The Gaming Den

TomOfSteel wrote:You do realize I only posted the combat rules, quick-start rules (which basically govern combat), and stunt cards? At no point did I say this was a complete anything. I've got plenty of material providing framework for magic and monsters.

If you have rules on those things, then when people point out that your rules don't show those things, you should post those rules, instead of saying "just make up your own shit, who gives a fuck" like you did.

TomOfSteel wrote:I don't care for Diplomacy as a skill. We can't act out swordfights, but we can act out Diplomacy. I have a section of the rulebook explaining why I don't have a Charisma stat or Diplomacy skill, and how DM's can add it if they like. I personally think it is silly that if a player wants to RP, he doesn't, because he didn't boost his Diplomacy. Likewise, the Diplomat of the group sometimes doesn't want to do the talking. It's artificial and not necessary IMO. Let players role-play, take logical circumstances into account, and decide how the NPC responds.

You have this habit of making really stupid assumptions. No one said you have to have one specific skill called diplomacy in order to have rules for it. You could even explicitly say that Diplomacy is MTP. But you have to realize that your system doesn't actually help in any way in telling Game of Thrones like Stories, because you don't have rules for any of that.

We have entire several page threads regularly arguing about the best rules for Diplomacy, so maybe don't just assume you know that when I say you don't have the ability to tell Diplomacy stories that I mean you suddenly would if you added a Diplo skill.

TomOfSteel wrote:A lot of the out-of-combat stuff I frankly find pretty extraneous, the sort of thing that makes RPG handbooks 200 pages when they could be 50. Do you really want 20 pages of rules on how different lighting conditions affect Sneak checks? I'd rather just ask the GM "hey in this lighting what kinda bonus can I get to Sneak?"

Well since the lighting rules don't actually take up 20 pages anywhere ever, you are just full of shit. But yes, rules about lighting are important if you are going to tell stories about people going into dungeons and fucking around in the dark.

Likewise, rules for you know, non-combat magic, are tremendously important for what your guys can actually do.

TomOfSteel wrote:On the topic of Sneak, I'd point out that Sneaking is an integral part of combat, whether or not people are trained in it or not. In combat, if you move (not shift) into an square adjacent to an enemy, once per round they can Face you as an interrupt. (This fixes the problem of people just running around behind you on your turn, and actually works quite elegantly, especially with the 1x per turn rule.)

Dude, not everyone wants to play your stupid bandits v caravan fights. I specifically said your rules don't cover Shadowrun stories or Thief stories. Saying that they totally do cover Bandits attacking Caravans is not an argument against what I said.

The website is work-in-progress. I didn't post it for a reason, and the files up there are out of date.

I have more complete rules for character creation, weapons, armor, and all that other crap.

That said:

If you want to be a leftie, be a leftie. Your Block squares get flipped. Common sense.

Dodge does increase your mobility, and give you an extra shift. You "slip the jab" so to speak, and utilize your enemy's attack to gain position, which you can possibly further exploit on your turn (if he doesn't move/face after your Dodge). It's quite powerful and would be the "best" defense, except that armor/encumbrance quickly kill your Dodge. Heavily armored people (or moderately armored people with shit Fitness) are going to have Dodge scores almost as bad (possibly worse than) Dodge. HOWEVER, they can always surprise an enemy by unexpectedly Dodging- basically they clumsily blunder and probably take your hit to make that extra shift. It's a pretty awesome surprise move.

On Defense Scaling:
You might be right about this. I might change Parry to increase every 3 levels, and the others to increase every 4. A 2:4 ratio is too much. 3:4 won't make a tremendous difference in the long run (level 12 is pretty boss). Maybe I'll make them even. Good point, sir.

Lots of options:
There's lot of small options, but the basics are simple. As you get more experienced and you can handle more, you will appreciate more options. To be honest, this seems to be something that RPG players HATE, because they like to feel like the smartest guys in the room, and always calculate the optimal move. In 3.X/4E, that's easy to do. WoS is like chess- there are ripples to all your actions, and there is rarely an obvious optimal move.

This REALLY irks some people, but I don't apologize for that. Look at the board, make a decision, and live with it.

If I can tell you one undeniable truth about any kind of fighting/combat, it's this: There is too much shit, happening way too fast, to make the exact right decision. Some people freeze and do nothing, and that's the worst thing. Just do SOMETHING. If you do something intelligent, even better. Your opponent isn't going to play a perfect game either.

Book-keeping with armor:
Yeah, armor is kind of a bitch right now. I've been trying different shit. Fortunately people don't switch armor very often. There's a lot of math on the character sheet, but it's pretty much all a one-time thing. Then you wind up with 4 defense numbers, and an attack bonus/damage for basic/fast/strong. That's about all the numbers you ever need in combat.

Well you are just going to keep arguing until I get tired so you can feel like you won, huh? I understand you think my game is the shittiest shit that was ever shat out of a butt, and I don't particularly care.

Thank you, though, for all your pointers on how to fight properly. Maybe I'll come to where you work and slap the dick out of your mouth and show you how to do it right. It's the least I can do.

TomOfSteel wrote:Well you are just going to keep arguing until I get tired so you can feel like you won, huh? I understand you think my game is the shittiest shit that was ever shat out of a butt, and I don't particularly care.

No, I'm going to keep pointing out that your game design is a directionless mess until it stops being a directionless mess. But sure, come to a game design forum, and ask for game design advice, and then throw a hissy fit that you didn't get praise for your perfect super system that is just so great and people would only like more if they were smart enough to see how great it is, and instead you got game design advice.

If you want empty praise, which is pretty clearly all you actually want, go somewhere else. I hear Pathfinder forums has a bunch of people who do that. But don't come to a game design forum and throw a fit that people give you game design advice.

TomOfSteel wrote:Thank you, though, for all your pointers on how to fight properly. Maybe I'll come to where you work and slap the dick out of your mouth and show you how to do it right. It's the least I can do.

1) At what possible point do you think I gave pointers on how to fight you colossal idiot?

2) You came to a game design forum to ask about your game design. You damn well should have expected to be told how you could do it better.

3) Please, if you can show me how to be a better lawyer, do that. And I will be fucking grateful, because when I want to get better at something, I don't just tell myself I'm the best already, and that anyone who disagrees is just too stupid to see my brilliance, I actually listen to advice and evaluate it's fucking competence.

And I cannot possible think or more competent advice than "If you are making a game about a small number of humans fighting monsters, present the goddam rules for the monsters."

Because from your rules, I have the very strong suspicion that any rules for large monsters are going to end up nut punching all your grand plans for this system, because having a 20 fit wide monster is going to basically negate all your shifts and flanking considerations, because their blocking and threatening areas are going to be tremendous, basically just resulting in regular D&Dish combat without all the miniatures manipulation that you want to make into a tactical game.

And don't get me started on ranged attacks and flying, because your system is so tremendously unprepared for contact with three dimensions and ranged combat that I legitimately wonder if you even played 2e D&D with flyers.

In terms of verisimilitude, your idiotic internet tough guy grandstanding aside, the incapability to face diagonally is still bizarre and makes no goddamn sense, because real life is not a boxing ring. There are rocks or chairs or walls in inconvenient places, and if you can't pull off a maneuver as simple as pivoting on a heel fast enough to avoid throwing yourself off-balance, you sure as Hell won't be able to do stuff like advance or retreat, which also requires taking your feet off the ground. Stances get messed up in real life, if you can't roll with it, you can't fight.

As far as if we want rules for sneaking: Yes. Yes we do. We do not want the GM to have to make up a sneaking sub-system on the spot. That would be awful. Rules made up on the spot usually don't work very well, and the whole point of an RPG is being able to say "rather than storm the castle why don't we sneak in and assassinate the guy?" And if you don't have actual rules for that, then why have actual rules for combat either? Defaulting to Magical Tea Party for diplomacy is probably advisable because diplomacy systems are really hard in a way that combat, chase, and stealth systems are not, but if your only reason for not having a diplomacy system is because you can't act out sword fights than 1) you should not be designing a roleplaying game because clearly you do not understand what it means to play a role and 2) did you know that LARP is a thing? You totally can act out sword fights. Maybe fighting in the woods just outside town will give you an appreciation for how combat works when not on perfectly flat, unobstructed terrain.