Jump to content

panpolyqueergeek

Members
  • Content Count

    143
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by panpolyqueergeek

  1. I think a solution that is easy to track, and empowers and encourages players without adding too many new mechanics is to make a pool of temporary Story Points that is only good for the combat, and increases in size every round (rate determined by how fast/deadly you want combat to be). Points spent from these pools are discarded, not transferred to the GM pool (or maybe they are?). At the end of combat, any remaining unspent temporary Story Points are discarded.
  2. TIL that advocating for the existence of gay, trans, and colored folks is an "adversarial issue"
  3. It's more likely than you think.
  4. I was able to pick one up on eBay for a reasonable price. The only other listing I could find is in Australia with ridiculous shipping rates to the US. I recommend setting up an eBay alert.
  5. Funny you should mention Cyberpunk CCG. The Cyberpunk CCG, as well as the first edition of Netrunner published in 1996 by WotC, were both set in R.Talsorian Games' Cyberpunk 2020 tabletop RPG setting. The term "Netrunner" comes from the "hacker" class in the RPG. My theory behind the license not getting renewed is based on CD PROJEKT RED's upcoming Cyberpunk 2077 game (also based on R.Talsorian Games' Cyberpunk 2020 setting). Gwent, the in-universe CCG in CDPR's The Witcher 3, became popular enough to spawn a standalone free-to-play game. I think WotC intends to either simultaneously re-release Netrunner in the Cyberpunk 2077 universe alongside the video game as either an IRL CCG (again), an in-game CCG (ala Gwent), or a standalone video game (also ala Gwent). One of those, or some combination of the three. Or maybe I'm wrong. I dunno, I feel like it def has something to do with Cyberpunk 2077, and FFG will not have the opportunity to get near the Cyberpunk license.
  6. "Threats lead to bickering. Bickering leads to time stealing. Time stealing leads to... being arrested by Time Cops."
  7. Was it in combat? The table for spending Triumph and Advantage in combat (EotE Core, p206) has examples that go all the way up to 2 Triumph results Or you could proc two different 1-Triumph cost results. Personally, I would use one to affect the combat mechanics (proc a crit, for example), and the other to introduce a twist or complication into the combat (a piece of gear is disabled, a door control is shot out sealing the players in or out, etc). Edit: a similar rule applies to Advantages and Threats: if someone rolls 4 advantage, they could purchase the same 1-cost benefit 4 times, 4 different 1-cost benefits, or mix and match, as long as the total spent does not exceed the amount rolled.
  8. Yes, it is a ranked talent. No, you cannot choose the same combat skill twice. Source: Edge of the Empire, Core Rule Book, page 134. Edit: ninja'd by HappyDaze lol
  9. "You can play a space wizard or a cyborg alien assassin a long time a go in a galaxy far, far away, but heckin no you can't play a different gender." Like, just have a good session zero or discussion about it maybe, rather than a blanket ban. Literally tell them "I don't particularly like playing "Wacky Fun Time Fondling Myself in the Mirror" or any of the other bulldrek that I've seen from gender bending." Let them know where you stand on it and what you expect. It isn't "skin off of my back," but it might not be the best practice because a lot of closeted trans people use safer places like video games and tabletop games to express their true self without having to "come out", for one reason. I also think being the judge of which is the "right way" to "think and act like the opposite sex" is sexist and harmful, because that means you have expectations of how they play their assigned gender. It could be liberating for a woman gamer to play a male character with stereotypical male traits, and not have to rationalize it to you where she might have to if she exhibited the same behavior with a woman character. And vice versa. That's not a best case scenario, but it is another valid reason that someone might play a character of a gender different from their own. But I def think it's reasonable to expect them to not play "Wacky Fun Time Fondling Myself in the Mirror" at the table. That what self-insert fanfics are for.
  10. This is exactly what broke my last group. One player was new to tabletop, but had a lifetime of video game RPG experience. She did not adapt well to working in a group, and played her character like she was going for the highest negative karma in a Fallout game. Trying to have earnest talks about it only curbed it a little, but lead to her just not engaging as much and sending her character off to lone wolf things. I always ask what the player's goals are, and what their character's goals are, and try to work all of that into the game- even if it doesn't happen every session. I try to spotlight at least one character, if not more, every session, and she definitely had her fair share of spotlight scenes and moments. The problems seemed to emerge whenever it wasn't her spotlight scene or self-imposed lone wolf sidequest. I did my best to try to engage her with Rebellion intrigue and we even reworked her character to better fit what she wanted out of the game. We were playing EotE, and I think she would rather play AoR. In the end, it was bad fit and every session left a bad taste in my mouth as I mostly spent my time trying to keep her from just killing every NPC when they didn't do what she wanted. At a certain point I decided that the labor was too much and stopped scheduling games (we were playing at her place, and another player was her partner, so we essentially lost half of the group). Talking with her about it was my first step, and best advice. She was definitely approaching it like it was a single player video game RPG. Once I realized this, we talked about it. I thought her playstyle would adapt after the talk, but it really didn't. Honestly, there was more going on than just her approaching it like a video game. A solid session zero is also essential to being proactive, rather than reactive, to situations like this. If you know the player's goals and the character's goals beforehand, you can play to those. I find positive reinforcement is much better than punishing a player or character, and I try to make my games about their goals. I also ask each player to come up with two bonds (RP backstory), and at least one has to be to another character. When you have a good session zero that covers things like that, your players are basically telling you what kind of game they want to play and what kind of hero (or scoundrel) they want to be. You are also assuring them that you are going to make sure those things show up in-game at some point. And lastly, don't be afraid to cut your losses and ask a player to leave a game. If nothing else is working and you're dreading sessions because of one or more players, consider that it might not be worth the labor to force it. I've had to do it, and it sucks, but it is possible to do it with empathy and sincerity and with everyone's dignity and friendships intact.
  11. Two maneuvers at speed 1, One maneuver at speeds 2+ is how I would rule based on RAW and developer answers. I could see a case being made for it requiring 2 maneuvers regardless of speed, given how large Long Range is (Even a speed 5-6 ship spending 2 maneuvers can only get from Close to Long in one turn (but puts targets that were originally at Extreme range now within Short??). That's up to the GM. I would say "technically yes" since it is possible for either ship to be within firing distance of the other in one round in some cases. If both were at speed 2 and spent 2 maneuvers heading towards each other, they would be in close range of each other in one turn, which is important if the second ship in the initiative has independent gunners. I would probably house rule that a ship at Extreme Range could spend 2 maneuvers of Fly (at any speed) to "exit" the combat. Since sensors don't tend to go beyond extreme, this could effectively take them out of the combat until they are found again (which could be a fun minigame in itself). I would also rule that pursuing a ship beyond extreme range (or beyond the pursing ship's sensor range) would use the chase mechanics (which have their own flaws we can get into), with the goal of bringing them within sensor or weapons range.
  12. The Trade Federation had already attaked Naboo with Battle Droids.
  13. DEXTER JETTSTER It's these funny little cuts on the side give it away... Those analysis droids you've got over there only focus on symbols, you know. I should think you Jedi would have more respect for the difference between knowledge and wisdom. OBI-WAN Well, Dex, if droids could think, we wouldn't be here, would we? (laughing)
  14. Agreed, I could just see some GM's and players stopping the action to break each individual lie and deception into its own roll. I understand the intent of doing so, but that is def not my playstyle.
  15. It sounds like he believes that if the Separatist droids were given the choice, a significant portion would not be fighting and the Republic would have ended the uprising far sooner. It is betraying a prejudice that he believes that droids can not "think", but only follow programming.
  16. In starship combat, 3 Threats or 1 Despair can be spent on the result "The initiative slot being used by the active player drops to last in the initiative order." I can def see this ported or modified to your duel system.
  17. I think this is the best way to go. As a GM, I don't want to have to break that sentence down into 2-3 different Deception checks. If the PC's were successful and threat made it through, then that could be believing the bluff but being suspicious of the orders. How that plays out is up to the GM.
  18. I would love this to happen at my table so we could turn it into a running joke of a minion being killed (seemingly at random) in the middle of giving crucial information.
  19. O, I think 2P51 is very condescending, maybe even as much as you are. I do not agree with him that death "has" to have a seat at the table, but I do disagree that there is absolutely no "real" risk or reward in the game at all. Yes, this is a game. Yes, games can have "real" risks and rewards. This does not have to be true for everyone for every game. I am not here to invalidate how you interact with the game, and find that tabletop gaming helps me immensely with my own PTSD. I recognize that playing a game that does not have real world risks and rewards for you is a valid way to interact with it. I'm truly sorry that this has caused you harm. That being said: is it the discussion of "real" risk and reward what is upsetting, or the subject of death in general?
  20. Obviously there are people here who consider the chance of their character dying or failing a risk, and the character surviving or succeeding/thriving a reward. The benefits and consequences they have on the story and one's enjoyment or interaction with it are what make it "real". I don't think it's helpful to the discussion to get into a philosophical debate about whether a game can have "real" risk or reward, but I do think it is a fact that it has real risk and reward for me and my players, and that's good enough for me. Let people enjoy things in their own way and please don't condescend towards them in an effort to invalidate their experience or choices that are not hurting anyone.
  21. I don't know the exact specifics of your game, but I would turn the "interrogation scene" into its own encounter. Sorting lies from truth is very difficult if the subject of interrogation is only motivated to tell their interrogators what they want to hear. I could easily imagine a PC threatening an NPC with force, but confessions/information extracted in such a way are rarely reliable. The quality and reliability of information gained could be determined by the active skill the PC is using: coercion, negotiation, charm, etc. Perhaps the actual interrogation must be preceded by negotiations that the subject feels confident will be honored, and that could be the first phase of the interrogation. Perhaps the intense nature of interrogation causes strain to both parties, and if they press their subject too hard, one or both sides could exceed their strain threshold. Doing so could have very negative consequences, even causing the subject to take drastic action or shut down completely. On a larger scale, the PC could earn a reputation for not believing other people, so NPC's might instead try to use charm, coercion, negotiations, or other social engineering tactics to counter that.
  22. Wow, that is terribly frustrating and powerful. I think if I was the GM, I would really lean into this. I would make them roll for any information that comes out of any NPC's mouth. Now they're skeptic about lies AND the truth. They cannot rely on their character to be sure of anything.
×
×
  • Create New...