Games That Required Too Much Buy-In: Forked Thread: Games that didn't survive...

[jmucchiello]

So, basically, M&M combat is like D&D combat. . . except for the fact that, by default, it lacks a grid, rules for facing, movement measured in squares, attacks of opportunity, hit points, and rolling for damage? You know, it might just be me, but that seems like a pretty big departure from D&D (and standard d20) combat, mang

D&D has facing? And we never read about folks on this board who play D&D with a grid, right?

The chapter and section headings in M&M2e are straight out of the SRD. AC is called Defense. Defense equals 10 + defense bonus + size mods + misc mods: That is completely foreign to how AC is calc'd right? Size Modifiers, the same. Range penalties, the same. Initiative checks, the same right down to the existence of Improved Initiative feat for +4 to init checks. Saving throws basically the same with an extra one. Surprise round, the same. Action types, essentially the same right down to the existence of a chart called "actions in combat" that list which actions are free, standard, move equivalent and full actions. Cover, the same. Concealment, the same. Yeah, there are some differences but they are slight. The OP I was responding too said the problem with M&M was that combat was unfamiliar. I don't find any of that stuff unfamiliar. Different, sure. Perhaps even different in annoying nitpicky ways that could bog the game down. But unfamiliar? No way.

Please fork this if you need to respond beyond agreeing or agreeing to disagree. I didn't intend for this to distract from the initial forked topic.

 

[Hammerhead]

Given the speeds at which M&M characters tend to move at, any kind of grid would be an exercise in futility.

 

[Victim]

Given the speeds at which M&M characters tend to move at, any kind of grid would be an exercise in futility.

Our group has had 1 character who can move almost 2 miles on a single move action, and another without any enhanced movement in combat. A map might be useful for keeping track of relative positions, but I can't see a grid as being all that effective without vastly reducing the tactical movement abilities of characters - which most people didn't like 1e MnM.

But I can easily see how MnM would require too much buy in. Like many point based creation games, it requires a good deal of up front work to make characters. And with such a wide range of possible powers, there's some need for GM oversight, getting everyone on the same page as far as what characters and abilities are appropriate, etc.

The changes in combat and such might not be such a big deal individually, but after character generation (and learning about powers to do the character gen) I can easily see them as the straw breaking the camel's back.

 

[jdrakeh]

D&D has facing?

Well, it has positioning, by default. It encompasses facing in the optional (yet no less official) rules of Unearthed Arcana (link). In fairness to you, I did forget that this was an optional rule — so there are only five major differences between combat in the two systems.

And we never read about folks on this board who play D&D with a grid, right?

I said that D&D does use a grid, and M&M doesn't.

The chapter and section headings in M&M2e are straight out of the SRD. AC is called Defense. Defense equals 10 + defense bonus + size mods + misc mods: That is completely foreign to how AC is calc'd right? Size Modifiers, the same. Range penalties, the same. Initiative checks, the same right down to the existence of Improved Initiative feat for +4 to init checks. Saving throws basically the same with an extra one. Surprise round, the same. Action types, essentially the same right down to the existence of a chart called "actions in combat" that list which actions are free, standard, move equivalent and full actions. Cover, the same. Concealment, the same. Yeah, there are some differences but they are slight. The OP I was responding too said the problem with M&M was that combat was unfamiliar. I don't find any of that stuff unfamiliar. Different, sure. Perhaps even different in annoying nitpicky ways that could bog the game down. But unfamiliar? No way.

D&D and M&M sharing these things in commmon does not negate the existence of the notable and significant differences cited earlier. As mentioned, one of these games utilizes positioning and movement on a grid and has several mechanics tied directly into that, such as Attacks of Opportunity and numerous exception-based effects in the form of feats. The other game does not. One game tracks damage using Hit Points. The other game doesn't. One game requires the player of the attacking character to randomly generate damage by rolling dice. The other game does not.

I understand that the two combat systems have several shared aspects, but they also have several aspects that are entirely different. In this case, the shared aspects will, naturally, be easy to grasp, though arguing that the several concepts completely foreign to D&D 3x will be easily understood based on non-existent prior exposure makes absolutely no sense. All of these entirely new mechanics will be unfamiliar to somebody who is coming to M&M from a background of only D&D 3x, where such mechanics do not exist.

On a related note, it seems so far (please correct me if I'm wrong) that you've posted on this thread only to contradict the assertions of others with regard to perceived 'high buy-in' for their groups. If you didn't intend to drag this thread off-topic, jumping into the thread only to contend that other posters are incorrect or that their experience is invalid certainly seems to be an odd way to go about it.

 

[Ace]

This killed my M&M game before it got started. All my players said "uh, we have to do how much work to just get started?" and balked. Everyone's married/kids/jobs and doesn't have the time for hours and hours of pre-prep, which is a shame, since M&M looks like it works well once everything is all set up.

There is an easy fix to that though. If the game is easy in play but has rough char gen than just make the characters for the player. That way all they have to do is play ..

 

[Vocenoctum]

There is an easy fix to that though. If the game is easy in play but has rough char gen than just make the characters for the player. That way all they have to do is play ..

Some players don't mind pregen, other players would never tolerate such. When we tried C&C, I made all the characters since only I and the GM had the booms. Some players just tried to learn, others couldn't help tweaking as much as they could.

(M&M is a bit of a sidetrek to this thread though, we dropped it because of the sameness of things and because half the players hated the damage mechanic.)

 

[Gundark]

Iron Kingdoms. I found that people weren't willing to get past the mechs and guns and see the brillance of the setting

 

[SSquirrel]

I dunno, I played some Iron Kingdoms w/a friend. The whole steampunk angle does nothing for me and the setting just never inspired me. It was alright I guess, but definitely not my first pick.

 

[Vocenoctum]

Iron Kingdoms. I found that people weren't willing to get past the mechs and guns and see the brillance of the setting

I bought the first adventure and thouight it had the best art I've seen in an RPG product... and the adventure seemed to assume the players would follow it's path with no deviation. It wasn't a railroad in the sense that it didn't force the path, it just kind of assumed the players would figure this or that out at specific times... also it was missing a bit much.

I also got some supplement and the Monsternomicon, neither did much for me.

I can't see "looking past the mechs and guns..." though. If you're going to look past the stuff that makes the setting unique, then why bother playing it?

I think it's in that catagory of "games you have to like before you buy it". If you were thinking "I need D&D with mechs", then BAM, it's a great setting for you, but if you're just browsing settings it won't work as well.

 

[Victim]

If Unknown Armies isn't about violence and greed, I think you're doing it wrong.

Iron Kingdoms adventures: not a railroad? You mean like where the bad guy paralyzes the entire party with Hold Person (somehow, despite the fact that it can't hit multiple people) in a cutscene, then takes the MacGuffin? That's a classic railroad.

Why bother to "look past" the guns and steammechs of Iron Kingdoms? That's pretty much what differentiates the setting. You like it or you don't.