The Impending Malifaux RPG

[WalkingInBlack]

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.

I never said you couldn't voice your opinion as far as I can remember and if that’s what you believed I meant then that’s what you believe, but I did not mean to offend you in any way just so that you know.

Edited November 11, 2012 by WalkingInBlack

[Kalkris]

I want it to allow tabletop support in addition to being able to be a pen and paper rpg. Let dungeon grids be possible while not mandatory for play. I want to use my minis for more than just the skirmish here. I would love to be able to be an Austringer or a Gunsmith and use my pieces to show it, but also not have to do that.

~Lil Kalki

[letsallchant]

i would picture that there is no hand to cheat fate with, doesnt really make sense in an rpg i think, just pulling cards from the deck to generate 1-13, exactly like a dice.

[decker_cky]

i would picture that there is no hand to cheat fate with, doesnt really make sense in an rpg i think, just pulling cards from the deck to generate 1-13, exactly like a dice.

Having a hand could work...you just need to choose a fair period over which they gain new cards to cheat (or base that on accomplishments).

[Omenbringer]

I could see the Control hand (cheating) being very similar to the Savage World's Bene mechanic.

I for one am hoping it will be card based rather than dice based.

[nifoc]

Lots of RPGs use a mechanic whereby the players may alter their chances, the bennies in Savage Worlds, as pointed out above, FATE has its fate points, MHR uses Plot Points, Shadowrun has Edge etc. It is a way of placing some editorial control in the hands of the players when it comes to their characters.

I would rather see a combination of dice, since dice automatically "reset" after each roll while cards need reshuffling which will make combat drag out due to cardshuffling, and a control hand. If the game uses 2d6 or a d12 as its base dice it would work great.

Also, this pretty much sums up why I don't use miniatures in RPGs.

Edited November 12, 2012 by nifoc

[Kadeton]

I don't like using miniatures in RPGs (it tends to put the focus of the game on standing in the right place rather than doing cool stuff), so I'd really like to see the game support that.

I'd much prefer that it used cards as the primary random mechanic - there are just more interesting things you can do with cards as a simple randomiser. Just for starters, there are no suits or jokers on a dice.

I will happily throw money at a kickstarter to make this game happen, whatever form it ends up taking.

[Omenbringer]

My biggest problem with RPG's that have really developed combat rules (both those intended for use with mini's and those without) is that they tend to distract from the actual "roleplaying" aspect of the game (encouraging min-maxing for combat).

I much prefered the Storyteller systems (White Wolf and to a lesser extent Savage Worlds) where combat is very much a secondary aspect of the game (quick, a bit unrealistic and narrative).

I do feel that RPG's can achieve a balance between the two extreames though with the inclusion of "Basic" and "Advanced" combat rules.

[Sliver Chocobo]

The only way to get rid of min maxing is pregenerated characters and if you don't like the way the others PC's are min max play with other people. No system can create a good RP environment it needs to come naturally. All RPG games have the same potential for RPing, it just needs a good GM

---------- Post added at 09:55 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:45 PM ----------

Lots of RPGs use a mechanic whereby the players may alter their chances, the bennies in Savage Worlds, as pointed out above, FATE has its fate points, MHR uses Plot Points, Shadowrun has Edge etc. It is a way of placing some editorial control in the hands of the players when it comes to their characters.

I would rather see a combination of dice, since dice automatically "reset" after each roll while cards need reshuffling which will make combat drag out due to cardshuffling, and a control hand. If the game uses 2d6 or a d12 as its base dice it would work great.

Also, this pretty much sums up why I don't use miniatures in RPGs.

That's just bad organisation skills, doesn't mean minis are a bad, mini's are needed. If not it's way too easy forget where people are how far away from each other.

---------- Post added at 10:00 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:55 PM ----------

I don't like using miniatures in RPGs (it tends to put the focus of the game on standing in the right place rather than doing cool stuff), so I'd really like to see the game support that.

Your've clearly not played enough D&D

[fritz the cat]

I don't like using miniatures in RPGs (it tends to put the focus of the game on standing in the right place rather than doing cool stuff), so I'd really like to see the game support that.

On this point, i think that really ends up coming down to your players backgrounds. Coming RPG's into miniature gaming I actually tend to sway towards trying to make really dramatic things happen in game for the enjoyment of it. But having played D&D with people who came from a tabletop wargames background Ive seen what effect that can have on their RPG play style

[Kadeton]

Your've clearly not played enough D&D

I've played tonnes of D&D, from 2E, through 3E and 3.5E to 4E (about 15 years). We never used minis until the middle of 3.5E, and we found it immediately changed the game from players doing cool things (and the DM, usually me, making it work by covering holes in the rules on the fly) to players worrying about exactly where they were standing and how many orcs they could catch in a fireball. We found it really limited the imagination of the players, made combat feel static and dull, and generally made people worry more about what the rules allowed them to do rather than what their character might actually attempt to do in that situation.

None of that is impossible to overcome, obviously, but I've definitely found that minis encourage the wrong mode of thinking for my players.

[edonil]

There are advantages to both systems. I love miniatures systems because I love to model my own character, I'm not an artist who draws. I also love it because, when it comes to these kinds of things, I'm a visual person. However, I've also gotten the chance to go very RP heavy, and thought it was a ton of fun. At the end of the day, though, that is on the GM and the players. If the players want a dungeon crawling, combat heavy campaign, and the GM doesn't, there's going to be conflict, and not because of the rules. You can do some awesome roleplaying heavy stuff with the 3.5 rules. I've heard of entire campaigns without combat using those rules, and it worked, because the players and the GM worked together.

It's something I've learned over the years about roleplaying- this is a cooperative effort between the GM and the players. You don't want to use miniatures? Then don't use them. Why on earth do you feel forced into doing it just because the rules let you? Go fully abstract with it, adapt it so that it is fun for you and your group, whatever that means. There's no tournaments for this stuff, who cares if you House Rule it?

Personally, I want to see miniatures rules available, but I won't complain if they aren't. Honestly, if they aren't there, I'll figure out a system to let them be used. It's Wyrd's decision in the long run, and I trust them not to screw it up. They haven't let me down yet.

Edited November 13, 2012 by edonil

[Kadeton]

It's something I've learned over the years about roleplaying- this is a cooperative effort between the GM and the players. You don't want to use miniatures? Then don't use them. Why on earth do you feel forced into doing it just because the rules let you? Go fully abstract with it, adapt it so that it is fun for you and your group, whatever that means. There's no tournaments for this stuff, who cares if you House Rule it?

Some systems do all but force you into playing with miniatures - D&D 4E is the biggest one that springs to mind. Yeah, you can sort of run it without, but all the abilities are focused on stuff that becomes very fiddly to keep track of without miniatures. That's really what I'd like to avoid - something pitched around the D&D 3.5E level of miniature use (basically completely optional) would be absolutely fine.

Basically, if the rules are written without the use of miniatures as a given, then miniatures can always still be used as a visual aid. If the rules are written with miniatures in mind ("This power lets me push 5 squares") then it's usually annoyingly fiddly to take the miniatures out.

Honestly, if the system doesn't agree with me, I'll just buy the books for the fluff and run my own system. I have no trouble doing that. Either way, I want to see this happen as soon as possible.

[Adran]

I personally echo the comments about no requirements for Minis.

You can run combat fine without minis. And if you and your group want to add them on the table to help them get a visual aid, its easy to do.

Its a lot harder to have a system that includes control zones and so forth work without minis.

I've used both over time and prefer the less boardgame aspect. I've also done several games that it just wouldn't be pratical, where as I imagine malifaux is not going to be long range co-ordinated attacks as might occur in Shadowrun, or mass battles as I've done in L5R.

I would be surprised if something similar to a control hand didn't exist. Its perfectly possible to do with dice, but I would also be surprised if cards weren't involved.

What I'm really want from this is the background of the world that happens more in roleplay suppliments than in war games

[Sliver Chocobo]

I've played tonnes of D&D, from 2E, through 3E and 3.5E to 4E (about 15 years). We never used minis until the middle of 3.5E, and we found it immediately changed the game from players doing cool things (and the DM, usually me, making it work by covering holes in the rules on the fly) to players worrying about exactly where they were standing and how many orcs they could catch in a fireball. We found it really limited the imagination of the players, made combat feel static and dull, and generally made people worry more about what the rules allowed them to do rather than what their character might actually attempt to do in that situation.

None of that is impossible to overcome, obviously, but I've definitely found that minis encourage the wrong mode of thinking for my players.

With shifting being a free action and the best way to deal damage is through flanking, as well as often being outnumbered yourself and trying to make sure you don't get flanked your self by greater numbers. Mobility is very important in D&D

[Kadeton]

With shifting being a free action and the best way to deal damage is through flanking, as well as often being outnumbered yourself and trying to make sure you don't get flanked your self by greater numbers. Mobility is very important in D&D

That's basically my point - having the primary concern of your game being positioning and damage output makes the game dull. It takes action and drama and boils them down to a tactical skirmish wargame. Now, clearly I have nothing against skirmish wargames... I just prefer to play them separately to my RPGs. I find an overabundance of rules governing combat, and combat involving miniatures in particular, to be seriously detrimental to the players' ability to freely play their role and connect with their character.

I'm happy to accept that not everyone agrees with me, and that plenty of people want to play a wargame with a group of their friends where they control one guy each... that's fine and dandy. I already have a wargame set in the world of Malifaux, so I'd rather see something that actually focuses on role-playing for the RPG version.

[Sliver Chocobo]

That's basically my point - having the primary concern of your game being positioning and damage output makes the game dull. It takes action and drama and boils them down to a tactical skirmish wargame. Now, clearly I have nothing against skirmish wargames... I just prefer to play them separately to my RPGs. I find an overabundance of rules governing combat, and combat involving miniatures in particular, to be seriously detrimental to the players' ability to freely play their role and connect with their character.

I'm happy to accept that not everyone agrees with me, and that plenty of people want to play a wargame with a group of their friends where they control one guy each... that's fine and dandy. I already have a wargame set in the world of Malifaux, so I'd rather see something that actually focuses on role-playing for the RPG version.

So a good RPG system needs a bad combat system good job there

Your missing the point the combat system have no effect on RPing experience

The difference between RPG combat and skirmish is option to avoid combat, run away. The Skirmish combat will always be about wining, RPG can have you lose (but not die) run away, retreat surrender or just talk yourself out the fight and the campaign wont end.

this is more commonly referred to as Role playing

[Adran]

So a good RPG system needs a bad combat system good job there

Your missing the point the combat system have no effect on RPing experience

The difference between RPG combat and skirmish is option to avoid combat, run away. The Skirmish combat will always be about wining, RPG can have you lose (but not die) run away, retreat surrender or just talk yourself out the fight and the campaign wont end.

this is more commonly referred to as Role playing

Completely disagree with your attempt at a point.

And for what its worth I don't think the DnD combat system is a good combat system, at least by my views in what I want from a combat system. It is too prescribed and too formulaic to be something I see as realistic, and something that I enjoy in my roleplaying combat experiences.

Your post where you refered to shifting being a free action, and flanking being the way to do the most damage is the best arguement I've seen against it as a roleplay combat system.

And actually in the malifaux skirmish game you don't have to engage in combat, you can just run away and still win.

You are right though that good players can overcome a bad system. I've know of players from early DnD games where they use virtually no combat despite most of the game being designed as a system to go into dungeons and fight monsters.

Its nicer to have a good system to support the player though.

[Sliver Chocobo]

But the system can't support the player that why RGP's have GM there job is too surport the player, if it could then there will be no need for a GM.

For rolplaying 4th ed D&D is the best out the D&D that I've seen, beacuse it's most streamlined, beacuse it's the most flexible, you can anything you want in 4th ed and the rules will let you. Thus it's role playing potential is huge and don't that 'it needs it be realist" crap beacuse

A) keep it simple stupid: don't need extra rules on if you get shot, where on the body it hit, what happens if you broke a bone or anything that too much detail will kill the system

magic

C) most attacks will instantly kill you

D) it won't be fun or engaging

And most importantly stop having unrealistic expectation of it

---------- Post added at 01:59 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:56 PM ----------

Sorry may have went overboard there

---------- Post added at 02:02 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:59 PM ----------

Honestly as long the combat keeps it's AP system from the table top game, I'm happy

[Adran]

No problem. I'm not one to take the internet personally.

Maybe I do have unreal experctations but when I played He-Man in the school playground, I occasionally lost the fight. The Person playing She-Ra never would. She always avoided any of the bad things. Obviously there were no rules, we could do what ever we liked, I just prefered it not to just be win win win.

A good DM should allow you to attempt what ever you like, and its easier when the rules cover it, but not essential.

I prefer my combat to be along the lines of

"I step to the other side of him from the fighter. Doing so I want to be able to block the rest of the passage way"

To

" I side step to this exact place using my free action. Now being here I can extend my attacks of oppitunity to that wall there, and back stab the monster for extra damage."

The latter is much more a wargame than a roleplay game to me. I don't want to be min-maxing my positioning and attacks that when I'm roleplaying.

The biggest difference to me is that out of my two combat situations, the first works fine without figures but you can use them if you wish, the second requires figures or drastic houseruleing to work.

[Gruesome]

Roleplayers I know do not like 4th edition, most commonly saying things along the lines of "If I wanted to play WoW, I'd play WoW".

My limited understanding of what they mean is that in 4th edition, it apparently feels more like you have to construct a party like you do in most MMO's with niches that are appropriately filled like tanks and ranged and Damage-melee and healer, etc...

My favorite D&D was FIRST edition.

The "combat system" was not so detailed that you had to worry about it. The DM just dealt with it and filled in holes for weird situations.

I remember playing parties of ALL thieves and sometimes ALL mages. "Balance" was not a concern, because it was not about balance. It was about deciding the character that you wanted to pretend to be and doing so.

I remember hating when "skill systems" started appearing to "help personalize" characters. All it really did was codify and therefore pigeonhole what DMs had been doing anyway, but setting a prescribed and specific list rather than leaving things to the imagination of players and their DMs as had been normal. New players we'd meet really seemed to NEED these "crutches" of having things spelled out in the books and were not comfortable just "making stuff up".

Honestly, this is a predilection of the last 30 years to really start caring so much about rule mechanics and abilities and "class balance". OF COURSE a big bad-ass fighter was better at most things than a little healer cleric. But clerics were fun to ROLE PLAY because they could be Pious or a Zealot or conniving or whatever, and that's where the fun was. (NOT in their relative strength or importance or necessity within the party)

It seems to me that generations that grew up with video games and computers in the house need so much more "structure" in their games and what I see of what many call roleplaying these days feels more like Pen and Paper MMO where accomplishing missions is the purpose of the night.

For how things are likely to be considering how ALL RPG's have gone, I don't really suppose this post has a lot of use... I guess I just felt like venting at the "video game generation".

[Kadeton]

So a good RPG system needs a bad combat system good job there

Nope - in order to be a good RPG, the combat system needs to allow the players the freedom to try to implement whatever creative solutions they can think of, not give them a short list of abilities and say "It's your turn, pick one of these."

Your missing the point the combat system have no effect on RPing experience

If the combat system simply presents the players with an optimisation problem and asks that they make the enemy's numbers go to zero before their own numbers go to zero in the most efficient manner possible in order to win, that has an effect on the roleplaying experience. It's also boring.

The difference between RPG combat and skirmish is option to avoid combat, run away. The Skirmish combat will always be about wining, RPG can have you lose (but not die) run away, retreat surrender or just talk yourself out the fight and the campaign wont end.

That is hardly the only difference. A skirmish wargame has minimal narrative background (you can add one, but it's not necessary) and allows no scope for solving problems beyond the listed rules and abilities of the models. A (good) RPG asks that you use your imagination to come up with creative solutions to complex problems based on the personality, capabilities and background of your character and the setting, as part of a larger narrative. That is commonly referred to as roleplaying.

[Sliver Chocobo]

No problem. I'm not one to take the internet personally.

Maybe I do have unreal experctations but when I played He-Man in the school playground, I occasionally lost the fight. The Person playing She-Ra never would. She always avoided any of the bad things. Obviously there were no rules, we could do what ever we liked, I just prefered it not to just be win win win.

A good DM should allow you to attempt what ever you like, and its easier when the rules cover it, but not essential.

I prefer my combat to be along the lines of

"I step to the other side of him from the fighter. Doing so I want to be able to block the rest of the passage way"

To

" I side step to this exact place using my free action. Now being here I can extend my attacks of oppitunity to that wall there, and back stab the monster for extra damage."

The latter is much more a wargame than a roleplay game to me. I don't want to be min-maxing my positioning and attacks that when I'm roleplaying.

The biggest difference to me is that out of my two combat situations, the first works fine without figures but you can use them if you wish, the second requires figures or drastic houseruleing to work.

Weird, I feel like simpler combat system means it fast more fluid, meaning more time can be spent RPing and less on combat

---------- Post added at 03:01 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:56 PM ----------

Nope - in order to be a good RPG, the combat system needs to allow the players the freedom to try to implement whatever creative solutions they can think of, not give them a short list of abilities and say "It's your turn, pick one of these."

If the combat system simply presents the players with an optimisation problem and asks that they make the enemy's numbers go to zero before their own numbers go to zero in the most efficient manner possible in order to win, that has an effect on the roleplaying experience. It's also boring.

That is hardly the only difference. A skirmish wargame has minimal narrative background (you can add one, but it's not necessary) and allows no scope for solving problems beyond the listed rules and abilities of the models. A (good) RPG asks that you use your imagination to come up with creative solutions to complex problems based on the personality, capabilities and background of your character and the setting, as part of a larger narrative. That is commonly referred to as roleplaying.

I good RPG doesn't ask for anything, it doesn't need a narrative, no matter how good an RPG is it can never tell a story, a good RPG is a tool used by a GM to tell a story

[Adran]

A simpler combat system does not automatically default to a combat system with figures

[Sliver Chocobo]

But it's easier

---------- Post added at 03:15 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:12 PM ----------

Also that was about streamlined systems vs more complex one, not about mini's