The Gaming Den

Yeah, no, with half decent players, even using megamek a lance versus lance (4 mechs each)game can and will, dedending on terrain and chosen mechs take up 4 hours or so x.x

OK so CBT is actually as streamlined as is possible . . and is still a horrible clunky and time consuming mess . . just good i enjoy it and spending time with the blokes . .

I am looking forward to Harebrained Schemes' take on Battletech. I kickstarted it and am waiting for the beta. Curious to see if they mimic the boardgame or if they do a Shadowrun-esque revision.

From what i have seen in the alpha gameplay trailer, i am already dreading that game <.<
But i will wait and give them the benefit of the doubt untill i can try it out myself . .
I did not back them again, because they are utterly incapable of getting the physical goodies through german customs for some fucked up reason . .

Where do folks usually look for freelance tabletop game industry work, or to get hired?

OgreBattle wrote:Where do folks usually look for freelance tabletop game industry work, or to get hired?

Their buddies who already work in the game industry.


Not even kidding.

SJ Games recruits their freelancers from people who do articles for their in-house gaming magazine, Pyramid. The theory is that if you demonstrate the ability to deliver a couple of 4-10 page articles without missing deadlines or being too difficult to work with, then they'll give you a chance on a larger work.

There's a little cross-pollination in the industry, so if you have freelance credits at one place you're slightly more likely to get a contract someplace else.

Ok, so here's where my Scarab Nest/Blowfly Infestation modern deck stands:

21 Swamp
4 Beseech the Queen
4 Blood Artist
4 Blowfly Infestation
4 Cryptbreaker
3 Grim Affliction
4 Metalspinner's Puzzleknot
4 Nest of Scarabs
4 Read the Bones
4 Scarab Feast
4 Scarscale Ritual


Sideboard:
2 Black Sun's Zenith
2 Everlasting Torment

The problem remains that it's a slow deck. Play testing on tapped out, it goes off about turn 9

OgreBattle wrote:Where do folks usually look for freelance tabletop game industry work, or to get hired?

Voss got it in one. Most RPG work is given out to friends and family of people who already work in the industry. It's a small and very nepotistic industry.

-Username17

This is a pedantic, but still annoying, thing I get worked up over once in awhile. An adamantine daggers costs 3.002gp, representing 1lb of material. A single adamantine greatsword is essentially equal in cost and weighs 8lbs, while an adamantine heavy shield costs less and weighs nearly twice as much as the greatsword. Dropping raw adamantine as treasure has this weird uncertainty principle where its mass changes in response to what you're making, and it's disconcerting.

Prak wrote:Ok, so here's where my Scarab Nest/Blowfly Infestation modern deck stands:

21 Swamp
4 Beseech the Queen
4 Blood Artist
4 Blowfly Infestation
4 Cryptbreaker
3 Grim Affliction
4 Metalspinner's Puzzleknot
4 Nest of Scarabs
4 Read the Bones
4 Scarab Feast
4 Scarscale Ritual


Sideboard:
2 Black Sun's Zenith
2 Everlasting Torment

The problem remains that it's a slow deck. Play testing on tapped out, it goes off about turn 9

This is a trainwreck. The goal of a deck is not to goldfish, it's to win. So your deck shouldn't just be built on digging to an infinite combo, it should be based around killing your opponent - with going infinite being a neat thing that might happen.

Nest of Scarabs is a good card if it gives you 5+ Insects every game. You don't need to go infinite. Fill your deck up with shit that's good like Plague Belcher, Dusk Urchin, and Channeler Initiate.

Green/Black, not just Black.

-Username17

Fail forward design.

Proponents claim that it allows each roll of the dice to tell a unique story, but unfortunately that story is often quantum bears.

Detractors point out that in a world where 70% of time anyone tried to do anything they experience some sort of negative consequences, the planet would be a lifeless wasteland.

I like the idea of having degrees of success to task rolls, but I recognize the problems therein: Hey, you know how 5% of the time Batman gets hit in the nuts with the batarang he threw a page ago? Also, as a GM I don't want to come up with some fresh, gimmicky consequence for every roll.

So how would you make this idea work without punishing players everytime they wanted to do something? Are there any systems that manage to give task rolls interesting and varied results without quantum bears or a ton of extra book keeping?

I've been pondering the idea of fail forward being an opt-in/out thing. What if task rolls were on a binary pass/fail basis, where pass = progress and fail = no progress. On a failed roll players can choose to "double down" where they re-roll and pass then = critical success and fail = critical failure.

Potential problems occur as I'm writing this:

*Even with the possibility of getting kicked in the taint by the universe by a bad roll, there's little incentive for players NOT to do this with every failed roll. Might need some sort of meta currency.

*Adds extra steps/time to task resolution, which could mean a table of 3/4 bored players.

*This shit probably doesn't need rules because GM's often give out extras for high rolls anyway, and if they're not a shitlord they won't punish players for low rolls.

*I'm always looking for ways to add gambling mechanics to RPG's. Maybe I just need to go to the casino and get it out of my system.

Don't bother rolling for tasks that have no obvious interesting failure mechanics.
Quick dirty example: there is a locked door, party fails in lock picking
a) if it is a stealth game: if a guard comes along scratch marks on the lock let the enemy know players were there
b) your typical D&D dungeon door, that is trapped: trap goes off
c) b) your typical D&D dungeon door, that is not trapped: don't bother asking for a roll, they just succeed.

Also failure doesn't have to be negative or directly impact the players. Might just be something that changes the story.

For example: if there are scratches on the lock, it means the party has to keep that in mind and now distract the security guard instead of it being direct failure.
Or the party doesn't notice the cultists kidnapping the poor and only notices something is wrong during the demon invasion
Or you fail to meet up with the space elf diplomat in time, now you have to travel to the space hamster world to deliver your prisoners.

---

The problem with quantum bears is that whether they exist or not is based on the die roll. While the die rolls should instead determine if you encounter them/bypass them or how you deal with them or what it'll cost you to overcome them etc.

Go to the casino, for one.

For another, having a list of boons/banes for when you succeed/fuck up with style goes a ways to removing quantum bears, as does giving players the opt in to take the success at cost or flat failure. So you would have your shit roll be either a) you don't do thing or b) you do thing, but take [negative cost] and do thing with the barest degree of success.

Also, having a take ten mechanic for basic, basic rolls should be a given: both to prevent comical failure/getting stuck on something pointless and to prevent people from trying to game out critical successes to stockpile bennies, a la Fate.

Fantasycraft has a clever take on the underlying meta currency for these. You can spend "action dice" on base rolls that fall inside an enemy's error range (tarts at 1, can be modified worse with certain conditions) to cause critical failures, or can spend them on yourself when you roll inside your critical range (starts at 20, same deal).

The neat bit is how those dice are acquired, both the GM and the players start with a fixed pool at the beginning of the session, and the GM can award them to players for bringing pizza or being funny or doing cool things throughout the session, and gains 1 die for each die he hands out. Players start out with 3-4 dice apiece while the GM has one per player + a modifier based on the current adventure's difficulty, so there's always a slight imbalance toward team PC.

It falls down when describing the boons/problems you should get for spending dice. The system allows you to spend between 1-4 dice, but there's hardly any explanation for what a 1 die boon is vs. a 4 die.

I was reading the Wyvern entry and got confused. How exactly do Wyverns work in 3.5?

This is what confused me:

A wyvern can slash with its talons only when making a flyby attack.
Full Attack: Sting +10 melee (1d6+4 plus poison) and bite +8 melee (2d8+4) and 2 wings +8 melee (1d8+2) and 2 talons +8 melee (2d6+4)

AFAIK you can only use a standard action when making a flyby attack?

Yes. That isn't really the problem, as the flyby attack with talons would use the 'attack' entry (+10).

The problem is that since there is that random sentence stating the talons can only be used in flyby, talons shouldn't have an entry in the full attack line. I assume it's only there for the sake of completeness. Just ignore the talon attacks when making full attacks. [it would be really crazy otherwise for CR6 monster, since each talon has the potential to generate an extra sting attack thanks to its improved grab ability. 8 attacks per round, 3 of which are poisoned is just nuts]

3.0 Wyvern are Sting +9, Bite +4, 2 Wings +4; or 2 Claws +9.

When they added the "and" bits in 3.5, someone just forgot it didn't replace the "or" bits, it's an error.

In a writeup for a fantasy nation or faction or culture, what information would you consider useful/important/necessary, from both player and GM perspectives?

Sasaisen wrote:In a writeup for a fantasy nation or faction or culture, what information would you consider useful/important/necessary, from both player and GM perspectives?

Those are three very different things, though they may overlap.

A fantasy nation will contain multiple factions and cultures, and may contain semi-independent sub-nations. It will have a climate, a government system, a ruler, possibly a national faith or faiths, and almost certainly some rules about magic. It may or may not have significant national customs or laws that apply to adventurers.

If by 'faction' you mean an organization, it will have goals, some kind of structure, a leader or leaders, a geographic footprint, internal customs that may be important (like gang tattoos or an initiation test), and a general operational methodology. It will also have relations with the government and other factions.

A culture, which usually means an ethnic group that may (Japanese) or may not (German) overlap with national boundaries, will have a homeland, a language, some shared customs (most often cuisine and a form of formal dress), and possibly a native religion. It will have a relationship with the government and neighboring ethnic groups. In a fantasy situation it likely has a relationship with magic and possibly with powerful monsters/NPCs. Ethnic groups are also likely to have varied views on foreigners.

The above is rather broad - specifically relevant information depends on what you are doing with said culture and what kind of game you are running.

In simple terms, what matters to the PCs. That is, what they will see and encounter. It may be worthwhile to explain some of the why, but not necessarily the 10,000 year history. If they hate orcs and the party has half-orcs, that's important information. If they have customs about bartering or purchasing that can get them arrested if they don't comply, that's important.

virgil wrote:This is a pedantic, but still annoying, thing I get worked up over once in awhile. An adamantine daggers costs 3.002gp, representing 1lb of material. A single adamantine greatsword is essentially equal in cost and weighs 8lbs, while an adamantine heavy shield costs less and weighs nearly twice as much as the greatsword. Dropping raw adamantine as treasure has this weird uncertainty principle where its mass changes in response to what you're making, and it's disconcerting.

The markup isn't the material cost, it's the manufacturing cost. Technically, a professional should charge you more for a larger weapon, but the larger one could be handed off to apprentices for most of the time, while the masters focus on the delicate work.

This would be especially true if adamantine forging wasn't especially difficult, or if you could just melt it and pour it into a mold, which would do a lot of the work.

So the heavy shield would be made by pouring a bunch of adamantine into a shield-shaped mold and letting it cool, then the apprentices would sand off any rough edges and maybe a master would come along to add some fancy designs before its sent to the polisher.

He has to pay more attention to the dagger than the greatsword, bot because its harder, but because it's easier for people to look at and notice small imperfections.

hyzmarca wrote:

virgil wrote:This is a pedantic, but still annoying, thing I get worked up over once in awhile. An adamantine daggers costs 3.002gp, representing 1lb of material. A single adamantine greatsword is essentially equal in cost and weighs 8lbs, while an adamantine heavy shield costs less and weighs nearly twice as much as the greatsword. Dropping raw adamantine as treasure has this weird uncertainty principle where its mass changes in response to what you're making, and it's disconcerting.

The markup isn't the material cost, it's the manufacturing cost. Technically, a professional should charge you more for a larger weapon, but the larger one could be handed off to apprentices for most of the time, while the masters focus on the delicate work.

This would be especially true if adamantine forging wasn't especially difficult, or if you could just melt it and pour it into a mold, which would do a lot of the work.

So the heavy shield would be made by pouring a bunch of adamantine into a shield-shaped mold and letting it cool, then the apprentices would sand off any rough edges and maybe a master would come along to add some fancy designs before its sent to the polisher.

He has to pay more attention to the dagger than the greatsword, bot because its harder, but because it's easier for people to look at and notice small imperfections.

That's a nice idea, but a failure to understand metalworking or structural limits. Larger objects are actually more prone to weakness and failures than smaller ones (there's simply a larger volume/mass for defects to exist). The apprentices are likely tasked with dagger making, overseeing heat sources, and non-critical tasks. Assigning an apprentice to make a sword, and not a dagger, is probably unlikely.

An explanation for why the cost of Adamantine items is relatively flat is that "Adamantine" is either a metallurgical process (e.g. Wootz/Damascene, or some sort of super-science metallic crystallization like Ferrium C69), or an alloyed additive (e.g. 10-12% Manganese Steel); and as such is wouldn't be closely linked in value to the end products mass or size.

So playing Shadowverse I really like the feeling of Runecraft's mechanics

Spellboost: I play spells which make my later spells more powerful.
Earthrite: I play stuff to gain earth sigil that's then expended to boost a future card

There any D&D3.X classes that feel especially like that, or any RPG with similar mechanics for player characters?

The simple case of a rogue who greases/blinds/etc a target and then throws a bucket of d6s at them comes to mind quickly.

Assuming the game is Pathfinder, would any of you consider it bullshit for the Disguise skill to oppose Knowledge skills to identify monsters? Specifically, one of the villains is a frost giant grave knight dedicated to Urgathoa, and she goes out of her way to disguise her undead nature. Would you think it would be fair to have her roll a disguise check and if the players roll below it then think she's a normal, living frost giant?