46
brainstorming & development / Re: Farscape-World
« on: February 02, 2012, 10:40:30 PM »
Scorpius?
Show Posts
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
47
Apocalypse World / Re: Wacky fun vs gritty realism
« on: January 17, 2012, 11:11:58 PM »
Now I want to play a Faceless with a BK mask.
48
Apocalypse World / Re: A couple of questions about the names
« on: November 10, 2011, 08:46:21 PM »
And he was never heard from again?
49
Murderous Ghosts / Re: Instant Message Playtest
« on: October 11, 2011, 02:27:37 PM »
Out of 3 completed games (1 currently ongoing via email) I didn't often have the opportunity to bring in those backstory/history bits.
One player described a time when he was near death and nearly suffocated because of fluid in his lungs. After an assault I described a bloody gash on his neck which was bleeding badly, allowing some blood to make its way into his lungs.
Another time he said his role model was Amanda, a rock climber that got him into urban spelunking. One time he described his character trying to make a makeshift bandage for his neck and I threw in something like "good thing Amanda taught you a bit of First Aid".
But those were the only two I could seem to bring back in make relevant. There were probably another 6 between all playthroughs that just kind of dangled there.
One player described a time when he was near death and nearly suffocated because of fluid in his lungs. After an assault I described a bloody gash on his neck which was bleeding badly, allowing some blood to make its way into his lungs.
Another time he said his role model was Amanda, a rock climber that got him into urban spelunking. One time he described his character trying to make a makeshift bandage for his neck and I threw in something like "good thing Amanda taught you a bit of First Aid".
But those were the only two I could seem to bring back in make relevant. There were probably another 6 between all playthroughs that just kind of dangled there.
50
Murderous Ghosts / PBEM #2
« on: October 11, 2011, 11:02:35 AM »
Completed a second game over e-mail. 3rd complete game and first successful escape. I'll admit part of me was rooting for the player to escape, but I tried my best to keep hitting him hard and not letting up. Mostly he got lucky on the card draws (more on that later).
I'll admit that the genre's a bit out of my comfort range -- not because it actually makes me uncomfortable, but because horror just isn't something I do a lot of. But I wanted to give it a shot, and it was a challenge. Luckily, by going over e-mail I could give myself a little time to consider responses, which helped immensely.
The situation found the player (Gabriel) in the basement of some old factory with huge hulking pieces of machinery. He encountered a couple ghosts of animals -- they mostly looked solid but parts of them were transparent (some deep gashes here and there, or maybe entire limbs or tails). I was trying to make it obvious they had been tortured and killed in life. I'm pretty sure he picked up on it.
Eventually he ran into a ghost that we started referring to as "The torturer". A figure of unknown gender wearing a surgical mask and a thick leather apron. It was surrounded by ghostly images of animals of varying size. I liked the idea that the ghosts of the animals stuck around and maybe killed the torturer, but in death they were bound together.
Gabriel kept having pretty close calls and getting assaulted, but he was creative in his attempts to survive/escape. Finally I got 4 cards in my hand and flipped them over, only to find 2 suits, I drew a 5th and got 3 suits, so the game was still on.
I did find at that point I was struggling more as he continued trying to escape and having more encounters. Luckily his very next move towards escape produced the 4th suit and he was home free. If that hadn't completed the set I could see myself struggling more and more trying to keep the tension up. It's worth noting we were playing with the 1st playtest rules and I see in the 2nd that there's a new rule that at 7 cards, consider there to be 4 suits -- it's nice to have that definite end to work towards.
Back to the player's card draws. Somehow, even though this was my 3rd time being the GM, I still hadn't caught on that the player is supposed to discard after every bust (I'm pretty sure the player in this game wouldn't have survived if we'd followed that).
Talking with a couple other people we wonder if only forcing the discover on a 21+ bust would be better and if the possibility of busing a few times in a row isn't too harsh. I mean, murderous ghosts and all that, but at least from my playthroughs (playing wrongly and not discarding after 1-5 value busts), it seemed to set up a nice rhythm and cycle of play.
I've got another game going on and I'm making sure to discard after busts, so I'm interested to see how different it feels.
I'll admit that the genre's a bit out of my comfort range -- not because it actually makes me uncomfortable, but because horror just isn't something I do a lot of. But I wanted to give it a shot, and it was a challenge. Luckily, by going over e-mail I could give myself a little time to consider responses, which helped immensely.
The situation found the player (Gabriel) in the basement of some old factory with huge hulking pieces of machinery. He encountered a couple ghosts of animals -- they mostly looked solid but parts of them were transparent (some deep gashes here and there, or maybe entire limbs or tails). I was trying to make it obvious they had been tortured and killed in life. I'm pretty sure he picked up on it.
Eventually he ran into a ghost that we started referring to as "The torturer". A figure of unknown gender wearing a surgical mask and a thick leather apron. It was surrounded by ghostly images of animals of varying size. I liked the idea that the ghosts of the animals stuck around and maybe killed the torturer, but in death they were bound together.
Gabriel kept having pretty close calls and getting assaulted, but he was creative in his attempts to survive/escape. Finally I got 4 cards in my hand and flipped them over, only to find 2 suits, I drew a 5th and got 3 suits, so the game was still on.
I did find at that point I was struggling more as he continued trying to escape and having more encounters. Luckily his very next move towards escape produced the 4th suit and he was home free. If that hadn't completed the set I could see myself struggling more and more trying to keep the tension up. It's worth noting we were playing with the 1st playtest rules and I see in the 2nd that there's a new rule that at 7 cards, consider there to be 4 suits -- it's nice to have that definite end to work towards.
Back to the player's card draws. Somehow, even though this was my 3rd time being the GM, I still hadn't caught on that the player is supposed to discard after every bust (I'm pretty sure the player in this game wouldn't have survived if we'd followed that).
Talking with a couple other people we wonder if only forcing the discover on a 21+ bust would be better and if the possibility of busing a few times in a row isn't too harsh. I mean, murderous ghosts and all that, but at least from my playthroughs (playing wrongly and not discarding after 1-5 value busts), it seemed to set up a nice rhythm and cycle of play.
I've got another game going on and I'm making sure to discard after busts, so I'm interested to see how different it feels.
51
Murderous Ghosts / Re: Nimer and me
« on: October 10, 2011, 02:19:50 PM »
Regarding Ron's #3, I had the same sort of experience with one player. Especially with the questions like "tell the GM who your #1 role-model is" or "when do you plan to have children?"
One player specifically asked if it should be for him or the character. I told him I thought it could work either way, but it's not clear what the intent there actually is.
In the end, he gave me a real story of when he almost died in real life and I later embellished an assault by referencing what he'd told me. I think going that route definitely added something.
One player specifically asked if it should be for him or the character. I told him I thought it could work either way, but it's not clear what the intent there actually is.
In the end, he gave me a real story of when he almost died in real life and I later embellished an assault by referencing what he'd told me. I think going that route definitely added something.
52
Apocalypse World / Re: Question about Apocalypse World LE Playbooks
« on: October 10, 2011, 09:58:36 AM »
I provide tech support for engineers. I solve mysteries every day! Now to think of a good one and send an e-mail...
53
Dungeon World / Re: First Impressions and Request for first play help
« on: October 10, 2011, 09:38:57 AM »Also does a wizard have to role dice to cast a cantrip?Yes, for any spells, the Wizard will need to use the Cast A Spell move.
Do monsters have to role to attack and do damage? I see that some of the monsters have damage 5 (sword). I presume that they just always do 5 damage. But if a PC roles a 7 and a monster attacks them, does the monster do the 5 damage or do they have to role to see if they do damage?As the GM you'll never roll dice. Monsters/NPCs will do their full damage (minus armor). Most often you'll do damage as a hard move or in response to a PC getting a low hit on Hack & Slash.
54
Dungeon World / Re: Dungeon World Podcasts?
« on: October 10, 2011, 09:30:13 AM »
The Walking Eye just uploaded a DW Actual Play over the weekend: http://www.thewalkingeye.com/?p=1338
55
Murderous Ghosts / Re: LA Gamers: 3s
« on: October 07, 2011, 12:10:01 PM »
I'll do some more detailed write-ups, but at the moment I'm going through two pb-email games and I did one session via Google+ hangout.
In one e-mail game I definitely started to fall into the reasonable play loop. I can tell the player is interested in maybe trying to help the ghost or get some kind of closure. And looking through the playbooks, it doesn't really seem like that leads anywhere. Which is totally cool.
I was stuck for a bit on how to move away from that, but I tried to start amping up the creepy factor and sure enough the player started trying to get the hell out. I can tell he's still interested in communicating with the ghost and helping out in some way, but I think keeping up with the creepy imagery and making the ghost unpredictable will lead to a conclusion.
Agree absolutely on final draft being something other than GM/Player's handbook. Ghost and Explorer would be awesome.
In one e-mail game I definitely started to fall into the reasonable play loop. I can tell the player is interested in maybe trying to help the ghost or get some kind of closure. And looking through the playbooks, it doesn't really seem like that leads anywhere. Which is totally cool.
I was stuck for a bit on how to move away from that, but I tried to start amping up the creepy factor and sure enough the player started trying to get the hell out. I can tell he's still interested in communicating with the ghost and helping out in some way, but I think keeping up with the creepy imagery and making the ghost unpredictable will lead to a conclusion.
Agree absolutely on final draft being something other than GM/Player's handbook. Ghost and Explorer would be awesome.
56
other lumpley games / [IAWA] Basic Questions
« on: June 16, 2011, 10:39:13 AM »
I've been running IAWA for my group for a few months now and we're all having a blast with it.
During last night's session a light bulb went off in my head and it made me start to question a couple things.
Mostly, I think I've been doing conflicts wrong the entire time, but I'm not seeing anything explicit in the book, so I want to verify.
Should the initiative roll each round only be the forms that are being used? I've been letting players & NPCs add in particular strengths if they seemed relevant, but now I'm pretty sure I've been doing that wrong and particular strength dice should only be rolled as it's narrated into actions.
If that's the case, what if the character who wins initiative wants to use a particular strength? Since they're not re-rolling, should they just toss in the extra die when they narrate their action if their particular strength comes into play?
Is there anything that prevents someone from using two particular strengths simultaneously? I'm guessing not, but I want to make sure since more and more of my PCs are getting 2 or more particular strengths now.
During last night's session a light bulb went off in my head and it made me start to question a couple things.
Mostly, I think I've been doing conflicts wrong the entire time, but I'm not seeing anything explicit in the book, so I want to verify.
Should the initiative roll each round only be the forms that are being used? I've been letting players & NPCs add in particular strengths if they seemed relevant, but now I'm pretty sure I've been doing that wrong and particular strength dice should only be rolled as it's narrated into actions.
If that's the case, what if the character who wins initiative wants to use a particular strength? Since they're not re-rolling, should they just toss in the extra die when they narrate their action if their particular strength comes into play?
Is there anything that prevents someone from using two particular strengths simultaneously? I'm guessing not, but I want to make sure since more and more of my PCs are getting 2 or more particular strengths now.