[QUOTE=Rents;47532087]R20 will work fine, just resize the chat box and ignore the map. Otherwise skype, webcam and physical dice.[/QUOTE]
roll20 only allows music from soundcloud though, I guess I'll use videosync with roll20
[QUOTE=NotAName;47532112]roll20 only allows music from soundcloud though, I guess I'll use videosync with roll20[/QUOTE]
Could just stick stuff up in SoundCloud?
[QUOTE=Rents;47532141]Could just stick stuff up in SoundCloud?[/QUOTE]
There's a chance I'll get banned, plus all the downloading and uploading, plus it'll require me to decide ahead of time what to play :v:
[editline] asd[/editline]
Fuck it I'll upload something
[QUOTE=NotAName;47532158]There's a chance I'll get banned, plus all the downloading and uploading, plus it'll require me to decide ahead of time what to play :v:
[editline] asd[/editline]
Fuck it I'll upload something[/QUOTE]
if you have gud internet you can just upload on the fly
if youre afraid of ben, just make new soundcloud account just for roll20
don't try to find it with a search, you can just copy paste the link to it in there
I have no webcam so r20 would be welcome.
Side note, I finally got around to beginning writing the RPG I've been filling my sketch books with pages upon pages of mechanics concepts, lore and actual sketches. It's part of a long term project to actually make a video game RPG, possibly in a similar vein to the old DnD games like Neverwinter Nights and the like, but for now I've always wanted to write an actual PnP RPG so I put my hand to it. It's way too premature for anything revealed but in a few months, or even a month, I'll have way more to show. Maybe even a play test session in the works if my writing pace doesn't slow down a whole lot. I figure the best sample group is us actual players so what do you guys believe are some of the largest downfalls with the D20 system, either as a whole or as part of the many iterations of it in games? And what do you think could be done to improve it / what features would you like to see?
Personally my largest issue has always been how tacked on combat felt to me in 3.5. I'm not sure if that's just my own experience (bad GMs or whatever) but it always felt clunky. I really love the RP side of thing, but I feel like I'm pulled out of it when combat happens most of the time.
[QUOTE=Aperture fan;47530177]...and Smas is basically converting and pricing out various items using Fallout NV as a base...[/QUOTE]
You just don't realize how much /shit/ you can pick up in a Fallout Game until you start trying to figure out how much a half pack of scavenged cigarettes and a couple of bananas will net you on the market. And don't even get me started on trying to find comparable items for some of the weird magic shit that people have. Looking at you, disembodied head of an animatronic that comes alive at night.
[QUOTE=draugur;47532379]I have no webcam so r20 would be welcome.
Side note, I finally got around to beginning writing the RPG I've been filling my sketch books with pages upon pages of mechanics concepts, lore and actual sketches. It's part of a long term project to actually make a video game RPG, possibly in a similar vein to the old DnD games like Neverwinter Nights and the like, but for now I've always wanted to write an actual PnP RPG so I put my hand to it. It's way too premature for anything revealed but in a few months, or even a month, I'll have way more to show. Maybe even a play test session in the works if my writing pace doesn't slow down a whole lot. I figure the best sample group is us actual players so what do you guys believe are some of the largest downfalls with the D20 system, either as a whole or as part of the many iterations of it in games? And what do you think could be done to improve it / what features would you like to see?
Personally my largest issue has always been how tacked on combat felt to me in 3.5. I'm not sure if that's just my own experience (bad GMs or whatever) but it always felt clunky. I really love the RP side of thing, but I feel like I'm pulled out of it when combat happens most of the time.[/QUOTE]
the very idea of levels, and everything related to that
having a 5% chance of automatic success and 5% chance of automatic failure at all times no matter how skilled or unskilled you are at something and how difficult what you're doing is
the fact that for some reason, only every second point in an attribute actually matters. at all.
[QUOTE=Smas;47532431]You just don't realize how much /shit/ you can pick up in a Fallout Game until you start trying to figure out how much a half pack of scavenged cigarettes and a couple of bananas will net you on the market. And don't even get me started on trying to find comparable items for some of the weird magic shit that people have. Looking at you, disembodied head of an animatronic that comes alive at night.[/QUOTE]
Why even bother to price it? You know she isn't going to sell Frankie Fuzzbottom's head. You just better hope she doesn't get PASS to stick it onto the neck of a MIKU suit, or you'll have a killer animatronic head controlling a magical Iron Man suit on your hands.
And if you thought they were bad [I]before[/I] they had magic, just you wait.
[QUOTE=elowin;47532821]the very idea of levels, and everything related to that
having a 5% chance of automatic success and 5% chance of automatic failure at all times no matter how skilled or unskilled you are at something and how difficult what you're doing is
the fact that for some reason, only every second point in an attribute actually matters. at all.[/QUOTE]
Well I got the levels down because there will be no "level" system per say. Characters earn xp which can be spent directly on skills and stuff. The idea of suddenly just becoming better at some specific moment is dumb.
The idea of rolling critical successes is stupid to me as well because honestly if something is DC 30 and you roll a 20 but only get an additional 5 to your roll because of skill, well too fucking bad, you didn't make 30, you're 5 short. And always failing at a 1 seems dumb and I plan to step around that with degrees of failure based on how poorly you roll verses the DC of a task. The idea then becomes that while rolling a 1 sure is going to be a fucking shit roll, you could still pass with it, or at least not critically fail.
As to how ability bonuses work I'm planning to make it work on a scale where 10 gives you a bonus of 0 as per normal, 9 gives -1, 11 gives +1 and so forth. The real challenge is balancing that out since a one point change in ability score can truly mean a big difference now instead of almost being important like it usually would be. Though to me that's also part of the fun I think. Risk/Reward after all.
People see natural failure and success in the wrong light, like it's some kind of modifier to your characters inherit ability when it's not. I see this on a lot on forums and it's baffling. It's the Luck Factor, that's all it ever was.
It doesn't matter how skilled you are at something, [I]shit happens[/I] and you get unlucky and fail. It also doesn't matter how shit you are at something, sometimes you get lucky and you succeed. d20 already takes liberties with handling reality and this was their way of bringing random chance that exists naturally. There are [I]better[/I] ways of handling the Luck Factor, but that's not what people see 1s and 20s as in the first place when all they whine about is [I]"my character has this many points in his skill, how can he fail?"[/I], so they have an issue with a problem they never understood to begin with.
Attaching the Luck Factor to the d20 dice makes it a primary component of the game versus other systems that try to make it so rare as to be unused. If you don't like the concept then fine, don't use it. Arguing that it "makes no sense" just makes you look dense and try-hard for picking on an "unrealistic" mechanic in fucking [B]Dungeons and Dragons[/B]. I find the whole thing even more asinine than the HP debate.
It's also the easiest problem to fix if you don't like it; 1 is 1 and 20 is 20.
Anyway this isn't directed at anyone in particular, just the whole argument. Every time I see it a part of my soul withers away. I'd rather see people argue about Chaotic Evil Orc babies [I]and[/I] what their HP value represents.
I know quite a few systems allow characters to Take 10 or Routine a test or something to that degree, so they only roll when it's something actually challenging for that character. Of course, it takes a decent (see: not stupid) GM to know when something is well within a character's abilities or not. Naturally, this doesn't apply to combat, as no matter how fast something is or isn't, there is always a chance to hit/not hit them.
I think too many people think missing is your character being a dumbass and failing to hit their target. While this could be the case, one of the 40k RPG books explains this as the target actively trying to not get hit. So, if you fail your attack check, it's either because you missed or they ducked at the last second, whereas if you hit and they successfully dodge/parry they made a [B]real[/B] attempt to not get hit. You know, Warhammer Online solved this quite handily; Only ranged attacks could miss (makes sense), but melee attacks could only be Dodged, Blocked or Parried, since it's assumed your character is trained enough to swing their weapon in the right direction.
There's also instances were a GM makes a Natural 1 more punishing than it already is ("lol you accidentally stab yourself with a crit"). The furthest I'll go is to make the player do an appropriate test to hold onto their weapon, though 99% of the time I won't bother, because an unavoidable miss is a kick in the balls as it is, especially if you have no way of re-rolling it.
I don't think Natural 1/20 has been auto success/fail since AD&D, outside of Attack Rolls and Saving Throws.
[QUOTE=Axznma;47534766]People see natural failure and success in the wrong light, like it's some kind of modifier to your characters inherit ability when it's not. I see this on a lot on forums and it's baffling. It's the Luck Factor, that's all it ever was.
It doesn't matter how skilled you are at something, [I]shit happens[/I] and you get unlucky and fail. It also doesn't matter how shit you are at something, sometimes you get lucky and you succeed. d20 already takes liberties with handling reality and this was their way of bringing random chance that exists naturally. There are [I]better[/I] ways of handling the Luck Factor, but that's not what people see 1s and 20s as in the first place when all they whine about is [I]"my character has this many points in his skill, how can he fail?"[/I], so they have an issue with a problem they never understood to begin with.
Attaching the Luck Factor to the d20 dice makes it a primary component of the game versus other systems that try to make it so rare as to be unused. If you don't like the concept then fine, don't use it. Arguing that it "makes no sense" just makes you look dense and try-hard for picking on an "unrealistic" mechanic in fucking [B]Dungeons and Dragons[/B]. I find the whole thing even more asinine than the HP debate.
It's also the easiest problem to fix if you don't like it; 1 is 1 and 20 is 20.
Anyway this isn't directed at anyone in particular, just the whole argument. Every time I see it a part of my soul withers away. I'd rather see people argue about Chaotic Evil Orc babies [I]and[/I] what their HP value represents.[/QUOTE]
I always played with the 1 is automatic failure + take 1 damage, but mostly I do find it a dumb way to handle luck when writing a new system. It's a valid one in the games it exists in, and from a gameplay perspective it works well enough but isn't ideal. I sort of planned to address that shit happens sort of system in another way. It's all valid criticism though and a lot to consider the pros and cons of when designing. I'll probably run my finalised rule set for roles by you guys when I get it done because the diversity I got with replies is promising for usable input.
It's the same kind of issue that exploding dice cause- parts of yoir probability curve just get straight-up disjointed. A d6 that can explode once has results from 1 to 5 and 7 to 12, with no six. A d20 with nat 1s and 20s has results from 'failure' and 2 to 19 plus modifiers and 'success', with no 1 or 20 plus modifiers.
Is it inherently bad? Not really. But if 10% of your outcomes bypass equipment and skill and whatever scaling factors your system has, that's not a negligible chunk of chance to account for.
Also magnitude of possible modifiers compared to target values. You NEED to consider where you want the capability gap to lie. Should certain tasks be practically impossible (5%) for people who aren't specialized in it? How much better should an expert be than a beginner? Should you ever reach the point where failing is equally 'practically impossible' (5%)?
Questions is important for design.
another session, another two ships for the Rogue Trader fleet
got a bulk carrier and a cruiser
both with massive pulsating heretical asterisks
I love GMing this game
[QUOTE=Smas;47532431]Pricing Shenanigans[/QUOTE]
And Appy just made the tall order even taller today. Now I gotta find out how much everything weighs on TOP of pricing everything, because he's afraid that people will try to steal everything and the kitchen sink. Which I totally would if it wasn't bolted down for scrap cash.
... He might have a point on this one. [sp]Though I hear kitchen sinks make for good impromptu clubs.[/sp]
switch from weight based inventory to volume
[editline]15th April 2015[/editline]
that will forever fuck your players over into only carrying what they absolutely need
So I'm planning a multi-class (as in, all races/monsters/whatever are available) World of Darkness campaign. Let me know what you think:
The characters are recently transformed whatevers and they all join together after they're almost caught in a massive monster hunt. They are brought under the tutelage of an NPC, a Demon, who acts as a mentor and basically tells them that these monster hunters are psychopaths that need to be eliminated. This is the overarching plotline, but I want to have each character type have a side story so every player regardless of race feels important (for example, I want any Changelings to come across their Fetches)
It'll be Mass Effect-like, where the players have to go out and deal with separate factions and try to put aside their differences and band together to fight the Hunters. However, if we get far enough, I want there to be a twist where it turns out the Demon mentor has been playing the group the whole time in his attempts to amass an army capable of defending himself from Angels sent by the God Machine.
Any thoughts? I wrote this at 12:40 in the morning, so it may sound a little jumbled at the moment.
[editline]16th April 2015[/editline]
The Demon himself used to be a Defender angel, but he currently has a very twisted and warped sense of defence, one that involves slaying any and all threats.
To this extent, his past as a Defender makes him want to protect other freaks of nature (especially demons), but the only way he reasons those he protects will be safe is to wipe out any perceived threats, which includes monster hunters and the God Machine.
[QUOTE=Axznma;47534766]People see natural failure and success in the wrong light, like it's some kind of modifier to your characters inherit ability when it's not. I see this on a lot on forums and it's baffling. It's the Luck Factor, that's all it ever was.
It doesn't matter how skilled you are at something, [I]shit happens[/I] and you get unlucky and fail. It also doesn't matter how shit you are at something, sometimes you get lucky and you succeed. d20 already takes liberties with handling reality and this was their way of bringing random chance that exists naturally. There are [I]better[/I] ways of handling the Luck Factor, but that's not what people see 1s and 20s as in the first place when all they whine about is [I]"my character has this many points in his skill, how can he fail?"[/I], so they have an issue with a problem they never understood to begin with.
Attaching the Luck Factor to the d20 dice makes it a primary component of the game versus other systems that try to make it so rare as to be unused. If you don't like the concept then fine, don't use it. Arguing that it "makes no sense" just makes you look dense and try-hard for picking on an "unrealistic" mechanic in fucking [B]Dungeons and Dragons[/B]. I find the whole thing even more asinine than the HP debate.
It's also the easiest problem to fix if you don't like it; 1 is 1 and 20 is 20.
Anyway this isn't directed at anyone in particular, just the whole argument. Every time I see it a part of my soul withers away. I'd rather see people argue about Chaotic Evil Orc babies [I]and[/I] what their HP value represents.[/QUOTE]
Well, for starters, I completely disagree.
At higher levels, your characters are mythologically skilled. Failing at simple tasks shouldn't be a thing. You could argue that you can just take 10, but in most situations you can't. Especially combat.
More importantly, it's the sheer fact that it's 5% of the time, for each. That's fucking huge. If it was 1 or 2% of the time, that'd be a completely different matter, but the idea that 5% of the time, you can hit anything, pierce any armor, and do exceptional amounts of damage, is ridiculous. And the idea that no matter how skilled, and no matter how weak your opponent is, 5% of the time you will miss is also ridiculous.
[QUOTE=Glent;47534962]I don't think Natural 1/20 has been auto success/fail since AD&D, outside of Attack Rolls and Saving Throws.[/QUOTE]
I know, and that's still a problem to me, for the reasons outlined above.
of course all of this totally doesn't apply if you're playing the game for shiggles, which is the best way to play D&D
in fact in those cases you should totally add critical success/failure to absolutely every roll and massively exagerate their effects
you're overthinkin' this, man
games aren't meant to be simulations of what would really happen, they're meant to be partially self-generated stories. stories would be boring as all fuck if after some point the heroes just succeeded at everything.
[QUOTE=M.Ciaster;47537612]you're overthinkin' this, man
games aren't meant to be simulations of what would really happen, they're meant to be partially self-generated stories. stories would be boring as all fuck if after some point the heroes just succeeded at everything.[/QUOTE]
Stories are also boring when the god-like character fails to open a door because he rolled a 1.
[QUOTE=M.Ciaster;47537612]you're overthinkin' this, man
games aren't meant to be simulations of what would really happen, they're meant to be partially self-generated stories. stories would be boring as all fuck if after some point the heroes just succeeded at everything.[/QUOTE]
They won't succeed at everything, unless you're pitting them against things that are below them.
If you pit them against things that are far below them, they shouldn't fail except under extreme circumstances. 5% of the time is not extreme circumstances.
[QUOTE=Alsojames;47537039]So I'm planning a multi-class (as in, all races/monsters/whatever are available) World of Darkness campaign. Let me know what you think:
The characters are recently transformed whatevers and they all join together after they're almost caught in a massive monster hunt. They are brought under the tutelage of an NPC, a Demon, who acts as a mentor and basically tells them that these monster hunters are psychopaths that need to be eliminated. This is the overarching plotline, but I want to have each character type have a side story so every player regardless of race feels important (for example, I want any Changelings to come across their Fetches)
It'll be Mass Effect-like, where the players have to go out and deal with separate factions and try to put aside their differences and band together to fight the Hunters. However, if we get far enough, I want there to be a twist where it turns out the Demon mentor has been playing the group the whole time in his attempts to amass an army capable of defending himself from Angels sent by the God Machine.
Any thoughts? I wrote this at 12:40 in the morning, so it may sound a little jumbled at the moment.
[editline]16th April 2015[/editline]
The Demon himself used to be a Defender angel, but he currently has a very twisted and warped sense of defence, one that involves slaying any and all threats.
To this extent, his past as a Defender makes him want to protect other freaks of nature (especially demons), but the only way he reasons those he protects will be safe is to wipe out any perceived threats, which includes monster hunters and the God Machine.[/QUOTE]
Probably a clusterfuck, expect PCs to be unbalanced and/or try to kill each other if they're playing true to the books. That said, I'd be interested.
[QUOTE=UzumakaiPatch;47537713]Stories are also boring when the god-like character fails to open a door because he rolled a 1.[/QUOTE]
Is it a regular-ass wooden door? Why are you having them roll?
Is it the portal leading to the dimension of evil? Time for a fuckin detour!
Be a good GM. don't plan a plot point around a roll getting passed or good ol' Murphy's gonna getcha
[editline]16th April 2015[/editline]
[QUOTE=elowin;47537805]They won't succeed at everything, unless you're pitting them against things that are below them.
If you pit them against things that are far below them, they shouldn't fail except under extreme circumstances. 5% of the time is not extreme circumstances.[/QUOTE]
That's just a matter of good or bad GMing - is something second nature for your characters? Don't make them roll. Don't make a veteran roll for drawing their weapon. In general, I say that as long as there's no pressure and that there's a slightest chance your character can achieve the intended effect, you shouldn't have to roll. If it gets complicated... that's where rolls come in!
Speaking of luck factor: yesterday during a D&D 5 session I wanted to knock out a dude for later questioning.
I rolled a 20 and knocked his head clean off.
My character stared in front of him with empty eyes while "The Sound Of Silence" played in the background.
[QUOTE=elowin;47537507]More importantly, it's the sheer fact that it's 5% of the time, for each. That's fucking huge. If it was 1 or 2% of the time, that'd be a completely different matter, but the idea that 5% of the time, you can hit anything, pierce any armor, and do exceptional amounts of damage, is ridiculous. And the idea that no matter how skilled, and no matter how weak your opponent is, 5% of the time you will miss is also ridiculous.[/QUOTE]
If you're fighting against a single enemy that you can only miss or hit on a 1 or 20, you probably shouldn't be fighting that enemy (in the first case because it isn't really worth the time taken to run the encounter, in the second case because the enemy is probably tough enough to fuck you up, especially since it will probably take more than a hit to kill it).
Worth noting that even [sp]Tiamat[/sp]'s stats in 5e won't require a 20 to hit by any character at level 4 or higher, without any bonuses to hit. And at the same time, a level 20 character will miss (without any bonuses to hit) any old soldier in chainmail on a roll of 1 to 4, not just a 1.
And, in my opinion, there should always be a chance for success or failure in combat. Combat is unpredictable, and everybody makes mistakes, even heroes.
[QUOTE=Glent;47538462]If you're fighting against a single enemy that you can only miss or hit on a 1 or 20, you probably shouldn't be fighting that enemy (in the first case because it isn't really worth the time taken to run the encounter, in the second case because the enemy is probably tough enough to fuck you up, especially since it will probably take more than a hit to kill it).
Worth noting that even [sp]Tiamat[/sp]'s stats in 5e won't require a 20 to hit by any character at level 4 or higher, without any bonuses to hit. And at the same time, a level 20 character will miss (without any bonuses to hit) any old soldier in chainmail on a roll of 1 to 4, not just a 1.
And, in my opinion, there should always be a chance for success or failure in combat. Combat is unpredictable, and everybody makes mistakes, even heroes.[/QUOTE]
jesus christ 5e is even worse than i thought
[QUOTE=elowin;47538574]jesus christ 5e is even worse than i thought[/QUOTE]
Except 5e is good?
[QUOTE=Dalndox;47538593]Except 5e is good?[/QUOTE]
i dont think so
[QUOTE=elowin;47538598]i dont think so[/QUOTE]
Then we'll have to agree to disagree, I suppose. I find 5e to be a great improvement and a lot of fun to both play and DM.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
