PencilBoy99
Well-Known Pubber
- Joined
- Jun 30, 2019
- Messages
- 140
- Reaction score
- 202
I bought the book and PDF. It seems pretty terrific.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
I'm thinking of picking up a bunch of Fomalhaut zines, and I'm curious about this. Do we know why Exalted Funeral won't be carrying EMDT products anymore?Exalted Funeral is unlikely to carry EMDT products in the future, unfortunately.
Bonjour João Talassa. I am sorry that I did not reply sooner to you, I no longer hang out on this forum and hadn't seen your posts. After nearly a year of running Masks of Nyarlathotep, we finally concluded that campaign and I have begun my Helvéczia campaign. I dropped by to collect my notes for a record of our play. I hope I can answer some of your questions at this point.This just came to my attention. It is an intriguing concept.
The production quality is great and it seems a labour of love all around.
Thanks under_score for this thread It has been a very informative journey.
Because your posts were so interesting to read I bought the pdfs, even if I am right now running two different game systems and preparing a third, but before committing further on reading, and to the physical stuff anyway, I have some questions on the back of my mind, that maybe you and those in the known could help me clearing it out.
I wonder if is there any good reason for the player characters to not wander around in full plate?
Combat checks are the answer here. Swinging, whiffing, hitting occasionally to whittle down hit points, can be dull. Combat checks are an opposed roll, and our duelist, armed with his rapier, gets a +4 to those checks. A fight can be very quickly and dramatically resolved with creative combat checks. Our duelist invested in a whip as an additional weapon and trained in balance skill. He should be quite formidable.Looking through the rules, it seems quite easy to get rather high AC scores, while attack bonus (especially for npcs) stays relatively low. I wonder if this might lead to a high "whiff factor", something I don't like in my games. What are your experiences or thoughts on this issue?
There are armor piercing weapons but the guns are not among them. However, guns do have exploding damage dice, so they are a bit more deadly.It would be wrong expect that pistols would pierce plate amour in this kind of setting?
Is there anymore material expected for the game soon? Can we play for years with the existing material?
Have you played it? If so, how it went? How did it feel? It feels like D&D or not like D&D at all?
How does the Bible/deck of cards mechanics impact play? It changes the way the game is played?
It is something easy to do on-line or expected to do in person?
Are you expecting to play or run this game in the future? If so, what are your thoughts and plans about it?
In short I would like to know more about your opinions on the game ( under_score and you all out here) after four months have passed from the start of this thread. It is awesome and I wanted to tell you that, and I want it to continue.
Does the game holds up? Where are your mind currently about it? Do you expect to do something more with it?
Ah, I missed this, you've actually had more experience running the game than I am now then. I hope that is has continued to be a success for your group!M Moonglum do you mind you share how long it too your order to arrive? My order was shipped around 8th February and I am still waiting to receive it here in Lisbon. As I have the PDFs of the game, I have manged to play the game twice already. Because of time constraints I’ve chosen the short adventure in the book “seven knaves”, one time on-line with 4 players through roll20 and the other time at a Thirst Project charity event at a public library in Lisbon, with another 4 players, two rpg veterans and two newbies, one of them never played or even heard about D&D. I feel both runs were very successful and 3 of 4 of the same characters were played in both instances, as I gave the player’s a choice of the pre-gen characters available. Even so, it felt we were playing two completely different adventures, both of them with different situations, all very flavorful and fun. We had great moments in play, I think that is partly due to Gábor Lux great knack for adventure design. He creates interesting situations and opportunities for the players to engage with. The other part is the player’s own creativity and decision making while interacting with said situations at the table, which was something very much facilitated by the adventure design. All 8 players loved playing the game and the on-line groups wants to continue to play, which will happen this Friday.
In the meanwhile I’ve ordered Xyntillan Castle and am considering to run it, probably with Swords & Wizardry.
First of all welcome back to the board it has been a while. Can you please give a quick summary of the combat maneuver system?Combat checks are the answer here. Swinging, whiffing, hitting occasionally to whittle down hit points, can be dull. Combat checks are an opposed roll, and our duelist, armed with his rapier, gets a +4 to those checks. A fight can be very quickly and dramatically resolved with creative combat checks. Our duelist invested in a whip as an additional weapon and trained in balance skill. He should be quite formidable.
Similar to how I run Pulp Cthulhu, where I favor combat maneuvers to basic attacks. Something should always be happening, and always changing, to capture the swashbuckling feel that I believe is intended in the system.
Combat checks are the answer here. Swinging, whiffing, hitting occasionally to whittle down hit points, can be dull. Combat checks are an opposed roll, and our duelist, armed with his rapier, gets a +4 to those checks. A fight can be very quickly and dramatically resolved with creative combat checks. Our duelist invested in a whip as an additional weapon and trained in balance skill. He should be quite formidable.
Similar to how I run Pulp Cthulhu, where I favor combat maneuvers to basic attacks. Something should always be happening, and always changing, to capture the swashbuckling feel that I believe is intended in the system.
Well, maybe first try and limit that to "roll 3 higher"?While I have only played one session so far, my experience with combat checks (cc) has been less positive. They might be a viable option for duelists who get the mentioned bonus, but lacking such special modifiers, ccs mostly resulted in a draw in our game, which wasn't exciting at all. My players tried lots of combat manoeuvers at the start of the game, but as most of their attempts failed to achieve a conclusive result (which is statisticalls very unlikely, if you don't have a really big bonus to you roll), they mostly retorted to simple attacks for hp damage later on.
I think requiring a roll to win by at least 5 for a cc to succeed is not a good idea. Just rolling higher than your opponent might make combat checks much more swingy (which is entirely in tune with Helvéczia's intended style/tone, imo) but, more importantly, more attractive to players than the current rule - I will probably try this houserule if I get to play the game again.
Why should I do that? I mean, what's the reason for making success in combat checks rather difficult - in a game that wants to emulate swashbuckling fiction like the Three Musketiers? I honestly don't get it; perhaps you can explain what the benefit of requiring roll "3/5/whatever higher" would be?Well, maybe first try and limit that to "roll 3 higher"?
I don't own the game (yet), remember? So I'm not sure what those checks would be doing, I imagine "whatever manoeuvre the player describes". So the following, and my previous post, are based on that assumption.Why should I do that? I mean, what's the reason for making success in combat checks rather difficult - in a game that wants to emulate swashbuckling fiction like the Three Musketiers? I honestly don't get it; perhaps you can explain what the benefit of requiring roll "3/5/whatever higher" would be?
Your assumption is correct, combat checks are used to resolve any manoeuvre besides hitting for standard damage (which, as usual, needs to match AC).I don't own the game (yet), remember? So I'm not sure what those checks would be doing, I imagine "whatever manoeuvre the player describes". So the following, and my previous post, are based on that assumption.
1) Anyone who's seen me playing a DCC Warrior would attest that achieving such results easily is an ability you don't want in...certain players' hands!
2) To make sure that the opponents wouldn't do that too often on PCs (also see the previous point, but imagine me in the Refereeing spot).
3) To leave any room for actually hitting people instead of disarming them - the example above was an AC of 17, and hitting that in an OCR game is way worse odds than coming up with a trick.
4) You can always tone it even further down if it's not good enough, and that would result in much less players' grumbling.
And now, if you still don't care about that, and would simply want to make sure there's more stunts in combat than anything else, go right ahead!
Another possibility is that the designer believes picaresque adventures go well with more grittiness - a stance I've certainly seen as well, though YMMV. Manoeuvres allow you to bypass the consequences of getting into unnecessary fights and killing people you really shouldn't have...Your assumption is correct, combat checks are used to resolve any manoeuvre besides hitting for standard damage (which, as usual, needs to match AC).
I appreciate your answer, but your points basically come down to "it's meant to make tricks (more) difficult, because I don't want them to be overpowered".
And I just don't think that is a) neccessary and b) an elegant solution, as it is counter to the game's intended tone and somewhat against usual osr practices, too - if I think a manoeurve is implausible/overpowered/not possible against a certain kind of npc, I'd rather use some kind of on-the-spot ruling.
I had hoped there might be more to it, something I'm missing, but I guess I'll have to ask the designer for any deeper insights (and I think he'd quite likely state the same points as you!).
I'll definitely do that![...] But again, if that's not what you're looking for, go straight for my 5th point!
FWIW, the author has been using combat checks in his campaigns (both Helvéczia and Sword & Magic) for 14+ years without altering them. I believe they are meant to provide flavour and easy adjudication for all sorts of crazy manoeuvres players might attempt (as opposed to being the bread-and-butter of combat).I think requiring a roll to win by at least 5 for a cc to succeed is not a good idea. Just rolling higher than your opponent might make combat checks much more swingy (which is entirely in tune with Helvéczia's intended style/tone, imo) but, more importantly, more attractive to players than the current rule - I will probably try this houserule if I get to play the game again.
"The street finds its own uses for things".FWIW, the author has been using combat checks in his campaigns (both Helvéczia and Sword & Magic) for 14+ years without altering them. I believe they are meant to provide flavour and easy adjudication for all sorts of crazy manoeuvres players might attempt (as opposed to being the bread-and-butter of combat).
I like the probabilities of 3+ to win best...which ain't surprising, really!Here's quick summary of the probabilities for winning / drawing / losing a combat check with 5+ to win, 3+ to win, or 1+ to win over the opponent's roll:
View attachment 46199
Hope it helps!
While I find that such outcomes are part of the expected flow of combat!While I don't consider "the author has been using combat checks [...] for 14+ years without altering them" to be a very good point, the table is really helpful - thanks you!
Just looking at the numbers, I agree that 'win on 3+' looks like a good compromise - a draw always is the least likely outcome, but still very much on the table. And it is this last part that's bothering me: I find outcomes that change nothing rather boring in rpgs. But this is just our/my preferred way of playing, and I don't think there is a 'right' way to do it!
Yeah, it's clear we have at least mildly differing tastes here, but you know what you're looking for - so again, go for it!I like my rpg combat as short and decisive as possible. Luckily, besides combat checks, our Helvéczia fights went reasonably fast due to low hit points - at least with beginning characters and low-level adversaries.
There's a system in one of the GURPS compendiums for handling the 'disengaging' of a duel that always seemed to me as fairly 'realistic' and utilised fatigue as a real combat effect too.While I find that such outcomes are part of the expected flow of combat!
Also, then you get people objecting to the fact that most RPGs can't simulate well a protracted fight where nobody is getting hurt, as in a fencing match or kung-fu duel...so there's no pleasing everybody!
Can you summarize what it was like and/or which compendium?There's a system in one of the GURPS compendiums for handling the 'disengaging' of a duel that always seemed to me as fairly 'realistic' and utilised fatigue as a real combat effect too.
This usually just gets hand waved into the X second combat round.