Y'know, I used to be vehemenently opposed to saves from PC spells because it seemed unnecessarily unfair. Instead of a floating AC, often changed by gear (and where money can buy resistance), Saves were the "fixed AC" that was nowhere near as easily modified by buying gear (lucky if you could stumble on magic items that improved them). So I know exactly where you are coming from in an immersive context.

Back then, I wanted magic to roll vs. AC just like 5e does now with most attack spells. I've since mellowed out and come to embrace the old way as a functioning logic unto itself.

However, since Black Hack's "Saves" (Defenses) are directly tied to Attribute stats, just like Attacks are, I don't have any reluctance left because they are working off the same pool of values. Granted it now becomes a game of trying to symmetrically Attack with your best stat, while Defend (Save) with your best stat, but I'm the GM and should know how to read your Attribute stats as In-Character perceivable strengths and weaknesses for NPCs to avoid that.

e.g. High DEX gun bunny needs to be challenged outside their quickly-obvious-to-others strengths.

Again, it becomes its own representational logic that works well for itself. And thus I can readily immerse as before!

Quote from: cranebump;974107Oh, good god, dumbass--when you play your fucking DCC game, you're also following "the structure mandated by the game designer."

When running DCC, it is explicitly understood the GM can do whatever the fuck he likes.

While you could in theory claim the same about the Black Hack, in practice "player-facing" and "GM never gets to roll" were both Storygamer inventions specifically designed to make it harder for the GM to do whatever the fuck he likes.

QuoteP.S. Black Hack isn't a story game, by the way. Remember that? The subject of the thread, that you conflated with the rest of your scary phantoms?

No, it's not a story game, but it makes use of mechanical concepts taken from the Storygamer/Forge movement.

Quote from: cranebump;974108Your imagination means less than flea shit, compared to the actual experience. But that's okay--tell us how your imagination on the beaches of Normandy is the same thing as dude who was there. I'll bet it's EXACTLY the same.:-/

Certainly not. But careful research on what went on during D-Day is enough to make me thank Kek that I didn't have to be one of the poor bastards that had to fight there.

Quote from: RPGPundit;975400No, it's not a story game, but it makes use of mechanical concepts taken from the Storygamer/Forge movement.

You've really managed to take your dogmatic paranoia to an even-more-hilarious-than-usual level, Pundie.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;974383The core system still functions the same, but there are corners where PCs and NPCs are operating differently.

Yeah. I'm not necessarily opposed to the idea of PCs and NPCs operating on the same mechanical chassis, but I've found that in most systems modeling NPCs with the detailed complexity of a PC is largely a waste of time that doesn't pay any meaningful dividends that are visible at the gaming table. Running OD&D and Numenera really served to remind me that "pick a number, there's your NPC" makes for really easy prep and improvisation.

I am curious, though, to see whether or not stat block discontinuity is perceived as the same sort of deal-breaker as dice-rolling discontinuity by those who find the latter objectionable and/or a dirty action of heresy by filthy traitors.

I played Marvel Saga it had the same approach. I prefer rolling dices and be part of the fun than giving target numbers like I am some sort of accountant.

Quote from: John Scott;975639I played Marvel Saga it had the same approach. I prefer rolling dices and be part of the fun than giving target numbers like I am some sort of accountant.

"I have fun rolling dice!" is an entirely valid reason to not like this system.

Quote from: Justin Alexander;975633Yeah. I'm not necessarily opposed to the idea of PCs and NPCs operating on the same mechanical chassis, but I've found that in most systems modeling NPCs with the detailed complexity of a PC is largely a waste of time that doesn't pay any meaningful dividends that are visible at the gaming table. Running OD&D and Numenera really served to remind me that "pick a number, there's your NPC" makes for really easy prep and improvisation.

This.

Quote from: RPGPundit;975400When running DCC, it is explicitly understood the GM can do whatever the fuck he likes.

I'll admit I don't know what a "story game" is aside from those little bags of dice with symbols on them that you can roll to prompt your imagination, but I always thought that in every RPG the GM can do "whatever the fuck he likes." Please tell me you don't wait for explicit consent from a game designers to have fun with your game in the way you enjoy it.

Quote from: RPGPundit;975400When running DCC, it is explicitly understood the GM can do whatever the fuck he likes.

While you could in theory claim the same about the Black Hack, in practice "player-facing" and "GM never gets to roll" were both Storygamer inventions specifically designed to make it harder for the GM to do whatever the fuck he likes.

Are you claiming that this single mechanical change somehow prevents the GM and players from using the Black Hack for playing a stripped down version of D&D, which the game is clearly intended to do? That seems unlikely.

Quote from: Baulderstone;975657"I have fun rolling dice!" is an entirely valid reason to not like this system.

As I said earlier, this is me.  I bought all these colouful things for the express purpose of using them when I run games.

Quote from: Baulderstone;975657"I have fun rolling dice!" is an entirely valid reason to not like this system.

As a gamer i am used to throw cards or dice at the table. A system designed not allowing me to do that felt unatural to me. I had some fun but probably the game wasn't meant for me.

I came from video games and CCGs, so dice were never a really big deal for me. Went to a distributor show, indulged in a few "Mug of Dice for a $1," never got around to buying dice again. (Was easily supplemented by gift bag goodies free dice, or 'orphans' on the street, at the end of shows, etc.)

For me, the artistry on the card or dice is appreciated, but not so great a burning desire to shuffle or roll them. I am a defective gamer.

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: Dumarest;975679I'll admit I don't know what a "story game" is aside from those little bags of dice with symbols on them that you can roll to prompt your imagination, but I always thought that in every RPG the GM can do "whatever the fuck he likes." Please tell me you don't wait for explicit consent from a game designers to have fun with your game in the way you enjoy it.

It isn't  just that many storygames explicitly state as a rule "the GM cannot just change the rules as written"; that would be bad enough, but obviously as you say it would be something that a GM could just ignore.

It's that one of the things storygamers have dedicated themselves to, in design terms, is to create rules that intentionally make it very difficult for the GM to just change whatever he likes. It is hard-wired into the rules that the GM can't just alter things, at least not without massively rewriting or simply throwing away such rules.

"Player facing" rules and players-only dice-rolling are some examples of that, because they remove the opportunity for the GM to just alter the rules, and create a sense of player entitlement, where they feel like they would be legitimately justified in objecting if the GM just altered the game.

Quote from: Voros;975709Are you claiming that this single mechanical change somehow prevents the GM and players from using the Black Hack for playing a stripped down version of D&D, which the game is clearly intended to do? That seems unlikely.

Not as such. But it does prevent the GM from having some of the same latitude to just DIY wing-it in terms of what dice mechanics he chooses to use, or if he simply chooses to fudge.
One of the reasons for the GM Screen was so the GM could roll dice and then not actually bother to even look at them.