Jump to content

Nabikasu

Members
  • Content Count

    53
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Nabikasu

  • Rank
    Member

Contact Methods

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

Profile Information

  • Location
    , Nevada, United States
  1. I think the mentality is less 'aww man, we lost' and a sense of frustration over putting in the effort, and getting nothing for it. As a tabletop RPG GM, you kind of know your encounter of orcs is going to die. Same thing with the Overlord--monsters end up being more speed bumps than they do serious threats. So we're used to it and don't really mind. With a person who primarily plays instead of GMs, however, they become attached to their heroes, and see the loss as a personal failing on their part. Mind you, I don't know that's actually what's going on, but it seems like it'd be a fair assumption. In the suggested fix for this, the 'play less aggressively' idea would mean that the heroes would pretty much always win. However, I assumed that with the usual rules of win/lose, Overlords would end up really ineffective because they'd get way less XP and no Relics. Mind, this is only my experience because we've never gotten out of Act I. I always manage to beat my groups at least once. Adjusting their mentality probably isn't going to work, though it'd certainly be nice...
  2. I've ran Descent several times, and had to change groups as many times. The change always comes when a specific thing happens: the heroes lose a quest. For some reason, even if I caution them at the start that the Overlord can and does win sometimes, they always get frustrated when they lose a quest and stop playing. Now, I admit myself I'd prefer a role similar to a GM in a tabletop game. The winners aren't one side or another, it's everyone for having fun, that sort of thing. I toyed with the idea of just giving everyone, win or lose, all of the rewards listed for their respective victory conditions and then just playing less aggressive in general, with Heroes receiving all Relics they go for, but I wonder about the balance, then. What say you guys? Something other than 'get a new group', hopefully. (I'm aware of the Forgotten Souls co-op and have played it at my FLGS, but I'm hoping for something akin to this for for the campaign.)
  3. Oop. I see where someone else spoiled it already. Feel free to delete this, mods.
  4. So without going into spoilers, anyone with Hammer of the Emperor care to provide a list of the names of the advanced specialties? I heard Sharpshooter was one, and that does make me happy, since I was dissatisfied that a sniper could only be a ratling (at least by base rules).
  5. Though this might be different for other people, in my own experiences, getting people interested in anything at all having to do with Warhammer is an uphill battle. This is because a lot of people have already heard of Warhammer and, though they've never actually engaged with the setting or tried to play the wargame, they have already made up their minds about what it is and isn't. Several words come to people's minds when you mention Warhammer. Two of them, at least, are grimdark and expensive. They look at the setting, see the very outside of the setting explained to them, and think it's either silly or too dark/depression/gritty. They also know, even if they've never really looked into it, that GamesWorkshop sells those miniatures for a premium. So for me, at least, it seems like people have already defeated themselves when it comes to Warhammer. Not everyone, of course, is like that; certainly not the group of people on these forums! But that's possibly a reason as to why you have no interest. That said, while I never got involved with it myself, the Olde World League is a fantastic community and I'd advise you to sign up with them for some online gaming!
  6. I love the abstract nature of EotE. I think it allows for great narrative and roleplay. However, I know for a fact that my players simply will not like the abstract movement system. They like tactical positioning, and tactical grids, and a map to help visualize the experience. We actually tried it with the Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay game and they did not like it at all. The touted benefit of 'not having to worry about the grid and placement on it' was actually a reverse for them--they kept asking 'okay, so I'm in close range? And medium range from this guy? And long range from this guy? And these three guys are engaged?' In short, gridded systems actually aren't really something people (at least my players!) find hard to deal with, as it just, flat out shows where everyone is. Now, I know you can houserule this stuff, and if FFG doesn't make rules for it, I probably will end up doing so. That said, however… Please, FFG? Make some optional tactical rules? Emphasis on optional; really. I mean, it might give more page count to the book, but it can't be that much!
  7. Oh man, that looks amazing. I have experience with MapTool but I am (mostly) code dumb. Would you be willing to make your macro downloadable?
  8. I have nothing against the idea of a lightsaber being deadly. I think that's kind of how it should be; many posters above have pointed out the lethality we've seen in established media that lightsabers have. Usually, it's one strike and you're dead. Fighting a Jedi or a Sith /should/ be A Thing. When that mysterious stranger shows up and pulls out a lightsaber, your players *should* sit up and go 'Oh, ****!' My only concern is that when the third book comes out, it'll pretty much invalidate player choice. This is the real issue with the Wizard vs. Fighter thing that's so hotly contested about D&D. Why would you play a character that is made pretty much pointless by someone else's choice? If your Jedi can kill things way easier than your Bounty Hunter, and then if he can also use Force powers to solve any other problems that exist better than people who have to specialize and give up everything else just to be good at their one thing, then… what's the point of playing anything but a Jedi? I'm not saying it will happen like that, just that it's a concern. It's also a hard thing to balance with what I said in the first paragraph. Jedi and Sith should be lethal, but balanced in such a way that it doesn't make playing anything but a Jedi seem ridiculous.
  9. Tactic x2, Reputation x1 Bonus to defense and attack rolls when engaged with only one other creature (so, you know, dueling them). Agility and Toughness. CCRR. Ballistic Skill, Charm, Coordination, Intimidate, Weapon Skill.
  10. I know this is always an iffy subject, and I know FFG's stance on it and respect it, but I have friends across the US who own Descent and alas the only thing stopping us from playing together is physical proximity. Is there anything in the works to allow people to play this game online with stripped components (as per usual for this kind of thing)? Not from FFG themselves, of course, but using things like Fantasy Grounds or MapTool or Vassal…
  11. Pardon, but what is The Dying of the Light?
  12. I'm actually pretty interested in the idea of this 'Anti-Chaos' thing. Can a Tyranid be corrupted by Chaos, or would possibly the Hive Mind corrupt Chaos (which sounds weird, but, we're throwing around hypotheticals here). What would happen if Dagon got to the Hadex Anomaly?
  13. @HTMC -- Considering things a bit more, I think I need to agree with your disagreement. I have a bad tendency to skip some details when I'm reading large documents, so for some reason the 'untrained skill penalty' didn't come to me when I was mulling over this earlier. So in the regard that they'd be better commanders than the commanders, I agree I'm probably wrong. That said, going with what you said about how Ratlings are probably going to be played by people who want to play snipers, and thus will take advancements as such, I also agree with this but then I must ask: why do they get the +10 to Fellowship? Yes, Ratlings are all cute and lovable and huggles, but that's not what their supposed specialty in Only War /does/. Fellowship and Social aptitudes represent the race being lovable scamps, but I don't feel they need the Fellowship bonus on top of that, kneejerk reactions to Command rolls aside (ha ha, self-digging :/). +10 Agility seems somewhat reasonable and fitting to the specialty. I think the only downside would be that it would offset their movement penalty… but I'm not certain that's much of a downside? In the end, though, I'll probably go ahead and concede the point that +10 Fellowship probably just isn't going to matter much. …But I still want a non-Ratling Sniper. :/
  14. Okay, I concede the reading and writing part, I… honestly have no idea where that came into my brain. I think perhaps I've been playing too much Warhammer Fantasy, or got confused by previous versions having a Literacy skill? Whatever, that was a fail on my part! As for Ministorum Priest vs. Ecclesiarchy, I also admit I'm not particularly knowledgeable about a lot of Warhammer fluff, so I probably further fail on that. Additionally, I further admit it feels (to me) a lot like the Perception aptitude is just kinda thrown onto a lot of the classes, and therefore I'm kind of rebelling against it. I mean, yeah, in general, who doesn't like being 'aware' of their surroundings, right? It's never a bad thing. But it feels hollow on a lot of classes. When I think of a priest, just in general, I definitely don't associate it with 'perceptiveness'. Meanwhile, I think my implications got out of hand, or I didn't consider them carefully enough. My thought was less being a scholarly monk (or, that's not what I should have implied) but rather someone who is a cut above the usual ignorant masses. They DO, after all, get three different Lore skills to begin with -- Common Lore (Ecclesiarchy), Forbidden Lore (Heresy), and Scholastic Lore (Imperial Creed). This implies that they are indeed learned people, even if they aren't quite like, say, Adepts in Dark Heresy. This is also why I didn't suggest giving them the Intelligence aptitude, because they don't strike me as scholarly sorts--but they are required to know more than the standard Guardsman, at least as it relates to religion. After all, you couldn't properly stoke the zealous fires of rage in a Guardsman if you didn't know the right litanies, parables and other catechisms, right? It's less 'intelligent, critical engagement of information' and more rote memorization of what's already there. That alone seems more like what a Priest is akin to, at least to me.
  15. Not to mention I see absolutely no Perception-based things on their recommended list of advancements, while again they have Lore skills recommended. Just, you know, sayin'.
×
×
  • Create New...