|
I have been invited to play in a one shot classic TMNT game where every character is rolled up randomly. This should be entertaining. I'll probably be running some more Spirit of 77 games this month. ...and as an added bonus, I get to play the find a new apartment game!
|
#
¿
Jun 2, 2014 03:47
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 29, 2024 18:40 |
|
|
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
|
|
|
Kai Tave posted:According to some people lovely feats are absolutely a feature and not a bug because hunting for the good stuff constitutes a rung on the player skill ladder. People will justify all kinds of dumb stuff. This argument makes me angry, I've seen it applied to all kinds of different games, RPGs, TCGs, MMOs, MOBAs. "Recognizing a poor choice is a reward for knowledgeable players". It's complete and utter horseshit. Even if it's a positive play experience for an experienced player, it's a very small one, and it's a huge negative play experience for a novice player, which is the player you most want to get enjoyment out of your game so they will become invested in it.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 5, 2014 08:44
|
|
|
XyloJW posted:Yeah, I recognize that. I know trying goofy poo poo and poo poo failing or going wrong is fun, but I feel there's a caveat that it's only fun if the game doesn't end right there. Them blowing themselves up is not the only way their explosives might fail. I'm pretty sure that there's more to making a successful fertilizer bomb then lighting some fertilizer on fire. You could easily say that their attempts result in duds or lots of smoke and no boom, and then maybe they'll get the clue to go seek out the info/expertise they need to make proper bombs.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 20, 2014 09:15
|
|
|
SunAndSpring posted:How well do you think the game, TES III: Morrowind would adapt to Fate? I love the setting and think it would be fun to roleplay in, but I haven't really found a decent system to run it in. What from Morrowind is giving you problems converting to tabletop? Other than a few novel features The Elder Scrolls seems like a pretty standard Fantasy world, I would think it would be easy to play with just about any system.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 26, 2014 08:57
|
|