Jump to content

Steve (of the Red Fez)

Members
  • Content Count

    53
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Steve (of the Red Fez)

  • Rank
    Member

Contact Methods

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

Profile Information

  • Location
    Metairie, Louisiana, United States

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. The only major advice I would give is to make his decisions as difficult as possible. Fantasy gaming typically makes a clear distinction between the "good guys" and the "villains". Don't do this. Make everyone a person. Make their circumstances real and tragic. No one chooses to fall to chaos "just 'cuz". Not every villain is a minion of the ruinous powers. He needs to face those situations in which he must decide whether or not to execute innocent people for the greater good, or whether he can take the risk of a letting a possibly good man or woman live. This is where the heart and soul of your game should live. Don't get me wrong, fights are cool. Killing daemons is great. But neither of these things will have as big of an impact as deciding whether or not to burn a man because he unwittingly let a possible mutant stay in his home to escape the rain one night. Add to that scene the man's small child begging for his father's life and the wife screaming with tears. When your player finds that "mutant", only to discover he was just a filthy beggar with no trace of mutation at all... well, those decisions will really start to take their toll and THAT'S what a witch hunter campaign is all about.
  2. It's best to not care. Your first tip was the clear misunderstanding of ammunition rules. It rolls downhill from there. I typed this in a 3 second action. What did he misunderstand about the ammunition rules?
  3. Hey, folks. I just thought I'd share the superior armour rules we've been using in my game. It's pretty simple. When a character purchases superior armour it reduces the encumbrance of the armour by 1/3 and the player gets to choose one perk from this list to customize the armour: Blackened: This modification gives the character +1 fortune die to stealth tests against visual detection Well-Oiled: This modification gives the character +1 fortune die to stealth tests against audio detection Beautiful: Wearing this armour will impart +1 fortune die on all Fellowship tests that might impress of charm someone. Built in Gorget: This armour comes with a gorget to protect your neck (as per the advanced armour rules). This does not increase the encumbrance of the armour, but it does increase the cost by 15 silver. Built in Pauldrons: This armour comes complete with pauldrons to protect your shoulders (as per the advanced armour rules). This does not increase the encumbrance of the armour, but it does increase the cost by 10 silver. These pauldrons will still inflict 1 misfortune die to all visual-based observation tests. Built in Breastplate: This armour comes with a breastplate to protect your chest (as per the advanced armour rules). This does not increase the encumbrance of the armour, but it does increase the cost by 1 gold. Perfectly Tailored: This armour fits perfectly. As a result, the encumbrance of this armour is decreased to 1/2 the normal amount (for example, a chain coat would go from 6 encumbrance to 3). Armored Bracers: Heavy metal bracers are built into the forearms of this armour, permitting the wearer to use the Block action even when unarmed Let me know if you can think of more perks to add to this list (there's also a beta "flaws" list for poor or damaged armour, but I haven't needed to develop it yet). Oh, I almost forgot! We have an "Advanced Armour Rules" system to spice up the game! It's pretty simple. It offers the player the chance to buy specific pieces of armour to increase their protection against certain criticals, but the encumbrance really starts to stack up. Here are the rules: When a character suffers a critical wound to a location in which they are wearing one of these pieces of armour, the critical is converted back into a normal wound and that armour is "damaged". That means it is unusable until repaired. Another critical to the "damaged" armour will destroy it. If you suffer one of the rare severe criticals (from Omens of War), the armor will convert it into a normal wound and be destroyed. A list of all the criticals the armor protects you from is included and small armor cards are being made to make it easy to reference. "Prevents" are the normal criticals. "Wards against" are the severe criticals. For full disclosure, I've modified the combat system a bit as well as the basic armour stats. it doesn't apply to the above rules so I won't bother adding it here, but it might come up if you've got any questions about the above rules. --Steve--
  4. Since the 90's, I've had "The Rice Rule". It states, "You may not have any character named after any pop-culture reference, nor anything tangentially related to such references. Nor L337speak." This one started out when I had a parade of newbie naming disasters that originated with characters from Ann Rice novels (we weren't even playing a World of Darkness game). Then I had to expand it to Star Wars (playing a boy-knight named Skywalker in a gritty fantasy game doesn't work). And then to the l337speak crowd (between KeWlDoOd, and DoodleMesiterMeisterDoodler I was pretty much done with this nonsense). Character names must fit the setting. You get three tries before I give you a random name. We almost had to make a Dr'zzt rule (or however you spell that name). There was a period where everyone was playing a Dark Elf. When we didn't have a Dark Elf, a player (I swear to god) said, "Okay, I'm playing an Elf... who is... DARK". I'm not making that up. I'm not even making up the dramatic pauses. That character was like gaming with a Mel Brooks skewed angsty William Shatner. He kept "DRIFTING BACK... into the shadows...!" He kept climbing the trees to snipe any foe who attempted to attack the one girl who played with our group (she played a female fighter) because he... "was RESCUING HER... from harm....! <and then I drift BACK... into the shadows...!" Before I could make a rule the party... revolted.... and threw the player OUT of the group... and into the shadows...!
  5. So far I've had one of two reactions from players. They either enjoy playing the demo characters as-is and don't have any interest in buying anything (which is fine), or they get really into the game, buy in and make a character. Either way they have fun. My current table is made up of five guys who bought a pile of stuff. They asked me to run a campaign for them (at least ten sessions, but probably more). They made characters last session and we played the first "100% player made character" game tonight. It was a lot of fun. The first time I ever encountered any push back, much less rage, was here. Up to now everyone I've played with has either been happy to play for free or has enjoyed strategically building their characters with their perks. It surprised me that there could be so much venom. Regardless, we still have fun. As for my getting hold of all of the sweet, SWEET FFG WARHAMMER CASH, well clearly this is a fiscally responsible plan. There are literally SEVERAL dollars to be made here. Finally, I can buy that yacht. Actually, I do demos all the time of a variety of games that I like. I took up Warhammer because my store asked me to do it and I'm a Warhammer fan from the 80's. The guys who run the store are nice. They needed help. I helped. it really is that simple. They asked me to help get the game off the ground because they thought it was a good product. My big payoff is in a soda at the table and seeing people enjoy themselves. Seriously, if you think there is money in demoing then you clearly don't understand the way this works. The store gets the tiny margin on product. If they don't, they go bye-bye. If you want to make money you could demand everyone buy stuff off of you, but then the store would kick you out (and rightly so). Ah, why bother trying to clarify? This isn't about being reasonable, it's about yelling. I'll just keep running my games and planning to sail to Bora-Bora on a flotilla of Adventurer's Toolkits. With regards to becoming an employee via running a game in a store in Louisiana (well known as a hotbed for role-playing games)? Of COURSE I expect FFG will have scouts in my store. Applying for a job with a resume is for suckers. This way is much faster. P.S. Emirikol, I'd love to get that demo stuff from you. Can you send it to me?
  6. I've got to say, Winds is not at all necessary if you don't have a wizard in your party. It's true that it has the rules for corruption/mutations, but those aren't nearly such common occurrences... unless you WANT them to be common, in which case you'll probably want that set. Similarly, diseases are included in Signs of Faith and that can be fun, but if you don't want a filthy, gritty world then you don't really need it (they also slow down your game if you use them too much). Honestly, you've got the two most important things you'll need. The core set is critical, and the adventurers toolkit is *hands down* the best bang for your buck when it comes to player enjoyment (basically, it's a bucket of extra cards and options with no fluff to slow you down). As a GM, I personally liked the expanded wound cards in Omens of War. They were a practical addition that saw everyday use at my game (severe criticals that can cut off an arm or a leg lends to some pretty nerve wracking fights). The rest of that set was underwhelming. The rules for horses were pretty terrible (WAY over complicated), the "rules" for fighting styles were absurd (i.e. there are no rules for fighting styles... they're just traits you can use for "flavor" unless you want to invent your own house rules regarding those traits), and the six or so "weapon enhancement" cards were kind of... odd. Mind you, the rest of that set will certainly give you plenty of ways to kill stuff. If that's what you want then go for it! I suppose I should say that you ought to get the creature vault. The creature cards make life easier overall, even if they were poorly implemented (creature action cards look exactly like player action cards and there is little guidance as to who should get what card).
  7. I do not think it is wrong to expect players to buy into a game. I think it is a basic adult responsibility to pay for your entertainment. I think it is wrong for players to simply expect a GM to foot the cost for everything unless the GM wishes to do so. I have already purchased everything for this game so this isn't an issue, hence the pre-gens. If it were a game with my close friends then I wouldn't mind sharing my set, but this is a public game. I am introducing the game to people, showing them a fun time, and helping give the game a local foothold. That last part doesn't happen if people don't buy in. Furthermore, if a player ever demanded that I buy things so he can play, I would not invite him to the table. For a player to angrily insist that any expectation for him to either play a locked pre-gen or buy into the game is wrong would be incredibly rude and I'd politely advise him join a different game and introduce him to the other GMs. As you've said, you would never be put in that position because you would never consider playing, which benefits us both. As to the barrier to entry, so far everyone is having a great time. The rules are taught so there is no barrier there. The pre-gens are very good so no one has felt that they required advancement to have fun, so there is no barrier there either (many players make their first characters to mimic the demo characters). The fact that most of my players choose to buy in and are excited about it tells me there is no barrier with the people I've met. I personally think the game shines at the five to seven advance mark, which is why I set things up the way I have. To pay for a game is something that any mature adult should be prepared to do. Yes, there will always be people who try to torrent everything and sponge off of their friends books and supplies just as there will be GMs who are okay with this. As I've said, this isn't that kind of game. I have no problem taking the time to teach the game and discuss the game, but I am not about to loan my books out or have them keep my cards from week to week, nor has anyone expected me to do so. You seem to be extremely angry and offended over what is ultimately the player being given a very flexible choice: they can buy nothing and play a very capable pre-gen that all of my players have come to love (over the past year or two no one has even asked about advancing them), or buy in and control your own destiny. Or you can play a different game altogether (the Pathfinder guys are two tables away). You've said the sanctity "is violated when you ask players to buy supplements in order to play their own XP-gaining character, or else play an XP locked Pre Generated character." The only reason to feel this specific sanctity is violated is if character advancement is the ultimate goal of your game and if you do not wish to ever actually purchase that game. Luckily, this hasn't yet been a problem. The second demo I ran went a dozen sessions in a continuing story arc that spanned from Nuln to Mordheim. By the end, only two players had bought into the system, but all of the players who used the demo characters had a blast. For them (and myself) it was never about leveling up and becoming super-powerful. It was about the story. That's why they showed up. That's why players are willing to buy into the game and make characters with unique stories that they can shape from scratch. The current demo went so well that all six of my players wanted to do a campaign (which I'm prepping now). They've all bought in to the system and have no regrets. That doesn't sound like they've hit a barrier to me. In the end, you don't seem to have any questions about how this works or why people are enjoying it. You've made your decision about it. You said you don't have an issue with the inclusion of advanced characters. You instead seem to be offended at the thought of having to pay for something (forgive me if that sounds harsh but that's what I'm reading). If the perks were ruining the game then no one would play and the perceived problem will ultimately solve itself, right? But that hasn't happened so we will keep gaming until it does.
  8. My phone cut off the last part of my post: You've said these perks are contrary to the spirit of roleplaying. I believe the spirit of roleplaying is to have fun telling exciting stories with your friends. These perks do no harm to that spirit. If anything, they let you build the exact kind of character you'd like to play. Some players enjoy games about slaughtering monsters and taking their stuff. That violates the spirit of what I think of as a roleplaying game but it is no less valid of a way to play. If a player gets an awesome weapon in such a game and I don't, we have a rift in power. What does it matter how it happened? If he purchased it, found it, was best friends with the GM, was the first to call dibs... the fact is that all games have the potential for a rift in character power. It is up to the GM to keep things fair and equitable. From what you've said you seem to feel that the sanctity (for want of a better term) of the game is violated because the players didn't slog through every advance, but I have no interest in forcing them through that slog if they don't want to. My game is fully prepared for characters who are more advanced but will also accommodate weaker characters. Their stories will still be engaging and the players will still have a hell of a good time. To me, THAT'S the spirit of a roleplaying game.
  9. I can understand your perspective. At a private table I would be more likely to agree with you, but then again I might not. If a player joined a group in which the average character had seven advances would the GM start the new payer with zero? This is not a trick question because there is no right answer. If you start them at zero they might feel weak compared to the others and that they can never catch up. If you give them the advances the other players might feel like they didn't earn it and resent you giving everything away. The bottom line is that everyone should have fun. That's really all there is to it. If everyone understands that, and if you communicate that goal clearly and respectfully, then the above problem should never really come up. I run these games at my friendly local game store. We use their space to play. I would like for the store to be successful and to continue to welcome roleplayers. If people come in, use the space and spend nothing, the store will of course need to prioritize. They will need to use that space for games that lead to sales or risk going out of business. This perk system stimulates sales, but only if the game I run is deemed by the players to be a worthy value for admittedly steep cost Warhammer presents. So far they have been extremely positive on that point which is nice. I understand that you would never participate in such a game, but my players understand my reasons and see it as a fair deal. As to the issue of paying for success, I have no real interest in players starting from scratch in this game. My demo characters (you can find them in another thread) are made with seven advances. Purchasing the game and expansions also leads to roughly seven. This allows my players to start at an equal level to these demo characters and thus gives them an equivalent play experience. I have no problem keeping things balanced and no one has felt slighted. When I run a demo I provide everything, but my demo characters do not ever gain experience. If a player wants to create a character they must buy their own components. The issue of paying for advantage is already built into Warhammer because a player who buys Omens of War or Lure of Power will have access to things other players will not. However, this doesn't break the game. Instead it merely allows the player to explore a more specific type of character. You've very clearly stated your opposition to the perks. I understand why. Clearly this is not a game you would want to be associated with. This is perfectly fine. None of that really matters. What does matter is that my players are having a lot of fun and my local store is happy to have us there. So long as those things are true I'm satisfied with the perks I've given.
  10. I wrote the clue cards and can provide a printable PDF if needed. Also, a revised version will be made available soon (complete with a guide on how to use these cards). --Steve--
  11. I've made another update, this time to Signs of Faith. Players can now choose to start play as a Zealot (again, I'm surprised I missed this one) and can choose their first insanity.
  12. I've been thinking about it and have just put this question to my group, but I thought I'd also get your opinions too. I'm considering adding a perk to Lure of Power for those who don't take a noble and therefore cannot get the retainer: If you start as a non-noble character with the "Social" trait, then instead of a retainer you may begin the game with connections in the underworld or city bureaucracy (your choice).
  13. I made a few changes based upon feedback in my current group. I've added the following: When buying Lure of Power you can now simply choose to start as a character with either the noble or social trait (except for commoner, because it doesn't really fit with the theme of this set) or any basic career that is included in this set. These characters will also begin with one extra advance as well. When buying Winds of Magic you can now simply choose to start as a basic character with academic trait (except for initiate, since it would conflict with the Signs of Faith perk) or any basic character included in this set. When buying Signs of Faith you can now simply choose to start as any basic career that is included in this set.
×
×
  • Create New...