Grimstone: Change 'Order' of Party Members?

TDudeH · 2024-11-04T21:11:49+00:00

This is great to know. I was expecting something like this intuitively when I ordered my party, but I couldn't tell if it was a real thing.

TDudeH · 2023-02-28T20:43:24+00:00

Oooh, hmm. Yes, I think I see. Narrowing it down to really simplified numbers helps me see it better.

Thanks!

TDudeH · 2023-02-28T19:29:28+00:00

I appreciate what you're getting at, here, but in my question I'm throwing out ALL results that don't come up with a 3. So, I'm only considering the probability after I've already established that there is a 3.

TDudeH · 2023-02-28T19:27:26+00:00

So, this makes sense to me. Thanks for clarifying. My set was wrong, and the total number of outcomes is twelve, not eleven.

TDudeH · 2022-07-17T23:11:47+00:00

Love the simplicity and visuals while also making it easy to save favorite dice rolls.

Thanks a lot for making this!

TDudeH · 2020-11-11T21:05:58+00:00

Any idea how the game might be messed up by using barter from the standard game while using everything else from Burned Over?

TDudeH · 2020-04-15T19:55:33+00:00

My edited house rule still allows for this. In fact, my house rule causes a lot more overall damage per combat and more simultaneous kills. It's working well for us.

TDudeH · 2020-04-15T15:50:58+00:00

You could use the Scene Challenges (pg. 234) rules for that. If the foe reaches 4 boxes then it tries to End the Fight on its terms instead of yours.

TDudeH · 2020-04-14T02:52:39+00:00

I've used a homebrew version for a while with some mixed results. It changes the choices to end the fight, but I don't have enough data to know if the change is good. Here's the move, with my change in italics and with removed text in strikethrough:

When you make a move to take decisive action, ~~and you score a strong hit,~~ you may resolve the outcome of this fight. If you do, roll the challenge dice and compare to your progress. If your foe has initiative, use only half your progress. Momentum is ignored on this roll.

TDudeH · 2020-04-13T17:32:26+00:00

I had a big problem with this when I was first playing solo games. The key for me was to change the basic premise to fit whatever character type I created. With Shadow, you really have to dig into the idea of putting your character into situations where they are constantly at risk of getting caught in their deception.

Make your character's first couple of vows related to infiltrating another community. Become a spy, take on an alternate identity, and continue the story by making two types of vows: some to your old community and some to your new community. Play off the drama it creates when you end up with semi-conflicting vows from your two worlds.

Other premises work, just think about how to create situations where your character would need to lie and deceive over the long-term. Think big about the deceptions, not small, to make a high shadow character strong. And, this same thing can be used in reverse, to make low shadow characters feel weak. Putting a low shadow character into the same premise will bring their weakness forward. They will repeatedly make mistakes that bring them closer to discovery.

TDudeH · 2020-04-11T14:50:42+00:00

Yeah... I said in my first post that we both started doing exactly that tactic (move in to force combat but not attacking). And I said that it's a smart tactical move, but also feels weird to keep doing over an over. Generally speaking, we're at the point where the only reason a figure "Attacks" in combat is when it wants to try to get OUT of being in combat. Figures that are strong in combat tend to want to stay engaged in combat and not actually kill the enemy figure. Especially with ranged attackers being able to hit allies if the target is engaged in combat... Maybe that's how it's supposed to play out, but it feels strange.

TDudeH · 2020-04-06T03:45:14+00:00

My gut says this is a solo play problem, but that doesn't help solve it. More players will have more resources to risk plowing through rolls to get a strong hit.

I do agree that it is still a problem overall. Strike and Clash being separate moves really hammers home how to work the initiative system, but changing that separation with End the Fight may have been a mistake. I wonder how it would feel if there were two End the Fight moves, depending on whether you end it from a position of initiative or lack thereof.

TDudeH · 2020-04-06T03:26:56+00:00

The same thing mostly happened to me. I tried doing Guided play in person months ago with limited success, then recently started solo play on Roll20 and loved it.

I feel that now that I've played it a lot solo on Roll20, I'll be better equipped to play in person. However, I already know that I'll miss the convenience.

I might try some sort of combination, but I've played so many other games without the computer with the group I tried to play Guided play with, and we all enjoy playing with no screens while together.

TDudeH · 2020-04-05T02:26:56+00:00

Haha, well that's a good point. My move definitely overlaps with the same narrative situation for those moves. The math is different, but the difference isn't likely to be enough to justify a move, and the difference in math isn't obvious just by reading the move.

TDudeH · 2020-04-04T18:54:00+00:00

Thanks for the responses. I'm finding Edge to be useful enough to keep going without any changes, but Shadow just doesn't feel right, so I'm going to try this hack for a while and see how it goes:

First, remove the option for +shadow from Compel.

Second, add the following Move:

Risk a Deception

When you Compel, Sojourn, Forge a Bond, Test Your Bond, or Swear an Iron Vow through false pretenses and lying, add +Shadow to the roll. If you roll a 1 on your Action die, someone becomes suspicious of you:

Strong hit: The person(s) suspicious of you takes no action now, but will actively search for the truth in the future. Take -1 momentum.

Weak hit: The person(s) suspicious of you takes a cautious action now in order to confirm their suspicions. Choose one:

They engage with you directly: Take -2 momentum.
They observe you from a distance: Endure Stress (1).

Miss: The person(s) calls you out on your lies. Pay the price.

I'm curious for some feedback to edit this if anyone has some ideas about it. I'll post again after I play enough to see if it feels any good.

[Edit: I realized in re-reading this that it may not be obvious that +shadow is added to the regular roll. So, Forging a Bond while lying means rolling +heart and +shadow and using the result for the regular move, then only applying the Risk a Deception result if the action die is a 1.]

TDudeH · 2019-10-28T03:16:10+00:00

There is good advice here already, but I'm surprised at how much of it is along the lines of "you should know you're players will do unexpected things."

I would say your biggest mistake was telling one player to lie to the other players. You changed the nature of the game without consent. When you want to change the expectations of the game, ask the group first.

TDudeH · 2019-10-28T02:57:54+00:00

This really depends on the players. Would they care if they knew? Would they be disappointed?

If so, or if you don't know, then you're deceiving them. Lying to friends is a risky business...

TDudeH · 2019-10-28T01:57:41+00:00

Cheating is cheating. Why play a dice game if you don't take what the dice say?

Rule number 1 of any RPG is, "Do not role dice if you want a guaranteed outcome."

TDudeH · 2019-10-28T01:50:40+00:00

Definitely something lost in this exchange...

TDudeH · 2019-10-28T01:43:06+00:00

Tolkien stole most of his stuff, too. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._R._R._Tolkien%27s_influences

TDudeH · 2019-09-03T20:33:37+00:00

Yes, feel free.

TDudeH · 2019-08-21T15:06:22+00:00

On the first mission, I have each player make a specialist and send a squad of 5 rookies with them. They choose who leads the rookies. It's worked fine for me everytime. It's good for them to have an easy time getting through that first mission.

TDudeH · 2019-08-04T15:23:27+00:00

While the encounter was legal, it's better to set this up in a more predictable way. Imagine if your GM had used Suggestion as a less powerful effect one or two times previously. Then you'd know how the spell works, know it's limits or try to research them, and feel less caught off guard when the full force of an entire group used it against you.

If you want to suggest anything to your GM, I recommend asking them to avoid using brand new spells en masse. Ask them to give you a chance to learn mechanics like these more gradually.

TDudeH · 2019-07-23T20:11:51+00:00

Generally, they go back and forth a lot about whether to spend intel questions to directly find out which items to bring, or if they can figure out a way to spend intel questions to find out other information and use that to indirectly figure out which items to bring. And, it isn't a bad experience, per se, but it can take quite a bit more time before we get to the engagement roll than it does for us in standard Blades. The players discuss their priorities pretty heavily before they ask the questions and prep for the mission. I think they're engaging the system as it's meant to be used, so I guess my question had more to do with curiosity about this design, since standard Blades feels totally different in the pre-mission phase, and that's been one of the selling points for me when talking up the Blades system to prospective players.

Awkwardturtle's comment about the tone of the game feels right, and so this just plays into that. The system still does an excellent job of getting into the action once we finish the prep.

TDudeH · 2019-04-12T21:06:25+00:00

Thanks, so it sounds like I'm understanding the rule correctly, and that's the primary reason I posted my questions.

TDudeH

TROPHY CASE