Jump to content

klecser

Members
  • Content Count

    393
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    4

Everything posted by klecser

  1. I will update this post as new videos are released!
  2. This is pretty much where I am right now. I discovered Runequest back in April and I'm pretty psyched about it. This Board has been overwhelmingly helpful in addressing my concerns. But then things like this happen: I was trying to be helpful here. And people are essentially indicating that I've committed some sort of Board faux pas simply by asking a designer for insight? It makes me feel like attempts to help aren't welcome. It makes me feel like I'm not part of the "Club." I'm here on loan as a newbie or something, but I'll never really get my "cred" until I'm here for X years. 10 years? 15 years? Until I'm angry about a new ruleset? It's even more strong on the Call of Cthulhu boards. I've been on those Boards for a couple of years and STILL don't feel welcome there, despite countless efforts to try to support new players. Heck, I've sworn off YSDC because the Club mentality there is so ridiculous. Now, I may have misread the situation. That is the point. As a new player, I don't understand what those reacts mean. No one has ever reacted "Sad" to an attempt to help before. I'm an experienced gamer and I've always believed that it is incumbent on experienced players to work extra hard to welcome new players.
  3. I read that more as an example of Keeper adaptation to a particular situation and preserving the spirit of "player acts" over "NPC acts." I'd encourage you to play it in whatever way makes sense in the moment. I think you may be seeking objectivity in a game that is intended to be deliberately more squishy. Call of Cthulhu is first and foremost about role-playing.
  4. So, clearly my comment above is considered "Sad" by people, and I don't understand why. I was just trying to be helpful. Why is it "Sad" to ask a designer to give insight on the design process? It's a rare privilege that we have from Chaosium designers. If you don't want me to be helpful here, I'll stop commenting.
  5. "Opposing skill/Difficulty level: When attempting to hide, the opponent’s Spot Hidden or Listen skill is used to set the difficulty level for the roll. Situational modifiers may also apply (e.g. darkness or loud noises)." Page 77 Rulebook. The NPC is trying to hide. The "opponent" is the Investigator, who sets the difficulty level. An investigator with a detection skill of 50 sets it to Hard.
  6. Everybody has different play styles. In an investigative game, having a tough obstacle can be a real tension builder. This could be both as an obstacle that the Keeper is keeping a monster behind, or as a chase/investigation obstacle for investigators. When exactly will the monster break through? Will the cultist get away in the time it took them to knock down the door? So, your perspective is one of a myriad of options for Keepers to consider. I do not think that advising any Keeper that there is only one right way to do something keeps people playing the game. This Board needs to be all about options if we are to continue to attract new players.
  7. The system has told me that I ran out of my react allowance for today. LOL. So, anyone who contributed, it is appreciated.
  8. It would depend upon the material that the door is made of and how thick it is. It also depends upon how crunchy you want to get. Crunchy: You could add increasing damage reduction to a door based upon its material. Steel and iron doors have greater DR than wooden doors. Oak better than pine. You could have hit points be based upon the thickness of the doors. Page 138, Chase rules: "Sample barriers hit points: Internal door or thin wooden fence: 5 hit points. Standard back door: 10 hit points. Strong domestic external door: 15 hit points. 9” brick wall: 25 hit points. Mature tree: 50 hit points. Concrete bridge support: 100 hit points." Streamlined: From page 83 of the rulebook: "Harvey failed to persuade the librarian to open up, so he has decided to force the backdoor of the library. Harvey has a STR of 20. The library door is made of thick oak, with a stout iron lock, and the Keeper judges it to be particularly strong. The difficulty level is thus set to Hard, requiring Harvey to roll 10 or below (half Harvey’s STR)." Note that, in that case, the Keeper just set a difficulty for Strength.
  9. If I had the opportunity to play RQG, I would play a very interesting "serious" Duck that would stretch the lore to its furthest. Alas, I am the Forever GM of my group.
  10. Call of Cthulhu deliberately establishes skill breaks for expertise for certain skills. 50% is considered "Professional." By the time you have invested enough in a skill to have it at 50% or higher, you essentially are granted skill-specific "professional perks" with it. Once you hit 50 in Spot Hidden or Listen (two of the most critical skills in the game), it is just much, much harder for someone to sneak up on you. Another example would be the Other Language skill. Once you hit different milestones in numbers, you can execute certain communication abilities without making rolls. Example: At 30% you can conduct transactional business without the need for a roll. At 29? Nope. It is an incentive to use skills to proc improvement rolls. A flavor consideration could be that it is harder for you to be BOTH well-hidden AND quiet than it is for you to just see or just hear something. So, the designers (I think) made the decision to make "hiding" more difficult than just hearing or just seeing. @Mike M or @Paul Fricker, am I understanding the design intent behind the "expertise break?" Spot Hidden and Listen are critical investigative skills in the game and the pendulum swings both ways. If we reverse your example and have an Investigator with 50% spot hidden, it is setting a Hard difficulty level for opponents to sneak up on them. The Investigator is so good at Spot Hidden that they have gained a bonus "perk" for investing in the skill. So, it is important to keep in mind what the NPC skill value is for Keepers to be sure the challenge is where they want it to be for investigators. For this specific example I think it is worth noting that this game does not define Stealth/Spot Hidden or Stealth/Listen as opposed rolls. All the game establishes is that the skill level of your detection skill sets the difficulty for Stealth. So, yes, there is no numerical distinction for setting a difficulty level for Stealth if the detection skill is any number over 50. It is all the harder to sneak up on someone who is professionally trained to detect things. That means that is also generally harder to be sneaky in this game than to detect things. A rationale behind that is that it keeps the action and the narrative moving. You have several options here: 1) Option 1 is to play it as written. There is a deliberate numeric bias set up in the game that gives investing in detection skills a point-for-point advantage over investing in Stealth. Its an investigative game and skill points are limited. This gives the player more value in bringing Spot Hidden or Listen to 50. 2) Option 2: House-rule it to what you want it to be. Maybe you want Stealth to be just as advantageous as Spot Hidden or Listen and you remove the "expertise break" of the two detection skills.
  11. I can think of lots of advantages to playing a Duck: Access to potential allies of another culture, access to culturally unique magic, role-playing opportunities, underestimation as strategy/tactics. Creativity isn't a problem for me. It is for some role-players, ironically. But that is why a GM has to know a world well enough to be able to SUGGEST things. That's the point here. It isn't about what my players can/cannot do. It's me learning what I need to learn to model for them what might be possible.
  12. Bill, I don't have a problem with it personally. But I know a LOT of min-maxers. Like, a ton. I don't AGREE with it. But I've dealt with it enough that I now PREP for it for any game. An ounce of prevention...you know how the saying goes. I hate dealing with drama in playgroups and I like to anticipate it as quickly as possible so that I can cut it off, respectfully, right out of the gate. These questions are the questions people WILL ask. Somebody is going to say to me: "Why should I play a Duck when a Duck has X disadvantages?" That mentality is SAD, but it is real. If you play with people who don't ask these questions, you are fortunate. But I sometimes do play with those types of players, and asking these questions in advance helps to avoid a lot of the issues. I need to be able to provide suggestions to keep things moving. This is why my friends and I 1) built our own Con and 2) stopped going to Cons. It was wall-to-wall people criticizing us at tables for building sub-optimal characters. And its part of what drove me to CoC and RQG. So, trust me, this has a happy ending. For the videos, I'm sad to say, I tried to attenuate to optimization just so that I wouldn't get a flurry of comments complaining about how I've built a sub-optimal character. Notice how I did make quite a few decisions that were characterization-based, as opposed to stat-based. I kept my Broadsword even though someone recommended to me it wasn't the most "optimal" choice. Because I envisioned my character with a Broadsword. Does this make me needlessly hypersensitive to something that should be a non-issue? Absolutely. My approach is rooted in being prepared for the bullspit, so that it doesn't stress me out when it happens. See, my number one goal is to give people a good experience. And if I get a min-maxer, and I'm not prepared for it, they may not have a good experience. Right or wrong. Personally, I think min-maxing is sad. People who min-max role-playing games should be playing video games instead. But that's just my perspective, and as a GM, if I stop someone from having fun just because I disagree with their play style, that doesn't make me feel ok about the situation.
  13. Season 3 felt especialy like a CoC investigation to me. I loved it.
  14. Thanks David. What I'm thinking of though: is it WISE to play a front line fighter, as a Duck? You can. I understand that. What I fear is that one of my players makes an uninformed choice and walks up and gets smacked when I can do pre work to help them recognize a pitfall.
  15. Thank you, everyone. Followup: There is nothing stopping me from telling a player that they can make a Duck that wears armor of the point values common to humans, correct? But at the same time, encumbrance is a significant aspect of RQ, and they would pretty much be making it impossible for them to swim. Followup: When you make a Duck adventurer, what do you do? Duck priest/magic combatant? How do you make a Duck "shine" in RQG?
  16. @Jeff any insight on these questions from a design perspective?
  17. Many of my players want to play Elder Races. I recognize that many Elder Races are estranged from Human Civilization, so I'm trying to figure out how to construct a situation that would allow a Green Elf and a Duck (or any Elder Race) to participate in a game. I made it very clear to them that we are not running a DND game with a different setting and that there could be challenges associated with playing Elder Races. At the same time, these Elder Races are some of the main carrots dangling in front of faces that interest a lot of new players. Especially if they came from DND. They are used to and are most interested in the fantastical. So part of the goal here is to combine the best of both worlds and not say "no" when just a little work can meld everyone's desires together. Items that need solving: 1) What angle could I take that could explain why Elder Races would associate with humans? For the Green Elf I was thinking that they could be an emissary for Green Elves trying to work with humans even if their people won't? They either wouldn't go into human towns, or is there some kind of glamour that they could cast that would allow them to do so? 2) The stats for armor for Elder Races are frequently very low numbers in the Bestiary. For example, a Duck has average armor values in the 2-3 range. Does this mean that Ducks CAN'T or DON'T wear the heftier armor value pieces of humans? Or is that a "commoner" value? It's going to be a hard sell for one of my players to "really want to play a Duck" and then find that Ducks have no armor and they have basically chosen a mechanically less effective character. "No, you can't do that" isn't going to be an option here, so please consider helping me address the situation over going into "THAT NOT HOW GLORANTHA WORK!" mode. This isn't the thread for you, if that's your reaction. Thanks much.
  18. Maybe because the struggles that CoC Kickstarters have had seems pretty on topic in a thread about one that failed? Better than clogging up the board with more threads? I can think of some reasons. You may not LIKE those reasons, but that is a separate issue. I'm thinking that Board etiquette isn't the real reason why you commented.
  19. That's SHP's job. It isn't my job in this situation to coach him on scheduling priorities. This isn't me saying I could do it better. Note that I'm not the one who started a Kickstarter. I haven't started one for a reason. I'm saying that the job isn't getting done. SHP did start a Kickstarter. Which kind of implies that he'll work to finish it on a reasonable timeline. I don't consider it to be a radical proposition to ask the professional to do the professional job. SHP seems to really struggle with accepting criticism gracefully. It's honestly incredible to me the extent that people will go to in order to defend this lack of accountability. We are 18 plus months out on a one-shot adventure when the bulk of the text has been done for the majority of that time.
  20. Accountability. Even if I can't obtain accountability for The Dare KS. Future accountability for Backers is worth it. Its really the only recourse Backers have. Kickstarter makes it virtually impossible to get any accountability from current Creators. They can break their promises and there is nothing you can do about it, other than to warn potential future Backers of other projects. Its a pretty crappy system that enables people to avoid accountability in the short term. Creators seem to think they can just do (or do not) whatever they want with absolutely no recourse from Backers. Backers are annoyances to them. Criticism is unwelcome and ignored. And under those circumstances, communicating what happened is the only thing you can do. It's pretty simple actually. You take responsibility and admit the concerns and work to fix them? There is no problem. You drag your feet, blame other people, refuse to accept responsibility for fixing a situation? People take the only option they have. People shouldn't get to act all shocked when that is the outcome. You'll notice that demands for accountability from CoC Creators are reaching a head very recently. KS cancelled Stygian Fox' new KS. People are fed up. I was not one of the people who pushed for specific accountability for Stygian Fox for starting projects without finishing others, but I support the people who did. You back your Backers into a corner? You reap what you sow. Sons of the Singularity are what it should be. They didn't run a perfect KS, but did everything they could to fix the problems. This isn't about perfection. It's about serious people accepting responsibility.
  21. I'm not sure Chaosium is going to just let you "officially create" a setting without establishing yourself first. Of course, nothing is stopping you from creating fan-inspired personal content on your own. A good place to start would be to submit something to the Miskatonic Repository first, being careful to follow the guidelines. Wishing you success in getting started in the industry!
  22. Congrats to @JonHook on another publication! And to Matt Ryan for art!
  23. I will not choose the refund option for several reasons: 1) I would be surrendering my ability to give feedback on the Kickstarter platform and 2) It would remove all of my prior comments. I understand why you WANT me to seek a refund. You can get criticism to just disappear from the record. Nobody gets to see what happened. It scrubs the Kickstarter of anything that is disadvantageous to you. Absolutely not. People need to see what happened with this project. They need to be able to make an informed decision about actions you did and did not take and how you responded to people who expressed concerns. You are responsible for what you say in the context of your projects.
  24. Monsters that are HIDDEN most of the time and INFECT scare me the most. The Borg, as you mention. Also, The Thing From Another World/Who Goes There?/John Carpenter's The Thing. I think it comes down to the primal fear of imprisonment (even if metaphoric) and loss of the privilege to not be yourself. Plus, there isn't much you can do to avoid highly infectious threats. So, there is a loss of choice element as well.
  25. Is this image from the King of Sartar book, or from the Sartar Companion?
×
×
  • Create New...