Quote from: BedrockBrendan;545202This hasn't been my experience with miniatures. If you get 8 miniute combats with them, congrats.

It comes from knowing the rules well and practice at playing the game.

IME people give up too soon on things they see as difficult (often unjustifibly), and they then mark them off as impossible. It's seldom a question of not being able to do it, but more an issue of not being willing to put in the practice to learn how to do it.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;545202This hasn't been my experience with miniatures. If you get 8 miniute combats with them, congrats.

Most of the combats I've played have been 30 minutes or less on grid or hex maps unless there are dozens of combatants, particularly difficult to hit or injure combatants in supers games, or lots of movement and a running battle involved.  Again, I don't think the real problem is miniature and grids but how long the players are taking to assess their options and applying complex rules to the situation.  There are ways to mitigate that without throwing out the map and markers ranging from stripping down the rules (ignoring details that you don't really care about) to demanding the players declare their actions in a timely manner or forfeit their turn.

Quote from: gleichman;545212It comes from knowing the rules well and practice at playing the game.

IME people give up too soon on things they see as difficult (often unjustifibly), and they then mark them off as impossible. It's seldom a question of not being able to do it, but more an issue of not being willing to put in the practice to learn how to do it.

Everyone I play with knows the rules. It has nothing to do with not understanding the game and everything to do with people slowing down to focus on stuff like tactics and moving their miniatures. Like I said, if you find it faster great. I have yet to see miniatures faster in practice.

Quote from: John Morrow;545213Most of the combats I've played have been 30 minutes or less on grid or hex maps unless there are dozens of combatants, particularly difficult to hit or injure combatants in supers games, or lots of movement and a running battle involved.  Again, I don't think the real problem is miniature and grids but how long the players are taking to assess their options and applying complex rules to the situation.  There are ways to mitigate that without throwing out the map and markers ranging from stripping down the rules (ignoring details that you don't really care about) to demanding the players declare their actions in a timely manner or forfeit their turn.

Most of my combats are under ten minutes though. With miniatures they invariably inch up to thirty. For me the hassle of rigging miniature play to be faster isn't worth if it I am getting what I want already without them. But I have done things like push for faster action declaration, and still find it takes longer than sans minies. If it is faster for you, great. But that isn't what I have found in over twenty of years of play.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;545215Everyone I play with knows the rules. It has nothing to do with not understanding the game and everything to do with people slowing down to focus on stuff like tactics and moving their miniatures. Like I said, if you find it faster great. I have yet to see miniatures faster in practice.

How quickly did you give up on trying?

I didn't get to where I can run battles like that overnight, nor did the group I was playing with. It took time to master it to such an degree that the tactics were second nature to everyone at the table- asking them to focus on tactics is like asking them to... oh fasten a velcro shoe.

I will say that the tactics in the game are those of mostly of maneuver, not resource management. And that might have an impact.



Edit: I should also say at this point that my typical run time per combat is higher than 8 minutes because people in my group enjoy spending lots of time considering their options and those of the other players and NPCs. A bit like chess players in that way. But if they want to move quickly- they can move very quickly indeed.

Quote from: gleichman;545222How quickly did you give up on trying?

I didn't get to where I can run battles like that overnight, nor did the group I was playing with. It took time to master it to such an degree that the tactics were second nature to everyone at the table- asking them to focus on tactics is like asking them to... oh fasten a velcro shoe.

I will say that the tactics in the game are those of mostly of maneuver, not resource management. And that might have an impact.

I haven't given up, i still use miniatures plenty. And when I do, i try to keep things moving as fast as possible. My preference is for play without miniatures that doesn't mean I don't use them or haven't gone through phases where I was using them all the time. I just find it is still slower. It might not be for you. If it isn't that is great. Bottom line is the fight feels more real to me when I am not using miniatures than when I am. I am not here to convince you to adopt my style. You should continue doing whatever works for you, as I will continue to do what works for me.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;545215Everyone I play with knows the rules. It has nothing to do with not understanding the game and everything to do with people slowing down to focus on stuff like tactics and moving their miniatures. Like I said, if you find it faster great. I have yet to see miniatures faster in practice.

He's actually talking about a 300 piece battle that took four hours to resolve.  Dividing things up into thirty 10-figure battles allows him to make it look like a bunch of little 8min battles, which looks more reasonable.

But don't forget, it was a 300 figure battle that took four hours, and that is with the claim that all the players were very familiar with the rules.  300 figures.  Four hours.  All combat resolution.  There is really no way to make the claim that was a role-playing game.  It is clearly a wargame with some amateur acting practice going on between huge set battles.

So, this lavish attention to detail must permeate the whole of Age of Heroes; the entire non-combat game is hours upon hours of contested task resolution rolls going back and forth, right?.

lolno!

QuoteSkill  resolution is done with d100, with various break points for quality of success  or its lack.

Mostly it's a pass/fail approach as I feel skill use is  something to get out of the way. There are also almost no social skills as I  feel those should be role-played.

In other words...

"Mother-may-I".

Quote from: gleichman;545222How quickly did you give up on trying?

I didn't get to where I can run battles like that overnight, nor did the group I was playing with. It took time to master it to such an degree that the tactics were second nature to everyone at the table- asking them to focus on tactics is like asking them to... oh fasten a velcro shoe.

I will say that the tactics in the game are those of mostly of maneuver, not resource management. And that might have an impact.

I'm not sure the 5e playtest documents support your contention...

Oh, that's right, you just picked this thread to shit on instead of starting one of your own.  Almost forgot.

Quote from: StormBringer;545226So, this lavish attention to detail must permeate the whole of Age of Heroes; the entire non-combat game is hours upon hours of contested task resolution rolls going back and forth, right?.

lolno!



In other words...

"Mother-may-I".

It could be a great game. I don't let these kinds of internet discussions color my enjoyment of rpgs. When I get some time (i am extremely back logged with my own material and games I have been meaning to try right now) i will definitely make an effort to pick it up and give it a try. I am often surprised how people I disagree with strongly online in debates about abstract concepts, often make or suggest games that I end up really liking.

Quote from: gleichman;545212It comes from knowing the rules well and practice at playing the game.

IME people give up too soon on things they see as difficult (often unjustifibly), and they then mark them off as impossible. It's seldom a question of not being able to do it, but more an issue of not being willing to put in the practice to learn how to do it.

Now who's playing the intellectual superiority card, mister? :rolleyes:

Quote from: Benoist;545232Now who's playing the intellectual superiority card, mister? :rolleyes:

Suggesting that players give up too soon rather than putting in the work to master a system is not a claim of intellectual superiority.  It doesn't require great intellect to learn a system to effectively be able to use it.  It takes effort.  not the same thing.  He's calling people lazy, not stupid.

OK point taken: it's not a claim of intellectual superiority, it's a claim that people other than Gleichman are just lazy. Same fucking bullshit, different context.

Quote from: StormBringer;545226lolno!



In other words...

"Mother-may-I".

I have you on ignore and normally wouldn't waste the effort to answer you, but since the above comment is about my game design, I'll make an exception.

Yes, the social skills in Age of Heroes don't exist by design, and it's a fact that is commented on by those familar with the system as highly uncommon in their experience.

It is my view that in social interactions (unlike combat) inconsistency is not out of character. Like people, NPCs are often inconsistent and even irrational. Thus having it simulated completely by an inconsistent GM is in fact a closer simulation than one can have mechanically. I have never seen nor be able to develop mechanics that produce acceptable result in this area.


It's also where role-playing comes most strongly into being IMO and the significant reason why Age of Heroes isn't a wargame (besides the fact that it includes neither scenarios nor victory conditions of course).

To a lesser extent, the same applies to the skill system. I've never found a way to properly reflect the choices presented to user of a non-combat skill to a player ("sand with grain!") in a concise and simple matter that's a meaningful as the system I present to simulate combat.

Quote from: Benoist;545238OK point taken: it's not a claim of intellectual superiority, it's a claim that people other than Gleichman are just lazy. Same fucking bullshit, different context.

Not really, and I think there is some truth to the laziness claim, though I can understand why people don't want to do work to engage in a casual hobby.  One  of the people I've long role-played with would run games for co-workers who would never role-play before.  He once complained that it was often difficult for him to even get them to apply modifiers and interpret a result as a pass or fail.  Quite a few of them simply wanted to roll a die, tell him a number, and have him tell them what it meant.  

I also think there can be rewards in system mastery.  My earliest Champions experiences were before I learned the rules.  I used characters built by someone else based on my character ideas and had the GM tell me what to roll and what it meant.  I hated it.  I bought the rules and sat down and learned them and there was a huge pay-off from it.  If I hadn't invested the time, I'd probably want nothing to do with the Hero System.  I've also seen both D&D 3.5 and the Hero System run quickly and smoothly so long as a lot of the players understand the system.

So in my experience, his claims are correct.

Quote from: John Morrow;545237Suggesting that players give up too soon rather than putting in the work to master a system is not a claim of intellectual superiority.  It doesn't require great intellect to learn a system to effectively be able to use it.  It takes effort.  not the same thing.  He's calling people lazy, not stupid.

I think he is assuming a lot about peoples' personalities though. If he thinks its faster and better to use miniatures, i am fine with that. But assuming people who dont share his opinion are lazy, simple or whatever else is pretty lame.