|
NGDBSS posted:Didn't FFG promise something like this (or at least entirely co-op) as an add-on
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2014 22:24
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 24, 2024 19:40 |
|
|
grognards.txt has ended at its logical apex, Pundit accusing John Wick of never having played D&D. RIP you poor, lost soul of a thread
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2014 01:57
|
|
|
Gau posted:Pundit accusing John Wick of never having played D&D. Honestly speaking... I don't give a poo poo for that! (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2014 02:02
|
|
|
Gau posted:grognards.txt has ended at its logical apex, Pundit accusing John Wick of never having played D&D. That's a pretty wild thing to say about Keanu Reeves' new action movie!
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2014 02:18
|
|
|
Alien Rope Burn posted:On a totally different note, I'm reading through Designers & Dragons: the 80s, and it mentions an unnamed freelancer who apparently introduced Kevin Siembieda to the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles comic, and wrote an early draft of the game which was rejected by Siembieda (to be completely rewritten by Erick Wujcik in the final month before release). And that freelancer was... Albert Einstein! 
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2014 02:18
|
|
|
Gau posted:grognards.txt has ended at its logical apex, Pundit accusing John Wick of never having played D&D. I'm amazed the whole hobby didn't collapse upon itself into a black hole when he said that.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2014 04:17
|
|
|
Not gonna lie, I would play most of these at least once. http://offbeatclasses.co.vu/
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2014 04:47
|
|
|
I've been trying to play Dread for at least 4 years yet every time I have a game ready to go last minute drop outs cancel it. Haunted. (???) This year I'm saying gently caress it and totally & unfairly tying it to my birthday celebrations. Characters were close in high school, thoroughly parted ways, but are going to the Boundary Waters for 7 days to try to celebrate a 10 year reunion. Setting is a foresty lake area between Canada and the US without cell phone coverage, 3 days wait for medical attention. When they get off the water, no one is there to pick them up. Ever
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2014 08:23
|
|
|
Gau posted:grognards.txt has ended at its logical apex, Pundit accusing John Wick of never having played D&D. Apart from where Wick said balance doesn't matter in an RPG I thought that post was entirely reasonable.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2014 08:36
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:Apart from where Wick said balance doesn't matter in an RPG I thought that post was entirely reasonable. He really buries the lede because after talking about his pet interests for a while he gets around to identifying spotlight as the real subject of balance in RPGs, which is essentially correct, though I would say the *option* to take the spotlight is better because some people really do enjoy supporting roles. Those supporting types are the dudes the cleric was overpowered to entice in most editions of D&D. Thing is (with his "teacup stats" business) some games mix tactical and dramatic play. Some games have tightly woven tactical and dramatic play. Cyberpunk and technothriller games where guns and branded tech matter. Hell, even in Die, Hard, which I know John loves, you have these examples: 1) HO HO HO I HAVE A MACHINEGUN NOW. 2) McClane gets the poo poo kicked out of him by someone with better unarmed combat ability. He evens the score not by thumb or teacup, but by getting a big, scary chain. It's funny really. People who want dramatic play over everything based on cinematic models tend to forget that actual films have odd reversals and pacing deadfalls that even hit badasses. For instance, in Goldfinger Bond gets in a pretty mundane car accident. I remember seeing it while looking up from some work and thinking that's the sort of thing that'd never happen in a stakes-based game of spies. In fact, given that he succeeds several times in the scene contending with the same stakes, this result would be straight up impossible if you played a Burning Game with Let it Ride--the GM would be cheating. MalcolmSheppard fucked around with this message at 21:42 on Oct 5, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2014 09:58
|
|
|
fosborb posted:I've been trying to play Dread for at least 4 years yet every time I have a game ready to go last minute drop outs cancel it. Haunted. (???) I've run one game of dread which was great but did not end as I expected. My idea was to run a game set in the early 1980s as a zombie apocalypse. All the characters are random folks who took refuge in a bomb shelter when poo poo went down and the city started burning, assuming that the cold war finally went hot. The characters would have no idea when they emerge months later (when the water purifier breaks) that there are zombies everywhere. As soon as I said "80s" and "zombies" a switch clicked in the heads of my friends. I had apparently found their secret RPG g-spot. One of them dashed to her bedroom and emerged in a black and yellow polka-dot skirt. The other ran to a couch, shoved his head between two cushions and rotated it rapidly, frizzing up his hair into a large puffy cloud. He would later grab some flour and smeared it on his upper lip to give himself that "just took coke" look (his character being a drug addict). Unfortunately, for a Dread game there was only one fatality, but still fun.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2014 12:20
|
|
|
The new g.txt thread should obviously have been named GRAVEYARDS.txt, come on Ettin
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2014 13:33
|
|
|
Really Pants posted:The new g.txt thread should obviously have been named GRAVEYARDS.txt, come on Ettin Skelegrogs.txt
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2014 13:45
|
|
|
We just got in our copies of Through the Breach, the Malifaux RPG. Has anyone had a look at it yet? I've only had a chance to thumb through it so far, but there's some interesting ideas in there. In fact, it might even be a Good Game, I'm not sure yet. Highlights so far: -Character creation is random without actually leaving anything important to chance. -The game puts the PCs in the protagonist role in a pretty interesting mechanical way. -There's a fairly strict control on when you flip cards. Basically, during Narrative Time, you never touch the deck at all. Either you can do stuff, you can cheat to do it, or you just can't do it. -The equivalents to "classes" are called pursuits, and they're ephemeral as gently caress, you freely change pursuit from session to session. -Having negatives in a stat gives you access to mechanical benefits, like being low in cunning gives you access to a talent that you're too dim to scare properly.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2014 01:35
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:Apart from where Wick said balance doesn't matter in an RPG I thought that post was entirely reasonable.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2014 02:39
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:Apart from where Wick said balance doesn't matter in an RPG I thought that post was entirely reasonable.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2014 03:59
|
|
|
Chaotic Neutral posted:that toxic payload. Band name!
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2014 04:02
|
|
|
The other thing that stood out to me from Wick's post is the implication that a Fighter/martial class shouldn't (always) be limited to specific weapons. That Riddick can beat your rear end with a teacup means that it's not a Teacup +5, but rather that anything you put in Riddick's hands is going to be a +5 weapon just because he's that good at wielding it. He might be able to do other specific tricks or types of damage if he uses a spear or a mace, but if all he needs to do is kill you dead, a rock would be just as effective.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2014 05:38
|
|
|
The god drat teacup scene only worked because we know that a teacup is an inferior weapon to a sword or gun!
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2014 05:48
|
|
|
Ferrinus posted:The god drat teacup scene only worked because we know that a teacup is an inferior weapon to a sword or gun! But it still worked, so it should work when a player tries a similar thing without requiring a bunch of bullshit rules just to uphold ~verisimilitude~.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2014 05:53
|
|
|
It should work because Riddick's stats are so high that Riddick can defeat whoever it was even when burdened by the penalties associated with trying to use a teacup as a weapon. Otherwise it's like, wow, great, you described your GENERIC_WEAPON as a teacup, how impressive. Well I'm going to flavor mine as the actual fact of my own decapitation and dismemberment so I guess I'm even cooler.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2014 05:55
|
|
|
Ferrinus posted:It should work because Riddick's stats are so high that Riddick can defeat whoever it was even when burdened by the penalties associated with trying to use a teacup as a weapon. Otherwise it's like, wow, great, you described your GENERIC_WEAPON as a teacup, how impressive. Well I'm going to flavor mine as the actual fact of my own decapitation and dismemberment so I guess I'm even cooler. So why should he have penalties for that teacup? What is so +1 about a +1 goddamn sword? If you want to stab dudes with immaterial concepts, go hog wild if your group is down with it, no need to be a dick about it. Like, what's so scary about going off page to do something cool? If all you want is a random number generator there's plenty of rogue-likes out there.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2014 06:07
|
|
|
He should have penalties for using a teacup in order for the fact of his using a teacup to be impressive. That's the point of the drat scene: that Riddick so outclassed those shmoes that he didn't need a real weapon to insanely brutally slay them. You'll notice that in later, more dangerous situations Riddick did not deliberately handicap himself and instead actually tried his hardest and used the best stuff he could get his hands on, because he is not an actual, literal circus clown. Gee, gosh, why should a legendary magical sword, in a game of heroic adventure fantasy, be more effective than a normal sword. I just don't know!
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2014 06:21
|
|
|
There's something to be said for "is so awesome that anything he picks up is an effective weapon", which in D&D terms would be giving them a (good) damage dice and making attacks with anything inherently magical. That's what inherent bonuses or even just ki focuses do in 4e, minus the damage dice thing. There's also something to be said for a system that would incentive players to handicap themselves in some way and actually make it interesting rather than "just use your weapon, Dave, we don't have all day", but D&D isn't it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2014 07:02
|
|
|
Ferrinus posted:He should have penalties for using a teacup in order for the fact of his using a teacup to be impressive. That's the point of the drat scene: that Riddick so outclassed those shmoes that he didn't need a real weapon to insanely brutally slay them. You'll notice that in later, more dangerous situations Riddick did not deliberately handicap himself and instead actually tried his hardest and used the best stuff he could get his hands on, because he is not an actual, literal circus clown. I too remember the scene where Riddick took out the teacup to fight in ater more dangerous situatins then paused and told the audience "WAIT, IF I USE THIS, I WON'T BE AS STRONG" and then put it down and are you loving this stupid or are you messing with us? The point is that the "KILL DUDES" character should always be at max KILL DUDES no matter what they have. The teacup scene isn't awesome because you're going oh man that teacup gives him a -4 attack penalty as an improvised weapon! It's that Riddick is so loving badass he will ruin your poo poo with literally anything. That it's a teacup is entirely immaterial. The point is that Riddick is always at MAX KILL DUDES, and complaining that teacups need to give him a penalty is missing the point to a degree of required idiocy that I literally do not think you have, which is why I wonder if you're just loving with us, because you are not that goddamn stupid.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2014 07:09
|
|
|
EVERY MORNING I WAKE UP AND OPEN PALM SLAM A VHS INTO THE SLOT. IT'S CHRONICLES OF RIDDICK AND RIGHT THEN AND THERE I START DOING THE IMPROVISED WEAPON MOVES ALONGSIDE WITH THE MAIN CHARACTER, RIDDICK. I DO EVERY IMPROVISED WEAPON MOVE AND I DO EVERY IMPROVISED WEAPON MOVE HARD. MAKIN CRASHING SOUNDS WHEN I SHOVE A TEACUP ON THE THROAT OF SOME NECRO BASTARDS OR EVEN WHEN I BREAK TEACUP. NOT MANY CAN SAY THEY MADE GALAXYS MOST VERISIMILAR SYSTEM. I CAN. I SAY IT AND I SAY IT OUTLOUD EVERYDAY TO PEOPLE IN MY COLLEGE CLASS AND ALL THEY DO IS PROVE PEOPLE IN COLLEGE CLASS CAN STILL BE IMMATURE JEKRS. AND IVE LEARNED ALL THE COMBAT RULES AND IVE LEARNED HOW TO MAKE MYSELF AND MY APARTMENT LESS LONELY BY SHOUTING EM ALL. 2 HOURS INCLUDING WIND DOWN EVERY MORNIng
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2014 07:15
|
|
|
Yeah, he easily could've just grabbed the dude's head and snapped his neck in a heartbeat. The Teacup was just Vin Diesel narrating his PC being silly/badass. In FAE he went forceful (or maybe Flashy or Quick). In Apocalypse World he went Seize By Force. Either way, he loving wrecked that dude. 
Galaga Galaxian fucked around with this message at 07:32 on Oct 5, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2014 07:29
|
|
|
The thing is the Riddick bit serves both purposes: it shows that he's just That drat Good and can kill with whatever he drat well pleases, and that he's on a whole other level from those dudes. The problem with trying to extrapolate this to all Good Dude Killers in all Dude Killing Situations is that it misses the forest in favor of deep analysis of the bark on the trees. Are all fighters Riddicks? Should all fighters be Riddicks? When does killing people with a teacup cross the line from Badass to Silly and then into This Tired Gimmick Again? Does it have the same impact to kill dudes with a teacup out of nowhere when we know it's mechanically identical to killing a dude with a sword? Is it more rewarding if you pull it off when it isn't? Is it one of those examples of something that's only diminished when mechanics are involved at all? Like, I've got my set of answers to those questions, and I'm pretty sure if you ask five different people you'll get at least three different sets of answers. Moreover, it's something that changes based on the tone of the game and the goal of the mechanics. That's the entire problem I had with the passage: it makes no exceptions and asks no questions.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2014 08:12
|
|
|
ProfessorCirno posted:I too remember the scene where Riddick took out the teacup to fight in ater more dangerous situatins then paused and told the audience "WAIT, IF I USE THIS, I WON'T BE AS STRONG" and then put it down and are you loving this stupid or are you messing with us? No, that's stupid. Riddick isn't, like, an astral thoughtform whose current armament is purely a function of the innermost feelings and prejudices of whoever is looking at Riddick at the time. If Riddick comes at you with a teacup, it means something different than if Riddick comes at you with a gun. "No, this is a teacup. I will kill you, with this teacup." "Yeah, but teacups are equally deadly to miniguns in this crazy world we live in, so why are you even bothering to tell me that? gently caress it, in my terrified desperation I'll try to fight back against you with a teacup, because why wouldn't I?"
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2014 08:44
|
|
|
The bit where Riddick kills a guy with a teacup ruins my verisimilitude because it's clearly a consequence of the game system not adequately differentiating between various types of improvised weapons and the player abusing that loophole to do something ridiculous. Any GM worth his dicebag would have had the player automatically fail and granted the enemy an automatic reaction attack in response, furthermore
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2014 08:45
|
|
|
No! No! That scene reinforces verisimilitude because it demonstrates that Riddick outlcasses his enemies to the extent that he can eat an improvised weapon penalty and still win penalty! That's the entire point of the scene, which would not make any sense if teacups and lightsabers were equivalently deadly in Riddick's hands! gently caress!
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2014 08:55
|
|
|
Ferrinus posted:gently caress it, in my terrified desperation I'll try to fight back against you with a teacup, because why wouldn't I?" Because in order to model fiction that doesn't allow a teacup to be an efficient weapon at all times, the Riddick expended some sort of plot-based resource (such as FATE points or a daily power or a PC-only maneuver that allows improvised weapon use) that allows him to do something so awesome. Alternately, in a sufficiently abstract system he rolled really well and narrates the entire scene with complete dramatic authority. Modeling action movies with fantasy asymmetric warfare simulators is probably a poor choice.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2014 08:57
|
|
|
Look the actual answer is that in that scene Riddick isn't rolling an attack, any more than a GM would ask you to roll Dex in order to tie your shoes or open a can. Riddick overwhelmingly outclasses the other guy, failure wouldn't be possible regardless of weapon. That he's using a teacup has no mechanical bearing, it's just a bit of flavor, since there's no roll to penalize anyway.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2014 08:59
|
|
|
You know what pisses me off? The fact that everyone is saying "teacup" when that is so clearly a mug!
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2014 09:00
|
|
|
Huh, so it sounds like the imaginary game system in which Chronicles of Riddick is being played does differentiate between teacups and battleaxes, even if the combat system wasn't in play in that particular scene and even if the level of differentiation is as simple as "a teacup doesn't count as a weapon, a battleaxe does".
Ferrinus fucked around with this message at 09:04 on Oct 5, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2014 09:01
|
|
|
Ferrinus posted:No! No! That scene reinforces verisimilitude I know you've been around long enough to know that an appeal to the v-word is a lovely argument. But really, here's the disconnect: why should it be modeled as a penalty, instead of something else? Players should be encouraged by the game to do cool things. If you say "well okay you can hit him with the teacup but you take a -4 penalty and it only does d4 damage' they're not going to kill a guy with a teacup, ever. Giving the fighter the ability to kill poo poo with a teacup without it being a pain in the rear end is a good thing, because then more people will be killed with teacups. You can compensate in other areas of the game; you can give them additional bonuses to using a proper weapon, you can require them to justify it fictionally, you can make them spend a bennie on their Kill Stuff With Tiny Stuff power, whatever.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2014 09:08
|
|
|
Why are you haggling with me over the specific mathematical value of the penalty for using an improvised weapon in a hypothetical roleplaying game?
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2014 09:09
|
|
|
I'm not, the point is why are you modeling this poo poo as a penalty instead of literally anything else? e: The hypothetical system is literally immaterial, the point of a penalty (to make you more likely to fail at something) is universal. Tulul fucked around with this message at 09:14 on Oct 5, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2014 09:12
|
|
|
Okay, try this. The combat system works on "successes," you get a certain number, usually like 3-5. Fancy maneuvers and poo poo eat up successes. Most enemies, with armor, or behind cover, or in groups, need those 3-5, depending on the enemy and circumstance. This enemy just needs one. So, "use a teacup" is a maneuver, costing like two successes, "fighting stylishly" or whatever, maybe in public it gets you something neat, but here the player is just doing it because he had an excess two successes over the mere one he needed, and they wouldn't do anything else anyway, so he says he uses a teacup.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2014 09:12
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 24, 2024 19:40 |
|
|
Tulul posted:I'm not, the point is why are you modeling this poo poo as a penalty instead of literally anything else? Guess what all the things you described were. They were penalties.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2014 09:15
|
|