Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doublethink:
It seems to me you are just ditching the ability for the characters to direct spawn away from themselves, is that right ?

Your point 3) would be the crisis resolution stage. I do see why you would want take it in this direction - because the interactions for sending spawn and going to assist others could get clunky.

(I guess you could have a standing option to respond to the GM meta-combat post by running screaming in the opposite direction.)

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doublethink:
1 at easy level two at ok level three at hard level..

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doublethink:
Any comments on the merged combat system ?

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doublethink:
I don't understand ?

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doublethink:
Setting up combat last night took about 1 hour on and off, then then the combat took about an hour till we aborted.

I would be against a system that takes any longer. I have quite a lot of time on my hands, and an ipad, so I have been spending about 30 min in the morning resolving things and a couple of hours intermittently at night in front of the tv sometimes longer.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by JFH:
I think this might be a petals around the roses-case where smarter people taking longer to figure it out.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eliab:

quote:

---

Originally posted by JFH:
I think this might be a petals around the roses-case where smarter people taking longer to figure it out.

---

I guessed the solution on looking at the first roll for about thirty seconds, and thought "that's an 'eight'" on seeing the second. Which it was, and which confirmed that I was right.

I suspect that people who look at the problem and think 'maths' won't get it*, and those who look at it and think 'symbols' will get the solution in seconds, because there's only one that fits. I think I was fortunate in that having been playing Gunriana, my mind was defaulting to 'symbols' at the time.

(*although asking what there could possibly be on a throw of an odd-numbered set of dice that is always zero or even is a mathematical type of question which won't get the solution, but will instantly eliminate a huge number of dead ends. For example, you won't even bother to count up all the pips on all the dice once you've asked that question, because its obviously not the solution, as the answer could be odd)

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eliab:

I suspect that people who look at the problem and think 'maths' won't get it*,

---

Posted                         

quote:

---

In theory, a skill challenge works like this: First, the DM presents a situation. A player then describes the action their character attempts to resolve the situation. The DM assigns a skill to that action and asks for a roll. The DM then describes the outcome based on the roll. This repeats until the players have acheived a fixed number of successes or failures, at which point the story moves forward based on the result. In practice, skill challenges work more like this: the DM presents a situation. A player then scans down their skill list for the highest modifier they can find. The player tells the DM they “use” the skill. The DM dubiously questions exactly how a working knowledge of the fundemental laws of magic actually applies to the character being trapped under a beam in a burning building. The player sighs, thinks for a bit, and tries to use Acrobatics instead because it has the next highest modifier. This time, he describes the action of “acrobatically” trying to get out from under the beam. The DM accepts this because its the best he’s going to get. Exaggeration? A bit. Unkind? Certainly. But, that’s what happens when you look to a guy named The Angry DM for advice. And honestly, the thing that bothers me is not the blatant attempt to shoehorn a skill into a situation into which it doesn’t really fit. What bothers me is that moment of: “pause, look down the character sheet at the options, and try to game the system.” - See more at: http://angrydm.com/2010/05/put-away-your-skill-list/#sthash.Sv9NgHT1.dpuf

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
Having the DM/GM be more active in combat. So you have a set order to taking a turn probably taken from alphabetical order of Ship names and your finesse skill and where in that order the monsters are. That would be posted on the meta thread along with how hard to hit the monsters are. The players take their actions doing damage or not without the DM needing to get involved except for critical fails and successes. When the monsters' turn arrives the DM directs them to attack or flee not needing to post anything on the meta-thread. If players need to plan they either do so in character or they hammer it out on the meta-thread.

---

Posted                       

• Reload and flood control - Typical "real time" reactivity is basically impossible. I had four tabs open (story, meta, online dice, meta on character sheets) and was reloading / acting on them. This was not fun. To keep this going, everybody else in the fight has to do the same and stay reactive, possibly for hours. This is not likely. Finally, even I was running into flood control because I was working both story and meta. For the GM to deal with all that is going on is not possible. I think we can basically throw out anything that requires quick reactivity.
• Asynchrony and dead time - We gather a reasonable size troop this time, because many players were excited to try this. Our current attempt was as good as it will get. And that wasn't very good at all, with only part of players available and the number of active players reducing in combat ("Can you play my character for me?"). The truth is that our expectation for any next player move should be "some time during the next day or two". This pretty much kills dead any regular centrally managed combat sequence, in my opinion. Unless we want to play it out over months...

• Emergent story - Perhaps this wasn't intended, but de facto I think the players have taken a few GM 'seeds' for a story and just have invented their own story out of it. There was no conventional "now you come to this room looking like this, what do you do?" for the most part. I think this points to a GM role where the GM pretty much jumps in whenever things start to slow and people seem to run out of ideas what to do next. Then post just a short new 'seed' and see what the heck they make out of that.
• Ego and tag posts - By necessity, the players were largely posting about themselves. Even dialogues are mostly ego-centered, simply because nobody knows when and how the other responds. So one has to sort of pre-say all one wishes to do and say, and then hope that the other will fill in the blanks on his or her side. Eventually. On the other hand, one can "pull in" the other precisely by making them the addressee of one's actions or words. This is a bit like the "you are it" game of tag, except that one can possibly multi-tag several people. I am "it", so I talk about me for a while (ego), but then I address other people in the hope to elicit a reaction (tag), attempting to make them "it".

• Emergent combat - Based on the occasional 'seeds' from the GM to steer them, mostly it should be players inventing the combat. It should not be a centrally managed story with a pre-determined set outcome. It should be a collective invention, with the GM stepping in if things slow down (or to resolve contradictions). The GM can of course influence the overall course with the 'seeds' (for example, the description of the crypt with the coffin was such a seed, and sets a theme), but should not have to micromanage the story (the players should be inventing what happens next).
• Ego and tag posts - Again we never know when to expect a reaction from anyone. We can only be sure about our own contribution, in this case to the combat. But we can decide to involve others. So decentralised combat moves should have the "ego and tag" form: say what I do, and say who else in my opinion should do something. Whether the second part happens is up to them.

• Enemies - We are beating up baddies. We are not cooking, or making music, or anything like that. It has a specific theme, and the theme is that some beings are trying to harm us, and we are trying to harm them.
• Adversity - In the regular narrative, I can only fail "socially" or perhaps "accidentally". Other people do not like what I do, or the environment makes me trip. Here however it is all about either coming out on top, or going under (or running away). There should be a feeling of direct confrontation and serious risk, a push-back from the environment that is not diffuse (as say a desert is "challenging") but targeted (as a sword strike aimed at my head is "challenging").

Posted                         

• 3-6, knocks the weapon from your hand, you must attempt your next attack without it
• 6-8, swirls his cloak about him giving extra protection -2 to your next attack roll
• 8-12, hypnotises you, any perks you are using don't work and -3 to your attack roll
• 12-15, licks your blood from his hand infusing him with vigour and increasing the difficulty of the fight by a rank