To be fair (to me, because fuck other people), I was so nice that if it didn't have my name next to the post, you could legitimately mistake it for coming from a lot of different people.ubernoob wrote:With the exception of Kaelik, who is universally an asshole to everyone, we were even pretty nice about it.
Way of Steel: 3.X combat with real depth and player skill.
Moderator: Moderators
Last edited by Kaelik on Wed Dec 18, 2013 9:54 am, edited 1 time in total.
Unrestricted Diplomat 5314 wrote:Accept this truth, as the wisdom of the Crafted: when the oppressors and abusers have won, when the boot of the callous has already trampled you flat, you should always, always take your swing."
Lumping him in with shadzar right off the bat is a pretty big insult.Kaelik wrote:To be fair (to me, because fuck other people), I was so nice that if it didn't have my name next to the post, you could legitimately mistake it for coming from a lot of different people.ubernoob wrote:With the exception of Kaelik, who is universally an asshole to everyone, we were even pretty nice about it.
Actually I just said that what he wrote makes it sound like he is a shadzar, which obviously was meant to be insulting, but isn't anywhere near as insulting as actually lumping him in with shadzar. But on further reflection, shadzar is not coherent and consistent enough to be a GM story fucktard, so you are right that it was a bit over the top. A more apt description would be a Benoist, but i'm not sure that count's as less insulting. At least Shadzars illness is the type we attempt to treat.ubernoob wrote:Lumping him in with shadzar right off the bat is a pretty big insult.
Last edited by Kaelik on Wed Dec 18, 2013 10:29 am, edited 1 time in total.
Unrestricted Diplomat 5314 wrote:Accept this truth, as the wisdom of the Crafted: when the oppressors and abusers have won, when the boot of the callous has already trampled you flat, you should always, always take your swing."
I'm more impressed that it took less than a page of replies to scare him away. Like, he was thrice warned that people were going to be mean to him. And I don't think anyone was doing anything outside of normal den writing either.Kaelik wrote:Actually I just said that what he wrote makes it sound like he is a shadzar, which obviously was meant to be insulting, but isn't anywhere near as insulting as actually lumping him in with shadzar. But on further reflection, shadzar is not coherent and consistent enough to be a GM story fucktard, so you are right that it was a bit over the top. A more apt description would be a Benoist, but i'm not sure that count's as less insulting. At least Shadzars illness is the type we attempt to treat.ubernoob wrote:Lumping him in with shadzar right off the bat is a pretty big insult.
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/M ... WasTuesday
I clicked through to Kaelik's posts, and I have to say that Kaelik is right. His post contained a grand total of one direct insult and also said that his system was not very good. Because it wasn't. He didn't seem to realize it, but his system was in an alpha state, not even close to finished. He had one finished subsystem, and even that had a couple of flaws that needed to be fixed before it was ready for play. I find it a lot more likely that he was driven off by the honest critique, which fills like three pages in a word processor, rather than the one line of insults.
It's kind of too bad, because the vision this guy had sounded kind of neat. A low-magic game focused more on developing melee combat rather than crazy caster powers? Sounds like a niche nothing in my game collection has filled yet. 'Course, if what he posted is what he's got after two years and he's this thin-skinned towards criticism, he's never actually going to make something close to playable.
It's kind of too bad, because the vision this guy had sounded kind of neat. A low-magic game focused more on developing melee combat rather than crazy caster powers? Sounds like a niche nothing in my game collection has filled yet. 'Course, if what he posted is what he's got after two years and he's this thin-skinned towards criticism, he's never actually going to make something close to playable.
-
TomOfSteel
- NPC
- Posts: 16
- Joined: Tue Dec 17, 2013 2:00 am
There's nothing to be gained here. No one is interested in playing the game. Without playing the game most feedback is useless.
I don't expect you to understand why diagonal facing isn't needed until you've played, oh, about 20 or 100 encounters, depending on how clever you are.
This is a shitty way to go about getting feedback, I get that now. I thought it was a Reddit thing but no, it just doesn't work. I probably give shitty feedback to other people's games whose rules I skimmed and never understood.
I don't expect you to understand why diagonal facing isn't needed until you've played, oh, about 20 or 100 encounters, depending on how clever you are.
This is a shitty way to go about getting feedback, I get that now. I thought it was a Reddit thing but no, it just doesn't work. I probably give shitty feedback to other people's games whose rules I skimmed and never understood.
If you cannot explain to me what you learned in the 20-100 playtests it took you to decide that diagonal facing was a bad idea, then you have no business designing games. Or anything that requires communicating concepts to other people. The very notion that the only way to understand something is to start from scratch and learn every single step from raw, unguided experience is inane and an insult to everyone you expect to play your game.
Pathfinder, my brilliance can only be understood by playing not by understanding the rules.TomOfSteel wrote:There's nothing to be gained here. No one is interested in playing the game. Without playing the game most feedback is useless.
Unrestricted Diplomat 5314 wrote:Accept this truth, as the wisdom of the Crafted: when the oppressors and abusers have won, when the boot of the callous has already trampled you flat, you should always, always take your swing."
Most of the observations were so basic that play is not required to grasp. If the system does not have rules for X it cannot simulate X.
If the system has additional rules, things to remember, and mnemonic aids in the form of cards, then that is additional complexity.
What you have is a regimented abstract combat simulator where people have regimented movement and attack modes similar to chess pieces. That doesn't make it a bad thing, but it does make it a specific thing upon which observations and expectations can be made. It isn't bad that rooks only attack along the horizontal and vertical as an abstract combat engine, but it makes for a poor story simulator. Likewise it makes it hard to explain I in a story setting why I can reach 15' in one direction and only 5' in another.
I'm not even hung up upon the diagonals, it was just something worth noting that you were seemingly aiming for a realistic combat engine and that bit is an abstract combat artifact.
I can see this being fine for simulating simple mundane melee battles with few participants and making it a more tactical game, which at one point you said that was your aim. That just does not square with what you also said, that you can drop it in any setting. You were called out on that as well you should have been.
And to clarify what I meant about stunt card layouts being hard to review was not about the individual card layouts, but that it was simply too onerous a task to click on every card individually rather than speed read through a text document that contains the same information. If you wanted help reviewing cards to look for problematic abilities that is an easier way to share information. Cards are cool for in game, and on this forum we have even discussed ways to spice up combat using card systems, but my complaint pointed towards ease of review.
Best of luck to ya. I have no idea what you expected, but yeah, good luck.
-
OgreBattle
- King
- Posts: 6820
- Joined: Sat Sep 03, 2011 9:33 am
See, the thing is, the argument is actually about how someone asked him to answer the question you're asking right now, and he refused.OgreBattle wrote:Could you tell us why diagnol facing's not needed? I'm genuinely curious what this argument is about.TomOfSteel wrote: I don't expect you to understand why diagonal facing isn't needed until you've played, oh, about 20 or 100 encounters, depending on how clever you are.
-
TomOfSteel
- NPC
- Posts: 16
- Joined: Tue Dec 17, 2013 2:00 am
Why no diagonal facing?
Game-Wise:
Unnecessarily complicates the game without adding much to it. It is extremely hard to tell if a mini is facing NW or N. A tiny bump or nudge and facing is inadvertently changed. Remember if you are Shifting you are picking up the piece and putting it back facing the same direction, it's easy to lose track with diagonal facing.
Illustrating which squares you can defend against becomes more complicated- if you are facing NW, can you block someone to the SW? What about S? This is certainly manageable if you train people like this from the beginning, but it's a lot simpler visually without diagonal facing. It also makes the board easier to view and digest. Facing isn't visually ambiguous.
Getting rid of diagonal facing actually ADDED to the game mechanics because being in a diagonal square is instantly an aggressive posture. You are one step away from gaining the flank. When you combine that with Dodge (which grants a free shift), you've got a very interesting dynamic- if someone is in your diagonal and you have already used your facing, they could Dodge to your flank, then Shift to your rear diagonal on their turn. However, if you HAVE your Facing action still, and you attack the guy diagonal, he doesn't want to Dodge laterally, because you will use your Facing action to square up with him. If he stays diagonal, he can at least shift to your flank, which could be advantageous depending on your own Defenses.
But if the guy DOESN'T Dodge to your flank (or back to your center) then where does he Dodge, because he MUST shift. He can Dodge backwards, but then he is going to be burning his minor action on his turn just to re-close with you, and he will be back at square one. Maybe he uses his Parry which isn't as good as his Dodge.
This kinda gives you an idea about the ripple effects of each decision you make. It doesn't seem like there is a lot of strategy, but like chess, good players aren't just thinking about taking your piece on this turn, they are thinking moves ahead.
Now this gives you an idea of the micro-level of combat, the "maximize your turn in 1v1 combat". Now imagine that you have all these sorts of decisions to make for YOURSELF, but you've got 3 or 4 allies, a handful of enemies, terrain, and a few stunts in your hand. Do you be the Good Guy Greg to make sure the macro-level battle plan is going well, or do you be the asshole rogue who only looks out for #1? It's about a million times more nuanced than 3.X or 4e combat, which IMO is "clump enemies for AOE" and "kill/defend casters".
Realism:
I've never been in a gladiatorial fight, but I've fought as an amateur in MMA, fenced a little bit, done various combative stuff in the military, and watched/read a lot of material on sword-fighting and other crap relevant to the game.
In real life, you don't turn like a carousel. If you are squaring off with someone and jab/thrust and he steps sideways, you are now diagonal to him. This is obviously dangerous to you because he can get around your guard more easily, and he is one step from your flank.
How do you fix this? You don't turn 45 degrees in place, because the footwork required to do that messes up your fighting stance. You either step laterally to re-square with him, step back to get away, or possibly step forward to aggressively close with him.
Now if someone is behind you or on a flank, you are really in danger and you WILL make a turn, and sacrifice footing to square-up quickly. That's basically what a Facing Action would be. It's a pivot on the lead foot, or for a 180 degree turn its basically a high-speed about-face.
So that's why I got rid of diagonal facing.
Game-Wise:
Unnecessarily complicates the game without adding much to it. It is extremely hard to tell if a mini is facing NW or N. A tiny bump or nudge and facing is inadvertently changed. Remember if you are Shifting you are picking up the piece and putting it back facing the same direction, it's easy to lose track with diagonal facing.
Illustrating which squares you can defend against becomes more complicated- if you are facing NW, can you block someone to the SW? What about S? This is certainly manageable if you train people like this from the beginning, but it's a lot simpler visually without diagonal facing. It also makes the board easier to view and digest. Facing isn't visually ambiguous.
Getting rid of diagonal facing actually ADDED to the game mechanics because being in a diagonal square is instantly an aggressive posture. You are one step away from gaining the flank. When you combine that with Dodge (which grants a free shift), you've got a very interesting dynamic- if someone is in your diagonal and you have already used your facing, they could Dodge to your flank, then Shift to your rear diagonal on their turn. However, if you HAVE your Facing action still, and you attack the guy diagonal, he doesn't want to Dodge laterally, because you will use your Facing action to square up with him. If he stays diagonal, he can at least shift to your flank, which could be advantageous depending on your own Defenses.
But if the guy DOESN'T Dodge to your flank (or back to your center) then where does he Dodge, because he MUST shift. He can Dodge backwards, but then he is going to be burning his minor action on his turn just to re-close with you, and he will be back at square one. Maybe he uses his Parry which isn't as good as his Dodge.
This kinda gives you an idea about the ripple effects of each decision you make. It doesn't seem like there is a lot of strategy, but like chess, good players aren't just thinking about taking your piece on this turn, they are thinking moves ahead.
Now this gives you an idea of the micro-level of combat, the "maximize your turn in 1v1 combat". Now imagine that you have all these sorts of decisions to make for YOURSELF, but you've got 3 or 4 allies, a handful of enemies, terrain, and a few stunts in your hand. Do you be the Good Guy Greg to make sure the macro-level battle plan is going well, or do you be the asshole rogue who only looks out for #1? It's about a million times more nuanced than 3.X or 4e combat, which IMO is "clump enemies for AOE" and "kill/defend casters".
Realism:
I've never been in a gladiatorial fight, but I've fought as an amateur in MMA, fenced a little bit, done various combative stuff in the military, and watched/read a lot of material on sword-fighting and other crap relevant to the game.
In real life, you don't turn like a carousel. If you are squaring off with someone and jab/thrust and he steps sideways, you are now diagonal to him. This is obviously dangerous to you because he can get around your guard more easily, and he is one step from your flank.
How do you fix this? You don't turn 45 degrees in place, because the footwork required to do that messes up your fighting stance. You either step laterally to re-square with him, step back to get away, or possibly step forward to aggressively close with him.
Now if someone is behind you or on a flank, you are really in danger and you WILL make a turn, and sacrifice footing to square-up quickly. That's basically what a Facing Action would be. It's a pivot on the lead foot, or for a 180 degree turn its basically a high-speed about-face.
So that's why I got rid of diagonal facing.
Most importantly:
Step 1 in TTPRG design: Figure out what kinds of stories you are trying to tell.
Step 2: Design a game that tells a story.
It is really painfully obvious that you fell in love with a specific set of mechanics and are trying to make a game around them. That is not how you design a game, and it leads to you telling us about how your system that can't model armies is meant to tell Game of Thrones stories about armies.
If you want this to be a competitive miniatures game, that is fine, but so far you have given us no reason to think this would make a good TTRPG.
This not a problem unique to you.
Notice what step 6 is. Notice that it is not step 1.
Step 1 in TTPRG design: Figure out what kinds of stories you are trying to tell.
Step 2: Design a game that tells a story.
It is really painfully obvious that you fell in love with a specific set of mechanics and are trying to make a game around them. That is not how you design a game, and it leads to you telling us about how your system that can't model armies is meant to tell Game of Thrones stories about armies.
If you want this to be a competitive miniatures game, that is fine, but so far you have given us no reason to think this would make a good TTRPG.
This not a problem unique to you.
Notice what step 6 is. Notice that it is not step 1.
If facing is such an essential part of your game, and you are concerned about miniatures, then you can take a nod from better miniatures combat games by using square bases. Doing so instantly negates any and all concerns about how hard it is to see facing.TomOfSteel wrote:Unnecessarily complicates the game without adding much to it. It is extremely hard to tell if a mini is facing NW or N. A tiny bump or nudge and facing is inadvertently changed. Remember if you are Shifting you are picking up the piece and putting it back facing the same direction, it's easy to lose track with diagonal facing.
You are full of shit. Depending on what you are involved in, you totally fucking turn 45 degrees. It doesn't mess up your stance in most types of combat, even less so when one of you has a greatsword and the other one has a mace and shield. All the refined stances that you practice only really apply even a little bit when you are fighting someone with the same weapon.TomOfSteel wrote:You don't turn 45 degrees in place, because the footwork required to do that messes up your fighting stance. You either step laterally to re-square with him, step back to get away, or possibly step forward to aggressively close with him.
So basically, you made the change for "real life" reasons and now you are trying to justify it in game.TomOfSteel wrote:So that's why I got rid of diagonal facing.
Unrestricted Diplomat 5314 wrote:Accept this truth, as the wisdom of the Crafted: when the oppressors and abusers have won, when the boot of the callous has already trampled you flat, you should always, always take your swing."
-
...You Lost Me
- Duke
- Posts: 1854
- Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2011 5:21 am
This is an even better thread without the context of the rules in the OP.
DSMatticus wrote:Again, look at this fucking map you moron. Take your finger and trace each country's coast, then trace its claim line. Even you - and I say that as someone who could not think less of your intelligence - should be able to tell that one of these things is not like the other.
Kaelik wrote:I invented saying mean things about Tussock.
-
TomOfSteel
- NPC
- Posts: 16
- Joined: Tue Dec 17, 2013 2:00 am
I honestly have no idea what you are talking about. Figure out what stories I am trying to tell, then make up mechanics?
I'm not trying to tell any stories. I'm trying to create a framework of rules that can govern whatever story a GM and his players create. I don't give a shit about writing a campaign setting and filling the rulebook with that stuff. I started playing in 2nd edition AD&D with a PHB and DMG, and the few pages dedicated to stuff like Gods and the Planes were the most useless part of the books.
And I think it's silly to drop your players into some tired setting that they already know everything about. "Oh Dragonlance? Don't worry guys, the gods aren't gone, they are just withdrawn. Oh and this New God, that's Takhisis, so we should hate her." I don't like that. I like a setting where players learn about the world as they explore it- what's beyond this mountain/ocean? Do the Gods exist? Is there an afterlife? I can't think of a single good fantasy story, movie or novel, where the protagonists are traipsing around a world they pretty much know all about.
Just no. I disagree. You are welcome to your opinion but I totally reject your premise.
On square minis-
First, I'd like either square or round minis to be compatible so that people can use what they already have. The square minis I have are 1" bases, which fit exactly in a standard 1" battlegrid. Turn a square mini diagonal, and it is now a diamond that doesn't fit in the grid square. I'm sure there are ones with smaller bases but it's not worth it.
Regarding footwork, I don't know what to say except that I know what I am talking about. It doesn't matter what you are holding. You step more or less laterally to keep your opponent in front of you. Try turning in place 45 degrees. Either you spin on both heels, which is rather difficult to do depending on the surface (and putting your weight on your heels is bad), or you turn one foot (now your stance is momentarily retarded) and then the second- which also takes longer.
Here's legendary boxing trainer Freddie Roach explaining basic footwork.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=slhIIc4ORFs
Good footwork keeps you square with your opponent, keeps you ready to strike effectively at any moment, keeps your weight off your heels, keeps you from crossing your legs, keeps your stance even, and makes small quick movements.
Regardless of whether you believe me about what is realistic, I wrote several paragraphs explaining how it supports the game mechanics.
I really don't get it.
I'm not trying to tell any stories. I'm trying to create a framework of rules that can govern whatever story a GM and his players create. I don't give a shit about writing a campaign setting and filling the rulebook with that stuff. I started playing in 2nd edition AD&D with a PHB and DMG, and the few pages dedicated to stuff like Gods and the Planes were the most useless part of the books.
And I think it's silly to drop your players into some tired setting that they already know everything about. "Oh Dragonlance? Don't worry guys, the gods aren't gone, they are just withdrawn. Oh and this New God, that's Takhisis, so we should hate her." I don't like that. I like a setting where players learn about the world as they explore it- what's beyond this mountain/ocean? Do the Gods exist? Is there an afterlife? I can't think of a single good fantasy story, movie or novel, where the protagonists are traipsing around a world they pretty much know all about.
Just no. I disagree. You are welcome to your opinion but I totally reject your premise.
On square minis-
First, I'd like either square or round minis to be compatible so that people can use what they already have. The square minis I have are 1" bases, which fit exactly in a standard 1" battlegrid. Turn a square mini diagonal, and it is now a diamond that doesn't fit in the grid square. I'm sure there are ones with smaller bases but it's not worth it.
Regarding footwork, I don't know what to say except that I know what I am talking about. It doesn't matter what you are holding. You step more or less laterally to keep your opponent in front of you. Try turning in place 45 degrees. Either you spin on both heels, which is rather difficult to do depending on the surface (and putting your weight on your heels is bad), or you turn one foot (now your stance is momentarily retarded) and then the second- which also takes longer.
Here's legendary boxing trainer Freddie Roach explaining basic footwork.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=slhIIc4ORFs
Good footwork keeps you square with your opponent, keeps you ready to strike effectively at any moment, keeps your weight off your heels, keeps you from crossing your legs, keeps your stance even, and makes small quick movements.
Regardless of whether you believe me about what is realistic, I wrote several paragraphs explaining how it supports the game mechanics.
I really don't get it.
-
TomOfSteel
- NPC
- Posts: 16
- Joined: Tue Dec 17, 2013 2:00 am
I don't understand the attitude of "don't make this game, make THIS game." I had someone on reddit telling me that this game is awful, but would be awesome if I made it Mech Warriors fighting each other.
But, I don't want to fight Mech Warriors...
Oh then its trash, kill yourself.
Here it's "well what if I want to control an entire army?" Well then, play a different game. Do you want to play battles between small groups of people, like 99% of RPG encounters I've ever seen? Well, I've got a game that models that in a much deeper and more rewarding way.
But, I don't want to fight Mech Warriors...
Oh then its trash, kill yourself.
Here it's "well what if I want to control an entire army?" Well then, play a different game. Do you want to play battles between small groups of people, like 99% of RPG encounters I've ever seen? Well, I've got a game that models that in a much deeper and more rewarding way.
http://wayofsteelrpg.com/...You Lost Me wrote:This is an even better thread without the context of the rules in the OP.
Don't have the google drive links saved.
Then congratulations because you have tremendously failed.TomOfSteel wrote:I'm not trying to tell any stories. I'm trying to create a framework of rules that can govern whatever story a GM and his players create.
Your framework of rules does not govern any of the following situations:
1) Anything that is not fighting, which includes sneaking and diplomacy.
2) Anything that involves fighting with magic.
3) Anything that involves fighting Monsters, or even Elephants.
4) Anything that involves using guns.
5) Anything involves armies fighting each other.
So you can't tell stories about Master Thieves, Wizards, D&D like stories, Stories about Knights and Dragons, Game of Thrones like stories, Shadowrun stories, Wargame stories. Gladiator fights.
That is fine. You don't have to tell all stories. But you have to realize what stories can be told with your rules, and right now the answer appears to be "Bandits attacking Merchant Caravans" and "Gladiator fights that don't include animals."
If you want to make that game, then fine, but don't claim that your game can tell stories it clearly can't.
Read the above, this has nothing to do with setting or the names of gods. It has to do with what kinds of stories your rules can model. Your rules cannot model the vast majority of things people actually want in their RPGs.TomOfSteel wrote:I don't give a shit about writing a campaign setting and filling the rulebook with that stuff. I started playing in 2nd edition AD&D with a PHB and DMG, and the few pages dedicated to stuff like Gods and the Planes were the most useless part of the books.
Luckily, Minis do not explode when their bases slightly overlap. So you can just have them not fit precisely and it will still be fine.TomOfSteel wrote:On square minis-
First, I'd like either square or round minis to be compatible so that people can use what they already have. The square minis I have are 1" bases, which fit exactly in a standard 1" battlegrid. Turn a square mini diagonal, and it is now a diamond that doesn't fit in the grid square. I'm sure there are ones with smaller bases but it's not worth it.
You are an idiot. It is really easy to turn 45 degrees. You spin on the ball of one foot and move the other one. This motion is a problem in certain kinds of combats, it is not in many others. This is the point. In particular, if you have something different from your opponent as a weapon, it is much less likely to be a problem. If you have a spear and shield, and they have a two handed sword, you can totally make that motion all day without being in any danger.TomOfSteel wrote:Regarding footwork, I don't know what to say except that I know what I am talking about. It doesn't matter what you are holding. You step more or less laterally to keep your opponent in front of you. Try turning in place 45 degrees. Either you spin on both heels, which is rather difficult to do depending on the surface (and putting your weight on your heels is bad), or you turn one foot (now your stance is momentarily retarded) and then the second- which also takes longer.
Keeping square with your opponent is really important in one on one fights with the same weapon where you both have access to the same techniques. It is much less so in group on group, or when your opponent has different weapons so you have different ideal distances and stances, and different methods of closing or opening.TomOfSteel wrote:Good footwork keeps you square with your opponent, keeps you ready to strike effectively at any moment, keeps your weight off your heels, keeps you from crossing your legs, keeps your stance even, and makes small quick movements.
People come up with all sorts of bullshit justifications for why the thing they did for a different reason is totally the best. Usually they are bad reasons, like the minis exploding, I'm not saying that it is necessarily bad, I am pointing out that you made a decision for a realism reason, and therefore, you should consider the possibility that you are lying to yourself about it making the game more fun.TomOfSteel wrote:Regardless of whether you believe me about what is realistic, I wrote several paragraphs explaining how it supports the game mechanics.
Unrestricted Diplomat 5314 wrote:Accept this truth, as the wisdom of the Crafted: when the oppressors and abusers have won, when the boot of the callous has already trampled you flat, you should always, always take your swing."
-
Foxwarrior
- Duke
- Posts: 1672
- Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 8:54 am
- Location: RPG City, USA
How does your argument that turning 45 degrees is a pain not also apply to turning 90 degrees, TomOfSteel?
Also, why is this an RPG and not a squad-based two-player tactics game? It seems to be all about the positioning stuff, which only gets really interesting when you can position more than one character.
Also, why is this an RPG and not a squad-based two-player tactics game? It seems to be all about the positioning stuff, which only gets really interesting when you can position more than one character.
-
OgreBattle
- King
- Posts: 6820
- Joined: Sat Sep 03, 2011 9:33 am
So your goal is to flesh out a system focused on detailed 1 on 1 dueling that can also handle multiple opponents. Is the learning curve simplicity/complexity a concern of yours too?
I figure right now it'd be best to just go to "In my humble opinion" and ask specific questions about game mechanic goals you want to achieve. Framed in that manner it's less "an attack on your game" and more open discussion.
I figure right now it'd be best to just go to "In my humble opinion" and ask specific questions about game mechanic goals you want to achieve. Framed in that manner it's less "an attack on your game" and more open discussion.
-
...You Lost Me
- Duke
- Posts: 1854
- Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2011 5:21 am
OK, that gives some very complicated combat rules, plus a "game download" consisting of a text file with the words "pew pew pew".
Most of this thread seems to be trashing his game design philosophy, which I agree with but is also unrelated to this tactical minis ruleset.
My problems:
EDIT: Ah, tucked away in the "references" section is the bit on shield bonuses, parry bonuses, etc. This is optimizer terrain--there's easily 2 or 3 optimal weapon/shield combos that let you get the best bonus. I don't see a merit to all that granularity.
Also, I have a new problem. There's way too much stuff here. Tiny -1 and -2 bonuses crop up in small places from attack options to armor bonuses. It's too annoying to track. Even if this modeled fighting games better, it'd be tough to convince me to play it because of all the bookkeeping I'd have to do just to switch from one suit of armor to another.
Most of this thread seems to be trashing his game design philosophy, which I agree with but is also unrelated to this tactical minis ruleset.
My problems:
- All of erik's problems, especially diagonal facing (your argument is not convincing)
- All people are right-handed
- Dodging appears to increase your overall mobility, without taxing future actions (like you can shift out-of-turn and still get a full turn of movement when you act, but only if someone tries to stab you). Similar to this, you can get a free about-face, but only if someone else moves. Which is weird.
- Different defense scaling means different mundane archetypes become better. Generally this is a "power now for power later" premise, which is terrible for cooperative RPGs.
- There are lots of small options hidden everywhere, requiring me to read a separate section for everything I do.
- Stunt Cards are... underwhelming.
EDIT: Ah, tucked away in the "references" section is the bit on shield bonuses, parry bonuses, etc. This is optimizer terrain--there's easily 2 or 3 optimal weapon/shield combos that let you get the best bonus. I don't see a merit to all that granularity.
Also, I have a new problem. There's way too much stuff here. Tiny -1 and -2 bonuses crop up in small places from attack options to armor bonuses. It's too annoying to track. Even if this modeled fighting games better, it'd be tough to convince me to play it because of all the bookkeeping I'd have to do just to switch from one suit of armor to another.
Last edited by ...You Lost Me on Thu Dec 19, 2013 9:21 am, edited 1 time in total.
DSMatticus wrote:Again, look at this fucking map you moron. Take your finger and trace each country's coast, then trace its claim line. Even you - and I say that as someone who could not think less of your intelligence - should be able to tell that one of these things is not like the other.
Kaelik wrote:I invented saying mean things about Tussock.
-
TomOfSteel
- NPC
- Posts: 16
- Joined: Tue Dec 17, 2013 2:00 am
You do realize I only posted the combat rules, quick-start rules (which basically govern combat), and stunt cards? At no point did I say this was a complete anything. I've got plenty of material providing framework for magic and monsters.
I don't care for Diplomacy as a skill. We can't act out swordfights, but we can act out Diplomacy. I have a section of the rulebook explaining why I don't have a Charisma stat or Diplomacy skill, and how DM's can add it if they like. I personally think it is silly that if a player wants to RP, he doesn't, because he didn't boost his Diplomacy. Likewise, the Diplomat of the group sometimes doesn't want to do the talking. It's artificial and not necessary IMO. Let players role-play, take logical circumstances into account, and decide how the NPC responds. I've never had a player say "that's bullshit, its unfair that the merchant won't give me a discount, you didn't let me roll." I wouldn't want to play with people that obnoxious anyways.
A lot of the out-of-combat stuff I frankly find pretty extraneous, the sort of thing that makes RPG handbooks 200 pages when they could be 50. Do you really want 20 pages of rules on how different lighting conditions affect Sneak checks? I'd rather just ask the GM "hey in this lighting what kinda bonus can I get to Sneak?"
On the topic of Sneak, I'd point out that Sneaking is an integral part of combat, whether or not people are trained in it or not. In combat, if you move (not shift) into an square adjacent to an enemy, once per round they can Face you as an interrupt. (This fixes the problem of people just running around behind you on your turn, and actually works quite elegantly, especially with the 1x per turn rule.)
However, if the enemy comes from behind (or otherwise can't be seen) you make an opposed Sneak vs. Perception check. If the Sneak wins, the guy can't Face, so you have him on Passive Defense and can Fuck Him Up. This works really nicely by giving additional drawbacks to armor- significant penalties to sneaking for loud armor, penalties to perception for clanky armor or stuffy helmets.
I'd say that if you want to play a sneaky-stabby guy, you won't find a more fun system than Way of Steel. You don't need special arbitrary rules for sneak attacks or backstabs, it just works. Get behind them, make a Strong Attack that's got a very high chance to land, do big damage, cause a crippling injury. If you take Assassin-y stunts, you can be really good at this. Then you try and set up combat (through role-playing) to take advantage, or just get good at maneuvering and getting behind people.
Well, I guess it's bullshit that I don't let people face diagonally. To be honest, it was just my OCD and I couldn't FUCKING STAND IT, so I took it away. I admit it. You should have seen the faces on my players, those pathetic worms. Who cares that the game sucks now? HAHAHAHA FUCK PCs
I don't care for Diplomacy as a skill. We can't act out swordfights, but we can act out Diplomacy. I have a section of the rulebook explaining why I don't have a Charisma stat or Diplomacy skill, and how DM's can add it if they like. I personally think it is silly that if a player wants to RP, he doesn't, because he didn't boost his Diplomacy. Likewise, the Diplomat of the group sometimes doesn't want to do the talking. It's artificial and not necessary IMO. Let players role-play, take logical circumstances into account, and decide how the NPC responds. I've never had a player say "that's bullshit, its unfair that the merchant won't give me a discount, you didn't let me roll." I wouldn't want to play with people that obnoxious anyways.
A lot of the out-of-combat stuff I frankly find pretty extraneous, the sort of thing that makes RPG handbooks 200 pages when they could be 50. Do you really want 20 pages of rules on how different lighting conditions affect Sneak checks? I'd rather just ask the GM "hey in this lighting what kinda bonus can I get to Sneak?"
On the topic of Sneak, I'd point out that Sneaking is an integral part of combat, whether or not people are trained in it or not. In combat, if you move (not shift) into an square adjacent to an enemy, once per round they can Face you as an interrupt. (This fixes the problem of people just running around behind you on your turn, and actually works quite elegantly, especially with the 1x per turn rule.)
However, if the enemy comes from behind (or otherwise can't be seen) you make an opposed Sneak vs. Perception check. If the Sneak wins, the guy can't Face, so you have him on Passive Defense and can Fuck Him Up. This works really nicely by giving additional drawbacks to armor- significant penalties to sneaking for loud armor, penalties to perception for clanky armor or stuffy helmets.
I'd say that if you want to play a sneaky-stabby guy, you won't find a more fun system than Way of Steel. You don't need special arbitrary rules for sneak attacks or backstabs, it just works. Get behind them, make a Strong Attack that's got a very high chance to land, do big damage, cause a crippling injury. If you take Assassin-y stunts, you can be really good at this. Then you try and set up combat (through role-playing) to take advantage, or just get good at maneuvering and getting behind people.
Well, I guess it's bullshit that I don't let people face diagonally. To be honest, it was just my OCD and I couldn't FUCKING STAND IT, so I took it away. I admit it. You should have seen the faces on my players, those pathetic worms. Who cares that the game sucks now? HAHAHAHA FUCK PCs