The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules document is now in effect.
Just between you and me I...think I had a little too much of the wine.
BUT THE WOMEN DIDN'T COMPLAIN.
*Ahem* Anyway.
Let us discuss all manner of tabletop RPGs (and paraphernalia) in this thread. What you play, new stuff you've heard, resources, minis, dungeon tiles, online-play clients, and so forth.
Maybe you're creating a system and you want to bounce ideas off the fine folks here. Maybe you're looking for something new to play. Or maybe you just want to bitch about the latest dumbass in your party/totally unfair DM you have to deal with.
I'm kinda interested in hearing someone talk about Dr. Mr. Stark's Pokemon P&P game vs. Mine. I believe that his is kinda odd. The conversation in question is here. I'm just curious. Also, I hope that we can keep him from using my thread to get feedback for his game. I'm waiting to focus on my P&P game with that thread. (Now reread that without me sounding like I'm being a crybaby.)
samurai6966 on
0
simonwolfi can feel a differencetoday, a differenceRegistered Userregular
So creating a system is like a lot more work than I anticipated at first. It's like walking up a hill, expecting to reach the top any time, but every step you take brings more hill into view. And the incline is sharpening with my fatigue.
I asked this in AC, but what do you guys think bout a race of Cecaelia? The idea was originally brought up in the context of a D&D 3.5 player created monster-race. I was willing to accept that they could breathe air, but I'm not so sure how successful they'd be at overland travel.
Personally I think the idea of a multi-armed character is interesting, and it would provide some fairly decent spice, mechanically speaking.
I'm kinda interested in hearing someone talk about Dr. Mr. Stark's Pokemon P&P game vs. Mine. I believe that his is kinda odd. The conversation in question is here. I'm just curious. Also, I hope that we can keep him from using my thread to get feedback for his game. I'm waiting to focus on my P&P game with that thread. (Now reread that without me sounding like I'm being a crybaby.)
I read the thread, and I think he threadjacked you in an ill-mannered way. It started on shaky ground, and then simply got worse. Ugly and worse.
I'm kinda interested in hearing someone talk about Dr. Mr. Stark's Pokemon P&P game vs. Mine. I believe that his is kinda odd. The conversation in question is here. I'm just curious. Also, I hope that we can keep him from using my thread to get feedback for his game. I'm waiting to focus on my P&P game with that thread. (Now reread that without me sounding like I'm being a crybaby.)
I read the thread, and I think he threadjacked you in an ill-mannered way. It started on shaky ground, and then simply got worse. Ugly and worse.
That's what I'm saying. He wants US to tell him what he should do for his game when the thread is about my game. If he post again, I'm going to politely tell him to fuck off.
If you've got a problem with the way someone in your thread is behaving, I'd suggest contacting a moderator. Telling him to fuck off is probably a bad idea.
At the risk of looking incredibly transparent, I'm going to try to bounce a few ideas off of people here from time to time.
What has been your chief complaint with most systems you play? Or I guess your most common complaint? What about your favorite system?
I ask because I'm designing a system, and I've noted recently that my design approach essentially boils down to "find a problem, fix it in an interesting way."
Personally, I hate how slow combat flows in a typical game. I'd post what I have down so far here to rectify that, but it's still just a framework and I'm honestly not sure I feel comfortable sharing it at this stage of development.
That's probably stupid, but I'm kind of stupid that way.
DirtyDirtyVagrant on
0
Mojo_JojoWe are only now beginning to understand the full power and ramifications of sexual intercourseRegistered Userregular
edited February 2010
Things that are good in combat: Stunts and Challenges from Iron Heroes
Problems with this: Nobody ever uses stunts
Solution: Combat based entirely on stunts?
This has actually been done before (in FUDGE? FATE? I always get those confused) but given that nobody has actually played either of those systems, nobody knows how well it works.
Other than that I'm running two D&D games. One 4e and one 3.5e. It is amazingly difficult to run two editions of one system at the same time. Both have a few lovely features and a few real ball-aches, but sadly, it's not possible to collect together the lovely bits (like putting minions in 3.5e).
And Ptolus, I remembered this setting recently. It's pretty great. A D&D setting that actually works with the rules. It's great. And it has guns. Everybody likes guns.
Mojo_Jojo on
Homogeneous distribution of your varieties of amuse-gueule
Has anyone ever seen a sub linear growth pattern in a tabletop game? I'm curious.
e: Also, on average, how many sessions do your campaigns usually last? I'm having some trouble deciding how severe my growth curve should actually be. My campaigns tend to die early because of dumb players.
ee: Not that the group dies, mind you. They just end up quitting because one of them wouldn't pass the cheetos or some dumb shit. Last time people quit it was because of an argument about ninjas. Seriously.
The player community out here is not exactly robust.
By sub-linear, do you mean a reversed growth curve? Like, one that gets easier as you go along? It's a cool idea, I just don't know entirely how it would work. Maybe I'm misinterpreting you?
I mean one that gets less significant as you go along. Like every point of strength means less and less as it gets higher and higher. A theoretical ceiling, if you will.
D&D uses a super-linear pattern with such things as their carrying capacity (beyond 20 strength, every ten points increases the load by an order of magnitude). At the same time, however (and I find this particularly curious) the modifiers and bonuses are true-linear - they increase at a steady increment, never deviating.
With most systems the power level of each gained point increases, or increases by an order of magnitude with each set number of points.
I think you actually get sub-linear returns from a true-linear system - the improvement from carrying 20 pounds as a light load to carrying 40 pounds is immense, but the difference between carrying 300 pounds and carrying 320 pounds is almost insignificant. In that sense, each additional point nets you much less of an overall increase.
Which, of course, is why Strength is given an exponential curve - so that the sense-of-progress remains steady, rather than steadily decreasing.
I think one of the major hooks of an RPG is sense-of-progress; this is what makes an MMO work at all, in the absence of personal plot. This is why sub-linear returns aren't used: they're simply progressively less rewarding. A hard cap on advancement is greatly preferable to the endless, almost-but-not-quite pointless grind at the end of sub-linear returns.
Hm. I never thought of it like that. Which is weird because it makes a staggering amount of sense. I'm going to try linear growth. See how it looks on paper.
Has anyone ever seen a sub linear growth pattern in a tabletop game? I'm curious.
e: Also, on average, how many sessions do your campaigns usually last? I'm having some trouble deciding how severe my growth curve should actually be. My campaigns tend to die early because of dumb players.
ee: Not that the group dies, mind you. They just end up quitting because one of them wouldn't pass the cheetos or some dumb shit. Last time people quit it was because of an argument about ninjas. Seriously.
The player community out here is not exactly robust.
Usually we had a long running series that went 2 for sessions, then noone would be able to play for 4 weeks, and then a new game would get started with someone else dm'ing a new game, and repeat this about 4-5 times. Now were just stubborn and played maybe into almost 4th level on a campaign from october-dec, and just starting back up this last saturday. the other campaign we play on offweeks has become the same, and were on maybe our 4-6th night playing over the past 4-5 months. We are all pretty close friends so I dont think we would break up based on arguements on something, I think we would settle and just remain pissed off about the decision, bottling it up until it explodes in nerdy fists of fury one day.
Posts
but that is an impossible task
impossible
Seriously samurai, don't know anything?
I asked this in AC, but what do you guys think bout a race of Cecaelia? The idea was originally brought up in the context of a D&D 3.5 player created monster-race. I was willing to accept that they could breathe air, but I'm not so sure how successful they'd be at overland travel.
Personally I think the idea of a multi-armed character is interesting, and it would provide some fairly decent spice, mechanically speaking.
I read the thread, and I think he threadjacked you in an ill-mannered way. It started on shaky ground, and then simply got worse. Ugly and worse.
That's what I'm saying. He wants US to tell him what he should do for his game when the thread is about my game. If he post again, I'm going to politely tell him to fuck off.
But I've got to say, Four Colors Al Fresco looks like the bee's knees. Roman pulp superheroes in an alternate Renaissance Italy.
Also looking good? These Oracle one-shot games: http://onesevendesign.com/. I'm digging ghost/echo and The Mustang, especially.
What has been your chief complaint with most systems you play? Or I guess your most common complaint? What about your favorite system?
I ask because I'm designing a system, and I've noted recently that my design approach essentially boils down to "find a problem, fix it in an interesting way."
Personally, I hate how slow combat flows in a typical game. I'd post what I have down so far here to rectify that, but it's still just a framework and I'm honestly not sure I feel comfortable sharing it at this stage of development.
That's probably stupid, but I'm kind of stupid that way.
Problems with this: Nobody ever uses stunts
Solution: Combat based entirely on stunts?
This has actually been done before (in FUDGE? FATE? I always get those confused) but given that nobody has actually played either of those systems, nobody knows how well it works.
Other than that I'm running two D&D games. One 4e and one 3.5e. It is amazingly difficult to run two editions of one system at the same time. Both have a few lovely features and a few real ball-aches, but sadly, it's not possible to collect together the lovely bits (like putting minions in 3.5e).
And Ptolus, I remembered this setting recently. It's pretty great. A D&D setting that actually works with the rules. It's great. And it has guns. Everybody likes guns.
e: Also, on average, how many sessions do your campaigns usually last? I'm having some trouble deciding how severe my growth curve should actually be. My campaigns tend to die early because of dumb players.
ee: Not that the group dies, mind you. They just end up quitting because one of them wouldn't pass the cheetos or some dumb shit. Last time people quit it was because of an argument about ninjas. Seriously.
The player community out here is not exactly robust.
D&D uses a super-linear pattern with such things as their carrying capacity (beyond 20 strength, every ten points increases the load by an order of magnitude). At the same time, however (and I find this particularly curious) the modifiers and bonuses are true-linear - they increase at a steady increment, never deviating.
I think you actually get sub-linear returns from a true-linear system - the improvement from carrying 20 pounds as a light load to carrying 40 pounds is immense, but the difference between carrying 300 pounds and carrying 320 pounds is almost insignificant. In that sense, each additional point nets you much less of an overall increase.
Which, of course, is why Strength is given an exponential curve - so that the sense-of-progress remains steady, rather than steadily decreasing.
I think one of the major hooks of an RPG is sense-of-progress; this is what makes an MMO work at all, in the absence of personal plot. This is why sub-linear returns aren't used: they're simply progressively less rewarding. A hard cap on advancement is greatly preferable to the endless, almost-but-not-quite pointless grind at the end of sub-linear returns.
Usually we had a long running series that went 2 for sessions, then noone would be able to play for 4 weeks, and then a new game would get started with someone else dm'ing a new game, and repeat this about 4-5 times. Now were just stubborn and played maybe into almost 4th level on a campaign from october-dec, and just starting back up this last saturday. the other campaign we play on offweeks has become the same, and were on maybe our 4-6th night playing over the past 4-5 months. We are all pretty close friends so I dont think we would break up based on arguements on something, I think we would settle and just remain pissed off about the decision, bottling it up until it explodes in nerdy fists of fury one day.
You know, now that they have a release date and all that shit.
I feel like I should know what this is.