|
What is the Sacred BBQ? It's an RPG that has combat based on D&D 4e, but sped up and improved in a number of ways. Out of combat, I considered 4e's Ability Scores + Skills + tons of other sources of bonuses to be irredeemable, so I scrapped it entirely and replaced it with a new system that is both less math-heavy and more versatile and comprehensive. Here's the game, and here's the sample adventure Expedition to the Awful Peaks. Why would I play this game instead of all the other fantasy heartbreakers? It's simple to play, teach and learn. Every roll is 1d6. Despite the simplicity, there are a range of possible results on every roll. Instead of a result indicating Success or Failure, there are four or five different possible results for each roll. The system supports players taking risks and gives characters interesting options without being burdensome and pulling you out of the game to crunch numbers (MY IMMERSION!). It has combat based on 4e. I've heard many people expressing the opinion that they like 4e and its combat, but that the system's flaws have become visible enough to hamper their enjoyment. Play this instead! Character creation is simpler, but the primary reason for its simplicity is that I removed all the false choices. It's not that chargen is dumbed-down, it's simply no longer obfuscated. Now instead of spending time trying to figure out the correct way to allot your ability scores, you can just pick some powers and feats (and all the feats are solid and useful choices) and then get to playing. The feedback has been overwhelmingly positive. There have been constructive suggestions, and I've tweaked things here and there because of that, but nobody has yet told me that my game sucks. The game is fun and there's a very low barrier to entry, so you owe it to yourself to give it a try. Oh yeah? Lets see some testimonials, then. The Sacred BBQ is way better than I thought it was going to be. -homullus Yeah, this is pretty sweet. It's like out-of-combat Burning Wheel/Mouse Guard (minus the pretension) got Franken-stapled to the best parts of in-combat D&D 4e. -Syka This has my seal of approval, whatever that's worth. -ForteMaster Mastery of 3.x is a tedious, torturous, and pointless skill to develop. I suggest walking away, whistling cheerfully, and checking out Sacred Cow BBQ instead. -MysticMongol It can at least kind of back up it's own dicksucking. -MadRhetoric This game, on the other hand, is neat. I liked only having to roll a single d6 for anything I wanted to do. -Emong Sacred Cow BBQ is the perfect game for a bunch of lazy fucks to play while midly drunk and not worrying too much about versimilitude or themeing. Just a couple of adventurers having some god drat fun adventures. Also not sure why there's a grid, but I don't care much. The carrotmen were scary as hell, but since defeat =/= death, I didn't mind at all that my players kept having their asses served to them on decorative carrot platters. E: It's just fun, you know? No apologies. Sorta like KamB, but not bad. -MysticMongol What's with the name? I started trying to improve D&D and found myself killing sacred cows right and left. Each one I killed made my game better. So I made that a theme of my design - kill the sacred cow, see how well the game works without it, and replace it with something that is designed towards my goals. Okay. It's still a stupid name Yes it is. I'd like to find a better name before I try to bring it to a wider audience. If I'm going to be walking into the metaphorical Lion's Den I'd rather not give them reasons to dismiss me without reading my game. Not that they need reasons. My experience reading forums is that some of the posters will be looking for a fight and I'd rather not have the thread immediately devolve into some bullshit. We're not exempt to this phenomenon either, but the issues this forum knee-jerks against aren't the same as what sets off other forums' knees a-jerking. What are some key features that make the game stand out from 4e and from any other game? No Boring Failures. Instead of the Success/Failure dichotomy, where Success is generally interesting and Failure is only sometimes interesting, the primary dichotomy of the game is between Success and Twists - if you don't succeed, there's a twist and the game moves forward. Maybe you get what you want, maybe you don't, but either way something interesting that changes the situation must happen. No Binary Resolution. Each roll has a range of possible results - you can succeed an get a bonus, you can succeed but with a condition, you can get a twist. No useless math. 4e's system has ability scores, proficiency bonus, 1/2 level, enhancement bonus, the expertise feats, a d20 and monster defenses all scaling up over time and all pushing towards the goal of making sure you hit about 2/3rds of the time at any given level. My system has a d6 and you hit when you roll a 3 or better. Same results, WAY less math. When the level 28 rogue gets a critical hit in my D&D game, there is literally minutes of time that he spends rolling dozens of dice, adding numbers, making extra attacks, and then adding more numbers. In the Sacred BBQ, you will never spend that much time doing math. Damage numbers are consistently low and easy to deal with. Faster combats. Low-level combat in 4e ranges from 30-60 minutes. By level 15 it's more like 60-120 minutes. Now at the highest levels of Epic Tier, the combats last 90-300 minutes. That's right, I've had a 5-hour combat. That is completely unacceptably long. I want combat to take 20-30 minutes, and playtesting indicates that I am hitting that target. I feel that any shorter than 20 minutes and combat loses its tactical interest, but if you come across some goblins and just want to kill them quickly without taking 20 minutes, the game has support for that too (and more support coming). Role and Class are separated. Now Wizards can be versatile without being able to step on everyone's toes. It helps ensure that each character is valuable in its own way and also helps avoid the problem where two players both like the same class and end up having characters that play almost identically. Additionally, I can't compete with WotC on the number of classes they put out, but by separating out Role each class will have 5 different options, each of which will feel very different from one another. You cut out all the big numbers. Why do you hate math so much? As a mathematician, one of my class features is Favored Enemy: Numbers. How can I help? Play the game, tell people about the game, and spread the word. Run games on IRC for goons - there's almost no prep required. Write up monsters. I hate writing up generic monsters, but I know I ought to have more examples. Send me more feats. The feat list is good right now, but short. Even just going through the 4e feat list and pulling out the ones that don't suck would be helpful. Role-specific feats are acceptable, but not class-specific, and I'd much prefer feats that are open and useful to everybody. What's in the works? An example of combat run in detail using only the basic rules and neither of the more detailed systems. An advice section on radical reskinning and fitting the game to your setting. Advice for DMs - effective prep, more monster guidelines, and most importantly the DM's agenda. Changing the language to make it my own and separate it from 4e. What is this thread for? Talk about the game, give feedback, recruit and organize IRC or PbP games, keep up to date on the latest developments. Post slighlty NWS links to a youtube clip of the cow killing scene in Apocalypse Now. You can reach me at jimbozig at hotmail dot com if you have feedback, questions or suggestions you don't want to post in the thread. Jimbozig fucked around with this message at Sep 20, 2012 around 22:28 |
| # ? Jul 23, 2012 06:21 |
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2013 16:15 |
|
|
The download seems a big buggered to me - I can't read one of the fonts, and one of the pages is entirely blank.
|
| # ? Jul 23, 2012 08:19 |
|
|
Wow, this looks really fun and interesting. Now I want to play a martial artist that bounces everywhere.
|
| # ? Jul 23, 2012 09:28 |
|
|
Clear your cache and right click - save as. Am I missing something about the skill progression? I'm not all the way through, but it seems like gaining new skills is entirely luck based.
|
| # ? Jul 23, 2012 09:31 |
|
|
Can I just say that splitting Class and Role is a brilliant idea?
|
| # ? Jul 23, 2012 09:36 |
|
|
Splicer posted:Clear your cache and right click - save as. Seems to have fixed it. Yeah, the only thing so far that bothers me is that you have a default 1/6 chance of learning any skill you attempt. Won't take very long before everybody has all the skills. So far, the rest seems good though.
|
| # ? Jul 23, 2012 09:51 |
|
|
Hey, I read through this recently and I really like it. If I had to change one thing I'd probably go even farther in making it explicit that the classes are differentiated by nothing but power usage style - like, maybe the "Necromancer" should have more powers that are about making enemies attack each other rather than turning dead enemies into minions, because it's not actually about raising the dead so much as it is about using enemies as a resource. The "Magician" could have some powerful melee attacks, because it's not about casting magic so much as it is having more powers on your sheet written down than you can use in a single encounter. If you already have those things, please forgive me for not reading closely enough. Unfortunately, I'm not in a position to give you much more than general praise or vague tummyfeel-driven suggestions, because my gaming group's playing enough stuff that we don't have time to playtest this, but keep on keeping on.
|
| # ? Jul 23, 2012 13:24 |
|
|
I realize it's redundant, but the main thing I wanted when I was reading through (aside from more backgrounds and feats, but especially backgrounds because those are exciting and character-defining) was to have the result chart thingy printed on every action. I guess I am spoiled by WFRP3, but since you have so much horizontal real estate on powers as they are, I think you have room to print them. I'd also rather that you either write out "Damage" and "Effect" or use a symbol, and would love it if the effects like Winded and Cursed were on cards you could just hand to the player, but that's WFRP3 talking again. I want to mention the things I like. These are the reasons I said it was much better than I expected: * Good writing! This was the biggest surprise for me * As mentioned above, separation of class and role * Non-binary attack resolution * Backgrounds that matter! I've been reading GUMSHOE games and "look, you can always just do this one thing when you want, if you have the points to spend" is empowering for both the player and the GM * There's still a grid to scratch the 4e itch These are some ideas for tricks: Iron Lungs: Can hold breath for a really, really long time No rest for the wicked: Can choose to remain in watchful state during a rest period String, or Nothing!: Solve (or create) very challenging riddles and codes The Usual Suspects: Basically all the 4e cantrips, though they need not be magical in origin I want the truth!: Sense lies, evasions, or partial truths Dead Aim: Can set up and make a very difficult shot
|
| # ? Jul 23, 2012 14:03 |
|
|
thespaceinvader posted:Yeah, the only thing so far that bothers me is that you have a default 1/6 chance of learning any skill you attempt. Won't take very long before everybody has all the skills. Learning new skills is the reward for trying things you are unskilled at and it's the main way your non-combat abilities advance. It's in there to encourage players to take risks and try new things and not just stick to their trained skills. It's based off of Mouse Guard. In Mouse Guard, once you've used a skill a number of times equal to your nature (probably around 3 or 4, so it's faster than in Sacred BBQ) you learn it. If you read page 3, you'll see that there is also the assumption that there is no skill list and that the skills are fairly specific. So there's no worry about somebody getting "all the skills". If you use a skill list, you probably want to put a cap on the number of skills a character can know. In Mouse Guard there is indeed such a cap. When you are at the cap and learn a new skill you can choose to lose one of your existing skills to gain the new one. I'll put that little bit of advice in the next revision. Ferrinus and homullus, I definitely want to expand the list of backgrounds and tricks and improve the existing classes' power selection and these are some good ideas. I was also intending to include cards for use in the Scripted conflicts, so adding some condition cards at the same time would be no problem.
|
| # ? Jul 23, 2012 14:24 |
|
|
Hey, I'm in the OP! How nice. I sent you a big-rear end email last night, Jim. I'm assuming by some stuff in your post that you've at least skimmed it. It's somewhat relevant to your damage types and language suggestions, if you haven't. Get back to me on it when you can. Somewhat relevant to the thread, I've got a fairly Basic-loving friend who hated d20 and wasn't so hot on 4e. He's not particularly happy about grid requirements and he doesn't like the concept of character optimization (and went on a story about how every time he played 4e someone insisted on changing his poo poo around from how he wanted it, which makes me wonder either how obstinate he is, how much he's exaggerating, or how badly he built his characters). So he hated the grid combat portion of the game...but he also absolutely loved the skill system, and is considering using it to power this 'Jim Henson fantasy'-styled setting he's working on. I'll be showing him scripted combat today, and I hope he's excited about it. An unsolicited positive opinion from another friend who was over, without much non-D&D experience and without much suggestion about what to expect, was also pretty fun. Jim's got something exciting going here. I'll repeat my feat suggestion here anyway: a feat which lets you poach a power from another class. Maybe a feat which gives you an extra at-will, human style. Don't know how that would interact with the flexible power structure or anything, but it'd be less resource-draining than grabbing other class powers in 4e.
|
| # ? Jul 23, 2012 14:56 |
|
|
ForteMaster posted:Hey, I'm in the OP! How nice. Power poaching is interesting, but I have to think carefully about the possible unintended consequences of that. How will a Magician's powers interact with a Martial Artist's stances? Right now I have no idea. I think that some sort of multi-Role feat would be easier to implement because I'd have a much more limited scope to worry about.
|
| # ? Jul 23, 2012 16:26 |
|
|
I'm very, very impressed with what you did here. It's probably the most clever design I saw since Apocalypse World. I can't wait until I give this game a go.
|
| # ? Jul 23, 2012 17:39 |
|
|
Ive spent all morning pouring over this, and i have to say.... This is exactly what ive been wanting with a system. Im going to playtest this with people from my group, and give feedback.
|
| # ? Jul 23, 2012 18:13 |
|
|
Just wanted to join in the chorus of praise for this. I can't wait to see future revisions as well as people playtest and give feedback on the specifics of the tactical combat mechanics. Probably the biggest thing I'd like to see are some class & role 1-sheets or power cards for new players.
|
| # ? Jul 23, 2012 18:24 |
|
|
Hmm it sounds like this is a really interesting system, unfortunately I can't view it, or some of the other systems that came out of the contest, as Dropbox is just a blank white page for me.
|
| # ? Jul 23, 2012 19:31 |
|
|
Ryuujin posted:Hmm it sounds like this is a really interesting system, unfortunately I can't view it, or some of the other systems that came out of the contest, as Dropbox is just a blank white page for me. Email me. Jimbozig at hotmail dot com. I'll send you the file directly.
|
| # ? Jul 23, 2012 20:04 |
|
|
This is pretty great. In fact, it's a lot along the line of what me and a friend of mine wanted 13th Age to be, so I think we might play this a bit more.
|
| # ? Jul 23, 2012 20:49 |
|
|
KillerQueen posted:This is pretty great. In fact, it's a lot along the line of what me and a friend of mine wanted 13th Age to be, so I think we might play this a bit more. I am imagining it with its full set of character and monster options, as well as a good layout and art and (ahem) name and stuff. It's pretty exciting.
|
| # ? Jul 23, 2012 21:01 |
|
|
Yeah looks pretty cool. Kind of want to play a Martial Artist focusing on the Scorpion, and possibly eventually Weeping Willow, stances. Striker, bounce around making multiple attacks a round. Though a Martial Artist defender would be pretty capable, build like a knight focusing on Weeping Willow and possibly Python or Stonewall stances. So the only way to get a Supreme Stance is with the temporary boost?
|
| # ? Jul 23, 2012 23:34 |
|
|
My quote in the first post = guaranteed downloads.  Still don't see why you need the grid still.
|
| # ? Jul 24, 2012 01:57 |
|
|
MadRhetoric posted:
The grid makes effects like "slide 2" more meaningful. If you're asking why you need effects like "slide 2" you may have missed that it's based on 4e and is supposed to scratch the 4e tactical combat itch without 4e's other problems (you know, like it says in the OP).
|
| # ? Jul 24, 2012 02:07 |
|
|
Gridless play will come in a future module.
|
| # ? Jul 24, 2012 02:08 |
|
|
Ryuujin posted:Yeah looks pretty cool. Kind of want to play a Martial Artist focusing on the Scorpion, and possibly eventually Weeping Willow, stances. Striker, bounce around making multiple attacks a round. Yes. At one point in the design the level 9 boost was to give you a supreme stance at-will but that seemed too powerful on the one hand and made focused attack useless on the other hand. If you want to be in a supreme stance most of the time, just pick up focused attack at levels 3 and 7. Then you can be in a supreme stance for 3 rounds, and since you can choose to use it after you know whether or not you've hit, those 3 rounds should be most of the encounter. Before the playtests I was worried about the Martial Artist - it seemed finnicky and I wasn't sure if it'd be too confusing. But it seems like every group has a player that picks it, so I must have done something right. whydirt posted:Gridless play will come in a future module.
|
| # ? Jul 24, 2012 02:54 |
|
|
I thought of a comment today during my current 4e game - which I'm hoping to convert to this game, by the way, although I'm a player and not the DM, since we're having all the problems this game solves - when I was reading the FATAL & Friends writeup of THE SECRET FIRE™. It was basically about how the book suggests all these different consequences and effects and such, and how there's no real mechanical basis for it. I was also thinking of recent posts in the D&D Next thread about how Mearls & co are basically just making poo poo up, and one guy arguing that any good game is just about making poo poo up. There's a certain measure of hands-off design here in Jim's writing, and he's definitely coming from a bottom-up perspective. I'm not disparaging that, and I think encouraging improvisation is a good thing, and there are a lot of tools there to help with that mechanically. I just think there should be more defined examples to help demonstrate what can be created or used, and generally a more concrete set of guidelines here and there, with guidance to the GM that they can choose their own way if they like (and here's how). I know that a lot of this will come in the later stages, and this isn't a massive criticism for the development state you're at now, but it's definitely something to address as you move on. I think Sacred BBQ's a very good base system that can really accept settings which offer resources to dress up the game. I can imagine the core book being somewhat - but not completely - generic, while setting books, perhaps on an open-source/Creative Commons basis, make up the bulk of the game's splats. There'd be an emphasis on a created setting and plenty of samples for skills, items, flaws, and similar poo poo, but not D&D's emphasis on 'every book must have a billion classes and feats'. (Although classes and feats would be on offer! Just not the main attraction.) I could definitely see myself writing a setting book for this system, if it ever became a commercial or even, god forbid, an OGL-style product. In fact, I've already sort of started, with one custom class I sent to Jim and the (authorized) use of Jim's skill system for my own game project to replace my lovely one. Basically, it'd be like the 3rd Edition OGL strategy, except actually good. (Especially if Jim decides to keep more creative control, either through direct paid/royalty licencing, direct overview without paid licences, or a more restrictive GSL-style licence.)
|
| # ? Jul 24, 2012 03:17 |
|
|
Announcing the I Need A Better Name Contest I'd like anyone who has read or played the game to suggest a name. If I choose your name, your reward is that you got to name a game! I have some requirements: It cannot be painfully generic like "The Magic Sword." It cannot be alliterative like "Mazes and Minotaurs" or "Tunnels and Trolls" unless it's really clever. I'd like to get across some of the following ideas: 1 - Cutting the bullshit out of gaming. Getting the same fun with less time wasted on arguing, math and rules. 2 - Not taking ourselves too seriously. 3 - Non-derivative Fantasy (I'd like to encourage a Jack Vance or Gene Wolfe vibe. Cool fantasy and SF without loving elves and orcs).
|
| # ? Jul 25, 2012 02:46 |
|
|
"The Theatre of the Imagination" "The Fantastical Trip" "Traveler to Other Worlds" "Realm of the [INSERT]" Ok so like, the name is a generic system. Meaning the name is not going to matter, because people have the dumbest loving names for generic systems and it does not matter; GURPS, D20, etc. If you had a setting behind the game, you could name it based on that setting. As it is, you might as well call it "Trailblazer" in homage to the 3.X->Pathfinder split.
|
| # ? Jul 25, 2012 03:42 |
|
|
Laphroaig posted:"The Theatre of the Imagination" So I should just call it "Derps" is what you're trying to say here.
|
| # ? Jul 25, 2012 04:00 |
|
|
Jimbozig posted:So I should just call it "Derps" is what you're trying to say here. "Derps" is actually pretty good I was going to suggest "Reductio ad Absurdum", but that's an almost ridiculously pretentious name for this kind of system
|
| # ? Jul 25, 2012 04:07 |
|
|
homullus posted:The grid makes effects like "slide 2" more meaningful. If you're asking why you need effects like "slide 2" you may have missed that it's based on 4e and is supposed to scratch the 4e tactical combat itch without 4e's other problems (you know, like it says in the OP). You and I have a different idea of what tactical combat itch 4e scratches, then. To me, proper power usage is the tactical combat bit, not "slide 2, lol".
|
| # ? Jul 25, 2012 04:12 |
|
|
I think any potential name should emphasize both the high-strategy combat segment and the fact that the mechanics are geared toward actually creating and telling stories rather than just playing through them. It should also make players embrace the fact that it's a game, rather than pretending it's not like so many other fantasy heartbreakers. My mind is going toward the word 'Legend', or 'The New Legend' or something, but I really don't like them and there's a hint of pretention there. If I have a better idea I'll post, but I'm kind of poo poo at naming things.
|
| # ? Jul 25, 2012 04:15 |
|
|
Jimbozig posted:So I should just call it "Derps" is what you're trying to say here. I am saying D.U.R.P.S. is a fine name if you want to backronym it, but ultimately your system name is not going to sell the concept to people - you've got a niche who really, really wants something like this. RPG systems get sold based on their setting and backstory concepts, not on their mechanical systems, and this is first and foremost a mechanical system for people who want this style of system (like me). So a name is just not a problem; Sacred BBQ is as good as any when you get down to it. Call it SBBQ and it even looks vaguely roman.
|
| # ? Jul 25, 2012 04:16 |
|
|
"Idols Ignited" "The 6-Way Path" Sacred Barbecue is also a name I like though, so maybe I'm not the best name-person.
|
| # ? Jul 25, 2012 06:30 |
|
|
KillerQueen posted:"Idols Ignited" I wholeheartedly support either of these names.
|
| # ? Jul 25, 2012 07:11 |
|
|
The 6 Way Path sounds really cool to me.
|
| # ? Jul 25, 2012 07:22 |
|
|
Call it "4E FOR ALL".
|
| # ? Jul 25, 2012 08:08 |
|
|
"Jimbozig's Sacred Bovine Incineration"
|
| # ? Jul 25, 2012 13:26 |
|
|
Dr Pepper posted:The 6 Way Path sounds really cool to me. I want to second this or something like it. It sounds enlightenment-philosophy-y, which (to me) is the impetus for The Sacred BBQ to begin with. You know, like: And the student said, "But master, why do I even need ability scores, if I never use them directly?" And the student was enlightened.
|
| # ? Jul 25, 2012 17:31 |
|
|
That's not a bad track to go on, though I think "The Six-Way Path" sounds too much like a pseudo-wuxia RPG. Maybe "The Road to Glory" or "The Path of Legend" or something? The first one's not that pretentious and sort of emphasizes the 'kick rear end, take names, get into bad poo poo and tell your story' sort of thing. Actually, I kinda like "The Road to Glory", if marketed well. It's not about the world or the monsters or whatever else - it's about your character. It's about you! That's something I feel a lot of RPGs don't sell properly, and probably should. Toss it on the pile, I guess?
|
| # ? Jul 25, 2012 18:25 |
|
|
Yeah, that's cool. I like "The 6-way Path" or "The Branching Path" or something along those lines. Or I could backronym FORKS (Fun Open Roleplaying K-something System). Also I wanted to report in that I need to go back to the drawing board for part of the new Scripted Combat. Elites (and Solos) are basically broken, although I have an idea on how to fix them. But even beyond that, I'm not liking how the targeting works. It's too easy to just gang up and pile on damage on whoever isn't defending, so not having a defense up is a death sentence and it's a bit like rocket tag. I think I can fix it by nerfing focus-fire, but the system just isn't fun yet. Sorry! I'm thinking of shelving it for a while and devoting my efforts to working on expanding the 4e-style combat with some new classes. Jimbozig fucked around with this message at Jul 25, 2012 around 20:26 |
| # ? Jul 25, 2012 20:17 |
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2013 16:15 |
|
|
I second something along the lines of "The 6-way Path". It has a very evocative ring to it. Though i have to say, Sacred BBQ sold me majorly on this system. It has an irreverence to it. It is sorta an in your face name that i think is instantly catchy....
|
| # ? Jul 25, 2012 20:29 |
|
