The Gaming Den

If that is so, it is a mistake (poor wording on my part or a misinterpetation). What I want are people doing characters doing the right thing because the character would do the right thing - not pressing on because of some rule that makes it easier than stopping to rest, not risking their lives bec...

I'm not interested in selling this and I'm not really interested in convincing other Denners to play, I'm interested in making something that tells a good story well and has good "fluff". If it meets that criteria, its worth it, whether it ever gets played or not. Then write a book. Serio...

You're trying to create a game that controls the morality and thoughts of the players, not the characters. You simply cannot do that. Not, you should not do that, it is not possible to do. What Elennsar could do is create a game where there is a Good path and an Evil path to victory, where Good and...

It's just easier to not quote things and address some issues directly. From the way that you speak about your vision for this game, you'd be better off writing a choose-your-own adventure book. Maybe some sort of strategy board game. Shadows over Camelot actually sounds like it has a lot of what you...

Indeed. The problem is finding how they "could have been your comrades..." while still being monsters (for want of a better term) to deal with. I'm not saying that can't be done, but it would be quite a feat. How so? You can give the barbarians any type of real-world reason for conquest a...

Personally, a horde of Mongols are scarier than any horde of undead, because those fuckers could choose to do otherwise, and just don't. Well, do you -want- to face mortal enemies who are for all intents and purposes capital E evil? The beauty and horror of the Mongols is that they are NOT mindless...

If the game flatly defines the barbarians as evil and immoral from some objective standpoint, you're just creating potential player conflict where you really don't need to. The problem is, any decision that paints anything as inferior from any objective standpoint in any setting risks some player b...

So the player has a choice, they can Dodge, which is harder to do, or they can block/parry which is much easier but still carries a risk of injury or getting a shield or weapon broken like you mentioned you wanted. Is that better? Yes. Very interesting concept - though I'd note that I don't want we...

Because it's intellectually lazy and offensive to anyone that doesn't share your particular definitions of black and white. I have to question that assertion. Firstly because whenever I hear something to the affect of "morality isn't black and white" it's followed by a claim that because ...

I'd say a single defense roll, modified by what you choose to do. Block/parry means you take the attack on your weapon or shield instead of your face, but still provokes a soak/armor save, whatever. Dodge means avoiding the attack entirely, but is probably harder to do. Just responding here to clar...

[quote="Bigode]That looks like a big heap of "making some PC archetypes specifically more important than others", both in "trash mobs are warriors, never magicians" and "magicians get their own fluffy combat mode with rules lovingly crafted for them".[/quote] You b...

Fallout is actually a terrible system. The massive variation in skill points per level being the most glaring problem. Close behind is the fact that its a level based game where you abilities haven't got much to do with your level. It's also designed from a single-player perspective with a semi-sta...

All interesting ideas - I like the idea of special moves that can only be used within a given stance (or maybe both of normal and one of the other two). Here's my request. If you're interested in this going somewhere (presumably you are), I would like your thoughts on the following (This applies to...

I don't know anything about Arcanum. Fallout has you gaining levels by doing typical RPG things like defeating enemies, completing quests, hacking computers, and generally using your skills successfully. Levels give you hit points, more skill points, and a perk. You have your S.P.E.C.I.A.L. (Strengt...

Absentminded_Wizard wrote: So I guess my ideal game system would be classless but still level-based.

Have you thought about porting the Fallout video game system to pen and paper? That sounds almost exactly what you're looking for.

5 base stances might be a little too much granularity or complexity for your combat. You could have individual manouvers within each stance that any given fighter may or may not know and that would probably be ok. Part of what the stances do will be influenced by what actions are available in combat...

Why not? You could maybe limit stance changes to once a round or something like that. Maybe make it an interrupt action so that people can react to changing conditions in the fight in a more "real-time" manner. Something like that is fine. But the thing about an all out attack is, going a...

Right. Standard "I hit someone" TN is fairly simple...winding up with "I hit someone in the chest on a 3*." is fine. You're referring to roll + skill, right? I'm assuming that you intend to NOT have auto-fail, though you will have auto-successes in this case. Giving numbers here...

The problem is that there are -several figures at work- here. How likely is your opponent to hit you? How likely are you to make your defense roll? How likely is it that he hit something vital? How likely is it that your armor will protect you from his attack (entirely)? How likely is it that if he...

Besides it made no sense to me why every fighter in the world knew how to wear heavy armor from day 1. For that matter, why did they make the armor feats step up from each other? Why would a fighter waste time learning how to wear padded and leather armor if it was simply assumed that they'd leap a...

Is this supposed to be a historial wargame? Perhaps with some RPG elements bolted on? Is it supposed to be the reverse? I'm trying to envision what play of this game would look like. What would a starting adventure look be? What foes do you face? Is there an assumed "right way" to do thing...

So, these Hero points--what do you envision them actually doing? Can I spend them to: Boost one of my own attacks? Defense rolls? Soak rolls? Any roll made by my soldiers? Lower any rolls made by my opposition? Retcon the battle? Example: "Ah crap, they have horsemen. Let me spend a Hero point ...

Losing a fight may or may not kill you. Winning a fight may or may not kill you. Getting killed has little to do with losing and winning the fight overall and a lot to do with what happens within the fight. Note, this doesn't mean that PCs can't die in battle. It is imperative that a loss doesn't m...

You being insulting doesn't make your arguement more believable or well founded, you know. I'm sorry, I just had the mental image of you stamping your foot while making that last statement. If you seriously cannot grasp what people are talking about, that's ok. Own up to the fact that you don't get...

It does contradict. Either I have a 50% chance of winning in both of the encounters or I don't. It does not contradict, and you insisting that it does like a petulant child doesn't change that. You have a 50/50 chance of dying in any encounter. Independent of anything else. What came before and wha...