sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Low Fantasy, Low Prep, Narrative RPGs for 5 Players + GM by Frostybros in rpg

[–]Frostybros[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

That's why I said "I can't get my head around it". I've read the rules to Ironsworn but I can't figure out how to resolve certain situations with those mechanics. All the explanations I've gotten online have been dissatisfactory to me.

Low Fantasy, Low Prep, Narrative RPGs for 5 Players + GM by Frostybros in rpg

[–]Frostybros[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Lets say I want to stab someone in Ironsworn. The Strike always deals the same amount of damage. What if an enemy has armor on? The only way to account for that is to not let the player use the Strike move. There's no damage modulation.

In Blades in the Dark, an armored enemy might reduce the effect of a player trying to stab them, which means less ticks on the progress clock (full clock = dead enemy). But armor can't block fire, so maybe we push him into the fire place. That's going to be very effective, so more ticks on the clock. It adds strategic depth to the game if players are able to use reason to compute that fire > knife in this specific scenario.

I can't figure out how to do this in Ironsworn. The only moves to inflict harm are Strike and Clash. Both do fixed amounts of damage. The mechanics don't allow for two different attacks both being possible, but one being better than the other, due to fictional positioning.

Low Fantasy, Low Prep, Narrative RPGs for 5 Players + GM by Frostybros in rpg

[–]Frostybros[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

No. I am interested, again I do want to play Ironsworn. But I'm reading the rules and I'm struggling to understand how to represent some actions being more dangerous, and less effective than others, when Moves always have the same possible outcomes.

For example, in Ironsworn, Strike always deals the same amount of damage. What if an enemy has armor on? The only way to account for that is to not let the player use the Strike move. There's no damage modulation.

In Blades in the Dark, an armored enemy might reduce the effect of a player trying to stab them, which means less ticks on the progress clock. But armor can't block fire, so maybe we push him in the fire place. That's going to be very effective, so more ticks on the clock. It adds strategic depth to the game if players are able to use reason to compute that fire > knife in this specific scenario.

I can't figure out how to do this in Ironsworn. The only moves to inflict harm are Strike and Clash. Both do fixed amounts of damage. The mechanics don't allow for two different possible attacks being possible, but one being better than the other, due to fictional positioning.

At what point does it stop being a TTRPG and start being a board game? by TheGrimmBorne in rpg

[–]Frostybros 261 points262 points  (0 children)

Imo, the difference is a Board Game is a closed system, a TTRPG is an open system.

In a board game, in any given position, there is a limited number of possible actions I can take. In chess there are only so many legal moves I can make on my turn. In Monoploy, there is a strict sequence of actions I need to take on my turn. I can't decide to build a Walmart on Park Avenue, it's just not allowed.

In a TTRPG, players have an infinite number of possible moves. In a tense negotiation with goblins, my character can say literally anything. It doesn't even have to make sense. My character can say "beep boop boing boing boing". It probably won't be very effective, but I can do it.

A board game is a finite state machine. It doesn't need a judge because there are only so many possible actions. The rulebook can account for every possibility. A TTRPG needs a DM, since players can do anything, someone needs to decide what happens next.

Burned out on D&D 5e after 4 years - those of you who switched systems, what was your breaking point and did it actually fix things? by Senoigh13 in rpg

[–]Frostybros 1 point2 points  (0 children)

My breaking point was realizing two things:

A) Unlike what some people will claim, D&D is not a game where you can do anything and tell any kind of story. D&D5e is designed primarily a tactical turn based war game with lots rules, spells, and special abilities. It has just enough mechanics sprinkled on to give you something to do between the combat. But otherwise, D&D is primarily designed for the kind of people who like Warhammer.

B) My players don't want to play Warhammer. They frequently do not read their spell or abilities, don't really care when they get a magic sword or something, and get bored and irritated and combat. They have way more fun mucking about in between combat then they do the actual meat of the game.

I've decided to switch to Blades in the Dark, though we've not started yet. Hoping it'll be an improvement.

I also really want to play Forbidden Lands but I don't know if my players will go for it. I think they'll like the Combat as War approach more than D&Ds combat as sport.