|
Bucnasti posted:Let's cut down to the brass tacks here... Who do I gotta kill to get a Rat Queens movie made? There's an animated series in the works already for what it's worth.
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2015 18:46
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 7, 2024 23:36 |
|
|
Anyone know any systems with a strong investigative system?
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2015 18:47
|
|
|
Ratpick posted:There's an animated series in the works already for what it's worth. Really!? Awesome. Also the creator is working with Adam Koebel on a pbta RQ game. Get hype motherfuckers.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2015 18:50
|
|
|
fool_of_sound posted:Anyone know any systems with a strong investigative system? Gumshoe. http://pelgranepress.com/
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2015 18:55
|
|
|
Error 404 posted:Adam Koebel Nope. Not going to judge it before it's published, but this seems more like a "wait and see" than a "get hype".
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2015 20:11
|
|
|
Jimbozig posted:Nope. Not going to judge it before it's published, but this seems more like a "wait and see" than a "get hype". What's wrong with him?
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2015 20:16
|
|
|
Error 404 posted:What's wrong with him? "DungeonWorld is mediocre", he said, throwing the grenade into the thread.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2015 20:19
|
|
|
fool_of_sound posted:"DungeonWorld is mediocre", he said, throwing the grenade into the thread. Meh.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2015 20:26
|
|
|
fool_of_sound posted:"DungeonWorld is mediocre", he said, throwing the grenade into the thread.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2015 20:50
|
|
|
fool_of_sound posted:"DungeonWorld is mediocre", he said, throwing the grenade into the thread. A truth bomb.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2015 20:52
|
|
|
I'd love to see a good criticism of DW's downsides. I've read that the worst parts are the attributes and that there are some medicore playbooks, but not much otherwise. Well, aside from the usual 'quantum bears' and 'punching the floor and punching Orcus are equally easy' bullshit.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2015 20:55
|
|
|
Splicer posted:I understand the thread opinion is that it's a good Dungeon* but not a great *world. I've just always found it really unsatisfying mechanically; the combat is painfully boring in a game that's largely based around combat.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2015 20:59
|
|
|
fool_of_sound posted:Anyone know any systems with a strong investigative system? As Swagger Dagger said, Gumshoe. There is even a thread for it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2015 21:07
|
|
|
inklesspen posted:As Swagger Dagger said, Gumshoe. There is even a thread for it. Yeah, I'm looking at Trail of Cthulhu now; first impression are good.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2015 21:10
|
|
|
IT BEGINS posted:I'd love to see a good criticism of DW's downsides. I've read that the worst parts are the attributes and that there are some medicore playbooks, but not much otherwise. Well, aside from the usual 'quantum bears' and 'punching the floor and punching Orcus are equally easy' bullshit. No that's basically it. It sticks a little too close to its D&D roots. The core playbooks are uninspired at best and outright boring at worst. There's a bunch of rules in the book literally nobody uses (who cares about the Steading rules? Anyone? How many people know you're supposed to get a discount on your purchases equal to your full charisma score?). It's too gritty in some places it should be loose and too mechanical in some places it should be more fictional. Another big criticism is that the basic moves are too granular and only cover one specific action in one specific moment, while in, say, Apoc World, the basic "fight them" move resolves an entire fight in one roll (this isn't one I necessarily agree with, since a D&D clone should be pretty granular with combat to be a D&D clone, but it is on the table). As for Adam Koebel specifically, I don't know which parts of DW he and Sage worked on specifically, but they are both very old school in their tastes, and they really wanted to write a retroclone with Apocalypse World inspiration than the other way around when making DW. So knowing that, yeah. A new game by Adam isn't something I am excited for. It is definitely more of a "wait and see and hope for the best".
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2015 21:13
|
|
|
fool_of_sound posted:Yeah, I'm looking at Trail of Cthulhu now; first impression are good. Trail is my favorite, followed by Esoterrorists 2 and Ashen Stars. A nice thing about Trail is that, along with the adventures written specifically for it, there are tons of resources for converting the classic BRP Call of Cthulhu adventures to Gumshoe so there are a ton of good stories to run a group through if you don't want to write one yourself.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2015 21:15
|
|
|
Who was the idiot that kept the rules about loving over your party members that makes sense on apoc world but not on a game where cooperation is actually important
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2015 21:15
|
|
|
TheLovablePlutonis posted:Who was the idiot that kept the rules about loving over your party members that makes sense on apoc world but not on a game where cooperation is actually important That one can be defended. There is always going to be times we're one player does something the other doesn't want them to do. Not to mention the OD&D mentality of "gently caress you, got mine."
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2015 21:26
|
|
|
gnome7 posted:No that's basically it. It sticks a little too close to its D&D roots. The core playbooks are uninspired at best and outright boring at worst. There's a bunch of rules in the book literally nobody uses (who cares about the Steading rules? Anyone? How many people know you're supposed to get a discount on your purchases equal to your full charisma score?). It's too gritty in some places it should be loose and too mechanical in some places it should be more fictional. Another big criticism is that the basic moves are too granular and only cover one specific action in one specific moment, while in, say, Apoc World, the basic "fight them" move resolves an entire fight in one roll (this isn't one I necessarily agree with, since a D&D clone should be pretty granular with combat to be a D&D clone, but it is on the table). It always felt like DW could use a new edition, one that clears away a bunch of the crud and further sheds some of its D&Disms. But, well, I don't know if that will ever happen.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2015 21:29
|
|
|
TheLovablePlutonis posted:Who was the idiot that kept the rules about loving over your party members that makes sense on apoc world but not on a game where cooperation is actually important Yeah, the interfere side of the Aid/Interfere move makes zero sense in Dungeon World. Based on what I'm hearing, Rat Queens is going to be very loosely based on Dungeon World. Also, Adam Koebel likes Burning Wheel, so guy's at least got a good taste in games. I'm holding out hope that for Rat Queens they decide to get rid of some of the more superfluous mechanics of DW.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2015 21:33
|
|
|
Slimnoid posted:It always felt like DW could use a new edition, one that clears away a bunch of the crud and further sheds some of its D&Disms. But, well, I don't know if that will ever happen. I think it really needs to make the choice of either being a rules-light adventure game, or be a more mechanically rewarding retroclone. Right now it's kinda failing to be both.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2015 21:33
|
|
|
So who's ready???????? http://www.ew.com/article/2015/08/03/dungeons-dragons-film-franchise-warner-bros?hootPostID=c642a3d48857f976f5d68e0a90f9b519 quote:Warner Bros. has found its newest fantasy film franchise, and it comes from one of the world’s most beloved role-playing games: Dungeons & Dragons.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2015 22:03
|
|
|
paradoxGentleman posted:This discussion made me reread DM of the Rings, and holy poo poo is everyone much more of an rear end in a top hat that I remember. The GM is the most likeable character and he's completely tone deaf to what his fellow players want, which has got to be one of the cardinal sins of GMing. That's the joke. Every railroad-y GM is trying to act out their grand vision that's basically Lord of the Rings, but this time it's literally Lord of the Rings.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2015 22:05
|
|
|
Nuns with Guns posted:No casting has been announced for the film, but Vin Diesel probably wouldn’t mind discussing a role. [link to Vin Diesel's D&D book birthday cake] Forget Vin Diesel, will Marlon Waynes will return?
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2015 23:24
|
|
|
fool_of_sound posted:I've just always found it really unsatisfying mechanically; the combat is painfully boring in a game that's largely based around combat. What do you find particularly unsatisfying about it? Is it the lack of depth? I'd have thought a rules-light system like DW would result in combat that's more interesting, not less.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2015 23:48
|
|
|
drrockso20 posted:if anything gets done with this Redwall meets D&D idea, this better be a viable character option; To make mice viable despite their smaller size, they all know Dark Rodent Magic. Just do the Skyrealms of Jorune thing where your magic is more powerful the smaller you are, which is why humans can't use any.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2015 23:53
|
|
|
IT BEGINS posted:What do you find particularly unsatisfying about it? Is it the lack of depth? I'd have thought a rules-light system like DW would result in combat that's more interesting, not less. It's the lack of depth, combined with spreading out over many rolls what should be resolved with a single test. The combat system isn't particularly rules-light, not in the same way something like FATE is, where players are free to creatively act and respond in ways that make the battle dynamic (mostly due to the Compel system and swinging Fate points). Instead, you're stuck saying 'I hack and slash, with +2 ongoing for 2d8 damage', repeatedly, occasionally pausing to come up with a way to say 'I hack and slash, except with a torch i got off the wall' when you fight a swarm or whatever, or 'I Defy Danger because my wizard got charged'. There isn't enough mechanical options to make heavy combat compelling, and the system tries to make up for this by forcing you to come up with 16 ways of saying 'I hit it with my sword'. There's very little you can do to affect battle outcome other than roll well and always make use of your chosen abilities, many of which are either passive or situational.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2015 23:57
|
|
|
IT BEGINS posted:What do you find particularly unsatisfying about it? Is it the lack of depth? I'd have thought a rules-light system like DW would result in combat that's more interesting, not less. Why would that be the case?
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2015 23:58
|
|
|
I don't think Dungeon World is terrible, but I'm honestly probably not gonna play it much once Fellowship is out.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2015 23:59
|
|
|
The Vosgian Beast posted:To make mice viable despite their smaller size, they all know Dark Rodent Magic. nah if we follow even loosely how Redwall does Race/Species, Mice would be this game's equivalent to Humans in BX/BECMI/RC era D&D where they don't get a lot of special abilities of their own, but have access to a large number of broad class types, meanwhile most other Species would be limited to a handful of specific Racial Classes that are rather strong but usually in a much narrower manner than their equivalent Mice class would be(of course BX/BECMI/RC D&D normally limited non-humans to singular classes, but I think we can borrow one of Adventurer Conqueror King System's better ideas and have it so each Species has 2-4 to choose from), basically I'm saying let's use BX/BECMI/RC D&D as the base cause it's a system that works and is easily modified for our needs also since we'd need to create a new setting for this anyways, I'm thinking Humans would be to the perspective of the Playable Species a race of Incomprehensible and nigh Unstoppable Giants who once ruled this world but have now dwindled to where seeing one is a momentous occasion to be marked in the records of the years that pass
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2015 02:21
|
|
|
fool_of_sound posted:Yeah, I'm looking at Trail of Cthulhu now; first impression are good. I picked up Trail at Gencon after talking tot he writers a bunch. I'm still working through it but it sounds like it's going to be a solid game with a lot of fun. And it better for all the hassle I went through buying it. The bank locked my debit card thinking it had been stolen.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2015 02:28
|
|
|
Len posted:I picked up Trail at Gencon after talking tot he writers a bunch. I'm still working through it but it sounds like it's going to be a solid game with a lot of fun. that's why I always just pull cash out for Conventions
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2015 02:40
|
|
|
fool_of_sound posted:It's the lack of depth, combined with spreading out over many rolls what should be resolved with a single test. The combat system isn't particularly rules-light, not in the same way something like FATE is, where players are free to creatively act and respond in ways that make the battle dynamic (mostly due to the Compel system and swinging Fate points). Instead, you're stuck saying 'I hack and slash, with +2 ongoing for 2d8 damage', repeatedly, occasionally pausing to come up with a way to say 'I hack and slash, except with a torch i got off the wall' when you fight a swarm or whatever, or 'I Defy Danger because my wizard got charged'. There isn't enough mechanical options to make heavy combat compelling, and the system tries to make up for this by forcing you to come up with 16 ways of saying 'I hit it with my sword'. Saying "I Hack & Slash" over and over again is like saying "I hit it with my sword" over and over again in a game like D&D and Exalted; it's actively discouraged. The rules explicitly tell you to describe your move in a way that fits the narrative. If your player is just saying "I Hack and Slash" or "I Defy Danger", that's when you tell them to be more explicit in their description. It's as bad a sin as a DW GM's telling players "Ok, I'm making a Soft Move to increase dramatic tension!" As much as I like Fate, I think a Compel/Dramatic editing resource like Fate Points goes against the emergent play style of gaming that DW wants to emulate. DW allows players to control the narrative and setting to a certain extent, but leaves enough of an element beyond their control to retain the elements of danger and risk. Fate, for the most part, contains comparatively little element of risk towards its characters. A Complication, even death, is largely just another method for a player to add set dressing to the overall story. DW is not a perfect system, but I actually prefer it to most PtBA games, like Monster of the Week or AW, that seem to mostly force you to march lock-step to the drumbeat of their intended genre.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2015 02:42
|
|
|
drrockso20 posted:that's why I always just pull cash out for Conventions I've never had that happen before  We've been going to Gencon since 2011 and Origins from 2006 to then. The real kicker was I failed the identification verification test over the phone and had to trek to an actual bank to fix the problem.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2015 02:58
|
|
|
Simian_Prime posted:Saying "I Hack & Slash" over and over again is like saying "I hit it with my sword" over and over again in a game like D&D and Exalted; it's actively discouraged. The rules explicitly tell you to describe your move in a way that fits the narrative. If your player is just saying "I Hack and Slash" or "I Defy Danger", that's when you tell them to be more explicit in their description. It's as bad a sin as a DW GM's telling players "Ok, I'm making a Soft Move to increase dramatic tension!" That's what I meant when I said "Come up with 16 ways to say 'I hit it with my sword". It's all just empty RP when there's no real benefit to your described maneuverings, either in terms of dice or real narrative control, a la FATE Compels. There's no real reward for creativity, and certainly no mechanical strategies to be had, so combat is nothing but cotton candy: tastes good for a moment, but leaves you unsatisfied. Simian_Prime posted:As much as I like Fate, I think a Compel/Dramatic editing resource like Fate Points goes against the emergent play style of gaming that DW wants to emulate. DW allows players to control the narrative and setting to a certain extent, but leaves enough of an element beyond their control to retain the elements of danger and risk. Fate, for the most part, contains comparatively little element of risk towards its characters. A Complication, even death, is largely just another method for a player to add set dressing to the overall story. That isn't a DungeonWorld thing specifically, it's common across most of the *world games, and while I agree that it's a decent system for games where every test has story importance, like most of the *world games I've encountered do, it falls apart when you're rolling half a dozen times for every player every combat. You can't have meaningful consequences when each player is rolling 3 partial successes and a failure every combat, times two or three combats a session. e: this is why the other *world games generally use a single roll to resolve combat; so that partial successes or failures have meaningful story impact. Simian_Prime posted:DW is not a perfect system, but I actually prefer it to most PtBA games, like Monster of the Week or AW, that seem to mostly force you to march lock-step to the drumbeat of their intended genre. Really? Cause DW is extremely focused on emulating a retroclone dungeoncrawl. That's the intended way of playing the game, and I think it utterly fails to be interested while attempting to emulate that. The system isn't granular enough to keep combat, traps, or treasure interesting. It can be used as a rule-light adventure game outside of dungeon crawls, but then you have the issue that around half of the class moves are only of use in combat, and only to a single type of action in combat, so it kinda falls apart again, and you'd be better off working under another system. fool of sound fucked around with this message at 03:07 on Aug 9, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2015 03:04
|
|
|
fool_of_sound posted:There's very little you can do to affect battle outcome other than roll well and always make use of your chosen abilities, many of which are either passive or situational. 01011001 posted:Why would that be the case? I suppose I was thinking 'interesting' instead of 'interesting mechanically'. Coming from a decade of 3.X, I'm welcoming the ability to describe things starting with the narrative rather than a mechanic. I also can't think of a system that has mechanically complex combat while still pushing the narrative first.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2015 03:18
|
|
|
Len posted:I've never had that happen before similar thing happened to my friend at Anime Expo this year, he went and bought like $150 worth of Art Books and then it took him like two hours to resolve things with his bank over the phone, meanwhile I just brought $260 from an ATM and lasted through the whole 4 day convention with minimal issue
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2015 03:29
|
|
|
IT BEGINS posted:I suppose I was thinking 'interesting' instead of 'interesting mechanically'. Coming from a decade of 3.X, I'm welcoming the ability to describe things starting with the narrative rather than a mechanic. I also can't think of a system that has mechanically complex combat while still pushing the narrative first. Exalted makes an attempt of it; fluffing your actions well gives a bonus, fluffing your actions to build off of already stated fluff gives a larger bonus. I probably wouldn't ever describe the empty fluffing of attacks as 'interesting' in an of itself. Any action in any game can be fluffed.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2015 03:29
|
|
|
fool_of_sound posted:That's what I meant when I said "Come up with 16 ways to say 'I hit it with my sword". It's all just empty RP when there's no real benefit to your described maneuverings, either in terms of dice or real narrative control, a la FATE Compels. There's no real reward for creativity, and certainly no mechanical strategies to be had, so combat is nothing but cotton candy: tastes good for a moment, but leaves you unsatisfied. Is it not the case that Dungeon World gives the GM codified options for granting bonuses and controlling outcomes based on declared fluff? That is, I agree that if a D&D player says "I swing for his legs" then it's either meaningless because you're still just rolling 1d6+STR for damage, or you're loving around with the balance because you're not supposed to be able to slow the dude just by declaring that you swing for their legs, per the rules, but if a DW player says the same then you actually can apply some additional stuff without going outside the rules because the game actively encourages you to do so. quote:If the action that triggers the move could reasonably hurt multiple targets roll once and apply damage to each target (they each get their armor).
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2015 03:42
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 7, 2024 23:36 |
|
|
fool_of_sound posted:Exalted makes an attempt of it; fluffing your actions well gives a bonus, fluffing your actions to build off of already stated fluff gives a larger bonus. I think there's a difference between fluffing your actions and having the fluff be your actions. Take, for example, this fight, starting on post 186, that I often see linked to in DW threads. Maybe it's a failing of the particular systems I've played (or my own imagination), but I can't think of a way to mimic this kind of fight in D&D mechanically. I could do it, but my method of doing so would be to make a bunch of rolls just like that party did - some Int, some Dex, and some Str rolls that may as well be called Discern Realities, Defy Danger, and Hack & Slash.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2015 03:46
|
|