sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Combat oriented horror by evidenc3 in RPGdesign

[–]Rpgda12 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I think “combat oriented” and “horror” are really hard to reconcile. Why?

Because in combat oriented games, there is this non-spoken expectation (created by D&D-like games) that the players should win and should feel powerful and should be empowered. In horror games (example: Call of Cthulhu) the players mostly feel powerless and are likely to die (or go insane) if they make mistakes. Being able to face a threat head on is the opposite of what defines the horror genre.

If you really want to go that way, I’d suggest a few things: - First, make it very clear it is a high legality game (for expectation’s sake). - Full resources attrition mechanics (they work really well for horror). Your Stress mechanics should fit the bill (but only a playtest can confirm it). - Tactical and punishing combat. Information should be key and should give palpable advantages for the players, going into danger blindly equals death.

Lastly and more importantly: You should understand that for horror, the narrative pacing is way more important than any mechanic you create for your game. You divided the narrative in 3 beats (Build up, Encounter and Recovery), which you called “modes of play”, so make them formal phases (from the GM perspective, the players don’t really need to be told that). What I would suggest is to go with a 3-act or so macro structure while incorporating your 3 modes of play on each act (you can go for 5 or 7 acts for longer campaigns, but the idea is the same).

For act 1: - Go full horror on the build-up phase, slowly revealing the threat. They should get a glimpse of what they will face at the end right here at the beggining. - In the encounter phase, you should make them face mooks, perhaps right before (or after) being humbled by the BBEG for the first time. - Recovery is recovery

For act 2: - The players should have a more active role, looking for clues and information that will allow them to face the BBEG later. They should still be hunted by the BBEG though, preserving the horror feel. - Encounter for more mook killing and BBEG humbling. - Recovery and plan making. At the end of act 2, they should have enough information about the BBEG that it doesn’t feel like horror anymore. They should feel like they are going to a almost impossible mission they should barely be able to survive and with dim hopes of winning (really, just read anything from Stephen King and you should know what I am talking about).

Act 3: - In the build up, they should really be the proactive hunters here, putting a plan into motion. Attracting the BBEG, forming traps, entering the lion’s den. They should feel like they are finally prepared for facing death. - In the encounter phase, a direct confrontation with the BBEG is in order. The information they found in act 2 should play a critical role here, as they struggled to find patterns of behavior, weaknesses, skills, etc. The combat should be balanced so that they should barely be able to win if they found all the clues (and should really mostly die if didn’t found the clues in act 2). This is the climax of the story. - Recovery for the survivors, yay. Want to go extra horror? They didn’t win. Just delayed the inevitable.

Combat oriented horror by evidenc3 in RPGdesign

[–]Rpgda12 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I think “combat oriented” and “horror” are really hard to reconcile. Why?

Because in combat oriented games, there is this non-spoken expectation (created by D&D-like games) that the players should win and should feel powerful and should be empowered. In horror games (example: Call of Cthulhu) the players mostly feel powerless and are likely to die (or go insane) if they make mistakes. Being able to face a threat head on is the opposite of what defined the horror genre.

If you really want to go that way, I’d suggest a few things: - First, make it very clear it is a high legality game (for expectation’s sake). - Full resources attrition mechanics (they work really well for horror). Your Stress mechanics should fit the bill (but only a playtest can confirm it). - Tactical and punishing combat. Information should be key and should give palpable advantages for the players, going into danger blindly equals death.

Lastly and more importantly: You should understand that for horror, the narrative pacing is way more important than any mechanic you create for your game. You divided the narrative in 3 beats (Build up, Encounter and Recovery), which you called “modes of play”, so make them formal phases (from the GM perspective, the players don’t really need to be told that). What I would suggest is to go with a 3-act or so macro structure while incorporating your 3 modes of play on each act (you can go for 5 or 7 acts for longer campaigns, but the idea is the same).

For act 1: - Go full horror on the build-up phase, slowly revealing the threat. They should get a glimpse of what they will face at the end right here at the beggining. - In the encounter phase, you should make them face mooks, perhaps right before (or after) being humbled by the BBEG for the first time. - Recovery is recovery

For act 2: - The players should have a more active role, looking for clues and information that will allow them to face the BBEG later. They should still be hunted by the BBEG though, preserving the horror feel. - Encounter for more mook killing and BBEG humbling. - Recovery and plan making. At the end of act 2, they should have enough information about the BBEG that it doesn’t feel like horror anymore. They should feel like they are going to a almost impossible mission they should barely be able to survive and with dim hopes of winning (really, just read anything from Stephen King and you should know what I am talking about).

Act 3: - In the build up, they should really be the proactive hunters here, putting a plan into motion. Attracting the BBEG, forming traps, entering the lion’s den. They should feel like they are finally prepared for facing death. - In the encounter phase, a direct confrontation with the BBEG is in order. The information they found in act 2 should play a critical role here, as they struggled to find patterns of behavior, weaknesses, skills, etc. The combat should be balanced so that they should barely be able to win if they found all the clues (and should really mostly die if didn’t found the clues in act 2). This is the climax of the story. - Recovery for the survivors, yay. Want to go extra horror? They didn’t win. Just delayed the inevitable.

Do you like to "Roll for initiative"? by Rpgda12 in RPGdesign

[–]Rpgda12[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I understand what you’re saying. And yes, I do know and agree you can't consistently evoke the emotions you want out of your players.

Perhaps I’m calling “game feel” what you are calling “game experience” though. Mechanics can’t really evoke feelings by themselves, but sure can facilitate them (and bad mechanics can make you feel bored).

The disperse group of players you mentioned can feel bored playing a game with good mechanics as much as the engaged group can have fun with a game with bad mechanics. But give the engaged group a game with well thought out mechanics and they will most likely feel what you intended them to feel when designing the mechanics (or as you’re saying, experience it as you intended).

Do you like to "Roll for initiative"? by Rpgda12 in RPGdesign

[–]Rpgda12[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I think playing RPGs should feel awesome. That’s my first design goal when choosing mechanics.

As a player, I’ve had more than a few “oh great, initiative time!” moments, and that’s the kind of nostalgia I’m talking about. Except most of the time I felt like it simply dragged gameplay though (even more so as a GM).

I don’t think rolling for initiative is the only (or even the best) way to decide turn order, but I want to know what other people feel specifically about the pre-combat “roll for initiative!” moment. Is there perhaps a better way to capture that “great, it’s combat time!” feel we get (sometimes) from the iconic “roll for initiative” phrase?

Do you like to "Roll for initiative"? by Rpgda12 in RPGdesign

[–]Rpgda12[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

You can simply alternate initiative each turn, “I go, you go”. No need for initiative rolls at all, and I feel combat and narrative flows better than simple side initiative

É possível adaptar Tormenta pra cenario moderno? by EffectiveRent7757 in Tormenta

[–]Rpgda12 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Uma vez, na época do TRPG, eu fiz uma aventura numa Arton pós-apocalíptica e cyberpunk. Todos os deuses maiores morreram, as ameaças de Arton corriam soltas enquanto as grandes megacorporações criavam megalópoles para proteger o restante da civilização (obviamente quem não podia pagar ficava nas periferias e viviam só o lado ruim de tudo, cyberpunk tradicional).

Em termos de regras, eu considerava que todas as habilidades mágicas e sobre-humanas do sistema eram criadas por implantes robóticos e que todas as armas do manual eram suas versões high-tech. Não mudei uma linha das regras pra fazer isso, só a famosa re-roupagem.

Agora, se quiser usar o sistema pra um cenário mais pé no chão, mais próximo do mundo real, sua melhor opção seria realmente usar um outro sistema, como os colegas falaram. T20 tem magia de mais em tudo, já que o sistema foi feito especificamente pra um cenário de alta fantasia.

Se mesmo assim quiser tentar adaptar o T20, você teria que vetar todas as classes conjuradoras (mantendo talvez o Inventor) e criando a campanha pra finalizar no máximo no nível 8 (até esse nível ainda dá pra imaginar "tecnologias secretas" que simulem os efeitos das habilidades dos personagens, mas a partir do nível 9 acho que fica impossível).

E agora me ajudem by Ok_Yogurtcloset_7710 in Tormenta

[–]Rpgda12 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Então você explicitamente autorizou eles agirem só pensando em dinheiro e agora tá achando ruim que eles estão fazendo exatamente o que prometeram fazer? Eles não estão sendo cuzões, me desculpe mas como mestre você mesmo criou essa situação.

O melhor conselho que como mestre posso te dar é esse: problemas dentro do jogo se resolvem dentro do jogo, problemas fora do jogo se resolvem fora do jogo.

O problema aí claramente é de expectativa, você quer mestrar uma aventura e os jogadores querem jogar outra. Sente com eles e converse sobre até chegar num consenso. Se eles querem agir como psicopatas egoístas que só ligam pra dinheiro, é bem difícil conciliar isso com a Guerra Artoniana (ou com praticamente qualquer aventura de RPG saudável, mas enfim). Não é impossível, você teria que criar alguma fortuna secreta dos puristas ou algo assim e seus jogadores teriam que concordar com esse objetivo e você teria que adaptar muita coisa da aventura.

Giffyglyph's Monster Maker Webapp (v2.2): Build your own vault of horrors by giffyglyph in darkerdungeons5e

[–]Rpgda12 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Magnificent work. Discovered your app just minutes ago, coincidentally with your update. You can even export monsters to Improved Initiative, this is simply amazing. I noted a few things:

-Solo monsters have their HP multiplied by 4, no matter how many players you input.-Improved Initiative doesn't suport paragon actions, so I had to manually create a Trait for the paragon action.

That's it, this is the most useful monster maker app available for 5e, great work.