DISCUSSION THREAD.   Posted by edgtheowson.Group: 0
Skyldig Avsvaghen
 player, 357 posts
 Corporal
 Sommlending army
Mon 12 Mar 2012
at 01:02
Re: DISCUSSION THREAD
Velena:
But curious regarding you folks that have played DnD for reals - how do you like the heavy set of rules in comparison to say Lone Wolf?

I think there are games out there that are far more rules-heavy than D&D. I agree with Beo that much though it can be complicated if you let it, D&D is relatively simple at heart. It depends on what you want from a fantasy role-playing game to a degree. D&D is very heroic in style. Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay is a comparable in terms of complexity, but is more dark fantasy oriented where the characters aren't that special and a nasty turn of events might finish them off all of a sudden in a way which is unlikely in D&D.

I prefer WHFRP, but at odds with the tone of D&D as I am, I can't deny that it is a very good system that really works well. I'd pick it over LWMPGB for pen & paper RPing because the rules allow you to do lots of different things and playing 'live' means you can make all those decisions in a decent timeframe. I think the LWMPGB is much better for play-by-post, because the combat is so simple. What little d20 I have played play-by-post was excruciatingly slow when it came to combat, whereas you can fairly breeze through it in LWMPGB. And the fact that a lot of what happens in LWMPGB is GM arbitrated because of the lack of detailed rules means that - as long as you have a fair GM - you can keep a good pace up even with players only taking one or two actions per day.

D&D and WHFRP aren't hard to learn though, just harder to play-by-post, I would say.
edgtheowson
 GM, 1144 posts
 Dreamweaver
 Deceiver
Mon 12 Mar 2012
at 07:55
Re: DISCUSSION THREAD

Warhammer uses the same percentile skill system as Call of Cthulhu, right?


I think all games break down PbP with combat, Lone Wolf is easier to keep the game round narrative because that's mostly what you havw to rely on. I've had large fights take 2 - 3 weeks over PbP, but I think the secret is to keep the narrative in the fight, and not be afraid to have the fight end when it should narratively end, instead of grinding down the numbers. Basically the same as during the tabletop really, but you notice it far more in PbP if you are extending combat passed where it is exciting.
Skyldig Avsvaghen
 player, 358 posts
 Corporal
 Sommlending army
Mon 12 Mar 2012
at 15:01
Re: DISCUSSION THREAD
edgtheowson:
Warhammer uses the same percentile skill system as Call of Cthulhu, right?

Dunno Call of Cthulu, but there are percentiles involved, yes. It's all either percentiles or d10s, so you only use d10s. Obviously at an abilities level it's slightly more convoluted than D&D, because a lot of your stats are in percentages rather than 3-18 or so, and you have a more stats overall. However, you always test only against your ability to do things, so a skill test is made against the appropriate stat in an attempt to take an action covered by that skill, or a melee attack roll is made against your Weapon Skill stat to test your ability to hit something.

So while your stat block is a bit more involved, you don't have a great long skill list with different bonuses for each one, or a whole box full of modifications to your attack roll for each weapon you might use.

Circumstances or various abilities simply add or subtract multiples of 10% to or from your chance of success. And your stats never change in anything smaller than 5% chunks, so you're only technically dealing with stats out of 100 - in essence it works in 5% blocks and is therefore not much different to d20. It just introduces a little subtlety - a character starting with a 38% stat, for example, will see it increase either in 5s or 10s to 43%, 48%, 53%, 63% or whatever (essentially blocks that are in twentieths of 100), but will always have a slight, subtle advantage - assuming they choose to increase the same stat - over someone who started out at 35%.

So I'd say it's pretty comparable in complexity to D&D - heavier on basic stats, but lighter on lots of other things. Well, 2nd Ed WHFRP anyway, which general opinion seems to suggest is the best version. And is the only one I've played.
edgtheowson
 GM, 1145 posts
 Dreamweaver
 Deceiver
Mon 12 Mar 2012
at 18:17
Re: DISCUSSION THREAD

Cthulhu uses almost the same six stats (some minor tweaks, like wisdom becomes power, charisma appreance) and adds three more stats - size, education and sanity (5 x power).

You then get skill points in specilist things like notice, fast talk, library use, etc through your education, which form a percentage.

After that, you basically roll percentiles against eerything. You basic skills are usually tested at x5 (to the point that you get three stats in luck, knowledge and idea by x 5). And sometimes you get tested at lower multiplications for tricker situtation. So maybe dex x 4 or 3 for reacting to something fast or large, etc.

Otherwise, it'#s mostly testing skills. Combat gets more complex, but it's mostly just roll stats, then know the number to roll against. So maybe a little book keeping, but if the GM (keeper) knows what's going on, pretty painless to RP again.

Sadly, not played it directly, just heard a load of actual plays :(
Skyldig Avsvaghen
 player, 359 posts
 Corporal
 Sommlending army
Mon 12 Mar 2012
at 21:09
Re: DISCUSSION THREAD

That's an impressive knowledge of a game you've never played! I'm too lazy to get to grips with rules unless I know I'm going to have to use them. Well, my group plays a lot of 4th Ed D&D now, but I don't have the books, and unfortunately dislike the tone of them even more than the system itself, so never read anyone else's, so I have to be told repeatedly by everyone else what I need to do! My character levelling up is basically done by someone else who at various points hands me a book and gets me to choose between two or three powers that he recommends. :) Needless to say, when I GM we play 3.5, 'cause I know where I am with that. And it doesn't demand a grid be used for encounters, which we've all got a bit tired of.

Cthulu actually doesn't sound much like WHFRP, despite the percentiles. The multiplication of stuff depending on difficulty sounds a bit awkward - more thinking involved than just adding or subtracting - but I suppose if the numbers being multiplied are small, it would be alright.

Does anyone know Rune Quest as a system at all? Someone in my group bought all the basic books when Mongoose revamped it a few years back, but we've never played it. The little hints I've heard about it sound rather good, but, as I say, I'm too lazy to read about it unless I'm going to use it.
edgtheowson
 GM, 1146 posts
 Dreamweaver
 Deceiver
Mon 12 Mar 2012
at 21:19
Re: DISCUSSION THREAD

Heh, I haven't played it, doens't mean I didn't buy the rules at once point in the hopes of runnign a game :D  I might also have glanced at the character section before posting to remind myself what multiplied up to what!


And weird, no grid on 3.5? Must admit, I run a grid with 3.5 for battles! It's back to the original D&D for me without grids (except for the mapping), when rounds used to be a far more sensible 3 seconds, and you only got to do one action during it, dammit! Though as I type it I'm now scared old combat rounds used to be 6 or 10 seconds... wasn't there a rule of 10 for turns, rounds and somethign else?
Skyldig Avsvaghen
 player, 360 posts
 Corporal
 Sommlending army
Mon 12 Mar 2012
at 22:01
Re: DISCUSSION THREAD
edgtheowson:
And weird, no grid on 3.5? Must admit, I run a grid with 3.5 for battles! It's back to the original D&D for me without grids (except for the mapping), when rounds used to be a far more sensible 3 seconds, and you only got to do one action during it, dammit! Though as I type it I'm now scared old combat rounds used to be 6 or 10 seconds... wasn't there a rule of 10 for turns, rounds and somethign else?

I think WHFRP supposedly runs in turns of 10 seconds, which I think is too long, but as long as everyone gets equal opportunities for actions, it doesn't really matter how long you think a round/turn is.

And yes, there being such things as Turns and Rounds operating in conjunction with one another does ring a bell. Not sure where from though.

I occasionally use a grid with 3.5 if a battle is going to be particularly complicated. But a run-of-the-mill encounter doesn't need one. You can sketch out verbally a decent enough approximation of where everyone is in relation to each other - or even scribble something general on a piece of paper - and as long as you keep a mental note of the key distances between people within a certain range, it can all run without fine without a grid.

Our issue with 4th Ed is that a grid is pretty much obligatory, because the powers have very precise tactical elements to them that require you to know exactly where you are in relation to everyone else down to 1 square/5 feet. And there are so many powers that include a shift or a push of 1 or 2 squares that you need to know exactly where everyone started and where everyone moves to - trying to work in approximations breaks the system down and  trying to be precise without a grid and miniatures (or dice when we've all forgotten to bring miniatures!) is nigh on impossible.

It depends how frequent combat encounters are, but during our most recent 4th Ed adventure - the latter part of which was a dungeon crawl - my group got a bit fed up with the constant reliance on setting up a grid. It was a relief to get back to the free description and approximation of 3.5 afterwards.
edgtheowson
 GM, 1147 posts
 Dreamweaver
 Deceiver
Tue 13 Mar 2012
at 18:24
Re: DISCUSSION THREAD

For the turns and rounds it was more that in old basic D&D you had the 10 minute turn out of combat where you explored, etc, and the 6 second round (I think) for combat, etc. And perhaps it was 3 seconds for one side, 3 seconds for the other side. And it was simply that 10 rounds = 1 minute, and 10 minutes = 1 turn.


Hmm, might be interesting to try 4th without the grid, though certainly some of the nuance would have to go. I think it's widely held that 4th edition combat rounds just take more time, I wondeer how much of that is the complexity of powers as they are applied to the battlefield.
Skyldig Avsvaghen
 player, 361 posts
 Corporal
 Sommlending army
Wed 14 Mar 2012
at 13:43
Re: DISCUSSION THREAD
edgtheowson:
For the turns and rounds it was more that in old basic D&D you had the 10 minute turn out of combat where you explored, etc, and the 6 second round (I think) for combat, etc. And perhaps it was 3 seconds for one side, 3 seconds for the other side. And it was simply that 10 rounds = 1 minute, and 10 minutes = 1 turn.

Ah yes, now that does ring a bell - I've not looked in the red box, the blue box or the turquoise box for ages! In most circumstances I can't see why you'd need to keep track of rounds though in that case. I suppose that's why they dropped them.

edgtheowson:
Hmm, might be interesting to try 4th without the grid, though certainly some of the nuance would have to go. I think it's widely held that 4th edition combat rounds just take more time, I wondeer how much of that is the complexity of powers as they are applied to the battlefield.

Yeah, I can see why. The use of a power typically takes up a standard action, doesn't it? And the more complex powers can entail stuff like hitting someone, then pushing them back, then causing an effect on those they end up next to. Standard actions in 3.5 never included as much as that - that level of complexity would have required a full round action, which in turn would have meant you didn't also get a move or move-equivalent action. In 4th Ed you can use a complex power and take a move action and potentially also a minor action all in the same round. Not to mention Actions point uses which can cram even more into a round!

Not sure I can see 4th Ed working well without the grid, because I think you'd still have to keep a grid in your head because of the precision required. If you let that precision go then you'd likely be either punishing the players by saying that they are not in the appropriate positions to do things whenever there was any doubt, or you'd be over-powering them by letting them get away with using their powers even when they hadn't properly manoeuvred themselves into the appropriate position to do so. Or you'd end up doing a bit of both and there'd be no consistency. That'd be my guess anyway.

I'm biased, because - as I say - I much prefer 3rd Ed over 4th in nearly all ways (though I do approve of 4th Ed making 1st level characters much more playable, much less feeble). Even trying to be objective about it though, I'd say that for not needing to use a grid, 3rd Ed lends itself far better to descriptive approximation than 4th. My group could be a freak example - though I doubt it - but in all the 3rd Ed we've played, we've used grids for no more than 5% of combat, whereas in 4th Ed I think we've only ever done one very simple combat without a grid and if memory serves it didn't work very well. That said, I don't have any of the books for 4th Ed, so it's possible there's something in there about how to do without a grid.
edgtheowson
 GM, 1148 posts
 Dreamweaver
 Deceiver
Wed 14 Mar 2012
at 18:29
Re: DISCUSSION THREAD
Must admit to liking 4th edition's minor actions. The amount of time I've fudged a move equivalent action to allow small movement too! More noticeable in a PbP game, where it feels more punative to not do everything you want for a day or two in a combat text!  But agreed, it's an extra action to hum and haw over, especially when some pwoers can be used as minor actions.


I think much of the 4th edition complexity can get fudged away, really, as long as people are happy some powers lose their edge fiddly tactical fun.  A 1 square shift is a temporary disengagement that an enemy needs to use a shift to re-engage. The longer shifts are a proper break that need a move action to get a re-engagement. Use the fudge that if you try to manoeuver with someone who has more squares of movemnent that you, by default you need to use a run/charge/extra move, etc to reengage or chase after them. Not sure if it would be that bad - after all, a rules set should really just be a way to balance tellign a fun story but havign the players mostly do what they want, while being challenged. I think letting them get away with the odd trick is fine, especially since 4th edition makes it quite easy with it's various calculators and stuff to build a slightly harder encounter the next time. *evil devil face here*


I'd almost be tempted to set up a single combat at some point with no grid just to see if it would work! Hmm, if Ameena ever gets back to GMing a 4th edition game with me, perhaps she can try it out and see if it goes easier or not!



4th edition doens't really promote playign without a grid, thoguh te DM book might reference not needeing it. At the very least, it does point out the 1 aquare = 5 feet thing for new players.


Eit: Oh, and good old red/blue/turquoise box sets! Forget if I ever saw the last two, certainly never played to that level. Did buy the cyclopaedia, then foolishly sold it when I went through a period of no D&D time :(

This message was last edited by the GM at 18:51, Wed 14 Mar 2012.

Skyldig Avsvaghen
 player, 362 posts
 Corporal
 Sommlending army
Wed 14 Mar 2012
at 21:28
Re: DISCUSSION THREAD
edgtheowson:
I think much of the 4th edition complexity can get fudged away, really, as long as people are happy some powers lose their edge fiddly tactical fun.  A 1 square shift is a temporary disengagement that an enemy needs to use a shift to re-engage. The longer shifts are a proper break that need a move action to get a re-engagement. Use the fudge that if you try to manoeuver with someone who has more squares of movemnent that you, by default you need to use a run/charge/extra move, etc to reengage or chase after them.

Not saying you're wrong by any means, but there's more to the shift than just that and I think I would struggle to keep up with things without a grid. Shifts are used loads to reposition around an enemy, either to make room for someone else to move in or especially to set up flanking, which is a crucial ingredient in some characters' attacks (a sneak attack, for example). It would probably be too easy on the players if they could just say, 'I move to flank opposite Grunk', because it's supposed to be a position that isn't necessarily straightforward to get into and the benefits for doing so are therefore pretty strong. In the games that I've played at least, knowing exactly where everyone is and whether they need to pass through threatened zones to reach a tactically strong position has been strongly tied up with using 4th Ed combat rules.

Bursts and other area effects that I can't remember right now are also rather precisely worked out in squares, so that figuring out how many enemies or friends or whatever you can catch in a burst effect would seem to be difficult without a grid.

Maybe that's the big difference now I think of it. 4th Ed very specifically works in squares - it is noted that they represent 5ft x 5ft, but the emphasis is always on squares, not on distance.  In contrast, 3rd Ed worked in distances and shapes ('cone', for example) - it is shown how you can represent those distances and shapes on a grid if you want to, but the emphasis is on distances and shapes, not on squares. That's perhaps why 3rd Ed is easier to approximate with. I'm sure it's possible to approximate with 4th Ed, but I'd think that watering down the precision of it might start to make it pointless playing in that edition to start with.

By the way, are you talking paper-and-pen RPing, play-by-post or a mixture of both? Avoiding a grid in 4th Ed in PbP might work because of having plenty of time to think about where everyone is. Playing live when you have to be pretty quick doing everything would make it difficult, I'd've thought. Although my group is blessed with someone who has a terrific memory for pretty much all aspects of the game - except maybe the silly names I make up! - so I can usually rely on him to know exactly what the situation is at any given time and what rules apply to it. Very handy. :)
edgtheowson
 GM, 1149 posts
 Dreamweaver
 Deceiver
Wed 14 Mar 2012
at 21:57
Re: DISCUSSION THREAD

Actually, that's an interesting question back at you. How do you deal with flanking / sneak attack and burst effects in 3.5 without a grid? I guess I'm used to thinking in terms of a tactical map ever since getting back in to three anyway. What are your tricks in 3.5?


I agree 4th has gone very specific on the tactical, but I think a rough approximation doens't invalidate it that much. Much of 4th edition is tightening up, simplifying and clarification. I think dropping some of the tight tactical play out of comnbat is the same as something like ignoring the whole structure of gold/magical bonuses and items that 3.5 and 4th share. And which I usually tune out of, because it feels like such an annoying mechanical push in to the narrative.


Again, it will be interesting to see how the modular design of 5th edition goes, since the goal of it is to be able to do things liek this. Drop an element that grates like tactical combat out of a game (or swapping it with an easier one) without worrying about how it affects game balance.


Since my gaming right now is pbp and instant messaging, you are right it is easier to scroll back and see a narrative. Tabletop I'd use miniatures anyway (or rather something to represent stuff, I've used dice before!) I think in the tabletop case though, it's easy to move around some thigns really fast without the grid in vague places, so you've got a memory aid.
Skyldig Avsvaghen
 player, 363 posts
 Corporal
 Sommlending army
Wed 14 Mar 2012
at 22:39
Re: DISCUSSION THREAD

Yeah, that's true - when playing pen-and-paper actually using a pen and paper to scribble crappy little diagrams is a must! And very easy! :)

Not heard anything about 5th Ed - interesting if it's going to be designed to be customisable though. But I definitely think it's way too soon to be bringing it out - if I'd bought the 4th Ed books, I'd not be pleased that they're going for a new edition so soon. How long's it been? Just 3-4 years?

edgtheowson:
Actually, that's an interesting question back at you. How do you deal with flanking / sneak attack and burst effects in 3.5 without a grid? I guess I'm used to thinking in terms of a tactical map ever since getting back in to three anyway. What are your tricks in 3.5?

Hmm, tricks.... Nope, don't think I have any of them. :) Flanking alone isn't too hard to work out - I have enough in my head that I can tell the players whether they can get into such a position with or without passing through a threatened zone. But 3rd Ed doesn't tend to have the combinations of getting into a flanking position plus powers that move enemies a precise amount plus not just magic having burst effects but powers of all sorts of other classes too. I just don't feel like there's logistically as much precision to balance all at once, so it's more jugglable in your head.
Skyldig Avsvaghen
 player, 364 posts
 Corporal
 Sommlending army
Wed 14 Mar 2012
at 22:39
Re: DISCUSSION THREAD

Yeah, that's true - when playing pen-and-paper actually using a pen and paper to scribble crappy little diagrams is a must! And very easy! :)

Not heard anything about 5th Ed - interesting if it's going to be designed to be customisable though. But I definitely think it's way too soon to be bringing it out - if I'd bought the 4th Ed books, I'd not be pleased that they're going for a new edition so soon. How long's it been? Just 3-4 years?

edgtheowson:
Actually, that's an interesting question back at you. How do you deal with flanking / sneak attack and burst effects in 3.5 without a grid? I guess I'm used to thinking in terms of a tactical map ever since getting back in to three anyway. What are your tricks in 3.5?

Hmm, tricks.... Nope, don't think I have any of them. :) Flanking alone isn't too hard to work out - I have enough in my head that I can tell the players whether they can get into such a position with or without passing through a threatened zone. But 3rd Ed doesn't tend to have the combinations of getting into a flanking position plus powers that move enemies a precise amount plus not just magic having burst effects but powers of all sorts of other classes too. I just don't feel like there's logistically as much precision to balance all at once, so it's more jugglable in your head.
edgtheowson
 GM, 1150 posts
 Dreamweaver
 Deceiver
Tue 7 Aug 2012
at 18:21
Re: DISCUSSION THREAD

Hello? Anyone here? :)


Not sure who checks what games forums at the moment, so will put this on all the older forums. The LW game Black Ice has returned (for those of us who remember it form last time)

link to another game

Just in case anyone wanted to try it again!
Velena
 player, 586 posts
 Brotherhood Mage
Tue 7 Aug 2012
at 18:31
Re: DISCUSSION THREAD
Huh wha? It pops up red!

Are you playing in that one?
edgtheowson
 GM, 1151 posts
 Dreamweaver
 Deceiver
Tue 7 Aug 2012
at 18:34
Re: DISCUSSION THREAD

Nah, I think I will give it a miss this time. The last time I was a Knight of the White Mountain called Nerian Staye (I think) :)
edgtheowson
 GM, 1152 posts
 Dreamweaver
 Deceiver
Fri 5 Oct 2012
at 07:10
Re: DISCUSSION THREAD

Hey, just a quick message for Odel since he seemed to check this foum later than the Forest's thread - ashkati has resurfaced in the Forest game if you are still interested?


And wow, it's getting on for a year since this game ended. Time flies :(
Skyldig Avsvaghen
 player, 365 posts
 Corporal
 Sommlending army
Thu 25 Oct 2012
at 20:34
Re: DISCUSSION THREAD

And I'm still only part way through reading it. :(

Must try harder. Was a classic game, Mr GM, sir.
edgtheowson
 GM, 1153 posts
 Dreamweaver
 Deceiver
Thu 25 Oct 2012
at 20:49
Re: DISCUSSION THREAD

It was fun, player murder aside! :)
Odel de Vries
 player, 506 posts
 Sommlending Knight
 Knight Dexter
Sat 24 Nov 2012
at 16:34
Re: DISCUSSION THREAD
edgtheowson:
Hey, just a quick message for Odel since he seemed to check this foum later than the Forest's thread - ashkati has resurfaced in the Forest game if you are still interested?

Might be, might be :) I'll be stopping by now. Thanks for the info.

quote:
And wow, it's getting on for a year since this game ended. Time flies :(

Indeed. Over half a year since I logged in to RPoL, too, I believe. It was nice playing it, still. Thanks for that once more, beowoof.

This message was last edited by the player at 16:35, Sat 24 Nov 2012.

edgtheowson
 GM, 1154 posts
 Dreamweaver
 Deceiver
Sat 24 Nov 2012
at 16:37
Re: DISCUSSION THREAD

Glad to have caught you!

The game's barely restarted, and we're also doign a soft reset to get back in to it, so there should be no problem integrating back in!


And you're welcomem, glad you enjoyed it!
edgtheowson
 GM, 1155 posts
 Dreamweaver
 Deceiver
Tue 10 Nov 2015
at 19:44
Re: DISCUSSION THREAD

Hey anyone still looking occasionally to this game and reliving the fun!


RPoL have finally put the game on delete. I ressurected it briefly just to make sure I've grabbed all the threads, etc. However, I shall put the game on delete again after that.

Shame to lose it, I had fun running it. Still, it shall life somewhere on a harddrive - and of course if anyone wants ot take personal copies, now would be the chance!
Knud Anleifr
 player, 500 posts
 Border Ranger
 Sommlending
Tue 10 Nov 2015
at 20:49
Re: DISCUSSION THREAD
Hello!

Actually, I did read through (some parts of) the game a couple of months ago - brought back some really nice memories. (As I said at other place) if RPoL wants to delete it - well, I can see some sense in that; but it is good to know, the content will be saved somewhere. And some things will be remembered even if those backups are unavailable ;) (to mention just one thing among many: I will now always wonder, in the back of my mind, how did Vonotar came across the right-handed magic in the first place ;)).
edgtheowson
 GM, 1156 posts
 Dreamweaver
 Deceiver
Tue 10 Nov 2015
at 20:54
Re: DISCUSSION THREAD

Indeed, many things will never be forgotten. I mean names probably, but other than that :D


I always wondered whether the Lieutenant and the other men survived Alema Bridge, personally. But yeah, who knows how much things in this game may have influenced certain once left handed mages, or certain books based in Ruanon. Who knows!