|
Very excited about this game, and wow, it has come a long way. I really enjoy the tone throughout -- "hey, let's play this game like well-adjusted adults would, and have more fun that way" -- and pretty much every page had me thinking this or that was a neat idea. So now it's not only way better than I thought it was going to be, it's way better than it was. Totally going to buy this when you bring it into the world.
|
#
¿
Aug 10, 2014 06:18
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 28, 2024 10:56 |
|
|
Jimbozig posted:They decide amongst themselves. Even if I included a tiebreaker rule the players would be free to delay and switch their order anyway. If they can't agree for some reason, just flip a coin. I'd also appreciate having blank templates and/or having the icons available as little graphic files, so that any stuff people make ends up equally useful.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 10, 2014 19:47
|
|
|
Jimbozig posted:Hey, so my layout artist disappeared on me and I waited a while for her to show up again, but it looks like she's just not going to. I guess she's got some personal stuff. Anyway, I was left on the hook for layout myself and I didn't know how to use InDesign. Soooo.... I learned! And I plugged away at it for a while, and it's finally done. So here, the preview is all laid out. Thanks to everyone who helped with comments! If you have any opinions on the layout stuff, let me know. A few things, now that I've gone through the rules a few times: --The Tied Rolls outcomes (such as "Death") in Team Conflict deserve their own little chart, since all other die rolls get one. --In the Disposition chart, I found it easier to read with the boxes colored, rather than the text. They could be lighter shades of their colors than in the previous preview for greater readability. --I really want the Team Conflict cut-out cards to have lines on them.  --The cover diagram is great and (after reading Take Cover for the third time) I now understand the quarter-plane and half-plane. It is entirely obvious and excitingly simple now that I do understand, but I think that part of the rules could use more clarification. I think a top-down diagram for Intervening Cover (lines drawn, showing how you can't cut the corner or go along the cover) would be valuable. Also because apparently I have a small brain that is all full, a straight up coordinate plane showing a half and a quarter plane would be nice, or at least saying "If you are diagonally adjacent to Low Cover, you have a quarter-plane of coverage beginning at the opposite corner of your cover, as Red does in the illustration." I know you didn't want to write it out, but you probably should; you could put it after the picture if you want people to see it first. You might also want to cover (ha!) at what point, if any, elevation typically eliminates/grants/upgrades/downgrades Cover, even if that's entirely the GM's call.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 15, 2014 16:07
|
|
|
I have been reading the Team Conflict rules again in preparation for trying it out tonight. Some feedback: - We do not find out until quite late how the opponent's side is dealt with. I think it would have helped to know early, even as an aside, that these would usually be static numbers + a die roll, and that Team Conflicts end not by attrition, but by an outcome in a given round. - Are the opponent's Attack and Defense value secret information? - I feel the results of a round should be more explicitly summarized at some point, if only on the player aid, i.e.: quote:*Both sides successfully attack: a Push, each side takes a hit (see "Taking a Hit" below [which doesn't exist as a heading currently]) and the conflict continues I think it's important to define Push and Draw in this summary (even at the expense of repeating the textual definitions) because of their potential interaction with Traits. I also wish the sample adventures had Team Conflict options in them, with the Traits already picked out. Edit: I also just noticed that Push in the Glossary is the D&D4e kind of forced movement rather than the Team Conflict tie. Depending on the organization later -- especially if the Glossary is at the end and includes more than just Tactical Combat terms -- this could be a problem, especially if opponent entries in adventures would ever have Team Conflict Traits and Tactical Combat powers near each other. homullus fucked around with this message at 22:18 on Sep 17, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Sep 17, 2014 19:25
|
|
|
Jimbozig posted:Thanks again! I'll get to work on that when I'm done this. That is a fantastic reference sheet! I will have more feedback tomorrow when I have time to type it up, but the thing I would want is the Winning and Losing with regard to number of Strikes, and a page number reference for each box if somebody wants to read the full version (so it matters less how condensed it is). I think an interesting hidden aspect of the Team Conflict is when to concede, if rolls just aren't going your way, so having the consequences of leaving a conflict with X strikes (vs. losing with more) on the player reference would be valuable. We only got as far as some Skill Rolls and a Team Conflict tonight, but the Team Conflict was definitely a hit for our group on roll20. Didn't get to use the cards since I didn't set them up in advance, but I will probably do that for next time. We could not find what you actually DO with the skill roll when you choose the Improvise action -- like, what does a Success do for you, beyond the +1A and +1D?
|
|
#
¿
Sep 18, 2014 04:03
|
|
|
A fuller trip report: Contrary to expectations, people actually read the rules pre-preview before we started. I highlighted the parts that were relevant from the characters (I took screenshots of the character sections of the Lovecraftian adventure and just gave them those parts) they chose; we had the Mafia Goon, the Swashbuckling Socialite, and the Demolition Man. We only had two players, playing three PCs. The principal frustration came in discussing Cover (as in Take Cover). Here, moreso than any other place, the players expressed concern that game terms and "rules" are often challenging to find in their sections, because they are delivered in sentence form with all the other text. Whether that means "rules summaries" at the ends of sections, sidebars, bullet points within the text, or references to the reference sheet, I don't know, but it was an obstacle throughout the "explaining" portion and whenever we had to look something up. I think it would also help if your Low Cover diagram was labeled as such. It might feel intuitive, but a top-down graphic for Full Cover would also better highlight the differences. Skill rolls went very well. Since we were playing a one-shot, I even let the Socialite learn all of Arabic by listening in on hired thugs' conversation when the player got the lucky Unskilled w/Disadvantage roll to learn the skill, and pointed it out as an example of what we would not do going forward. The Team Conflict mini-game definitely captured their attention. It was interesting to watch the evolution of their thought in terms of what combinations of actions were considered "good" against a largely static obstacle. I didn't have any traits picked out for their opponents, which probably reduced the fun of their successful attacks. The conflict (sneaking around the ruins and bonking guards on the heads to get to the tomb entrance) ran longer than I expected: despite some good planning (not preparation, though) with Bide Your Time and Observe setting up two-round combos, they were not able to succeed in the second rounds of those combos due to some bad luck on the rolls. We just gave up after seven or eight rounds. The takeaways: * It's not clear how Improvise is supposed to work -- what does the Skill roll do if it is successful? I know how Improvise works in Tactical, but couldn't find Team * Scouting actions (via Observe or preparatory rolls) are very powerful; strong scouted rolls can make it clear that the combat is going to run longer if the opponent happens to get numbers that mean a Push at best no matter what the players do (unless they're willing to risk losing outright). Maybe that's ok. * Preparatory actions are a powerful advantage that the players will essentially always want to do if they can * The stakes of Team Conflict are higher than they look, since it is very easy to accumulate Strikes quickly * Traits are important not just to differentiate opponent teams, but also to give the players a sense of progress * a Trait-less Team Monster probably needs alternate win conditions every time. I would go so far as to say that most Team Monsters need alternate win conditions, because "do I deactivate a Trait or give a Strike" seems like an interesting decision, and that NOT having "may also accumulate X strikes" should be called out the exception rather than the rule. Seven rounds (or whatever it was) was too long for the mini-game. Yes, I could have had Team Monster withdraw, and yes, the players could have conceded, but I think making them more finite no matter what would be good. A default of "three strikes and you're out" for Team Monster seems plausible. Looking forward to trying the Tactical Combat, but not sure when that will be.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 18, 2014 14:25
|
|
|
Jimbozig posted:
quote:This is very interesting. I'd say that usually the Conflict ends pretty quickly unless I give the opposition traits that force the players onto the defensive, or if they come in with Minor Conditions that they need to outlast. But a lot depends on the dice. Now I've never had one go so long that we gave up, but I have had some go pretty long - probably 7 rounds. Usually it's as you say - the players go scout and prepare for next round, only to find that the opposition rolls are too high to try for a win. I think Team Monster had five Strikes (since they had no Traits) after seven rounds. The players had four Strikes and had used Recover once or twice. I think they were just really unlucky -- when the PCs rolled well, the enemies rolled better and managed a Push. I probably should have called the conflict a win and processed it as such, just to show them the consequences, but it was getting late. The other thing I couldn't simulate is whether in an ongoing campaign, players might be more willing to Concede -- concession is actually quite generous and attractive (and perhaps should be on the reference, for when people are comparing their current situation to a win or loss). I will definitely run Team Conflict again, it's a faster and more engaging "skill challenge". We will try the tactical combat as soon as we finish the Edge of the Empire adventure we're on.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 19, 2014 18:05
|
|
|
I have been thinking about this a lot since I wrote that about the Team Conflict, and I am pretty sure that the real answer is that the original rules as you wrote them are fine, with the addition of that "whoever has fewer Strikes after N rounds" being another alternative end condition in the rules, because it leads to some tense situations when the opponents have Traits (deactivate a Trait or take the Strike?). I think I undervalued and under-explained Conceding. I also think you could give a little guidance for examples of when other win conditions are appropriate, like: Supplemental win conditions (X Strikes, or a certain successful Skill roll with Improvise, before standard victory is possible) are appropriate for tough opponents and climactic battles, situations where it makes sense narratively for PCs to need to do more than one distinct activity before winning is even an option. Perhaps they need to divert the battle station's defenses before they can fire a torpedo into the exhaust port, or knock weapons out of three of the Snake God's six arms so it can't block every incoming blow. Alternative win conditions (players can also win by landing X Strikes, or a certain successful Skill roll with Improvise) are appropriate for complex tasks with more than one vulnerability. Perhaps the battle before the city gates can be won by force of numbers or by sending a lone assassin to stab the general in his tent while he's playing his harp; perhaps that risky Hacking attempt is worth trying (the one already mentioned in the rules). Replacement win conditions (a successful attack and defense simply lands a hit rather than ending the conflict, and players must meet some other condition to win) are appropriate for conflicts that must end a certain way, and that way takes a constant time or amount of effort. Winning the Carnage Cup in a Goblinball tournament game might require landing more Strikes than the opponent in five rounds; climbing the cruelest, most lethal mountain on the planet might only be possible by landing seven Strikes -- you make it, you Concede, or the next group passes your unmarked graves on its ascent.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 22, 2014 21:10
|
|
|
Going to run the tactical combat next week, and perhaps another Team Conflict. Pretty excited to give that a try!
|
|
#
¿
Sep 25, 2014 14:11
|
|
|
Jimbozig posted:Cool! What class/role combinations do you have playing? At this point we're just trying out the system, kicking the tires et cetera, rather than trying any sort of cohesive storyline. We ran a half-shot (less than a one-shot) of the Lovecraftian adventure, with the Demolitionist, the Socialite, and the Mafia Goon. I am blanking on which roles they picked; it doesn't matter, since we only did Team Conflict. Next week it's either the Lovecraftian again or the fantasy, do one or two Tactical Combats, and ideally also a Team Conflict, now that I understand them twice as well as I did before I ran one. This time, I'll spend 60 seconds choosing a Trait or two, and think about the win conditions. None of us in the group has played a FATE-like game, so the Action Point economy was subdued. One person (the Mafia Goon) used his Trick (with a roll); nobody invoked their Complications, and nobody granted another player an Action Point. I will definitely go over them again; this time, they have that really valuable player aid you made, listing the uses of their Action Points.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 25, 2014 18:30
|
|
|
Second test of Strike!, with two players from the last time and two new ones. The players chose: Swashbuckling Socialite-Striker Kung Fu Archaeologist-Striker Mad Mystic-Defender Mafia Goon-Blaster We repeated the Team Conflict from last time (sneaking into the taken-over archaeological site), and the results were wholly different -- they did preparatory scouting and nailed the roll, giving them foreknowledge of both the enemy's rolls in the first round ... narratively, they learned their patrolling patterns and timed a dash to the entrance, winning the conflict with some good rolls in the first round. We then did the fight in the Treasury.  It took, I think, four or five rounds to complete the combat. The Kung Fu guy didn't have as much to decide (changed his stance once, used one encounter power), which was unfortunate, since that is the one guy who thinks D&D 3.5 is a better game system than 4e ("Strike! has the same problem as 4e: everyone's turn takes 45 minutes"). I didn't think anyone would choose the Mystic, so I hadn't looked it over as carefully -- wow, that is a complex dude. I didn't foresee the need for tokens for his summons, which is why, among the pulp-cover images, you find Sean Connery and the cartoon goblin from the WTF D&D?! contest entry that I worked on a while back. The player of the Mystic made his Homunculus the Focus of the Spirit of Vengeance, which was interesting. Feedback and questions so far: - Is the Mystic's Scout conjuration visible? How large is it? He wanted to use it to scout outside of combat. - Is there a maximum range on summons, at-will or encounter? - Can the Spirit of Vengeance shift however far it wants to, to remain adjacent to the Focus? For example, the Mystic could spend Rally to potentially move the Homunculus up to 20 spaces (from 10 spaces due north to 10 spaces due south of the Mystic). - It should probably be spelled out that spending the Rally doesn't give you a new Homunculus, but allows you to re-summon the one you have. It strongly implies that, but may as well say it. - Does a second Mark on a target apply in addition, replace the existing Mark, or fail? - Do Zones go through walls? I can see it going either way - Fast Archer is a Goon-killing power and is really great. - Does "extra damage" of Damage Boost apply when a Striker chooses the E rather than the D of an attack power? Like, can you do "extra damage" when there was no damage to begin with? We will try the Sacrificial Pit next week.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 2, 2014 04:22
|
|
|
Jimbozig posted:
The party rolled quite well, and only had three Strikes: one from a player being bloodied, one from a roll of 1, and one from the Mystic's Homunculus being taken out by the summoned Jackals. I think it went reasonably quickly, since this time I made Roll20 rollable tables (and then macros that referred to them) for Skilled, Unskilled, Attack, and Initiative. The next level up would be gathering their powers onto a character sheet; looking over the powers in two places was another thing that took time. Either that, or making rollable tables for each power, and spitting out the block for that power with the roll. That would speed up play and make retroactive reference easier.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 2, 2014 20:19
|
|
|
30.5 Days posted:That's cool, I'm really excited about this game, and in a lot of ways I think it's what I really wanted out of 4E to begin with. Overall, I think this is true, because it no longer forces you to worship at the altar of the holy trinity of Single Roll with Binary Result, Skill Challenge, or Full-Blown Planned Grid Combat. Honestly, I think what Strike! most needs is more people playing it, so there can be more balance and guidance in the Traits (for Team Conflict) and Feats and Powers. The one thing it DOESN'T do as well as 4e is let you play a mechanical game divorced from the narrative.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 7, 2014 21:32
|
|
|
Ran a second tactical combat tonight. The Psychoanalyst Poisoner (Blaster) used Multitarget Boost with Greater Mind Control and converted a third of Team Monster (all Goons) in a single attack. I am not sure whether it is too powerful; everything in Strike! feels more powerful than its 4e counterpart (healing, marking, moving and attacking). Dominating three enemies in a single encounter power is stronger than Taking Out three enemies in a single encounter power. Also, this may be working as intended, but the Greater Mind Control 4HP zombies are more powerful than the 4HP Goons that were taken out to make them, because they are NOT Goons. Also also, this seemed clear to me, but one player was confused whether the Minor Striker feat (which gives him the Quick Shift role action as an encounter power) resulted in Quick Shift being a "class power or a role power." I told him it didn't matter, since it requires a role action to access the power regardless, but he wanted that clarified. Is there anywhere that it matters whether a power comes from role or class? Like, "you may regain one role power" or something? Oh, and does Reach 2 increase the range for Opportunity?
|
|
#
¿
Oct 9, 2014 02:59
|
|
|
Jimbozig posted:1: Greater Mind Control in this case turned Goons (two hit guys) into regular monsters (potentially more than two-hit guys). The PCs were handing out ongoing damage and little 1- and 2-damage effects, so not being a Goon (even at the same number of HP) was an upgrade.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 10, 2014 00:49
|
|
|
Jimbozig posted:Well, I promised it by today, and here I am with less than an hour to spare. Hooray for deadlines! That is a good representation of my experience as well (maybe better, since my players didn't always give narrative descriptions of their action choices), and I think it highlights the fun of the Team Conflict minigame. I like it so much better than skill challenges! Conceding is valid, pressing on is valid.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 11, 2014 15:27
|
|
|
Jimbozig posted:Hey Strike fans! The two archetypes that might be missing are a puppet master-type who primarily moves the PCs and a charge-y guy who dances through the party, doing damage (or other status effects) to all he moves past or through.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 10, 2014 19:06
|
|
|
Jimbozig posted:The first one I had in my mind that maybe I'd want to include a controller-analog, but that second one hadn't occurred to me. I guess it'd have Opportunity-dodging traits and move-and-attack type powers. It really needs something to distinguish it from the Striker, that also has a focus on mobility and gets Dodge to let it avoid Opportunities. What makes it different from a Striker? For me, I would want its power to differentiate it from strikers, in that there would be incentive for the PCs to do something different tactically. Such as: Chain Reaction Move your speed; during this move, you may move through enemy spaces and do not suffer Opportunity, but may not end this move in an enemy's space. Attack each enemy whose space you entered. D:1 E:Do extra damage equal to the number of adjacent enemies hit (D and/or E) so far on this attack. Stepping Stones Move your speed; during this move, you may move through enemy spaces and do not suffer Opportunity, but may not end this move in an enemy's space. Attack each enemy whose space you entered. D:2 E:Do extra damage equal to the number of non-adjacent enemies hit so far on this attack.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 11, 2014 15:12
|
|
|
Jimbozig posted:
I think the product you've produced is very, very good, and I would hate to see any part of it suffer due to a mistaken sense of urgency. Really, it's really good. Please don't force it.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 1, 2014 17:07
|
|
|
Jimbozig posted:
Really, I just think it depends on what you need the KS money for. If the money is just to have a "product" out there, you could do a DTRPG PDF to put a finished copy in more hands (and then Kickstart a version with more art, that takes into account player feedback and testing), especially if it's inexpensive. If you need the money to actually FINISH it to a playable standard (100% of the rules and editing and layout, but not additional art), then yeah, Kickstarter. Edit: I first wrote "better art", but the art's fine. There just isn't much in it. homullus fucked around with this message at 02:50 on Dec 3, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Dec 3, 2014 02:47
|
|
|
Jimbozig posted:"When you miss all targets with an attack, take a token. Spend a token after any future attack roll in the same combat to get +1 to the roll." It's interesting because it could help combat go even faster. Can players share/pool their tokens? Maybe "Recommended Option"? "Option For Faster Combat"? I think it comes down to whether the thing that bugged the 4e player more was combat length, or number of things to track. For me, combat length was twice the issue that tracking was, so I would totally use this.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 11, 2014 15:01
|
|
|
Jimbozig posted:"When you miss all targets with an attack, take a token. Spend a token after any future attack roll in the same combat to get +1 to the roll." The more I think about this, the more I think that it needs to be an optional rule. We're not talking about +1 to hit on a d20, we're talking +1 on a d6. Maybe it would be better as Spend a token after any future missed attack roll in the same combat to get +1 to the roll, and could live as a regular rule in that context.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 17, 2014 15:52
|
|
|
Jimbozig posted:
I think a website, if only a blog, would be good. Having a way to push out beta content to a wider audience after publication, a way to solicit feedback on the product, and a way for people to find you via a search engine would help. And if the game ends up being more successful than you thought, you can always do a second edition.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 22, 2014 01:15
|
|
|
Could probably write it up as a "playtester feedback" section, without naming names, since they are not meaningful outside this community, and of very little meaning within it.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 29, 2014 21:35
|
|
|
Jimbozig posted:Well I've done an edit, including spreading the best quotes around and cutting some of the ones that meant something to me but weren't great promotion. I'm annoyed that I can't do anything to set the quotes apart from the main text other than italicize them. I just want to indent them or something. But even that is too fancy for KS. (I do appreciate why they want to keep it non-fancy. Things could easily get out of hand if they let you do all sorts of html tricks.) I think you can make them as fancy as you want if they're in an image.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 30, 2014 07:42
|
|
|
Jimbozig posted:^^^^ yeah, I know. I'd roll my eyes at a slogan like that, too, even though those things were lots of fun. You can make them whatever width you need to. Peek at some other well-run Kickstarters for examples. In your case, you'd just be doing nicer text. Images would break up the current wall of text, too.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 31, 2014 04:29
|
|
|
Jimbozig posted:Check out what's there now. I tried it out, and it looks good for my computer screen and half-decent on my phone. They look even better than I thought they would. 
|
|
#
¿
Dec 31, 2014 06:01
|
|
|
Drop Database posted:A Strike Story This does an excellent job of describing Strike! to those who haven't played it. Please do write up the second half!
|
|
#
¿
Jan 5, 2015 15:22
|
|
|
Drop Database posted:I would say that even though TC is clearly designed with the philosophy, roughly, that "not accomplishing a goal can be as interesting as accomplishing, and doesn't stop the game, and therefore should be nearly as likely" in terms of math and rules, and, in fact, text to that effect is in the rules themselves, the section on TC, overall, fails to deliver that message to the reader (or, at least, the kind of reader that doesn't analyse the mechanics thoroughly) clearly. The language is quite negative (losing, failing attacks, strikes, hits, concessions) and the explanations tend to mostly explore the player side of the equation, indirectly reinforcing that the players are up against a DM-set task measured in action arithmetic, rather than another side in a conflict, despite the name. I think you should try to ease the reader more into the idea that "losing" a team conflict, while not desirable, of course, is actually perfectly acceptible It's not even necessarily a conflict with another team; TC could be climbing a mountain as easily as it could be a Hitball tournament against the Goblin Skullsplitters All-Star Team. It could perhaps use a new coat of linguistic paint. Team Challenge, maybe? I think Concessions is fine. How about : Attack becomes Effort (  )Reckless Attack becomes Reckless Effort Defend becomes Conservative Effort Take One for the Team is not misleading; Sacrifice is shorter though I think Improvise should say you're using a situationally-appropriate skill in the chart, or be explained more fully elsehwere (which I have said before) Attack Actions become Progress Actions (not sure I like that) All-Out Attack becomes All-Out Effort Risky Attack becomes Calculated Risk Win At All Costs becomes Succeed At All Costs Penetrating Attack becomes Targeted Effort Defense Actions become Defensive Actions Most are fine, but Total Defense could become Preserve Progress I think coming up with something else for strikes and hits would complete the change. I think an example of a short TC in the text would also help a lot.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 6, 2015 18:22
|
|
|
Jimbozig posted:Uh oh, conflicting feedback! I've heard from two different sources that using the same word for Strikes and "combat strikes" is confusing. I prefer that they be called different things. I don't need them to be named the same thing to remember that I don't want to roll low. I guess you could call them "Narrative Strike" and "Combat Strike".
|
|
#
¿
Jan 10, 2015 01:59
|
|
|
Jimbozig posted:http://www.strikerpg.com It's really amazing to me that you've gotten this far. Great product + drive to bring it to fruition is rare. Totally going to back this.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 19, 2015 17:37
|
|
|
Totally backed. Really excited to see this come to fruition.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 30, 2015 18:39
|
|
|
I just read the newest version in the first update and it's even more betterer than the last version I saw. The monster creation rules are excellent and thoughtfully-designed to interact in interesting ways with the rest of the game. I love the Chase rules. What do you think about Disadvantage on Ranged attacks vs. Prone targets? Too complicated? The reason I like it is that it makes "GET DOWN!" a logical choice when the party gets surprised in a campaign using the more advanced Cover rules.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 31, 2015 04:06
|
|
|
30.5 Days posted:Are charges starting to go out now that you're funded and maybe some people had a bad card? I haven't been charged yet and I"m still pledged, though, so idunno. Kickstarter doesn't charge until the end of the campaign.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 5, 2015 00:17
|
|
|
BatteredFeltFedora posted:I'm glad we're getting titans but I'm really looking forward to kits. Kits are definitely higher on my list, since they feel like something more universal. I can see Strike! being used for a Wild West game or a WWII game; titans don't feel as useful for every circumstance where you'd want tactical combat. They're definitely high on the list for "heedless adventure", though, so I am still excited to see them. One suggestion for titans would be that some of the multiple modes of attack only come into being if a previous ability is disabled -- we often see somebody overload an already-failing engine, throw or block with a spent gun, et cetera.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 7, 2015 15:30
|
|
|
I think you are crazy to set some of those later ones so close to the smaller ones, since they look like so much more work. I guess you can start work on some of them early, if it looks like they'll happen.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 11, 2015 21:16
|
|
|
Jimmeeee posted:My group and I tried playing this over the weekend and absolutely loved it. Great design, Jimbozig! We all really enjoyed how the rules place more of an emphasis on the narrative than on trying to simulate real-world stuff that would detract from the story. My understanding was that they only have access to the advanced actions if they have a skill that makes sense in the environment of the team conflict or if they have a narrative reason., so those actions are partially-walled off already, and the more variety to your team conflicts, the more you'll have rotating access to the advanced actions.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 19, 2015 20:27
|
|
|
Jimmeeee posted:Oops! You're completely right, I missed that part. The GM can grant players Traits, particularly through items, but the players already have an edge available in the form of the Preparatory actions. The variety of traits is a big part of what makes one TC different from the next.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 19, 2015 22:51
|
|
|
Jimbozig posted:I need some advice on what I can do in this last week to push this and try to get the next couple of stretch goals. Vincent Baker tweeted that he backed, and I got a couple of twitter followers from that, and I hope a couple of backers, too. I've sent out an email to Luke Crane as well, but haven't heard back yet. I've been on RPPR and got a shoutout from NPC Cast (thanks, NPCs!) as well as the 6 Feats Under podcast. There was a cool article on Gamer-xp. I saw a nice little surge after I made the big post on the blog about inclusiveness, and I think that's something that really resonates with a lot of people. If you could tweet or facebook or whatever that blog post to get more eyes on it, that could probably help. I don't really know what else I should be doing to get backers in the last week, so I'm open to ideas. I'll have a bit of time tomorrow to work on whatever you suggest, hopefully. I'll even pick a fight with Zak if you tell me it'll get me backers*. I think you were joking, but please don't pick a fight with Zak! You've taken the high road so far, and I feel that walks back some of the goodness of the inclusiveness post. Strike! may not be his kind of game (who knows?), but it may well be a game some of his fans would like, with its emphasis on crashing-forward narrative. Were it me, I'd email him too. He probably won't play Strike! with the pornstars and may not even reply, but if you're playing the Big Tent card, you may as well use it.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 24, 2015 15:24
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 28, 2024 10:56 |
|
|
Maleketh posted:I ran Strike (back when it was still Sacred BBQ) as a PbP game. It didn't last long due to people being lovely and dropping without saying anything, but from what I saw it worked perfectly fine. My ony issue was one that's just as bad for tabletop: certain Necromancer powers make obnoxious extra work for the GM. Most groups I've seen don't track where enemies are when they go down, and having to do so is pretty annoying. But in a PbP with a tactical board, wouldn't that just be a matter of scrolling back to the most recent post with the monster still alive?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 3, 2015 04:45
|
|