|
Captain Hats and Frankosity, am I to assume things with the system that aren't specifically said to change are the same as 4e? I ask this as, and this may be my error, I do not see a formula for AC or other defenses.
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2014 17:33
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 14:54 |
|
|
Yeah, all that's in the doc is what's different from core 4e. Your basic movespeed is 6, all Defences start at 10, et cetera. Apologies if that wasn't clear! 
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2014 15:47
|
|
|
Frankosity, We are going to do the playtest under the assumption you get the HP per level boost at first level because nothing else mentions higher level things and some members thought the hp was low in comparison to their 4e counterparts. Was this an incorrect assumption? We are doing the playtest at this moment (like we're about to start soon) so yeah. Also, there is a typo with biodisrupter grenade. It doesn't mention it's too hit or it's target defense. Covok fucked around with this message at 05:10 on Aug 12, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2014 04:46
|
|
|
You can do, though the playtest I ran last night used the base HP, and in my current revision enemies have a higher to-hit. There were a couple close calls though! The 'HP per level' parameter is basically a holdout for when we actually get to designing a level framework. Whoops  it should probably be a +2 attack vs. Fortitude.V E: REF should work just as well, actually. V Zeerust fucked around with this message at 06:52 on Aug 12, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2014 06:08
|
|
|
Frankosity posted:You can do, though the playtest I ran last night used the base HP, and in my current revision enemies have a higher to-hit. There were a couple close calls though! The 'HP per level' parameter is basically a holdout for when we actually get to designing a level framework. We did reflex for the grenade because that's what the Frag Grenade did.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2014 06:34
|
|
|
We are about to do the 4e trifold playtest. I am running it under the assumptions monsters have 6 hex movements likes and that encounter building rules are the same as they are in 4e. If we are incorrect, there is still a little time to correct us.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2014 02:13
|
|
|
Covok posted:We are about to do the 4e trifold playtest. I am running it under the assumptions monsters have 6 hex movements likes and that encounter building rules are the same as they are in 4e. If we are incorrect, there is still a little time to correct us. Yay  And all correct. (Technically there's no XP budget in 4th Trifold so it's picking by monster levels rather than calculating XP as some people do).
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2014 02:26
|
|
|
What does Puissant Bolt attack against? We assumed AC because it is under basic. Edit: Also, what happens if a monster crits since it does set damage? Covok fucked around with this message at 02:53 on Aug 13, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2014 02:49
|
|
|
Covok posted:What does Puissant Bolt attack against? We assumed AC because it is under basic. Doh! Reflex. Corrected. quote:Edit: Also, what happens if a monster crits since it does set damage? At present absolutely nothing. That's one of the playtest experiments - how do the players react if I drop crits. The other current plan is to move all crits (including PC ones) to double damage. How did the whole thing go?
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2014 11:47
|
|
|
Hey, for those interested in the continuing development of Erebus, Version 0.15 is complete. Changes include: - Overhaul of PC features and powers. There were a bunch of features we weren't 100% happy with and hopefully characters are a bit more diverse and interesting now. - Item Powers! We've cut out Daily Powers and replaced it with single-use items that have Daily-scale effects for the most part. Explosives, medical aids and ammo types! - Monsters, more and improved! I've tweaked the monster math to hopefully make fights flow better, and there's 3 more monsters to use in a secondary encounter.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2014 20:19
|
|
|
In Land of The Manitou news, lovely goon Djw175 is running a playtest campaign in the system in a thread right here. The upside is I get to play! Fun!
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2014 00:26
|
|
|
dog kisser posted:In Land of The Manitou news, lovely goon Djw175 is running a playtest campaign in the system in a thread right here. The upside is I get to play! Fun! I am aware of this. DJ is one of our playtesters and was interested in running a pbp of the game. For the curious, we have completed all our playtests and I will provide my judgement soon after I have some time to mull all the details over.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2014 00:56
|
|
|
Covok posted:we have completed all our playtests 
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2014 00:59
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2014 01:05
|
|
|
Covok posted:For the curious, we have completed all our playtests and I will provide my judgement soon after I have some time to mull all the details over. Fun!
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2014 01:23
|
|
|
Well, the results are in! Before we get to the rankings, I want to tell everyone that it was a tough decision ranking these titles. During my own reviewing, we focused on clarity of rules, functionality in play, balance of classes, and creativity. During playtests, we focused more closely on the clarity of the rules and the functionality of the system than creativity. I feel the following titles best met the criteria of the contest. Without further ado... 1st Place – Erebus 2nd Place – Land of Manitou 3rd Place - 4e Trifold So, there are a few comments I'd like to mention for the titles. Erebus -You may wish to decrease the ranges on weapons. The current version requires a rather large map which may be a bit unweidly if played physically. 4e Trifold -While the trifold idea is cool, currently, the playbooks feel a little busy and made it harder to parse for some players. It might need some reorganizing for clarity. -The change to hexes felt unnecessary and didn't sit well with some of the playtesters who didn't see the need in the shift. -The Fighter of the group felt a bit limited in his options and play style. -The current rules for Quick Combat felt off. Losing recoveries instead of HP felt more damaging in the long run. The fact that the damage converted, for monsters, to HP if it shifted to normal combat made it seem unnecessary. I would comment further, but it seems the rules have been updated since the playtest. Steakpunk -Reserves allowing for extra turns lead to some inbalance. When we ran a combat with this rule – we did another without it –, the PCs were able to win the battle in a single turn. Without this, the combat ran better. -In addition to the above, Razor Wind was a bit powerful. In the same vein, the playtesters felt their characters were underpowered. -The clarity and organization of the rules needs some improvement. Both the players and myself had trouble building our characters as a result. -The current version of consumption rewards needs some tweaking. They felt both a little restrictive, a bit too rewarding, and had some conflicts. Like, what if two people both got Highest Initiative? -We felt the character sheet could use a redesign. That playtest feedback aside, I want to congratulate everyone on their efforts in the contest. It isn't easy making a 4e style game especially under a timelimit. Frankosity and Captain Hats, you win a $25 gift card to DTRPG. I'll need your DTRPG account to make the transfer. I should mention that the prize is $25 total, not $25 each. I apologize if there was any confusion on that front. Dogkisser and NeonChamleon, you need to contact Dagon for your rewards as he was the one adding them to the contest.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2014 05:49
|
|
|
Thank you so much for playing Steakpunk!
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2014 06:23
|
|
|
Hot drat! Kind of wish I'd saved the 'gently caress YES' banner for that, but I was sure Steakpunk would be claiming that top slot! I'm really chuffed to see Erebus got such good feedback. My contribution was basically 10 days of frantic number-crunching and hoping that everything flowed right in practice. The good Captain has a DTRPG account so he'll be claiming the voucher. We've already got some pretty heavy stuff bookmarked...
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2014 11:07
|
|
|
How exciting! Thanks for the consideration! Any tips on how I can improve on LotM?
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2014 19:14
|
|
|
Yay  Thanks! Anything in specific the fighter in your group wanted? Or just more options? (The rest I'm aware of and have some guidance to rewrite and some layout work to do - but that one's a surprise).
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2014 00:43
|
|
|
neonchameleon posted:Yay Our fighter was trying to build his fighters to be the best defender possible, seeing as how the fighter being incredibly good at actually contributing is sort of the defining "thing" about 4e, and was judging the systems on how well he could do that. I wasn't actually there for that playtest, but I can at least provide that context.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2014 02:46
|
|
|
neonchameleon posted:Yay I was the fighter. With Combat Maestro the fighter gets a mark which encourages enemies to attack him. However, he has really lackluster damage mitigation or self-healing even if you intentionally choose those options. As a daily I can spend a recovery and get a bonus. For some reason this power shows up twice, under different lists, with different bonuses, but under the same exact name. Or as a daily I can get regen 5, after I'm bloodied. Or as an encounter I can get a damage reduction to a single attack equal to my damage bonus (so 6) which could be re-framed as a very mediocre heal that's more limited than a straight heal. I can also choose psych up and get temp hp equal to one heal as an encounter. So... 7 more hp. Better than the damage reduction at least, and scales a ton better. All together it means that a Defender Fighter can make enemies attack him, but that just encourages enemies to focus fire on someone who is no better than any other character (and is actually far worse than the warlock build we had) at surviving. Defensive bonuses or self heals are weak, rare, and come at enormous cost, as they are dailies/encounters and require you to spend a class feature. Looking at the other options, a straight damage aggressive fighter build would be pretty boring to play and would still be far weaker than the warlock. A tricky/controller fighter might be possible, with all the movement based abilities. But that's of limited usefulness and depends on the encounter terrain. As a more general issue, choosing from a variety of lists for abilities and just allowing more choices as you level up strikes me as a problematic decision. Players will choose the abilities they favor the most first, and will have to pick from an increasingly unappealing menu as they level up. Some abilities are also clearly better than others, so they just act as filler and trap choices on the menu. Gating abilities by tier is the easy solution, and even pbta games do it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2014 04:51
|
|
|
To build on what Prokosch said about the warlock being way more survivable was that despite having less defenses and less HP in general, I could basically eat minions and regain 8
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2014 04:58
|
|
|
I was slightly worried about the Warlock of the Tyrant drawing strength from defeating foes. Sounds as if I was right to be - and I'll look at punching up the fighter, thanks.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2014 16:11
|
|
|
Shade of the Tyrant is very good, but 5 of those stun are from You Belong to Master! Which also gives me advantage. On a different note, Stun is just a really awkward way of saying HP.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2014 18:15
|
|
|
Also, aside from mechanics stuff, I'd love if anyone could post more specifically about the text or organization issues with Steakpunk. I would also appreciate any suggestions or comments for improving. I literally have never done any kind of formatting or layout beyond school papers, so any help, well...helps!
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2014 18:52
|
|
|
Error 404 posted:Also, aside from mechanics stuff, I'd love if anyone could post more specifically about the text or organization issues with Steakpunk. The biggest issue is that vital information for creating a character is scattered throughout the document. This wasn't just for you, it was a problem for almost all of the submissions. It's still in development so this stuff is excusable, but make sure to put a clear one page checklist with everything we need to do to make a character somewhere in the character creation section. It's particularly hard to do that with your system, because depending on your approach the stats are assigned differently. Which was also a bit troubling because it meant understanding the significance of our choices took a very long time, like several hours of unraveling, evaluation, and re-evaluation to find out what this stuff really meant for the characters in play. The solution might be a one page walkthrough for each approach that we can reference step by step. The character sheet needs a full re-design, it was hard to look at and actively confusing. We ended up abandoning it altogether and putting the stats in a list format. I get that you probably understand it, and it all makes sense to you. But without visual shorthand or explicit indicators the whole thing was just a mass of squiggly mysterious numbers. I'm pretty sure I discovered the logic of it near the end of character creation, once I had a feel for the system and I could compare my easy list of stats with the thing. But it didn't help me make the character (besides revealing that for hp purposes we were actually level 2) and it was harder to read than the list. I don't think any of the other players even bothered trying to figure out how it worked. I actively discouraged one of the playtesters who came late to char creation from even looking at it, and instead walked him through the whole thing with a stat list. Document layout is a tricky business. I'd look at other character sheets as an example. Basic advice is that numbers that are related should be grouped under a single theme and distinguishable from other grouped numbers. For example HP/Defenses can be in one block, while Attack/Damage would be in the other. You bunched yours in a table with all cells about the same size with no primacy given to more important stats. Eventually we discovered that you had a header with the relevant ability (highest, middle, lowest) and the to the right of the header you had dependent stats, and then derived stats beneath. Although it was a little inconsistent with how things were written and where the stats went. That was a pretty hard one to puzzle out too, because there weren't any visual cues to lead the eye.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2014 19:31
|
|
|
Raenir K. Artemi posted:Our fighter was trying to build his fighters to be the best defender possible, seeing as how the fighter being incredibly good at actually contributing is sort of the defining "thing" about 4e, and was judging the systems on how well he could do that. I wasn't actually there for that playtest, but I can at least provide that context. Ah right, thanks. I was very much designing a "Take your eyes off the fighter and die" approach to the fighter rather than a completely solid brick. I should probably broaden it a bit thanks - at least if I have space.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2014 00:39
|
|
|
Covok posted:Steakpunk Since Error 404 is fielding the organizational stuff, I'll ask about the mechanics/maths/etc.
If you prefer, you can respond to me in PMs or in the Unnamed RPG Playtest thread. Probably I'm gonna do a few errata/hotfixes before we get rolling on that game, and the thread is sorta being used for early feedback.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2014 06:58
|
|
|
P.d0t posted:Since Error 404 is fielding the organizational stuff, I'll ask about the mechanics/maths/etc. We just removed the insane dependent clause that let us use reserves for extra turns. Getting another turn breaks the action economy, itʻs not the same as just healing or the damage boosts or the status effects, although being able to choose from all those options makes them an extremely good resource, which makes the feat that gives you more very appealing. The monsters were not too tough. We actually beat the encounter with ease on both occasions. On the first we did it on the first turn of the first round. With the second it took slightly longer but we were in no danger. The problem really was not that our characters were too weak relative to the enemies. The problem was that our characters didnʻt feel cool. Nothing felt like it combined with anything else. I built a defender, I did that for every game I could. As a defender it was the same basic problem as in trifold. I could mark, but I was not a less appealing target than anyone else on the field. I got +1 DR for choosing defender. Nothing else mitigated damage or improved my defense. Defenses are determined by approach, but depending on your approach you either have high hp/dr, high defenses, or mediocre both. What that means in play is really hard to tell. After some time trying to figure it out, I ended up settling on "it kind of balances out" and went with forceful for the better reserves feat. It took me a very long time to call it a wash though, and if it is a wash, then why is it a choice to begin with? This was a big problem throughout. Every mechanic seemed to lead you through a series of confusing choices that ended up not really mattering in the end. Why am I unable to really emphasize defenses? Why is the striker unable to really emphasize attack? No matter what you choose, you end up with either +2 or +3 to attack (+1 extra for a racial). All the characters, no matter how theyʻre built, end up looking more or less the same. The controller can use his ability to deal slightly more effective debilities and do it on a miss. But he canʻt really get lots of reserves, so itʻs very limited. The striker has razorwind, which works really well, but he has no way to stack extra damage or attack on it. The defender has a mark, but he has no way to take advantage of it. In fact, just like trifold, all the mark does is make the enemy focus fire on a guy who is no more capable of defending himself. Thatʻs only advantageous because Iʻm the most useless character so if I go down first it really doesnʻt hurt the party as much as if an effective character went down. The leader can donate his reserves or make self heals slightly better by existing. Not exactly a lot of tactical choice there. A recurring theme in the conversation was "they must not like ____" because our choices felt wrong for building a ______. Then we realized we were all saying it. I would work on clarifying the choices and making sure they actually have significance for the character. Then buff the classes a lot so that the controller is dominating the battlefield and crippling enemies, the striker is an angel of death, the defender is a wall of meat that punishes enemies for attacking allies, attacking him, and for existing, and the leader is in control, giving vital boosts exactly where they're needed. If you need to also buff the poo poo out of enemies to make that work, then that's great. So long as everyone feels like they are what they want to play, instead of being some watered down, slightly better at their thing but still mostly the same as everyone else, generic meat man.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2014 07:38
|
|
|
Also, just as a general thing, d10+d6 is a weird dice to roll for things.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2014 08:13
|
|
|
Just gonna address this before I read the rest of your post, since this came up in the other thread.Mr. Prokosch posted:We just removed the insane dependent clause that let us use reserves for extra turns. Getting another turn breaks the action economy, itʻs not the same as just healing or the damage boosts or the status effects, although being able to choose from all those options makes them an extremely good resource, which makes the feat that gives you more very appealing. Encounter Points are not the same thing as Encounter Reserves. Points are basically "powers" and Reserves are basically "surges or action points." So, while the amount of damage you can put out/penalties you can inflict goes up as you level, your "extra turns/heals per Encounter" is capped at 2-3 (barring feats or role/race features). EDIT: Was the Striker having a hard time getting Advantage on their attack rolls? I tried to set it up where any other role could team up with a Striker and help facilitate that for them. I ask because you mention not being able to do anything to improve or focus on your Attack; admittedly, no, there aren't feats for that (or Defense) and that is intentional, for keeping the math easy to balance around. The +1 from Role isn't huge, but Advantage on attack rolls is, and it's intentionally rare in the game (outside of Strikers). On the 2nd combat, about how many rounds did it take? Also, how many party members were you using? And what was the composition like? Did the Defender(s) get to use their mark punishment ever? Mr. Prokosch posted:After some time trying to figure it out, I ended up settling on "it kind of balances out" and went with forceful for the better reserves feat. It took me a very long time to call it a wash though, and if it is a wash, then why is it a choice to begin with? With regard to this, would it be better if defenses were static? Was there any perceived benefit to rolling for defense? Is the Advantage mechanic boring and lovely? Mr. Prokosch posted:Then buff the classes a lot so that the controller is dominating the battlefield and crippling enemies, the striker is an angel of death, the defender is a wall of meat that punishes enemies for attacking allies, attacking him, and for existing, and the leader is in control, giving vital boosts exactly where they're needed. If you need to also buff the poo poo out of enemies to make that work, then that's great. So long as everyone feels like they are what they want to play, instead of being some watered down, slightly better at their thing but still mostly the same as everyone else, generic meat man. What level(s) did you play at? Did feats come into play? I think adding feats helps characters either specialize in their role, or else diversify. Maybe I could get rid of some feats and make them into role features? Like the Improved Penalties is basically designed for Controller/Defender, Improved Damage for Strikers, etc. Perhaps make Power Attack/Precise Attack Striker-only? P.d0t fucked around with this message at 09:13 on Sep 2, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2014 08:20
|
|
|
Just out of curiosity, who ended up playtesting Land of the Manitou? I'm glad people seemed to like it, but if anyone has any feedback I'd appreciate it!
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2014 14:30
|
|
|
Frankosity posted:Hot drat! Kind of wish I'd saved the 'gently caress YES' banner for that, but I was sure Steakpunk would be claiming that top slot! I still need the captain's account to give your prize, I believe. Also, Dog Kisser and NeonChamelon, has Dagon given you your rewards yet?
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2014 06:14
|
|
|
Covok posted:I still need the captain's account to give your prize, I believe. He has, and thank you. (And thank you Dagon)
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2014 10:26
|
|
|
Covok posted:I still need the captain's account to give your prize, I believe. Yep!
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2014 11:34
|
|
|
Covok posted:I still need the captain's account to give your prize, I believe. Sorry, was busy working out how to get you the info you'd need to receive my fine prize. You can forward the cert to d r u m s t i c k m a s t e r AT h o t m a i l DOT c o DOT u k Thanks for giving us first place, I'm a little blown away by that. And I have to give all the credit to Frankosity, he's the guy who did the bulk of the grunt work.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2014 21:48
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 14:54 |
|
|
And your prize has been sent! Ignore the fact I accidentally said your prize is from the August contest. Well, I suppose this fully wraps up the July contest. I want to congratulate everyone on their work and mention that I would love to see everyone continue on and develop their projects. I'm glad we got so many people willing to put time and effort into making entries.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2014 22:48
|
|