Jump to content

Bad Birch

Members
  • Content Count

    132
  • Joined

  • Last visited

    Never

Everything posted by Bad Birch

  1. MILLANDSON said: Now now, children - why don't we all just sit down and relax? It's a **** game, you shouldn't be getting this worked up about it. Hell, I'm a graduate with a degree in each of Politics and Law, and if I can manage to not post about "our economy is rubbish, and THEY TOOK OUR JEEEERBS!" (I love South Park! ), I'm pretty sure everyone else can too. This forum isn't the place for it, so if you could take political or nationalistic rants elsewhere, it'd be appreciated. Anyways - On Topic for a moment! I've heard that it is meant to be getting into the UK either for the 6th September, or the 13th. I hope that you weren't trying to patronise me, as I was writing ironically. I don't put smileys in my text to flag up when I am placing my tongue in my cheek. I respect your posts by the way, and am generally interested in what you have to say about the game(s). I have a degree in philosophy on the one hand, but run my own building company on the other so I come across right wing views on a regular basis- some more extreme than others, all should be challenged.
  2. flyingcircus said: Sorry but I have too many relatives outta work as it is, mainly because of the BS that companies like FFG are doing by overseas production, when this stuff could have easily of been produced right here. May be a bit political, I just calls it as I see's it. What about publishing it in the UK? Bloody GW put a lot of Brits out of jobs by selling the licence to a bunch of septic tanks. For the sake of all that is holy, blame the sh*tty state of your economy on the banks like everyone else, not minority games companies. Why not write a letter to Obama, he may be the only person on earth who can get you Black Crusade faster. p.s. When you write BS it is still swearing.
  3. How do you deal with absent players? Sometimes players can't make a session. We all have a life to lead and sometimes this interferes with once a week gaming sessions, so sometimes it is an unavoidable problem. Sometimes, this can really screw up an ongoing plot- especially when it comes to "cliffhangers" left over from previous weeks. What are the ingenious methods you have employed to get around key players' absence?
  4. Hardcore Heathen said: Blood Pact said: When it comes to spelling and grammar, honestly, a lot of the companies seem to get sloppy with them now and then. The only one who really doesn't have to worry about it is Wizards. And Wizards is owned by Hasbro, who have so much money they can afford to run its pen and paper games at a loss if it has/wants to (maintaining the IP for when there's a resurgence), and just needs to throw money at any problems it comes up against, of which spelling and grammar are fairly minor. Now I'm not saying that I don't want FFG to get things a bit tidier, but overall I'm satisfied with their product. You can't let the perfect be the enemy of the adequate. Except basic spell and grammar checking isn't something that costs a lot of money. A goodly number of these errors could simply be fixed by using the basic spellcheck feature in Word for an hour or two. (Sure, you initially get a lot of false positives for things like lasrifle, but spellcheck does *not* take long.) These are the sorts of errors that people get flamed for when the errors are made in terribly thought-out gay fanfiction. There is absolutely no excuse for their prevalence in a product of professional nature that is sold for profit. And there should be an element of pride to it. I wince every time I come across a spelling/grammar error, and I feel bad showing certain portions of the books to my playgroup because the errors look so unprofessional. I'm not even talking about making the rules text more mechanically smooth in nature (I realize that not everyone can meet the standards of specificity that Magic: the Gathering has spoiled me with); I'm referring to simple basics. Even allowing for unfamiliarity with UK English (armour and such) there's simply a preponderance of such errors. What's with the "gay" thing? Cut it out mate.
  5. Graver said: Replicant253 said: Pretty much agree with this, the published DH adventures have been a mixed bag and IMO even the good ones have only been good because i have adapted them. Edge of Darkness and House of Dust and Ash have been the best. Having a go at people for being down on them is a little harsh because i think in general they deserve the criticism. The 40K line really deserves a classic adventure like the Enemy Within or Masks of Nyarlathotep to be written for it to ensure its place in the pantheon of great RP games. Fingers crossed it is on the horizon. You speak my mind! I wish Mr. Bligh would do some more adventures for DH. He seems to know good game design. Those of us who criticize a lot of the scenario books for Dark Heresy don't do it out of hatred or malice for the line. Quite the opposite. We do it because we really love Dark Heresy and the 40k universe. But seeing a lot of these scenarios such as Black Sepulchre is like having a brilliant gifted genius level kid who just smokes pot all day and writes his papers ten minuets before they're due. There's just so much potential that is being utterly waisted. One of the major problems I've noticed with the DH scenarios is the rather heavy handed rail-roading. I don't know why so many DH adventure books insist on having these A -> B -> C plot set-ups as it seems incredibly amateurish, especially for any kind of game with one foot in the mystery game genre. The hobby has been around for a while and there have been plenty of work and breakthroughs made in the horror, mystery, and epic (the three things the DH scenario books seem to want to go for) scenario design over the past 30-odd years. If nothing else, Masks of Nyarlathotep shows us that you can indeed have a mystery/horror series of adventures of epic proportion and consequences -scenarios where there is no ABC plot design and what a player chooses to do actually matters in the end. Of all the problems with the current shape of DH adventures, the fact that player choice has very little effect on the over all plot as presented is the worst and it just keeps happening. To fix that problem, you pretty much just have write a whole adventure your self and if you're doing that, why use the book at all? When the Haarlock trilogy started, people would want the book without the desire to run the adventure or not think too much of heavily rewriting it from the ground up because it came with a lot more. If the story and set-up for the scenario was sub-par, there was at least some great setting information in the form of gazetteers which would spawn additional or different ideas and make the books worth while. That seems to be fading away as well. It's starting to look like the only reason to buy these books would be for a poorly implemented rail road which would take a GM like me about as long to rewrite into something usable as it would to simply write up something from scratch. In other words, there's no real incentive left to buy these books. That coupled with the fact that we know it can be so much more if it just tried (and keep hoping with each book that it will be the magic golden egg) is infuriating. It's like that genius gifted kid is smoking pot 24-7 now and realized he doesn't even need to turn in any more papers to get a C out of the course, and that's still passing, so why try. In a setting and game genre proven to be capable of so much, why should we be complacent and happy with mediocrity at best and "holy crap, what the hell is this?!" at worse? It sure as heck doesn't do the thing we love any justice and, in the end, can only hurt it -something none of us wants to see Couldn't have put it better. DH is supposed to be CoC in space, isn't it?
  6. Lightbringer said: Adam France said: Setting detail is usually the primary reason I buy new stuff. Me too. That stuff is like fried crack for me! Mmmmm... In batter... I love fridays!
  7. Brolthemighty said: If you enjoy that style of play, then by all means. However when discussing income and gearing, not to mention the theme of the responses that have been given, using the Scum table when compared to others is in fact a worse choice. Why worse? Explain.
  8. Brolthemighty said: So, unlike the others from earlier in the thread, you two actually use ONLY the income chart....or worse yet, have them use the Scum income chart and make the skimp and scrounge for everything? No, I let them use the scum income chart and then let them 'discover' equipment and cash. Other times I ruin them so they don't have any money at all. I resent the fact that you think this is worse, when really it is merely different and suits the way we play DH.
  9. Luddite said: To answer the OP question, no i don't. In fact, i think this new Dredd image it much closer to Carlos Esquerra's original designs for Joe Dredd - before the 1980's mega shoulder pads kicked off.. I like this new Dredd incarnation and i'm looking forwards to the movie. Glad you think so, Carlos Esquerra is definitely the god father when it comes to 2000ad.
  10. My group has a more traditional set up. The excuse is that they are in an a fairly constant state of undercover operations, so have to operate more or less like scum, generating their own income in the process. Some of the adventures end up being as much about getting cash as burning heretics! I don't feel the way that acolytes operate lends itself to a monthly salary. If you spend a lot of time in warp transit, your party can come out the other end minted up. On the other hand if they only get paid for mission time that can lead to a sense of being underpaid, as often adventures can last for mere days of in game time.
  11. N0-1_H3r3 said: Bad Birch said: p.p.s I care less about the size of the helmet and more that they make him keep the bloody thing on, for drokks sake. Karl Urban (best known for his roles as Eomer in The Lord of The Rings, and Dr Leonard "Bones" McCoy in Star Trek), who's playing Dredd, has gone on record to state that he's been a fan of the character since he was a kid, and he wouldn't be working on the movie if the character ever removed his helmet (at least, that's what the latest Empire magazine says). Let's hope so! I have some hopes for the film, it has an Alex Garland script which is a good sign in my opinion.
  12. One of my players and good friend, Jock, did the costume designs and some concepts for the new film. I am such a name dropper! He is a long time comic artist and currently works for DC comics but started out as a 2000ad artist. Look him up on wikipedia. I find some of the comments on how the new stuff works (or doesn't) very interesting indeed. We talked about the helmet issue one day, as this he felt would be the thing that would divide the officianados more than anything else. Yes, the classic arbite does look a lot like Dredd, probably for the reasons already given in the thread, however I would think of it as imitation being the highest form of flattery- there is, after all, nothing new under the sun... I remember hoping that Clint Eastwood would finally be cast as Dredd in the most perfect film ever, bearing in mind that the original character of Dredd was based on Dirty Harry, and named after a Prince Buster track. p.s. Did you know that Sylvester Stallone's helmet was too small to put on and off like a conventional one and had to be taken apart in two sections? That's how they got around the issue on that production... p.p.s I care less about the size of the helmet and more that they make him keep the bloody thing on, for drokks sake.
  13. Adeptus-B said: To supplement my earlier critiques: I just borrowed and read Maggots In The Meat- I liked it! It's not terribly involved, but what do you expect from a small booklet? My only complaint is that it is pitched as an "introductory" adventure- wrong! I doubt that a "standard" rookie party could survive the final conflict... And I picked up Damned Cities and read about half of it. So far, so good... Totally agree, MitM was a good little scenario. I like it better when the story unfolds , though, so generally I like to lose the whole "your Inquisitor is sending you to blahsville, population 20 trillion, go find the murderer" intros that these adventures have. Stumbling onto the horror is half the trick, for my style of GMing...
  14. Lightbringer said: Interesting, Adeptus-B... I wonder if the Dark Eldar use of weaponised black holes is something of a "shout out" to Star Trek, then? Given that the Dark Eldar are the closest thing in 40k to Romulans... There is nothing new under the sun, whether or not it implodes under its' own mass.
  15. gathrawny said: I would like to see a mechanic for DH characters falling into BC characters basically. Perhaps instead of Ascending there is a mechanic for them to fall to chaos and ascend along that route instead. [/quote Yeah, after healthy dose of corruption and insanity points aswell!
  16. I am not an authority on this subject, but it has been mentioned in the past that this strategy of releasing lots of lines has the benefit of being interesting to a wide range of different people. The criticism leveled at games with one core book and a miriad of support tomes is that it is less approachable because new gamers have too much of a mountain in front of them to climb and so don't get interested. On the DH forum at the moment there is a thread where a guy is asking which books are essential for a player, and then he lists 6 or 7. Funny how much material has already been generated that could be seen as confusing for (not just) the new player.
  17. I am already a bit picky when it comes to buying new stuff for W40k. It really annoys me that there are loads of different corebooks, I am a one corebook lots of splatbooks kind of guy. The more books that get released that I see as "parallel", the less of them I will buy.
  18. Kyorou said: N0-1_H3r3 said: Background packages and the like are fine - they're taken as a whole or not at all, and can be considered as a single entity. Just going "Oh, your character is allergic to monkeys, have 200xp extra to compensate" is what, in my experience, doesn't work. Well, it depends on what kind of players you have. I had some great time GMing Deadlands and L5R and the Edge/Hindrance system has never been a problem. The way I see it, powergamers will always try to abuse the rules and munchkins will always make an annoyance of themselves so it is easier to just get rid of those players rather than limiting everyone's options in order to make the game powergamer-proof. I loved Deadlands! Also, a player in our group is kicking off his GMing career with L5R, so time to see if I put my money where my mouth is! Time to create that blind, one legged sword master...
  19. N0-1_H3r3 said: Bad Birch said: I take it you are not a fan of the starter package, then? Background packages and the like are fine - they're taken as a whole or not at all, and can be considered as a single entity. Just going "Oh, your character is allergic to monkeys, have 200xp extra to compensate" is what, in my experience, doesn't work. I see the point you are making, but it relies ultimately on the package itself holding water versus individual penalties/talents/skills. In theory, it shouldn't be any different, as long as the value of each penalty really does balance with the value of each advantage. But you are right- there is always a "monkey allergy" in practice! As someone with more experience than me with a wider variety of games, though, isn't it really down to the individual player to do this kind of char. gen. in a "responsible" way?
  20. N0-1_H3r3 said: Peacekeeper_b said: and gain extra points for taking penalties No, no, a thousand times no. Every time I've seen that attempted, it has resulted in systems that are mercilessly warped by unscrupulous players, to a greater degree than almost any other mechanic I've encountered. It doesn't take much for a player to find a "penalty" that isn't actually a penalty and thus gain free points to spend. Beyond that, the idea of situational drawbacks granting permanent benefits just annoys the games designer side of me. If that ever appears in a 40kRP game, I am houseruling it out immediately and without mercy. If I'm ever part of an official project that attempts to incorporate the idea into the system, I'll be protesting loudly (though not publically). I take it you are not a fan of the starter package, then?
  21. Friend of the Dork said: The Glen said: Bad Birch said: I don't think that I understand the term "meta-gaming". I alway thought that reference to the meta-game was reference to events outside of the game as it is played, basically to add depth to whatever millieu you are playing in. Metagame is the overall plot of an RPG setting, it can ruin a game when Uber-NPCs get to do all the great stuff and PCs get to watch. Metagaming is using out of character information to build a character that maxes out against the campaign. Like building an Undead Hunter because you know you're going to Ravenloft, or a Giantslayer because you know your DM wants to run Against the Giants. Similar name, different meanings. I don't think either of you grasps what meta-gaming is. Here is from Wikipedia: "In role-playing games, a player is metagaming when they use knowledge that is not available to their character in order to change the way they play their character (usually to give them an advantage within the game), such as knowledge of the mathematical nature of character statistics, or the statistics of a creature that the player is familiar with but the character has never encountered. In general, it refers to any gaps between player knowledge and character knowledge which the player acts upon." This is not metaplot, and it is not choosing to play a character that has skills/abilities to fit a certain type of game. For instance if the GM informs you that this campaign is gonna be mostly investigation and little combat, it's not metagaming to choose to play adepts, scum, etc. instead of guardsmen. The choise of what character to play is an Out-of-Character choise, not IC choise. If however your guardsman in game chooses to buy a certain named weapon simply because the players knows it's statistics are awesome, then that is a (mild) case of metagaming. A much worse case of metagaming would be if after the players hear that one PC is stealing something, have their PCs decide to "randomly" search said PC's possessions even if there is no reason why their PCs would have any suspicion of wrongdoing. Okay, thank you for a clearer definition of meta-gaming, although for my part I didn't claim to know what the phrase meant in reference to RPGs. In which case, it doesn't matter what system you use, you could meta- game it if that were possible. In my group, however, we have an agreement to edit this kind of "cheating" between us so that a truer story develops.
  22. The Glen said: Bad Birch said: I don't think that I understand the term "meta-gaming". I alway thought that reference to the meta-game was reference to events outside of the game as it is played, basically to add depth to whatever millieu you are playing in. Metagame is the overall plot of an RPG setting, it can ruin a game when Uber-NPCs get to do all the great stuff and PCs get to watch. Metagaming is using out of character information to build a character that maxes out against the campaign. Like building an Undead Hunter because you know you're going to Ravenloft, or a Giantslayer because you know your DM wants to run Against the Giants. Similar name, different meanings. Okay, thanks. We have always called that kind of behaviour "power gaming" in my group.
  23. Adam France said: The Glen said: Couple the shortage of clerics with the fact the book mentions the church is a very greedy organization several times. Why do they charge so much for confessions? Because they can. The cult that believed the church should serve man freely and take vows of poverty were destroyed as a threat to the church because the church wants their money. So a bloated, greedy and corrupt religion wants to charge somebody a year's pay just to hear their sins? That sounds about right for the Imperium. Looking at this simply financially, let me once again spell it out by asking you a question; if you could have one thousand people pay you 75 T each, or 1 million people pay you 7.5 T each, which would you choose? Don't have the book yet, but is there a mention of how long the confession takes? I was presuming it takes quite a while therefore time becomes a factor. If it takes 2 hours, then you are only going to manage to perform a few in a day, maybe a thousand in a year, let alone millions. Honestly, if you are going to moan about economics, do it properly.
  24. I don't think that I understand the term "meta-gaming". I alway thought that reference to the meta-game was reference to events outside of the game as it is played, basically to add depth to whatever millieu you are playing in.
×
×
  • Create New...