2024 19:41 |
|
|
FastestGunAlive posted:This looks dope Yeah, it's pretty good. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2017 18:53
|
|
|
Anyone got any good maps for a fantasy science lab? Something like the Gates of Firestorm Peak, but slightly less sprawling. The weirder the better, my players have accidentally themselves into Xoriat.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2017 02:28
|
|
|
Yawgmoth posted:Anyone got any good maps for a fantasy science lab? Something like the Gates of Firestorm Peak, but slightly less sprawling. The weirder the better, my players have accidentally themselves into Xoriat. have accidentally themselves
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2017 18:23
|
|
|
Sion posted:have accidentally themselves
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2017 18:28
|
|
|
Yawgmoth posted:Yep. The whole party. you accidentally the whole thing?! Jesus...
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2017 18:49
|
|
|
My players accidentally themselves regularly.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2017 20:04
|
|
|
I'm in the market for feedback on the rules for my D&D clone that I'm writing. If anyone here is interested, shoot me a PM or reply here. Are there any other good threads or other places where I should ask around?
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2017 22:21
|
|
|
What's the general consensus about the best version of Shadowrun, not counting Anarchy? 5th Edition or the 20th Anniversary Edition?
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2017 22:33
|
|
|
I really liked 3rd E. I´m weird that way. Also, my players also accidentally themselves from time to time. Recently they accidentally travelled to a potential future a 1000 years forward after accidentally breaking into the last primal chaos´prison and accidentally activating the last guardian....and killing it. More recently they´ve accidentally stolen an air-squid-ship and are now following its "hunger drive" towards a potential energy source to return to the past. Which of course leads them into the path of the giant, world-destroying walking spider-castle full of flesh-puppets of Bacchus. I don´t know, I just make it up as I GM each session and they are enjoying the hell out it, which somehow vexes me 
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2017 23:29
|
|
|
Evil Mastermind posted:What's the general consensus about the best version of Shadowrun, not counting Anarchy? 5th Edition or the 20th Anniversary Edition? It's all terrible, Shadowrun is always terrible. That said I think 20th Anniversary is a better core book, at least.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2017 23:55
|
|
|
Kwyndig posted:It's all terrible, Shadowrun is always terrible. Good, that's the version I have. Which supplements are for that version?
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2017 00:49
|
|
|
Agreed on 20th anniversary edition being the strongest core ruleset. I suggest Street Magic, Arsenal, and Augmentation as splatbooks.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2017 01:26
|
|
|
Yeah but do any of them have a loving index?
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2017 03:10
|
|
|
Evil Mastermind posted:What's the general consensus about the best version of Shadowrun, not counting Anarchy? 5th Edition or the 20th Anniversary Edition? 20th anniversary. Fifth edition is just random fiddling without any sort of cohesive plan, so some things are better and others are worse, but the overall whole is worse than a good set of house rules for 4th. Like grenades were really weird and kinda awful in 4th edition but in 5th edition a stun grenade is often a no-save instagib and it's not easy to spot fix.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2017 03:26
|
|
|
Sion posted:Yeah but do any of them have a loving index? 20th Anniversary does.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2017 04:00
|
|
|
The best Shadowrun system is Dragonfall/Hong Kong.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2017 04:06
|
|
|
3rd Ed is the last edition before wireless and augmented reality, and before they cut the guts out of cyberware and decking. 4th and 5th have a bad case of "more rules, fewer choices" when that's exactly the opposite of what Shadowrun merged. (But the ultimate answer is that every version of Shadowrun has too many loving rules.)
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2017 06:07
|
|
|
So whats the best alternative?
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2017 06:55
|
|
|
Cassa posted:So whats the best alternative? I'd jokingly say cyberpunk 20XX but I'm not mean. Outside of those two dinosaurs, Technoir is a great cyberpunk crime/detective noir game. The Sprawl has been getting a lot of positive buzz if you're ok with PbtA rules. They'd be easy to hack D&Disms into for a more Shadowrun experience. I still also strongly assert that you could run a good shadowrun game using Leverage rules but I'm weird
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2017 07:00
|
|
|
Cassa posted:So whats the best alternative? I'm not sure if you're just looking for a cyberpunky setting, or some sort of tone for the rules, but there's a Savage World setting called Interface Zero that I've heard good things about. It's straight cyberpunk, but it would be easy enough to hack in fantasy elements to make it Shadowrunnier.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2017 07:21
|
|
|
13th Age chat:P.d0t posted:
So first off, this is a Talent, which means it's always on, so it's no skin off your nose if it doesn't go off. Meanwhile, Fighter Maneuvers, which have specific triggers, can be selected after you see the result of your attack roll, so assuming you choose something that goes off on an even roll, and something that goes off on an odd roll, then you're pretty well covered. The criticism of the Fighter Maneuver system is that it can feel overly complicated, and overly fiddly, and for too little effect, and what it's worth I do agree to a point, but I think context is important here. Turning Fighter abilities into this convoluted system of die rolls and triggers was, in my opinion, a strong counter-reaction to two talking points regarding 4th Edition: 1. Every class has At-Will Powers, Encounter Powers, and Daily Powers, and therefore all classes are the same 2. Diegetically-speaking, a Fighter having a Daily Power makes no sense, because why can't the Fighter twirl his sword in the exact same way a second time within the day to achieve the same result? Setting aside the grogs.txt discussion that'd stem from disproving why those two talking points are bunk, it's pretty clear why Maneuvers are structured the way they are if you have those two in the back of your head. 1. It means that Fighters aren't operating on the same resource and ability mechanics are everyone else 2. It means that Fighters can use their "power moves" more often than once a day, but you can also say something like "Villain's Menace needs the enemy to make a certain mistake in their footwork to be open enough to be attacked by the Fighter like that, and the wait for that opening is represented by the triggering conditions to line up just right" 3. It creates a third category of "power level" between "usable all the time" and a daily limit. That is, one of the problems of combat maneuvers in 3rd Edition is that if you could make a Fighter that could trip dudes, the fact that there was no limit to their trip attempts made it difficult to balance - anyone that could be tripped could be easily dispatched, but there's a very narrow band between "can be tripped, therefore isn't a challenge" and "cannot be tripped, therefore makes the Fighter feel like poo poo for having their specialization be rendered useless" (which then later leads to Pathfinder nerfing combat maneuvers rather heavily across the board anyway). You could limit Trip attacks to a certain number of uses per encounter or per day, but again that runs you into the sameyness and can't-do-it-twice arguments. The approach 13th Age seems to have taken to reconcile this problem, therefore, seems to have to create this middle category, where instead of 3rd Edition's "Trip is a feat, and you can Trip all day", or 4th Edition's "Trip is a power, and you can trip once per x", you instead get something like "whenever you roll an even number, you gain the benefit of Improved Trip and Greater Trip, and can attempt a Trip attack instead" And even/odd by all means isn't even the only "tuning mechanism", as you can also say "whenever you roll a 16 or better ..." instead.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2017 10:35
|
|
|
Sounds great until you have to remember x amount of those things I imagine
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2017 11:02
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:13th Age chat: The problem is the player is forced to pay more attention to the dice roll, and the escalation dice than on what you would actually like to role play. You roll a dice and look at your chart to see what you can do. "I rolled a 17, which unlocks all my 16+ abilities, and all my odd abilities, but closes off my even ones, and I'm attacking on escalation dice 2, which opens up a few more abilities. The mechanic is present through out the whole system, and it just kills role playing, and bogs down combat. At least with per day use, or a resource mechanic, you always know what you can do, and can not do. There is not a bunch of information you need to parse every roll. quote:2. Diegetically-speaking, a Fighter having a Daily Power makes no sense, because why can't the Fighter twirl his sword in the exact same way a second time within the day to achieve the same result? Why do we place limits on spell casting? Why can't a wizard summon fireballs every round? Only because we think that's how magic should work? Swinging a giant chunk of metal around will tire a person out really fast. Wearing out an opponent is a big part of boxing in real life. We have physical evidence that you can only do manual labor for so long, but we have no evidence that magic would be that way. It makes sense a martial would only be able to use their maneuvers so many times, because they only have so much stamina to do so. I'm not saying that casters need buffed, but placing a limit on martial power usage isn't so far away from real life as that train of thought tends to suggest. If we accept that there can be limits on martial powers we can open them up for more powerful abilities.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2017 11:09
|
|
|
Huckabee Sting posted:Why do we place limits on spell casting? Why can't a wizard summon fireballs every round? Only because we think that's how magic should work? Swinging a giant chunk of metal around will tire a person out really fast. Wearing out an opponent is a big part of boxing in real life. We have physical evidence that you can only do manual labor for so long, but we have no evidence that magic would be that way. It makes sense a martial would only be able to use their maneuvers so many times, because they only have so much stamina to do so. I'm not saying that casters need buffed, but placing a limit on martial power usage isn't so far away from real life as that train of thought tends to suggest. If we accept that there can be limits on martial powers we can open them up for more powerful abilities. I don't disagree that "you can exert your muscles the same way as many times as you want" is a dumb statement to argue against Daily martial abilities with, but people bought it, and it was an argument that gained a fair amount of traction against 4e. And I don't even really disagree either when we say that 13th Age comes with own set of flaws, overly fiddly Maneuver tracking included. I was trying to go into why the designers might have made the system that they did - that it was essentially a compromise with the 4e system being picked to death by bad arguments and cheap criticism.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2017 11:17
|
|
|
ManMythLegend posted:I'm not sure if you're just looking for a cyberpunky setting, or some sort of tone for the rules, but there's a Savage World setting called Interface Zero that I've heard good things about. It's straight cyberpunk, but it would be easy enough to hack in fantasy elements to make it Shadowrunnier. For those who might be interested, I have a fairly extensive Savage Worlds to Shadowrun hack Although I admit it's very much "my" version of Shadowrun, based heavily on 3rd edition (actual differences between mage and shaman, AR/wireless exists but VR is king) and I never bothered to come up with Technomancer rules.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2017 11:25
|
|
|
I see. My knowledge of 4th is very little to none. Thanks for clearing that up even though you said it plain as day in your first post. The way I see it the 13th Age method should fall under the same criticism as 4th did. It's an arbitrary limit on sword swinging. I'd say even more arbitrary because it makes less sense in the narrative than per-day powers.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2017 11:33
|
|
|
So, hey, I just wrapped up a 3-session holiday interlude into Godbound. My table's verdict was like 12 thumbs up. It's a really great, well-made, interesting game, and my players seriously dug how their Gifts and Miracles worked, and the amount of change they were able to make on the world with a thought.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2017 14:44
|
|
|
Is there a thread for the Star Trek Adventures playtest? Mostly curious if it sucks or has any cool elements before I spend time in the pdfs. From http://www.modiphius.com/star-trek.html
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2017 15:13
|
|
|
Huckabee Sting posted:You roll a dice
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2017 15:24
|
|
|
Yawgmoth posted:No. You never roll a dice. You roll a die. You roll more than one dice. This bugs the poo poo out of me. Funnily enough, the word dice (from Middle English "dyce" which came from Old French) was originally used as both singular and plural, although the plural form "dices" also existed in parallel. The word "die" is a later introduction and was originally used as a plural. It's only later through analogy that die became used as a singular and dice became accepted as the plural form. By analogy I mean that it just sort of makes sense that the form without a plural s sound at the end (die) became assumed to be the singular, while the one with the s sound at the end (dice) became assumed to be the plural. But yeah, in modern usage it's singular die, plural dice, if you want to be pedantical about it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2017 15:52
|
|
|
ritorix posted:Is there a thread for the Star Trek Adventures playtest? Mostly curious if it sucks or has any cool elements before I spend time in the pdfs. From http://www.modiphius.com/star-trek.html No but this looks interesting.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2017 15:54
|
|
|
You roll the squares what got numbers on 'em.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2017 16:05
|
|
|
Waffleman_ posted:You roll the squares what got numbers on 'em. It's a cube, Waffleman.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2017 16:15
|
|
|
Waffleman_ posted:You roll the squares what got numbers on 'em. Lemme tell you about our lord and saviour Diceless Systems... 
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2017 16:16
|
|
|
Plutonis posted:It's a cube, Waffleman. Cubes is just six squares. Sion posted:Lemme tell you about our lord and saviour Diceless Systems... Where do the numbers come from?
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2017 16:36
|
|
|
Waffleman_ posted:You roll the squares what got numbers on 'em.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2017 16:40
|
|
|
Waffleman_ posted:Where do the numbers come from? Stones, bruv.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2017 16:41
|
|
|
Ratpick posted:Funnily enough, the word dice (from Middle English "dyce" which came from Old French) was originally used as both singular and plural, although the plural form "dices" also existed in parallel. The word "die" is a later introduction and was originally used as a plural. It's only later through analogy that die became used as a singular and dice became accepted as the plural form. By analogy I mean that it just sort of makes sense that the form without a plural s sound at the end (die) became assumed to be the singular, while the one with the s sound at the end (dice) became assumed to be the plural. quote:if you want to be pedantical about it.  My pendantifaction knows no bounds.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2017 17:39
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 23, 2024 19:41 |
|
|
Sion posted:Stones, bruv. No not stones! Maths. Maths arbitrarily set by the designer. Now, if you don't mind, I have to run an Attribute Auction and get my players to blow all their points competing on being the best arm wrestler in the universe.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2017 17:51
|
|