Search results

To me a game is successful if it achieves the designer's or company's goals, even if the goal is just to get the game into the hands of a very small number of happy gamers.

It would be easy to reskin or just mix up ancestry abilities to make your own.

And Highlander(but not 2). This was so common back then. Highlander is great. Love that film. But not the second one. Please, for the love of God, don't think I enjoy the sequel! But, you know, fair. 😂

I haven't played a lot yet, but so far it's running smoothly.

Rolling with fear gives the GM Fear currency. Trying to game the system to get Hope is a losing proposition.

I think it's because DH is a more loose game in terms of rules. Yes, it has crunch in the combat rules, but a lot of play is driven by what the GM does when spending a fear. This will be heavily influenced by the themes of the genre currently being played. I think it'll be an easier system to...

In Matt's Umbra campaign, if your character dies with no more hope to cross out, their spirit gets consumed by the void. So you'll probably choose for your character to die sooner or let your character's end be pretty horrific. Also, as the scars pile up, your character will become less and...

Yep, I kinda figured that out. 😂 I like games with metacurrency and I also enjoy OSE, Level Up and Shadowdark. We are in partial agreement over good games!

Course meta currency is pretty old. The old James Bond game was the first I believe?

Neo Trad? I can't always keep terms straight. I mean modern games that lean into story beats, meta currency, etc.

Yes, that's true. Burning Wheel is very crunchy. What I should have said is D&D is leaning harder into non narrativist rules and nailing down procedures that downplay the examples you gave in Lancer. There is also a difference between narrative games like Fate and narrativist games like...

I've only read a friend's copy. It really nails down rules but also has fewer consequences when bad stuff happens. And less worry about supplies. So I feel it's moving away from simulation and narrative, which is why @Micah Sweet and I are both unhappy.😂

Do you believe 5.5 is leaning a little more narrativist? And if so, why and how?

I'm curious why you feel 5.5 is leaning more narrativist. I fell that it's become less so, as it's more reliant on codified rules. Backgrounds, for example, are a feat and skills. Bonds, traits, flaws are gone. Rulings over rules are pretty much downplayed. Just feels like there's less room for...

I think the game is created in such a way that the narrative dials can be easily tuned. GM can just use fear examples from book and it'll work just fine. Have players who don't want to add details? GM can just narrate like it's D&D. Or you can go full on cooperative narrative or anything in between.

I actually cheated with my fae frog. He has wings and the long tongue. Table letting it slide because its not that big a deal. I didn't notice the rule till after my character was made. I think it's meant to balance the traits and maybe some combos would be bit too tough?

I get to be a player in a game my husband is going to run. We went through the starter adventure to get our feet wet. Went well. We're not sure what kind of world we want to adventure in yet. I've made a faerie ribbet druid but may not be my long running character.

I like the monster stat blocks. Gives the GM flexibility, so that we don't fall into the trap of every particular monster being identical. Players will be aware that they can't make assumptions about the wyvern that just attacked.

It reminds me of 13th Age, without actually feeling like 13th Age. Not sure that makes sense. But yes, I'm excited for Daggerheart too!

King Fu Fighting. Fast as Lightning! Edit: fixed a spelling