I dunno, just curious if anyone has bought or played it and what they think. Either that, or Pundit's attempt at mind-control advertisements is working.
Quote from: Narf the Mouse;365071I dunno, just curious if anyone has bought or played it and what they think. Either that, or Pundit's attempt at mind-control advertisements is working.
Overt advertising has become less and less effective, for the most part.
No idea what forms of covert mind-control advertisements have been used to promote rpg games.
I don't know what the author of this "game" was smoking, really...
... but I want some! ;)
LOL Honestly though, I haven't played or read FTA! yet.
I've got it. It's pretty decent. I love the way magic is handled for example.
Quote from: Silverlion;365087I love the way magic is handled for example.
Any details or examples, just to give me some idea of how the game works?
I like the alignment system. It's an interesting implementation that can be borrowed as it is for other games.
Here's a review (http://www.rpg.net/reviews/archive/13/13203.phtml). And another (http://www.rpg.net/reviews/archive/13/13852.phtml).
-clash
Fixed the Thread Title.
RPGPundit
I've visited the website and read the reviews, but never bothered to buy it for three reasons: 1) I don't like the art on the website, 2) I find it mildly annoying that it's credited to "The RPG Pundit" rather than an actual (even if pseudonymous) name, and 3) I'm not really in the market for another fantasy rpg -- I've already got several that suit my needs very well.
Well, reason 3 is at least sensible.
RPGPundit
OK, T. Foster.
-clash
It's decent. I like a few bits, such as the advancement system based solely on number of adventures gone on that doesn't distort character actions. It has some old school sensibilities but doesn't try to model any single old game.
The main thing that killed it for me was the Tunnels & Trolls style group combat mechanic. That doesn't appeal to me.
Spellcasting.
Unlike the horrendous slots per day, or spell points based of strength (less horrendous but still strange.) The wizard makes a spell casting roll after initiating the spell for a full round. If he fails he suffers temporary HP damage.
Spells come in spell lists. A wizard starts with two, most other casters start with one. However, certain races have an affinity for certain schools thus not getting a choice of "which two" they get. Spells are somewhat more fun and powerful than starting D&D spells.
Much more evocative and fun--even if it isn't a freeform system.
Chuck me a pdf copy, Clash, and i'll review it.
I'm working on an OHMAS review as we speak.
Quote from: One Horse Town;365854Chuck me a pdf copy, Clash, and i'll review it.
I'm working on an OHMAS review as we speak.
Sent, Dan! And thanks! :D
-clash
Quote from: RPGPundit;365801Well, reason 3 is at least sensible.
A complaint about the website art (Reason #1) isn't sensible? It's advertising. Unappealing advertising loses sales.
I haven't had a look at the game myself -- from what I understand of the design goals, though, it purposely drew on elements from a number of games (most of which I happen to like) to create a new, affordable, and accessible product for markets that are underserved by RPGs. With that in mind, it hasn't pushed me over the edge to add to my collection.
!i!
Quote from: Ian Absentia;365875A complaint about the website art (Reason #1) isn't sensible? It's advertising. Unappealing advertising loses sales
Is the art in the book itself in the same style as on the website? I assumed it was, but if it's not (the art in the book is in a different style, or the book doesn't have any art at all) then I can see why my complaint about it seems lame.
Which brings up another point. I'm much more likely to buy a game if I'm first able to browse through it at the FLGS than if I'm just relying on what I've seen and read online. None of the local stores carry F...tA! (so far as I'm aware -- I've never seen a copy at any of them).
Quote from: T. Foster;365880Is the art in the book itself in the same style as on the website? I assumed it was, but if it's not (the art in the book is in a different style, or the book doesn't have any art at all) then I can see why my complaint about it seems lame.
The illustrations on the web page are from the book.
-clash
The group combat is a turn-off for me, too. OTOH, that could easily be one of those things that works out well in practice.
Quote from: Narf the Mouse;365899The group combat is a turn-off for me, too. OTOH, that could easily be one of those things that works out well in practice.
It works out pretty well in a few ways, I think. Namely that it means players have to strategize as a team; and that improbable combat scenarios are avoided (like the D&D strategy of everybody in your party ABSOLUTELY IGNORING all but ONE opponent, combining all their attacks to bring that guy down, and then moving on to all attack the next guy in line, just as a way to tool the system without considering that no combat could really go that way).
That said, it really isn't hard at all to "split up" combat into little groups, or even groups of one-on-one. That's absolutely doable in the game without having to alter anything at all. So you can essentially run melee combat as a series of one-on-one fights (or two-on-one, or two-on-two, or whatever).
RPGPundit
Quote from: Ian Absentia;365875A complaint about the website art (Reason #1) isn't sensible? It's advertising. Unappealing advertising loses sales.
Its not nonsensical, I understand. But for my part I just don't consider the artwork to ever be such a completely absolute litmus test that bad art alone would make me not buy a book. Granted he had two other reasons, one of which was not totally arbitrary, so it doesn't apply in this case, but I really think that its silly to completely discount a book you had no other reason to avoid buying just on account of its art.
Especially given that the guy who said this is a fan of "old school" products who often INTENTIONALLY have atrocious art in them to mimic the old 70s amateur-artist gamebooks.
RPGPundit
Quote from: RPGPundit;365913It works out pretty well in a few ways, I think. Namely that it means players have to strategize as a team; and that improbable combat scenarios are avoided (like the D&D strategy of everybody in your party ABSOLUTELY IGNORING all but ONE opponent, combining all their attacks to bring that guy down, and then moving on to all attack the next guy in line, just as a way to tool the system without considering that no combat could really go that way).
That said, it really isn't hard at all to "split up" combat into little groups, or even groups of one-on-one. That's absolutely doable in the game without having to alter anything at all. So you can essentially run melee combat as a series of one-on-one fights (or two-on-one, or two-on-two, or whatever).
RPGPundit
...Well, there goes my last real objection, besides money.
Quote from: RPGPundit;365915Especially given that the guy who said this is a fan of "old school" products who often INTENTIONALLY have atrocious art in them to mimic the old 70s amateur-artist gamebooks.
Point of order: the art that I like in "old school" products isn't drawn in intentional imitation of the work of the old 70s amateur artists, it's drawn by actual honest-to-goodness 00s amateur artists (many of whom are friends of mine). That authenticity, that spirit of passionate amateur enthusiasm, is what I like about it, even when it's obviously lacking in technical skill.
Quote from: T. Foster;3655291) I don't like the art on the website
Nor do I. I don't recognize poorly edited photographs as art. I realize that sounds harsh, but skillfully rendered stock illustrations are widely available and affordable. Even good custom illustrations can be had cheaply. Given that, I find slapping some art filters on photographs to be unacceptable (to me).
Quote from: Nicephorus;365850The main thing that killed it for me was the Tunnels & Trolls style group combat mechanic. That doesn't appeal to me.
That's one of the things that
sold me on it. I like T&T, too, but FTA! happens to be much more accessible at the current time.
[Necro'd]
I like much of what I've heard about the game, but I'm dubious about weapons adding to attack rolls. I get the reason for it, but as in nWoD and Hollow Earth Expedition, it means that unwieldy-but-powerful attacks are impossible. (Unless I'm missing something, that is.)
Quote from: flyingmice;365263Here's a review (http://www.rpg.net/reviews/archive/13/13203.phtml). And another (http://www.rpg.net/reviews/archive/13/13852.phtml).
-clash
But reviewers don't know jack about nuthin'.
Quote from: Dan Davenport;447633[Necro'd]
I like much of what I've heard about the game, but I'm dubious about weapons adding to attack rolls. I get the reason for it, but as in nWoD and Hollow Earth Expedition, it means that unwieldy-but-powerful attacks are impossible. (Unless I'm missing something, that is.)
I'm trying to understand the objection; are you saying that your concern is that unarmed attacks would not be able to be as powerful as an armed attack?
RPGPundit
Quote from: RPGPundit;447707I'm trying to understand the objection; are you saying that your concern is that unarmed attacks would not be able to be as powerful as an armed attack?
RPGPundit
No, sorry. Let me clarify by way of example.
Suppose I want to represent a giant with a club. I want a hit to be somewhat unlikely, since he's a big, clumsy oaf, but God help you if he hits!
But if weapon damage factors into his chance to hit, this isn't possible -- all of that damage gets translated directly into his chance of hitting in the first place.
Or my personal favorite example as relates to Hollow Earth Expedition: the dinosaur trap. I devise a desperate plan to deal with a pesky T-rex: I'll roll a big-ass rock down a hill and smash the bastard. I'll have to get really lucky to hit, but if it does hit, it should finish him.
But if weapon damage factors into my chance to hit, the boulder suddenly becomes an accurate weapon. I'm quite likely to hit after all.
Mind you, this is based only on what I've read of the rules. If I have something fundamentally wrong here, my apologies.
Quote from: Dan Davenport;447712No, sorry. Let me clarify by way of example.
Suppose I want to represent a giant with a club. I want a hit to be somewhat unlikely, since he's a big, clumsy oaf, but God help you if he hits!
But if weapon damage factors into his chance to hit, this isn't possible -- all of that damage gets translated directly into his chance of hitting in the first place.
Or my personal favorite example as relates to Hollow Earth Expedition: the dinosaur trap. I devise a desperate plan to deal with a pesky T-rex: I'll roll a big-ass rock down a hill and smash the bastard. I'll have to get really lucky to hit, but if it does hit, it should finish him.
But if weapon damage factors into my chance to hit, the boulder suddenly becomes an accurate weapon. I'm quite likely to hit after all.
Mind you, this is based only on what I've read of the rules. If I have something fundamentally wrong here, my apologies.
Ok, I understand the objections now. The fact is that the slowness or clumsiness of a large creature should not be represented in its chance to hit, but in its "speed" attribute (what is used for monsters in place of DEX to determine initiative). This means that in determining the order of declaration of actions, a slow lumbering monster would have to make its declared action (what it intends to do that round) before faster PCs, meaning the PCs can figure out what the big slow monster is planning to do and try to react accordingly.
Throwing a boulder would be a ranged attack, but the above idea of rolling a boulder down on a T-rex would be something I would personally probably handle as a stunt, rather than an attack.
I don't know if the above would really solve your stated objections to the game or not, obviously any system has its own ways of handling things, and certain systems will do things in ways more suited to different styles of play. But I think that there are two important points made here: first, in FtA! its very important to run combat correctly, "declaring actions" is not a mechanic that should be skipped. Second, that the stunting system is one of the things that allows for a lot of versatility in play if the GM chooses to let players get creative with it.
RPGPundit
I bought the the PDF for F:tA a while ago.
I haven't gotten a chance to read t all the way through yet, but so far there are some novel ideas. It meets current interests, which are games with an old school feel built on top of modern mechanics.
The combat phases are...interesting. My opinion on this is actually neutral and will remain as such until I have a chance to play and experience it first hand. But from reading it, I figure that combat will be tactical while swift moving and easy to adjudicate...OR it will end up feeling like a slow plodding nightmare.
The magic system is interesting. I haven't taken a microscope to the numbers to see if they're breakable, but I like the idea of a risk-based system for magical resources. I also like the themed spell lists. Then again, I support any game mechanics that are designed to support a theme.
There are only 5 classes, Fighter, Rogue, Mage, Fighter-Mage, Rogue-Mage. However, these 5 basic archetypes manage to cover a lot of ground. I could grouse at this being yet ANOTHER indie game with humans, elves, drwarves and halflings. But the game also features mermen and orcs as playable options...so here I won't begrudge Pundit his beloved rubber-forehead races.
As much as it pains me to admit, it looks like Pundit may have written an all around decent game. I find that I do not regret shelling out $6 bucks for it on RPGNOW.
Quote from: RPGPundit;447766Ok, I understand the objections now. The fact is that the slowness or clumsiness of a large creature should not be represented in its chance to hit, but in its "speed" attribute (what is used for monsters in place of DEX to determine initiative). This means that in determining the order of declaration of actions, a slow lumbering monster would have to make its declared action (what it intends to do that round) before faster PCs, meaning the PCs can figure out what the big slow monster is planning to do and try to react accordingly.
Hmm... What would said reaction likely be from a game mechanics standpoint? Would winning initiative give the characters a better chance of dodging?
Would this same principle apply to aiming heavy weaponry, like attempting to hit a human-sized opponent with a ballista?
And how would you handle the reverse: an accurate-but-weak attack like a poisoned blowgun dart?
Quote from: RPGPundit;447766Throwing a boulder would be a ranged attack, but the above idea of rolling a boulder down on a T-rex would be something I would personally probably handle as a stunt, rather than an attack.
I'd be curious to know how that would work mechanically as well.
Quote from: RPGPundit;447766I don't know if the above would really solve your stated objections to the game or not, obviously any system has its own ways of handling things, and certain systems will do things in ways more suited to different styles of play. But I think that there are two important points made here: first, in FtA! its very important to run combat correctly, "declaring actions" is not a mechanic that should be skipped. Second, that the stunting system is one of the things that allows for a lot of versatility in play if the GM chooses to let players get creative with it.
RPGPundit
I'm honestly not sure yet whether this would address my objections from the standpoint of my personal taste, pending the answers to my questions above. But certainly, it's a completely valid game mechanic to which I have no objections in principle. As I always stipulate, "not my thing" doesn't equal "bad game".
And I'm a
big fan of stunting mechanics. I'd love to hear some examples of that in play.
Quote from: Shazbot79;447767I bought the the PDF for F:tA a while ago.
I haven't gotten a chance to read t all the way through yet, but so far there are some novel ideas. It meets current interests, which are games with an old school feel built on top of modern mechanics.
The combat phases are...interesting. My opinion on this is actually neutral and will remain as such until I have a chance to play and experience it first hand. But from reading it, I figure that combat will be tactical while swift moving and easy to adjudicate...OR it will end up feeling like a slow plodding nightmare.
The magic system is interesting. I haven't taken a microscope to the numbers to see if they're breakable, but I like the idea of a risk-based system for magical resources. I also like the themed spell lists. Then again, I support any game mechanics that are designed to support a theme.
There are only 5 classes, Fighter, Rogue, Mage, Fighter-Mage, Rogue-Mage. However, these 5 basic archetypes manage to cover a lot of ground. I could grouse at this being yet ANOTHER indie game with humans, elves, drwarves and halflings. But the game also features mermen and orcs as playable options...so here I won't begrudge Pundit his beloved rubber-forehead races.
As much as it pains me to admit, it looks like Pundit may have written an all around decent game. I find that I do not regret shelling out $6 bucks for it on RPGNOW.
I'm glad you were able to admire it, and impressed you were able to admit that.
I should note that the FtA!GN! sourcebook (don't know if you have it) has a huge expansion of material; not much in the sense of actual new rules, but lots of additional peripheral rules material; including one new class (Monk) and several new races; and its in FtA!GN! that you'll find the less standard races (though yes, I included the half-merman specifically to try to say "you can make any kind of weird race you want" in FtA!). FtA!GN!'s races range from the uncommon but still-pretty-standard races like Kobolds, to less usual stuff like Centaurs, to really out-there stuff like Drakes (basically, miniature dragons).
RPGPundit
Quote from: Dan Davenport;447784Hmm... What would said reaction likely be from a game mechanics standpoint? Would winning initiative give the characters a better chance of dodging?
So just to clarify, you haven't actually read the FtA! rules yet? Just reviews, maybe?
Anyways, the way it works is basically this: you have to announce what you want to do this round, in reverse order of DEX/Speed; so the lowest-speed characters have to announce their actions first. They can't change it later. That means characters who are swifter get to know what the other guy is going to do BEFORE they have to decide what they do. It makes speed into not a mechanical issue as much as a tactical one; knowing what the slow lumbering Giant is planning to do means that you can choose to move, fight, stunt, or spell accordingly based on that knowledge.
QuoteWould this same principle apply to aiming heavy weaponry, like attempting to hit a human-sized opponent with a ballista?
That's a good question, and its been so long since I wrote the game that now I don't recall if I actually included ballistas. But I would imagine something like that would take more than one round to fire. Could a person choose NOT to fire after spending the first round or two loading? Sure, but then whatever they choose to do instead would still be declared in reverse order of Dex/Speed.
QuoteAnd how would you handle the reverse: an accurate-but-weak attack like a poisoned blowgun dart?
If by a dart, you're talking about something actually too-small to do real physical injury, like a needle, where the only issue is the poison, you would fire it as per usual but then not actually apply damage, only the requisite "PAS CON" check versus poison. So you'd roll to hit mainly to see if you actually struck your target, and well enough to bypass the DR from armour. If so, you've injected the poison.
QuoteI'd be curious to know how that would work mechanically as well.
Stunts happen in their own phase in combat; and the GM decides for his campaign whether he wants stunts to be something that happens before melee, or melee to happen before stunts. The former means that stunts become far more appealing, so its a question of whether you want your campaign to feature more "PCs doing unusual things rather than attacking" kind of stuff.
Stunts are very free-form in FtA!, so they are basically the player describing what he's doing, and the GM deciding what the relevant check is (it could either be an ACT + attribute check, or an ACT + (relevant) skill check), what the difficulty would be, and what the possible benefits from success would be (and sometimes, consequences for failure).
Stunts can be done to give you or an ally a bonus to a subsequent skill check, to provide bonuses to a subsequent PAS check, to focus damage on a specific opponent (ie. by leaving him exposed or distracted in some way), to provide some kind of protection to an ally (meaning he won't be taking damage from a melee round), to stun an opponent (though the GM can easily determine a stunt might outright knock-out or kill an opponent if he so desires), to cancel out some kind of penalty, to disarm an opponent or destroy their weapon, to give your group a bonus in the Intimidation check phase, to maneuver into an area you normally couldn't get to or to basically make some kind of extended move that round, to make a called shot in the ranged attack phase, to get a bonus to the next spellcasting check, or to make a master-quality item.
Those are just examples detailed in the book, but basically you use the Stunt rules to attempt almost anything within the framework of what the GM wants to allow stunts to be capable of doing in his game.
RPGPundit
Quote from: RPGPundit;447916So just to clarify, you haven't actually read the FtA! rules yet? Just reviews, maybe?
That's correct.
Quote from: RPGPundit;447916Anyways, the way it works is basically this: you have to announce what you want to do this round, in reverse order of DEX/Speed; so the lowest-speed characters have to announce their actions first. They can't change it later. That means characters who are swifter get to know what the other guy is going to do BEFORE they have to decide what they do. It makes speed into not a mechanical issue as much as a tactical one; knowing what the slow lumbering Giant is planning to do means that you can choose to move, fight, stunt, or spell accordingly based on that knowledge.
Would it be accurate to say that a stunt would be the only way to offset the Giant's huge attack bonus? I'm trying to grasp how the PCs could best apply the knowledge that "the Giant is going to try to hit us" from a tactical standpoint.
Quote from: RPGPundit;447916That's a good question, and its been so long since I wrote the game that now I don't recall if I actually included ballistas. But I would imagine something like that would take more than one round to fire. Could a person choose NOT to fire after spending the first round or two loading? Sure, but then whatever they choose to do instead would still be declared in reverse order of Dex/Speed.
If by a dart, you're talking about something actually too-small to do real physical injury, like a needle, where the only issue is the poison, you would fire it as per usual but then not actually apply damage, only the requisite "PAS CON" check versus poison. So you'd roll to hit mainly to see if you actually struck your target, and well enough to bypass the DR from armour. If so, you've injected the poison.
Stunts happen in their own phase in combat; and the GM decides for his campaign whether he wants stunts to be something that happens before melee, or melee to happen before stunts. The former means that stunts become far more appealing, so its a question of whether you want your campaign to feature more "PCs doing unusual things rather than attacking" kind of stuff.
Stunts are very free-form in FtA!, so they are basically the player describing what he's doing, and the GM deciding what the relevant check is (it could either be an ACT + attribute check, or an ACT + (relevant) skill check), what the difficulty would be, and what the possible benefits from success would be (and sometimes, consequences for failure).
Stunts can be done to give you or an ally a bonus to a subsequent skill check, to provide bonuses to a subsequent PAS check, to focus damage on a specific opponent (ie. by leaving him exposed or distracted in some way), to provide some kind of protection to an ally (meaning he won't be taking damage from a melee round), to stun an opponent (though the GM can easily determine a stunt might outright knock-out or kill an opponent if he so desires), to cancel out some kind of penalty, to disarm an opponent or destroy their weapon, to give your group a bonus in the Intimidation check phase, to maneuver into an area you normally couldn't get to or to basically make some kind of extended move that round, to make a called shot in the ranged attack phase, to get a bonus to the next spellcasting check, or to make a master-quality item.
Those are just examples detailed in the book, but basically you use the Stunt rules to attempt almost anything within the framework of what the GM wants to allow stunts to be capable of doing in his game.
RPGPundit
Thanks for the detailed reply! Sounds like a pretty cool game. Let me know if you'd like a review sometime. I can't guarantee a quick turnaround, but I
can guarantee "thorough" and "fair". ;)
Quote from: Dan Davenport;447939Would it be accurate to say that a stunt would be the only way to offset the Giant's huge attack bonus? I'm trying to grasp how the PCs could best apply the knowledge that "the Giant is going to try to hit us" from a tactical standpoint.
It wouldn't be the only way. If the Giant declares he's going to do a melee attack, then you can try a number of things to avoid or minimize it. Obviously, you could choose as a group to strike back in melee, if you have confidence that sufficient numbers of PCs doing a melee attack will be likely to hurt the Giant (and not get hurt by him). But aside from that, since movement happens before combat, you could choose (if the site of combat makes it possible) to move out of range of the giant and avoid the attack; or since you can try to quick-cast before the giant's attack, maybe a spell could be useful against him. Ranged attacks are also resolved before melee combat. So there are several options aside from stunting.
QuoteThanks for the detailed reply! Sounds like a pretty cool game. Let me know if you'd like a review sometime. I can't guarantee a quick turnaround, but I can guarantee "thorough" and "fair". ;)
The choice isn't mine to make; Clash is the publisher and he'd be the one who'd have to make any decisions regarding reviews.
RPGPundit
Of course I would be happy to send Dan a copy, and of FtA!GN! too. PM me with details, Dan - email for pdfs, or snail mail for print.
-clash
Quote from: flyingmice;448013Of course I would be happy to send Dan a copy, and of FtA!GN! too. PM me with details, Dan - email for pdfs, or snail mail for print.
-clash
Good stuff!
RPGPundit