sinister6
-
Content Count
427 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Never
Posts posted by sinister6
-
-
crimsonsun said:
Sinister said:
I'm a fan of this BUT I would want FFG to come out and say "there's light and dark games" your GM has full authority on what races you are allowed to play depending on his campaign. The LAST thing I want is to run a Convention or store game where people have come up with 99 lame ideas as to why there's a choas warrior in a party of humans, dwarves, and elves.
I think it would be a BLAST to play from the other side, I just think I don't want 101 silly reasons to mix said parties.
In any game i have ever played the GM has always had full authority in what is allowed or not, as it is his world/campagin that he has taken alot of time to produce for the players, i dont feel ffg would need to make a solid statement renforcing this fact. If your running a game post in advance allowed races... if people cant read i doubt they are roleplayers..
Say all you want about GM authority, it doesn't stop the power munchkins from trying. I play with many quality players that understand theme, but there's also the local store guys, who just want a reason to be a badass under any circumstances.
Even though I didn't allow Half Orc Barbarian Forsakers into my 3.5 game, it didn't stop someone every time I started a game, from bringing that concept up. (Let me guess, you became a half orc because the orcs took your mom and had their way with her....never heard that one before *rolls eyes*. )
I don't have a problems saying no, or indeed enforcing it, I have a problem with a Power Gamer just brooaching the subject. In other words the should have common enough sense not to suggest playing a skaven assassin in the party of humans and elves, but sadly, they will do so. and yes, this WILL open that can of worms. Maybe not in the private game at my house, cause those are hand picked gamers but most certainly at the local shop on saturdays. There's always one.
Don't get me wrong though. I'd love to be an chaos warrior, it would be a blast. I'm just saying one of the benefits of this game is saying "yes" to the players, and that's going to create a definite "no" situation if I'm trying to run a good guys hero game.
-
honestly I can tell you that what happened was exactly what happened with 4E. People reacted to the spoilers and teasers and weren't happy they weren't getting more of the same old system, so they began speculating on it. This of course leads to edition wars. Until the rules are really digested edition wars are just two sides yelling at each other about what the game "might" be, as if it's set in stone.
Now the rules are out and the verdict is in. Most people like it, a few do not. There's no point in changing their minds, it's just not their cup of tea. Then again, there's no point to troll the new system if you hate it, because you've already made up your mind and you are just out to vent or incite.
There's never been a right and wrong in an edition war, despite what people make it out to be. There's just personal preference.
-
HedgeWizard said:
No - 1.4 is, but they have yet to be approved by the BGG admins... there is both a portrait and a landscape version uploaded and waiting approval. I'll probably post here again once I get word they are approved.
The 1.3 version already has 70 uploads... whoa.
hedge - Keep us posted when it goes up. I found your stuff to be very very helpful so far.
-
I'm a fan of this BUT I would want FFG to come out and say "there's light and dark games" your GM has full authority on what races you are allowed to play depending on his campaign. The LAST thing I want is to run a Convention or store game where people have come up with 99 lame ideas as to why there's a choas warrior in a party of humans, dwarves, and elves.
I think it would be a BLAST to play from the other side, I just think I don't want 101 silly reasons to mix said parties.
-
Herr Arnulfe said:
Sinister said:
IMO it's much easier to add terrian in an abstract game, then play without it in a very crunchy move system.
Do you find the chit / range band system less crunchy than measuring inches?
Yes I do!
-
I like the a abstract system but i did something beyond what the game intended. I place a dry erase map under the pcs and draw in the terrian, and then put out the distance markers. It works great and doesn't have the players freaking out about their being no map. IMO it's much easier to add terrian in an abstract game, then play without it in a very crunchy move system.
-
monkeylite said:
The game is easier to GM than it might appear to be. A lot of things just seem to fall into place naturally.
If a player asks you for a white dice for something remotely reasonable, then give it to them. And try to be consistent about challenge levels; if in doubt say 'average.' Use foes Yellow dice wisely. And give ic reasons when you add A/C/Es.
Many "crunchy" systems have you focusing on the rules. Knowing what each thing does, how they interact, etc... This game is about narrative. Teach the players early on how to build a dice pool, go over it again and again, by the end of your first adventure you should be able just to call out the negative dice like
"1 challenge, 1 misfortune" while they build the rest of their dice poll. That's when your job becomes very easy.
I think the biggest mistake I made was letting the character stay neutral in most of their stances. Not only did they have bad dice rolling, but the neutral stance just isn't as good as going deep into conservative or reckless. That's the key to heroes succeeding.
-
Boris Hochloff said:
My second campaign group just finished this scenario last night. NO ONE HAD A CLUE ONE that there were no detailed maps, or scale for the lodge, or map key, or anything else that was "forgotten". I never mapped it out ahead of time. I never got the order of the rooms, the dimensions of the celler/temple/tunnels, or any of those details 'right in my head' before playing. It NEVER mattered.
Now, I am a huge stickeler for details in nearly every other aspect of my life, gaming or otherwise. I play World in Flames by ADG every week on a series of maps that cover the whole globe during WWII in which counters represent individual ships down to light cruiser size. . . and we've still added 22+ pages of house rules because the RAW aren't detailed enough. I cut my gaming teeth on Star Fleet Battles before the Doomsday edition of the rules "clarified" things (if you know what I'm talking about, yes, LOL).
I had a completely different view on details as a GM up until this game. In first and second edition I tracked (and made my players track) what type of silver coin they had in their hand. I then modified it's value depending on who/what they were, where/when they were, who/what they were trading with, and where the coin came from. I once ran a Twilight 2000 campaign where I calculated the production capacity of an acre of farmland along the Vistula river using post-apocalyptic farming methods; the depth of it's tributaries; and the average population growth for a given community with differing amounts of resources available, among a long list of minutiae that kind of boggles me today.
So yes, I get the importance of details in certain situations. Which do NOT include roleplaying in the Warhammer Universe. The really amazing thing is that despite not making them track the encumberance of 10 sheets of parchment, and the rate of consumption of a vial of ink, and the average lifespan of a quill pen, the players are still managing to find a way to have FUN! In neither campaign has anyone asked even one time exactly how many feet it is from one door to another! It's almost as if in the real world people can go their whole life without knowing the exact distance they cover from their bed to their coffee maker and still manage to function.
I hope this is taken as poking fun at myself, and no one else. I'm just trying to make the point that if I can put down the TI-89 and still manage to have fun in a way that does not destroy suspension of disbelief for the players, then maybe others can too.
As my solders tell me, "The details don't matter, why sweat the small stuff?"
Of course, I then have to smoke them til snot runs down their face, but that's a slightly different situation. . .
There are many different levels of details to games. Star Fleet Battles was way over the top in details for me, I found federation commander and more to the point battlestations to be more my thing.
The same is true in RPG from games that want to map things out in 5 foot squares, to games like Amber, which are diceless and narrative. But even in amber points of reference are nice. Doesn't need to be to scale, or perfect, just a point of reference. My players like that. It helps to visualize space.
-
Kaptain O said:
Sinister said:
This worked very well last night. We will keep doing it.
What diff did you make the check? 1d?
yes, a 1d check.
-
Sinister said:
Kaptain O said:
Someone on the rules question board had an awesome idea that works within the frame of the rules - allow monsters and players to "perform a stunt" as an athletics check to get an additional manouevre - it is essentially the same, exchange your action for a manouevre but there is a roll (since they are running) it rewards more athletic people and it works completely within the rules as written! You could add challenge dice based upon footing or if someone wanted to exchange the action for multiple manouvres (sprint) you could add a handful of purple dice - increasing the amount of fatigue they may take as a result of banes or tripping occuring possibly from banes of a chaos star or something.
havent thought it fully through but its a great use of the card.
I'm doing this. use the perform a stunt to gain a manoevre. Been thinking about it for a week now, and that's the solution I came up with.
This worked very well last night. We will keep doing it.
-
I don't think I minded the chits at all, I was having to much fun NOT looking up rules and staying focused on the story!!!
-
The Small but Vicious Dog has it's own mechanics that make it work totally different from monsters or most npcs. You could use the obdience track but you need the "tricks" to do anything important. It would be better to stat them out.
For the hounds in my game I already know they will kill off 2 henchman besties before being ran off or killed. I've just decided that ahead of time so I'm not making rolls and taking focus away from the PCs.
-
NezziR said:
mac40k said:
I'm not really sure how the monster sheets are intended to be used. Just having a place to tokens other than a page in the book isn't enough. You would need to copy all the stats and abilities onto these or else you still need to reference the book. If you want an encounter with some Goblins and a Troll, you're still stuck flipping pages in the book unless you copy all the info onto the tracking sheets or make photocopies. I just make photocopies of the pages and keep them handy. Since there aren't too many right now, it's not an excessive amount of copying and I can just put the tokens right on the copies.
Yeah, you still flip through the book, you just have a different place to toss your tokens (instead of the book). That way they don't get a messed up if you have to turn the page.
Adding the stats to the monster box however (generic slots for them) allows me to prep a game from the book and leave the book in the box.
-
It's is simple, basic, and not vast. It's a fairly tiny printed list.
It serves it's purpose well however. IMO the focus of the story shouldn't be on the weapons.
-
Blustar said:
monkeylite said:
Blustar said:
Man, I can't believe they didn't include the maps to the tunnels and the Chaos shrine, and the lower floors. The book describes all these locations but doesn't even show you where the are. I've never seen a level/dungeon keyed up without a map.
I seriously think they forgot to include it. Now I have to do it myself, what's the point of a pre-made adventure if I have to make up all the maps. Really it's a big pain in the ass...
They didn't even key the one floor they did show, I don't get it...
It's entirely deliberate. I wrote to Jay mentioning this a while ago, and Jay asked me what I needed full, detailed, annotated, enumerated (I paraphrase) maps of the lodge for. And I had to admit, he had a point.
These aren't dungeon maps where every square inch needs to be planned out, they're locations to inspire play.
Well I need detailed maps so I know where everyone is at any given moment. So nearly 3 decades of RPG's uses keyed maps and now they give us detailed descriptions and half of a map, but don't tell us where they're at?
Why did they give us any map at all then? I think it was poor editing and they forgot to put it in and then they cover their mistake by some lame excuse.
Maps are half the fun of any of these RPG products. The maps inspire gameplay, to me anyways. They're missing a map of the lower floor and the basement which includes secret tunnels and a hidden Chaos shrine. You know I'm going to have to map that out, so I can get my bearings for when the PC's descend to the basement. It might be important to see how fast Piersson can reach certain areas.
I don't need detailed just a rough map like the upper floor would have been handy, it's very disappointing because I have a couple hours of mapping and figuring this crap out now. If I have to make my own maps I might as well just do it myself, it's the most time consuming process...
If the big campaign is not going to have any maps but just descriptions of random rooms I'm definitely not buying it.
Maps are necessary to my groups fun.....end of story.
-
The mission I ran was A day late and shilling short with orcs and gobos instead of beastmen. The adventure then tied into an Eye for an Eye when Klaus gave them a flyer to find work at the Red Moon Inn.
-
Our High Elf Nibsco Everlovin'
Human Dillentante - He's a cronic liar so we never did learn his real name.
Willmina Grim Talker - Female Dwarf, Featuring a beard with pink bows
and a Tutu.
Wood Elf Mercenary - The best fighter in the group.
Couldn't hit ****
The Coachman - When asked if he would take on a mission for
a noble, he replied "nah, I'll pass"
Me. The GM thinking if there's one thing I'm going to do tonight, it's richochet
Troll Vomit and I DID!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
-
Kaptain O said:
As an aside, If extreme range is 200yards (based upon the longbow example) medium is not 100yards.
it takes 2 manouvres to go from engaged to medium it takes 7 to go from engaged to extreme so medium is about 2/7 * 200yards - or about 60 yards.
Yes you are correct. Extended is much more ground that long, long is much more ground than short, and close is just a few feet. Sorry That example should be changed to your distances.
-
pumpkin said:
szlachcic said:
Ryath said:
- It says on page 52 that once engaged with an opponent a character must perform a disengage manoeuvre to safely disengage from a target, otherwise the may be attacked. Does this just mean the enemy would get to use any one of its attack actions not on cool down if the player moved away without disengageing first? Would that attack cost any fatique for the enemy or would it be free?
I am pretty sure you are overthinking this one. I think it just means that you have to spend a manoeuvre to move away from an enemy into the "close" range band. Failing to do so would obviously mean you are still engaged and in danger of being attacked when it is that enemy's turn to act. There are no such things as Opportunity Attacks or whatever.
that's an interesting take on the rule. I'm not sure if that was the intention, certainly the phrase "otherwise they may be attacked" would suggest some kind of free attack if any kind of opportunity attack rule was given, but as you say, no such rule is explicitly mentioned. Until now i would have given the aggressor a free use of a melee or ranged attack action, but now i may just enforce the retreating player use a maneouvre to do so...
this will be an oppertunity attack in my game with a basic. It keeps players from trading fatigue with monsters by moving in an out, causing them to take wounds while the chacters just take fatigue.
-
Kaptain O said:
Someone on the rules question board had an awesome idea that works within the frame of the rules - allow monsters and players to "perform a stunt" as an athletics check to get an additional manouevre - it is essentially the same, exchange your action for a manouevre but there is a roll (since they are running) it rewards more athletic people and it works completely within the rules as written! You could add challenge dice based upon footing or if someone wanted to exchange the action for multiple manouvres (sprint) you could add a handful of purple dice - increasing the amount of fatigue they may take as a result of banes or tripping occuring possibly from banes of a chaos star or something.
havent thought it fully through but its a great use of the card.
I'm doing this. use the perform a stunt to gain a manoevre. Been thinking about it for a week now, and that's the solution I came up with.
-
I'm linking the two together. Have Klaus give the PCs the ad from Eye for and Eye. He tells them if they are looking for work they can find it at the Red Moon Inn.
-
stanmons said:
Hi,
Do you enter encounter mode if enemies have not yet seen PCs? I mean, should you allow players to organize their tactics and possibly fire a first arrow before rolling initiative?
I think it's a GM call. When you start to use the minis or stands, that the start of encounter mode for me.
-
Thought I would post some pics before the game started. I'll post more after.
-
NezziR said:
Look in my sig, download the 'Monster Tracker' sheet. Print out as many copies as you need. Drop the tokens on it instead.
I have them slipped into the pockets of a customizable GM screen. I just lay it flat and the tokens on it.
I've taken these monster sheets and put them into page protectors, a use a wet erase marker to make notes, wipe it clean after the session. Suggestions for the future Nez, would be a space for defence, toughness +soak, and standard damage,
Out of Stock
in Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay
Posted
Herr Arnulfe said:
HedgeWizard said:
I didn't mean to suggest there wasn't trolling or negative behavior on both sides. It's all died down over here to a relatively sane amount. Meanwhile, people are still going at it on STS. But where I continue to see the bulk of nasty things being said is from the folks calling buyers of the new edition "sheeple" "dumb" "ignorant" "Fanbois" (still not sure why they adopted that spelling, but whatever).
I was fairly skeptical throughout the leadup, but I was always willing to listen and give the benefit of the doubt until I tried the system. I was regularly branded any of the above. Good times.
StS is a site for critical discussion, not cheerleading. It's a site where products are both slagged and praised, and posters tend to be very critical of corporate greed and the consumers who feed it. I'm not saying this is necessarily so in FFG's case, but surely you can understand how some people might look at the v3 development model with a certain degree of cynicism?
Well I asked a pointed question about the form description for V3 being called a "boardgame" and was instantly accused of being a fanboi. The operator there did listen to people's criticism of such a description and changed it, which was indeed very much appreciated. Still is was very clear to see I stumbled across a site with 2nd edition fans defending their turf.
Being called a fanboi right out of the gate, however, did little to make me think it was a critical discussion site. Granted since then, I've had some very good discussions there with both pro and anti - v3 players over at STS and they all seem like basically good folk.
As for feeding corporate greed, well let's just say I'm very glad FFG is doing the game instead of other parties, same goes for Blood Bowl Online.