Jump to content

Jakob

Members
  • Content Count

    248
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Jakob last won the day on November 22 2016

Jakob had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

169 Excellent

About Jakob

  • Rank
    Senior Member

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://swanosaurus.blogspot.de

Converted

  • RPG Biography
    Been a writer for German Edition of CoC; played lots of RPGs since 1984. Co-owner of fantasy bookshop Otherland in Berlin, where we hold monthly RPG nights.
  • Current games
    RuneQuest - Adventures in Glorantha; Dungeon Crawl Classics - Peril on the Purple Planet
  • Location
    Berlin, Germany
  • Blurb
    Loves reading new rules, hates learning them!

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. I think this makes sense - I must confess, I'm looking forward more to the Sky-Raiders system, but that's quite fine!
  2. Thanks for looking it up!
  3. Wouldn't that mean that the first mastery is effectively worth two bumps (by turning your succes range into your crit range AND giving you a bump)? I guess the passage might be read like that, but it would seem strange that this isn't mentioned anywhere else in the rules. I must confess that I'm confused now ... I always considered it part of the elegance of the system that rolling 10M against 16M works exactly like rolling 10 against 16.
  4. I can't imagine that - that would play havoc with the system, wouldn't it? It would mean that if I roll 10 or less, I have a critical AND could use my mastery to bump the other side down. I read the passage as saying that effectively, 10M means that I need to roll a 10 or less for a crit (and an 11-19 for a success), because I'll always get the bump up (except when the opposition also has a mastery - that is why it says "Unless opposed by similarly exalted resistance"
  5. Hey Shawn, whatever setting you'll come up with in the end, these are certainly some interesting questions! Since you've asked about things that other published works don't quite deliver and that we would like to see: I'd really love to see a fantasy setting that deals in an interesting way with social change triggered by a major epistomological change; a "true" Renaissance game, not in the sense that it has some real-world historical trappings of that era, but that it really deals with people developing a whole new view on what it means to be human (or whatever other intelligent fantasy species you might happen to belong to ...). Take, for example, a fantasy society where magic has always been bound up in religious ritual, but recently, a more scientific approach called "sorcery" has been developed - what does it actually mean if humans can wield magical powers without recourse to gods or spirits? What kinds of upheaval would follow from that? You wouldn't even have to combine something like that with a Renaissance-like technology level, it could just as well be a stone-age setting. Are the gods real? I consider both "they are definitely real and active" and "There's no proof of them being real whatever" interesting; for some reason, I don't really like the "they're probably real but keep in the background" middle-ground. And I'm not very interested in "good" and "evil" gods in a pantheon. Still, they can serve as interesting philosophical concepts in a gaming world. Ideal stakes for me a medium, it just seems most playable. I tend to like my game worlds either utterly alien or very down to earth - once again, what I'm least interested in is the middle-ground. Harn feels a little to familiar to me (I'd probably like it better if it were a humans only setting). I love weird settings with lots of intelligent species like Talislanta, but I want them to make sense (I played Numenera for a while, but all of the cool elements where just there, with no connective tissue that made them feel like they were belonging to the same world and being in relation to each other). I don't really like any more or less creative new takes on elves, dwarves and the likes - they have been done, and they have been done well, but I really don't feel a need fo any more of that. Regarding details: I kind of prefer slim, but focused setting material. Give me a lot of broad strokes, but also some very detailed elements that I can use right away. I find that I can make most uses of the extreme ends of the scale at the gaming table - very broad descriptions that just give me a general idea of a place, and fine details about one thing or the other (a castle, a group of NPC, an inn ...). I like to have some near future history of the world (two or three years), but only in very broad strokes and only as suggestions what will happen if the PCs do not interfere. Also: yay to city states!
  6. Wow, hadn't heard about Afterthought before - in all it's briefness, it sounds awesome. @Sean_RDP, please show up here and tell us more. Actually, is there a way to get in on this as an author in a small way? I haven't done a lot in English (yet), but I'm starting to get my RPG writers legs back (with some community content for Gumshoe and some Mythras in German), and right now, I really wan't to do something with QuestWorlds, and I REALLY want to be involved in an sf rpg project that, conceptually, is as interesting as this sounds ...
  7. Now that's interesting! I kind of love to hate these books - they drew me in like little other fantasy I've ever read, but there's also a nearly ritualistic repetitiveness to some elements of them that feels like it's truly grinding the reader down ("Scranc to the horizon ... and more Sranc, and even more Sranc ...")... and the highly violent nature of the story (and I'm not just talking gore, it's really terribly violent on so many levels) is hard to digest. Still, I couldn't put it down and kept buying each new volume. Great author, great prose. I'm really curing about how it informs Jackals.
  8. Good to hear! I'm working on that right now - I've just read the companion, which might change things a little bit because I noticed that the scenario has at least two possible scenes that might work well for the new social conflict rules ...
  9. Yeah, that's mine! Finally! (Although it actually went quite fast with the 100Questen Gesellschaft from manuscript to publication).
  10. .... and it's mine! (pdf at least, now the wait for delivery of the print copy begins ...)
  11. On the one hand, there's the heavily narrative one- or few-shot systems like Fiasco, Durance, Polaris - I love those three to bits, but they are very narrow in what you can and can't do with them, so they're not a really good comparision to HQ. Then I know DungeonWorld and some other pbtA games (but mainly played DW), which hit, in many ways, my sweet spot for narrative systems in really sticking to their core mechanic. However, they also tend to be pretty limited in scope - they are usually structured around "moves" which do very specific things in the narrative (moves are not necessarily character traits, but often), and they really need to be tailored the the genre and setting. Then there's Fate, which, honestly, I just don't like - it seems so elegant when reading, but at the table, it always feels clunky and mechanistic to me, and I don't like that it is so centered around its Fate points economy. However, Fate is a good point of comparision for HeroQuest: It is actually a more classical system with skills (and Aspects, which are more similar to traits in HQ, but work very differently), but also very much about enabling a narrative flow comparable to that of a pulp/adventure story instead of simulation some fantasy reality. The thing in HQ is that it gives you lot of formalized options for conflict resolution, and some, at first glance, look wildly complicated (I have yet to fully wrap my head around group extended conflicts). What they mean with regards to hat happens within the fictional world is very open-ended, which is a great thing, because it means that you can decide which resolution mechanism exactly to use based on how much time you want to spend with the conflict and not based on whether the characters are fighting under water, climbing a mountain, doing a spell duel or having a debate with the High-Priest. It's actually not that interesting? Make it a simple conflict, however complicated events within the game world might seem. Now, that is great. But coming at the rules with the desire to understand them, it is hard to grasp the advanced rules parts and how and when to use them. And they do feel simulationist to me, even they they are not about simulating some fictional reality, but about simulating a certain kind of narrative flow. Which is fine, as I said, but I'm not sure if I feel the need to go into the detail as much as things like group intended conflicts would have me. On the other hand, as I said, I don't really need to use them - if I stick to simple conflicts and chained contests, everything feels quite straightforward. EDIT: Oh, what I meant with "HQ feels a little more simulationist to me than my approach" actually is: I feel okay with having one roll for all the "random factors" - how the character performs in that particular instance and whether the problem got harder or easier by some accident (that's, as I mentioned, how I tend to interpret fumbles in "classical" games - they usually don't mean that the character screwed it up, but something bad happened to screw with him). HQ seems more granular to me in having one roll for the characters performance and one for random stuff involving the circumstances. That seems, in a wider sense, a little more "simulationist" to me.
  12. I'm buying the printed edition, anyway, but does Really mean that? Or just that the PDF comes with the print copy for free?
  13. Questworld 3.2 doesn't give a higher cost for raising keywords at character creation - that's what I was going by; however, it seems that they are more expensive to raise later on with Hero Points.
  14. Can someone give a brief overview of the "News" part in the video? I'm just a reading person ...are there new supplements/games mentioned that we don't know about yet (so, anything besides Babylon, Polynesia, Greece, Destined, Fioracitta and ... what am I forgetting? Certainly someting!).
  15. Thanks @Ian Cooper! I didn't think it this possibility. That, combined with making sure that use of your keyword won't be considered a stretch under certain circumstances, is probably enogh incentive to put a few points in breakouts. EDIT: I should have read the whole SRD before asking - I just noticed that, when buying advancements, there's a significant difference between keywords and breakouts, with keywords being more expensive to raise ... so that's mechanical incentive right there!
×
×
  • Create New...