Comments for Emerald City Gamefest

Comment on Seattle gaming links by Sophie Lagacé

Sophie Lagacé — Sun, 11 Jul 2010 18:28:37 +0000

Added, thanks Dan.

Comment on Seattle gaming links by Dan Tibbles

Dan Tibbles — Sun, 11 Jul 2010 18:15:56 +0000

Can you add our game store to the list above?

Green Lake Games (Aurora/Green Lake): (206) 922-3146 Located: 7509 Aurora Ave. N, Seattle, WA 98103. Play space for 30 people with a selection of over 800 board games and over 300 RPG books.

Thanks so much!

-Dan Tibbles
Owner
Green Lake Games

Comment on An Odd Call by r_b_bergstrom

r_b_bergstrom — Wed, 12 May 2010 23:30:21 +0000

I think they should, too. In fact, I think it’s high time the industry stepped it up a little. Just sayin’.

Comment on An Odd Call by theletteromega

theletteromega — Tue, 11 May 2010 02:50:41 +0000

Obviously I think that it is an error. I just wrote a long winded article on why I think that it’s an error:) However, I think that it is a very subtle error. On the surface their called shot mechanic does what you would think a called shot mechanic would do, it allows you to ignore armor. It seems likely that that is how they came up with it, looking for a way to ignore armor. The problem is that if you understand variance this mechanic that seems to do the right thing actually does the opposite. Compared with something like the feinting rules from seven skies this requires real attention to the statistics to catch. Given the trouble most designers seem to have with addition I’m not surprised by this kind of mistake at all. The point of these articles is in fact that Nobody seems to check stuff like this. In my OCD I just think that they should.

Comment on An Odd Call by r_b_bergstrom

r_b_bergstrom — Tue, 11 May 2010 01:29:16 +0000

While they may have come up with a clever mechanic, the choice of conceptual flavor-text they awkwardly grafted on to it was an ill-considered and sloppy decision. The name they chose will no doubt mislead players about it’s intent, purpose, and effects.

Comment on An Odd Call by theletteromega

theletteromega — Sun, 09 May 2010 16:25:28 +0000

Thanks Rolfe, though in certain respects their called shot mechanic is actually extremely clever. Almost every game under the sun does called shots by decreasing accuracy and increasing damage. But here accuracy and damage are the same, so they simply can’t do that. Instead they came up with a method that changes the variance. Yes, they should have looked at the results more closely, but on the scale of rules blunders I’ve seen it’s a pretty moderate mistake.
Erik

Comment on An Odd Call by r_b_bergstrom

r_b_bergstrom — Sun, 09 May 2010 14:35:47 +0000

Another great analysis article, Erik. I’ve never even heard of the game, and yet it was still enjoyable to read on a geeky, OCD, math and puzzle level.

Especially love the conclusion section. Why do game designers do this sort of nonsense? There’s so many games where the flavor text of the special actions are completely disconnected from the mathematical reality of the action, like the called shots in the system under the spotlight here. As you pointed out, it results in players picking options based on the flavor text, and often getting an effect that does something other than what they were hoping for. Looking at this, one has to conclude that the designers didn’t have a fuzzy clue what their special move did to the probability. And considering how simple their core mechanic is, they should have been able to figure the probabilities out themselves. Very sloppy and amateurish game design.

Comment on Trick Question by theletteromega

theletteromega — Sat, 01 May 2010 05:26:23 +0000

John,
It would take lots of calculations to find out exactly, but my gut reaction is that you will probably be better off taking a combat edge to improve your normal attack and just whack your opponent instead of messing around with Tricks and Tests of Will.
Erik

Comment on Trick Question by kedamono

kedamono — Sat, 01 May 2010 04:31:56 +0000

That’s what I thought. It sounded like a good idea, but it takes a bit of work to make it work. Still, a character with Strong Will gets a +2 bonus to his Test of Wills rolls.

One thought is that instead of trying to fix the Tricks and Test of Wills actions, instead, fix it through Edges.

Say you had the edge “Expert Fighter” and it let you spend a benny to “improve” the trick and shake the target on a normal success of the Trick roll. On a raise of the Trick roll, you can spend that benny for an immediate attack. Would that be worthwhile?

Or, you have the edge “Trickster” and you get a +2 to your trick rolls and +2 to your Smarts and Agility rolls to resist a trick.

Your thoughts on that?

Comment on Trick Question by theletteromega

theletteromega — Sat, 01 May 2010 03:54:01 +0000

John,
Test of Wills is really a variation on Trick. Instead of a characteristic you use a skill, Taunt or Intimidate, though they resist with a characteristic, Smarts or Spirit respectively. If you get a raise they are sort of Shaken, just like Trick. If you succeed at all you, and only you, get a +2 on your next action against them. That means that unlike Trick, initiative doesn’t matter. Also unlike Trick, it can only help you.
So if you go Taunt then Trick then Attack you can at best Shake them and give yourself a +2 on the Trick. That can at best Shake them, but being non-damaging can’t make the second Shake into a wound, and give them -2 Parry defense until their next move. Notice that the +2 bonus is used up doing the Trick. Finally, you make your attack. That’s 3 combat rounds to finally get around to possibly wounding them with, at best, a -2 on their defense and them being Shaken for your attack.
Erik