Quote from: Opaopajr;970464What exactly are you railing against? :confused: At this point I am confused. Have you read Black Hack or its variants yet? :cool:

At this point, it's a subjective style argument about what constitutes a "traditional" RPG. Pundit doesn't know the system, but has evidently decided it is GM-unfriendly because it takes away his dice. He's concocted some other reasons since that one, but, at this point, it smells of someone who's made an utenable point, probably knows it is, but is bound and determined to back it up, anyway, by golly! (which sounds a lot like Sean Spicer's job description)

Whatever Pundit's reasoning, I find it ironic that he would determine, from one aspect, that a light systems like BH disempowers the GM. As a system with a lot to fill in, it reads as just the opposite. I mean, it's really just very basic characters, a set of attributes, simplified threat creation and item tracking. There's nothing in there about philosophy (no mention of the GM as a caddy for the players, nor a bow to letting "the fiction drive the action" [though, as a simple system, it probably does that, implicitly]. If anything, it sounds very much like an old-school, theater of the mind style of game, which would make it pretty traditional, with the exception of the dice-rolling mechanic. Taking Pundit's example of whether you can "GM fiat" a hit, well, nothing says you can't. Since the rolls function as saves, you can still easily use save for half damage (meaning you're going to get hit by the attack, either way). Of course, it doesn't say you CAN do that, but I don't think we need a GM "Bill of Rights" tacked on to assume the privilege of asserting authority.


One thing I neglected to mention (or think of) when I went off on my rant about Pundit being the pot calling kettle when it comes to casting aspersions on how to "properly" game, was the leveling mechanic BH uses to differentiate between monsters who are bigger threats, i.e., the +1 per level over the player level bonus to the die roll, making it tougher on the PCs. I think (though I could be wrong), that Pundit may have been making a point about the game not being fair to monsters, since it is player facing (or perhaps not being a proper challenge?). The bonus due to level differentiation would, for example, make an encounter with a dragon suicide (or very tough) for a low-level party. That is, if I interpreted the rule correctly.

In any case, I am not entirely sure I will run it, but I'm intrigued by the simplicity of the system. I would tack on my on usage system though, or rather copy DW's equipment protocols. Speaking of, you can pretty much port DW monsters over, as well, though you'd have to tack on levels to get some sort of scaling in there. Other than that, they're similar to BH monsters: Armor Rating, Damage Rating, Tags indicating special moves, etc. Pretty simple. And with a lot of space for GM creativity, thought, and judgment.

Quote from: RPGPundit;970416Is he? I mean Black Hack aside I have nothing previous for or against the guy. But what did he do? From what I could see, only the Black Hack itself, and Narcosa, which was a fucking lame wasted-opportunity product which only proved that (in spite of his 'bad boy' persona) he clearly knows fuck-all about actual drugs.


Was he a well known OSR guy before that? In what circles? Why? Was he some protege out of some micro-circle within the movement, like Raggi's, or Jmal's?
Or was he known in gaming outside the OSR? If so where? Storygaming?

At this point, it's starting to sound like an "East Coast/West Coast" OSR rap battle, albeit one-sided. Does it fucking matter what his credentials are? He made a game some people are interested in. From what I've gathered (which isn't much, mind you), the only thing he really gives a shit about is having something simple, flexible, and easy to run.

Quote from: RPGPundit;970416Is he? I mean Black Hack aside I have nothing previous for or against the guy. But what did he do? From what I could see, only the Black Hack itself, and Narcosa, which was a fucking lame wasted-opportunity product which only proved that (in spite of his 'bad boy' persona) he clearly knows fuck-all about actual drugs.


Was he a well known OSR guy before that? In what circles? Why? Was he some protege out of some micro-circle within the movement, like Raggi's, or Jmal's?
Or was he known in gaming outside the OSR? If so where? Storygaming?

He seemed to get a lot of attention when he was putting The Black Hack together, mostly on G+, I didn't know him either but saw people being excited that The Black Hack had 'finally' been released so he obviously did some effective online engagement during the design process.

Quote from: Voros;970543He seemed to get a lot of attention when he was putting The Black Hack together, mostly on G+, I didn't know him either but saw people being excited that The Black Hack had 'finally' been released so he obviously did some effective online engagement during the design process.

He also followed up with an addendum of options, clarification called "additional things."

Quote from: RPGPundit;970409Can the GM say "no, don't roll defense. The monster hits you"? Can he say "I'm going to roll, not you"? If not, he cannot maintain his traditional role.

I'm just not convinced by your argument that players rolling dice is anathema to traditional roleplaying, Pundie. It is interesting watching your regressive tendencies cause you to slowly scrabble your way further and further back up the history of roleplaying games. I look forward to your circa-2021 rants about how only swine would try to play an RPG anywhere except Dave Arneson's basement.

Quote from: cranebump;968905I think the main benefit is more player engagement. Makes it less about, "now watch me do stuff, everybody--I am dah GM!"

Can be effective, but relatively less important in classic versions of D&D where periodic saving throws serve to keep the players periodically mechanically engaged off-turn.

Quote from: CRKrueger;969533Free the GM...to do what?  Black Hack is such a simple system there's nothing to do.

If you can get your players up to speed in this type of system so that don't have to handhold them through every defense roll, I've found that it can be fairly effective when running large groups of opponents to quickly divvy them up: Two orcs are attacking you. Three orcs are attacking you. Make your defense rolls. (You need the right kind of players for this to work, however.)

More generally, I've found player-faced combat mechanics generally free me up to think about the next action of the NPCs and/or how NPCs near the combat are reacting to it while the players are taking care of the mechanical aspects.

(None of this applies specifically to the Black Hack, which I'm unfamiliar with.)

Quote from: ChristopherKubasik;970412Sidebar:
You removed initiative?
How'd that work?

Not OP, but with smaller engagements you can generally just have everyone declare their actions, resolve them simultaneously, and then figure out what happened. When I ran OD&D, I used a simple "PC outcome trumps NPC outcome" -- so if a PC's attack, for example, killed a goblin, then the goblin's attack for that round would be canceled even if they would have otherwise hit, but even that's not necessary.

This becomes increasingly difficult as the number of combatants increases, so I eventually instituted a phased combat round inspired by the Perrin Conventions to make things more manageable while still avoiding the use of an initiative system.

Quote from: Justin Alexander;970738More generally, I've found player-faced combat mechanics generally free me up to think about the next action of the NPCs and/or how NPCs near the combat are reacting to it while the players are taking care of the mechanical aspects.

(None of this applies specifically to the Black Hack, which I'm unfamiliar with.)

When I'd been running Savage Worlds with a group for awhile, I eventually just let players know the Parry and Toughness scores of opponents after the first attack. I also used minis with tokens to track Shaken and Wounded status. It meant that players could roll an attack, roll damage and apply it to the target on their own with no calculation on my part. As SW uses cards for initiative, I didn't even need to let people know when to go.

My imagination was free to focus on describing what was going on. I also found when NPC actions came up I was a little more on the ball creatively. It can be easy as GM during combat to just slip into number crunching mode. adjudicating everything coldly and efficiently. Having some time in each round where I could ignore mechanics helped avoid that.

The person running this website is a racist who publicly advocates genocidal practices.

I am deleting my content.

I recommend you do the same.

Quote from: cranebump;970496(which sounds a lot like Sean Spicer's job description)

Easy...we've ALL been warned, multiple times.  Take a lap.

Quote from: Baulderstone;970765When I'd been running Savage Worlds with a group for awhile, I eventually just let players know the Parry and Toughness scores of opponents after the first attack. I also used minis with tokens to track Shaken and Wounded status. It meant that players could roll an attack, roll damage and apply it to the target on their own with no calculation on my part. As SW uses cards for initiative, I didn't even need to let people know when to go.

My imagination was free to focus on describing what was going on. I also found when NPC actions came up I was a little more on the ball creatively. It can be easy as GM during combat to just slip into number crunching mode. adjudicating everything coldly and efficiently. Having some time in each round where I could ignore mechanics helped avoid that.

Yeah, I can see that. I also see Justin's point that in a big humanoid battle the kind D&D is famous for, having each player roll all the dice for their attackers at once can speed things up.  When running D&D, I pretty much ran it like you did, with players rolling their own attacks and having damage ready for me.  I can see new players maybe getting "into the zone" quicker with a system like this.

Quote from: CRKrueger;970899Yeah, I can see that. I also see Justin's point that in a big humanoid battle the kind D&D is famous for, having each player roll all the dice for their attackers at once can speed things up.  When running D&D, I pretty much ran it like you did, with players rolling their own attacks and having damage ready for me.  I can see new players maybe getting "into the zone" quicker with a system like this.

I do that all the time without any particular game mechanics for it.  In D&D 5E, for example, "All of you have two goblin archers attacking you.  Roll and attack against yourself with these modifiers.  If it hits, roll this damage.   Meanwhile, I'll handle what the other two goblins are doing, the burly one and the one with feathers in his hair."  I've done that with people that barely know how to roll their own attacks yet, and it causes a little confusion for a couple of minutes the first few times you do it.  After that, it's smooth as silk, and I can freely drop in or out of that mode as needed, even by the round.

Quote from: Opaopajr;970464Yes, very simply: GM just rolls damage. All you end up doing is skipping the defense roll. This is exactly like being struck and having "no save" (identical to D&D).

What exactly are you railing against? :confused: At this point I am confused. Have you read Black Hack or its variants yet? :cool:

Yes I have. And I'm railing against how for no good reason other than disempowering the GM, the GM is forbidden from rolling dice in combat.

Quote from: RPGPundit;971418Yes I have. And I'm railing against how for no good reason other than disempowering the GM, the GM is forbidden from rolling dice in combat.

How about we flip this, and you tell us why you think a GM should roll the dice? Is there a "good reason" for that? Because it really just seems like one method of task resolution. The Disempowerment argument makes no sense, because the GM still controls when dice rolls are made, and cannot control what comes up on the dice once they are rolled.

The way I see it, you have two arguments that have any weight:
(1) "I want to fudge dice behind a screen, and this only works when I am allowed to roll."
(2) "I own all these fucking dice and I intend to USE THEM!"

In both cases, you just skip the Black Hack. Or you just skip it anyway, without some philosophical rationale about how it disempowers GMs, because it just doesn't. It does take away the GM's dice, though, which, to me, is reason enough for folks to skip it, because most everyone likes to roll dice, including GMs. How else would you have those stories about "the red dice of doom" (which my players used to tell after a particularly lucky night of rolls for me using them). Beyond that, I can say that, having run without any dice rolls (outside random table rolls for dungeon/campaign stuff), I didn't feel one bit less in charge than I did with the dice. I did miss rolling sometimes, though.

Quote from: ArrozConLeche;964352There seem to be like  a gazillion supplements coming out for this. Has anyone here actually taken it for a spin? General thoughts on the experience?

Never even heard of it until I saw this thread. Unless I'm misunderstanding, it sounds like another version of D&D? I already have D&D and don't use it since I like other games better. From what I see in the forum I'm an outlier as I don't really understand the appeal of D&D and games based thereon.

Quote from: Dumarest;971440Never even heard of it until I saw this thread. Unless I'm misunderstanding, it sounds like another version of D&D? I already have D&D and don't use it since I like other games better. From what I see in the forum I'm an outlier as I don't really understand the appeal of D&D and games based thereon.

Pretty much is D&D, but really simplified. I'm an see using pasting elements of Dungeon World (equipment, monsters) into this basic mechanic, along with dumping the BH spells for Labyrinrh Lord or b/x ones. I guess I like the mechanic, and some of the other bits, but not necessarily the whole system. Then again, I'll likely run it to see how it works first. Only way to be fair.

Quote from: RPGPundit;969493Why? Because at least the latter is not going to be as anti-emulative.   Aside from the historical motivations behind the "let's take the GM's dice away" movement and it's origin from known pieces of shit that despised the GM's role for all kinds of stupid Swine motives there's also the problem that a system like the Black Hack creates a condition where it feels like the PCs are the only real thing, the only thing that matters, in the world.  The monsters have no influence except in terms of how they affect the PCs. Giving the players charge of all the rolling and basing all these rolls on their characters' stats makes everything else in the world feel like a facade.

Absolutely no argument there. I had a gamer in my group (for a time) that drank and gargled with that koolaid, and to this day, we could never get him to articulate exactly what his issue was with GMs and trust. Nobilis and Dogs in the Vineyard were his darling games, and he insisted on calling games by their author's title, rather than the trade name of the game. Just fricking odd. We stopped playing with him, and the problem nicely went away.

Hmmm, interesting point (re: the lack of immersion). And a complaint I've made about FATE in particular, though it doesn't share that particular rolling trait. I wonder if it's the more "game-ish" nature of the games you cite that leads to this. Player characters become the centre point by default in the system, enforced by the system, with the system revolving around their choices. Contrast with traditional games, where the same thing can happen to high level characters when actual challenges to their power become rare and/or contrived. There's probably a psychological component there worth looking into one day, if I'm ever that bored...