As was foretold, we've added advertisements to the forums! If you have questions, or if you encounter any bugs, please visit this thread: https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/240191/forum-advertisement-faq-and-reports-thread/

Hoi chummer, come sit and discuss our next Table Tops Games

19495969799

Posts

  • webguy20webguy20 I spend too much time on the Internet Registered User regular
    Moriveth wrote: »
    I would love Risk Legacy if it involved a game other than Risk.

    Have you played the new one? I am not a fan of original risk and its epic length games, but Legacy is great, and my groups games have rarely cleared two hours, usually clocking in around an hour and a half.

    Steam ID: Webguy20
    Origin ID: Discgolfer27
    Untappd ID: Discgolfer1981
  • StraightziStraightzi Here we may reign secure, and in my choice, To reign is worth ambition though in HellRegistered User regular
    I found myself at the Amazon page for A Few Acres of Snow, finger hovering over the purchase button, when I had this flash, this vision, of trying to sell even a single person I know on playing it with me.

    I closed the tab.

    The same exact thing has happened to me.

    See also: Carolina Death Crawl

  • MeldingMelding Registered User regular
    Moriveth wrote: »
    I would love Risk Legacy if it involved a game other than Risk.

    Checkers Legacy

  • TallahasseerielTallahasseeriel Registered User regular
    Hey melding have you read my boardgame stuff yet?

    Also anyone else interested in looking at them maybe?

  • MeldingMelding Registered User regular
    no, sorry, i've been busy with stuff.

  • TallahasseerielTallahasseeriel Registered User regular
    Melding wrote: »
    no, sorry, i've been busy with stuff.
    It's cool.

    It's that time of year.

    Probably gotta prepare for the cold soon too?

  • MeldingMelding Registered User regular
    it's pretty cold here, also need to clean a house and pack and stuff.

  • SolarSolar Registered User regular
    Uriel's boardgame stuff is pretty great, @Melding you should check it out!

  • ToxTox I kill threads he/himRegistered User regular
    I have an idea for a 4e/d20 style game's character creation. Trying to get away from the straight-up class-based system (@Solar) and go with something a bit more varied.

    What I came up with is instead of choosing a class, you choose, for instance, a Theme and Background. Background would basically be the equivalent of 4e power source, and Theme would basically be something a kin to role (though not straight up combat role, and using roles more in line with 4e monsters than 4e PCs). The issue is, I want a third axis, other than race.

    So, any thoughts? Now, I could just go with race, but I feel like a well designed D&D class (especially in 3.5 and 4e) is more than just the crosspoint of two lines. I feel like having three axes works a lot better.

    some more info for what I'm going for:
    The idea is to have a game like Legend. In Legend, your character has three power "tracks" and as they progress in level, they gain more powerful abilities from each of their tracks, at differing rates, so you gain something new at every level.

    So you'd pick a background, a theme, and the third thing, prioritize them for your character (primary, secondary, tertiary), and that determines how fast each track progresses.

    The reason for not wanting it to be race is that, in Legend's system, item progression is built in, similar to how 4e does it. Unlike 4e, though, the assumption feels more toward the character having a few items that grow in power as the PC does, like a legacy item. The idea for Race was to use an alternate ruleset that allows a character to sacrifice a good deal of item progression for a fourth track, giving players the option of emphasizing their race over magic items, as an alternate way of telling the story.

    Thoughts?

    Twitter! | Dilige, et quod vis fac
  • MarshmallowMarshmallow Registered User regular
    edited January 2014
    Off the top of my head, I've always thought it would be interesting to disengage attributes from the classes and consider them their own seperate thing. Instead of basing your accuracy and damage off a stat, you get that a standard baseline for your attacks, and your stats determine precisely how you perform them, as well as a few related side benefits as per usual.

    So in that case your third track (and forgive me if I mess this up because I'm only passingly familiar with Legend) would be your character's main attribute, contributing some related benefits and style to what they accomplish via their theme and background.

    So you'd have your Fighter type, and they're a Martial Defender, but they could specialize in Dexterity to be a parry-and-riposte kind of a Fighter, Strength to be a hulking fellow who bats away enemy strikes with sheer might, Constitution to take blows in the face and just not give a shit, or the Intelligence type who has feints-within-feints, Wisdom who spots hesitation and weakness a mile away, or Charisma who knows how to put on a show that keeps all the enemies eyes on them.

    Plus muscle wizards, I guess. Who doesn't love muscle wizards?

    Marshmallow on
  • ToxTox I kill threads he/himRegistered User regular
    That's a very interesting take, I'm not sure how well it'd play out.

    And actually my idea for ability scores was to make it rather a bit different from standard d20 style. More of a WoD style (where you rate your attributes 1-5). The tie-in would be that your rating is your modifier (which, from what I've heard, is how nWoD LARP does it).

    The bonus there is that you can tie the track into your skills more. So that track would be more about your non-combat interaction. Which could make some interesting characters, since you could prioritize that higher and your theme track lower (theme being a bit more combat-centric), and that would allow some characters to emphasize combat while others emphasize non-combat abilities, and both would be perfectly valid, and both would be able to contribute in some way to both (to varying degrees).

    Honestly though I think that might be more useful as a way of approaching racial tracks. I'm not sure, I'd have to dig into that a bit more. I think the problem with it would be that you might run into too much overlap with other tracks, which would make specializing less useful (since, for instance, the Strength track might do some of the same stuff as the Martial track, for instance).

    Twitter! | Dilige, et quod vis fac
  • ToxTox I kill threads he/himRegistered User regular
    One other thing is, wrt Backgrounds, I want to split up the Martial into two different ones. Something like Soldier vs Tactician, where the former is more about athleticism and brute force, while the other is about opportunism and quick action.

    Those are placeholder names, I haven't thought of anything really better. The idea is basically a way to separate out Fighter-type Martial stuff from Rogue-type martial stuff.

    Twitter! | Dilige, et quod vis fac
  • JacobkoshJacobkosh Gamble a stamp. I can show you how to be a real man!Moderator mod
    we busted out Space Cadets Dice Duels last night and it is possibly one of the most intense, insane things I've ever played. The chaos is a little more controlled than something like Escape From the Temple but that makes it, if anything, more gut-wrenching as you can see the enemy ship getting closer and closer and your shields aren't up and they're getting closer and aaaaaaaaaaahhh

    rRwz9.gif
  • DarkPrimusDarkPrimus Registered User regular
    Moriveth wrote: »
    I would love Risk Legacy if it involved a game other than Risk.

    Read the rules it's better than regular Risk right from the get-go, and only gets better as you begin to add/replace rules.

  • StraightziStraightzi Here we may reign secure, and in my choice, To reign is worth ambition though in HellRegistered User regular
    For all its faults (and they were many), I think the class system of d20 Modern was actually very interesting, and starts to approach something that is very similar to classless gaming, despite being based around classes and levels still

  • ToxTox I kill threads he/himRegistered User regular
    Straightzi wrote: »
    For all its faults (and they were many), I think the class system of d20 Modern was actually very interesting, and starts to approach something that is very similar to classless gaming, despite being based around classes and levels still

    Yeah if I went with Marshmallow's idea, that would be the template I'd use as a baseline.

    Twitter! | Dilige, et quod vis fac
  • StraightziStraightzi Here we may reign secure, and in my choice, To reign is worth ambition though in HellRegistered User regular
    Tox wrote: »
    That's a very interesting take, I'm not sure how well it'd play out.

    And actually my idea for ability scores was to make it rather a bit different from standard d20 style. More of a WoD style (where you rate your attributes 1-5). The tie-in would be that your rating is your modifier (which, from what I've heard, is how nWoD LARP does it).

    The bonus there is that you can tie the track into your skills more. So that track would be more about your non-combat interaction. Which could make some interesting characters, since you could prioritize that higher and your theme track lower (theme being a bit more combat-centric), and that would allow some characters to emphasize combat while others emphasize non-combat abilities, and both would be perfectly valid, and both would be able to contribute in some way to both (to varying degrees).

    Honestly though I think that might be more useful as a way of approaching racial tracks. I'm not sure, I'd have to dig into that a bit more. I think the problem with it would be that you might run into too much overlap with other tracks, which would make specializing less useful (since, for instance, the Strength track might do some of the same stuff as the Martial track, for instance).

    If you're looking at making specializing useful, then you have two ways to go about it

    1. Make shit stack. Say your martial track gives you a +1 to attacks with weapons of war, or whatever. And your strength track gives you +1 to attacks with two handed melee weapons. At that point you have a +2 to attacks. This is honestly much closer to traditional specialization tracks for roleplaying games.
    2. Give additional uses of powers. Say martial track give you a special ability that allows you to inflict 1d6 damage on an enemy that is within melee reach. Strength track gives you that exact same special ability, and hey, now you can do that twice per day/encounter. This only becomes a problem once we're talking at will powers (or similar), so honestly, the way to fix that is to just prevent it from ever happening. You can do that by making every at-will identical or nearly identical, or by making every at-will at least slightly different (maybe Martial can daze your enemy, Strength can add a strength modifier to damage).

    Honestly, the way I see it, you'd probably end up doing both, unless you focus entirely on active or passive abilities, which... seems unwise. Although I guess 4E places a ton of the actual class focus on active abilities.

  • GrogGrog My sword is only steel in a useful shape.Registered User regular
    So you'd have your Fighter type, and they're a Martial Defender, but they could specialize in Dexterity to be a parry-and-riposte kind of a Fighter, Strength to be a hulking fellow who bats away enemy strikes with sheer might, Constitution to take blows in the face and just not give a shit, or the Intelligence type who has feints-within-feints, Wisdom who spots hesitation and weakness a mile away, or Charisma who knows how to put on a show that keeps all the enemies eyes on them.

    Plus muscle wizards, I guess. Who doesn't love muscle wizards?

    This is one of those things that Dungeon World came close to (yes, the discussion has reached the point where someone mentions Dungeon World), and which I really wish it had gone all the way on. Rather than stats being completely dictated by what your class needs, have what your class does (and, by extension, what you do) dictated by your stats.

  • MeldingMelding Registered User regular
    @Uriel i read through your thing. It looks interesting if i am grasping it correctly.

  • StraightziStraightzi Here we may reign secure, and in my choice, To reign is worth ambition though in HellRegistered User regular
    Has anyone here ever played the board game Claustrophobia? A friend of mine was just posting some pictures on Facebook, and I am intrigued.

  • kaortikaorti Registered User regular
    I have recently discovered that mage knight can be played solitaire. Does anyone have experience with it here? I haven't bought it yet because I don't know anyone who likes games that heavy, but a good solitaire mode would make that less of an issue.

  • SolarSolar Registered User regular
    @Tox that sounds quite a bit like Numenera, actually

    An adjective noun that verbs

    A cunning jack that rides the lightning, for example

    A tough glaive who masters mind over matter

    You could replace the noun section (which is class, effectively) with something broader if you wanted

    to be honest, this is all a bit too class like for me, I prefer entirely freeform games like Eclipse Phase or L5R where even if you have a school, the skills, advantages and so on you take are not restricted or necessarily unique to you, but I get that people do like classes and class like systems (though I don't share the enjoyment).

  • ToxTox I kill threads he/himRegistered User regular
    Solar wrote: »
    to be honest, this is all a bit too class like for me, I prefer entirely freeform games like Eclipse Phase or L5R where even if you have a school, the skills, advantages and so on you take are not restricted or necessarily unique to you, but I get that people do like classes and class like systems (though I don't share the enjoyment).

    Yeah, but D&D has never been that, and likely never will be. That's kind of why I'm trying to explore something a bit more middle ground. You've got structured concepts that do defined, clearly identifiable things, but you can mix and match them enough that you have a wide berth to for a lot of different niches.

    Twitter! | Dilige, et quod vis fac
  • SolarSolar Registered User regular
    They did make classless DnD, actually

    Mutants and Masterminds

  • MeldingMelding Registered User regular
    As someone who has a working knowledge of a lot of DnD, Mutants and Masterminds is not at all like Dungeons and Dragons. Other than they both use variations of the d20 system.

  • TallahasseerielTallahasseeriel Registered User regular
    Melding wrote: »
    @Uriel i read through your thing. It looks interesting if i am grasping it correctly.

    That is cool to hear you say that! Maybe we can talk about it sometime when you are less busy. I really wanna brainstorm it a bit more and start testing somehow soon.

  • SolarSolar Registered User regular
    I have played plenty of DnD as well

    and also Mutants and Masterminds

    And I would say that certainly the second edition was quite close. You had skills and feats and attributes and you rolled a d20+modifier vs a DC.

    Sure, the level system worked very differently (and so did character creation because no classes), the powers were entirely added on and HP wasn't there at all

    But it clearly was a game originating with DnD. If you got DnD and took out classes and HP, that's what you would get.

  • SolarSolar Registered User regular
    edited January 2014
    Also I would say that d20 is DnD

    It started with DnD, all DnD is d20, it's mostly used in DnD or spin-offs which are closely related (pathfinder)

    Solar on
  • MeldingMelding Registered User regular
    also loot, unless that had been added in last i checked.

    Seemed all equipment was considered part of the character and advancement.

    Loot is a big part of Dungeons and Dragons.

    Also races, that's a pretty big part of DnD unless you are in a group that mostly plays human.

    So if you take out loot, race, class, and hit points, it resembles what is left i guess.

    In that you roll a d20 add a number and compare it to another number, and there are situations to modify all those numbers.

    I'm not trying to knock M&M, i'm sure it's a good game, but as someone who can off hand make a fighter in every edition of DnD without rule books, that fact i found M&M so alien suggests to me it isn't all that similar beyond the core of the d20 rules system.

  • DE?ADDE?AD Registered User regular
    Off the top of my head, I've always thought it would be interesting to disengage attributes from the classes and consider them their own seperate thing. Instead of basing your accuracy and damage off a stat, you get that a standard baseline for your attacks, and your stats determine precisely how you perform them, as well as a few related side benefits as per usual.

    So in that case your third track (and forgive me if I mess this up because I'm only passingly familiar with Legend) would be your character's main attribute, contributing some related benefits and style to what they accomplish via their theme and background.

    So you'd have your Fighter type, and they're a Martial Defender, but they could specialize in Dexterity to be a parry-and-riposte kind of a Fighter, Strength to be a hulking fellow who bats away enemy strikes with sheer might, Constitution to take blows in the face and just not give a shit, or the Intelligence type who has feints-within-feints, Wisdom who spots hesitation and weakness a mile away, or Charisma who knows how to put on a show that keeps all the enemies eyes on them.

    Plus muscle wizards, I guess. Who doesn't love muscle wizards?

    This is a really dang neat idea, Marsh.

    Also
    Solstice.jpg

  • ToxTox I kill threads he/himRegistered User regular
    Yeah, and for me, 4e loot was probably the most video-game-esque aspect of the game.

    More D2/3 than WoW, though. In my mind, anyway.

    Twitter! | Dilige, et quod vis fac
  • gtrmpgtrmp Registered User regular
    if sharing some basic resolution systems means that M&M is D&D then at least half of RPGs published up through like 1994, regardless of genre, also are D&D

  • SolarSolar Registered User regular
    You can build races with powers

    Powers are your race and class section equivalent, it just makes everything infinitely customisable, really

    Elves give +2 to perception checks becomes Elf: Skills 2 (Perception), simple as

    And loot isn't integral to the DnD system at all. It's just the way that it is usually played, because dungeon crawling, but it's not core to the system. If you played a fantasy dungeon crawler with Mutants and Masterminds (and you could), then you could add in loot really easily. Use the powers section to build some magic items, no biggie.

  • AnzekayAnzekay Registered User regular
    Blake T wrote: »
    Vivienne and I struggle to find groups for table topping as well sometimes.

    Wait, what?

  • MeldingMelding Registered User regular
    yeah, loot was a problem area for 4e. When you just include a way to level up your gear instead of finding new stuff or having them be able to make do with old stuff, well, i'm sure it was a good idea at the time.

    I would have attached more of a cost involved because not many people are going to be using it for "I found this sword at the start of my journey and now i'm killing UltraSatan with it." It's going to be used for "All my damage if fire damage with this and i get +7 to fire attacks."

  • TallahasseerielTallahasseeriel Registered User regular
    hey you know what is rad? thirteenth age

  • gtrmpgtrmp Registered User regular
    Solar wrote: »
    You can build races with powers

    Powers are your race and class section equivalent, it just makes everything infinitely customisable, really

    Elves give +2 to perception checks becomes Elf: Skills 2 (Perception), simple as

    by that logic GURPS is D&D because you can build races and classes by using preset character templates

    if anything GURPS has more explicit support for its being D&D than M&M does, what with the whole GURPS Dungeon Fantasy line of products

  • ToxTox I kill threads he/himRegistered User regular
    Melding wrote: »
    yeah, loot was a problem area for 4e. When you just include a way to level up your gear instead of finding new stuff or having them be able to make do with old stuff, well, i'm sure it was a good idea at the time.

    I would have attached more of a cost involved because not many people are going to be using it for "I found this sword at the start of my journey and now i'm killing UltraSatan with it." It's going to be used for "All my damage if fire damage with this and i get +7 to fire attacks."

    This, for me, is the bigger loot issue in 4e. And I'm all for optimization, and there's a degree of it that's perfectly valid and not ridiculously overpowered, but is instead fun and properly involved.

    Twitter! | Dilige, et quod vis fac
  • SolarSolar Registered User regular
    I like that idea, actually

    It means you can start with your dad's magical sword and then stab the bad guy with it at the end of the campaign without having some sort of ridiculous death machine at level one or a pointy-stick equivalent at level 20

  • TallahasseerielTallahasseeriel Registered User regular
    also ultrasatan gets a bad rap but it's megahypersatan you have to watch out for.

This discussion has been closed.