Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About mrvander

  • Rank
  • Birthday 05/14/1971

Profile Information

  • Location
    Woodstock, IL
  1. Here's an example: If there's a device that pours water into a glass and all you have to do is pick a size container and hit the switch, many think that works just fine and use it to great effect. Then someone comes along and says, "yeah, but it's just hard to grasp what the intent is and it's difficult to pick the right glass." So you house rule the system so that a few more dice rolls define the size container for you. It works for you and then you share it. Now, you find it doesn't work for all those who had no problem picking their own size container. They're going to let you know about it. Some may have good feedback, some may be mean spirited. It doesn't mean your rule doesn't work for you. It just means it doesn't work for them and they include an explanation why.
  2. I can answer that. First, don't take it personally. Games go through a careful design process. Doesn't matter what kind of game, from Monopoly to card games, to RPG's to video games. Every rule, every stat, every choice of wording is given attention yet when all the pieces come together, some come together in was the designers never considered. This is called emergent behavior. Perhaps some were missed purposely as the designers are also the ones closest to their system and feel the system works as is. Many players feel this way as well especially when they understand that which the designers intended about the overall design of the game. Many other players also get the design but just simply dislike it. There is nothing the designers can do about that. So if some say the game works just as it is (as many feel this one does), that can lead to feeling the need to defend it. Some that may have a good grasp of game balancing and design intent then when they see house rules that come along, they may offer feedback as to why it "breaks" some other part of the game. Granted, some do just want to bash it (this is the Internet after all). I'd give benefit of the doubt first that even if no alternatives or coaching is provided - that most likely have good intent to provide feedback to mold the house rule into something better in defense of the game. The problem is most are just good at pointing out what's wrong, some more diplomatically than others. But it all stems from those stated needs - design defense. Now, let's not ignore the other side of the coin. People say something because a lot of house rules are just crappy slop that simply don't take design into account one bit. Not everyone has a degree in game design. Not everyone is a master at game mastering. Some can't even spell "canon" correctly or use the words "lose" and "loose" appropriately. Again, this is the Internet. If you put it out there, you're soliciting feedback, you can't control what you're going to get. If you expect all glowing praise, don't post on the Internet. You may make something that works for you, don't expect it to be liked. Look at Hollywood. How many crap movies and TV shows are there? Do you think somebody making a bad movie thinks it's a horrible piece of work? Probably not, it worked for them. If you share your contributions to the community, wonderful - just expect some detractors. Don't let it knock you down though. In the end, as a maker of house rules, I'll take the good feedback, mold my house rules into something better, and ignore the rest. As a design defender, i'll provide my experience to help make their game a bit better. It's up to them what they want to do with that feedback. In the end, somebody else's house rule doesn't affect my game, what do I really care what they do?
  3. I get the feeling many would have problems playing "Amber Diceless RPG" based on Roger Zelazny's Amber Chronicles by Phage Press (old RPG - absolutely loved it.)
  4. It seems to me the movement and range rules, especially in space combat are the toughest things for many veteran roleplayers to grasp in this ruleset. It may be that we have RPG elements that have statistics, much as any other RPG, yet one is expected to use those stats in a cinematic, relative and narrative fashion - NOT in a strict Stat A is better then Stat B comparison. The stats are there to support or inform the narrative. Look at the design of the system. All the stats are meant to support the narrative function of the dice. They're not written-in-stone, player-argument fodder to foil the GM with. That goes against the spirit of the design. How many times throughout the rulebook do we see phrases such "up to the GM" or "these are just examples" or "narrative", "cinematic" and "relative"? From many discussions and posts I see on this forum, those who are having a tough time or simply just dislike it tend to turn to the familiar, "old" way of doing things - rule lawyering, grids, hexes, and house rules. That's simply NOT this design. It certainly takes some getting used to - but I for one think once it's second nature to myself and my players, space combat WILL be incredibly cinematic and narrative, not slowed down by those old familar, RPG crutches. We play Battletech and X-wing to get our technical rule and miniatures-on-a-grid thing on, we play EotE for cinematic, FAST, RPG stories.
  5. Why are we still talking about this? I mean, it's cool and all I was able to start a thread that has broken the 50 post/1000 view mark, but even I, the OP, am tired of the topic!
  6. So to address, your actual question - do a search on "Bear Grylls Tundra" and watch those (or buy it on Amazon - Man vs. Wild, season 2, episode 8 - Siberia) That should give you plenty of ideas for non-combat encounters in a Hoth environment besides the ones you'll have setup with the research station and its people.
  7. I am honestly surprised by how many of you LOVE this ABY/BBY thing. Makes me feel... smart and superior (totally kidding! I'm quite an idiot in real life.)
  8. Nah - "silly" is just my opinion. You can't argue it - all you can do is state yours!
  9. Well.... I think it stretches credibility that Echo Base would be "publicly" known at all. If it were me and since you asked, I would make it pre-Echo Base. A true scientific station - like in The Thing. What we have in the movies is Captain Piett saying, "But, sir, the Hoth system is supposed to be devoid of human forms." This is at the time of Empire Strikes Back, but it doesn't mean there wasn't ever a science outpost there that was abandoned in short-time due to whatever emergency you have concocted that is going to get the characters embroiled. Piett, the go-getter that he is, did his homework when sending out probes and knew off the top of his head Hoth was likely a dead end due to these events years ago and lifeform readings now, all these years later struck him as the "best lead", despite Ozzel's incompetence. It's not so far-fetched, I'd go with it.
  10. Well, if it doesn't matter to you or your players, why'd you post here? (j/k - post away!)
  11. Actually Star Trek did change its dating system when TNG aired. In the Original Series it went like this: Today's date in our calander in September 14, 2013. In the TOS series it was yearmonth.date so you got 1309.14. Basically 2000 became year zero. I have no idea how the newer system works. The Trek people who wrote for TNG, DS9, VOY, all the movies (including the new ones) just switched without making a big deal about it. It was like they never used the old system. They have a book out explaining it. Can't remember the title though. And that is exactly the opportunity I feel FFG missed. They could have changed it so something less silly just as you point out Trek had. No fuss, no muss.
  12. And so you now agree that since there are realword examples of silly year 0's, it's not such an unrealistic thing to have a year 0 based on a pivotal battle in the Star Wars universe? We're all good apparently and can move on to the next topic. Glad we got that straight. I get the sense you are arguing for ABY/BBY? Strange way to go about it by providing solid examples of the silliness - it doesn't make the retconning of ABY/BBY any LESS silly because there are real world examples to back it up! And it doesn't certainly argue for FFG missing an opportunity to do something that just makes sense.
  13. So you agree then, it is silly! Thanks for providing real world examples of said silliness!
  • Create New...