Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Uncle_Joe

  • Rank

Contact Methods

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

Profile Information

  • Location
    , Virginia, United States

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Verdantsf - Thanks! That looks amazing! Very well done. I wish I had an iota of skill at creating that type of presentation!.
  2. I just bought this: https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B06W5JWDMX/ref=oh_aui_search_detailpage?ie=UTF8&psc=1 Then I printed off relevant tables and references from Genesys and some art for the player facing side and all set! I think one of the challenges of FFG releasing a Genesys 'official' screen is that since it's a toolbox, there is a lot of info that would be relevant for one setting, but not for another. Even the theme and art differs greatly. So i'm not sure it would be worth them trying to publish a 'one size fits all' screen. A RoT screen might make some sense (and individual setting screens) but even there I would wager that a lot of people are picking and choosing from the RoT lore rather than running it verbatim.
  3. Twincast - I agree 100%. I would have expected some additional content if for no other reason than to give people a starting point for how to run adventures. Darrett - Please post your WHFRP conversion when you're done. I really enjoyed the system but it bloated out too much to continue to use frequently. A Genesys version would be fantastic! drainsmith - I have the 5e Starter Box and I downloaded your conversion. Thanks for the work on it! Seems like it should be a good starter point.
  4. Looking forward to it!
  5. Great input guys. I definitely think Genesys feels 'wider' in development than deep. But they definitely are more capable at low level than comparable D&D characters. Ulimately, I think 40 XP is probably a good baseline with the understanding that a character with 80XP (past the starting build) isn't necessarily THAT much more combat-capable but he should have access to a broader range of skills and abilities.
  6. I'm just using RoT as a sourceboook. It's given a lot of good scope for talents, magic, and especially critters. But after having run WHFRP off and on for a number of years I was actually looking forward to creating a home-brewed setting that wasn't bound by someone else's vision and limits. That is what actually drew me to Genesys in the first place and I'm glad that RoT contains enough content to be useful with requiring me to use their fluff and background as well.
  7. Thanks for the input all! I guess the questions was more about what will/should progression feel like in the system? One of the biggest draws to RPG for many folks is seeing their character evolve and grow more powerful over time. D&D clearly has that covered as characters go from being challenged by the weakest of foes all the way up to contending with greater demons and practically demi-gods towards the end of the campaign. Genesys doesn't seem to follow that track very tightly but we were just trying to get a feel for how different it will be. So far, fighting bolstered Kobolds has proven to be a challenge for the party but they have overcome them. I'm hesitant to throw anything significant at them yet but perhaps they have more capability than I originally thought for 'starting' characters. So we were just trying to get a few benchmarks of what is a 'low level' vs 'mid level' vs 'high level' character in Genesys. We weren't looking for anything rigid but it looks like the answer is more along the lines of 'well just have to see how it play out'. Thanks again for the discussion!
  8. Hi all, I'm sure this has come up before and if so, can someone please point me in the direction of maybe a quick/rough comparison between Genesys Experience and D&D Levels? For example, a starting Genesys character has about 100XP to build with. This give him the equivalent of a D&D 'Level 1' character. So at how many Geneyst XP would a character be roughly on par with a Level 2 D&D character? Or level 5? Or level 10 etc. I realize you can't make a direct comparison between the two because the systems are so diverse (especially in the 'hit point' area) but I've been asked by one of my players what the rough 'progression' should feel like in Genesys and I really don't have a good answer to that yet. My gut impression from the few sessions I've run is that starting Genesys characters are a bit more capable than a level 1 D&D character but the progression is much flatter. In D&D, capabilities grow by leaps and bounds in the early game. A Level 3 or 4 character typically has more than twice the HPs of a starting Level 1 and (depending on edition) will have access to more access to powerful feats and abilities. To put it in campaign perspective, right now the starting party is dealing with a local Kobold threat (backed by a few critters here and there). At roughly how many XPs should they be able to progress to things like Bugbears/Gnolls? Ogres? Trolls? Giants? Vampires? Dragons? etc. My sense of it is that creature survivability increases quite a bit but their lethality doesn't scale up quite as quickly. PCs seem to be about the opposite. Their survivability seems pretty incremental but their damage output can increase quite a bit from increased skills/talents. So is there a rough guide out there to compare apples to oranges? Thoughts? Ideas? Thanks!
  9. At a guess, because the monster isn't yet in the gasoline pool and the idea is to bait the monster, wait for him to move into the gasoline area, and then ignite it to catch the monster in the flames rather than simply creating a barrier (which would the process you outline). I honestly think we are all talking around the same thing. We all see the situation as one which requires a handling. The question is whether such handling should just case by case (what most of us have been doing so far) or if there should be some sort of 'official' guideline for handling. For me, I don't think a hard and fast rule needs to exist but I would have liked some examples to be touched on for how Genesys GMs can reasonable handle this somewhat common player request. If a more 'hard and fast' rule is desired, maybe remove the initiative marker from the stack/list/chart whatever and hand it to the player. When the player wants to perform his action, hand it back to him and then perform the action in mid-turn of the monster's action and then put/reinsert the initiative after the monster's turn is complete. What the character could do at that point would depend on the narrative and what the 'held' action is. YMMV.
  10. Hello there! I'm a long-time RPG player as well (starting with the White Box D&D in the 70s and moving along through every edition with side trips to ICE, Earthdawn, HARP, WHFRP and a handful of others!). Genesys (and it's core in WHFRP) has been the most fun system to GM that I have ever found. It requires the right player mindset too but once you get that, it's gold. But like you, I spent a LOT of time in more 'structured' systems and I don't feel comfortable completely abandoning some of it. Luckily, Genesys can handle it with flying colors! You really aren't hurting anything if you put in a bit more structure to various subsystems as long as your players on on board and the overall experience is satisfying for all of you. For example, I needed more structure for the Magic system. The completely open system is great for flexibility but it can cause some analysis paralysis during gameplay as casters decided the best way to shape each case. It also provided a bit too much flexibility for the casters IMO such that they always have the 'perfect spell for the situation' at hand. And trying to adjudicate non-standard effects on the fly lead to further slowdowns and inconsistencies. Instead, I created lists of spells largely flavored by the magic system the old Avalon Hill fantasy board game Magic Realm. Doing so enabled me to diversify the casters significantly more and to create more powerful spell effects without unbalancing the game. In the core system, all magic types (Primal, Arcane, Divine) can cast Attack spells. So they all essentially have access to 'Fireball' and 'Magic Missile' or whatever fantasy equivalents you want to call them. This didn't fit my world view so now each Ritual Type (I-VIII per the MR universe) has a set selection of spells which I have tailored using the existing magic rules to provide a distinct flavor for each. It's worked out great so far! So I guess the point is that the magic rules (or any other rules in the system) are there to provide a guideline of what you can do within your own campaign universe. If something doesn't fit, change it! The game will still work fine. And that is part of what makes the system an absolute joy to GM!
  11. An even better example in LotR would be the scene where the Fellowship has retreated into Balin's Tomb and are waiting for the Orcs to chop through. They are literally 'holding their actions' until the first Orcs chop through enough to get a good shot. And then they fire. Situations like this come up all the time in the game and in more open circumstances. The above I would actually resolve by simply giving the party initiative as the opening of the engagement but there are plenty of situations that occur on regular basis which involve an unengaged ranged weapon wanting to hold fire for a clean shot when one appears. The very fact that we are even having this debate with very different viewpoints on how this common situation should be handled is proof positive IMO that it's something that should have at least been touched on in the rules (if only to give examples of how they envision such situations should be handled).
  12. Well given that the game mechanics are supposed to feel 'cinematic' I think some situations would call for those kind of mechanics. For example, in a running battle, the party used move actions and retreated around the corner of a hallway. One character turned and waited with crossbow ready to shoot the first person who came around the corner. In that situation, I just gave them the free shot but again, it would be nice to have a few guidelines for handling those situations. RAW would feel very unsatisfying to the player (ie, the orc runs around the corner with his maneuver, spends 2 fatigue to maneuver to engage, and then brains the hapless crossbowman with his sword). But yes, in a general melee situation I think the 'prepared action' is a bit of whack due the issue you mention. But for ranged combat and other 'incidentals' such as the OP's example, the situation clearly needs to the GM to adjust the 'standard' sequence to make the story fit.
  13. Yeah, I kind of wish that there was some provision for a 'prepared' action (at least suggestions for handling them). Prepared actions are pretty much an ingrained standard in many people since their introduction in D&D 3.0. We had a similar situation in our fantasy game on Saturday. One of the weaker party combatants was in line with the rest of the group. The group dropped all the close-by opponents and when it was his action, he wanted to simply wait until something approached the line and then attack. The example in the OP is even more relevant since all it was take would an 'incidental' to drop the lighter on the gas. In the end, I simply told the player that they couldn't simply wait for a target to come into range but instead I gave him a Boost on his next action to reflect the extra time/preparation. It worked out in that situation but I can imagine the OP's player not feeling satisfied if he wasn't able to torch an incoming attacker.
  14. Thanks again all! Great suggestions and I tried most of them out (the ones that had free trials anyways). In the end I went with HexKit for my campaign map. While I wasn't initially a huge fan of the overall look, it sort of grew on me as I fleshed out a test map. The program itself is extremely easy to use and while it might be less flexible than some of the tools it had more than enough to get the job done. I was able to complete the whole area map in a few hours which is a huge plus to me!
  15. If you want to diversify the skills required to cast then you can use their ranks in Knowledge (Arcana, Divine, whatever) as a flat damage bonus. This will scale a bit as the characters progress (starting at 2 and eventually getting to 5). Alternatively or in addition, you could simply put a damage increase on the various spell types (ie, Arcana +4, Divine +2, Primal +3 etc). End of the day, the casters will need something to bring the damage totals up to where ranged/melee are. And the system is very sensitive to small damage changes due to the way Soak works (ie, if average Soak is say 4, then a damage rating of 6 is doing twice the actual damage of a damage rating of 5).
  • Create New...