FATAL

[SpaceYeti]

So I've been hearing for a while that there are games out there that are just... bad. For some, the style of writing needed more editing, for some, the rules are superfluous or otherwise over-complex, and some just have poor taste and can be called immature. One, in particular, I've been hearing about. FATAL. So, I found a copy of the source-book online. There's something wrong with this game to be found on every single page. The thing is, there are joke games made, making fun of the crazies who like complexity and whatever in their game. This is not one of them. It's the worst game ever made.

One of the first things that struck me, even after the warnings I received, was the random chart for the half-demon people. One of the things that can happen is that every human within a foot of them suddenly desires anal sex. Really? Really really? I mean, random weird things could be fun, but forcing other people to want anal sex? This is just the tip of the iceberg.

There are spells which force women (yes, specifically women) to beg for sex, or to do whatever you want. Every single example of a female character to be found within the book is somehow sexually molested or raped, and in half of those cases she likes it! This book is ridiculously misogynistic and sexist. To add insult to bigotry, there's not even an attempt to handle it in a mature fashion. As merely an example, there's a level one spell which causes a woman to fall in love with the caster, and then seek him out. Another one forces a particular woman anywhere in the whole world to seek out the caster. She cannot sleep until she finds him, and she is "submissive and inflamed by passion". Because, you know, you can't get a woman to actually like you without using magic! There are no sexually transmitted diseases in the game, and there are rules written especially to force rape someone. There's also rules for how much stuff can fit in a person's orifices! This is only a taste!

Let's imagine the game without all the pro-rape, misogynistic BS which makes it already unplayable by anybody who has even a modicum of respect;

The rules outside of these problems are shit. The character sheet is 11 pages long! All of your character's stats are determined randomly, and one of your stats determines how many words you can say in one minute. Really, that's something we need to track?! This isn't an especially crazy example, either. Almost every stat tracks something useless like that. Out of 20, 3 can actually be related to something outside of the game and thus give you a comprehensible measure of what it means. The inanity isn't even the real problem. The big problem is that everything's entirely random. Your stats can start out somewhere between 1 and 199, with nothing countering the problems of rolling an entirely useless character. You even have to roll your race and gender randomly! That all in the name or "realism", because you don't choose your race or gender in real life! Also, you might be born retarded, to weak to walk more than a few feet (and so uncoordinated that you walk the wrong way when you do!), and uglier than the creator of this game.

Seriously, there's something wrong with this game on every single page! I haven't even begun on all the stupid charts. What's the point? It's shit. This is a steaming pile of shit. Here's what took the cake for me. The needle on the hey-stack, for me, was the fart jokes.

If, for some reason, we could get over all the charts, all the stupid, inane, shitty rules, the maturity level of calling a penis "thing" and "love stick" and using equally unprofessional terms you tend not to use around anyone you don't intent to fist fight with, and even the misogyny, I can't forgive it for the maturity level required for the fart jokes. Okay, there's a spell which causes an explosion inside someone's body. Unfortunate for that guy, right? Talk about painful. The spells says the GM can then say there's some sort of repercussions for an explosion inside your body... like you might fart...

Yeah, the first consequence of an explosion inside of a person's body which comes to my mind is that they might fart! Screw organs rupturing, interior bleeding, or any other serious medical condition, they might fucking fart!

If I ever meet the guy who made this game, I'm punching him in the throat.

... If I think he'll feel it through his neck-beard.

 

[Duxwing]

ARRRRRG! Space Yeti ANGRY! Space Yeti SMASH!

*cowers behind desk* Want a cuppy-cake?

-Duxwing

 

[Fukyo]

ARRRRRG! Space Yeti ANGRY! Space Yeti SMASH!

*cowers behind desk* Want a cuppy-cake?

-Duxwing

You realize this comes across as condescension to what might as well be genuine criticism? (it's not even angry)

 

[SpaceYeti]

Anyone who isn't angry after spending enough time to read as much of this rule book as I have should be thrown in prison to prevent future rapes.

 

[Duxwing]

You realize this comes across as condescension to what might as well be genuine criticism? (it's not even angry)

My attempt at humor has failed. Darn. Sorry, SpaceYeti, I didn't mean to to offend. In fact I agree that the rule book is ludicrous and offensive; I also thought that your reaction to it was a good source of lampooning material.

-Duxwing

 

[joal0503]

There are no sexually transmitted diseases in the game, and there are rules written especially to force rape someone. There's also rules for how much stuff can fit in a person's orifices! This is only a taste!

- 10/10 IGN.com

on a serious note, i thoroughly enjoyed this review/rant

and what makes it sadder is that the themes are really not that detached from a lot of the more popular mainstream games that are out there for young minds to gobble up. misogyny, violence, sex, brainwashed call of duty kids, bleh.

 

[SpaceYeti]

My attempt at humor has failed. Darn. Sorry, SpaceYeti, I didn't mean to to offend. In fact I agree that the rule book is ludicrous and offensive; I also thought that your reaction to it was a good source of lampooning material.

-Duxwing

No, it's fine. It was even funny.

This game is not.

 

[Duxwing]

No, it's fine. It was even funny.

This game is not.

Indeed.

-Duxwing

 

[redbaron]

So this is like the hentai version of board games basically?

 

[SpaceYeti]

Perhaps if you included tentacle monsters. But, yes, I suppose. An offensively overcomplicated hentai game. As I said, it's not only the rape and misogyny which make it a bad game, it's also a bad game. Horrible. It's like someone took all of the things grognards want out of older editions of D&D, multiplied it by 10, and then made as many tables as you possibly could to contain all the shit.

It's not just perverse, it's also just plain bad.

 

[BigApplePi]

So what kind of party or parties would create such a game?

 

[SpaceYeti]

A grognard, neckbeard, misogynistic ass. Byron Hall.

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/TabletopGame/FATAL?from=Main.FATAL
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/posts.php?discussion=7ixhxjqoe9swz1xv4bxgw5h0&page=1

 

[Cognisant]

To add insult to bigotry

Mmmm, there's my brain's G-spot.

Anyway I think this game sounds like a hoot, I mean being an atheist doesn't mean I can't have fun playing a cleric, paladin or some templar, nor a wizard who fireballs every living thing he sees (which is arguably worse than fart jokes) y'know it's role playing, I can even play an elf chick who falls in love and ends up giving the dwarf oral, that doesn't make me gay, it just means the idea of an R rated sitcom appeals to me, and making the guy across the table blush and cross his legs is amusing.

Of course I'm a looney who warrants his own list of things I'm no longer allowed to do.

In a fucked up misogynistic way I could even enjoy the absurd complexity of this face first descent into depravity, heck if anything I reckon I could make it so much worse.

Last one to stop playing wins

 

[SpaceYeti]

Have a ball. I won't join you.

 

[rrgjl]

Yeah well. Not the first time humanity disappointed me. Don't even find it worth mentioning anymore.

 

[Cognisant]

Y'know Monopoly was designed to be hated.

I'm not even going to try saying this isn't a poorly designed game, because it is, but even in the worst games, especially the worst games, there's always a potential for fun in the metagame, messing with the game can itself be a game.

If you have to be told how to have fun, that's sad, that's really sad.

 

[SpaceYeti]

This game was not designed to be hated, it was designed to be the greatest, most realistic medieval RPG ever. And it fails miserably, even though the designer claims otherwise.

I'd rather play with the metagame of a game that's already good and, thus, fun to play once the metagame is done being screwed with.

 

[Cognisant]

Realistic?

 

[SpaceYeti]

Yes. The designer is still convinced it's the most realistic that there is, too.

Also, I like to think I don't need to explain why demanding realism from a game where you play as an elven sorcerer doesn't make sense.

 

[Cognisant]

Okay I'm bored of playing devil's advocate, so let's play god instead, how about you mentor me through designing my own tabletop RPG, how does that sound @SpaceYeti?

 

[Jennywocky]

Yes. The designer is still convinced it's the most realistic that there is, too.

Also, I like to think I don't need to explain why demanding realism from a game where you play as an elven sorcerer doesn't make sense.

I wouldn't say "realism" as much as "consistency." There has to be internal consistency to the world, as with any art, or it won't make sense and especially in a game context can cause a lot of conflict between players.

Some people, though, like worlds that have a few 'unreal' elements and others like those with more. For example, I've heard bitching about the Looper movie because of the inclusion of telekenesis (some people don't like science fantasy venturing into their purely scifi), whereas others had no issues with that element at all as a premise.

 

[SpaceYeti]

Okay I'm bored of playing devil's advocate, so let's play god instead, how about you mentor me through designing my own tabletop RPG, how does that sound @SpaceYeti?

I'm working on one right now myself, but I'm not about to claim I'm an expert. This is something of an experiment for me. However, I've played a bunch of RPGs, so I might be able to help. The best advice I can give is to make the system simple in a way that allows it to accomplish your goals. Reduce needless math, rethink mechanics you think seem neat, but require a lot of dice, etc. Make sure it's not a game you would make fun of.

I wouldn't say "realism" as much as "consistency." There has to be internal consistency to the world, as with any art, or it won't make sense and especially in a game context can cause a lot of conflict between players.

Some people, though, like worlds that have a few 'unreal' elements and others like those with more. For example, I've heard bitching about the Looper movie because of the inclusion of telekenesis (some people don't like science fantasy venturing into their purely scifi), whereas others had no issues with that element at all as a premise.

That's true in any fictional world. If it doesn't make sense when compared to itself, you pretty well failed. However, it doesn't have to be very like reality at all, especially if there's magic and mythical creatures.

 

[Felan]

I'm working on one right now myself, but I'm not about to claim I'm an expert. This is something of an experiment for me. However, I've played a bunch of RPGs, so I might be able to help. The best advice I can give is to make the system simple in a way that allows it to accomplish your goals. Reduce needless math, rethink mechanics you think seem neat, but require a lot of dice, etc. Make sure it's not a game you would make fun of.

Out of curiousity have you ever played HeroQuest (not the board game)?

 

[SpaceYeti]

No.

 

[Felan]

No.

You might give it a look. It's focus on the story and conflict is refreshing (to me) and its mechanics plays out well across the whole spectrum of conflicts rather than just the did I stick my sword in the little bastard type. It also allows you resolve conflicts in three ways of increasing involvement. A brawl that has nothing to do with the plot of the story you can relegate to single roll. A drinking contest for a key piece of information can be resolved in exchange after exchange (with friends even providing help in subtle ways), till one remains. A contest for the right to marry the princess can be spread over many game sessions. It is also flexible enough that really it can used in any genre.

People that are hard core simulationists tend to balk at it, at least initially. It's my favorite rule system though.

 

[SpaceYeti]

It sounds pretty good and, incidentally, at least somewhat similar to what I'm trying to go for with my game.

On a related, yet still distant topic, I just remember that there was a table for wrestling in AD&D 2E. You had to roll a percentile die to determine if you punched the dude, or if you pile drove him, or what. I mean... come on. I'm sure it seemed innovative at the time, but it's silly to me now, and this is the kind of stuff grognards love.

 

[Felan]

It sounds pretty good and, incidentally, at least somewhat similar to what I'm trying to go for with my game.

On a related, yet still distant topic, I just remember that there was a table for wrestling in AD&D 2E. You had to roll a percentile die to determine if you punched the dude, or if you pile drove him, or what. I mean... come on. I'm sure it seemed innovative at the time, but it's silly to me now, and this is the kind of stuff grognards love.

LOL grapple rules were always wacky in AD&D. It's also incredibly to not kill things in the game and really the whole game is geared to killing stuff. Psionics are pretty wacked too, I only ever had one psionic (a paladin of all things) but was warned that using them runs a risk of drawing the attention of powerful extra-planar entitites.

Lock picking is a one time try and can't try again till you level up (though that might have been later). When the thief (very often fails) usually the fighters are left with bashing the door open, only to find it is a broom closet. If combat proceeded by the same pace as opening a locked door it would be like watching nits stand eight feet apart fighting with pugil sticks.

Mostly though the thing I hate most about AD&D is that doesn't mechanically help make anything other than combat dramatically interesting. Disarm a trap, sneak, lie, seduce, play an instrument, or cross a high wire. Usually a GM will try to induce a bit of tension by forcing multiple rolls but the odds work against the player there, rolling 75% 3 times in row is only 42.2% likely to happen, 50% 3 times in a row is only 12.5% likely to happen.

 

[Duxwing]

LOL grapple rules were always wacky in AD&D. It's also incredibly to not kill things in the game and really the whole game is geared to killing stuff. Psionics are pretty wacked too, I only ever had one psionic (a paladin of all things) but was warned that using them runs a risk of drawing the attention of powerful extra-planar entitites.

Lock picking is a one time try and can't try again till you level up (though that might have been later). When the thief (very often fails) usually the fighters are left with bashing the door open, only to find it is a broom closet. If combat proceeded by the same pace as opening a locked door it would be like watching nits stand eight feet apart fighting with pugil sticks.

Mostly though the thing I hate most about AD&D is that doesn't mechanically help make anything other than combat dramatically interesting. Disarm a trap, sneak, lie, seduce, play an instrument, or cross a high wire. Usually a GM will try to induce a bit of tension by forcing multiple rolls but the odds work against the player there, rolling 75% 3 times in row is only 42.2% likely to happen, 50% 3 times in a row is only 12.5% likely to happen.

Try to actually do the feats, then. If you have to cross a high wire, then put a piece of tape or rope down on the floor and see if you can walk across. Lockpicking can be done by solving a Rubix cube shuffled by the GM within a time inversely proportional to your lockpick skill. Bashing a door open can be turned into "Each sit-up (with no breaks in between) grants an additional 1% chance of success, each push-up 2.5%, and each pull-up 10%. Lift this [really heavy thing, like a barbell, of a weight inversely proportional to your strength stat] above your head and win instantly!". Seduction can be done by some game of dexterity, like spinning a basketball on your finger for a time inversely proportional to your charisma and dexterity stats.

Possible, practical ways to make D&D more enjoyable abound, just use your imagination!

-Duxwing

 

[SpaceYeti]

LOL grapple rules were always wacky in AD&D. It's also incredibly to not kill things in the game and really the whole game is geared to killing stuff. Psionics are pretty wacked too, I only ever had one psionic (a paladin of all things) but was warned that using them runs a risk of drawing the attention of powerful extra-planar entitites.

Lock picking is a one time try and can't try again till you level up (though that might have been later). When the thief (very often fails) usually the fighters are left with bashing the door open, only to find it is a broom closet. If combat proceeded by the same pace as opening a locked door it would be like watching nits stand eight feet apart fighting with pugil sticks.

Mostly though the thing I hate most about AD&D is that doesn't mechanically help make anything other than combat dramatically interesting. Disarm a trap, sneak, lie, seduce, play an instrument, or cross a high wire. Usually a GM will try to induce a bit of tension by forcing multiple rolls but the odds work against the player there, rolling 75% 3 times in row is only 42.2% likely to happen, 50% 3 times in a row is only 12.5% likely to happen.

No way. The most irritating part for me is easily the imbalance between the classes. A close second is the inanity and general low quality of the rules. It was an early rpg, though. It didn't know any better.

 

[SpaceYeti]

Try to actually do the feats, then. If you have to cross a high wire, then put a piece of tape or rope down on the floor and see if you can walk across. Lockpicking can be done by solving a Rubix cube shuffled by the GM within a time inversely proportional to your lockpick skill. Bashing a door open can be turned into "Each sit-up (with no breaks in between) grants an additional 1% chance of success, each push-up 2.5%, and each pull-up 10%. Lift this [really heavy thing, like a barbell, of a weight inversely proportional to your strength stat] above your head and win instantly!". Seduction can be done by some game of dexterity, like spinning a basketball on your finger for a time inversely proportional to your charisma and dexterity stats.

Possible, practical ways to make D&D more enjoyable abound, just use your imagination!

-Duxwing

You're joking, right?

 

[Felan]

No way. The most irritating part for me is easily the imbalance between the classes. A close second is the inanity and general low quality of the rules. It was an early rpg, though. It didn't know any better.

That's true too. But that presumes a continued focus on combat. For me roleplaying has become more about the story, characters, and varied conflict. For that, AD&D was just suck-tastic. For combat focused game play I think RuneQuest 3rd edition (I've heard 2nd edition is better but never had any 2nd edition) was much more enjoyable.

I did enjoy picking different armor pieces for different body locations, compromising between the weight, protection, and vulnerability of the locations: head, chest, l arm, r arm, l leg, and r leg (maybe there was an abdomen too).

I also liked that the skills you used were the ones that could potentially increase, though players naturally try to abuse this. RuneQuest also has 3 main schools of magic: spirit, divine, and sorcery. Typically everyone (even a farmer) would have a bit spirit magic, even divine casters and sorcerers. It was a high magic setting but was still gritty. Pantheons and deities were incredibly important in RuneQuest, well more it's Glorantha setting. In my opinion it's one the best crafted and consistent mythos and worlds out there in fantasy settings. Unfortunately the depth and expansiveness of Glorantha can be overwhelming.

At the end of the day the most important quality of any rpg though is "are you having fun?".

 

[SpaceYeti]

That's true too. But that presumes a continued focus on combat. For me roleplaying has become more about the story, characters, and varied conflict. For that, AD&D was just suck-tastic. For combat focused game play I think RuneQuest 3rd edition (I've heard 2nd edition is better but never had any 2nd edition) was much more enjoyable.

It always bothered me on every edition, when people would inevitably complain that the game focused on combat... dude, every edition was combat centric. The rules for non-combat was far more in player interaction than anything in the rules. And fine, whatever, but the rules have never really focused a whole lot on that part. I'm okay with that. I'm of the thought that the only part of the rules which should cover RPing is to describe how the skills interact with other skills and the game world, and perhaps give some advice on their usage (when and how to properly implement them within the fluid game), but otherwise leave it up to the players. Rules governing RPing just mean the game tells you how to RP... which is bad. What's the point in playing a table top instead of a console RPG if the rules tell you wehat to do?

I did enjoy picking different armor pieces for different body locations, compromising between the weight, protection, and vulnerability of the locations: head, chest, l arm, r arm, l leg, and r leg (maybe there was an abdomen too).

That sounds far too detailed. Why worry about the armor on each piece of your body instead of just having some kind of total armor on? I'd rather hasten combat than make it realistic or that detailed.

I also liked that the skills you used were the ones that could potentially increase, though players naturally try to abuse this. RuneQuest also has 3 main schools of magic: spirit, divine, and sorcery. Typically everyone (even a farmer) would have a bit spirit magic, even divine casters and sorcerers. It was a high magic setting but was still gritty. Pantheons and deities were incredibly important in RuneQuest, well more it's Glorantha setting. In my opinion it's one the best crafted and consistent mythos and worlds out there in fantasy settings. Unfortunately the depth and expansiveness of Glorantha can be overwhelming.

I see no reason to limit character advancement to only the skills the players have been seen to use. There's no reason someone couldn't just say "Yeah, I've totally been doing such and such in my down time" and let them skill up whatever.

At the end of the day the most important quality of any rpg though is "are you having fun?".

Definitely.

 

[Jennywocky]

It always bothered me on every edition, when people would inevitably complain that the game focused on combat... dude, every edition was combat centric. The rules for non-combat was far more in player interaction than anything in the rules. And fine, whatever, but the rules have never really focused a whole lot on that part. I'm okay with that. I'm of the thought that the only part of the rules which should cover RPing is to describe how the skills interact with other skills and the game world, and perhaps give some advice on their usage (when and how to properly implement them within the fluid game), but otherwise leave it up to the players. Rules governing RPing just mean the game tells you how to RP... which is bad. What's the point in playing a table top instead of a console RPG if the rules tell you wehat to do?

True. I'm enjoying playing more White Wolf games now, in that there's more emphasis on RP'ing versus combat; and there's just some basic skill rolls to make to determine the total effectiveness of a RP'ing choice, but in general we do a lot of talking in character and playing things out, as part of a game.

I mean, D&D started out as a combat system (as part of the Chainmail game), then expanded to include other things. And people still typically enjoy combat even if there is roleplaying involved. So emphasis on combat is obvious. But there's more to the game than physical combat.

That sounds far too detailed. Why worry about the armor on each piece of your body instead of just having some kind of total armor on? I'd rather hasten combat than make it realistic or that detailed.

Same here. I've been part of games that were HORRIBLE, because everything was too detailed; you lose sense of story and character and nothing gets accomplished. Games typically fail when they become detailed enough only the hardcores play them. I would rather leave detailed combat rules to an MMO or PC game, where all the number-crunching is calculated immediately by the system; for games where the humans have to calculate success and outcome, simpler is often better. Let the GM decide what the specific outcomes were, if necessary.... many times it doesn't even matter, but maybe with a called shot it would become relevant.

I see no reason to limit character advancement to only the skills the players have been seen to use. There's no reason someone couldn't just say "Yeah, I've totally been doing such and such in my down time" and let them skill up whatever.

It depends on what it is, and whether the player talked to the GM ahead of time (rather than deciding it "after the fact" to accommodate some need in the game), but in general, yeah... our GMs often have "in-game downtime" -- "When you get back, you have about a month to recuperate, get everything in order, purchase gear, etc. What is your character doing over that time?" Not only is skill-improvement occurring then, but we can also be collecting ingredients for something, making social connections (or trade connections), etc.

That's true in any fictional world. If it doesn't make sense when compared to itself, you pretty well failed. However, it doesn't have to be very like reality at all, especially if there's magic and mythical creatures.

Yup. I personally like a variety of settings, although I don't see much point in playing, "Meetings and Minivans" since I play that game every day.

 

[Jennywocky]

Try to actually do the feats, then. If you have to cross a high wire, then put a piece of tape or rope down on the floor and see if you can walk across. Lockpicking can be done by solving a Rubix cube shuffled by the GM within a time inversely proportional to your lockpick skill. Bashing a door open can be turned into "Each sit-up (with no breaks in between) grants an additional 1% chance of success, each push-up 2.5%, and each pull-up 10%. Lift this [really heavy thing, like a barbell, of a weight inversely proportional to your strength stat] above your head and win instantly!". Seduction can be done by some game of dexterity, like spinning a basketball on your finger for a time inversely proportional to your charisma and dexterity stats.

Possible, practical ways to make D&D more enjoyable abound, just use your imagination!

-Duxwing

If I can find my old copy of Dragon with Phil Foglio's cartoon about "playing AD&D IRL" i will post it here... It's pretty funny.

EDIT: HA HA, found 'em all online!! The one I was thinking of was "Exercise in AD&D" -- doing activities that emulate what your character has to endure in the game. But you can read other comics there as well. Phil's a great guy; and I have one of his original strips that ran, that I bought from him back in the 90's.

http://www.airshipentertainment.com/growfcomic.php

 

[Felan]

It always bothered me on every edition, when people would inevitably complain that the game focused on combat... dude, every edition was combat centric. The rules for non-combat was far more in player interaction than anything in the rules. And fine, whatever, but the rules have never really focused a whole lot on that part. I'm okay with that. I'm of the thought that the only part of the rules which should cover RPing is to describe how the skills interact with other skills and the game world, and perhaps give some advice on their usage (when and how to properly implement them within the fluid game), but otherwise leave it up to the players. Rules governing RPing just mean the game tells you how to RP... which is bad. What's the point in playing a table top instead of a console RPG if the rules tell you wehat to do?

We seem to have different views on what RPing means then. If I'm understanding your point it is stuff that is non-combat. My point is *any* conflict should benefit from the same dramatic tension that dice rolling for combat does.

Does AD&D allow two swordsmen to fight a duel where no weapon is drawn and they just stare at each with as much dramatic tension as if they actually drew weapons? The concept isn't there. Sure you could if you were imaginative play out a simulated combat to see who would, but it's not the sort of thinking that comes to AD&D players minds.

Does AD&D allow a piemaker to compete with other piemakers to please the King's palatte in an extended contest that has the same satisfication as slaughtering a horde of goblins? Not in my experience.

If you want wave all of those juicy conflicts that aren't combat related but still can have awesome depth of conflict and resolution, as just rp well then I think you are missing out on a ton of fun.

That sounds far too detailed. Why worry about the armor on each piece of your body instead of just having some kind of total armor on? I'd rather hasten combat than make it realistic or that detailed.

Honestly it wasn't that bad. Though in RuneQuest, parry was an essential skill. Only a bit more complicated than AD&D true, but it wasn't particularly onerous and the players I got to try RQ liked it better than AD&D.

Honestly most AD&D fights take longer than RQ fights. Though you aren't nearly as unhurtable by "lower level" opponents in RQ as you are AD&D.

I see no reason to limit character advancement to only the skills the players have been seen to use. There's no reason someone couldn't just say "Yeah, I've totally been doing such and such in my down time" and let them skill up whatever.

That is allowed by the RQ as well. The abuse is them going down their list of skills and seeing they haven't climbed yet so they divert the party to find something to climb. There is a silliness that they sometimes get into that I would think most any GM would discourage. I could be wrong.

 

[Duxwing]

If I can find my old copy of Dragon with Phil Foglio's cartoon about "playing AD&D IRL" i will post it here... It's pretty funny.

EDIT: HA HA, found 'em all online!! The one I was thinking of was "Exercise in AD&D" -- doing activities that emulate what your character has to endure in the game. But you can read other comics there as well. Phil's a great guy; and I have one of his original strips that ran, that I bought from him back in the 90's.

http://www.airshipentertainment.com/growfcomic.php

They said that it was getting boring, I offered a solution. Seeing as I've never played D&D (making everything that I say conjecture), though, I should have done the research and realized just how often these events occur. On the other hand, one needn't act out every event: I imagine that picking a lock or smashing a door (I'm adding the following qualifier) with the plot in the balance would be rather exciting.

Imagine that, after a few months of journeying, you've infiltrated the castle of the Evil King and are planting a bomb in the room underneath his throne during a royal ceremony. In the interest of stealth, Jennywocky carries a shortbow and SpaceYeti carries a poisoned dagger. So as not to be heard by the guard, neither wears armor or carries anything more than the essentials: no mistakes.

SpaceYeti: (whispering) OK, I'm in. I'm behind the barrel on the other side of the room.
Jennywocky: (whispering back) Understood, neutralizing guard on parapet.
Jennywocky: *rolls a kill on guard* GO GO GO!
SpaceYeti: Planting, cover me. *fiddles with Rubix cube* (whispering) Come on... *befuddled with pattern* come on...
Jennywocky: (hoarse whisper) Guard on your seven o'clock!
SpaceYeti: *deeply perplexed* (returns hoarse whisper) I can't do anything about that right now!
Jennywocky: (almost yelling) Plant it!!! *shoots bow, rolls a miss on second guard*
SpaceYeti: *fiddles, twisting and turning cube* This is gonna cost me my... *flash of Ne, quickly solves cube and sets it down* Got it!

^This is what I had in mind.

-Duxwing

 

[Felan]

If I can find my old copy of Dragon with Phil Foglio's cartoon about "playing AD&D IRL" i will post it here... It's pretty funny.

EDIT: HA HA, found 'em all online!! The one I was thinking of was "Exercise in AD&D" -- doing activities that emulate what your character has to endure in the game. But you can read other comics there as well. Phil's a great guy; and I have one of his original strips that ran, that I bought from him back in the 90's.

http://www.airshipentertainment.com/growfcomic.php

LOL

I played a bit of white wolf, as I remember it used large pools of six sided dice. My other dice were so sad at not having anything to do.

 

[Jennywocky]

@Duxwing:
I think this sounds more like "LARP'ing" than tabletop RPGs.

LOL

I played a bit of white wolf, as I remember it used large pools of six sided dice. My other dice were so sad at not having anything to do.

The ones I play (Exalted and WoD) use ten-siders, but yes... four dice I use and the rest of my dice bag just sits there abandoned and ignored.

Ironically, I'm actually playing right this sec -- but I'm just a passenger in a vehicle at the moment, so I'm typing online instead.

 

[Felan]

The ones I play (Exalted and WoD) use ten-siders, but yes... four dice I use and the rest of my dice bag just sits there abandoned and ignored.

Ironically, I'm actually playing right this sec -- but I'm just a passenger in a vehicle at the moment, so I'm typing online instead.

I've only read about Exalted but it sounds neat.

I do like the moodiness that White Wolf puts into their games.

 

[Duxwing]

@Duxwing:
I think this sounds more like "LARP'ing" than tabletop RPGs.



The ones I play (Exalted and WoD) use ten-siders, but yes... four dice I use and the rest of my dice bag just sits there abandoned and ignored.

Ironically, I'm actually playing right this sec -- but I'm just a passenger in a vehicle at the moment, so I'm typing online instead.

I added the dialogue for effect, no LARPing needed.

-Duxwing

 

[Jennywocky]

I've only read about Exalted but it sounds neat.

I do like the moodiness that White Wolf puts into their games.

I wasn't as big a fan of Exalted 2.5... the mechanics were pretty complicated for n00bs, and it's difficult to generate characters until you understand how all the skills and stats interact. There's also an entire world to understand (culturally) so that you can RP correctly. So it got a little tedious for me. But it's really like playing "superheroes" -- the characters are very high-powered, but so is anyone you run into, in general.

I really like New WoD, though. I'm playing a Daeva vampire right now, and am the only vampire in the game... we have two mages, a Promethian, a shapechanger, and something else. Most of my skills are social/mental, and it's been fun to be charming and dazzling people and playing a young vampire who doesn't necessarily like being undead. The biggest hindrance to vampire play in mixed group is sunlight, but there are some alternate rules that can be implemented while still keeping some balance.

There's definitely a great mood/ambiance factor.

 

[Felan]

I wasn't as big a fan of Exalted 2.5... the mechanics were pretty complicated for n00bs, and it's difficult to generate characters until you understand how all the skills and stats interact. There's also an entire world to understand (culturally) so that you can RP correctly. So it got a little tedious for me. But it's really like playing "superheroes" -- the characters are very high-powered, but so is anyone you run into, in general.

I really like New WoD, though. I'm playing a Daeva vampire right now, and am the only vampire in the game... we have two mages, a Promethian, a shapechanger, and something else. Most of my skills are social/mental, and it's been fun to be charming and dazzling people and playing a young vampire who doesn't necessarily like being undead. The biggest hindrance to vampire play in mixed group is sunlight, but there are some alternate rules that can be implemented while still keeping some balance.

There's definitely a great mood/ambiance factor.

Very cool rock that hedonist vibe! :P

 

[SpaceYeti]

True. I'm enjoying playing more White Wolf games now, in that there's more emphasis on RP'ing versus combat; and there's just some basic skill rolls to make to determine the total effectiveness of a RP'ing choice, but in general we do a lot of talking in character and playing things out, as part of a game.

I certainly do enjoy WW, but I've always had the problem of people running it poorly. I tried it in high school... yeah. Then once it was like Dungeons and Wolves. The last time I played it was super fun, as we had a good GM, but we never finished the game... can't remember why.

I mean, D&D started out as a combat system (as part of the Chainmail game), then expanded to include other things. And people still typically enjoy combat even if there is roleplaying involved. So emphasis on combat is obvious. But there's more to the game than physical combat.

Definitely. However, I have to admit that combat is my favorite part, the easiest to make exciting, and my favorite part of most games. However, a bad take on the more RP parts can ruin a game, which is why I like games with heavy rules for combat (insuring combat is done fairly and is exciting for everyone), with few actual "rules" to the role-playing part. I mean, the inclusion of skills and information gathering and etc skills is usually nothing but good, and should certainly have pretty crisp rules, but there should be no rules about how to role-play.

Same here. I've been part of games that were HORRIBLE, because everything was too detailed; you lose sense of story and character and nothing gets accomplished. Games typically fail when they become detailed enough only the hardcores play them. I would rather leave detailed combat rules to an MMO or PC game, where all the number-crunching is calculated immediately by the system; for games where the humans have to calculate success and outcome, simpler is often better. Let the GM decide what the specific outcomes were, if necessary.... many times it doesn't even matter, but maybe with a called shot it would become relevant.

Exactly. There's a strange idea that RPGs are for the "smart people", and so being complicated makes it better, as it's more a status symbol than a game. That's stupid. No matter how brilliant you are and what kind of maths you know, easier math is still easier, takes less time, and makes the game flow better. You can focus on what your character is doing, not what the numbers are doing.

It depends on what it is, and whether the player talked to the GM ahead of time (rather than deciding it "after the fact" to accommodate some need in the game), but in general, yeah... our GMs often have "in-game downtime" -- "When you get back, you have about a month to recuperate, get everything in order, purchase gear, etc. What is your character doing over that time?" Not only is skill-improvement occurring then, but we can also be collecting ingredients for something, making social connections (or trade connections), etc.

I fully support retroactive skill advancement. A player may have only recently noticed something he wants his character to have or be able to do, so why not let him say his character would have been working for that thing before the player knew about it, as the character would have known about it... or it makes sense for the character. Even if it doesn't, I don't want my players to feel unhappy about their character choices. I'm very liberal about redesigning characters from the ground up with new supplements, or even if the player simply wants to. It really won't hurt anything that's been happening in the game. I've never had a plot centered around what feats or skills or whatever my PCs had, anyway, so why not?

We seem to have different views on what RPing means then. If I'm understanding your point it is stuff that is non-combat. My point is *any* conflict should benefit from the same dramatic tension that dice rolling for combat does.

That's not exactly my meaning. However, there is also certainly a significant difference between in combat and not. Combat, I think, should be mediated by objective, fair rules, while non-combat should have less strict rules. RP can take place in and out of combat, but out of combat should be (in my tastes) more heavily RP and less rules heavy.

If you want wave all of those juicy conflicts that aren't combat related but still can have awesome depth of conflict and resolution, as just rp well then I think you are missing out on a ton of fun.

That's exactly my point. While that could be a fun conflict, the sheer variety of possible conflicts makes heavily ruled non-combat conflict necessarily too complex to be as rule-heavy as combat. Instead, it should be skills, their uses, maybe some special powers, and then simple RP and GM judgment.[/QUOTE]

 

[SpaceYeti]

They said that it was getting boring, I offered a solution. Seeing as I've never played D&D (making everything that I say conjecture), though, I should have done the research and realized just how often these events occur. On the other hand, one needn't act out every event: I imagine that picking a lock or smashing a door (I'm adding the following qualifier) with the plot in the balance would be rather exciting.

Imagine that, after a few months of journeying, you've infiltrated the castle of the Evil King and are planting a bomb in the room underneath his throne during a royal ceremony. In the interest of stealth, Jennywocky carries a shortbow and SpaceYeti carries a poisoned dagger. So as not to be heard by the guard, neither wears armor or carries anything more than the essentials: no mistakes.

SpaceYeti: (whispering) OK, I'm in. I'm behind the barrel on the other side of the room.
Jennywocky: (whispering back) Understood, neutralizing guard on parapet.
Jennywocky: *rolls a kill on guard* GO GO GO!
SpaceYeti: Planting, cover me. *fiddles with Rubix cube* (whispering) Come on... *befuddled with pattern* come on...
Jennywocky: (hoarse whisper) Guard on your seven o'clock!
SpaceYeti: *deeply perplexed* (returns hoarse whisper) I can't do anything about that right now!
Jennywocky: (almost yelling) Plant it!!! *shoots bow, rolls a miss on second guard*
SpaceYeti: *fiddles, twisting and turning cube* This is gonna cost me my... *flash of Ne, quickly solves cube and sets it down* Got it!

^This is what I had in mind.

-Duxwing

In a more freestyle game that could certainly be fun. However, I'm not of the opinion that someone's character should succeed or fail based on the performance of the player themselves. I mean, yes, the player rolls a die, but the character is solving the puzzle, or planting the bomb, or whatever, not the player. The tension in this situation could also be done with skill rolls; Sneak checks to not be seen, attack rolls missing would give the guards time to react and possibly pull the alarm or otherwise alert more guards, setting the bomb would require a sneak check to place it so it's not seen, an ordinance (or whatever) check to properly set us up the bomb, all while still sneaking the character to avoid detection, perception checks to notice guards before they can properly react to you, and this is probably a minimum of rolls. More could easily be tossed in there.

 

[Felan]

That's not exactly my meaning. However, there is also certainly a significant difference between in combat and not. Combat, I think, should be mediated by objective, fair rules, while non-combat should not. RP can take place in and out of combat, but out of combat should be (in my tastes) more heavily RP and less rules heavy.

That's exactly my point. While that could be a fun conflict, the sheer variety of possible conflicts makes heavily ruled non-combat conflict necessarily too complex to be as rule-heavy as combat. Instead, it should be skills, their uses, maybe some special powers, and then simple RP and GM judgment.

In Heroquest (HQ) the rules are based around conflict without really being explicit about the nature of the conflict. So the same rules you use for combat also work for non-combat. HQ is more focused on a literary sort of roleplay.

In HQ there aren't really any attributes like strength, dexterity, intelligence, and so on. There isn't really equipment either or money. There are a couple of ways to create a character, but in the end you have keywords of the players choice. The keyword could be as simple as Strong or fanciful like Bag of a 100 howling winds. The nature of a fanciful keyword can be decided more after its first use and depending on its nature can be used in a variety of conflicts.

Whether you can use a keyword in a conflict comes down to whether it makes sense. Using Strong for a tea ceremony would probably fail the makes sense test, unless perhaps the tea ceremony was with giants and the cups bigger than a man. The Bag of a 100 Howling Winds could be used in combat but the casualties of it can be considered people demoralized from the howling winds.

Wealth covers the "money" and purchases made in the game are contests against wealth. Depending on the cost of the thing, incidentals having no impact and a yacht having a big impact, reduce Wealth for subsequent rolls in that session (it resets after).

If the party finds a magic sword they can keep if they spent adventure point(s) on it. If they don't then it is assumed that it did not stay with the party, can rp where it does go. Adventure points are also used to increase keyword abilities.

The strength of HeroQuest in my opinion is that it opens more avenues for entertaining conflict than a rule system that really only has one form of engaging conflict. It's not necessarily a system you will want to play but if you are creating your own system I think it would be an excellent system to look at for some out of the box ideas that you haven't been exposed to.

 

[SpaceYeti]

Frankly, it sounds far too much like larping for my tastes. I prefer things to have standardized rules and mechanics, so that you know exactly what the outcome of your actions should be. It also sounds like you're either playing a different game from the one I looked up, which is a board game from 1989, or you play a severely altered version, thus making the things you say about the system not actually part of the system, but home-brew. In fact, it sounds a LOT like a game I once played. It was fun, but it was just a board game, not an RPG.

Also, you mention the lack of "base stats", such as strength and dexterity. Frankly, base stats tend to be needless at best. Even in a simple game that involves base stats and then specific skills, you have to add together two numbers to your die roll, instead of just the one number (your skill). While not exactly hard to do, it's still more complicated than it has to be. Why add your die roll to Strength 4 plus Sword 3 when you could just add your roll to Sword 7? I'm sure plenty of people like base stats for realism's sake, but as I've said before; fuck realism. When are you going to use your Strength 4 Axes 0 roll instead of your Strength 4 Swords 7 roll, anyway? So a strictly skill based game makes what would be the base 4 go away and your Axe 0 means using an axe is silly... but you're not gonna do it anyway. You're gonna stick with that sword, so who gives a shit? If you really want to use that axe, put some points into Axe either way.

And to resolve a conflict in a traditional RPG, you roll dice. There's nothing wrong with other ways of conflict resolution. In fact, I just now got an idea for a game centered around Rock Paper, Scissors, with each person being able to play RPS a number of times equal to their skill in that thing, and every game after one person runs out of attempts automatically counts towards the person with a higher score. This would require generally higher numbers in a smaller range, but can be done. However, that conflict resolution would take longer than it needs to. Resolving a single attack or diplomacy check or whatever you have would take several minutes, instead of the several seconds of die roll plus number. It could be fun, but it's not streamlined at all.

 

[Felan]

Frankly, it sounds far too much like larping for my tastes. I prefer things to have standardized rules and mechanics, so that you know exactly what the outcome of your actions should be. It also sounds like you're either playing a different game from the one I looked up, which is a board game from 1989, or you play a severely altered version, thus making the things you say about the system not actually part of the system, but home-brew. In fact, it sounds a LOT like a game I once played. It was fun, but it was just a board game, not an RPG.

Also, you mention the lack of "base stats", such as strength and dexterity. Frankly, base stats tend to be needless at best. Even in a simple game that involves base stats and then specific skills, you have to add together two numbers to your die roll, instead of just the one number (your skill). While not exactly hard to do, it's still more complicated than it has to be. Why add your die roll to Strength 4 plus Sword 3 when you could just add your roll to Sword 7? I'm sure plenty of people like base stats for realism's sake, but as I've said before; fuck realism. When are you going to use your Strength 4 Axes 0 roll instead of your Strength 4 Swords 7 roll, anyway? So a strictly skill based game makes what would be the base 4 go away and your Axe 0 means using an axe is silly... but you're not gonna do it anyway. You're gonna stick with that sword, so who gives a shit? If you really want to use that axe, put some points into Axe either way.

And to resolve a conflict in a traditional RPG, you roll dice. There's nothing wrong with other ways of conflict resolution. In fact, I just now got an idea for a game centered around Rock Paper, Scissors, with each person being able to play RPS a number of times equal to their skill in that thing, and every game after one person runs out of attempts automatically counts towards the person with a higher score. This would require generally higher numbers in a smaller range, but can be done. However, that conflict resolution would take longer than it needs to. Resolving a single attack or diplomacy check or whatever you have would take several minutes, instead of the several seconds of die roll plus number. It could be fun, but it's not streamlined at all.

http://moondesignpublications.com/product/heroquest-core-rules

It's not LARP and the rules are well defined but it's nature is very flexible.

Here is a decent review of the game: http://jerome23.wordpress.com/2012/04/14/playtest-review-heroquest-2-rpg/

The board game had the copyright on HeroQuest for a long time but after they went under the copyright was taken up by Moon Design Publishing, because Hero Quests are a key concept in the Glorantha world and it's the title the main creator of Glorantha, Greg Stafford, wanted for the game. As for the HeroQuest rules, the short version is Greg contracted Robin Laws to create them and they have nothing to do with the board game.

Here is a cheat sheet that might give you some idea of the contest resolution system. http://moondesignpublications.com/page/heroquest-cheat-sheet

 

[SpaceYeti]

Okay, that doesn't seem so bad for a system. Still not quite as streamlined as I prefer, it looks like, but totally doable.

 

[Duxwing]

In a more freestyle game that could certainly be fun. However, I'm not of the opinion that someone's character should succeed or fail based on the performance of the player themselves. I mean, yes, the player rolls a die, but the character is solving the puzzle, or planting the bomb, or whatever, not the player. The tension in this situation could also be done with skill rolls; Sneak checks to not be seen, attack rolls missing would give the guards time to react and possibly pull the alarm or otherwise alert more guards, setting the bomb would require a sneak check to place it so it's not seen, an ordinance (or whatever) check to properly set us up the bomb, all while still sneaking the character to avoid detection, perception checks to notice guards before they can properly react to you, and this is probably a minimum of rolls. More could easily be tossed in there.

A trenchant point indeed. I agree with you now; the character is doing the action, not the player, and dice are therefore the better option for resolving conflicts. As an entirely unrelated digression, how does RP work in a table top RPG?

-Duxwing

 

[Jennywocky]

A trenchant point indeed. I agree with you now; the character is doing the action, not the player, and dice are therefore the better option for resolving conflicts. As an entirely unrelated digression, how does RP work in a table top RPG?

uhhhhh... you just make up the words in character that you are saying.

Many games then have rules for "social/mental" play. Typically you have various stats, skills, and powers, each with their own scores. Some of these items refer to social skills (like Bluff, Intimidate, Persuade, Entertain, etc.)

The specific approach can vary among games and Game Masters / House Rules, but typically you do decide what to say to the person, but then your dice roll determines if your character managed to succeed in what you were attempting. So you don't have to actually make the entire speech in perfect fullness to succeed; you just have to give the gist of what you are saying, and if it makes sense, then the dice roll can be attempted, to determine actual success in game.

(Often the person you are relating too has their own set of skills that can thwart your attempts to socially manipulate or woo or coerce them, things such as Sense Motive or Iron Resolve or a higher Intelligence, etc. So you compare your successes vs theirs, or your success with minuses to your roll based on their skills.)

So as far as your actual role-playing? It only matters in as much your strategy selected and if when role-playing you say something extremely profound OR extremely stupid/misguided. At that point, the GM might actually give you bonuses or penalties to your roll, depending on how well you did.)

I was excited last night -- the GM gives out a free reroll (to be used at any point in the game) after each session to the player selected as doing the best RP'ing, and I got all the nominations without even saying a word, for my in-character behavior for a newly fledged vampire surrounded by new people and in a location in which she did not feel safe. Yay, me.