Quote from: PrometheanVigil;1054117It's annoying how much this shit is now read into. Like bro, that's some serious reading into what he said -- it's literally about "alllll the space marines and bodygloves".

But the fucked-up thing is that now we HAVE to read into this crap these days because these right and left fuckers hold virtual tea parties over godamm words, debating what was meant by "dude, we're gonna make burritos an edible item because burritos, dude". Not even sentences. Words. It's nuts.

Thats what my spidey sense automatically picked up at first hearing. But at the same time I am also aware that the goal of the game is to have one unified system where you can have retarded nonsensical party compositions as I noted above.

So how is it  in play?

Quote from: Ninneveh;1054106One could argue he means it in the way of being able to have an arbiter brushing shoulders with a space marine in a campaign, but it set my SJW spidey sense a tingling.

WEll of course you can do this in Wrath & Glory--because the beefy Arbiter is as strong and tough as a high school athlete while the Space Marine has the physique of a college freshman football player. That's how you show that everybody can fit in...by making them all suck.

Sure sounds like crap.

...anyone actually had any play experience?

I've enough 40k RPG to play for several decades but I'll pick this up too if it plays well.

I've played the Quickstart. It was fun. It was everything I hoped Mutant Chronicles would be, but with a simpler d6-based system.

Quote from: Azraele;1053842I know the game has the same signs of lazy storygaming mass-consumer garbage design that makes me hesitant to even call it an "RPG" (Fail Forward, "roll for drama", player meta-currencies...)

What exactly is wrong with "fail forward" (besides the name already being business world jargon)? In theory it sounds like a common sense guideline. Since the point of a game is to have fun, then failing a roll should have interesting consequences rather than uninteresting consequences. This is basic principle of, say, Go Fish: if someone does not have the card you need, you draw another.

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales;1054358What exactly is wrong with "fail forward" (besides the name already being business world jargon)? In theory it sounds like a common sense guideline. Since the point of a game is to have fun, then failing a roll should have interesting consequences rather than uninteresting consequences. This is basic principle of, say, Go Fish: if someone does not have the card you need, you draw another.

It antithetical to pretending to be a character within a setting. Like in life (and fiction) character don't succeed all the time when the outcome is in doubt. The failure is just that failure then you move on to the next attempt or come up with a new plan. Just like as if you were really there as the character.  In contrast failing in Wrath & Glory means that you suffer a wound or some other consequence but it never means that you will fail to find whatever the next part of the adventure that the referee has in mind.

It railroading the adventure to a preordained outcome. Using the example of the example of the webcomic the referee decided that the next step had to be the party arriving at the steel gate of the mining station.

An alternative and what I would do (based on the webcomic) example the consequence of failing the survival check would not been the group wandering around aimlessly (well from their PoV that would be the result) rather I would have a sense of what could found in the region and the group would encounter that instead. The adventure would proceed from that point provided that there isn't other factors like incompetence or very bad luck that results in death. It could that they get totally side tracked and never bother arriving at the gate of the mining station.

Often it not a source of frustration as it result in a new and unexpected adventure for the players to experience as their characters. In most cases they deal with the unexpected circumstances and eventually make their way finally back to where they were going in the first place.

I don't need a game designer to come up with a fail forward mechanic to tell me how to do that. One just need to keep in mind that with setting we are talking about entire worlds here with all the diversity that implies. There something nearly everywhere that can be interesting if presented well.

As illustrated here.

Quote from: estar;1054369It antithetical to pretending to be a character within a setting. Like in life (and fiction) character don't succeed all the time when the outcome is in doubt. The failure is just that failure then you move on to the next attempt or come up with a new plan. Just like as if you were really there as the character.  In contrast failing in Wrath & Glory means that you suffer a wound or some other consequence but it never means that you will fail to find whatever the next part of the adventure that the referee has in mind.

It railroading the adventure to a preordained outcome. Using the example of the example of the webcomic the referee decided that the next step had to be the party arriving at the steel gate of the mining station.

An alternative and what I would do (based on the webcomic) example the consequence of failing the survival check would not been the group wandering around aimlessly (well from their PoV that would be the result) rather I would have a sense of what could found in the region and the group would encounter that instead. The adventure would proceed from that point provided that there isn't other factors like incompetence or very bad luck that results in death. It could that they get totally side tracked and never bother arriving at the gate of the mining station.

Often it not a source of frustration as it result in a new and unexpected adventure for the players to experience as their characters. In most cases they deal with the unexpected circumstances and eventually make their way finally back to where they were going in the first place.

I don't need a game designer to come up with a fail forward mechanic to tell me how to do that. One just need to keep in mind that with setting we are talking about entire worlds here with all the diversity that implies. There something nearly everywhere that can be interesting if presented well.

As illustrated here.

There's absolutely nothing wrong with writing or playing a game that way. They arrived at the mining station because that's where they wanted to go. A failed roll should have consequences but not prevent characters from getting to what's interesting. That doesn't mean a side encounter would be bad, but repeatedly flubbing rolls and freezing to death for "muh realisms!" is simply obnoxious to me. If that works for others, awesome! I just wouldn't play in such a game.

Quote from: Alderaan Crumbs;1054379There's absolutely nothing wrong with writing or playing a game that way. They arrived at the mining station because that's where they wanted to go. A failed roll should have consequences but not prevent characters from getting to what's interesting. That doesn't mean a side encounter would be bad, but repeatedly flubbing rolls and freezing to death for "muh realisms!" is simply obnoxious to me. If that works for others, awesome! I just wouldn't play in such a game.

I wouldn't play in the type of game you're describing. And I'm not an idiot: this "muh (whatever)!" bullshit needs to fucking die. It's not even an argument, it's you mocking something you both don't like (a matter of taste) and don't understand (a matter of your own cognitive failings).

You want a pre-ordained outcome based on player desires. I want the dice to simulate the character's skills in a measurable way to reinforce the integrity of the game's imagined reality. I want that because I've had it your way and I hated it; there was nothing genuine about the danger characters faced, no real consequence. It was trash, I loathed, and continue to loath, the whole concept. The entire design is rooted in the turgid confines of personal vanity and irrevocably taints anything it touches unless totally excised from principle.

You want that poison in your game? Cool fine whatever. Drink your filth. But those of us who don't eagerly gulp down that putrid slime aren't simpletons; we're demanding something better. And in this case, that demand is going to manifest as a significant chunk of gamers who would have laid their boogey-dollars down on this game not bothering. I can only hope it's a metric fuckload of us, so that we can finally get an "inclusive" 40k game that's as worth playing as Dark Heresy or, god help me, Zwiehander.

Quote from: Azraele;1054382I wouldn't play in the type of game you're describing. And I'm not an idiot: this "muh (whatever)!" bullshit needs to fucking die. It's not even an argument, it's you mocking something you both don't like (a matter of taste) and don't understand (a matter of your own cognitive failings).

You want a pre-ordained outcome based on player desires. I want the dice to simulate the character's skills in a measurable way to reinforce the integrity of the game's imagined reality. I want that because I've had it your way and I hated it; there was nothing genuine about the danger characters faced, no real consequence. It was trash, I loathed, and continue to loath, the whole concept. The entire design is rooted in the turgid confines of personal vanity and irrevocably taints anything it touches unless totally excised from principle.

You want that poison in your game? Cool fine whatever. Drink your filth. But those of us who don't eagerly gulp down that putrid slime aren't simpletons; we're demanding something better. And in this case, that demand is going to manifest as a significant chunk of gamers who would have laid their boogey-dollars down on this game not bothering. I can only hope it's a metric fuckload of us, so that we can finally get an "inclusive" 40k game that's as worth playing as Dark Heresy or, god help me, Zwiehander.

That's your opinion and I respect and defend your right to have it. Also, I dig what I've read about your upcoming martial arts game. Kudos!

Oh, "muh (whatever)!" certainly isn't an argument, but it's funny.

Quote from: Alderaan Crumbs;1054384That's your opinion and I respect and defend your right to have it. Also, I dig what I've read about your upcoming martial arts game. Kudos!

Oh, "muh (whatever)!" certainly isn't an argument, but it's funny.

Dammit Alderaan, stop being so goddamn nice. I'm in a bad mood and I was trying to be an asshole god

Quote from: estar;1054369I don't need a game designer to come up with a fail forward mechanic to tell me how to do that. One just need to keep in mind that with setting we are talking about entire worlds here with all the diversity that implies. There something nearly everywhere that can be interesting if presented well.

I agree with you that railroading is lazy, but I disagree with your overall point and consider your argument hypocritical because what you are saying is that:

• the concept of failing forward is automatically bad because bad GMs will use it to railroad their campaigns, even though that does not logically follow
• you simultaneously consider the philosophy behind failing forward to be common sense, because as GM you turn failure into another path of the Choose Your Own Adventure book

Quote from: Alderaan Crumbs;1054379There's absolutely nothing wrong with writing or playing a game that way. They arrived at the mining station because that's where they wanted to go. A failed roll should have consequences but not prevent characters from getting to what's interesting. That doesn't mean a side encounter would be bad, but repeatedly flubbing rolls and freezing to death for "muh realisms!" is simply obnoxious to me. If that works for others, awesome! I just wouldn't play in such a game.

Me: (Playing Imperial Guardsmen Tannenberg) so I hop on the transport and head back to Capital. In the guise of making a formal report. I arrive at an audience with the Emperor and shoot him. Then assume the throne.

Ross: (The GM) That virtually impossible! OK roll the DN 25.

Me: (Rolls and fails badly) OK so I succeed in becoming Emperor although half my body had to be replaced by bionics and 3/4 of the empire lies in ruins after the ensuing civil war and I am now sterile and can't produce an heir except by cloning. But damn I am now the Emperor.

Substitute any number of intermediate steps (realistically it will be a lot) but this is the implication of fail forward. Either the referee or players can set a preordained result and they will achieve it.

This

Quote from: Alderaan Crumbs;1054379That doesn't mean a side encounter would be bad, but repeatedly flubbing rolls

!= (not equal) this

Quote from: Alderaan Crumbs;1054379and freezing to death for "muh realisms!" is simply obnoxious to me.

A fair referee would look at the base skill levels of the character and if they considered professional in survival then unless a improbable series of rolls occur, a determined party will be delayed not die. However if the party consist of nothing of urban dilettantes with minimal skill in survival then yes the likely outcome is death and the blame is not on the referee but on the players for trying to execute a plan that their characters are utterly unprepared for. Just as in my example Tannenberg wouldn't get far in his coup attempt and would likely be imprisoned, tortured, and then executed in short order.

What is the experience here? There is no challenge, no risk, no chance that the ultimate outcome will be anything but what was previously planned. And if you as a referee think that it is stupid that the party get lost, possible die, and get derailed from reaching the gate of a mining camp, why are you having them roll in the first place? Especially when it clear that Varkus the Space Marine is competent in survival.

Last why bother with having such a mechanic in the first place? The referee in tabletop roleplaying game always had the ability and authority to skew the results however they want. Just because the game designer deigned to allocate some word count giving permission to railroad, referees have been railroading since the beginning of the hobby. Just call for it what it is, using Wrath and Glory one is encourage to railroad the outcome of a roll. That you will always achieve the result, the roll is just to see how it was achieved.

In short this railroading dressed in the Emperor's New Clothes.

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales;1054387the concept of failing forward is automatically bad because bad GMs will use it to railroad their campaigns, even though that does not logically follow

Read my post again, my main thesis was that it antithetical to pretending to be a character within a setting. Not whether bad referee will abuse it. In a follow up post, I demonstrated how a player can use the mechanics as a form of wish fulfillment that would otherwise be impossible.

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales;1054387you simultaneously consider the philosophy behind failing forward to be common sense, because as GM you turn failure into another path of the Choose Your Own Adventure book

Again setting are worlds with all their inherent possibilities. What I advocate is that referee consider fully the environment in which the characters exist. That often what seems like a result of death or total failure isn't quite that. I stated numerous times when talking about sandbox campaigns that a referee job isn't to always pick the most probable outcome but to look among the possible outcome and choose one that is most interesting. That also it is a good idea to pick several possible outcome and roll to see which one occurs to minimize one's own bias.

It not hypocritical all although on the surface both what I stated and fail forward gets the character to the mining gate. The difference that fail forward will always get the players to mining gate. While my technique will sometimes (but not always) result in the playing alter their decisions. In rare cases they will opt to ignore the gate and mining camp in favor of a new goal.

You bring up choose your own adventure. These books have choices true but they all prescripted. What I do instead is paint a landscape both physically, and socially. It is a canvas on which the player's choices play out on. As many degrees in a compass that how many options the players have at any given moment. It only looks like a AB style alternate path in hindsight as one looks back in see how the consequences of different choices led to what happened.