The Gaming Den

http://www.shrapnelgames.com/Disrupted_ ... _page.html

I saw this being advertised on the Shrapnel Games forums, and when I realized it was a Tabletop RPG with spells, adventurers, etc., I became mildly curious. Does anybody have an idea whether Total Eclipse is worth a look?

Some of the key selling points seem to be

♦ Unique morale hit point system allows realistic combat resolutions, not endless grinding.
♦ Emphasis on role-playing instead of a tactical board game that just happens to have some RPG mechanics tacked on.
♦ Micro-advancement leveling. Constant minor advances allows a sloping level of power, instead of the usual flat plane and sudden spikes.

PDF only? Specials formated for eBook readers?
RPG's I want in hardcover format.

If somebody bougth it, how does it read on an iPhone? On an Kindle?

All three of it's selling points look like extremely shitty bullshit that makes me hate it, so I'm going to say, "Probably not worth a look."

Kaelik wrote:All three of it's selling points look like extremely shitty bullshit that makes me hate it, so I'm going to say, "Probably not worth a look."

Well, the last just seems like Shadowrun style advancement to me, so I can totally see that one.

The Standard Manual wrote:Over time the bliss of the early RPGs began to fade. Rulebooks began to look like textbooks on advanced statistical analysis. Role-playing turned to roll-playing. The rule lawyers, munchkins, and mix-maxers began to dominate.

Total Eclipse confirmed for Dungeons & Shadtards.

Previn wrote:Well, the last just seems like Shadowrun style advancement to me, so I can totally see that one.

If I wanted to play Shadowrun, I'd play Shadowrun, because it has legitimately good things going on, but when I see "micro-advancment" in a fantasy dungeoncrawler I hear (You level four times as often, and you get +1 to some shitty thing every time you level. You get this instead of being able to cast a new cool spell, because that would be OPed for a micro advancement, and you can't macro advance, because then you'd be not micro advancing.)

Basically, I see "Your stone shape effects 5 more ft^3 of volume" instead of "you can cast wall of stone."

Kaelik wrote:

Previn wrote:Well, the last just seems like Shadowrun style advancement to me, so I can totally see that one.

If I wanted to play Shadowrun, I'd play Shadowrun, because it has legitimately good things going on, but when I see "micro-advancment" in a fantasy dungeoncrawler I hear (You level four times as often, and you get +1 to some shitty thing every time you level. You get this instead of being able to cast a new cool spell, because that would be OPed for a micro advancement, and you can't macro advance, because then you'd be not micro advancing.)

Basically, I see "Your stone shape effects 5 more ft^3 of volume" instead of "you can cast wall of stone."

I never saw a fantasy game where the advancement is that bullshit actually. Not sure if this is hyperbole or what.

Dark Heresy uses a "microadvance" system that sort of works. You have levels, and you gain levels by spending XP on advances. Once you spend X number of XP you level, which opens up another 20 or 30 options to spend XP on. The list is cumulative, so at level 5 you can buy advances in levels 1-5.

It works fine splitting things up that way, because the psyker gets one major uber power per level and 3 minor powers per level, and they can be bought at any time. Learning an entire class of weapons or training in a skill is usually 1-200 xp, and you get 2-300 xp per session. So each session you get a tangible reward usually. Most things cost 500 or less.

The down side is twofold. One, paperwork is HORRIBLE. I eventually broke down and printed lists of all the advancements for each character, and the players use a highlighter and highlight what they've bought. I was prompted to do this when I did some math on a couple of characters and realized that they had like 1000 xp spent in doubling and tripling up on advancements they had already bought.

Second problem is decision paralysis. Throw in shit like contacts, and at level 5 the average character has somewhere around 120 skills, talents, buffs, and other options to spend experience in. It can make leveling slow.

Otherwise, it does work. Nobody feels like they have a stagnant character at least.

TheFlatline wrote:I never saw a fantasy game where the advancement is that bullshit actually. Not sure if this is hyperbole or what.

Allow me to rephrase slightly:

When I hear in a sales pitch about how someone's game is new/better than existing games "it has microadvancement" right after I hear about how they are about role playing not roll playing, I hear "Our game is a piece of shit that doesn't let you have nice things."

I'm not saying that micro-advancement as a thing is bad, just that they way it was phrased in that sails pitch is clearly retarded.

In general, the biggest selling point of the game appears to be a bunch of market-speak which states nothing concrete. I smell 4rries.

I rather like the idea of having formalized morale leading to "defeats" rather than having all fights be defacto "to the death". That is a positive thing that I would hope all fantasy games would do moving forward.

But most of the rest of the gibbering is just annoying market speak. I am filled with trepidation over the fact that they proclaim proudly that they have nine racial variants of human. Because that sounds very racist.

-Username17

I decided to get the cheapest of the 3 PDFs so I could check out this "morale hit point" thing. At first glance, it is rather disappointing. Morale is a second health bar. Some things do Morale damage, and "The adventurer has to flee or cower if their Morale falls below zero." This doesn't look like it does anything to make enemy groups surrender at vaguely appropriate times. It may encourage people to focus-fire their capabilities on particular colors of health bar, but I was hoping for something more sophisticated.

I'll read through the full (small) PDF tomorrow and see if my impressions change.

I still like the notion of a Willpower health bar and a Stamina health bar. Morale could certainly be another term for the Willpower stat. Doesn't sound like how they are using it here tho.

Incorporating morale checks at certain damage thresholds to either bar wouldn't be a horrible notion, and possibly at certain squad-loss thresholds as well.

I do hate the 'to the death' meme that is common in D&D. I sometimes would try to make characters who would use subdual and repeatedly proffer for enemy surrender, and almost never did I have a DM allowing opponents to accept rather than fighting to the death.

A less sleepy look, and this system looks seriously terrible. You get XP for rolling well, can spend 10 XP to level up, and levels range from 1 to 200.

I now kind of regret buying book 1 of this game when I could have spent that money on a loaf of bread instead.

Why not ask for a refund then?

FrankTrollman wrote:I am filled with trepidation over the fact that they proclaim proudly that they have nine racial variants of human. Because that sounds very racist.

-Username17

Doesn't have to be, if they just break down and admit that there's no reason why minotaurs, elves, dwarves, tieflings, etc.. don't technically count as 'human'.

ishy wrote:Why not ask for a refund then?

The answer is quite simple.

FrankTrollman wrote:I rather like the idea of having formalized morale leading to "defeats" rather than having all fights be defacto "to the death". That is a positive thing that I would hope all fantasy games would do moving forward.

But most of the rest of the gibbering is just annoying market speak. I am filled with trepidation over the fact that they proclaim proudly that they have nine racial variants of human. Because that sounds very racist.

-Username17

The addition of new methods of defeating enemies is important for a role playing game that has an emphasis on game master story telling. Not every fight has to end with the total death of the enemy or the good guys. The bad guys run away, and maybe you do to. It also adds a new tactical dimensions - the players can fight to cause the enemy to flee - a far better idea when you are in a bar fight and do not want the guard to come down hard and heavy on your enterprise.

The main problem with this idea is adding complexity to the game.

As for racism by offering different races, I have never heard of this but I am willing to entertain the theory if I understood it better. Can you expand on this thought?

Avoraciopoctules wrote:A less sleepy look, and this system looks seriously terrible. You get XP for rolling well, can spend 10 XP to level up, and levels range from 1 to 200.

I now kind of regret buying book 1 of this game when I could have spent that money on a loaf of bread instead.

You actually get XP for more than this. Doing well on a Skill attempt is one of four ways to gain XP. Progressing a mission by combat or trickery, defeating a designated key adversary (a "boss") and falling below 0 on Health, Conscious, or Morale are also ways of gaining experience. The idea of experience in the game is based on the life points, a concept that can be traced to middle ages Germany to describe victories and losses on the path to experience.

erik wrote:I still like the notion of a Willpower health bar and a Stamina health bar. Morale could certainly be another term for the Willpower stat. Doesn't sound like how they are using it here tho.

Incorporating morale checks at certain damage thresholds to either bar wouldn't be a horrible notion, and possibly at certain squad-loss thresholds as well.

I do hate the 'to the death' meme that is common in D&D. I sometimes would try to make characters who would use subdual and repeatedly proffer for enemy surrender, and almost never did I have a DM allowing opponents to accept rather than fighting to the death.

The game has Health, Morale, and Conscious, and also Wound State. Health loss leads to death. Morale loss leads to breaking and flight or cowering. Consciousness leads to being knocked out. Wound state is the final measure of long term damage or illness that negatively effects the adventurer and can be reduced from disease, serious wounding without enough time to heal, lack of good food, lack of sleep, or exposure.

In play testing characters would only rarely die outright, and would also rarely kill their enemies - usually only in times of high drama.

dkfather wrote: As for racism by offering different races, I have never heard of this but I am willing to entertain the theory if I understood it better. Can you expand on this thought?

Like giving black humans more strength, yellow humans more logic, red humans more wisdom etc.

Fuchs wrote:

dkfather wrote: As for racism by offering different races, I have never heard of this but I am willing to entertain the theory if I understood it better. Can you expand on this thought?

Like giving black humans more strength, yellow humans more logic, red humans more wisdom etc.

Doesn't Skyrim do that?

Fuchs wrote:

dkfather wrote: As for racism by offering different races, I have never heard of this but I am willing to entertain the theory if I understood it better. Can you expand on this thought?

Like giving black humans more strength, yellow humans more logic, red humans more wisdom etc.

I understand. That does not appear anywhere in the game so I would not know how to respond to it.

The game does recognize three branches of the Oldari race based on how close they live to a source of spiritual energy, but the branches are social rather than genetic - the children of one branch born into a setting that created a second branch results in an Oldari with the characteristics of their birth setting.

OgreBattle wrote:

Fuchs wrote:

dkfather wrote: As for racism by offering different races, I have never heard of this but I am willing to entertain the theory if I understood it better. Can you expand on this thought?

Like giving black humans more strength, yellow humans more logic, red humans more wisdom etc.

Doesn't Skyrim do that?

Many games do. In Vanguard: Saga of Heroes Humans from the three different continents can differ more from each other than from different races on the same continent. Total Eclipse does not, except for the one exception of the Oldari.

Just as an aside, if anyone has questions about the game (other than hater screeds, of which I am sure everyone knows about) I would be happy to answer them with real answers from the books. Usually the beta test team answers most stuff by e-mail, but those answers rarely get widely spread around.

dkfather wrote:

Avoraciopoctules wrote:A less sleepy look, and this system looks seriously terrible. You get XP for rolling well, can spend 10 XP to level up, and levels range from 1 to 200.

I now kind of regret buying book 1 of this game when I could have spent that money on a loaf of bread instead.

You actually get XP for more than this. Doing well on a Skill attempt is one of four ways to gain XP. Progressing a mission by combat or trickery, defeating a designated key adversary (a "boss") and falling below 0 on Health, Conscious, or Morale are also ways of gaining experience. The idea of experience in the game is based on the life points, a concept that can be traced to middle ages Germany to describe victories and losses on the path to experience.

The problem with rewarding people long-term for rolling well is that you encourage them to roll for every minor thing possible. If jumping is a skill, you are mechanically incentivized to play like this is is Elder Scrolls and hold down the jump button with a rock, then go to sleep till next morning.

Let's say you crit and gain 1 XP when you roll 2 6s on 2d6. That means 1/36 times, you gain an experience points. If you just keep doing the same 1-round thing over and over again, you gain a level in 360 rounds.

It's the Elf Farming D&D problem, but writ much larger.