The Gaming Den

I consider concept to be a form of fluff. The most basic and fundamental kind of fluff, in fact.

Thaluikhain wrote:Ok, admittedly this is a big broad question, and I don't expect a definitive answer, but still...

A common complaint for many games is that the fluff doesn't match the rules. Is it generally wiser to try to come up with an evocative setting, and try to make rules that work for it, or to come up with rules that make for a fun game and write your fluff to justify it? Or to herd both the rules and the fluff in the same direction as you go along?

The former seems better, the second seems easier, and the third what happens in practice.

A lot of people just go with what is their first like DnD Xe and use that for everything even if hit points and the diplomacy skill blank space of a system don’t match a normie drama talk setting

Gandalf was 5th level and all

I figure the most important thing is you want to do what you do and you know how to share your feelings on what you like with others

Thaluikhain wrote:Ok, admittedly this is a big broad question, and I don't expect a definitive answer, but still...

A common complaint for many games is that the fluff doesn't match the rules. Is it generally wiser to try to come up with an evocative setting, and try to make rules that work for it, or to come up with rules that make for a fun game and write your fluff to justify it? Or to herd both the rules and the fluff in the same direction as you go along?

The former seems better, the second seems easier, and the third what happens in practice.

Setting first.

Attempting to create rules and then a setting for it invariably creates an utterly insane setting that stretches WSoD and isn't very good. See Every Anime that uses RPG mechanics as a real world thing.

hyzmarca wrote:

Thaluikhain wrote:Ok, admittedly this is a big broad question, and I don't expect a definitive answer, but still...

A common complaint for many games is that the fluff doesn't match the rules. Is it generally wiser to try to come up with an evocative setting, and try to make rules that work for it, or to come up with rules that make for a fun game and write your fluff to justify it? Or to herd both the rules and the fluff in the same direction as you go along?

The former seems better, the second seems easier, and the third what happens in practice.

Setting first.

Attempting to create rules and then a setting for it invariably creates an utterly insane setting that stretches WSoD and isn't very good. See Every Anime that uses RPG mechanics as a real world thing.

LitRPG garbage anime are clearly setting first, though. The game rules are a fig leaf for lazy worldbuilding, unless you're talking about Log Horizon or .Hack.

You need to have the concept of the game and what you're trying to accomplish, both mechanically and narratively. Then you make sure your rules outputs create the narrative outputs you want.

OgreBattle wrote:A lot of people just go with what is their first like DnD Xe and use that for everything even if hit points and the diplomacy skill blank space of a system don’t match a normie drama talk setting

Gandalf was 5th level and all

True.

Mask_De_H wrote:

hyzmarca wrote:

Thaluikhain wrote:Ok, admittedly this is a big broad question, and I don't expect a definitive answer, but still...

A common complaint for many games is that the fluff doesn't match the rules. Is it generally wiser to try to come up with an evocative setting, and try to make rules that work for it, or to come up with rules that make for a fun game and write your fluff to justify it? Or to herd both the rules and the fluff in the same direction as you go along?

The former seems better, the second seems easier, and the third what happens in practice.

Setting first.

Attempting to create rules and then a setting for it invariably creates an utterly insane setting that stretches WSoD and isn't very good. See Every Anime that uses RPG mechanics as a real world thing.

LitRPG garbage anime are clearly setting first, though. The game rules are a fig leaf for lazy worldbuilding, unless you're talking about Log Horizon or .Hack.

You need to have the concept of the game and what you're trying to accomplish, both mechanically and narratively. Then you make sure your rules outputs create the narrative outputs you want.

Here’s a summary of King of Fighters Iori went to a fantasy land where he kicks ass because he’s got trained magic powers and is already a highly experienced fighter

https://twitter.com/dramata1/status/114 ... 83008?s=21

Some of the characters move inputs are incorporated into the story like touching the ground before dashing forward https://twitter.com/dramata1/status/115 ... 23104?s=21

It takes a silly premise and runs with it respectfully

Ok, have a clear idea of what you want to do (concept, premise, big fluff) and work from there, makes sense.

A totally unrelated question. Over the years, 40k has used a number of different methods of determining which squad members get killed when your squad gets shot at.

* Owning player chooses, so that in practice your important squad members are always left til last. Can justify that by saying that the ordinary troopers drop their gun and pick up the meltagun if the gunner dies. Could have the attacking player choose, so that the special weapons always get killed first. You could alternate between the two, which mean every second casualty was someone important.

* Closest model dies first, which means tape measures and your short ranged special weapons tend to die first, which is annoying.

* Randomise hits, which sounds nice, and doesn't mean all squads always take the same casualties in the same order, except then you end up having to pick one out of a squad of 7 or something using only d6s every time you get shot at, which would get annoying very quickly.

Was wondering what people thought the best way of resolving this was, with a view to keeping things fastpaced.

Owning player chooses is quickest.

Alternatively, you can make it so that it doesn't matter. Each squad (even if composed of different specialists) has all the capabilities of the squad in each individual. Ie, If the squad has 5 guys and one is a flamer and one is a leader, the squad gets the benefits of both of those until all 5 members are dead.

Agreed with the last 2 posts - owner picks, or treating them as squad upgrades not tied to a single plastic dudesman both work well. squad upgrades is technically faster there, 'cos there's literally no decision point. IMX, most mini wargamers of the 40k tradition would find that weird, though, because they can see the flamer is gone, therefore can't fire any more.

Thaluikhain wrote:
Was wondering what people thought the best way of resolving this was, with a view to keeping things fastpaced.

Owning player chooses, that's also why a whole squad of plasma guns is often worse than less guns and more fodder... but that's a problem with certain weapons being superior against all targets.

So with "owning player chooses" you can then add ways around it like

"Sniper weapons get to choose on a roll of X"
"Super elite sniper heroes have the power to always choose"

The above then gets countered by bodyguard rules of "wounds taken by X can be transferred to Y"

OgreBattle wrote:

Thaluikhain wrote:
Was wondering what people thought the best way of resolving this was, with a view to keeping things fastpaced.

Owning player chooses, that's also why a whole squad of plasma guns is often worse than less guns and more fodder... but that's a problem with certain weapons being superior against all targets.

So with "owning player chooses" you can then add ways around it like

"Sniper weapons get to choose on a roll of X"
"Super elite sniper heroes have the power to always choose"

The above then gets countered by bodyguard rules of "wounds taken by X can be transferred to Y"

That's true. Also strikes me that you might have different armour or toughness or whatever throughout the squad as well, but "owning player chooses who is hit" would still work.

Yeah when GW tried other means like average toughness you had the one warlock among wraithguard suddenly get way tougher

Another question to answer is multiple wound units, if owner chooses them you get w2 blobs that only start losing dudes when every dude has suffered 1 wound. You can then declare ‘must assign wounds to wounded units first’’... but then you need to clarify If blast weapons will be wounding everyone caught or does just one guy take everyone’s blast wounds first

OgreBattle wrote:Owning player chooses, that's also why a whole squad of plasma guns is often worse than less guns and more fodder... but that's a problem with certain weapons being superior against all targets.

Actually, I think it's a problem with point costs. When you only have one super weapon and the rest of the squad is cannon fodder, then in owner chooses the super weapon should be costed for the full bonus durability of all those spare lives. While in attacker chooses the spare lives don't matter so the super weapon is equally useful with or without the allies (or maybe slightly worse with, if you have a rule against splitting your attacks).

It sure is a good thing "tactical squad" and "devastator squad" are usually different units that can be priced differently, huh.

Foxwarrior wrote:

OgreBattle wrote:Owning player chooses, that's also why a whole squad of plasma guns is often worse than less guns and more fodder... but that's a problem with certain weapons being superior against all targets.

Actually, I think it's a problem with point costs. When you only have one super weapon and the rest of the squad is cannon fodder, then in owner chooses the super weapon should be costed for the full bonus durability of all those spare lives. While in attacker chooses the spare lives don't matter so the super weapon is equally useful with or without the allies (or maybe slightly worse with, if you have a rule against splitting your attacks).

It sure is a good thing "tactical squad" and "devastator squad" are usually different units that can be priced differently, huh.

Doesn't that depend on the weapon? Or rather, how it compares to the weapons of the rest of the squad? Give your Retributor squad multi-meltas, you probably want to fire at tanks and having sisters with bolters are just to soak up wounds, sure. But give the squad heavy bolters, and the sort of target you'll probably choose is likely something that boltguns can affect, at least when they get in range. Give them heavy flamers, and the bolters are well within range once the flamers are (and you'll likely get charged by anything you don't kill, so you'll likely care about those bolter rolls).

So, this isn't exactly a question, but I was going back through some of the sourcebooks I have on my hard drive to consider doing some kind of OSSR on something (my urge to write is flaring again) and I ran across this in World's Largest City:



Fuck you! Of course there's going to be confusion!

RelentlessImp wrote:So, this isn't exactly a question, but I was going back through some of the sourcebooks I have on my hard drive to consider doing some kind of OSSR on something (my urge to write is flaring again) and I ran across this in World's Largest City:



Fuck you! Of course there's going to be confusion!

So humans are not humanoid. What is more like a human than a human?

Iduno wrote: So humans are not humanoid. What is more like a human than a human?

In second edition there were humans, demi-humans and humanoids. Demi-Humans were the player available races.

I have The World's Largest City and it is not a good book. But for this specific question, I don't know what term I would have recommended they use to mean 'traditionally evil humanoid races'.

IIRC, Spelljammer did something like that. They also had a war called "The Unhuman War" because it was between elves and goblinkin without humans being much involved (though the elves thought that was a stupid name because it is).

Also, if you mean goblinkin, you can say "goblinkin" or something. Pretty sure everyone knows what I mean when I use that word I just made up.

Thaluikhain wrote: Also, if you mean goblinkin, you can say "goblinkin" or something.

Though that doesn't traditionally include orcs and definitely doesn't include kobolds.

Kobolds I admit is pushing it a bit, I'd have stuck orcs in there though.

Seems like a total failure of worldbuilding. I guarantee you that nobody outside of City Hall would call the place something as cumbersome as the 'Humanoid District.' Not knowing anything about the setting, my guess would be that the traditionally evil races would be lumped together as 'Uglies' and the district would be called 'Uglytown.' But they apparently all attacked the city together, in which case swap out 'ugly' for whatever slang was used to describe the evil attacking force. So if it was 'the Sanguine Swarm' that they all used to be part of, they might be called Sanks and the area called Sankton.

angelfromanotherpin wrote:Seems like a total failure of worldbuilding. I guarantee you that nobody outside of City Hall would call the place something as cumbersome as the 'Humanoid District.' Not knowing anything about the setting, my guess would be that the traditionally evil races would be lumped together as 'Uglies' and the district would be called 'Uglytown.' But they apparently all attacked the city together, in which case swap out 'ugly' for whatever slang was used to describe the evil attacking force. So if it was 'the Sanguine Swarm' that they all used to be part of, they might be called Sanks and the area called Sankton.

I do agree, and the whole product can be convicted of utter failure of the imagination. The guiding principle of the book was 'make it bigger' and never 'make it better'.

The district has a fair bit of 'fantasy racism', but I'm going to guess the publishers were trying to present it in a 'neutral' manner. But their language doesn't necessarily support that.

The city's permanent hive of scum and villainy is quite embarrassing to those who view the metropolis through rose-colored lenses. How can it be the center of life and civilization if tribes of orcs, gnolls, and worse things are living in its very midst? The humanoids who dwell here are violent and uncouth, clashing violently wiht each other in an endless struggle for dominance. The district resembles a war zone, with many buildings reduced to rubble and many more only barely habitable. Watchfires burn openly on the streets, throwing grotesque shadows across the rooftops and alleyways, and the sounds of clashing arms are never far away.

And yet, some would argue that the Humanoid District is an indication that the city's highest ideals are being met. For if orcs and bugbears can coexist here, than anyone - no matter what their race or philosophy - can find a home here as well.

The book divides the city into 16 roughly equal square blocks (and they are VERY square) and isolates everything into it's little section. The Dwarves are in the Dwarf district; the Elves are in the Elf District; the Guards are in the Guards District.

A real city does develop it's own neighborhood character, and it's not uncommon for things like minority ghettos to form, but the city never manages to feel organic

As noted "Humanoid" used in that manner is used in the AD&D manner and was considered the TSR standard back when there was a TSR. That sidebar is basically exactly the editor saying "Some of the shit in this book was written at least seven years ago and contains references to older editions of the game. There is absolutely no way in hell that I'm going to go through this fucking thing and update archaic and confusing references in the text bodies because that sounds like a lot of work and I am not paid enough to do that."

-Username17

deaddmwalking wrote:

Thaluikhain wrote: Also, if you mean goblinkin, you can say "goblinkin" or something.

Though that doesn't traditionally include orcs and definitely doesn't include kobolds.

AD&D and earlier lumped orcs under "goblinkin", at least? But yeah, this is ... not a good book. Fuck doing an OSSR of it, though; there's nothing in 703 pages worthy of more than idle scorn. The last 82 - yes, 82 - pages are nothing but a level-by-level build guide for city NPCs of various types, from NPC classes (yes, there is a level-by-level breakdown of fucking Aristocrats for 20 levels, as if 20th level Aristocrats are a thing) to all the PHB classes. That's about all the vitriol I can muster for something so... bland and forgettable.