- Joined
- Apr 24, 2017
- Messages
- 15,460
- Reaction score
- 41,999
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.
Did Cortex Prime changed/improved on that?You're essentially filling the target with weaknesses that you can exploit. Personally I find Cortex Plus to be somewhat overdesigned, , but I like the way it encourages you to specify how you break your opponent down.
You're essentially filling the target with weaknesses that you can exploit. Personally I find Cortex Plus to be somewhat overdesigned, , but I like the way it encourages you to specify how you break your opponent down.
Don't know. I've got a friend who backed it though, so when we're allowed out again I'll try to pester him into running his sci-fi game again with it.Did Cortex Prime changed/improved on that?
It's pass out or exit the scene. Like someone who lost his temper and got out of a situation, or something (the exiting player may give any reasonable reason for doing so).If I could get a GF to pass out from stress from arguing, I'm pretty sure several of my relationships would have lasted a lot longer...
It's one of those systems where "storming off in a huff" or "making such a fool of yourself that you're laughed out of court" are legit ways of losing a sceneI get what it's doing, I just have no idea what it's modelling...certainly not human interactions...
If I could get a GF to pass out from stress from arguing, I'm pretty sure several of my relationships would have lasted a lot longer...
Well sure, if two players agreed to settle a dispute between them through dice-rolling using opposed Cha-adjusted reaction rolls as if they were NPCs I'd let them, but if they've agreed to do that then it's very likely that the disagreement isn't really that serious and neither one is too invested in the outcome. But I can't imagine many players (other than the ones with 18 Cha characters) agreeing to do that on something they actually considered to be important, cared what the outcome was, and genuinely disagreed with the other player about.Very simple example. The Chronicles of Darkness system essentially has a social combat system for convincing NPCs. The PVP version is just the players agreeing to abide by such a combat outcome.
"Fortune in the beginning" is what Forge used to call this idea, I guess (roll first and then roleplaying accordingly).I think it works, and can be fun, but it requires a different mindset from Fortune in the middle/end games, which are the majority. Nevee heard of Story Engine though. Ill take a look.You know, as far as "narrative" games go, one that I actually like how it handled things and that I don't think gets enough love these days is the Story Engine.
The premise in that game was that you roll at the beginning of a scene/encounter/turn, and then you roleplay out events working towards the resolution you are already aware of.
The reason I don't like ths is obviously the way it undercuts tension and the flow of cause and effect, but it was a great solution for removing the artificiality of system interference from game events and giving the players freedom to engage in descriptive roleplaying without granting them GM fiat powers.
Never heard of that. What is it?but it fails at the Diplomacy test of necessary mechanics
It's basically just an advanced version of that. There's an analogue of health, armour, rounds and combat feats. So mechanically it is closer to combat than a single roll. It can end with conditions reflecting the doubt etc others above have described for other systems.Well sure, if two players agreed to settle a dispute between them through dice-rolling using opposed Cha-adjusted reaction rolls as if they were NPCs I'd let them
It would make total party kills interesting.You know, as far as "narrative" games go, one that I actually like how it handled things and that I don't think gets enough love these days is the Story Engine.
The premise in that game was that you roll at the beginning of a scene/encounter/turn, and then you roleplay out events working towards the resolution you are already aware of.
The reason I don't like ths is obviously the way it undercuts tension and the flow of cause and effect, but it was a great solution for removing the artificiality of system interference from game events and giving the players freedom to engage in descriptive roleplaying without granting them GM fiat powers.
You build the classes from the character representations instead of adapting the classes to fit the representations.Wow... this thread jumped quickly.
For those arguing about D&D being able to replicate GoT... I couldn't care less about the social mechanics (or lack thereof) and political intrigue. There are better systems, but I agree that D&D is sufficient in that space. And it's as much about the setting and the interactions the GM creates. But how do you deal with characters and class? GoT is generally low-magic whereas D&D has magic baked into just about everything. Most of the classes have some kind of magical powers. You can strip out those classes, but you aren't left with much -- barbarian, fighter, rogue (and monk, if you consider that appropriate to the setting).
Yes, there are some characters with supernatural powers, but they tend to be very limited an very specific -- I don't see how they could be modeled using D&D classes as is. How do you model a character like Melisandre who is a Red Priest, but posses powers that are a mixture of sorcery and necromancy, but are ritualistic in nature? Or Jaqen H'ghar who is presumably some kind of rogue, but appears to have some kind of supernatural powers of disguise, although they are apparently inspired via the Many-Faced God? Or Qyburn who can resurrect / animate Gregor -- in D&D terms, you'd typically need to be a cleric or some kind of necromancer to do that, but he's more like an alchemist.
You also have characters that are important and powerful in GoT, but mostly for their intellect and influence. They don't fit a conventional D&D class at all -- like Tyrion, Baelish, Varys, Danny, etc.
Obviously, you can model these characters with some tweaking of the rules... but IMHO, it'd have to be quite a lot of tweaking. I'm just not seeing how you create characters like those in GoT without a lot of effort. But I'm more than willing to hear from those who claim they've successfully run GoT style games.
I should also add that it's main use is often to see who influences a crowd more, rather than strict PVP.It's basically just an advanced version of that. There's an analogue of health, armour, rounds and combat feats. So mechanically it is closer to combat than a single roll. It can end with conditions reflecting the doubt etc others above have described for other systems.
The problem isn't the tables themselves so much as your insistence that they be tattooed on your scrotal areas and unavailable in any other format. I mean, including the tables in the book itself doesn't seem too much to ask.Jesus looks like my GURPS: Ball lickers is entering into a hostile market. I only hope my scrotal area tables will appeal to the hardcore simulationist crowd.
Yep, you just describe how the newish games do social stuff - give a consequence for the loser part of the interaction, while preserving their agency. From Hillfolk to PbtA to Cortex to Fate to Fria Ligan etc. (and I bet to some OSR or obscure D&D module out there too... hmm I will do some research)So I had a thought on player verses player social activity today which is basically allowing them to say no and take a consequence instead.
Skywalker said:That is my preference too. Players retain the ability to choose whatever course of action they wish, but the rules determine consequences for certain courses. So a socially able PC is able to cause stress, doubt, or even provoke escalation, but not take out or control another PC.
To be honest I'm pretty sick of you leaving this "complaint" on Drivethru and Kickstarter.The problem isn't the tables themselves so much as your insistence that they be tattooed on your scrotal areas and unavailable in any other format. I mean, including the tables in the book itself doesn't seem too much to ask.
Wow... this thread jumped quickly.
For those arguing about D&D being able to replicate GoT... I couldn't care less about the social mechanics (or lack thereof) and political intrigue. There are better systems, but I agree that D&D is sufficient in that space. And it's as much about the setting and the interactions the GM creates. But how do you deal with characters and class? GoT is generally low-magic whereas D&D has magic baked into just about everything. Most of the classes have some kind of magical powers. You can strip out those classes, but you aren't left with much -- barbarian, fighter, rogue (and monk, if you consider that appropriate to the setting).
Yes, there are some characters with supernatural powers, but they tend to be very limited an very specific -- I don't see how they could be modeled using D&D classes as is. How do you model a character like Melisandre who is a Red Priest, but posses powers that are a mixture of sorcery and necromancy, but are ritualistic in nature? Or Jaqen H'ghar who is presumably some kind of rogue, but appears to have some kind of supernatural powers of disguise, although they are apparently inspired via the Many-Faced God? Or Qyburn who can resurrect / animate Gregor -- in D&D terms, you'd typically need to be a cleric or some kind of necromancer to do that, but he's more like an alchemist.
Obviously, you can model these characters with some tweaking of the rules... but IMHO, it'd have to be quite a lot of tweaking. I'm just not seeing how you create characters like those in GoT without a lot of effort. But I'm more than willing to hear from those who claim they've successfully run GoT style games.
You build the classes from the character representations instead of adapting the classes to fit the representations.
I think whats being missed here is converting d&D to GoT does not mean using all of D&D.
Take Star Wars D20 for example... uses D&D but strips away and replaces a lot.
An adaption will take as much effert as you out in to succeed. If you want a quick and dirty... well you prob wont like the end result.
These are choices to be made for any undertaking... scope, effort, worth.
Only if realism is the concern.Honestly, I think anyone who thinks that mechanics having any effect on the decisions that a player makes on a social level (through applying things like penalties for certain actions, etc), because it takes control out of the players hands... heavily overestimate how in control of their own emotions they probably are.
I feel like several people in this thread have responded in ways they probably wouldn't have if they weren't heated for instance. And they didn't "choose" to get heated.
Oh sure, I never said it can't be adapted. I just reacted to Vargold saying "D&D already does GoT" or something, implying it does it by default or out of the gate. to which I disagreed.silva
I think its fair to say that D&D is not a catchall system and will never be able to capture all the nuances of every setting out there. But it is a good platform to build on. The core system is straight forward and the main game does make an attempt at capturing all the typical scenarios and pitfalls that a Fantasy setting will encounter.
Does it dungeon delving well? Absolutely!
Does it ONLY do dungeon delving? Absolutely not!
Many different settings have easily been adapted to the various D&D systems. Some add in whole new subsystems, calsses, races, etc. In fact, many of them strip D&D down to the bones and build up from it, as was common in OGL.
It shows that the system does have a versatility to be used for damn near anything.
Will there be systems that capture GoT better? You bet!
But is D&D an ill choice for it? Subjective. You seem to think so, and that is cool. I and others disagree, in part because we've done it.
Home brew adaptions have been as much a part of D&D as the basics of D&D have been.
Anyone that ran a game has made or been tempted to make alterations to the core system or setting to accommodate the cool new cultural rave. Some have done total conversions, some have added Highlander Immortals (I was young don't judge me!), some just have house rules to allow cool things that they see on TV (Like overpowered Katanas). Its a thing as indelible with D&D as any core setting.
If you want a social combat system, or a land management system, you can include it. It may take some work, but that is also part of the hobby for many of us.
If you don't wish to, then you are starting to look for something more specific and that is not a failing of D&D in and of itself. Its a failure to meet your expectations... which isn't actually a failing at all.
So I beleive you when you say GoT cant be run in D&D, but I add that it can't be run for you.
As many of us pointed out here... we can and sometimes have done it.
Only if realism is the concern.
I don't think it usually is.
Some people like myself derive great pleasure from tweaking rules to emulate genre or reinforce setting conceits. I definitely fit into the "Lazy DM" category and am telling you it might be less work than you think . Most of it is imaginative re-skinning, tweaks, and swaps while eliminating anything that doesn't fit. I've never had to do anything crazy like build a new class from scratch and honestly that is way too much work for me.As far as I'm concerned, if you are house-ruling class abilities or making your own classes -- that constitutes more effort that I'm willing to get into. If I'm GMing a game, I have enough to worry about building a world and creating adventures, I don't want to be writing the rules as well.
I mean that is fair. If you don't want to have mechanics that have social influence on players, that is fine if the reason is "I don't like them in the game", but the idea that any rules like that are RIDICULOUS, is a different sentiment.
This is the superficial level I cited before, that a majority of RPG players seem to want out of fictional works. They don't want the personal struggles of Frodo or Case, they want to kick the door screaming and unloading an SMG, or wear a pointy hat and throw fireballs.For a lot of gamers, the way they play doesn't really change much with the setting, and they'd be perfectly content with a game in which they played a bunch of adventurer types being sent out on missions by the King's Hand or some noble lord. It seems like a waste of a premise to me, but when I was trying to look at opinions about the GOT rpg, it seemed like that was in fact the sort of thing a lot of people wanted to do with the setting.
It’s one sort of fortune at the beginning. The other sort would be were there’s some randomization of e.g. resources but the outcome is still in doubt because it’s affected by how the players deploy the resources."Fortune in the beginning" is what Forge used to call this idea, I guess (roll first and then roleplaying accordingly).I think it works, and can be fun, but it requires a different mindset from Fortune in the middle/end games, which are the majority. Nevee heard of Story Engine though. Ill take a look.
Not any rules, but those Cortex ones certainy are ridiculous.
I saw an ad for Game of Thrones once...pretty sure there were dragons. Possibly hobbits, too, but it wasn't clear. Anybody actually watch it? I hear it was either based on D&D or else you can play it with D&D. Anybody got an opinion on that?
I mean, I don't see that as a bad thing myself - part of the fun of D&D as a GM, for me and many others, is the work put into world-building and setting development. For GURPs players that stuff is just "another day at the office".
Some people like myself derive great pleasure from tweaking rules to emulate genre or reinforce setting conceits. I definitely fit into the "Lazy DM" category and am telling you it might be less work than you think . Most of it is imaginative re-skinning, tweaks, and swaps while eliminating anything that doesn't fit. I've never had to do anything crazy like build a new class from scratch and honestly that is way too much work for me.
Maybe this makes me a "D&D Zealot"....but I'd say, yeah, Star Wars D20 is D&D. Everything D20 is D20. Pathfinder is D&D. 99.9% of the OSR is all D&D.
I have limited time as well. Funny thing is I am willing to pay for a good setting because I don't have time to deep dive into world building but I will make time to get the rules just right.I need my RPGs to spoon feed me. Creating a setting is one thing... but creating new rules and mechanics to make my setting work, that's one step too far.