Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it,
follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given
their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!
Posts
1) Nerfing Wizards. The primary difference between Wizards and Fighters is the presence of powerful AOE attacks.
2) Giving Fighters some kind of combat maneuver that lets them move and attack multiple things in a single turn.
I also don't really care. DCC RPG is supposed to be in sometime this week, and as previously stated, all fucks will ceased to be given.
Basically this. I feel better now that Monte is gone and Mearle's articles are more focused on balance across the class. His description of the elf cleric of Apollo charged me up a bit. The idea of a cleric following his god/dess's ethos rather than just hitting things with thier favored weapon is pretty cool. But I don't want to see the "Decker" problem in D&D and that design philosophy of combat/roleplay/exploration concerns me. All characters should be able to contribute all the time if they so desire.
Nadine Seksuel, Human Swashbuckler - Wyvern Watch DW
GM of [Deadlands: Reloaded] Coffin Rock
This is a philosophy I disagree with. Well, maybe.
I think part of the point of having classes is so that you have specialization. More importantly, that specialization should be more or less useful depending on the situation. Clerics should be charismatic, Barbarians should be better at burst damage, Rogues picking locks, setting/disarming traps etc.
Maybe you're not saying this at all though.
My philosophy is I think what Mikey is getting at.
Some characters should always shine, all characters should always be involved.
People are setting aside a day to play this so it is my duty to keep them engaged the entire time.
So you have combat, everyone is in it and some are focused on it maybe. That is fine.
Social encounters? Likely one character is the mouth, but if this is going to be any significant amount of time then there needs to be things for everyone to do to help out.
The Decker problem is the best example of the problem at its worst: one player is focused on for a potentially extended amount of time of the session, and is doing things that every other character cannot assist or even witness. The players just hang around. It is more like playing two games and switching between them, it is grating and annoying for pretty much everyone.
(When I ran SR3 games, I often would do the decking stuff 1 on 1 outside the sessions proper.)
The PhalLounge :: Chat board for Phalla discussion and Secret Santas :: PhallAX 2013
Critical Failures IRC! :: #CriticalFailures and #mafia on irc.slashnet.org
You're right, that's not what I'm saying. Let's examine your master diplomat scene for a moment...
Let's give it the generic party setup - a cleric, a fighter, a wizard, and a rogue.
Our cleric is in the middle of careful negotiations with the corrupt lord of small city-state during court. The wizard is assisting by providing historical references to frame the clerics arguments. The fighter is in the corner intimidating a member of court into influencing the lord's decision. Meanwhile, the rogue has managed to sneak into the lord's chambers to hunt for blackmail material.
All the characters are assisting in completing the goal of the scene in their own unique way. They are all contributing but they are not all attempting the same task. This is what I mean.
Nadine Seksuel, Human Swashbuckler - Wyvern Watch DW
GM of [Deadlands: Reloaded] Coffin Rock
The PhalLounge :: Chat board for Phalla discussion and Secret Santas :: PhallAX 2013
Critical Failures IRC! :: #CriticalFailures and #mafia on irc.slashnet.org
Yeah, I have known games where it was literally okay decking time, everyone else go get dinner.
The biggest success in mitigating this while making a Decker character not-useless was co-GMing.
Have a larger game and two GMs. A friend ran the combat/security encounters while I ran the decking and tech side, it went simultaneously as the theme intends and it was pretty baller.
But that is hard to come by. Still, awesome.
The PhalLounge :: Chat board for Phalla discussion and Secret Santas :: PhallAX 2013
Critical Failures IRC! :: #CriticalFailures and #mafia on irc.slashnet.org
Here's the particularly relevant part, underlined for emphasis.
SoogaGames Blog
This is part of the fun and challenge in running Burning Wheel for me. I can't plan for it. I filled in a few details, crafted some NPCs, and planned one scene. The six hours that we played was all done on the fly afterwards, and the immediate situation wasn't even the one I planned, though we eventually got to it. It's really, a very different type of game and has changed how I want to approach all of my games.
The problem is that Pathfinder and 3.whatever don't work quite as well for that, in my experience. There's so much math to the game that running it on the fly makes it very difficult to do something like improvise a dungeon crawl.
It ended up being my best puzzle ever. The illusion of YES EVERYTHING FITS NOW for the players, and the journey through it, was perfect.
I don't really know how that happened. :rotate:
The PhalLounge :: Chat board for Phalla discussion and Secret Santas :: PhallAX 2013
Critical Failures IRC! :: #CriticalFailures and #mafia on irc.slashnet.org
I've only pulled this off a few times myself. When it works though, the players minds = blown.
These fuckers want to play every goddamn week for 3-4 hours and I have to have encounters prepared for them to play. Now if you playing with a looser rules framework, like Savage Worlds or Burning Wheel or whatever, then yeah this is probably an awesome way to run your games. Me and my players play Dungeons & Dragons 4e though, and I only have about enough time every week to plan three or four encounters.
"Non-linear" structures require much more planning and in the end provide the exact same experience. Cause even if you go through all this trouble to create an open world or "sandbox" style environment for the players to explore, guess what? The players still experience this sandbox world you've created in a linear fashion. And the players may never experience some or even most of all that material you prepared ahead of time. It's an open world after all... they might decide "I know that crone back in town told us to explore that tower, but fuck that. " They then decide to head to the next town to the east, which you may or may not have prepared. Then no one has a good time, including you. Also, fuck him table-top game accomplish better than video games. He obviously has never played any Rock Star or Elder Scrolls game. I cannot compete with goddamn Skyrim.
A linear story structure allows me to only create what I need for the next game session. It also makes it easier to adapt to what the players do. Now I do everything I can to make sure they don't feel railroaded. Multiple areas for them to explore, their actions affect things back in town, etc.. If they want to deviate from what I prepared then I can come up with something on the fly without much effort.
TL;DR Cute idea just too bad real life makes it implausible and also not any more or less rewarding than typical "linear" storylines. Oh, and the author should be less of a prick about it. The smugness and condescension in that article left an aweful taste in my mouth.
Nadine Seksuel, Human Swashbuckler - Wyvern Watch DW
GM of [Deadlands: Reloaded] Coffin Rock
When it comes to prep-time the big difference is in how you use the material you prepare. I'm running a semi-regular game at the moment and after about six sessions I haven't really had to do any more prep after the initial dungeon design, nearby settlement summary and some encounter tables for the wilderness in between. I sat down at the start of the campaign and did all of this in a few hours in the knowledge that the adventurers wouldn't completely explore the dozen or so labyrinthine dungeon levels in a handful of sessions.
Of course, there's a point where you have to lift up the curtain throw the group a clue. If they say "well we aren't going to that dungeon, we're going to head South until we find somewhere new" I'm going to straight-up tell them that all my prep is based around this region and if they wander away from it then may the encounter tables and dungeon generators have mercy on their souls. For me non-linearity is about how you interact with the world and solve problems rather than being able to turn about and wander off map on a whim. You can do that but I wouldn't really want to play with someone that would do that to a GM that's put work into preparing for a certain area.
With regards to competing with CRPGs, if you can't compete with them then why are you playing tabletop games at all? Skyrim may be non-linear for a videogame but you're still limited to what the game says you can do.
SoogaGames Blog
The language he uses makes it sound like they're talking about very straight up styles of fighting. I punch you, you punch me, I'll win this fight eventually. Other melee classes will, I assume, have a bunch of maneuvering/healing/buffing stuff to compensate for not being as cool, popular, handsome, and good with the ladies as a fighter. That's all conjecture of course, but I'd like to see similar write ups for the rogue and barbarian to see how they plan on differentiating them.
I'm fairly open with my players about how I'm crafting the world and the story on the fly, and how much freedom they have. Once I had to say "No, just no". Several times I said "You could, but it would take more time and effort than is worth it" and several times the players took ownership of the story and advanced it in a method besides "I am awesome and solve all the problems".
Total prep time? About 30min before each session. Of course, there is no way I could have done a traditional dungeon crawl in this method. And perhaps there are players out there whose game play is ruined if they see the man behind the curtain.
TL;DR - Liner or non-liner is an aspect of your game. It works for me. If it doesn't work for you, then ok, cool. But don't hate because it works for someone else.
Roleplaying games are a social experience. Through all the joking, spilled sodas, and dice rolling we create a unique, collaborative narrative no one else will experience. Some of them can be quite memorable and even epic in nature. Now that is an experience no video game, whether it is Skyrim or the Massive Multiplayer variety, can deliver. It is simply more intimate than any video game can ever compete with.
I remember playing and enjoying Skyrim but I don't remember any individual moments from it. It's mostly now an amphorous experience in my brain. I still remember my D&D first character, Cecilia. An elf wizard who accidentally set herself on fire with her own flaming sphere during my very first adventure. I was hooked from that moment. That is why I play tabletop game. Why do you play them?
Nadine Seksuel, Human Swashbuckler - Wyvern Watch DW
GM of [Deadlands: Reloaded] Coffin Rock
In a tabletop RPG a player getting set on fire means they need to think of a way to extinguish it fast. Do you cast off your clothes and have to explain your nudity to everyone you pass by until the next settlement? Do you leap into the fast-flowing river and risk getting swept away or drained by a giant leech? Do you run into a nearby tavern for aid and risk burning the place to the ground?
There's a joy in that potentially limitless choice and seeing the impact it has on the world that I don't get with even the deepest CRPGs. There's no walkthrough to a GM-designed dungeon and if the GM's running things the way I do he doesn't even know the best solution himself.
SoogaGames Blog
Ooh, glad I'm not the only one who's looking forward to that.
COME FORTH, AMATERASU!
My intent was to hate on the author of that article and explain why "non-linear structure" may not be practical for rules heavier games like Dungeons & Dragons. He did describe other methods of DMing as "giving bj's under the table" and was just as unnecessarily rude throughout the whole article.
If you can pull that off with D&D, more power to you. I need more structure than that. I'm not here to tell you that you're playing your fantasy elves wrong.
Nadine Seksuel, Human Swashbuckler - Wyvern Watch DW
GM of [Deadlands: Reloaded] Coffin Rock
Or, you know, you could stop-drop-and-roll.
I don't think we're describing anything really that different, just from different perspectives. Which is pretty cool.
Nadine Seksuel, Human Swashbuckler - Wyvern Watch DW
GM of [Deadlands: Reloaded] Coffin Rock
Linear games tend to go in a few directions largely determined by what the GM has planned.
Non-linear games go in a million directions largely determined on what the party feels like doing.
I also feel that D&D is a bad system for non-linear play. which makes the prep work for that kind of game daunting unless you're a fucking rules Wizard.
You misunderstood what I was saying. There may not have anything planned and you might just be making it up on the fly. Players are still going to experience those infinite possibilities as a linear progression of events. They may have infinite choices and can do whatever they want but when you're packing up dice at the end of the night they still occurred as a sequence of events. From A to B to C.
I don't think it's "linear" or "non-linear", you need both to create a rich experience. D&D just forces you to move from one to the other quicker.
Anyway, we're way off topic. How about that fifth edition? When should we see the notes on rogues?
Nadine Seksuel, Human Swashbuckler - Wyvern Watch DW
GM of [Deadlands: Reloaded] Coffin Rock
Sounds about right to me!
Oh, and concerning D&D being bad for non-linear play, I can see that argument for 4e but if we're talking B/X or even OD&D it's pretty straightforward and seems to be designed with that type of play in mind (a focus on sites rather than plots, large scale hex maps, random encounter tables etc.)
SoogaGames Blog
I agree about Pathfinder / 3.x. However I have found that 4e works well for making up stuff on the fly. I've run several sessions like that.
For example, when I ran Keep on the Shadowfell the party decided to go check out a ruined monastery they passed on the way. Ended up being the whole first session and I had absolutely nothing on paper for the place. Ended up making up the floorplan as I went and pulling undeaddy looking monsters from the MM as needed. Had 3 encounters and a couple traps.
I can't speak to 4e as I haven't played it. From reading the PHB, the system seems to suffer from a lack of flavor (ie little difference between a spell and a daily power from another class) in exchange for the ease of building encounters.
Secret Satans! Post | D&D Wishlist | General Wishlist
Not true. Flavor is just as easily imparted by the feel of a system. The Fight! mechanic of Burning Wheel absolutely feels like a battle because of how the mechanics play out.
The combat in D&D does not because of how flat the system is in comparison.
In the most recent adventure, the PCs ended up accidentally preventing the cannibal half-elves from attacking them in their sleep, and instead got their help in finding the dragon they were trying to save the eggs of. Often, I won't even know what kind of encounter map to prepare, so I just jot down some ideas of what sort of terrain might be around, and then let the encounter dictate what happens.
With zero planning except "this is an ice burg with lots of frozen monsters inside" I decided that the last major encounter had a pair of frozen giant abominations. When a PC injured an enemy, I got a bright idea and drew in a blood trickle toward the nearest abomination. During the fight, the dragonborn let loose with lightning breath, and I decided that if he rolled high on his damage, it would melt the ice - it did, and I threw out a miniature of a random small abomination which, after some dice rolls, ended attacking one of the enemies. The blood on the ice eventually made its way to the abomination, which woke up and popped some tentacles out of the ice, which did hilarious things to PCs and enemies alike.
That said, I've been practicing at this sort of thing for a long time, and nobody should be expected to be able to pull that much out of their ass at the table.
That's how I like my mechanics. Give me a system for establishing challenge and task resolution and get out of the way of my imagination.
Secret Satans! Post | D&D Wishlist | General Wishlist
Absolutely it's true, and whether or not something feels like a battle is entirely dependent on you buying into whether or not it's a battle, fluff wise, not mechanics wise. Flavor is entirely something that comes from a setting, or the players interacting with the world, or a number of other things, but nothing to do with the mechanics, unless you are lying to yourself. A fight feeling like a fight is not flavor, that's just well made mechanics (or at least, not terribly made mechanics) and someone having the ability to link those mechanics to some desired perception. The perception itself might be flavorful, but it stands entirely apart as a separate entity from the mechanics.
Characters in Burning Wheel have a stat called Steel. These are the raw nerves of your character. You test it every time you encounter pain, surprise, fear, or wonderment. For example, if you are struck and wounded by a blow, you make a Steel test. If you fail you hesitate for the number of actions equal to your margin of failure.
There is no magical healing in the game. Taking a severe wound is going to effect your character for months and require the skills of a physician.
These two examples make combat haven a very different flavor than the kind encountered in D&D. A single blow has the potential to absolutely maim your character, which makes any sort of physical altercation have a heightened sense of risk. That's flavor.
In D&D, you expect to kill a lot of shit. A single combat always has the potential to be lethal, but there is a pulp element to adventuring. You will fight often. You will take several wounds in the course of an adventure, but nothing the Cleric can't fix. That's flavor.
These are both examples of the mechanics informing the flavor of a game.
Dungeon Crawl Classics sets the tone right at character creation. The only choice a player gets to make about the characters they roll is their name. Everything else is assigned randomly at level 0. Only when you've braved and survived your first dungeon do you get to choose a proper class. This is mechanics-derived flavor.
This just seems like common sense. The mechanics of a game are going to imply certain things about the imagined world, and those implications are flavor.
We seem to mostly be in agreement. The one point of contention I have is that you think you can separate them completely. I don't think you can. If magic exists, and there are mechanics for it, some of the flavor of that magic is going to be decided by how casting a spell is resolved.
Example: is there a risk of failure beyond not succeeding? If the answer is yes, this creates an element of fear and unpredictability depending on how severe the penalties for a failed casting are. In D&D, your spell might hit the wrong target, or it might go off at the wrong time. In Burning Wheel, you might summon a greater demon. In DCC RPG, you might accidentally polymorph your friend.