Jump to content



Photo

Jay - THE DICE


  • Please log in to reply
54 replies to this topic

#41 Necrozius

Necrozius

    Member

  • Members
  • 947 posts

Posted 25 August 2009 - 03:40 AM

It appears that these "bad" symbols can appear whether the PC succeeds in his action or not.

But really, don't most of us impose these fluff events ANYWAY?

Like, in a lot of games, rolling a "1" means automatic and sometimes devastating failure, with consequences.

Some actions in several games also provoke attacks of "opportunity" or free attacks from the enemy. Like recklessly running PAST a foe, or loading a gun while in melee combat.

Some weapons are unpredictable (ball and chain, gunpowder etc...), and have all kinds of special rules associated with them.

In SOME games, shooting into melee might, if you miss, hit a friend instead of a foe.

Wouldn't these dice effects just replicate the kinds of things we already include anyway?



#42 HedgeWizard

HedgeWizard

    Member

  • Members
  • 532 posts

Posted 25 August 2009 - 04:40 AM

Necrozius said:

It appears that these "bad" symbols can appear whether the PC succeeds in his action or not.

But really, don't most of us impose these fluff events ANYWAY?

Like, in a lot of games, rolling a "1" means automatic and sometimes devastating failure, with consequences.

Some actions in several games also provoke attacks of "opportunity" or free attacks from the enemy. Like recklessly running PAST a foe, or loading a gun while in melee combat.

Some weapons are unpredictable (ball and chain, gunpowder etc...), and have all kinds of special rules associated with them.

In SOME games, shooting into melee might, if you miss, hit a friend instead of a foe.

Wouldn't these dice effects just replicate the kinds of things we already include anyway?

In most examples, rolling is binary: you succeed or you don't. Even with degrees of success, you can barely succeed, or nearly succeed, and so on.  This new mechanic seems to extend the degrees of success idea such that you can now roll a devastating success.  

For instance, perhaps your pistol shot killed the bad guy, but perhaps it also gravely wounded a comrade? If the issue was one of skill, perhaps you shot the comrade in a non-trivial locale, and the shot continued out the other side and buried itself in the enemy's face. If the issue was one of fortune, perhaps the shot exited the enemy you killed, ricocheted off of something and wounded your comrade.  In the old system, you aren't prompted for results like these and so most players and GMs don't include them. Here, the dice explicitly suggest that while you can win, you might do so at a cost, which the players and GMs can narrate. 



#43 Necrozius

Necrozius

    Member

  • Members
  • 947 posts

Posted 25 August 2009 - 04:44 AM

It would make sense then that a player could choose NOT to take a stance at all, and just go for regular actions?

Interesting.



#44 cogollo

cogollo

    Member

  • Members
  • 282 posts

Posted 25 August 2009 - 04:52 AM

Necrozius said:

Example: the elf decides to take his time to aim carefully on his next shot. However, whether he misses or not, he gets impatient and anxious as the battle around him gets more tense and closer (he rolls two or three hourglasses)! That means that he has to move his stance meter two or three steps towards Reckless to represent this. His next action may not be quite as calm and collected unless he first takes a quick action to gather his wits together.

I like this idea, and I think it's the kind of inspiration you can get from using pools of dice... it does not need to be exactly like that, but it's something that, as a GM, you can decide when seeing the results of the dice.

Still, from what I've seen in the videos, it seems that every card has a list of possible results, so I guess after you see the results in the dice you'll have to "use" the dice to "pay" for the results you want from your action card.

Also, it would be great if an explanation of part of the dice mechanics appears in the designer diaries.

All in all, I am very excited with the ideas I saw in Jay Little's videos and am very glad a new edition of WH is being designed by FFG. I hope it will bring lots of improvements to the game and, sorry for repeating it in half of my messages, I hope they'll publish a lot of scenarios and/or campaigns, as that's what really attracts players to an RPG.


Hur-Nir ran to the aid of the beaten man, recovering in the process a handful of pennies the thugs had let fall in the man's boots during their hasty retreat. - from Nulner Blues campaign

 


#45 Callidon

Callidon

    Member

  • Members
  • 599 posts

Posted 25 August 2009 - 04:58 AM

Perhaps a better way to look at it (modifying my previous ramblings) would be that the stance dice could queue the GM off on how to describe the action and to the warp with the cards.  The cards would be great for newer GM's.  Us old farts could juts continue laying on interpretations and descriptions like we always have.  Further, in some situations you could just gloss over the stance dice completely as a flat success or failure and move on so that every tussle with a hobo doesn't turn into a two hour event complete with anime slash lines and bad techno music.  It's hard for me to step back and see the interchangable parts of a new system until I've sat down and spread the books around my house for a couple weeks.  I am less worried though...so on with the show.


STUFF:

Edge of the Empire: Talent Trees; Force Powers; Character Sheet

 


#46 Steerpike

Steerpike

    Member

  • Members
  • 68 posts

Posted 25 August 2009 - 05:37 AM

Necrozius said:

 

True, but the dice certainly decide the behavior of his character when he fails a Fear test, right?

 

Yes, but that's a subconscious reaction.  The character fails the fear check and he is overcome by the effect.  When it comes to conscious decisions that should be the province of the GM or player, I don't care for game mechanics that dictate or override the player. To me, that is the single worst aspect of 4e D&D. 

Without knowing more, I can't say whether the mechanics of 3e WFRPG will do this sort of thing.  I was just responding to an example posted, and for all I know the mechanics may not bear the example out.  I'm interested in seeing more about the new edition, but I hope the designers didn't put in mechanics that essentially 'take over' roleplaying by imposing decisions on players or the GM that are best left to the player or GM in the first place.  What I've seen so far doesn't suggest they've done this, but some of the interpretations I've seen on the boards do come across that way.



#47 Gorehammer

Gorehammer

    Member

  • Members
  • 69 posts

Posted 25 August 2009 - 05:59 AM

Steerpike said:

Necrozius said:

 

 

True, but the dice certainly decide the behavior of his character when he fails a Fear test, right?

 

 

 

Yes, but that's a subconscious reaction.  The character fails the fear check and he is overcome by the effect.  When it comes to conscious decisions that should be the province of the GM or player, I don't care for game mechanics that dictate or override the player. To me, that is the single worst aspect of 4e D&D. 

Without knowing more, I can't say whether the mechanics of 3e WFRPG will do this sort of thing.  I was just responding to an example posted, and for all I know the mechanics may not bear the example out.  I'm interested in seeing more about the new edition, but I hope the designers didn't put in mechanics that essentially 'take over' roleplaying by imposing decisions on players or the GM that are best left to the player or GM in the first place.  What I've seen so far doesn't suggest they've done this, but some of the interpretations I've seen on the boards do come across that way.

I can't think of anything in 4e like that at all.  Game mechanics that override player decisions exist way more in the nWoD than anywhere else.  But they are pretty thematic and are called out as such in the rules.

I seriously doubt something like the fearmongers are describing would have made it through playtesting.   FFG is a very successful game company and you don't get there by releasing flagship products that haven't been vetted to such a degree that success is virtually assured.  I'm pretty confident that WHFRP 3e will be a worthwhile experience even if it is so different from previous editions that a segment of the community can't bring themselves to try it. 

The only inevitable thing is change.



#48 Necrozius

Necrozius

    Member

  • Members
  • 947 posts

Posted 25 August 2009 - 06:51 AM

Steerpike said:

 

Yes, but that's a subconscious reaction.  The character fails the fear check and he is overcome by the effect.  When it comes to conscious decisions that should be the province of the GM or player, I don't care for game mechanics that dictate or override the player. To me, that is the single worst aspect of 4e D&D.

Like I said, "impatience" was a bad choice of word.

Just about every single pen and pager rpg ever has dice based rules for psychology in some way, shape or form.

I mean, if your character wants to resist being seduced, he has to roll his Willpower or whatever.

If you want him to stand courageously in the face of a pack of Velociraptors, he has to pass a fear test of some kind.

Similarily, I believe that taking one;s sweet time to aim very carefully while monsters are charging you might require some kind of "cool" test. Concentration, perhaps?



#49 Steerpike

Steerpike

    Member

  • Members
  • 68 posts

Posted 25 August 2009 - 07:29 AM

Gorehammer said:

 

I can't think of anything in 4e like that at all.  Game mechanics that override player decisions exist way more in the nWoD than anywhere else.  But they are pretty thematic and are called out as such in the rules.

I don't want to turn this into a 4e discussion, but in the 4e games I've run this has come up numerous times.  The example that comes to mind at player powers that require monsters or other opponents to move into certain squares.  Thus, the mechanic completely overrides the conscious decision making of the monster or NPC. A power like Come and Get It, for example.  The NPC or monster has no choice but to move no matter how intelligent, how faithful or fervently it wishes to hold a particular area. It's a board-game mechanic, essentially.  So when our group played 4e we simply waived the ability of those types of powers to be used in certain situations.  But that's less than desirable, because it takes away from powers granted to the PC so we disregarded it sparingly.

In any event, 4e is, in my view, rife with examples of metagaming and game-mechanic situations that overstep the RP or decision-making of the GM or players.  Much more than any other RPG I've played (I've never played nWoD).  I don't really want to see WFRPG going down that path, but as of yet I have no reason to think that they are. If they do and our group switches, we'll house rule away the most egregious examples.  If that's not possible, we'll probably stick to 2e. 

I'm taking a wait and see approach.



#50 Steerpike

Steerpike

    Member

  • Members
  • 68 posts

Posted 25 August 2009 - 07:30 AM

Necrozius said:

 

Like I said, "impatience" was a bad choice of word.

Just about every single pen and pager rpg ever has dice based rules for psychology in some way, shape or form.

I mean, if your character wants to resist being seduced, he has to roll his Willpower or whatever.

If you want him to stand courageously in the face of a pack of Velociraptors, he has to pass a fear test of some kind.

Similarily, I believe that taking one;s sweet time to aim very carefully while monsters are charging you might require some kind of "cool" test. Concentration, perhaps?

Yeah, that makes sense.  I think there is a fine line between such things and stepping into territory that really should be the will of the players. It's hard to define in the abstract.  As I found when our group switched to 4e D&D, we know it when we see it (i.e. when it actually happened in-game).  It's a big reason we're not playing 4e anymore.



#51 jadrax

jadrax

    Member

  • Members
  • 369 posts

Posted 25 August 2009 - 07:39 AM

Steerpike said:

The example that comes to mind at player powers that require monsters or other opponents to move into certain squares.  Thus, the mechanic completely overrides the conscious decision making of the monster or NPC. A power like Come and Get It, for example.  The NPC or monster has no choice but to move no matter how intelligent, how faithful or fervently it wishes to hold a particular area. It's a board-game mechanic, essentially.  So when our group played 4e we simply waived the ability of those types of powers to be used in certain situations.  But that's less than desirable, because it takes away from powers granted to the PC so we disregarded it sparingly.
I think it is worth noting that both prior versions of WFRP have had a mechanic that allows that.



#52 Steerpike

Steerpike

    Member

  • Members
  • 68 posts

Posted 25 August 2009 - 07:42 AM

jadrax said:

I think it is worth noting that both prior versions of WFRP have had a mechanic that allows that.

 

Which mechanic are you referring to?  I never played 1e.  We play 2e a lot and have never had a problem with it. Most RPGs I have played (maybe all) tread into this territory to one degree or another, but only 4e has done so to the extent that I felt the game was turning into a farce.  I'm curious which 2e mechanic you are referring to.



#53 jadrax

jadrax

    Member

  • Members
  • 369 posts

Posted 25 August 2009 - 07:42 AM

The Manouvere Action in WFRP2.



#54 Steerpike

Steerpike

    Member

  • Members
  • 68 posts

Posted 25 August 2009 - 07:48 AM

jadrax said:

The Manouvere Action in WFRP2.

True to an extent.  But I don't put it in nearly the same category as some of the powers, marking, and the like you get in 4e.  When you get into higher level games in that system the movement of minis around the battlegrid (against the will of the player or GM controlling a given mini) really starts to get ridiculous. Playing a level 15 or so 4e game we were just laughing our asses off because it got THAT inane.  But I'm derailing the thread...

...getting back to the OT, I don't think this will necessarily be a problem for WFRPG.  The comparisons to 4e are inevitable, but I haven't seen anything to indicate with any certainty that FFG is heading down that path.

I certainly don't mind giving the dice a try.  I tend not to like games with dice pools (like Exalted).  They're easy enough to use, but something I just don't care for. But I'm willing to see how 3e WFRPG implements it before discounting it.



#55 jadrax

jadrax

    Member

  • Members
  • 369 posts

Posted 25 August 2009 - 07:56 AM

I suspect, although again I do not KNOW, that it will be a lot more abstract in terms of your position that 4E.






© 2013 Fantasy Flight Publishing, Inc. Fantasy Flight Games and the FFG logo are ® of Fantasy Flight Publishing, Inc.  All rights reserved.
Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | Contact | User Support | Rules Questions | Help | RSS