Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About MuttonchopMac

  • Rank
  • Birthday 08/01/1991

Profile Information

  • Location
    The Misty Mountains

Recent Profile Visitors

746 profile views
  1. Yup. It was like $15-20 for a beta book, which came with dice stickers, but only certain local game stores elected to buy shipments of beta books, so good luck getting one...
  2. Fair enough. I'm not defending the PDFs by any means - just trying to be positive.
  3. A big thing to consider here is that adjusting the text can lead to rules shifting pages, especially where large cuts or additions (like reworking Strife / Unmasking) are concerned, and now every single rules reference page number has to be re-evaluated, or the document will get harder to navigate. Personally, if the I was on a team that was trying to handle art, design final PDF layouts, mod rules, scour the forums / feedback, and write fluff text, then making the free beta PDF nice would be the least of my worries.
  4. I've not had many issues thanks to the linked Table of Contents at the start of the book. Also, if it's so bad it need major layout changes, I'm sure the layout people are working hard on that, rather than working on merging rule changes into a crappy old version of the pdf that they're not intending to use. EDIT: I would also note that the Star Wars beta was a paid beta, so even if the PDF is a little crappy, be happy it's free to participate in the beta.
  5. You could try out the Spinning Blades Style technique as the school ability and see if it feels balanced. That's about dual-wielding. Granted, it's a rank 2 technique, but it doesn't seem too overpowered on a starting character because of the Opportunity requirement.
  6. This discussion has drifted a lot from the original topic (modifying the sides of the dice) and may warrant a new thread to discuss the order of mechanics and narrative and the idea of dice exploding differently.
  7. Well I apologize to him for that. I've gotten a bit frustrated seeing a lot of responses that are pure criticism regarding the dice, tone, etc.
  8. I will admit that it can lead to players saying, "I'll attack," and then treating the dice as a narrative slot machine... But - and my experience with this narrative flow model is the Star Wars narrative dice - I find that my group and I have an easier time narrating the results of a roll rather than some elaborate attempt, and that it's more satisfying. We avoid the narrative slot machine attitude and it works out well for us, but I do get that this could be problematic for your play-style. It works for us because we negotiate ideas to find a cool way that the zombie is slain (decapitation, slashing certain tendons to disable it, etc), and it all has to be GM approved, and the player who rolled is still contributing creative solutions. I agree here. FFG should consider something more in the vein of classic D&D, where some stuff is called before the roll (fancy feats) and some stuff is determined afterwards (criticals) to strike a better balance. Maybe a called effect is cheaper in cost than one turned up after the roll somehow? It would take some restructuring, but I could get behind a modification like this. Thoughts? This beta needs only one type of criticism - constructive criticism - the rest isn't helpful to anyone. A statement of disgust is not constructive criticism; it is insulting and disrespectful to the people who made the game, and doesn't help them make a better game. Hence my remark to Mirumoto Saito.
  9. I would be all for an Explosive Success earning you an extra Success or Opportunity (player's choice) instead of rolling another die. The fact that you can explode a die and roll a blank seems like a glaring flaw to me...
  10. This "solving" sounds a lot like a game of "guess the GM's specific path to success." It's like a GM deciding that the party will not move forward until someone specifically says they try feeling for a hidden switch inside a desk drawer, and it's very much reminiscent of say, old video game boss fights, where you had to figure out the one weird trick to actually win - clearly if the boss is in huge armor, we must remove the armor piece by piece until it's vulnerable to attack, and clearly this requires a certain stance and Opportunity cost! This robs players of any agency except to keep guessing until the GM finally congratulates them on reading his mind. That's not story, at least to my group; that's a mechanical roadblock to story happening. The story of a fight is in the narration, the dramatic stakes as set by the plot, and see how far the players will go to fulfill their duty. The "backwardness" helps remove the super-cautious play of 4e, where players did chip damage to an Oni while trying to get a feel for the TN to hit the thing and calculate how many Raises they could afford to call without missing too much. Dunno about your experience with 4e but I felt that Raises sucked because they made you less likely to accomplish ANYTHING AT ALL unless you wanted to do a lot of math. If this change is too much for you to bear, you're welcome (as always) to keep playing 4e instead of this. Many of us love it.
  11. Definitely behind kkuja on this one. Blades in the Dark is a fantastic heist game that boils heist planning down into a super simple question and answer: What is the first critical part of the heist? This varies by heist a lot, but if you have a 2-3 step plan provide by the players, it's enough to go with. In the original Mission Impossible, the first important point is when they enter CIA Headquarters in disguise. The next is likely drugging a poor sap who will get in their way. Last is the actual infiltration of the room. Just have players grab some gear, and then roll some skill to see how things are going at the point when the action picks up. This could be good or bad. Then from there on out, if they need to cover a bit of planning (acquiring a critical piece of gear they didn't have) then they flip a DP, narrate a bit, then roll dice to do the thing. If they fail, it costs them two DP to have accomplished the thing, or they accept the failure and narrate why it suddenly doesn't work during the actual heist or some other complication. EXAMPLE: Say they need to have drugged a guy to make him sick and get out of the way. They flip a DP to have the drug, and roll for acquisition. They fail. Now they can choose between flipping another DP to force a success or narrate how say, they got the drug but it doesn't affect Rodians (oops), or it works but they had to promise the dealer a cut of the score and that will come back to bite them. The reasons this model works so well are that it plays out like heist films (non-linear structure), and avoids the marathon 6-hour planning session that is plagued by analysis paralysis. An one other pro tip from a long time GM: Failing a Stealth check doesn't mean you were caught with your pants down - it probably means you didn't make any progress towards your objective. A 3 Threat might mean someone is coming to investigate a noise (do something risky, quick!), and Despair is actually being spotted quite clearly, but don't ever hinge the whole heist on one flubbed roll.
  12. You missed something important: you talk of "I attacked him AND cut a weak point in his armor," when my whole example was that the attack be hanged, I'm doing something else BESIDES attacking the guy here and that is the whole goal of my roll, as much as if I were rolling to climb a wall in the midst of a combat scene. My approach embraces the "narrative driven story-fights" that you want, and lets players set aside dealing wounds out for being part of the story and world. This is a much more narrative-focused approach than your mechanics-focused approach. Opportunity has nothing to do with Raises in my mind because I'm coming from Edge of the Empire's Advantage and Triumph, which is quite a bit more nebulous and flexible, where they give bonus effects to the roll, rather than measuring success / failure. The reason that tying Opportunity up in success / failure seems silly to me is that the rules never imply this anywhere, as far as I've seen. Opportunity is always just a bonus effect in addition to the roll AFTER the roll; otherwise players should have to call that they're swinging for a critical hit BEFORE the roll, which is not how the rules work. If you can point me to an example in the rules where it says you need Opportunities or the roll fails, I'll gladly switch to your side on this. Also, what do you actually want of "chancy" rolls? You're apparently interested in having them by requiring Opportunities above and beyond Successes, but you're also complaining that it's too hard to get a crit, so I don't get what you actually want. TN 3 to do a fun, narrative, non-attack thing is far more likely than TN 2 and 2 Opportunities because you only need to keep 3 dice, rather than 4, and yet you're claiming this is harder to achieve, which I just don't get... I really don't want to be just another argument on these argument-laden forums, but I'm genuinely confused about your standpoints, which I just can't find rules to back up. Please understand that I'm trying to be clear with the large paragraphs up above, not antagonistic.
  • Create New...