“How often do your
players fail?”
In traditional
games, how often do your players fail in a scene - e.g., defeated (partially by
the bad guy), fail to convince the NPC, etc.?
Don’t know, don’t keep count.
Do you think it's
valuable/useful to have player's fail occasionally to make rewards seem
sweeter?
Is it valuable or useful in order to make the rewards seem
sweeter? No, that’s stupid. It’s not valuable or useful, it’s simply a
possibility.
Heroquest 2 and most
movies/books have a Fail/Pass cycle, where heroes encounters setbacks on their
way to an eventual success.
Yes, and?
I tend to set things
up so that players are always successful in every scene. I'm not sure that this
is really satisfying for everyone.
I have no idea if it is satisfying for anyone at your table.
I know it’s bad GMing, I’d absolutely bring it up with you if I were at your
table, and you should really stop it. Maybe try writing some short fiction when
you get that urge.
“I could do a pretty
good thread on it here.”
No you could not do a pretty good thread on it there. You’ve
been around for seven years and have never
done a good thread. On anything. That’s
because you’re a pretentious douchebag who is only a quarter as clever or
bright as you think you are. That’s why you punked the fuck out when called on your
bullshit.
“Darksun published
campaigns: what are the good ones?”
The first one. That’s it.
“What's the most
complex system you've ever participated in?”
Battlelords of the 23rd Century. Solar did a good
job of presenting why. I mean I love the game, and no one has ever accused me
of being a rules-lite kind of guy, but it’s too damn much even for me. Running
it was just. . . no. And I can run D&D 3E and Shadowrun 3 in my sleep using
all of the rules. I still want to either convert B23C to a different rules set
(heavy, but less heavy, like maybe a levelless d20), or use the rules as is but
only with an incredibly extensive
Maptool framework (that I absolutely lack the ability to code).
I maybe got a nosebleed once from just looking at Phoenix
Command though.
I do find the handful of “Rifts” answers interesting. For
all of the problems the Palladium system has, sheer complexity really isn’t one
of them. I guess it’s just a matter of personal thresholds.
“What does Baba Yaga
want?”
To be understood and loved.
“Why is a mysterious
archvillain collecting lamp oil?”
Because adventurers keep buying out existing stock, and he’s
running low.
“How come The Chosen
One is a whiny kid with no useful adventuring skills?”
Hero’s Journey blah blah blah.
“C'mon pdf sellers,
who do you think that you are kidding??”
Have noticed this
trend recently on OneBookShelf, and don't know if it is that company's policy
or individual sellers who have decided that this is a marketing gimmick, BUT
can they stop with the 'Oh we are offering this at a discount' pricing policy
(when it isn't)?
Gee, guy, if you’re going to launch yourself into an
apoplectic rant, you should maybe – just maybe – learn what you’re talking
about before you set upon your journey.
Please can someone
(i) tell me its not just me being annoyed
It’s not. It’s you being ignorant and obnoxious.
“If you don't die
without agency and you don't die from a bad roll, how do you die?”
Oh for fuck’s sake, you’ve been at this place for 13 fucking
years. The only reason you’d ask this
question is because (and this is the
case), you’re a dipshit troll.
“What makes a Rifts
game, a Rifts game?”
Good question . . .
Someone answered with
Three things:
1) Involved Rifts
equipment lists
Rifts doesn’t have involved equipment lists. The only way
someone can believe this is if they come from a game where your gear is all
abstract “Would the character have this at the moment” or something.
2) The possibility
of a vagabond working side-by-side with a Glitterboy.
Absolutely this is part of it, but more importantly, the
vagabond and the Glitterboy should not be
balanced against each other.
3) Metal comes
first, logic second
Ayup, this is certainly an aspect.
Someone else said
By stripping down
the weirdness of the setting, but having it all waiting in the wings and slowly
seeping in, you keep the feel of immense possibility that makes RIFTS RIFTS,
but you keep it to a manageable amount of stuff for both you as GM and for the
players as people engaging with setting details. It'll feel more real and
present than gonzo.
That? That’s a load of shit. You’re not playing Rifts then.
You’re playing a game based on Rifts. You’re playing the game you thought Rifts
would be before the first time you played. But you sure as fuck are not playing
RIFTS ™.
“I Need Your Feedback
about Rolz”
Okay. It’s a stupid fucking name, like a Limp Bizkit tune.
“Is Tabletop
Role-Playing Art?”
No, it’s a combat sport.
But more seriously, wow, you really need to work on your
self-esteem issues. No, for real. Feeling the need to elevate your hobby to
something better is a sign of poor self-esteem. The post reeks of this.
“When Failing Forward
fails (backward)”
I was looking
through a couple of RPG books last night and several of them recommended the
"failing forward" technique - where failing a task doesn't actually
mean the task fails, just that an extra complication comes to light.
Oh look, another post from 13-year veteran poster troll who
knows exactly what the subject actually means but is twisting it around in
order to provoke some shit so they can tell people why they are wrong. You’d
think after 13 years, you’d be better at this.
From the same thread (different poster):
I've been gaming
long enough that you would have an awful hard time fooling me.
No, no I wouldn’t. Because you’re not actually very bright.
You’ve established that.
“best art in Your
opinion in a fantasy setting book”
Dark Sun. I’m a big fan of Brom’s art.
“What Can Board Games
Teach RPGs?”
How to be board games. That’s about it really. A few people
posted their thoughts, but mostly that’s stuff that I wouldn’t want to see RPGs
adopt.
“A Villainous PC
Drank Sorcerer Blood from the Holy Graal - An Explanation of My Game”
How did it all come
to this?
Uh, no one cares. And
you really didn’t need to use that many words to talk about something no one
cares about.
“How big of a fan are
you of steampunk and its derivatives (dieselpunk, biopunk) as a setting?”
First thing, I wouldn’t really call it a setting. Second, not at all. I don’t get the appeal
and never have. Which is okay.
From the same thread:
it should be hard
Sci-fi
Uhhhhh, no, it
shouldn’t be and typically isn’t. I’m not sure you know what hard Sci-Fi is.
From what I can get
tell, Steampunk is the triumph of style over substance. Once you get past the
goggles, corsets, inexplicable gears, and tiny hats there's not much there.
Ughhh, I hate to agree with this jack ass, but yeah,
basically.
Unless you actually
treat it like the derivative of Gibsonian Cyberpunk that it is.
But Gibsonian cyberpunk
A. Sucks
B. Isn’t really cyberpunk (even if he essentially created
it).
Basically your
average protagonist in a non-Punk steampunk should actually be the villan in a
real SteamPUNK game.
Jeez, really? No TRUE Steampunk?
What a load of horseshit.
Dumb fucks like you may be part of
why I have never liked steampunk.
Well, that’s it for this entry.
Remember, Left Behind with Nicolas
Cage is a shitty fucking movie.
