|
Look I get that some opinions are just super terrible, but generally speaking different opinions should be allowed to coexist
|
#
¿
Oct 16, 2015 19:11
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 9, 2024 03:47 |
|
|
Megaman's Jockstrap posted:Name a game that has done this, then. GURPS does this, and the weapon are mechanically different from one another. I could not tell you if one is clearly superior to the others though.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 20, 2015 21:09
|
|
|
Megaman's Jockstrap posted:Admittedly I haven't played GURPS in 20 years but I don't remember the weapons being different from each other. I hope you don't mean the type of thing at this link because this is not any sort of meaningful differentiation: http://wiki.rpg.net/index.php/GURPS_Weapons_5 I have no idea what that is, and if it is from 20 years ago it might be 3e. I never touched that on, pretty much everyone agrees that 4e is better so I never bothered. I will make some examples using Tech Level 3, which is somewhere around the Middle Ages. Bear with me as it gets  slightly complicated. If you want an up-to-date TL 3 Broadsword, you have 3 choices: Bastard Sword, Katana and Thrusting Bastard Sword. All of them can inflict swing+1 cutting damage; "swing" is an amount of damage calculated based on Strenght, "cutting" means that it's multiplied by 1.5 after bypassing armor. They all have different secondary attacks. The Bastard Sword allows you to do thrust+1 crushing damage, which is not multiplied (I assume it means hitting someone with the flat part of the sword). Thrust is a smaller amount than Swing (the difference between the two grows as Strenght grows) and crushing is not multiplied, meaning that this allows this weapon to capture targets alive. The Katana's secondary attack does thrust+1 Impaling damage. Impaling damage is multiplied by 2 after armor. What this means is that if you have a katana, it's better to try and cut down armored enemies, since swing produces more raw, unmultiplied damage to bypass armor with, but against unarmored peasants it's better to just impale them and score that sweet double impaling damage. The Thrusting Bastard Sword is basically an upgraded Katana, that allows to do thrust+2 impaling damage; but it costs 100 Gurpsbucks more than the Katana, and those aren't pocket change when your starting wealth for a person without particular Wealth advantages is 1000. All of this is put together considering only a single category of weapons. There is the flail that cannot be parried, but does only crushing damage (although lots of it) and leaves you unprepared to parry with, the pick that always swings for impaling damage but has the same problem and also has a chance of getting stuck, its younger brother the nunchaku which costs almost nothing, the kusari that has a huge reach but requires a Ready maneuver to adjust it, two polearms that do lots of damage but cannot harm enemies that are close and personal, two-handed weapons that require two hands and probably lots of stuff that I cannot be bothered to check now. You have alternatives, and they change the way you fight. I cannot swear that there isn't one that outshines the others, but hey. I suck at crunch generally speaking. paradoxGentleman fucked around with this message at 22:36 on Oct 20, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Oct 20, 2015 22:33
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:Ah, yes, I too remember the scene where Aragorn unsheathes Anduril, Flame of the West, his grey goop of weaponness for the first time. Or when Arthur drew the Weapon, One-Handed from the stone. If your objection is "this is not called a sword" I would argue that as long as you decide something along the lines of "a one handed weapon does X damage at Y level" you can call it whatever the gently caress you want. Not saying that there isn't something good to say about tables upon tables of weapons, as you can see by me sperging out about them earlier, but that is not a good objection.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 20, 2015 22:47
|
|
|
Or you can do what I call the Warhammer method, referring to the miniature game and not the RPG. A one-harmed weapon does X, wheter it is an axe, a sword or a wooden board with a nail stuck in. You can have two weapons, that do something else, or a two-handed weapon that does some other thing. You don't need to specify if you are planning on playing a game where the kind of weapon used is not the focus.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 20, 2015 23:04
|
|
|
I fell in love with GURPS the moment I saw that using the example characters include a form-changing battle robot that discovered Buddhism, a psionic teleporting thief and an elf that learned the value of the rifle. I cannot help but love it even though I realize it's probably more complicated that it strictly needs to be.Effectronica posted:Uhh... Most people are going to want to specify. They want a cool sword, or axe, or something. Giving examples of the types of weapons is thus a good idea. But a list of a bunch of identical weapons looks ugly, so there's the temptation to differentiate them, which in turn creates a bunch of balance issues. I mean of course in the fiction of the game you are going to explan what it is that your character is using, it's just possible to do so without it having any mechanical weight. I get what you are saying, but I still don't think it's an effective use of pagecount; if they are going to be basically the same, just say so in the book and don't trick your players into thinking that there is a difference between an axe and a mace. paradoxGentleman fucked around with this message at 23:23 on Oct 20, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Oct 20, 2015 23:21
|
|
|
Slimnoid posted:Zak. But isn't that guy's name Skarka?
|
|
#
¿
Oct 23, 2015 13:20
|
|
|
I hate that we have reached the point when people preventively drop out of the Internet when Zak comes a-knocking.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 23, 2015 13:59
|
|
|
Terrible Opinions posted:I really hope you're not trying to claim a rapist isn't as bad as internet harassers because he isn't raping people right now. Polanski should have been hanged and no amount of not raping someone will change that. The impression I got from reading that was that he meant that it's okay to like and support things that a dead rear end in a top hat produces, because that money does not support his rear end in a top hat lifestyle and encourage him to act like an rear end in a top hat; whereas ignoring Zak's... let's be generous and call them political views because you like what he produces as a TTG developper means supporting that kind of activity.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 24, 2015 19:04
|
|
|
Who is King gently caress Swine supposed to be? e: Oh, I guess Edward. Sorry. paradoxGentleman fucked around with this message at 21:06 on Oct 24, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Oct 24, 2015 21:04
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 9, 2024 03:47 |
|
|
quote:Evil Hat engages in predatory antitrust practices. One would think that a publisher that's basically an elevated indie would know better than perpetuating the cycle of crap among publishers, and instead of that, as soon as they got power of their own, they started "doing unto others." Is this about that Gamergate card game that Evil Hat didn't want to share space with, or are they referring to something new this time?
|
|
#
¿
Oct 25, 2015 11:49
|
|