Jump to content

TwitchyBait

Members
  • Content Count

    288
  • Joined

  • Last visited


Reputation Activity

  1. Like
    TwitchyBait reacted to Revert in collar of subordination: Imbalanced?   
    It is extremely good in dis mirror matches, and against specific creatures with constant effects, like Hunting Witch, otherwise it might has well read destroy 1 creature. And I know this is an over simplification. Having a card that lets you destroy any creature is still an above average card, so I do think this card is extremely good, but as long as cards like Bait and Switch, Time Traveler, and Numquid the Fair exist, I have a hard time complaining about this card. This card feels like it fits well within in the upper tiers of power level. If I judge this against cards that are frustrating to play against instead of power level, I still end up with this card well outside the greatest offenders; Lash of Broken Dreams, Restringuntus, and Succubus to just name a few that can be more frustrating. 
    I agree this card is more powerful than the 2 cards you mentioned, but Dis is also much better at affecting board state than both Logos and Shadows, so it only makes sense that its card is more powerful. Overlord Greking is in the same house, and can theoretically steal multiple opposing troops, and doesn't need to worry that the next set having a card that can destroy upgrades. 
    I'm not against the idea of it exhausting the troop it takes, but only if the rule was added to all cards that can steal cards. That way the change can be part of the rules and not part of a the errata. I don't think this card is nearly imbalanced enough to justify an errata. 
    Sneklifter is one of the few cards that makes me wish this game has deck building, as I wish I could have 1 copy of this in every deck. It is a strong counter to the Library Access and Nepenthe Seed combo. When they don't have that combo, it is still amazing for countering any of the other artifacts in the game, I don't even care if it takes an artifact that I can't use (like Mothergun). In the rare occurrence that you are playing against a deck with no artifacts, it still gives you a creature you can reap with. But again, I can't find myself willing to call it overpowered as we need strong counters to Library Access and Nepenthe Seed, but again again, if a rule was added to make whatever it stole come over exhausted, I wouldn't mind that. 
  2. Like
    TwitchyBait got a reaction from Archlyte in Ideas for Spynet informaton   
    False:
    -The rebels where having supplies delivered somewhere outside of the city, possibly some kind of hideout.
    -A local port owner says the rebels docked their ship in his yard and he’s unhappy with the “future” promise of payment. He’ll gladly lead the imperials to the ship. Once arriving there a fragged looking ship secretly rigged to explode when the imperials get to close.
    True:
    -A local crime syndicate has eyes and ears everywhere and are loyal only to credits. They must have seen something and would be willing to hand it over for the right price or a favor.
    -A Local Bothan lost his son who was a contractor during a rebel bombing on an imperial facility that was being built. He’s heard one of the rebels was injured and got treated by a local vet who promised to keep the surgery on the down low. Being no fan of the rebels despite local pressures he’d gladly sell out the doctor for vengeance. 
  3. Like
    TwitchyBait reacted to whafrog in How would you handle a one player campaign?   
    I've run for my son quite a bit.  We always use 3 DP so there's some flow, plus there are too many situations where players could want to use a DP one turn after another, but with only 1 DP that's impossible if I don't also flip one immediately.
    Conflict is a lot tougher to scale.  Any string of cold dice can put the lone PC in serious jeopardy, so you always have to have a backup plan (capture & escape, Coruscant free-falls that land on passing speeders (or snagged by a large predatory bird), the arrival of "cavalry", etc).  My first campaign I knew it would be an issue, so I gave him a droid sidekick which he also controlled.  I also introduced a friendly NPC ally, but he started to rely on the ally for "advice", so that had to go away.  In any case, eventually he did want a campaign where he was a solo PC, and the Padawan was born.  I gave him boatloads of XP (300+ to start) provided he didn't min-max, free access to three related (Sentinel) trees at once, etc.  It's almost surprising how much XP you can spend and still have large areas of relatively poor odds.  Anyway, this PC is broadly capable, which takes the pressure off having to find an "expert" for every little thing (though experts are still sought out when, mechanically speaking, a 4+ dice pool is needed to have a chance at something).
    I will say it's actually good GM training to run just one PC it, it makes you more flexible and inventive with a larger group.  Failure is much more common, so "failing forward" requires a lot more creativity.
     
  4. Like
    TwitchyBait got a reaction from Rithuan in XP for Missing Players?   
    Again reading comprehension, try it sometime. “To begin with”
    No **** I responded to them AFTER they quoted me and took offense at my BEGINNING post.
  5. Like
    TwitchyBait got a reaction from penpenpen in XP for Missing Players?   
    Personally I keep xp static because it just makes scaling encounters easier and Id rather not disinsentivise players with less free time. Our group all have jobs, some of us have families and setting a regular meeting time where everyone can always show is unrealistic. Besides if something need be represented by them missing the sessions it’s that they missed out on plot and/or loot. The party comes across a foe wielding a lightsaber? Guess who’s out of the running for manning it, the player that’s not there. I feel no need to further punish by withholding exp as the character didn’t really cease to exist and exp is not often reflected by the difficulty of fights or any particular challenge but rather is just used as a mechanic to slowly scale up the capabilities and thus challenges the players face.
     
    Im kind of shocked by the people calling this method things like “participation trophies”, yikes what an awful table to be at where you treat it like a job instead of what it is, a game to hang out and have fun with. 
  6. Like
    TwitchyBait reacted to penpenpen in XP for Missing Players?   
    This is pretty much a hypothetical situation to me, as among the people I play with, we book a date when everyone can make it, and if someone has to cancel last minute, the rest of might get together anyway and do something else. If someone has to take an extended hiatus from a campaign, their character is written out or we put the campaign on hiatus until they get back. There's, after all, always something else we want to try, and usually someone else willing to jump in if we need to fill out that group.
    Of course, it's happened that some has had to cancel or even leave the session on very short notice due to some unforeseen emergency and in a situation like that, I'd normally wrap up the session right then and there if possible and if the night is young, maybe we watch a movie, get a board game or just hang out.
    That said, were someone to miss a session, I'd probably hand out xp to them anyway. After all, if someone jumps into the campaign at later point, I'd let their character start with the same total xp as the others, and use the same reasoning if a player retired their character or got it killed. The new character would have the same xp as the rest of the group (unless the player explicitly wants to play a rookie, and then I'd hand more xp to them until they caught up).
    To me, it's the rule of fun that matters, and if your fun is ruined by someone getting the same amount of xp as you despite missing a few sessions, I'm not sure I'd want you in my gaming group.
  7. Haha
    TwitchyBait got a reaction from Stan Fresh in XP for Missing Players?   
    Pot meet kettle, judging others calling it participation trophies while not wanting to be judged, sure ok then
  8. Like
    TwitchyBait reacted to SanguineAngel in XP for Missing Players?   
    Wow, what a rollercoaster read this thread has been! 
    Well, I'll throw my hat in the ring if no one minds. 
     
    XP gain for absent players
    In any system where xp is awarded out of play, I would generally err towards awarding xp to the team as a whole, and so also to absent players. Though I quite like to award bonus xp at the end of a scenario to worthy players but do this as a fun little thing with other players input. 
    I do this as, as a player, I just find it nicer if the whole team advances together. Also, I will admit that, though I'd never complain about it or let it really bother me, I have felt the base sour feeling of being penalised by missing xp for a missed session. And so I treat others as I would like to be treated. Its really the only thing I'd house rule on generally speaking. 
    However, with SWRPG, I award xp at the end of the episode or scenario, so a player missing a session never even comes up. It's more about what the team achieved in the episode. 
    Use of the word Punishment
    I saw some bitter back and forth on this topic and perhaps I'm a fool for opening my mouth, so to speak but... 
    I agree that by the exact definition, missing xp for a missed session is not a punishment. But is do think it is closer to a punishment than many analogies used: As XP is a purely notional currency entirely siloed within the economy of the game you play as a group. Therefore, unlike a specific dessert at a missed meal, or a promotional offer at a convention, the actual distribution of XP is only determined by 1 thing. The GM. Ultimately, the GM makes a judgement call to award XP. Any amount of time can pass but xp will never go off, never get eaten and never run out of stock or be redistributed elsewhere in the economy.
    Regardless, I think that whether it fits the actual definition is entirely academic. What actually matters is that it is close enough that it can feel like a punishment. Or even just that you are missing out. And even if that's not the reason you play, and even if you're having a great time, I know from experience that can be a little demoralising. 
    It's probably not enough to cause most people to leave a group but, I guess what a lot of people here are saying just "why do something negative when you can do something positive?" 
    I think it's a fair point (obviously) when I don't think it creates any mechanical issue - as the assignment of XP is in most games an external process.
     
    However, I'd certainly never have sour grapes at the prospect of missing xp for a missing a session and I have only ever experienced one player who ever made a fuss.
    So as I always seem to land on, ultimately, it's down to the group and what's the most fun for you. 

  9. Like
    TwitchyBait reacted to HappyDaze in XP for Missing Players?   
    In my games, the characters are present even if the players are not. Characters are what get XP, not the players, therefore everyone gets XP.
  10. Haha
    TwitchyBait got a reaction from Rithuan in XP for Missing Players?   
    Translation “dur dur repeat the same answer for me to ignore again, also irrelevant pizza”
  11. Like
    TwitchyBait got a reaction from Rithuan in XP for Missing Players?   
    So the pizza analogy has nothing to do with anything I said. Cool then I’ll happily ignore your straw man.
    Its not me feeling a punishment, I explained how it had a measurable negative effect on the character, the fact that you choose to ignore that explanation is entirely on you.
    I didn’t say you said it would hurt the game, I asked how it would as a justification for imposing that ruling. Reading comprehension is important.
    You then proceed the ask the same question I’ve answered several times. If you’re going to play stupid you can gladly continue to do so by yourself.
  12. Thanks
    TwitchyBait got a reaction from Rithuan in XP for Missing Players?   
    Math is math, no one ever said that die would effect every roll your character ever did. But if you’re just as effective in every check but miss that die in one check you are over all less effective, this lack of effectiveness increases the larger that xp gain becomes whether you wish to play stupid and ignore it or not. Period, that’s objective fact you ignore.
    Your pizza analogy is still meaningless, xp earns effects what that character can do in every session down the road and makes them less effective than they would be if they hadn’t received it. Similarly if you’re seriously going to stick with this idea that xp doesn’t translate directly into how effective a character is then awarding any xp period is meaningless, have fun with those party wipes as difficulty increases.
    You ask a lot of questions but answer none of mine despite me answering yours, typically the same one over and over. I’m not playing the “how dense can you be game”. How would giving that player the xp hurt the game? 
  13. Like
    TwitchyBait got a reaction from Rithuan in XP for Missing Players?   
    Well yes it’s entirely possible to dump your exp in different areas and be less effective in different areas you didn’t put that exp. Ie player who focuses 200exp on melee and stealth but has low agility and no ranks in ranged will be a worse shot than a starting character with high agility and ranks in ranged but that 0exp character will be far worse at melee/stealth let alone the plethora of talents and abilities and the character with the 200xp lead has. 
    Math is hard objective truth, how someone feels has no bearing on it and the simple fact is that having more exp gives you more options, more dice and statistically makes you objectively more effective in general. Players are free to “feel” differently and whatever works at your table works at your table. But if we’re talking purely hard objective fact less exp = less ability
  14. Like
    TwitchyBait got a reaction from Rithuan in XP for Missing Players?   
    You can disagree but math is math. Let’s go with the smallest die, a boost die. Not rolling it gives you a 100% chance of no benefit, rolling it gives you a 50% chance of no benefit. If you don’t get the exp to have an ability/rank whatever to roll that extra (or upgraded) die you objectively have worse odds on your rolls. That’s math, not opinion. Talents provide more options or more strain, you can happily claim those benefits don’t make a huge difference in small increments but saying they make no difference is just objectively false.
    Your pizza analogy is poor. As a GM as my players earn more exp I am able to reasonably tone up the difficulty of challenges. Present more difficult checks for more experienced missions. Ie first session it’s unlikely they’ll face a Sith but months in? Sure thats possible. This is basic GMing, the players characters grow stronger and more capable and thus to keep the story interesting they must face tougher challenges. If one guy misses a few sessions it might not be a big deal but for campaigns that go on for years suddenly the one guy that can always make it because he doesn’t have much going on else-wise he suddenly becomes much better at handling these challenges. Not having pizza doesn’t in any way effect how that players character can perform in contrast to the power creep.
    Again you’re free to not value these lower capabilities as punishments but as a direct decision of a players not to attend the GM is denying the abilty to keep up with the power creep as well as others and thus make that characters time more difficult. I feel that’s a punishment, a meaningless one that accomplishes nothing as keeping the exp doesn’t harm anyone and simple keeps the playing field negative.
    Why do you feel a player should be weaker than others who can attend more frequently and why is being present at all relevant as the character didn’t cease to exist? By this same logic a brand new player coming into an existing campaign should have 0exp and be just fine. Isn’t the lack of ability to play and have fun in itself enough of a lack of benefit?
  15. Like
    TwitchyBait got a reaction from Rithuan in XP for Missing Players?   
    You have objectively been at a disadvantage, even something as a single rank in a skill, a single boost die etc objectively makes you stronger. It’s fine that you’re good with it and don’t mind, that doesn’t make it any less true that you are now functioning at a disadvantage. Also the game does have challenge levels, a group of characters starting at just racial exp isn’t going to be as good as taking on challenges as knight level players. The GMs job is to slowly scale up the challenges ie higher difficulty checks, more opponents with better gear and talents etc. There is simply no chart rating individual enemies as appropriate for players with certain accumulations of exp, yet the challenge creep is still there.
  16. Like
    TwitchyBait got a reaction from Rithuan in XP for Missing Players?   
    I disagree it’s punishment in that having a life or obligations outside of the game will occasionally cause people to miss sessions, they are now less effective than every other player and the campaign grows more difficult for them than anyone else. That’s a negative gained via choice of the GM solely for actions and occurrences typically outside of the players control, ie a punishment.
    From the system it doesn’t make much sense anyways. The player character still exists, they’re still doing something even when not present even if outside the scope of the story. This isn’t DND where you get exp based on the challenge rating of fights, it’s meant as a narrative device that allows the characters to progress through a story and take on bigger challenges.
  17. Confused
    TwitchyBait got a reaction from Rimsen in XP for Missing Players?   
    So the pizza analogy has nothing to do with anything I said. Cool then I’ll happily ignore your straw man.
    Its not me feeling a punishment, I explained how it had a measurable negative effect on the character, the fact that you choose to ignore that explanation is entirely on you.
    I didn’t say you said it would hurt the game, I asked how it would as a justification for imposing that ruling. Reading comprehension is important.
    You then proceed the ask the same question I’ve answered several times. If you’re going to play stupid you can gladly continue to do so by yourself.
  18. Like
    TwitchyBait got a reaction from Rithuan in XP for Missing Players?   
    You fall behind the rest of the group, you have an intrinsic disadvantage in comparison to every other player. I might understand it if players where blowing off sessions but I’ve never had that be the case.
  19. Like
    TwitchyBait got a reaction from Rithuan in XP for Missing Players?   
    Personally I keep xp static because it just makes scaling encounters easier and Id rather not disinsentivise players with less free time. Our group all have jobs, some of us have families and setting a regular meeting time where everyone can always show is unrealistic. Besides if something need be represented by them missing the sessions it’s that they missed out on plot and/or loot. The party comes across a foe wielding a lightsaber? Guess who’s out of the running for manning it, the player that’s not there. I feel no need to further punish by withholding exp as the character didn’t really cease to exist and exp is not often reflected by the difficulty of fights or any particular challenge but rather is just used as a mechanic to slowly scale up the capabilities and thus challenges the players face.
     
    Im kind of shocked by the people calling this method things like “participation trophies”, yikes what an awful table to be at where you treat it like a job instead of what it is, a game to hang out and have fun with. 
  20. Confused
    TwitchyBait got a reaction from Rimsen in XP for Missing Players?   
    Math is math, no one ever said that die would effect every roll your character ever did. But if you’re just as effective in every check but miss that die in one check you are over all less effective, this lack of effectiveness increases the larger that xp gain becomes whether you wish to play stupid and ignore it or not. Period, that’s objective fact you ignore.
    Your pizza analogy is still meaningless, xp earns effects what that character can do in every session down the road and makes them less effective than they would be if they hadn’t received it. Similarly if you’re seriously going to stick with this idea that xp doesn’t translate directly into how effective a character is then awarding any xp period is meaningless, have fun with those party wipes as difficulty increases.
    You ask a lot of questions but answer none of mine despite me answering yours, typically the same one over and over. I’m not playing the “how dense can you be game”. How would giving that player the xp hurt the game? 
  21. Like
    TwitchyBait got a reaction from Stan Fresh in XP for Missing Players?   
    Translation “dur dur repeat the same answer for me to ignore again, also irrelevant pizza”
  22. Like
    TwitchyBait got a reaction from Stan Fresh in XP for Missing Players?   
    So the pizza analogy has nothing to do with anything I said. Cool then I’ll happily ignore your straw man.
    Its not me feeling a punishment, I explained how it had a measurable negative effect on the character, the fact that you choose to ignore that explanation is entirely on you.
    I didn’t say you said it would hurt the game, I asked how it would as a justification for imposing that ruling. Reading comprehension is important.
    You then proceed the ask the same question I’ve answered several times. If you’re going to play stupid you can gladly continue to do so by yourself.
  23. Like
    TwitchyBait got a reaction from Stan Fresh in XP for Missing Players?   
    Math is math, no one ever said that die would effect every roll your character ever did. But if you’re just as effective in every check but miss that die in one check you are over all less effective, this lack of effectiveness increases the larger that xp gain becomes whether you wish to play stupid and ignore it or not. Period, that’s objective fact you ignore.
    Your pizza analogy is still meaningless, xp earns effects what that character can do in every session down the road and makes them less effective than they would be if they hadn’t received it. Similarly if you’re seriously going to stick with this idea that xp doesn’t translate directly into how effective a character is then awarding any xp period is meaningless, have fun with those party wipes as difficulty increases.
    You ask a lot of questions but answer none of mine despite me answering yours, typically the same one over and over. I’m not playing the “how dense can you be game”. How would giving that player the xp hurt the game? 
  24. Like
    TwitchyBait reacted to Stan Fresh in XP for Missing Players?   
    You're conflating how people feel with how likely their PCs are to succeed at rolls. Those are two different things. Related, but different.
  25. Like
    TwitchyBait reacted to Stan Fresh in XP for Missing Players?   
    The idea that XP is tied to a character's experience is bogus anyway. What, sitting around on their starship and talking all session made them somehow buffer, or better at slicing security systems? Eh.
     
×
×
  • Create New...