Jump to content

sinister6

Members
  • Content Count

    427
  • Joined

  • Last visited

    Never

About sinister6

  • Rank
    Member

Contact Methods

  • AIM
    -
  • MSN
    -
  • Website URL
    -
  • ICQ
    -
  • Yahoo
    -
  • Skype
    -

Profile Information

  • Location
    Fort Wayne, 0, United States
  1. jeffeoff said: When I play D&D 4e, there is almost zero fear of a character dying. It has only happened twice in two years of playing D&D 4e games every other week: once when the player was new and did something stupid and once when the player wanted his character to die for story reasons (and to roll up a class from a new book). I I'm not sure we are playing the same 4e. I've lost more characters in 2 years of 4E, than every other rpg I've played combined (in 20 years). This new dark sun encounters is so brutal I've killed 12 characters in 5 sesssions, running from the book missions. Meanwhile as a player on I'm my 4th character in 17 levels. Granted we never run a combat of our level, it's almost always printed from a publshed adventure or created at 2 levels higher, but it's been way brutal, amazing more so than the 2 cleric, people never die campaigns of 3.5,
  2. LeBlanc13 said: Emirikol said: WotC's 4e system was also a big deal. It's the Windows-Vista of the gaming world. Sometimes games just don't need to be that complicated and have every...single...rule...ever...concieved...spelled....out....in.....innane....detail.......every.......round.....of......combat. I know some of you love that aspect of the game. I actually prefer WFRP3's approach. D&D 4e is the World of Warcraft of the RPG world. Not Vista. Vista was a broken product that was quickly replace with a new system. Wizards is sticking with 4e and there is a big reason behind it. They expanded into a new market of people. By making their game into a pen and paper MMO where classes are balanced and pretty much all play the same they make themselves marketable to a much larger customer base than what is currently out there. D&D 4e was made specifically to try and bring MMO players (a 10 million plus sized group into the pen and paper realm. In all reality, if they pulled in 10% of the MMO player base, they could lose all of their current RPG player base and still do 10 times better than they are doing now. Table top RPGs is a very small industry. It's unfortunate, but RPG pen and paper players are far fewer than those playing MMO's right now. By doing what Wizards did, they made themselves appeal to a wider audience. I may not like it, but that's reality. They are in business to make money and they will go after where the money is. D&D 4e isn't as complicated as D&D 3.5 was to learn. D&D 3.5 had rules to cover EVERYTHING! D&D 4e actually did away with the wrestling rules and the disarming rules and then turned everything into Powers that players could take at regular intervals. It was a more balanced and simplified version of what 3.5 was. It was ludicrous how many things were covered in the 3.5 core rulebooks, but it was a really good product with phenominal support. In my opinion, Pathfinder capitalized on a product that was great by continuing to sell it after it's parent company abandoned it. Not only that, they looked at ways to improve it. Now, I don't agree that Pathfinder is perfect, but it is better than 4th Edition in my opinion because I felt that D&D 3.5 was a more robust and solid system. Combat is 3.5 is horrible compared to 4E standards. That's why I play 4E for the monster beatdowns and other RPGs for in-depth storytelling. I don't think I could ever go back to 3.5 combat ever again.
  3. I have a player that swears you put recharge tokens on an active defence the moment you add black dice to the attack, not after the attack has been resolved as hit or miss, is this true? I thought all cards only got recharge tokens if they are successful meaning that a person that tries to block parry or dodge doesn't put recharge tokens on the card unless the attack misses.
  4. I've just got to equipping my monsters. I wasn't criting much, then I put the weapons CR rating in my notes. Bam, it's a new ball game.
  5. My take is simple, it's allowed. You want to sprint full out, run like hell to engage, go for it. The rules make you tired. I try not to get caught up in the 6 second per round RPG thing. Plus the rules design really wants you to say yes as much as possible to the players.
  6. What's the damage from stepping in a fire or being the target of the pyro spell card?
  7. Juriel said: The game has little thought aspects to it, certainly. By the book, stress and fatigue are meaningless, because first there's the basic action Assess Situation which frees you from them and is as repeatable as you wish, and you also recover your stats worth of F/S after every encounter. This makes giving fatigue for being mountain-climbing for 12 hours in the cold utterly meaningless - you're as fresh and able at the end of it as at the beginning. For this I would argue you could make cards unavailable for certain types of skill checks. I'm ok if some Assesses during combat because they lose and attack. You are correct, however, I would not let them use that action for mountain climbing.
  8. Lexicanum said: (Rulebook p. 65) Each character can only benefit from one successful First Aid check per Act during an encounter. Outside of a structured encounter, a character can benefit from one successful First Aid check per scene, or per the GM’s discretion. This is confusing editing. Since a structured encounter is NOT an act. EXAMPLE: If I have a party who learns of a criminal that escaped (act 1) then trails the criminal fighting through a couple of encounters of his henchman and a random chance encounter with a troll (act II) then what EXACTLY is the ruling? My interpretation is: You could only heal in one fight per act but after the fights the adventure goes into story mode, where you could heal once per scene. But does that mean you are just going to let your party heal in some sort of "heal" scene after a fight? To me the intent is, the story progresses to the GM's wishes, so once during a fight, and if the GM runs a scene after a fight, in which you could heal, you could try to do so. That's needlessy arbitrary and argumentative for players which is why my once per act -first aid, once per act magic healing works. If they question "when is the act over?" I would respond "When you find and/or confront the escaped criminal".
  9. Lexicanum said: On the other hand, I'm not sure how the Exertion and Delay symbols mechanic would benefit form an example. Exertion and Delay symbols do not accumulate because that would make going deep into a stance too dangerous. As it is it's fairly straightforward that the deeper you are in a stance the more likely you'll be getting delay or exertion symbols. Which is the design intent. Basically the probability of getting an exertion or delay symbol approaches 1 the further into a stance you are, and that's the cost of being deep into a stance. A penalty implies punishment for doing something, whereas 1 fatigue or 1 stress is a cost you can plan ahead for. All of a sudden getting 3 fatigues or 3 stresses would make play too schizophrenic. There shouldn't be a punishment for having a character use his abilities, he's paid for his stances so why shouldn't he be allowed to be 3 deep into reckless without his character becoming unplayable? A 1:3 stance layout is common in several starting careers, and characters can purchase more of these as they advance in their career. Making delay and exertion symbols cumulative would make it foolish to invest in additional stances and gimp early starting characters with a 1:3 stance. It would also serve to undermine the stance mechanic. A bright wizard should be in his reckless stance, for example, it embodies who he is and how he acts. Well I just think it's more of a missed oppertunity with regard to delay and stress and fatigue. Its seems to me a system that would gave you multiples, would mean you would consider your stance and be fearful of being too reckless or cautious. RAW it does not need to be considered. I just happen to like the idea of a more interesting rewards and risk system with regard to conservative and reckless. I was just looking for some design insight to if that was ever contemplated. Seems more fun.
  10. Here's why I want an example: What does jay and crew do about some magic healer, healing the party right after a battle by just casting heals over and over and over? When does jay give a rally step? It's rather confusing in the rulebook to say "It's a chance to catch your breath" which to me implies a short break, like after clearing a room in DnD, then in the glossary it says rally steps link acts, which can be, and often are, way more than just one encounter. These things have a big impact on the game. Allowing people to heal too much changes the tone of the game from something dark and cthulhu-ish to something uber heroic like high fantasy DnD. I want to know EXCATLY when jay takes rally steps, if he gives bonus rally steps or not. I'm also curious as to why some rather counter intuitive design schemes were implement. Like the delay and fatigue icons not adding up. At first I was adding all the delay and fatigue icons in a roll, I figured it was to punish someone who decided to create some form of super stance. If you only count one, there's never a reason not to go all the way into a stance.
  11. At first I was saying "one magical heal a day" after my players attempted to abuse it. I was also running rally steps WAY too often taking the bit about "catching your breath" and thinking it works like a short rest from 4E DnD. The glossary rulebook definition of a rally step is linking ACTS together and acts aren't like "encounters" from DnD. Yet another thing that was triping me up. Acts could be several encounters, thus no rally step between them (unless a DM allows one) So now I streamlined magical healing to fit more with first aid: Now magical healing works like first aid - ONCE per act. I hand out cards that say "I've recieved first aid this act" and "I've recieved magic healing this act" This stops the abuse of healing full strength after a battle. Because my rally steps are now much more infrequent than I was running before, the stress and fatigue don't go away nearly as quick. I am contemplating some sort of reward mechanic for giving the players a bonus rally step.
  12. To atone for your sins of delay I demand to know that is coming out next..... thanks!
  13. King Tycho said: Hey, thanks for the tips, and the welcome! I looked the book up on Amazon, it's selling there for 28.00 at the low end, which seems a little high to me for 25 pages, though it could be that good I guess. Is there somewhere else I might find it cheaper? I very much like the story telling options I see in the game. It seems in this game, more then in something like D&D, the GM has the option of interpreting abstract results. This is something I noticed in WOD, that I liked as a player and think I will like even more as a GM. I am really optomistic about WFRP being middle of the road, as there were many different competing elements I liked in both D&D and WOD. I'll have to look into the GM toolkit. I was deciding between that and the adventurer's toolkit, but went with Adventurer's kit, as the initial set seemed as though working in more then 3 players would be difficult, and the kit would take care of that. So, I guess I'll have to wait for my next pay check! Are there any traps that a new GM might find him/herself in quite easily, anything I should keep my eyes open to avoid? e23.sjgames.com/item.html Book is out of print now I guess, pdf for 7.99 on that link. As for traps you might fall into, you really can't go wrong with this system. Like any system your players can munchkin or powergame it, but it's much more difficult than most systems. You'll see that there's a couple of cards like arrowstorm, rapid fire, and some classes like swordmaster that are very very good, some GM's (on these forums) might argue too good but overall the system is very balanced. I run the game with 6 people, it's much better for around 4 players, I wouldn't ever add more players, as I feel 6 is the max the game can really hold.
  14. Hey King! Welcome to the world of GMs. Here's some general pointers. There's a great book (and very cheap) called Robin's Laws of Good Game Mastering. It's about a 25 page book costing about 5 bucks written by Robin Laws. It's THE best general read you can get for a new game master. Most of the book teaches you about "types" of gamers , why they game, and what they want out of a game. The book also can be used to find your own interests as a game master and find a game that caters to that interest. You may have noticed that white wolf is a completely different beast than DnD. DnD is mechanical, the players are interested in making powerful characters that crush enemy minis on the map while they level, where as white wolf has alot of artistic or as Robin Laws would say "story ellers" and "method actors". The goal of any good game master is giving players what they crave in an RPG while getting what you want out of it as well. Now, specifically to Warhammer. This game is very middle of the road on the crunch scale, something between the mechanics heavy DnD and the sometimes frustrating light mechanics, heavy storytelling of White Wolf. It's very adventure oriented, more about story and the world, but good solid mechanics to build upon. You should really buy the Game Master toolkit for this game. It's aimed not only at the first time Game Masters of Warhammer, but the first time Game Master of any game. It has many tidbits of good information such as how to go about crafting a story. If you have any more questions, just ask!
  15. This worked really well when I used it last night. The picking didn't take long at all, the handing the cards over was the slowest part.
×
×
  • Create New...