Jump to content

Xuc Xac

Members
  • Content Count

    6
  • Joined

  • Last visited


Reputation Activity

  1. Like
    Xuc Xac reacted to 2P51 in Did the dice pack change?   
    Jake (Asmodee North America)
    Jul 19, 10:35 CDT
    2P51,

    Thanks for reaching out! The Genesys dice pack will come with two challenge dice. Thanks for asking!
    ---
    Jake
    Customer Service Team
    Asmodee North America
  2. Like
    Xuc Xac reacted to 2P51 in Did the dice pack change?   
    I sent an email to customer service.
  3. Like
    Xuc Xac got a reaction from TechnoGolem in Thoughts on magic systems   
    Something I've always wanted to try with a magic system is "Power is easy; Control is hard". For example, the classic D&D fireball spell does 5d6 damage in a 15 foot radius, but as you go up in level, the spell automatically does more damage and the range increases. But it always detonates exactly where you want. I'd like to try the reverse: the basic fireball does its maximum 20d6 damage but it deviates a random amount in a random direction so it's really hard to aim. It's possible to use at a low level, but you might blow yourself up with it, so it's better to wait until you have enough control to safely aim it. Instead of gaining more damage as you level up, you decrease the amount of deviation and can choose to make the blast smaller and weaker if you want.
    Basically, I want the fireball spell to be less like a laser-guided smart bomb with a simple point-and-click interface and more like a big pile of nitroglycerin: anyone can blow up themselves and the rest of the neighborhood in a huge explosion but you have to know what you're doing to only blow up what you want. Nobody is impressed by a backhoe driver who swings around and knocks down a brick wall with his digger bucket, but everyone is impressed by the one who can use it to flip a coin.
  4. Like
    Xuc Xac got a reaction from CitizenKeen in Thoughts on magic systems   
    Something I've always wanted to try with a magic system is "Power is easy; Control is hard". For example, the classic D&D fireball spell does 5d6 damage in a 15 foot radius, but as you go up in level, the spell automatically does more damage and the range increases. But it always detonates exactly where you want. I'd like to try the reverse: the basic fireball does its maximum 20d6 damage but it deviates a random amount in a random direction so it's really hard to aim. It's possible to use at a low level, but you might blow yourself up with it, so it's better to wait until you have enough control to safely aim it. Instead of gaining more damage as you level up, you decrease the amount of deviation and can choose to make the blast smaller and weaker if you want.
    Basically, I want the fireball spell to be less like a laser-guided smart bomb with a simple point-and-click interface and more like a big pile of nitroglycerin: anyone can blow up themselves and the rest of the neighborhood in a huge explosion but you have to know what you're doing to only blow up what you want. Nobody is impressed by a backhoe driver who swings around and knocks down a brick wall with his digger bucket, but everyone is impressed by the one who can use it to flip a coin.
  5. Like
    Xuc Xac got a reaction from TwiceBorn in Thoughts on magic systems   
    Something I've always wanted to try with a magic system is "Power is easy; Control is hard". For example, the classic D&D fireball spell does 5d6 damage in a 15 foot radius, but as you go up in level, the spell automatically does more damage and the range increases. But it always detonates exactly where you want. I'd like to try the reverse: the basic fireball does its maximum 20d6 damage but it deviates a random amount in a random direction so it's really hard to aim. It's possible to use at a low level, but you might blow yourself up with it, so it's better to wait until you have enough control to safely aim it. Instead of gaining more damage as you level up, you decrease the amount of deviation and can choose to make the blast smaller and weaker if you want.
    Basically, I want the fireball spell to be less like a laser-guided smart bomb with a simple point-and-click interface and more like a big pile of nitroglycerin: anyone can blow up themselves and the rest of the neighborhood in a huge explosion but you have to know what you're doing to only blow up what you want. Nobody is impressed by a backhoe driver who swings around and knocks down a brick wall with his digger bucket, but everyone is impressed by the one who can use it to flip a coin.
  6. Like
    Xuc Xac got a reaction from Absol197 in Thoughts on magic systems   
    Something I've always wanted to try with a magic system is "Power is easy; Control is hard". For example, the classic D&D fireball spell does 5d6 damage in a 15 foot radius, but as you go up in level, the spell automatically does more damage and the range increases. But it always detonates exactly where you want. I'd like to try the reverse: the basic fireball does its maximum 20d6 damage but it deviates a random amount in a random direction so it's really hard to aim. It's possible to use at a low level, but you might blow yourself up with it, so it's better to wait until you have enough control to safely aim it. Instead of gaining more damage as you level up, you decrease the amount of deviation and can choose to make the blast smaller and weaker if you want.
    Basically, I want the fireball spell to be less like a laser-guided smart bomb with a simple point-and-click interface and more like a big pile of nitroglycerin: anyone can blow up themselves and the rest of the neighborhood in a huge explosion but you have to know what you're doing to only blow up what you want. Nobody is impressed by a backhoe driver who swings around and knocks down a brick wall with his digger bucket, but everyone is impressed by the one who can use it to flip a coin.
  7. Like
    Xuc Xac got a reaction from Desslok in Setback / Difficulty / Challenge   
    My basic rule of thumb is this:
    Difficulty: "How hard is it normally?" Setback: "Is failure more likely than normal?" Challenge: "Does failure have worse consequences than normal?"
  8. Like
    Xuc Xac reacted to Tom Cruise in I figured out the genesys architypes.   
    Yeah I think spending XP on characteristics feels incredibly weird in the Star Wars system. It's also a bit of a non-choice; it's almost objectively a bad idea to spend XP on anything other than characteristics at character creation, you're shooting yourself in the foot if you don't pour all the points into your stats. That kind of forced choice is bad game design.
  9. Like
    Xuc Xac reacted to Tom Cruise in Just discovered Genesys, skeptical   
    It's fine if you don't think you'll be into it, but expecting it to fail because of your own reservations is a bit short sighted honestly.
    Between GURPS, Savage Worlds and Fate, it's clear that generic RPGs can carve out their own section of the market if they're compelling enough. And FFG is starting from a pretty good base with such a popular, unique core mechanic.
  10. Like
    Xuc Xac reacted to That Blasted Samophlange in Does anyone else think the symbols are too generic?   
    I actually prefer these symbols to the star wars.   The despair/triumph symbol is designed to be a success/failure with extra symbology.   My players for the longest time forgot that triumph and despair count as a success and failure respectively.
×
×
  • Create New...