Posts made by Lotherio

The Ghul is the predecessor to the vampire if you're interested in some history. A type of jinn/genie that needed to eat on human flesh. The genie by tradition was just another free willed spirit pretty much like a human. I may have to watch this anime now. I toyed with a setting based on more traditional genies (http://mortalsouls.wikidot.com/) but it just felt like a new skin to WoD despite older concepts and I threw it aside. I'd be interested in seeing what comes out of this Tokyo Ghoul inspired mush! Best of luck.

Just a quick two cents.

In a physical combat both sides have something to lose, the fight. Most social combat systems of detail are one sided, attack is after something from defender. I think for it to be social /combat/, the attacker should have stakes too. IE John goes to get the code for the vault from Laura, after a series of loses, Laura is clearly the victor, John not only fails to get the code, he reveals why he was after it and give her a clue to what use the contents are for his backers. I probably missed someone say this, if so, I support their post.

That said, I don't mind social combat. I have had TT players at my tables too shy to talk and act in voice, who can just summarize intents and its easier to roll the character they want to play and stated without being amateur impromptu actors. For me though, I prefer simply (ie, old rule of 2 for circumstances, +2/-2 to change target numbers or rolls versus more rules). In social, I'd just prefer a modified chase scene. You set a gap of 2-5, a success closes the gap, a failure widens the gap. X turns to complete the social engagement before target walks away or scene is interrupted by other parties; context between two players, they can easily set gap by agreement. Losing 'speed' after a failure requires a change in tactics. Anything that sounds plausibly good, refer to rule of 2. Works for any system without having to memorize or know a bunch of rules.

I don't want to burst anyone's bubble, but there are other places game runners hang out (and frequent more than MSB). There are a number of social Mu*'s still open (and yes, more active than OGR/Gateway). I go to those places first if I suspect a problem player.

Something might come of this topic if the assholism can be toned down a notch. A world of difference between both sides and some assholes are failing to listen or consider. A shit ton of hyperbole is going on here and marring the topic.

@Thenomain said in FS3:

@ThatGuyThere

I believe you're right, but I think our typical 3-round WoD combat of, say, 6 total participants (PCs and NPCs) probably has around 18 (combat) + 12 (preparation) = 30 rolls. If we're lucky. That is a huge sample size, and skews what we know of WoD. Mind you, WoD also has one billionty thousand permutations of attributes, skills, powers, and other nonsense, many of them designed to completely overwhelm the situations we tend to have (i.e., combat and precious little else).

I guess my point here is that it's just important how you play a game as what the stat system looks like.

You're sample size is equivalent to FS3. In a group combat most players hit. But the nay sayer may only be watching their role, do they can pose timely maybe? @ThatGuyThere may be spot in that it's only online with far less history if us watching roles for gestalt theory to allow us to see the actual balance.

@kitteh said in FS3:

I'm not sure FS3 gets singled out here since no game system (that I know of) is performing 1000 rolls and averaging them to determine success/failure. Maybe in WoD you can min-max a whole lot more to have ginormous pools, but presumably those chars should be fighting equivalent challenges. Maybe the one thing in FS3 is that there's less differentiation in what you can do or what you can fight, but that goes with the setting, too. Only so many ways a Viper can pew-pew.

It does oddly get singled out more often, a new game comes on, people ask what system, the new game host says FS3. Then it starts again, people will avoid it because of FS3. The first post is negative usually because FS3 is being used it seems.

The stats are always as @faraday has said, more chance of success then other similar games (WoD/Fate/etc). No one attacks new games using those systems because thise games use those systems. But FS3 gets unfair guff. I think it's because it has popularity and a few places use it both because they recognize the basics (dice pool of attribute+skill vs # .. Each die over is one success) from systems like WoD and it's easy to install and get running.

I agree dice on the average game using FS3 aren't used enough.

Also the any target under a certain number is auto success. This has always applied on FS3, the shooting range is a given, normal mundane tasks aren't rolled, they're auto success, dice are fur high intensity situations when I've seen them used.

@Thenomain said in FS3:

@faraday

How about using that hit system in Shadowrun? Would you work with me on that? Eh? Eh?

There are hit locations, used in conjunction more with armor and vehicles. As I recall at least. Even if no armor it wasn't hard to have hit locations.

Another fun thing with older FS3. Vehicles where fun and easy to set up. It was easy to make differences enough fit class of ship; on the steampunk places the naval cannons could do some damage to the air ships. But, I've not seen others do this, a vehicle could be set up to be musketeers platoon with the pilot being unit lead. Hit locations were easy to customize to like front rank or left flank. All the penetration and lethality could be set up in detail ... Bayonets with high penetration for use against mounted or anything really.

It could have extensive lists of vehicles, armors and stances to reflect a detail of military variances very easily. Everyone says it's not good for fantasy, the only thing it doesn't do is merits and flaws for bonuses or magic, but it's a great system and it has applications beyond its full intent even.

For what it's worth, of its detail combat in planes ... I'd much more prefer a dogfight mux that is only dogfight with complex code ... Like old Battletech 3065 ( have i said this enough lately? Had anyone noticed I said it a few times?).

Otherwise the simpler the better for me, especially on MUSH. I'm on a MUSH for the roleplay more than the game play, which I can find in other Mu* environments.

@The-Sands Unrealistic and probably off topic. When I think Mux, I think the great Battletech games of the 90s. Lots of detail in combat, complex huds, the sort of thing I want in a strategy game. Which makes me curious what sort of game system would come with a quick install on tinymux.

Would be nice if that softcode was available for use somewhere, yet unrealistic I imagine.

Incubus

Stargate

Exterminate! (us)

Professor Emeritus

Phyllis!

In high school (late 80s) my friends and I called it the dumboning (ala highlander the summoning) in which people were just dumbing down, becoming more base (like grammer and moving from more fun to funner).

The best example is when the movie Idiocracy came out (Terry Crews was a hilarious President who made fun of his citizens, less funny when RL mirrors this). Lego movie joked about the state of affairs ... The best sitcom is 'Where's My Pants'. Jeff Bridges said it best from American perspective as Will McAvoy sums it up in the America Is Not the Greatest County Anymore monologue.

That and we're getting old.

My daughter's generation is more environmentally aware than any generation has been, even more than the birth of conservationists and national parks movement. They're more aware of social and behavioral conditions. The news is more sensational.

Crime is compared to the 50s. Crime is up sense then, but trending down since peeks in 70s and 80s. What the 50s never reported, and thus is not a good comparison to today, domestic crimes were left in the family and not reported. Hate and race crimes were overlooked far more in the 50s than today. The still happen, they're still atrocious, but much less of Billie Holidays strange fruit today than in the 50s.

Things look bad sometimes, half probably from our own maturity, but as always there is hope.

I play normal SP. If it feels to hard I step out down, but try to stay at normal. If it's fun I complete the game then look for extras (like Lego games I'll get all gold bricks after I run through story mode first). If the game play was honestly fun, I'll up the difficulty and start over.

If multiplayer is quick (5-10 minutes for a race or some MP arena style fight) I'll try it. If the MP mode is even a hint Virulent, I walk away. If I'm actually good at the game, and it's virulent, i play and target the virus parts (I still play tanki, the Russian world of tanks game before there was world of tanks).

Look into King Athur Pentagon. Folks probably hate it now, but the core system is Chaosium d20. They first used it (or it is known for its use) in Cthulu rpg; this game was aimed at trying to get one pc to survive every adventure to assure continuity in a campaign.

Death in Pendragon combat isn't too uncommon (not as common as some may think), what is more common is injury, the chance of scarring and gritty enough that one could lose ability scores to become a real grizzled vet after a few major battles. A lot can be done without, but the core combat system is on the gritty side.

Side tangent: FS3 is action oriented (sci fi) and most fantasy isn't. I think the combat issue is wrong staff or players as it's honestly just as easy to use as any other system and follows the common trends in most games .. Ability+skill is roll against set task level or opposed rolls in conflict. It's meant to be easy to use and a lot of fantasy gets the folks that like strategy, adding to much to combat gums up the basic principle of keeping it simple; a core of 10 to 12 'action skills' the game can easily be played around. I've seen fantasy places use fs3 with 20+ action skills without accounting for cgen points or even xp.

Yes it makes me think I'm am art nerd, that BFA paid off. Good to see I'm not alone ...

The other Isis

Isis