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. And another.

-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.