I can't remember if this thread has been done here before, so I figured I'd start one:
I am currently running C&C. It's a political game set in a fantasy world going through the 30 Years' War. So far it's going very well and we meet weekly.
The world's website, which I will continue to pimp regardless of how many people dont care, is here (http://www.joewolz.com/malbatil-old/).
I'm currently involved in playtesting a new mechanic for a friend, which involves playing the game in several genres. The last time we gamed, it was a pulp-inspired sci-fi realm with some blatant Star Wars ripoffs.
The mechanic is a dice pool where you can gain benefits by choosing not to roll some of your dice, either multiple actions or lower difficulties. (I thought it was an interesting take on keeping dice pools to a minimum.) I also like the fact that there are two types of success possible with every roll that can be "mixed, matched and countered" (my words) to give both the character and the player an ability to skillfully manipulate the outcome.
I'm also trying to get something going with In Harm's Way. Expect a review soon! :)
Just started a Mecha versus Kaiju game on Mekton II this past weekend. Wheeee!
I'm not GMing squat. Maybe I can keep it that way for a while.
I rotate through a number of campaigns.
1. Age of Heroes- Middle Earth epic fantasy in mid-Third Age.
2. Shadowrun- Using HERO System rules and a complete reconstruction of the setting.
3. Deadlands- Weird West, uses the classic rules with significant house rule changes and again a complete reconstruction of the setting.
4. Superheroes- HERO System. A Marvel re-imagining as it were.
5. Morrow Project- Using HERO System rules and a complete reconstruction of the setting.
Currently we've just completed a set of Deadlands and are moving back to Shadowrun.
They'll all part of the same timeline by the way :)
I saw from your homepage that you're into deadlands Brian. It doesn't particularly strike me as an obvious choice for you, given your tastes. What do you see in it?
I'm guessing you'll be passing on the Savage Worlds version though:D
Quote from: Mr. AnalyticalI saw from your homepage that you're into deadlands Brian. It doesn't particularly strike me as an obvious choice for you, given your tastes. What do you see in it?
You're quite correct in that there a large number of things in Deadlands that I generally consider game breaking.
Dice Pool mechanics.
Fate Chips.
Very weak niche protection
Broken and unrealistic rules.
Terrible and unneeded changes to history in the setting
It's a complete waste on the pure mechanics level.
It has real favor however. The poker chips and cards are wonderful for invoking the feel as are many of the monsters and the published adventures. The core concept of a "Weird West" is pure magic. Plus it has the advantage that I know of no other western ruleset that's really any better although I haven't looked at some of the newer ones yet.
So I used the house rules you noticed to correct the worse problems (that could be corrected with rather simple changes), and just live with the rest.
It's the least serious of our campaigns (we mostly run the published adventures), and frankly is showing the most problems as the characters advance. This may in the future be campaign breaking and we'll either have to port the whole thing to another system or give it up.
Quote from: Mr. AnalyticalI'm guessing you'll be passing on the Savage Worlds version though:D
Yes indeed, I saw nothing of interest there.
My character has been playing D&D, about halfway through the Age of Worms Adventure Path campaign, unfortunately I've been on holiday the last 3 game sessions so I've not been playing anything.
I've mostly been reading "Path of Tears" the Star Viking Sourcebook as I'm considering running Traveller: The New Era.
I believe when I join the group next week we shall be playing a homebrew system for Cyberpunk, perhaps followed by Deadlands in a couple of months.
I'm currently running two games of In Harm's Way, with a third game of IHW holding station while we finish the first.
The first game is face to face, with six players, though we started off with three. This game is set in the US Navy, starting in 1799. All the players started off with a lieutenant or master's mate and a petty/warrant officer as well as a seaman character in Troupe Play. We went through the Quasi-War with France, where two of the PCs distinguished themselves, then went into the First Barbary War in 1801. The two characters I mentioned before cranked it into overdrive by capturing a small Algerian port, and were promoted to Master Commandant in 1802. The current year, 1803, two other PCs were promoted to MC - the other initial player in four years, the other in two with the most astonishing and brave action I have ever seen, blowing up two Algerine Xebec-Brigs and capturing a tribute Cutter from the harbor at Benghazi with six men - the crew of a Jolly boat. The other two lieutenants have enough seniority and Notice for a command, so I gave them a schooner and the captured cutter. Now they all have their own ships and are forming a flying squadron. One of the two seniormost PCs may have precipitated a war with Britain before its time. We'll see how that turns out...
The other game is set in the Royal Navy in 1795 and is written up in Actual Play here (http://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?t=281242). This game, the PCs are young 13 year old Midshipmen, still learning the ropes. The game is far lower in power and responsibility - Middies are just kids, though officers, and Lieutenants are like unto gods to them, let alone Master Commandants. In this game they are learning how to be officers and gentlemen, earning the right to be Lieutenants. They are stationed in Port Royal Jamaica, and are harrying the French around Haiti - called San Domingo at the time.
-mice
I'm just finishing up our D&D campaign here, since I'm getting ready to head back to the states. I really want to do at least a one-shot of In Harm's Way before I go, though.
What's In Harm's Way?
Also, Gabriel, that game sounds freakin awesome!
Quote from: joewolzWhat's In Harm's Way?
Napoleonic era naval combat, with an excruciatingly detailed and documented world. :)
Quote from: VellorianNapoleonic era naval combat, with an excruciatingly detailed and documented world. :)
What he said. Here's a link (http://www.rpgnow.com/product_info.php?products_id=7437). I hope to have my review done by week's end.
Quote from: joewolzWhat's In Harm's Way?
In one word, GREAT.
We started Tekumel, but it seems that September is thoroughly packed with other events, so I'm out the rest of the month. At least October is clear.
Gauntlet: Savage Worlds (tomorrow) otherwise, nowhere near enough gaming.
Currently playtesting: "Death Knell of a Small Town"
It's going good.
I'm running a game of HeroQuest set in Dark Ages Britain. That's been put on hold for a few weeks while Claire gets married and has her honeymoon (some people are so inconsiderate).
Meanwhile, we're playing In Nomine. which I have discovered I loathe. But fair's fair.
Just getting back to some D&D gaming. Started a one-on-one with the wife last weekend. Will be starting with my regular group next month. Homebrewing it.
I am in the process of wrapping up a PBP Castles and Crusades game over at RPG.net (more precisely, a rather heavily house-ruled version of C&C to simulate a 'Conan-ish' swords-and-sorcery setting). It lasted about a year, and made me realise that PBP games are somewhat unsatisfying.
I recently was a player in a 3.5 D&D game. The DM started the 'Age of Worms' adventure path. However, the game came to end after only a few sessions (we didn't even finish 'Whispering Cairn'), as the DM suffered a family tragedy.
It looks like I will be a GM again soon (for the same group). The expectation seems to be that I'll run something for 3.5, and I am debating whether I would enjoy doing that again (some serious rules-tweaking would be necessary). I'm tempted to push for C&C or True20 (or maybe WFRP), but also feel that that might be inappropriate, given that it is a new group, and some of the players only recently learned the 3.5 rules.
Hmmm ... :hmm:
I'm running a 3.5 D&D game tricked out with lots of bells and whistles. We're using the Gestalt rules from Unearthed Arcana, all the Complete books, the PHB2, the Spell Compendium, the Expanded Psionics Handbook, and several other less campaign-mangling tomes. The PCs are at 20th level and are about to collapse under the weight of their own awesomeness, forming a singularity capable of destroying the entire campaign.
I'm playing in a similar game, but the burden of all those books seems lighter because I'm not the DM and the PCs are only at 5th level or so.
D&D 3.5 set in a persistent world that I have more or less maintained since early 2000 or so. Two major campaign tweaks:
1) there is no player-centered storyline. The players generally go around doing stuff they want to do, and the adventure pursues them, instead of the other way around. So currently theyr'e (together) going to sabotage a gigantic siege weapon they've heard their enemies are working on. Individually they have other little goals they pursue.
2) I introduced the idea of having locations on the map called 'shrines' that are magically significant to have control of. Each one unlocks a single-use bonus spell that can be used by any character that activates it (a different puzzle for each one) and meditates there. So recently, the players have been trying to track down information on shrines to either visit them, destroy them, or take them over.
My other campaign is the "After School campaign" I run for my son. His character is a ninja employed by a planar organization that gives him missions of various kinds. He gets to teleport in to exotic locations for the mission, and (try to) accomplish it, and then teleport out through the use of a magical item. We play 2 or 3 times a week, but it's real short, generally just 1 or 2 encounters for a session, and not always combat encounters. Like in one, he had to sneak into a tower and steal something.