Jump to content

Kyorou

Members
  • Content Count

    172
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Kyorou

  1. Who says Chaos is really trying anyway ?
  2. mrady said: Kyorou said: I want to play a mouthy scoundrel of a guard who gets routinely punished for his attitude but gets the job done no matter the odds. why not just do "the dirty dozen" 40k style, Meh. Wouldn't that be the Penal Legion's gig ?
  3. I want to play a mouthy scoundrel of a guard who gets routinely punished for his attitude but gets the job done no matter the odds.
  4. Dok Martin said: Simsum said: 5a. The system needs a core rulebook. 5b. The system needs a core rulebook. No, it doesn't. A core rulebook would severly restrict the evolvement of the line. That approach nearly destroyed Hero Systems and pretty much destroyed the World of Darkness. For good reason. Indeed it worked so well for WW they're now releasing new editions of the Old World of Darkness lines… Seriously, imagine what would have happened if FFG had chosen this path. We would have a single set of rules : DH's, set in stone. That would make for a pretty arid book and people would still be complaining they have to purchase at least two books to have a complete game. My wish for OW? I wish for a setting that does justice to the awesomeness that is the IG. I want grim epic, heroism and betrayal and tragedy. And tanks.
  5. H.B.M.C. said: I'm really surprised by the amount of people who don't like the 'Class/Career/Rank' system. As far as I see it, a system where you don't have that and can just buy anything is more open to 'meta-gaming'. If there was no structure of progression why wouldn't you take the best upgrades to start with? What do you mean by "best" ? More powerful ? More appropriate for the character ? More funny to play ? I remember playing a fixer type of guy in a gangster game. Due to my choices in character creation, my character was totally useless in a fight and carried no weapons anyway. As any upgrade that had to do with hitting or shooting people wouldn't have made much of a difference, I never picked any. That didn't mean my character wasn't extremely competent at what he did and wasn't known by half the city as the guy to go see whan you need something 'special". H.B.M.C. said: I mean, could you imagine playing, say, Diablo II except there are no different character class. There's just one class, who can take every skill, spell and special ability in the game? Where would be the sense of identity beyond the one in your own head? BYE Being a trained physician does not only matter in your head. I'm pretty sure the patients care too. Yet some physicians can also be very good at hunting deers.
  6. 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.
  7. deinol said: I don't get why people use novels as a reference point for starting characters. Do you think Aragorn is a level 1 ranger at the beginning of Lord of the Rings? Experienced characters should be able to emulate characters from a story, but RPGs always start below that and leave room for improvement. Always ? Feng Shui doesn't, nor does Agone and other non-reward-based systems. I can understand why DH took the zero-to-hero approach (it is the most common) but it was in no way a necessity.
  8. Would it be possible that, once someone has been declared heretic (for whatever reason), every crime he commits or has committed is requalified into an heresy, as it is part of his (broader) crime of heresy ? That would explain how some "mundane" crimes get listed in the DotDG Most Wanted profiles and stranger things are known to happen in real-world judicial systems.
  9. Inquisitor sapiens potensque said: LuciusT said: Honestly the desire for starting characters to be chumps is where DH really lost me. To me, the idea of playing Agents of the Holy frakking Inquisition and starting out as chumps is completely contradictory. I wanted a game where I could play characters like Eisenhorn, Betancore, Godwyn Fischig, Harlon Nayl, Patience Kys and Kara Swole. Those that were introduced during the game DID start out as chumps. Betancore was a hooker! Fischig was barely competent. Well, the Eisenhorn and Ravenor books were about Throne Agents, I think. I don't know why BI decided to adapt those books into a game where characters start as mooks... Actually, Bequin was the hooker. Betancore seemed extremely competent from the start (but he had worked with Eisenhorn for some time before being introduced). About Fischig, well, I don't recall him going through much progression (he starts as dumb as hell, gets a little better then falls back to amoeba-level dumbness). I don't know much about Ravenor's team because the first book almost bored me to death and I had to stop reading but they seem competent enough (if bland, clichéd and uninteresting).
  10. 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. They can but it makes no sense from an economic perspective. It's like selling ipads to Haitian IDPs. Technically, you "can" but you won't because those people have no money to pay for them. Even the Imperium's small middle-class wouldn't be able to afford it. Nobles can but they're a very small market (unless you can persuade them to get a confession several times a day, you won't be making much money targeting them exclusively. Besides, 75 thrones is actually a bit underpriced for a nobles-only service). 75 thrones actually do make sense in terms of game balance. So, I support I-don't-remember-whom's idea of the BoM confession being the "deluxe" version of the common confession, which is performed by a layman, has no game effect, and is cheap as death.
  11. The problem is, what are you going to do when a second player has to burn a FP to have his character survive ? If you don't allow him to get Cybernetic Resurrection, he will feel cheated. If you don't impose stats penalties, then the first one will feel cheated (he had to spend xp to recover stat damage). If it's Cybernetic Reconstruction for everybody, your party will look like a Star Trek Borg squad (count on players to utter the classic "Resistance is futile" line on every occasion).
  12. Rakiel said: His example was an idea put forward, not something within Blood of the Martyrs itself. There is only one confession, and it has an in game effect. I know. I should have said "would be misleading".
  13. Baldrick said: If FFG had put an entry in BoM saying "Any priest can take a confession, it will cost the PC or NPC 1d5-2d5 thrones and afterwards you feel better about life but no game effect..." then it would be realistic but utterly pointless for the book. They've described a significant undertaking that leaves the player fortified against the horrors that they might face.... To quote the page of BoM. (p126) "Confession The character spends time with a Ministorum clergy, divulging his sins (both real and imagined) in a private conference. The clergy will then assign a proper penance (such as monetary fines, recitations of prayers, public services, or even corporal mortification). Once this is complete, there character has reaffirmed his faith in the God-Emperor , allowing him to reduce his next gain of Insanity Points by 1." Table 5-7 on the same page says that this Confession costs 10 Thrones in materials even if a PC cleric does it for free. As they say at the top of the page they have only covered off the services that acolytes might find useful. We don't have rules/costs for blessing of marriages, celebration of the harvest etc. Likewise a 1-2 throne confession taking 15 mins is of no practical use for an acolyte but the unwashed masses go every month or so. Seems fair but then I think the name FFG has chosen for the service is misleading, as it would mean there are two different kinds of services that qualify as confession, one that costs nothing or almost nothing and has no game effect and one that costs 75 thrones and has an actual game effect. Calling the second one "major confession" or something would have made things clearer.
  14. I have a DH playlist with some Silent Hill tracks, a bit of Halo 2 and some stranger stuff (Dark Sanctuary, Iszoloscope and others). For scenes on Imperial Worlds, I also list In the Nursery and some music from the old Emperor of the Fading Suns video game. The Mass Effect OST would be more suited for a DW game, imo, sounding more heroic and all.
  15. Nojo509 said: No mention of the Slaugh, I wouldn't mind more wormy fun. *Throws stones at him*
  16. Deadline247 said: My secret weapon: Convince a fellow gamer or sci-fi fan to read the Eisenhorn trilogy of books. It works like a charm. Once they fall for the setting, they'll want to give the game a shot. Well, I had my players read some 40k fiction as an introduction to the setting and some of them didn't like Eisenhorn (surprisingly, Sandy Mitchell's books about the I and James Swallow's Faith & Fire went down far more easily). A player described the main character as a "bland, unlikable jerk" and the whole book as a "series of predictible fight scenes badly strung together" and I had a hard time selling her the setting for a rpg campaign. So, better enquire first about the litterary tastes of your prospective players before handing them the books.
  17. Peacekeeper_b said: Kyorou said: I gave a +5 damage bonus to every weapon in DH. It was the only possible way for my players to take the game seriously after an unarmored NPC had been hit to the head twice in a row for no damage. That seems excessive. Unless the unarmored NPC had a crap load of Toughness, a bolter still does 1D10+5 tearing damage. So either your PCs were using other weapons and rolling 1s on damage, or the NPC has a decent Toughness, in which case shrugging off a couple of shots to the head is appropriate for the NPC. The guy had TB 3 and they shot him with a laspistol. So absolutely no damage if you roll 1 or 2 (meaning 20% of the time). Of course, if they had a bolter, they probably would have hurt the guy (who knows, they may eventually have killed him, given some tries) but my group played L5R 1st ed. before turning to DH and they're used to kill things with one attack. By comparison, the DH system feels like everybody is using nerf guns. @ak-73 : I consider misses to sometimes be grazing shots. In my book, "hit" means "hit", not "hit where it doesn't count".
  18. Polaria said: @Darknite: I've been using 2d10, Pen5, Tearing as the "baseline" for DH and RT bolters for some time now. The "baby-proofed-bolters" of DH/RT core rules were just idiotic idea to start with. I gave a +5 damage bonus to every weapon in DH. It was the only possible way for my players to take the game seriously after an unarmored NPC had been hit to the head twice in a row for no damage.
  19. Orks work best when you just ignore the way they are treated in the TT. Of course, they are that "SOOOOO LOL" army that seems designed to target the 11 years old audience but if you play them the way FFG describes them, there isn't much reason to laugh. At least, they aren't any more ludicrous than Dark Eldars (gothic/BDSM-flavored elves) or Necrons (the Terminator just walked through an Egyptian exhibit).
  20. My players are always shuffling through the IHB looking for new ways to spend their thrones and xp, so I guess it is the one book that sees the most use in our group.
  21. N0-1_H3r3 said: Two things here - when dealing with a novel, 'reality' is skewed by the requirements of narrative; an author in that context will seldom describe a shot to the head that doesn't kill unless it's significant in some way... but we're not dealing with a novel here. Well, as my players and I lean very much towards Narrativism in our games, I could say I almost am. We are much more concerned about the pace and the atmosphere of the game than about realism or balance of power between PCs. So, as I said before, I don't need combat to be realistic (which would quite difficult anyway as the system allows you to dodge lasbolts moving at the speed of light ). I need it to be fast and, if possible, impressive (and there aren't many things I can think of that are as unimpressive as a professional assassin needing to empty half a clip to eliminate a nobody). So, I'm not complainig about the system not being Storyteller's, Dogs in the Vineyard's or Nobilis', because I know it doesn't try to be any of those things. I'm just saying that, using the rules as they're written, it feels like it takes just about forever to kill something (and it actually gets worse when the power level goes up because then everybody has 20 wounds and wears good quality carapace armor and there's just no way to kill someone with one shot unless you're using a meltagun).
  22. N0-1_H3r3 said: An average, unarmoured human, hit by a lasgun or a sword carried by an SB3 creature, will lose 1d10 wounds... and given that most humans (advanced player characters being the most pertinent exception) only have around 10 wounds initially, that seems to all work out quite well No, it doesn't, imo. That means somebody wth 10 wounds who is hit by a shot fired from a basic NPC (who can't Righteous Fury) has virtually no chance of dying from that first shot (actually, he has no chance of even be seriously wounded, as critical hits only begin to be nasty when you pass the -5 limit). And that's assuming he didn't Dodge the shot in the first place. So far I have yet to read a BL novel where somebody gets shot in the head with a laspistol and just gets a sunburn. I don't mean the game system is badly done. It may be OK for some people who don't mind shooting somebody five times to put him down and running combat that last for two hours. It just doesn't suit my needs. I want combat to be fast-paced and deadly. I want every attack to be potentially lethal. And I don't want the combat phases in my games to last more than 20 minutes max. So I just can't use it as it is.
  23. To speed things up, I boosted the damage of every weapon by +5 after the first combat I ran. It took forever to resolve it and my players were laughing out loud when a NPC was hit in the head by a lasbolt without suffering any damage (TB 4, so a 20% chance of not doing any damage with a laspistol). It felt like everybody was using BB guns. But, then again, we are all former L5R 1st edition players and we are used to weapons that actually do some damage when they hit.
  24. Hellebore said: I'm not sure it actually could, no matter the accuracy of the shooter. 5 seconds of time won't put out that many rounds. I suppose if the horde was jammed into a barrel with no space between them the explosives from one shot could hit multiple enemies, but only the guard are that stupid. Well, there is always the possibility of a round going through several enemies before exploding. After all, these things are able to penetrate a Chimera's plating. Then again, a modern-day machinegun would fire something like 80 rounds in 5 seconds. It is possible that the bolter's rof is lower but it is still supposed to be an automatic weapon capable of covering fire.
×
×
  • Create New...