|
Post by henryhankovitch on Aug 1, 2013 16:15:17 GMT -8
Awards shows are bullshit anyway.The Fear the Boot guys call this the "party template," which is a good enough term for it. Basically covering the party's social connections, their metagame goals, how they've become part of the adventure, and so on. With my current gaming group, most of our characters are made at the table, mainly out of player laziness and access to books, that sort of thing. And in general I try to establish the PCs' relationships to one another, focusing on how they know each other and why they would want so-and-so along with them. I specifically note that this doesn't mean they have to like each other; just that they have a pre-existing connection that allows them to work together. Ocean's Eleven is a good example. Most of the protagonists aren't buddy-buddy with each other; a few of them openly hate each other. But they all have reason to be confident of each others' abilities, if for no other reason than a guy they know vouched for them. For instance, a hypothetical Rogue Trader party: the captain is the son of a Rogue Trader dynasty whose older siblings have passed on prematurely, bringing him to the fore. His Arch-Militant comes from a minor noble family and knows the Captain from their days in the Navy. His Missionary is the family's priest, having served three generations of Rogue Traders. The Navigator has served on the ship since before the Captain bought it, and is reverently feared by its crew. The Void-Master was hired by the dynasty in a contract that involved paying off his debts to a crimelord. And so on. The PCs start the game all knowing each other already; none of this "you meet the Navigator in the bar--oh fuck, why are you already pointing guns at each other."
|
|
|
Post by henryhankovitch on Jul 21, 2013 20:42:05 GMT -8
Don't think the characters matter, what you want to look at are the mechanical interactions in general. It doesn't matter much which skills/stats/whatever are used, you'll still see if they work as you want them to. Chargen online might actually be very informative, because you can't just share a book as easily as around a table, so you generally just tell them the process as GM. If players have problems there, maybe because the process could be more clearly structured, it might need reworking. You're basically looking at two different and mutually exclusive playtest elements. If you want to see how well the game responds to different players' playing styles and expectations, then it can help to have people using the same pregens. Just like how running the same con game with the same pregens will give you different insights into the scenario. If playtesters are generating characters AND testing the rules, then you have two different experimental variables going on. If they have a bad time, was the character made poorly, or did the rules work poorly? And was either due to actual problems with the game, or bad instructions in the materials? Playtesting chargen is absolutely something you want to do; but you may frustrate yourself if you're testing the chargen system at the same time as you're testing the game rules.
|
|
|
Post by henryhankovitch on Jul 20, 2013 11:22:22 GMT -8
So...I signed up for Not to Bring Back, the Dark Heresy game. I'm a Hangouts noob, so if I'm not doing something right then so be it. But though I've signed up for the event (and gotten the notification that it's starting), there doesn't appear to be any option to actually join the hangout. And all the people in the guest list are showing up as "isn't on Hangouts right now" when I click the message button.
Anyone know what's up?
|
|
|
Post by henryhankovitch on Jul 5, 2013 23:20:00 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by henryhankovitch on Jul 2, 2013 18:16:22 GMT -8
IDW's Dugeons & Dragons comic was fantastic. Unfortunately, it got discontinued and they'll probably end up being replaced by another Forgotten Realms wankfest. It's published in something like three or four TPBs.
|
|
|
Post by henryhankovitch on Jul 2, 2013 17:33:43 GMT -8
You would totally call bullshit on a player who says "No, I don't get hit by that masterclass swordsman's swing because I don't want to." So why is social interaction different? Fear the Boot uses the term "the golden box" for this. In most games, the only part of the world that the player has control over is his own character--more specifically, his character's thoughts and beliefs. When the GM tries to dictate a PCs thoughts or reactions, then he's intruding into the golden box. The reasons against doing so have nothing to do with idealized rules interactions; it's part of the implicit social contract of gaming. You're a dick GM if you kick the player out of the driver's seat of his own PC; and using social rolls to finger-puppet him is doing exactly that, however briefly. By your argument, players should be just as able to control other PCs at the table through social rolls. I've had an instance of this in an online Black Crusade game, where one of the players seems to be under the impression that he can use his Command skill to persuade other PCs to help him, despite being a giant, obvious dickbag. Again, the reason to prohibit this has nothing to do with rule mechanics; it's to prevent the game from breaking down socially. If you have a player refusing to respond to genuinely influential NPCs, he's simply metagaming. And the solution to that is to address the problem with the player, rather than trying to dictate his PC's reactions through dice mechanics. You can't create player immersion through social rolls any more than you can create player suspense via sanity rolls in Call of Cthulhu.
|
|
|
Post by henryhankovitch on Jul 1, 2013 16:39:49 GMT -8
During the podcast, the guys described a scenario where a really skilled diplomat character makes a really good in-character speech, hits all the right notes...and then botches a roll. And it seemed for a second that they were on the verge of saying, "well, he's really good at it and he made a good speech, so we should just give it to him." And of course, in some scenarios that's the right thing, especially if the stakes aren't so high. But this example came to my mind:
A "face" character climbs up on a barricade to try to calm down an impending riot. He gives this speech. It's great, an inspired bit of roleplaying. He's hitting all the right notes, the crowd is wavering, it looks like he's got it in the bag. And then, as he finishes his speech, some asshole in the back winds up and chucks a rock. It bounces off a soldier's helmet, and his buddies start wading into the crowd, cudgels swinging. Riot breaks out anyway. It's not the outcome the player was hoping for; and it's actually the sort of thing a railroading asshole might use if he wanted to disregard a high roll from his players. But I think in the case of a botched roll from an otherwise skilled PC, it's a good compromise, especially since it gives you one of those cinematic moments that really goad the players.
There's also a slight variation on "success with complications" that I heard from one of the guys on the Unspeakable Oath podcast. It specifically relates to Call of Cthulhu investigations, but can be more broadly applied. Basically, rather than a failed roll meaning the player doesn't find anything and the investigation comes to a grinding halt (especially in things like researching or perception rolls), it can mean that the player advances the plot in the worst possible way. It works really well in a horror world, where knowledge itself can be the most dangerous threat. Succeed that Library Use roll in the Restricted Books section of the university library? You discover a passage that alludes to the evil ritual the cultists are preparing, and gives you a clue on how to disrupt it. Fail on that roll? You find a different ritual that you're pretty sure will counteract whatever the cultists are doing; and worse, you start to think it might be a really good idea. Succeed on the search roll, and you find the doctor's notes on that strange fungus he's been researching. Fail the search roll, and you find the doctor's fungus experiments when you knock a vial onto the floor and crack it.
|
|
|
Post by henryhankovitch on Jun 28, 2013 21:32:04 GMT -8
A few years ago I saw a forum discussion on the idea of transplanting the ideas of Inception into the world of the Cthulhu Mythos, via the Dreamlands. That nugget has been floating in the back of my cranial bowl for a while now, and I think I've got the basis for a good campaign.
The idea is that the players are new employees of Halitech Security Solutions, a private contractor aspiring to serve the bloated apparatus of Homeland Security with "new solutions for interperson intelligence collection and humane methods for interrogation enhancements." The company presents their technology (as in Inception) as just a fancy brain-scanning method that allows other people to observe and interact with an individual's sleeping consciousness. What is actually happening is that the players (and their subject) are slipping into the Dreamlands.
At least initially, the campaign will be structured around "missions," where the PCs are assigned to a subject and expected to produce useful intelligence. Hopefully opening up more in the later campaign as they have to deal with the various threats emerging from their actions.
I've also been thinking of making some mechanical changes while they're in the Dreamlands. Sanity and HP can be lost as usual; however, when the PC awakens they'll find their HP to be normal and their sanity mostly restored. (As the horrors they witness in dreams seem less real upon awakening.) But some "waking" sanity will accrue as bad things happen to them in the Dreamlands. (Go mad, or be brutally killed in the Dreamlands? Lose SAN points on waking up. That sort of thing.) Eventually they'll learn that they can actually assert inflence over the reality of the Dreamlands--again, Inception-style. Though doing so, like using magic in the real world, causes significant SAN loss.
|
|
|
Post by henryhankovitch on Jun 28, 2013 21:04:23 GMT -8
Alright, since Rogue Trader has come up a couple times now, here's your Quick Guide to 40k RPGs.
Basically, Fantasy Flight Games has been putting out a series of RPGs using roughly the same system in the Warhammer 40k universe. But as far as I know, it doesn't have any significant overlap with Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay (though I haven't looked at the latest edition in any detail so I don't know what FFG is doing with it). All the games broadly use the same percentile dice system, stat and skill mechanics, etc. You could technically take a character from one game and plop him down in a different 40k RPG and play him; though you'd have to handwave the significant power differences and numerous small changes between the books.
Dark Heresy is the game where you're playing low-level minions of the Inquisition, looking for mutants, aliens, and heretics. I tend to call it "Call of Cthulhu in space." Characters are fairly low-powered--though they still have access to 40k gear like flamethrowers and rocket-pistols. But so do your enemies. Getting shot in the head is bad, and people with guns are scary.
Rogue Trader is the big spaceship game. A Rogue Trader is basically like a 40k conquistador: he has a Warrant of Trade that puts him almost completely above the law as long as he goes out into the unknown and conquers stuff in the name of the Imperium. PCs are the captain and senior officers of a ship, the smallest of which is over a kilometer long with more than 10,000 crew on board. Of course, the vast majority of the crew are illiterate, ignorant deck-swabbers and rope-haulers and are utterly beneath the notice of the PCs.
Deathwatch is the game where you play SPESS MAHREENS. With all that implies. You're huge, you have huge guns, you kill huge aliens and stuff.
Black Crusade is the game where you play the bad guys, the [would-be] minions of the Chaos Gods who want to wreck everything and cover it in spikes. It's noteworthy in that it's the one game that puts Space Marine and regular human characters in the same book, and expects them to more or less complement each other.
Only War is the latest game, in which you play Imperial Guardsmen. It's War Movie: the Game, and your PCs can be anything from the crew of a huge battle tank, to spear-wielding conscripts from some primitive colony world.
|
|
|
Post by henryhankovitch on Jun 21, 2013 10:10:26 GMT -8
Samurai don't discuss business or commerce. It's considered beneath them, and doing so in public costs honor. Instead they serve as patrons for merchants who act as their agents in such dealings. They don't even handle money or directly purchase their own items in most circumstances. I don't know how solidly this is welded into the game system; maybe there's a "haggle over the price; MINUS HONOR" rule in there somewhere. But in terms of fluff, this is the sort of thing that I personally like to see variation with. Yeah, you can have the cultural norm that samurai are above monetary concerns. But that doesn't mean that money doesn't concern them. At best it's a sort of well-meaning hypocrisy; at worst, you'll have greedy daimyos and thieving samurai hiding behind their station while they enrich themselves in contemptible ways. It's not like these guys are squabbling over rich fiefdoms because it's just so honorable to have all the barley in the world. To use a not-exactly-historical example, look at Shogun. Toranaga is very good at portraying himself as the aloof, fatalistic, ideal samurai, while the whole time he's plotting his rise to power behind everyone's backs. Yabu, on the other hand, is basically just as ambitious, but does a lousy job of hiding his greed and his depravity. So in terms of the RP, I actually think it's a good thing to have some samurai who just...aren't that good at being idealized samurai. After all, Nikoma's whole character is based on being boisterous, earthy and uncouth...it doesn't really stretch imagination that he'd be a lot less subtle when it came to money. And I believe it was heavily implied that all three of the original PCs were fairly rough around the edges when they were first sent to the valley. Now all that being said, it's another thing entirely when the party goes before their lord in a formal audience and basically says, "hey, we own this bar now and you should be getting a bunch more cash from it, isn't it great?" Kimi's character at least would be aware enough to keep that sort of thing very private, rather than blurting it out in front of Patton-sama.
|
|
|
Post by henryhankovitch on Jun 15, 2013 8:23:05 GMT -8
In fairness, I think their intent was to hide the sword away while they figured out how to destroy/cleanse it. Not to just stick it in the ground and forget about it. It's almost winter, after all; they won't be able to go tromping around the country asking people HEY DO YOU KNOW ANY EXORCISTS, WE HAVE THIS CURSED SWORD. NO? IF YOU SEE ANY, TELL THEM TO TALK TO THE INOUKAI, K THX.
Though, "destroying" it might just end up being taking it out in a boat and dumping it in the ocean.
|
|
|
Post by henryhankovitch on Jun 14, 2013 15:03:43 GMT -8
The "Barbie kimono simulator" element was addressed very briefly in the AP, which I think is actually an interesting phenomenon in games. I think that D&D and video RPGs generally train us to think of possessions purely in terms of combat/adventuring equipment. Is this sword better than that sword, etc. And then at some point--hopefully--you turn a corner and realize you can create ALL of the aspects of your character. That you can get a lot of meaningful character elements out of mechanically unimportant possessions. Clothes, trinkets, tattoos, hats. I think games with abstracted wealth systems--which usually are games that assume the PC is of some high social status to begin with--tend to encourage this mentality more. Probably because you don't feel like you're hurting yourself by wasting moneys on things that don't give you plusses. I've seen a lot of it in Rogue Trader. The game just encourages players to build up personae that match the grandeur of the setting, and surrounding themselves with neat stuff is just a part of that.
|
|
|
Post by henryhankovitch on Jun 13, 2013 21:20:22 GMT -8
I thought it was a perfect move, in terms of both motivation and politics. Nikoma doesn't want to end up engaged to a Lion Chick; so by not showing up, he ensures he won't accidentally cause one of the Lions to fall madly in love with him. Because that would be awkward. It also helped focus attention further on Tyler's poor bastard.
This episode was GLORIOUS, by the way.
|
|
|
Post by henryhankovitch on May 29, 2013 15:04:22 GMT -8
The folks at Fandible have a lot of good actual plays. Some highlights, in my opinion, are the Unhallowed Metropolis games, their Rogue Trader campaign, and for those not faint of heart, their Monster Hearts demo. I'd like to specifically point out some deep cuts from the RPPR feed. Adam Scott Glancy does some outstanding historical scenarios, including U-boote Heraus! and The Night Mission. Additionally, Lover in the Ice, a modern-day Delta Green scenario; and The Dangers of Fraternization, a noir game set in post-WWII occupied Berlin. And for true lunacy, you have to listen to Gaga 2.0. It's a good pain.
|
|
|
Post by henryhankovitch on May 28, 2013 18:25:31 GMT -8
In the scenario: "You know for a fact (doesnt matter how, lets assume you do) that the infant before you though innocent now will cause the destruction of the world as it will become the vessel for Tanaari and Baatezu to split into the Prime Material plane. You know this clearly and you also now that in time the child will grow to become a powerful and uttetly evil Prince that will bring the above apocalypse knowingly and willingly. You have one chance to stop the death of billions by killing the child now. What do you do?" You dickpunch your GM for dragging out the lameass baby-killing contrivance. The Deed of Paksenarrion is basically the perfect example of paladins done right. (And it's a really good trilogy besides.) Not to say that all paladins must think and act the same; but it's the antidote to decades of morally-challenged neckbeard shenanigans.
|
|