Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us money per month for bills, and since we don't believe in showing ads to our users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
 
  • Post
  • Reply
jakodee
Mar 4, 2019


Bieeanshee posted:

AW reminded me of the trashy post-apocalyptic lit I read as a kid, stuff like Deathlands, loaded with goofy mutants and occasional bits of superscience. Sex was definitely a consideration in those sorts of pulps.

MH... I appreciate that it exists, and I don't think it's a bad game, it's just one of the absolute last games I'd ever play. Absolutely not my jam.

And I really wish they'd called them 'intimacy moves' in the first place, because my very first brush with AW was something about sex moves that made me write the whole thing off for ages.

In Apocalypse World they were never actually called "sex moves", they are called "specials". People just call them sex moves online when they talk about the game because it's a more striking name.

TheNamedSavior posted:

I get a feeling that a game set after the end of the world would have a big focus on people trying to reproduce or just make love to desperately enjoy life.

What assumed setting there exists in the game is more like a unstable, resources scarce ruin than a place overly concerned with the world ending again (it already did) or tight population regulation. Making more people just means more mouths to feed and more people to fight over limited resources in a game all about a zero sum situation.

Edit: Also Monster Hearts is precisely engineered to be unappealing to Goons, being entirely centered around the three nightmares of all Goons: High School, Sexuality, and Malicious Teens.

jakodee fucked around with this message at 04:18 on Oct 30, 2019

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

jakodee
Mar 4, 2019


...Could you please tell me there was secretly a Good 40k rpg all along? I don't care if it is true, I just need to believe.

jakodee
Mar 4, 2019


PurpleXVI posted:

I still don't get what made putting "sex moves" in any game, ever, seem like a good idea.

...making a game in which who is having sex with who is important and relevant to the game? Like Monster Hearts for example?

jakodee
Mar 4, 2019


PurpleXVI posted:

I'm gonna posit here, that the only way in which sex matters to a story is how it influences relationships, so the actual sex part can be neatly excised and replaced with intimacy.

Second, I'm gonna posit that boiling the relationships in a story down to numbers and stats just cheapens their impact and how they matter to the story, because now they're a mechanic you move around to unlock a result or benefit, rather than something that actually has some heart behind it.

So from where I'm sitting it's a bad idea on any level, especially the one where it increases the possibility that anyone around the table might try to drag us into a sex scene.

The sex moves ARE about the characterís relationships and emotions. What, do you think the game has you roll for schlong size? And sex and sexuality is very specifically different form other forms of intimacy in both the minds of actual teenagers and the paranormal romance source material.

I donít think I should have to explain in a thread about rpg reviews why itís important for an rpg to mechanize itís core game focus.

The game itself clearly isnít your problem, especially since itís very clear about safety and being sure all the players are comfortable with the material. You just donít want to play the game based on its premise, and thatís totally fine.

Edit: If your GM or players want to show you their magical realm, the problem is that you are playing with assholes you should stop talking to.

jakodee fucked around with this message at 17:58 on Oct 30, 2019

jakodee
Mar 4, 2019


The only skin I remember from Second Skins is the Wyrm. So far Iím thinking thatís because all of the other skins are kind of ???. I guess most of the good material was taken

jakodee
Mar 4, 2019


Halloween Jack posted:

I'm not comfortable with these attempts to humanize the ruling class. You're going to have to boot them down a mine shaft anyway; why make it harder on yourself?

He isnít making them sympathetic, heís making them evil, lovely people you should throw down a mine shaft, like actually colonialists rather than evil magic robots.

jakodee fucked around with this message at 18:14 on Nov 26, 2019

jakodee
Mar 4, 2019


PurpleXVI posted:

If you wanted to adapt the same sort of gameplay depth as you can get in strategic/tactical combat. Supply lines, positioning, status effects, different types of weaponry... to social or intellectual interactions. You'd either need to abstract it so much that it would no longer bear any resemblance to that original social interaction, or you'd need to melt it down into such easily-interchangable pieces that instead of the level 10 wizard yelling "I CAST MAGIC MISSILE!" you get the level 10 philosopher yelling "I PROCLAIM LOGICAL FALLACY FOR 5D6 INTELLECT POINTS."

I think you might be the person he was talking about, the one who likes D&D because it matches how you understand the world.

Dungeons and Dragons in absolutely no way reflects the actual nature of violence or how people use it to accomplish their goals in anyway. Iíd argue the D&D combat engine is probably LESS realistic than ďsocial hitpointsĒ.

jakodee
Mar 4, 2019


Meinberg posted:

D&D is, by my understanding, a relatively decent understanding of ship-to-ship naval combat.

As for the ubiquity of violence as a tool of conflict resolution, I think itís a combination of D&Dís prominence and the general ouvre of violence in nerd media. Non action stuff is typically presented as indie or prestige media, but even then there is a tendency on violence, if only as a reflection of the darkness of the human condition.

It kinda accurately reflects two knights in full suits of plate armor trying to kill each other with swords, so long as neither knight ever gains more than their first level of hitpoints.

jakodee
Mar 4, 2019


Gun Jam posted:

About the HP debate - Y'know, a high level ranger follow a mouse's 3 days old trail, and shoot a sparrow from 200 meters. A rogue can rob fort knox at a brisk walking pace, without anybody noticing.
Even the fighter should be able to butt head with giants, and win.
So... Isn't an appropriate answer to "that damage could have killed a rhino - how you are not dead?" is that yes, you are just that tough, you tanked it with your face, and stopped being "just a normal human" a long time ago?


I would love to play an edition of Dungeons and Dragons in which those things were true and also applied outside of those incredibly narrow constraints.

Alas.

PurpleXVI posted:


Welcome to an age-old debate, it usually has three answers.

#1: "It's a game, stop thinking about it."

#2: "Not every hit point is a bleeding, gashing wound, sometimes it's a near-miss, a bruise or just plain exhaustion."

#3: "Ah, yes, a valid point, allow me to show you my homemade supplement that completely dispenses with HP, tracks character blood by the drop, has over 500 discrete hit locations, a new critical hit chart and- wait, where are you going? I haven't even shown you my homemade d35 you need to roll on subtable 89D yet!"

The 4th answer, an unspeakable heresy of immense power:

Play a better game.

Edit: Or buy the IP and give 6e a different or better system.

jakodee fucked around with this message at 03:10 on Nov 29, 2019

jakodee
Mar 4, 2019


IshmaelZarkov posted:

The last time I ran 5E*, I didn't allow anyone to play casters, and reduced hit points gained per level to +Con Modifier (min. 0). It made the game surprisingly fun. I'd recommend it to everyone forced to play D&D.



*Because the choice between "Play a game you enjoy" and "Play the only game your friends have interest in playing" never gets loving old.

Prevent this choice by never introducing your friends to role playing with D&D. This means they will HAVE to learn a second system to play D&D and thus not be afraid of new games.

jakodee
Mar 4, 2019


EthanSteele posted:

Burning Wheel uses similar systems for In-depth Social Stuff (Duel of Wits) and In-depth Sword Time (Fight!) as well as one roll and opposed roll versions of both. When played properly doing the argument as the character would and being relatively strict about what Persuasion can do versus saying that no, the argument you just worded was definitely Rhetoric so people don't just do Point Point Point with Persuasion every volley (which is easily countered) it really shines. The character with the better skills will usually win, but it's extremely rare to get a full blowout so that one side gets absolutely nothing from the exchange.

The fact that Burning Wheel managed to find a system for both sword fights and debates that feel like sword fights and debates specifically is really rad.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

jakodee
Mar 4, 2019


a computing pun posted:

and to my knowledge literally every game that has ever tried to provide simulationist mechanical backing that's specific to social conflict has either made something that feels nothing like actual social conflict does (i.,e, fails at simulation) and is also lovely to play.

As mentioned, I think Burning Wheel does this.

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • Post
  • Reply