Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="CardinalXimenes" data-source="post: 4716558" data-attributes="member: 58259">IgnitionI've been slacking with the Conjunction reviews lately, but example has provoked me to put up another one. This review is for "Ignition", a game of near-future arcane forces and the powered armor that channels them.Layout:The layout is clean and straightforward, five pages of setting fiction and background followed by the game. A glossary is one of the first items given, which helps to stave off the problem of introducing terms before definitions. This is important due to the density of the system in comparison to the other submissions.System:Ignition is a departure from the submissions I've looked over thus far in being a fairly crunch-heavy offering. The basic task resolution mechanism is a simple opposed d20 roll, but the modifiers and action qualifications around that roll seem very dense. Some elements seem puzzling, but I'm not sure how much of that is inconsistency and how much is my failure to wholly grasp the math terrain. For example, page 17 says that Strain damage is taken only on opposed roll close calls, while page 14 gives 1 point of Strain as the cost of an extended action.Ignition made me think seriously about why I had such trouble getting a feel for its system, one conveyed in only 40 pages or so, when I felt no difficulty at all in understanding 4e D&D's system, with hundreds of pages of crunch. Practically every power of every 4e class creates an exception to the rules of some kind, so why was I struggling with Ignition's special-case handling?I've come to the conclusion that it has to do with the scope of Ignition's specific cases. 4e is chock-full of fiddly bits, but the number of fiddly bits I as a player have to worry about are restricted to a dozen or so specific actions. The existence of a thousand or so other unique cases isn't a problem for me because I can ignore them. With Ignition, however, I feel hesitant trying to imagine how a standard combat would go due to the complexity of the modifiers, opposing rolls needed, and specific talent usage guidelines- things that I'm going to have to deal with the first time I decide to run directly up to an enemy and shoot him.Because I'm not really solid with the system, some tactics are looking strangely optimal. For example, the "dead lock" rule indicates that any use of a ranged weapon against an adjacent enemy gives the attacker three levels of automatic success before the opposing roll is made. As a consequence, the best tactic for hand to hand combat appears to involve grabbing an assault rifle, using your movement to close with a target, and then using the Spray option to hit the target three times automatically unless their opposing rolls are vastly superior to your attack.On the whole, I'm not sure I'm comfortable enough with the system to pass judgment on its effectiveness. I suspect an exploration of its math would bring up some interesting finds.Setting:The setting for Ignition is the near future, 2050, with the PCs playing power-armored soldiers that channel "radiant energy" through their suits. The energy's origin appears to be in some form of refined solar power discovered in the course of a city-leveling accident. The major world powers deny that they're meddling with these Strange Forces, but your PCs are proof contrary.The very structured context of soldiery seems a good way to focus the game's setting, which is relevant for such a short development cycle. The soldiers themselves are left a little indistinct, with few details about their normal lifestyles as black operatives or their unit structure. It seems pretty clear that the military used here is of the traditional fictional variety, as ranks are used analogously to experience levels and additional ranks provide additional personal prowess and minions in the form of regular troopers. I don't dock it points for this; I can't think of any way to replicate a more realistic command structure that wouldn't do serious violence to the typical RPG gaming group dynamic of "Everybody do what they think is right while aimed in the general direction of the party's goal". Prussian discipline is not going to happen.One thing I think the setting could have used more of is premade conflict hooks. There's a lot of implicit tension in the setting, but there's no clear antagonist-figure to aim new games at. The near-future setting does mitigate this to a degree, however- all you really need to do is open up a newspaper, pick a global hotspot, and add power-armored PCs.Summary:I'm not sure I can really give a good assessment of the game. The density of the mechanics defeated me, though I can see the outlines of something quite interesting for someone able to keep an adequate number of special cases in mind at once. I'd advise a fairly ruthless revision pass over the thicket of rules to minimize the number of things a player has to remember in order to take an action in-game.</blockquote>

Verification