The Impending Malifaux RPG

[CRC]

Compare Star Trek and Star Wars.

Star Wars: the films cover the rise and fall of the Imperial Empire, the Emperor, and Darth Vader. These events are central and pivotal to the universe. While players can be involved in these events (delivering secret plans to Leia, fighting on Hoth, tracking down Han, ...), they can't drive them. Therefore, the players are unable to have real effect on the pivotal event of the setting.

Star Trek: not only do the four roughly co-contemporaneous series have a wide variety of settings and foes, there is no pivotal change to the balance of power in the quadrant. It's easy for a GM to introduce a threat to the federation, or a disaster that needs to be dealt with. A GM could write a complete series about a ship or starbase unmentioned and a story just as epic without upsetting the milieu.

Malifaux leans heavily toward the former. The driving pivotal events are "The Event", and the rise of the Tyrant Entities. The situation here is very focused on a limited number of characters and their interactions. However, as yet there has been no hard cap on the number of Tyrants nor Masters, so a GM could happily add a couple more to give the dramatic freedom necessary to write an epic.

Of course, there's also endless potential to play divergent story lines, stories set before The Event, and henchman level campaigns...

[Dracomax]

If the movies were the only sources of information, and if you had a fairly unimaginative bunch of players/Gm, You might be right about Star Wars. As it is, the Universe is so large that the Events of the Rebellion might actually have been one of the least important things going on there.

---------- Post added at 01:25 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:23 PM ----------

it's like Dark heresy, you're often playing someone taking orders from an inquisitor higher up, usually communicating via messages or whatever. in this case we've just seen those higher ups in miniature form already. I doubt in a session of the Malifaux RPG, you're going to be riding along behind Lady J. who jumps up and kills off all the ressers in a major display of awesomeness while you almost die fighting off one measily zombie. at least if your GM's any good that shouldn't happen.

and I wouldn't want to RP lady J. as a character, I'd rather play a character of my own making, like DeathMarshal Bob, leader of Squad A. who only occasionally see's lady J. and that's mostly at the Death Marshal picnic when she gives some speach about appreciating all the hard work all the deathmarshalls do, and awards the squad with the gighest headcount.

yeah, if I GM, my campaign will have annual Death Marshall picnics, and Sam Vimes would be chief of the Guild Guard

Please. Vimes would never succeed in the guild. The Governor is not nearly as wise as Vetinari. He's a natural outcast, all the way. Someone who actually beleives in law and order, as opposed to guild expediency? He's probably marching along right behind Von Schill.

[nifoc]

Regarding miniatures: Earlier in this thread we were treated to a visit from the designer who said that miniatures are not needed. I would be interested in a clarification of this statement, the same thing is stated in the new Iron Kingdoms RPG and then they start the combat chapter by explaining the importance of base size and model facing which negates the claim that models are not needed. D&D 3.5 is sometimes stated to not require models, which is true if you ignore several of the rules. On the other hand Dark Heresy and its related games encourage the use of models but none of the rules require them in order to work.

IMO requiring minis will severly limit the appeal of this RPG to anyone not playing the miniature game, and imposing such a limit on your own game, like PP did with Iron Kingdoms, just seems stupid.

[WalkingInBlack]

Hey guys! I'm the Wyrd RPG Developer. I thought I would duck in here, drop a little bit of information, and then disappear again in a cloud of smoke, leaving you wanting more. [MANIACAL LAUGH!]

Not to give to much away, but I'm a big fan of games with non-linear progression of player characters. I feel pretty strongly that Malifaux is in a unique place where the game can properly serve two masters, when it comes to "Theatre of the Mind" vs. "Tabletop Grids". An RPG is a different beast than a Miniatures game, and I've worked on both long enough to know where the line blurs, and where we need to make it clear.

The RPG team is really excited about this project... we think we might be doing something incredible that really challenges players and Fatemasters with a robust gaming experience. I've taken a lot of inspiration from classical story pacing, as well as strong thematic under-pinning. We are working hard to make this a game where the mechanics support the theme and story, integrating the two in an inseparable way.

I love the list of games CRC tossed up. I'd like to off up my list of "inspirational games" that I didn't help make. Try not to read to much into it, these are just the games that make me want to break out the dice and start a campaign whenever they get mentioned. I love their mechanic systems.

Shadowrun

Dresden Files

All Flesh Must Be Eaten

Deadlands

Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay (3rd Edition)

Dungeons and Dragons (4th Edition)

I'm a bit surprised you said dice and cards

Out of the 6 RPGs you mentioned only 2 of them are unknown to me, but they seem like good choices to works after, I’ll be looking forward for what you come up with

[nifoc]

I'm a bit surprised you said dice and cards

Out of the 6 RPGs you mentioned only 2 of them are unknown to me, but they seem like good choices to works after, I’ll be looking forward for what you come up with

Cards are, IMO, not a great randomizer mechanic for an RPG, in a miniatures game they are awesome, but the same is not true of an RPG. Knowing what cards you have drawn, and possibly seeing a control hand as well, will cause inaction amongst players who know they are in for a bad draw, the same way difficult rolls, with serious consequenses, stifles creativity in other games. A die does not have a memory, you could roll nothing under 10 on a d20 all night, but it will average out over time, a deck on the other hand does have a memory thereby introducing the knowledge that you WILL draw low sometime during the session. Using dice WITH a control hand does however give you a randomizer and a way to cheat Fate without worrying the card-counters.

This part:

I feel pretty strongly that Malifaux is in a unique place where the game can properly serve two masters, when it comes to "Theatre of the Mind" vs. "Tabletop Grids". An RPG is a different beast than a Miniatures game, and I've worked on both long enough to know where the line blurs, and where we need to make it clear.

is what I'm curious about, as it could be read in any number of ways, from "you don't need minis but you can if you want" to "you only need them during combat" to "you need them but we think it works fine".

Of the 6 games listed, I have 5 in my bookshelf, the 6th being D&D. Of the others, 4 don't use minis (though you could if you wanted to), and WFRP uses standups but measures distance in such an abstract way that it is equally easy to use a page from a notebook to keep track of combat.

[Sliver Chocobo]

D&D 4ED is best example of the perfect balance, mini's are ever used in combat and never outside it, this is want I want from Malifaux as, in combat mini out of combat it's your imagination

---------- Post added at 01:36 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:33 PM ----------

Also dice are worrying

[letsallchant]

no offence to anyone but it sounds like some people had bad rpg groups if they could not come up with a decent story in the star wars universe, and were relegated to acting out parts form the movies? the whole appeal of an rpg is that you can write your own plot and not be shoehorned into something like that... malifaux needs an rpg as the setting has too much depth and grit to be contained to the battles of a handful of characters

theres some options to changing the mechanics of your deck too, without breaking out the d20's. like you could even split your deck into the four suits, and use a different suit for different action types. perhaps magic use uses the tomes part, and you can spend a rest type action to shuffle it if you know theres alot of low cards left. besides any of the problems associated with deck randomness can be sorted by shuffling... and you know, theres going to be plenty of time to shuffle your cards when your sitting around playing an rpg. theres no need to go through the entire deck without a shuffle.

Edited November 11, 2012 by letsallchant

[Gruesome]

Its tough to see a path that pleases everyone.

As an example, when I was into RPGs in dinosaur times, I actually preferred rolling most of the dice and preferred keeping DM roles secret in case I wanted to "modify" the outcome. The "story" that the players were participating in was 100% of the point. Getting a new level just meant having to erase all the stats and add the new bonuses, etc... More of a hassle than anything.

As D&D advanced through its evolution and other games started becoming more prevalent, so much of the emphasis shifted to the mechanics of the games and min-maxing, which was NOT what some of us had any interest in.

We wanted to see new worlds and pretend to be these other characters. We did not want to apply math to determine what the best series of stats and weapons/bonuses allowed for best "Damage Per Second" sort of stuff.

When I see an RPG thread which focuses a lot on cards vs. dice, or minis vs. mind, and what specifically the character advancement paths and stats will be like, I can tell that I am not on the same page as too many people.

I suspect that it will not be something that I am interested in if it winds up needing its own rules marshal forum to untangle "rules interactions". I will know that it went "that direction".

I am not saying that people are wrong for wanting it "that way". Some people like brussels sprout too, I am told.

Edited November 11, 2012 by Gruesome

[letsallchant]

i think the 'story telling' aspects of an rpg is a great opportunity for wyrd to put their thousands of customers to work fleshing out the world and maybe even creating sparks of inspiration that will drive further growth. they could see it as a way to sell a few books and minis, or a way to put thousands of minds to the task of expanding the games most important asset... i think they are smart enough to see the wisdom in the latter and make things more open and less restricted.

[WalkingInBlack]

Cards are, IMO, not a great randomizer mechanic for an RPG, in a miniatures game they are awesome, but the same is not true of an RPG. Knowing what cards you have drawn, and possibly seeing a control hand as well, will cause inaction amongst players who know they are in for a bad draw, the same way difficult rolls, with serious consequenses, stifles creativity in other games. A die does not have a memory, you could roll nothing under 10 on a d20 all night, but it will average out over time, a deck on the other hand does have a memory thereby introducing the knowledge that you WILL draw low sometime during the session. Using dice WITH a control hand does however give you a randomizer and a way to cheat Fate without worrying the card-counters.

I know that cards won't work well in a rpg except for special circumstances and that dice is a better choice, and if you notice I only said that I was surprised he said dice and not cards... okay I forgot to put in "not" so I guess you could only have misunderstood what I wanted to say, my bad but you are right about the use of cards, but as I said special circumstances can make use of fate cards and like you mentioned.

Edited November 11, 2012 by WalkingInBlack

[Sliver Chocobo]

I dissagree, cards are just better, and if you capable of card counting, it very difficult to count one let alone 4 or 5 decks

[letsallchant]

a deck of cards is exactly like a d13 if you shuffle it regularly... lots of time spent sitting around a table = lots of shuffling. i dont see the problem...

[WalkingInBlack]

I dissagree, cards are just better, and if you capable of card counting, it very difficult to count one let alone 4 or 5 decks

I would prefer dice over cards in a social situation as a RPG isn't only about combat and we probably have some social skill to use which isn't in the tabletop game and dices seems to be better when it comes to social affairs , fate cards however are useful in specific circumstances like the outcome of a critical success or critical failure.

Dices or cards, I think it depends on what one is used to or feel most comfortable with, I’m mostly used to using dices in rpgs so that is what I prefer most, how ever I do not se a problem with using cards as well for figuring out the outcome of the dice roll, like the fate of a bad or good roll, I know you can use a dice for that to but it’s just to mechanical when we talk about fate.

---------- Post added at 04:38 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:34 PM ----------

a deck of cards is exactly like a d13 if you shuffle it regularly... lots of time spent sitting around a table = lots of shuffling. i dont see the problem...

Hmm well ya I guess so, but I have a hard time seeing it, as I said I have gotten to used to use dices when it comes to RPGs, but I have played some RPGs that used cards as well as dices.

[Sliver Chocobo]

It would the same as any Skill check like the ones already in the skirmish game, it would just use a diffirent stat

[Gruesome]

I have no idea whether I would like cards or dice until I knew what cards meant in an RPG setting.

Do they have a "hand" to cheat from?

Are all checks the equivalent of <stat> -> TN? (Simple Duels)

Would there be more adversarial opposed duels where the GM was flipping on behalf of the "monster" ? (Does the GM have a hand to cheat from?)

Without understanding of how the cards would be used, I have no idea.

[Sliver Chocobo]

I have no idea whether I would like cards or dice until I knew what cards meant in an RPG setting.

Do they have a "hand" to cheat from?

Are all checks the equivalent of <stat> -> TN? (Simple Duels)

Would there be more adversarial opposed duels where the GM was flipping on behalf of the "monster" ? (Does the GM have a hand to cheat from?)

Without understanding of how the cards would be used, I have no idea.

To answer this I need to explain the metaphoric nature of cheating fate, has anyone notice why it was called this, there is a reason. The story of Malifaux is all about over coming fate and what is written for you and so is the game and with the GM being called the fate master we can assume it's not going to stop. First of all taking a card from the top of the deck is an amount of chance, it's what fate has in store for the model in question, some are lucky or skilful and get to that while others are less so and have , but it's up to fate to decide weather or not that gives you two two's or and gives you a jack and a queen. Now cheating fate takes what fate gave you and you saying I want this to happen instead, useing soulstones is a more extreme version of this.

now how this would I aspect each player and the FM to have a hand, the FM with much bigger hand than the PC's, also the exact number of cards, I see several abilities that incresse you hand size or decrees it and give you some sort of bonus beacuse of it. It could even perk system in where can take a number of bad perks to gain more positive perks in charcter creation.

Now on to how simple or opposed duels

simple duels work where there is no opposing NPC/PC I.E. you trip of a stone make a Df -> 10 duel. Opposed duels are where there is a NPC/PC to contend with, you attack the model make Cb->Df duel, you try to talk someone into letting you into a building make Wp->Wp duel and so on

[WalkingInBlack]

I still would prefer to play the game first to se what it's all about, reading about it isn't the same thing, I know some will disagree but if you have mostly used dices new things like using cards instead need to be tested first for some people, we don't work the same way if we did I would guess things would be extremely boring

[dgraz]

I don't understand how people can say....cards won't work, or cards will work......do we know the specific mechanics they will be using?

In the beginning, people said cards wouldn't work for Malifaux.......but they did. People said Avatars would ruin the game...because they would be just like Epics in PP....they didn't and they weren't.

I feel pretty certain that if they use cards, they won't release a game that they haven't tested and determined that 'cards do work'.

[Rameses]

I can't see cards wouldn't work for an RPG; hell even casino's find cards random enough to use them on their floors.

[Gruesome]

...

Now on to how simple or opposed duels

simple duels work where there is no opposing NPC/PC I.E. you trip of a stone make a Df -> 10 duel. Opposed duels are where there is a NPC/PC to contend with, you attack the model make Cb->Df duel, you try to talk someone into letting you into a building make Wp->Wp duel and so on

I know how the duel types work.

My point is simply that until we know what, if any, of the card mechanics from Malifaux would be aspects of the RPG, I would have no way of saying one way or another whether I would like cards vs. dice.

If target numbers was the simple mechanism, I would be ok.

If there was cheating fate to change the flip? I do not think I would like cards.

If there are opposed duels from the GM with cheating fate? I would definitely not like it.

I think it is likely that since Wyrd's core is Player vs. Player games and are now moving towards an RPG, that there will be a great many rules involved because that's how competitive PvP games are made so that the opposing players have a framework within which to compete.

Sadly, I feel like RPG's have suffered as a result of so many "gamers" needing each and every aspect and component of their characters and worlds around them to have numbers associated with them to make the "physics" of their worlds work.

[WalkingInBlack]

I don't understand how people can say....cards won't work, or cards will work......do we know the specific mechanics they will be using?

In the beginning, people said cards wouldn't work for Malifaux.......but they did. People said Avatars would ruin the game...because they would be just like Epics in PP....they didn't and they weren't.

I feel pretty certain that if they use cards, they won't release a game that they haven't tested and determined that 'cards do work'.

I didn't say anything about it wouldn't work with cards just that I have mostly been playing RPGs with dices so I can't directly se or know how the cards would work.

dgraz you need to remember that people are allowed to have their opinion and that this thread is the right place to do it, it’s just their opinion on what they think of it ad the moment because that’s all we can do ad this point

---------- Post added at 07:37 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:28 PM ----------

I think it is likely that since Wyrd's core is Player vs. Player games and are now moving towards an RPG, that there will be a great many rules involved because that's how competitive PvP games are made so that the opposing players have a framework within which to compete.

If this is true I won't be bying the RPG as it would just be Malifaux the tabletop game with a diffrent look and a couple of extra rules, no thank you.

[Gruesome]

If this is true I won't be bying the RPG as it would just be Malifaux the tabletop game with a diffrent look and a couple of extra rules, no thank you.

Obviously we do not know.

I am excited at the notion that they brought someone else in to work on the RPG.

What this could mean is that some of the natural inclinations of PvP game creators are filtered via someone that is dedicated to the RPG.

I have found that I am usually pleasantly surprised by Wyrd releases. (And that is despite high expectations)

I was simply laying out what I thought of off the top of my head for what "cards" could mean in order to show that without specific knowledge, I do not see how anyone could definitively say DICE-GOOD, CARDS-BAD or vice-versa because I would like cards if done in some ways, but probably not if done in others.

[WalkingInBlack]

Obviously we do not know.

I am excited at the notion that they brought someone else in to work on the RPG.

What this could mean is that some of the natural inclinations of PvP game creators are filtered via someone that is dedicated to the RPG.

I have found that I am usually pleasantly surprised by Wyrd releases. (And that is despite high expectations)

I was simply laying out what I thought of off the top of my head for what "cards" could mean in order to show that without specific knowledge, I do not see how anyone could definitively say DICE-GOOD, CARDS-BAD or vice-versa because I would like cards if done in some ways, but probably not if done in others.

I have no problems with cards in the RPG if it's made to work, but as I pointed out many times, I have mostly only played RPGs with dices and a very select few that also used cards in it along with dices.

What I meant with that I wouldn’t buy it is because the way you said it made it sound like it would be something like a pvp rpg which would just be a gladiator like vision of the Malifaux tabletop game where all the players would fight each other, and I don’t se that as a roleplay game.

[Gruesome]

What I meant with that I wouldn’t buy it is because the way you said it made it sound like it would be something like a pvp rpg which would just be a gladiator like vision of the Malifaux tabletop game where all the players would fight each other, and I don’t se that as a roleplay game.

Agree 100%.

No hints or rumors that it would be anything of the sort, though. So all is cool so far.

[dgraz]

I didn't say anything about it wouldn't work with cards just that I have mostly been playing RPGs with dices so I can't directly se or know how the cards would work.

Technically.......

I know that cards won't work well in a rpg except for special circumstances and that dice is a better choice

But my post was not directed at you specifically, just a general statement.

and,

dgraz you need to remember that people are allowed to have their opinion and that this thread is the right place to do it, it’s just their opinion on what they think of it ad the moment because that’s all we can do ad this point

I'm not allowed to voice the fact that we know absolutely nothing about this game? Or voice my opinion that I think it is silly to totally discount the use of cards just because it hasn't been done before? If there were tons of experience to back-up the claim that cards won't work then I wouldn't have said anything, but this is all speculation. I'm not saying they will be good or not, I don't know. I do know that Wyrd has surprised me in the past with unique ideas and new mechanics.

I'm pretty sure I can voice my opinion too.