TTRPG Discussion Podcasts: They're Not Even Playing, You Guys

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Traditional Games > TTRPG Discussion Podcasts: They're Not Even Playing, You Guys

«‹›5 »

Siivola: Dec 23, 2012

Those aren�t the same lind of wrong.

# ? Mar 12, 2024 12:33

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Apr 28, 2024 19:28

Sionak: Dec 20, 2005; Mind flay the gap.

CHaKKaWaKka posted:

I'm the same way, sometimes I ignore my initial feelings because I really like the setting but it's usually a mistake. The biggest one that comes to mind is Feng Shui 2nd edition. I thought the setting was cool so I gave it a shot even if the book seemed to be spending a lot of paragraphs justifying certain choices. It turned out that those choices were bad.

One of the things that I only notice when I'm actually running the game is if the book's layout is any good. There's definitely been a few systems where the mechanics were okay but the book was so poorly laid out that looking up anything would grind the game to a halt and make me wish I was playing anything else.

I'm curious what bits didn't work for you in Feng Shui 2. I ran an in person game of FS2 that went well though some rules like reloading ended up pretty annoying. Later I ran some online only games that didn't go smoothly at all.

For me, FS2 was mostly in a place where some rules suggest a really free flowing and cinematic play style but other things like car chase rules were really overly involved.

Back to the broader discussion, I think sometimes it's worth trying out rules that don't seem that important or elegant on the page. My group lights up when given the chance to define Bonds in PbtA games in a way I didn't expect, for instance. But at con games when people don't know each other as well, those mechanics don't sing as much. At least for me, I can only see that when I run the game and see the response, along with which rules are clunky and stop getting used in practice.

For me, clunky rules are ones like a bunch of things in Eclipse Phase (resleeving, multiple metacurrencies, like 8 types of missiles, and so on) or the one round abstracted combat in the Yellow King RPG. That one seemed a little weird on the page but I didn't expect how unintuitive multiple groups found it.

Sionak fucked around with this message at 18:35 on Mar 17, 2024

# ? Mar 17, 2024 18:20

mellonbread: Dec 20, 2017

Sionak posted:

For me, clunky rules are ones like a bunch of things in Eclipse Phase (resleeving, multiple metacurrencies, like 8 types of missiles, and so on) or the one round abstracted combat in the Yellow King RPG. That one seemed a little weird on the page but I didn't expect how unintuitive multiple groups found it.

One round abstracted combat is my holy grail. I can understand disliking it if you want the d20 fantasy paradigm of chipping away at HP with endless rolls to hit, but I personally can't stand that. I always thought the cards would be the roadblock in KiY, since you need a custom deck for every scenario.

The best designed but most unintuitive mechanic I've ever seen is the Lethality system in Delta Green. It's fast and elegant but nobody ever gets it right, the two step process of comparing the percentage rating to the threshold, then taking the sum of the dice as damage if the percentage is above the threshold is too much for them. Even the developers gently caress it up when they stream the game, instinctively converting it to an Unknown Armies 3e style combined roll to hit and damage system.

# ? Mar 18, 2024 03:32

Rick: Feb 23, 2004; When I was 17, my father was so stupid, I didn't want to be seen with him in public. When I was 24, I was amazed at how much the old man had learned in just 7 years.

Fung Shui 2 is one of those games where I've read the book (twice now) but still don't understand how the thing works and it makes me feel bad because it has very fun APs. It just doesn't click in my brain and I don't feel like I could explain it to someone.

# ? Mar 18, 2024 03:49

Sionak: Dec 20, 2005; Mind flay the gap.

I love the idea of one round abstracted combat - it was just hard to full get people's heads around it, in my experience. I only ran the Notre Dame one shot of YKRPG but I think the cards would end up being a bit annoying in a campaign, too. They're in it too hard to improv when you've already got a set to work from, but any new setting would require a lot of up front work. Plus the hand scribbled improv cards are very obvious if anyone involved cares about that.

You are right about lethality - it's such a good idea that tends to get lost or garbled up in practice. I'm not sure why.

The weirdest thing for me in Feng Shui (either edition) is the assumption that all fights should have a bunch of mooks plus mid bosses and then a big boss every so often. Regardless of narration and different fighting environments, I felt like that made fights feel pretty samey pretty quickly. It also made it pretty tricky to whip up an encounter in the fly.

# ? Mar 18, 2024 23:08

CHaKKaWaKka: Aug 6, 2001; I've chosen my next victim. Cry tears of joy it's not you!

Sionak posted:

I'm curious what bits didn't work for you in Feng Shui 2. I ran an in person game of FS2 that went well though some rules like reloading ended up pretty annoying. Later I ran some online only games that didn't go smoothly at all.

For me, FS2 was mostly in a place where some rules suggest a really free flowing and cinematic play style but other things like car chase rules were really overly involved.

It's been a few years but my impression after running a short campaign is that the rules are in direct opposition with the designer's goals. The sub-title of the combat rules chapter is "Fast and furious" but the combat rules are anything but.

This is the simple attack example directly from the book:

quote:

You attempt to blast homicidal arms dealer Simeon Wu with one of his own shotguns.
Your attack, Guns, is rated at 13. His Defense is a 12.
You roll a 4 on your plus die and a 1 on your minus die, for a Swerve of 3.
Adding the Swerve, 3, to your Guns Action Value, 13, gives you a 16.
It meets or beats Simeon�s Defense of 12, so you hit him.
Your Outcome is your result of 16 minus your target of 12, or 4.
Your Outcome of 4 adds to the shotgun�s Damage of 13 to give you a Smackdown of 17.
The GM subtracts Simeon�s Toughness of 6 from the Smackdown, for a Wound Point value of 11.
Simeon goes from 0 Wound Points to 11.

So you're rolling two dice, subtracting one from the other, then adding the difference between your attack result and your opponent's defense to your weapon damage, then subtracting the opponent's toughness from the damage. How is this fast? It's madness.

It's faster when you're hitting mooks because you don't have to calculate damage, but mooks have a Defense of 13, the same as many character Archetypes, so you're going to miss a lot of your attacks. There is a section in the rules that calls this out as being done on purpose and to me it felt like they greatly overestimated how much the average player enjoys whiffing in order to "extend the fight choreography to a satisfying length"

As you pointed out, almost all combat encounter will follow a similar structure and there is very little difference between most enemies. Combined with the weird character advancement, it felt like we were replaying the same fight over and over except different flavor text.

Also, one of my players was initially playing the Gambler and it basically made it impossible for me to score a good hit on any player because he could reverse the result of all the big dice rolls. He didn't have a problem changing to a different archetype when I talked to him about it but it was all very silly.

I'm curious to try out Outgunned, it seems to be going for a similar action movie feel but hopefully it's a bit faster.

# ? Mar 19, 2024 02:30

Parkreiner: Oct 29, 2011

CHaKKaWaKka posted:

So you're rolling two dice, subtracting one from the other, then adding the difference between your attack result and your opponent's defense to your weapon damage, then subtracting the opponent's toughness from the damage. How is this fast? It's madness.

It�s probably fair to say Feng Shui played a lot better in the gaming zeitgeist of 1996. Should they maybe have been bolder with the edition revisions? Probably, but I�m also of the opinion that most of the additional rules added to FS over its lifespan haven�t really been improvements (like the vehicle chase rules somebody called out earlier). I�ve had a lot of fun with FS and might even call it a favorite but it is telling that I haven�t played it in well over a decade and haven�t even read the second edition. Maybe its time is just past.

# ? Mar 19, 2024 14:52

Halloween Jack: Sep 12, 2003; Can't post for 9 hours!

I don't know who's criticizing System Mastery for not playtesting every game they review, but that's so dumb. It sounds like people are just butthurt about them criticizing a game they like. I doubt anybody is really mad that they didn't give some heartbreaker from 1992 a fair shake.

# ? Mar 19, 2024 17:41

Jimbozig: Sep 30, 2003; I like sharing and ice cream and animals.

Knowing what a game plays like from reading the book is kind of like knowing what a piece of music sounds like from reading the sheet music for the various parts. That is to say, it is an expert skill that requires experience. I would expect a trained and experienced composer or conductor to be able to do it, but definitely not a newbie, and maybe not even an experienced musician who only ever played one instrument. (If this is a poo poo analogy, I'm sorry, I know nothing about music!)

I trust System Mastery to have the chops because they've not only reviewed a million games but played a ton, too. I wouldn't trust a newbie. And I wouldn't trust a dude who has only ever played versions of D&D, even if they've been playing since the '70s.

I am developing trust in my own ability to do it, which grows with each game I play, read, and design. I feel like I'm getting there, but still have much to learn. When reading Monster Care Squad, I noticed some things I thought would be issues, and then they were indeed issues when I ran it. (Listen to the system mastery episode on MCS for details, because those guys caught the same issues, too.)

# ? Mar 19, 2024 18:05

Panzeh: Nov 27, 2006; "..The high ground"

I have nothing against System Mastery not playing the stuff they review, it's really the only way to get through all that stuff they dove through a dumpster for. However, it's not really my kind of review- i prefer informed reviews coming from multiple plays and a deep understanding, rather than somebody reading through.

And honestly, if you agree with the System Mastery guys' take on what makes a good TTRPG, i think you'll find the podcast quite good.

# ? Mar 19, 2024 18:55

mellonbread: Dec 20, 2017

Halloween Jack posted:

I don't know who's criticizing System Mastery for not playtesting every game they review

Me.

Halloween Jack posted:

It sounds like people are just butthurt about them criticizing a game they like.

Nah. It's this:

Panzeh posted:

i prefer informed reviews coming from multiple plays and a deep understanding, rather than somebody reading through.

# ? Mar 19, 2024 19:43

Panzeh: Nov 27, 2006; "..The high ground"

mellonbread posted:

One round abstracted combat is my holy grail. I can understand disliking it if you want the d20 fantasy paradigm of chipping away at HP with endless rolls to hit, but I personally can't stand that. I always thought the cards would be the roadblock in KiY, since you need a custom deck for every scenario.

The best designed but most unintuitive mechanic I've ever seen is the Lethality system in Delta Green. It's fast and elegant but nobody ever gets it right, the two step process of comparing the percentage rating to the threshold, then taking the sum of the dice as damage if the percentage is above the threshold is too much for them. Even the developers gently caress it up when they stream the game, instinctively converting it to an Unknown Armies 3e style combined roll to hit and damage system.

Oh, of note about one round abstracted combat, that's exactly how hex and counter wargames usually do it- you come up with the appropro modifiers, use odds to get your table, and a roll spits out a complicated-sounding result like 1r D 3/1!- having your combat be one roll is important when you're doing a bunch of them in a turn.

# ? Mar 19, 2024 19:50

Halloween Jack: Sep 12, 2003; Can't post for 9 hours!

Are there any podcasts that review tabletop games, meet your standards, and release more than, I don't know, 3 episodes per year?

# ? Mar 19, 2024 19:51

mellonbread: Dec 20, 2017

Halloween Jack posted:

Are there any podcasts that review tabletop games, meet your standards, and release more than, I don't know, 3 episodes per year?

Absolutely. The RPPR non actual-play show is my gold standard for discussion of games that the hosts have actually played. I can't recommend it highly enough.

# ? Mar 19, 2024 19:53

mellonbread: Dec 20, 2017

Panzeh posted:

Oh, of note about one round abstracted combat, that's exactly how hex and counter wargames usually do it- you come up with the appropro modifiers, use odds to get your table, and a roll spits out a complicated-sounding result like 1r D 3/1!- having your combat be one roll is important when you're doing a bunch of them in a turn.

Yeah it's a common paradigm in wargames, and it works there because you're controlling a whole army of units. Same reason JRPG style combat works in a party based RPG, where you're controlling everyone in the group.

I think the challenge is making that paradigm work when you only control a single playing piece - how do you give each player a decision more interesting than "contribute +1 to the group's chance of victory by virtue of your presence"?

# ? Mar 19, 2024 20:00

Halloween Jack: Sep 12, 2003; Can't post for 9 hours!

mellonbread posted:

Absolutely. The RPPR non actual-play show is my gold standard for discussion of games that the hosts have actually played. I can't recommend it highly enough.

From what I know of RPPR that's an apples to oranges comparison. Because they typically devote episodes to concepts or methods, like "How to establish the tone of a campaign" or "the importance of gear in RPGs." I listened to a couple episodes like that, a long time ago, and lost interest because discussion of the topic quickly broke down into "Hey remember that time we..." instead of really discussing the topic. That's without considering the episodes that are interviews with designers, or postmortems of actual play, or when they go to GenCon and record everything they do there. Eh, none of that appeals to me.

# ? Mar 19, 2024 20:09

The Lord of Hats: Aug 22, 2010; Hello, yes! Is being very good day for posting, no?

Jimbozig posted:

Knowing what a game plays like from reading the book is kind of like knowing what a piece of music sounds like from reading the sheet music for the various parts. That is to say, it is an expert skill that requires experience. I would expect a trained and experienced composer or conductor to be able to do it, but definitely not a newbie, and maybe not even an experienced musician who only ever played one instrument. (If this is a poo poo analogy, I'm sorry, I know nothing about music!)

I agree with this. I think part of that is that there's common pitfalls that System Mastery is particularly good at noticing (such as "While examples of play are written as if they were discussing low-level characters, they're actually using significantly higher numbers than those characters would have, because the actual numbers are hosed and new characters can't do anything), and they can pretty easily shorthand those and focus on examining the more distinct parts of the game (if there are any).

I feel like if you were able to run some sort of experiment where SM and Hypothetical-Play-The-Games-Out Podcast all cover the same games, they'd probably agree more often than not.

# ? Mar 19, 2024 20:15

Halloween Jack: Sep 12, 2003; Can't post for 9 hours!

I think it's valid to review a game as both a book and a game. I love playing Marvel Heroic Roleplaying; reading the book made me violently angry.

# ? Mar 19, 2024 20:26

Dr. Quarex: Apr 18, 2003; I'M A BIG DORK WHO POSTS TOO MUCH ABOUT CONVENTIONS LOOK AT THIS

TOVA TOVA TOVA

The Lord of Hats posted:

I feel like if you were able to run some sort of experiment where SM and Hypothetical-Play-The-Games-Out Podcast all cover the same games, they'd probably agree more often than not.

Welcome to the first episode of Quarex Sorts This Out where I compare System Mastery's to Hypothetical Play the Games Out's coverage of

# ? Mar 19, 2024 21:40

mellonbread: Dec 20, 2017

The Lord of Hats posted:

I feel like if you were able to run some sort of experiment where SM and Hypothetical-Play-The-Games-Out Podcast all cover the same games, they'd probably agree more often than not.

That's a cool idea. I bet there are some comparisons we could run just with what's already out there. Shut Up/Sit Down has a text review of Unknown Armies 3e on their website, but the System Mastery review is an older edition and they're completely different games. Seth Skorkowsky has reviewed a lot of Kult but only for the latest edition, which is not the one System Mastery Reviewed either.

# ? Mar 19, 2024 21:41

theironjef: Aug 11, 2009; The archmage of unexpected stinks.

When possible I generally try to go with the oldest editions I can find, just because that's sort of the brand.

We're currently in the initial stages of getting an actual AP going (we've done them in the past, but this time we're doing well enough these days to actually pay the players and stuff), and the current plan is to do it in Rifts, using the Savage Rifts system, because we're a pair of old-school Palladium knuckleheads and as far as I know no one is currently running a Rifts AP at a popularity level you'd notice.

# ? Mar 20, 2024 18:24

Golden Bee: Dec 24, 2009; I came here to chew bubblegum and quote 'They Live', and I'm... at an impasse.

CHaKKaWaKka posted:

Feng:
So you're rolling two dice, subtracting one from the other, then adding the difference between your attack result and your opponent's defense to your weapon damage, then subtracting the opponent's toughness from the damage. How is this fast? It's madness.

This works really really well through virtual table top, because all these rolls happen instantly and you get a computed result. as a result, we had a good campaign on roll20�I can�t imagine doing it at the table.

# ? Mar 20, 2024 21:40

CHaKKaWaKka: Aug 6, 2001; I've chosen my next victim. Cry tears of joy it's not you!

Golden Bee posted:

This works really really well through virtual table top, because all these rolls happen instantly and you get a computed result. as a result, we had a good campaign on roll20�I can�t imagine doing it at the table.

Yeah I think if I had run it over VTT I probably wouldn't have noticed how cumbersome the attack roll was. I can see Feng Shui being fun to run over VTT, I printed a sheet of mook attacks as suggested and that actually worked pretty well, but being able to instantly roll 10 attacks at once would have been better.

# ? Mar 21, 2024 02:18

Ragnar34: Oct 10, 2007; Lipstick Apathy

Playing a game before you review it makes you a biased source, actually.

# ? Apr 13, 2024 00:55

theironjef: Aug 11, 2009; The archmage of unexpected stinks.

Definitely if you want to review this one you have to buy it and play with it, them's the breaks, I don't make the rules.

It's a monster manual style book but the gimmick, well it should be pretty self evident from the second picture. 125,000 possible monster combinations.

# ? Apr 14, 2024 01:36

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Apr 28, 2024 19:28

Lambo Trillrissian: May 18, 2007

theironjef posted:

Definitely if you want to review this one you have to buy it and play with it, them's the breaks, I don't make the rules.

It's a monster manual style book but the gimmick, well it should be pretty self evident from the second picture. 125,000 possible monster combinations.

that's extremely cool but also CLEAN YOUR FINGERNAILS

# ? Apr 14, 2024 02:18

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Traditional Games > TTRPG Discussion Podcasts: They're Not Even Playing, You Guys

«‹›5 »