This is a site for discussing roleplaying games. Have fun doing so, but there is one major rule: do not discuss political issues that aren't directly and uniquely related to the subject of the thread and about gaming. While this site is dedicated to free speech, the following will not be tolerated: devolving a thread into unrelated political discussion, sockpuppeting (using multiple and/or bogus accounts), disrupting topics without contributing to them, and posting images that could get someone fired in the workplace (an external link is OK, but clearly mark it as Not Safe For Work, or NSFW). If you receive a warning, please take it seriously and either move on to another topic or steer the discussion back to its original RPG-related theme.

The Most Complicated RPG You Ever Played

Started by RPGPundit, June 16, 2013, 05:33:26 PM

Previous topic - Next topic
Print
Go Down Pages 1 ... 7 8 9 10 11 ... 15
User actions

Rincewind1

#120
June 23, 2013, 12:23:12 PM
Quote from: James Gillen;664675Wonder what the Gorn Marines would look like.

jg



Duh. That shameful shameful Lucas :D.
Furthermore, I consider that  This is Why We Don\'t Like You thread should be closed

taustin

#121
June 23, 2013, 03:34:13 PM
Quote from: Shawn Driscoll;664936Traveller 5.  It challenges you to make it into an RPG first in order to play it.  If it wins any awards, it'll be for that.

"It's not a roleplaying game, it's a toolkit."

"Then why does the introductions say it's a roleplaying game with everything you need to play?"

So far, the greatest amusement value is watching the fanwank trying to admit it isn't badly broken.

David Johansen

#122
June 23, 2013, 04:33:43 PM
I'm having trouble parsing that last sentance.

I'll have to run it myself to decide if I think it's badly broken.

There's things that bother me but I'm not sure they're important.

I don't know.  It's too big.  I don't love the combat system.  I love the maker thingies.  Especially the little online version roboject wrote.

Starship combat seems poorly explained, barely getting more than a sequence and a stack of charts.

The notion that it would be a good starting point for a new player is the funniest idea I've heard in a long time.
Fantasy Adventure Comic, games, and more http://www.uncouthsavage.com

Bill

#123
June 23, 2013, 06:06:17 PM Last Edit: June 23, 2013, 06:13:14 PM by Bill
Quote from: Brad J. Murray;664748I used to think that was the pinnacle until I played _Attack vector Tactical_ and discovered that firing a single torpedo was more complex than whole games of SFB.

Does it attempt to apply real physics?

Bill

#124
June 23, 2013, 06:11:51 PM
Quote from: taustin;664570We played a F&E campaign for a while, using SFB for all the combats. Yeah, we had some spectacular moments. We had a battle at a battle station, with several dozen ships on each side, mostly small (destroyers, frigates and pseudofighters), with a lot of nitpicky sniping, until somebody concentrated fire on something fairly large and blew it up, just as the fleets were meeting up. That started a chain reaction that took out everything on both sides (including the battle station), except one lone cruiser, that had no shields on any side, and about three excess damage boxes left.

But the most memorable one was the one time that somebody got to use a fully equipped Kzinit SSCS, and deploy everything, and get every drone on the map at the same time. Must have been 500 or more drone counters. Covered the entire map. Then, on the far end of the map, somebody else blew up a ship that turned out to be the target for all of them, and the Kizint player spent about a half an hour picking up counters before we could continue.

And the guy who figured out how to really work the campaign rules with the Fed fighters. IIRC, 1:6 of fighter pilots were aces, and 1:6 of those were legendary aces, or something like that. So he transferred all the legendary aces to the same carrier, and used them to clear mindfields. Cuz he got free production on a certain number of fighters every turn, and the legendary ace pilots always come back.

I love the name "Space Control Ship"   Essentially a super heavy carrier that also has six gunboats docked to it.

Kuroth

#125
June 23, 2013, 07:02:54 PM
This talk of Star Fleet Battles make me want get out my box of Star Trek: Starship Tactical Combat Simulator.  Pretty ok wargame/boardgame hybrid.  I have been long since, like many many years, tired of Star Trek too.

dungeon crawler

#126
June 23, 2013, 07:49:13 PM
Aftermath. it was complex but I like it.
 FTL:2448 also complex but again I like it.
 D&D called 4th edition complex and I didn't/don't like it.
 Gurps love their source books can't get into the rule set.
 I haven't played T-5 yet. I think that one can wait a while. I hear it is not the greatest version ever.

TAFMSV

#127
June 23, 2013, 08:48:41 PM
Quote from: Bill;665050Does it attempt to apply real physics?


Yeah.

Here's a tutorial video:
http://vimeo.com/65649481

taustin

#128
June 24, 2013, 03:25:13 AM
Quote from: David Johansen;665025I'm having trouble parsing that last sentance.

Which word don't you understand?

Quote from: David Johansen;665025I'll have to run it myself to decide if I think it's badly broken.

After 30 years of gaming, I won't.

Quote from: David Johansen;665025There's things that bother me but I'm not sure they're important.

Thinks like:

  • An example of how to use various skills for interpersonal interactions (you know, stuff that most games would expect you to . . . roleplay) that involved several dozen die rolls, while at the same time

  • Having no provision for tracking ammunition, because

  • No matter how long the running gun fight continues, including running naked through the swamp for days, you always have enough ammo

  • Unless the GM says otherwise, which he could just as easily do before the gunfight actually starts

  • And in a melee combat, apparently, the more opponents you are fighting, the more likely you are to win.

Quote from: David Johansen;665025I don't know.  It's too big.  I don't love the combat system.  I love the maker thingies.

Except for the missing parts (like small craft).

Quote from: David Johansen;665025  Especially the little online version roboject wrote.

It does have some charms.

Quote from: David Johansen;665025Starship combat seems poorly explained, barely getting more than a sequence and a stack of charts.

The notion that it would be a good starting point for a new player is the funniest idea I've heard in a long time.

Yeah. And that's the point: it says in the introduction that it's not a good starting point, not a toolkit, no, it's a complete game ready to play.

taustin

#129
June 24, 2013, 03:26:29 AM
Quote from: Bill;665050Does it attempt to apply real physics?

I'm not going to spend $50+ for a good laugh, but it says it does (in 3 dimensions, no less).

Of course, with fewer than four ships, 3D is pointless, but it looks like it's meant for (at least sometimes) more than that.

taustin

#130
June 24, 2013, 03:27:43 AM
Quote from: Bill;665053I love the name "Space Control Ship"   Essentially a super heavy carrier that also has six gunboats docked to it.

That's Super Space Control. Ship. Fully loaded, with usable (speed 32) drones, it was several thousand BPV. We rarely played with more than a tenth of that.

taustin

#131
June 24, 2013, 03:31:34 AM
e
Quote from: Kuroth;665062This talk of Star Fleet Battles make me want get out my box of Star Trek: Starship Tactical Combat Simulator.  Pretty ok wargame/boardgame hybrid.  I have been long since, like many many years, tired of Star Trek too.

And I'm suddenly thinking of Star Fleet Battle Manual. Never play that game with someone who can judge distance by eye, to a fraction of an inch, from a distance of 20 feet. Transporter bombs materializing on the ship silhouette. Not on the card, on the silhouette itself.

Shawn Driscoll

#132
June 24, 2013, 03:42:43 AM Last Edit: June 24, 2013, 03:49:42 AM by Shawn Driscoll
Quote from: taustin;665129
  • An example of how to use various skills for interpersonal interactions (you know, stuff that most games would expect you to . . . roleplay) that involved several dozen die rolls, while at the same time

  • Having no provision for tracking ammunition, because

  • No matter how long the running gun fight continues, including running naked through the swamp for days, you always have enough ammo

  • Unless the GM says otherwise, which he could just as easily do before the gunfight actually starts

  • And in a melee combat, apparently, the more opponents you are fighting, the more likely you are to win.

I like that NPCs in Traveller 5 cannot be killed by pistols.  And how you can punch six NPCs in the face at the same time.  Round-house punch I guess.
Quote from: taustin;665129it says in the introduction that it's not a good starting point, not a toolkit, no, it's a complete game ready to play.
Traveller 5 is being advertised in online stores as the Ultimate version of Traveller, etc, etc.  False advertising for sure.  Heads will roll in a few months about this game.  Right now, it's still an edition war going on before this disaster of a game is even known to everyone.

Kuroth

#133
June 24, 2013, 04:52:45 AM
Quote from: taustin;665132e

And I'm suddenly thinking of Star Fleet Battle Manual. Never play that game with someone who can judge distance by eye, to a fraction of an inch, from a distance of 20 feet. Transporter bombs materializing on the ship silhouette. Not on the card, on the silhouette itself.

That the players can use their actual physical talents as an edge in the game is sort of cool.  You see, this is how I get drawn into one of these games! ha

Shawn Driscoll

#134
June 24, 2013, 05:05:17 AM
Quote from: Kuroth;665147That the players can use their actual physical talents as an edge in the game is sort of cool.  You see, this is how I get drawn into one of these games! ha

Me too.  And it progressed into Car Wars.  Trying to get an RPG character like me into the car.
Print
Go Up Pages 1 ... 7 8 9 10 11 ... 15
User actions