|
Sionak posted:Reading: Delta Green: Tales from Failed Anatomies I tore through this the day the PDFs came out. Very enjoyable.
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2014 20:03
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 16, 2024 15:01 |
|
|
potatocubed posted:This game sounds fantastic. Thanks! I think it is, but it's mostly on my players, who routinely surprise me with their dysfunctional characters. Forums Terrorist posted:It sounds like "Doc Hammer and Jackson Publick write Pokemon". This is also a fairly accurate representation. Bieeardo posted:I tore through this the day the PDFs came out. Very enjoyable. (on Delta Green: Tales from Failed Anatomies, since it was last page) I'm still working through it but really loved the Robin Laws intro piece and the first two stories. If all the Delta Green collections are anywhere near this good I'll have to track down the rest.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2014 20:09
|
|
|
Evil Mastermind posted:e: has someone seen how BGB works with the new defense values yet? And your gun's damage value still needs to be above your target's toughness, or else you end up worse off than you would be, just shooting once.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2014 20:10
|
|
|
dwarf74 posted:Yeah, as Neon said, we're Playtesting. My own group is doing so tonight, actually, and trying to sneak in more feedback after a second season next week, after the deadline. Evil Mastermind posted:BGB, I'd imagine, since it's still kinda useless. Bag full of guns actually. Both Guns Blazing III is a perfectly good schtick and worth a (single) gun schtick, and there are even times that you'd want to use Both Guns Blazing 1 (normally helped by a Fortune Dice) because it does a lot of damage against soft targets if you're dual wielding .357 Magnums (although you never want it against a Big Bruiser). Bag Full Of Guns on the other hand means you always start fights carrying a completely crappy pistol, and you can only even draw a .357 Magnum after three whole sequences. It turns your entire character into "The guy always wielding useless guns despite toting a bag full of guns." * Expected damage from a Killer vs a Def 13/Toughness 5 Featured Foe on evens when wielding an Assault Rifle: (15-13)+ (13-5)=2+8=10 Expected damage from a Killer vs a Def 13/Toughness 5 Featured Foe on evens when dual wielding .357 Magnums with BGB1: (15-13-2) + (11-5) + (11-5) = 12. But that's about a limit case for a non-impaired foe. Although you could go for two handcannon, or two signature pistols.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2014 21:11
|
|
|
neonchameleon posted:Bag full of guns actually. Or just nuke it, frankly. The Full Metal Nutball isn't all that interesting, to begin with.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2014 21:26
|
|
|
Or just say you can't use BFoG until you use up your "main" gun.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2014 21:29
|
|
|
dwarf74 posted:Yeah, that one's a head-scratcher. If the guy with the bag made a reload check after every single attack, even in the first sequence, that'd be more interesting, IMO. Or if the first gun they pulled out had autofire. The way I'd do it would be "You start the adventure with a pistol. Every time it runs out draw a gun that does 1 more damage. After you've drawn an assault rifle, each time that runs out describe a more oversized gun. It does 1 point more damage than your previous one. This resets at the end of the adventure, or when you are searched for weapons or disarm." So it's only the opening fights you're carrying terrible hardware in. And a 17**/3/NA gun for shooting the final boss sounds good to me.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2014 21:34
|
|
|
I don't know what you guys are even talking about but it suddenly occurs to me that I've never played Feng Shui and I need to correct that.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2014 21:35
|
|
|
You absolutely do. Feng Shui is just the bee's knees, especially when you suddenly find yourself having a gunfight with triads in Hong Kong that gets interrupted by the arrival of psychopathic cybernetic monkeys with rocket launchers from the future.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2014 22:48
|
|
|
Playing: four different LFR characters, two Epic, two Paragon. I've gone as far as I can to divorce myself from running LFR at this point because playing is preferable, but the group is noticeably winding down. Also, many and sundry board games. Running: nothing, but I ran my first Dungeon World a couple of weeks ago and really enjoyed it. Hoping to get back into the world soon.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2014 23:04
|
|
|
Halloween Jack posted:I never played Feng Shui, but I'm pretty sure this was a Shadowfist card I had.  From the core set, even.  And yeah, Feng Shui 2 still needs work, but its looking pretty awesome.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2014 01:19
|
|
|
It is pretty impressive for what amounts to an alpha draft, I have to say.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2014 02:47
|
|
|
Technically I think it's Feng Shui 3rd edition.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2014 02:57
|
|
|
Its specifically called Feng Shui 2, not Feng Shui 2nd edition. quote:As far as we’re concerned, the book you’re currently holding in your hands, or perusing
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2014 02:59
|
|
|
Galaga Galaxian posted:Its specifically called Feng Shui 2, not Feng Shui 2nd edition. A game based on Hong Kong action moves needs an extra name if they're going to call it 2. Like Fen Shui 2: Revenge of the Cyber Gorrilla or Feng shui 2: The Last Stand.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2014 03:03
|
|
|
Feng Shui 2: Feng Harder
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2014 03:04
|
|
|
 Sure it was the name of the Dragons supplement, but its much more appropriate now. Alternatively:
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2014 03:09
|
|
|
The "why no playtesting" (or alternately) "why does so much playtesting suck" is one of the most depressing things about the RPG hobby. Here's my long depressing mope about it. You would think that in a hobby whose defining characteristic is that player action is near-infinite at most decision points that we would have learned really early on to playtest a lot and to do it rigorously. That by now in the hobby we would have best practices of playtesting - perhaps even a "playtesting for profit" company that would take your game and QA it like those video game nerds do. Break it, and break it, and break it again, and give you solid feedback, a video of them breaking it, multiple version markups of your product, etc. Instead, we've reached a point where playtests are simply marketing. It's a way to get buzz about your game out to opinion leaders in your audience. Like, I promise everyone on that GURPS Vehicles playtesting list posted on the last page is active in the GURPS community, they post online (Steve Jackson Games was a pioneer in e-mail listservs and discussion groups back in the day), they blog about GURPS, they talk about GURPS in various places and help noobs out with their GURPS problems, including vehicles. Did they rigorously and thoroughly test the Vehicles rules in many different campaign contexts, strategic situations and immediate tactical decision points? Did they hammer at every single one of the point-buy costs that make up GURPS character/resource creation mechanics until they could prove with total mathematical precision that every cost is precisely right, or so close to right that any variation would make them more wrong? Just typing up the idea makes me laugh ruefully and want to drink heavily. Of course not. They did absolutely nothing of the kind. They read it over, they tried out a couple of things, they sent some feedback that this seemed high or this seemed low, or that this mechanic worked or that one was hard to get through, and they got their name in the book and an e23 download coupon. Frankly for an e23 download coupon and your name in the book, this is all you can expect! This is all SJG got when it playtested GURPS Vehicles and there is no question in my mind this is all it desired. Now imagine that it's being done not by SJG, a company with a long pedigree and a 30-year established community of experts and opinion leaders, but a company, partnership or designer simply desperate to get a product out and make it successful. Paizo bet the farm on a D&D3.75 and invested a ton in art, but they also did the "biggest open beta of all time" - which accomplished their goal even if they threw away literally every piece of feedback they got. There are some indications Paizo did exactly this; and again, even if they didn't, why not throw it all away? Were the groups providing feedback providing it in a rigorous way? Were they not just playing around a bit with it and trying out some encounters, maybe a module or something - were they ramming characters through to 20th level and trying those? Were they testing every spell in the spell list in multiple situations in and out of combat? Were they running multiple fighters and monks with differing class features and feats and working out which ones were good and which ones were bad, and how good is 'too good' and how bad is 'too bad' according to an explicit rubric developed through play or provided by the designers? No, most were playing around with it, they sent off an e-mail, and got a 'thank you' and got to talk about it on forums kinda early, and that's all the reward they really deserve and perhaps all the attention their "testing" deserves. Of course good playtesting isn't happening, of course good "QA" isn't happening, because nobody is paying for it and nobody would voluntarily do it for free, but that's not even the depressing part. The depressing part is that nobody actually cares. We have been so used to poo poo mathematics, bad probabilities, crappy rules loopholes and stunning nonsense in our books that when something even slightly good comes along our eyes bug out of our heads. "Oh my god, Apocalypse World! The playbooks' lack of balance can throw the game out of whack if the spotlight goes the wrong way and the countdown mechanic isn't so great but my god, at least when I roll two six sided dice I'm pretty sure how it's gonna come out!!"
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2014 03:55
|
|
|
Because I depressed myself with that above rant, here's some links to some good stuff that was just released I went to cheer myself up with: Arcane Shadows - The second in Bill Slavicsek's Dark Sun trilogy of modules from 1992. 56K plays Dragonlance. Timeless RPG - A Pay What You Want corebook that's got a cool idea about using phrases for a system that's NOT like FATE Aspects. Crimson Blades - A nice inexpensive Basic D&D-a-like that uses d6s instead of the very swingy d20. City of Delights - Forget what I said about Dark Sun, if you ain't playin Al Qadim, you what the kids today call a scrub. You a scrub. I have this one in print and it's great. Bullets & Bandages - Okay granted I haven't caught up on the Shadowrun 5e thread in a while so I don't know what people think of this one but I like a campaign model that's about doing search and rescue, so that's cool. It's a good hobby I just get down about it sometimes.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2014 04:13
|
|
|
JDCorley posted:Bullets & Bandages - Okay granted I haven't caught up on the Shadowrun 5e thread in a while so I don't know what people think of this one but I like a campaign model that's about doing search and rescue, so that's cool. If ruminating about the lack of playtesting (or editing) in the hobby gets you down you might want to give the Shadowrun thread a miss. Search and rescue/emergency services seems to be a fairly untapped angle for RPGs actually. There's a setting in one of the FATE Core books that's all about firefighting and Shadowrun has pitched "play a DocWagon team" since at least 2E (though to be fair a DocWagon HTR team is essentially a standard PC party complete with guns and combat cyberware only with "break into the corporate facility to administer first aid" instead of "break into the corporate facility to steal the prototype" as a mission objective), but I'm a little surprised I haven't seen more people take a stab at stuff like that.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2014 04:21
|
|
|
The friction and drama in fictionalized ambulance team/ER seems like a good fit for a storygame.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2014 04:32
|
|
|
Yeah, as popular as medical dramas are I'd have thought there'd be a couple people in the indie/self-published scene making not!General Hospital: the Game.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2014 04:38
|
|
|
Surely there's at least a Fiasco playset for something like that.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2014 04:41
|
|
|
Reflavoring the playbooks in Monsterhearts almost guarantees Gray's Anatomy: the game
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2014 04:44
|
|
|
Error 404 posted:Reflavoring the playbooks in Monsterhearts almost guarantees Gray's Anatomy: the game Gray's Anatomy had werewolves and stuff? Or do you mean "a bunch of doctors who snap at each other" more generically?
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2014 04:47
|
|
|
Doctor Southern Gothic Snakeman really inspires a lot of my roleplaying.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2014 04:48
|
|
|
Davin Valkri posted:Or do you mean "a bunch of doctors who snap at each other" more generically? That is generally what is meant when someone says reflavoring, yes. But I would totally play a werewolf doctor.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2014 04:53
|
|
|
Dr. Acula.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2014 04:56
|
|
|
I want to be a blood-embezzling vampire anesthesiologist.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2014 04:57
|
|
|
I dunno, it feels like Monsterhearts would lose some of its charm if you played it without supernatural elements. Totally agree on the vampire doctor though; I've signed it up for Turnintrix's Atomic Robo game! (Oh god, 15+ PbP games...I'm broken...)
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2014 04:59
|
|
|
If it's any consolation you were probably broken before then.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2014 05:02
|
|
|
Davin Valkri posted:(Oh god, 15+ PbP games...I'm broken...) How in the gently caress? 
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2014 05:04
|
|
|
Davin Valkri posted:Gray's Anatomy had werewolves and stuff? Or do you mean "a bunch of doctors who snap at each other" more generically? As the others have said, it didn't but it should have and I would definitely play a Monster Hearts supernatural serial about a monster hospital.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2014 05:08
|
|
|
JDCorley posted:The "why no playtesting" (or alternately) "why does so much playtesting suck" is one of the most depressing things about the RPG hobby. Here's my long depressing mope about it. You make some fair points here, but how is anyone supposed to "rigorously and thoroughly test... rules in many different campaign contexts, strategic situations and immediate tactical decision points" when all these things are infinitely variable? As for whether they made sure the costs of their point-buy were "precisely right" - of course they didn't! How could they? Assigning Objective Fictional Utility values to elements of a game is a doomed exercise. You can't take two different spells and say "This one is as useful as that one in all circumstances." If they're different, they can't possibly be 'as useful' as each other. Mechanical balance is only possible when fiction has no meaningful role in a game. It's because player action is infinite that you'll never have perfect balance built into their mechanics. That's what the GM is for. The GM is in a continual dialogue with the characters about their circumstances. Through that dialogue, the GM learns how to change the circumstances of the story such that everyone is as relevant to the story as everyone else. Good mechanics give the GM room to move. Yeah, you can throw AW out of whack if you run it wrong and give someone too much influence over the story, but that's such a nonspecific statement that it's practically useless. AW's good because it gives the MC room to move, and it gives you guidelines on how to move (Agenda/Principles/Moves). The GM figures out how to change the game by looking at the character sheet, which is basically a bucket list. "I want my character to do this before they die." If someone has a gun, it's because they want to use it. If someone's immune to falling damage, they want to get tossed through the air and wrestle guys off the top of skyscrapers. Balance isn't good mechanics. Good mechanics is sending the GM clear signals about what the players want and giving the GM enough room to make things unpredictable.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2014 05:17
|
|
|
I have been thinking about I have no idea what it means to say that a game is "supposed" to be played a certain way. I mean, I understand basic things like that you are not supposed to use Dogs in the Vineyard to run your fantasy campaign or that Call of Cthulhu is not really a good system for space pirates. But I get confused when I try to envision why any one fantasy RPG is different than any other in what you are supposed to do with it--you are supposed to run your fantasy campaigns with it. What does it mean beyond that? Is this like how 4th Edition has skill challenges instead of passive rolls or talking your way through a scene or something? Or like how Vancian magic lends itself to frequent breaks in the action for resting? I guess I just find those differences essentially unimportant to the game compared to the basic genre of the system, but I am also pretty clearly clueless and surely do not get it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2014 05:23
|
|
|
A big one in my mind is lethality vs. character creation complexity. If I'm running Basic or World of Dungeons, I don't care if a guy has literally 1 HP because it takes barely any time at all to get a new character. If I need to spend an hour charting out feat prereqs, there better be some decent barriers between that character and the Great Beyond. If a game is very light on roleplaying and more about dungeon crawling, I don't mind random chargen. If it's something with an actual plot, I want some serious control over what my character is and where they came from.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2014 05:31
|
|
|
Quarex posted:I have been thinking about I have no idea what it means to say that a game is "supposed" to be played a certain way. I mean, I understand basic things like that you are not supposed to use Dogs in the Vineyard to run your fantasy campaign or that Call of Cthulhu is not really a good system for space pirates. But I get confused when I try to envision why any one fantasy RPG is different than any other in what you are supposed to do with it--you are supposed to run your fantasy campaigns with it. What does it mean beyond that? Is this like how 4th Edition has skill challenges instead of passive rolls or talking your way through a scene or something? Or like how Vancian magic lends itself to frequent breaks in the action for resting? Both Warhammer Fantasy Roleplaying and Exalted are fantasy RPGs but if you try to play WFRP like Exalted then chances are you're not going to get very far and if you play Exalted like WFRP then you're kind of missing the point. Or to approach things from another angle, you can absolutely use Reign to run a standard wandering adventurer party game, but the Reign books themselves don't really come packed with a lot of information pertaining to dungeon-crawling, random monster slaying, and tables of ever-more-powerful magic treasures to deck yourself out in. Nonetheless you can play Reign as a "straight" fantasy game, and it's not without stuff to recommend it in that regard, but doing so kind of ignores one of the game's main selling points which is domain management. You can totally play Warhammer Fantasy as a game of noble heroes questing to save and/or change the world, but the game itself is going to shape how the players approach that. Likewise playing a game of Exalted where everyone's mugging people for their coppers is like using a punt gun to plink at tin cans.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2014 05:37
|
|
|
ritorix posted:How in the gently caress? To be fair, a lot of them have slowed down a lot (and some I fear are defunct  ). I only post in, say, two or three a day. I guess it's no worse than the old chess play-by-post--I have a book that suggests that you can play in four or five chess postal chess games at once, and thereby get in one good "thinking about chess" session a day.I really should make plans to "give back" and run a game of my own though...but I have no art or storytelling skills 
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2014 05:44
|
|
|
quote:There are some indications Paizo did exactly this; and again, even if they didn't, why not throw it all away? Were the groups providing feedback providing it in a rigorous way? Were they not just playing around a bit with it and trying out some encounters, maybe a module or something - were they ramming characters through to 20th level and trying those? Were they testing every spell in the spell list in multiple situations in and out of combat? Were they running multiple fighters and monks with differing class features and feats and working out which ones were good and which ones were bad, and how good is 'too good' and how bad is 'too bad' according to an explicit rubric developed through play or provided by the designers? This may or may not have played a significant factor, but early on in Pathfinder's Open Playtest, Frank Trollman and friends shown up onto the boards to get into fights with posters and complain when features from the Frank and K Tomes weren't taken into account until he got banned. Which in turn probably caused a large portion of the boards to look down on other min-maxer playtesters in the first place. Libertad! fucked around with this message at 06:07 on Jun 5, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2014 05:46
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 16, 2024 15:01 |
|
|
JDCorley posted:The "why no playtesting" (or alternately) "why does so much playtesting suck" is one of the most depressing things about the RPG hobby. Here's my long depressing mope about it. What I've found is that even the most rudimentary playtesting feedback is leaps and bounds better than anything you'll get from someone just reading/reviewing your rules. I sent early drafts of my game to a lot of people I know, including several experienced game designers and the feedback I got ranged from nearly-useless to bat-poo poo insane. I ran a single playtest with some random people online and got a ton of useful feedback that I incorporated into the game. Bigup DJ posted:You make some fair points here, but how is anyone supposed to "rigorously and thoroughly test... rules in many different campaign contexts, strategic situations and immediate tactical decision points" when all these things are infinitely variable? As for whether they made sure the costs of their point-buy were "precisely right" - of course they didn't! How could they? Assigning Objective Fictional Utility values to elements of a game is a doomed exercise. You can't take two different spells and say "This one is as useful as that one in all circumstances." If they're different, they can't possibly be 'as useful' as each other. Mechanical balance is only possible when fiction has no meaningful role in a game. There are plenty of testing methodologies that address near infinite possible inputs, as a mater of fact there is an entire industry devoted to it, it's called Quality Assurance. There is no reason you couldn't apply those techniques to tabletop games, it's just a matter of someone taking the time(and money) to do it. Unfortunately most games don't even have good editors, so the likelihood of someone getting good QA testing is slim.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2014 06:03
|
|
