Difference between revisions of "Talk:Kingmakers"

From benscondo.wiki-rpg.com
Jump to: navigation, search
m
Line 20: Line 20:
  
 
-Get rid of the career system, allow characters to build the type of character they want to be.  But have to name what they are, to help make sure they have a clear concept.
 
-Get rid of the career system, allow characters to build the type of character they want to be.  But have to name what they are, to help make sure they have a clear concept.
 +
 +
 +
--[[User:Matts|Matts]] 12:04, 7 October 2009 (MST)If we're ditching careers, I'd ditch Warhammer entirely for all the reasons you articulate above.  I'm not sure just a name helps solidify the concept, because part of game balance sort of rides on the current setup.  There's lots of fantasy systems out there that could shoulder this kind of game, like Savage Worlds, and if we're going to be bending the system past its comfort zone I think it's worth taking a look at something that's more geared to the way people want to play.  I'll proof up a savage worlds test and see where that goes. 
 +
 +
As to the arcs, yes.  The whole point of the game is that it's episodic but the episodes don't require a ton of work on the part of the GM.
 +
 +
In terms of the introductory arcs, the aim there was solidifying the group's ties to their noble and each other, but if it doesn't sound like a fun idea, no worries.
 +
 +
I take your point about too much happening being confusing.  I'd try to highlight at the start of each session the important news, I guess?  I feel like that's been done before and to varying degrees of success, but certainly the goal isn't to paralyze everyone with difficult decisions.

Revision as of 13:04, 7 October 2009

--Gdaze 11:48, 7 October 2009 (MST) Hmm, I like the idea that it is set in the normal WH world. Good move. I would also like a rule that there is no back stabbing of each other.

That said though, did you read what I put on the one shot? Too many things going on at once = bad. Give us options, but if its too much we get lost in details (I'm pretty sure Ed would agree with me here). Certain players like Ben and Dieter do like a lot of details, but if you give us tons of things to research, only a few players spend all their time doing it, and the game drags. So a balance is needed.

I actually like the MA game because it can be done in arks. I'd like to at least finish it as well before we start this by the by. Anyway. I think if you did this one, doing it in arks would be a good idea.

As for starting out at a lower level with rapid advancement...? I'm gonna vote this down. As we saw last Friday, even with a 80%-90% succues, failure can happen quite often. And lets face it, low level WH... we've done it, we know what it is like. So I say maybe lets start out with 2,000 exp or so. Maybe make the first few adventures advance quickly, like 200 exp, then slow it down to 100, or even 50. No reason we have to keep advancing quickly.

Another idea... get rid of the career system? I mean in the game everything costs 100 EXP. And this could allow for some crazy combos, but also would allow us to build the type of character we want. Sage Knight? Noble Pick-Pocket? Servant Girl Assassin? Magic School Drop-Out? Gambler-Den Junkie?

Too many times people have to take skills they don't really want, or don't get skills they'd really like to play. I know why the system is the way it is, but this might actually allow better RPing. Of course everyone is going to have dodge blow... However, characters would at least have to come up for a title for what they are.

What do you think?

For those who won't read something that long:

-Keep adventures in story arcs, not huge complicated plots that take over a month or two to complete.

-Start at 2,000 exp.

-Get rid of the career system, allow characters to build the type of character they want to be. But have to name what they are, to help make sure they have a clear concept.


--Matts 12:04, 7 October 2009 (MST)If we're ditching careers, I'd ditch Warhammer entirely for all the reasons you articulate above. I'm not sure just a name helps solidify the concept, because part of game balance sort of rides on the current setup. There's lots of fantasy systems out there that could shoulder this kind of game, like Savage Worlds, and if we're going to be bending the system past its comfort zone I think it's worth taking a look at something that's more geared to the way people want to play. I'll proof up a savage worlds test and see where that goes.

As to the arcs, yes. The whole point of the game is that it's episodic but the episodes don't require a ton of work on the part of the GM.

In terms of the introductory arcs, the aim there was solidifying the group's ties to their noble and each other, but if it doesn't sound like a fun idea, no worries.

I take your point about too much happening being confusing. I'd try to highlight at the start of each session the important news, I guess? I feel like that's been done before and to varying degrees of success, but certainly the goal isn't to paralyze everyone with difficult decisions.