Please post them here.
Thank you.
-clash
No :teehee:
From the old school thread:
Quote from: Elliot Wilen;283126In the spirit of constructive criticism:
• I think the "montage of images" approach is much less effective than a single compelling scene.
The montage of images is just on the website which I linked to. There is no montage of images in the book, and I wasn't suggesting using one. I was asking - stupidly, because it seems to have confused everyone, and rhetorically, because the answer is no - whether one of the other illos there would suit better. None of them address the subject of the section in the sample excerpt. I removed the montage, to avoid this confusion in the future.
Quote• More as a matter of taste, I'm not too keen on the drawing style, which appears to be photographs run through filters to look like watercolors.
Yes, of course.
Quote• That said, the two illos I like best are the one with the two knights and the one with the archer.
How would they illustrate the section on skills and stunts? Neither is using one.
Quote• Given the title, I'd look for a picture that has more of a sense of, well, going forth and confronting the unknown/adventuring. Therefore the main subjects should be facing somewhat away from the viewer, focusing their attention on something outside the illustration, or on some kind of challenge (a fortress, a group of menacing humanoids, a single large monster, etc.). By "somewhat away" I mean anywhere from 30º off center to nearly dead away from the viewer; the idea is to show that the character(s) are moving toward something adventurous which is either illustrated or suggested.
OK...
QuoteA couple of covers which I think handle this sort of theme well include In the Labyrinth (http://www.waynesbooks.com/images/graphics/inthelabyrinth.jpg), RQ3 (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/0/06/Runequest_cover.jpg) (both showing how the adventurers can be focusing forward on an "adventure" that's in the foreground), and Fantasy Hero 1e (http://westkarana.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/02/stp60959.JPG) (not as effective in execution but it shows the idea).
None of them have anything to do with skills and stunts, the subject of the excerpt in question. Did anyone read the sample? I should start it AFTER the freaking illo.
-clash
I should note for clarity that the covers of the print books do NOT have a collage/montage/whatever. They have single images.
RPGPundit
Sorry, complete and utter misunderstanding on my part, I'm afraid. All my comments were regarding the montage as a cover, not as a selection of alternate illos for the skill section.
The actual cover (http://jalan.flyingmice.com/FTA-fing.jpg) which I've now located is much better: looking out from a rising portcullis. Presumably you, the adventurer, are about to leave the safe confines of the fortress and seek your fortune. Personally, I'd consider a slightly different theme and make it into a view looking into a rising portcullis, with darkness behind, although that might be a bit too much like the FtA!GN! cover.
For an illustration of skills, well, my favorite sort of thing is showing someone picking a lock or listening at a door. But tracking in and of itself is okay, too. Part of my response to the illustration is just taste and tone. However the illo also says less "skill use" and more "elf person staring off into the distance". Too subtle, I guess.
Quote from: Elliot Wilen;283142Sorry, complete and utter misunderstanding on my part, I'm afraid. All my comments were regarding the montage as a cover, not as a selection of alternate illos for the skill section.
The actual cover (http://jalan.flyingmice.com/FTA-fing.jpg) which I've now located is much better: looking out from a rising portcullis. Presumably you, the adventurer, are about to leave the safe confines of the fortress and seek your fortune. Personally, I'd consider a slightly different theme and make it into a view looking into a rising portcullis, with darkness behind, although that might be a bit too much like the FtA!GN! cover.
For an illustration of skills, well, my favorite sort of thing is showing someone picking a lock or listening at a door. But tracking in and of itself is okay, too. Part of my response to the illustration is just taste and tone. However the illo also says less "skill use" and more "elf person staring off into the distance". Too subtle, I guess.
Ah! Sorry for the confusion, Elliot. That was exactly what I was going for with the cover - with the adventurer being at the point of view, about to leave home. And the FtA!GN! cover was indeed meant to echo the FtA! cover, in reverse.
-clash
I'm myself also not too convinced of the FtA! cover.
The theme with the half-open gate isn't bad to translate the "forward to adventure" title and idea into a picture, but I think it's too static and has a too low grade of detail to catch anyones eye.
With more implied movement (like a hand or ram that is in the process of cracking down the door) and some hints of the adventure beyond (bones of former forayers, a half-seen 10' pole probing forward for pit traps etc.), it would work better.
(And not to forget a monkey, everything's better with monkeys :D)
Quote from: flyingmice;283117What is FtA!, really? It's a kick-ass game for newbies, designed to integrate old and familiar concepts with new, streamlined techniques to reach the fun.
As someone who's currently prepping his own version of the Western Marches idea with FtA!, I'd wholeheartedly agree to this.
I certainly hits an oldschool nerve, but with very elegant, clockwork-like rules and the absolutely fresh idea of the stunts (which is yet my main selling point for the system, and has been the one hint that helped me the most to recruit players at conventions for this game).
Tragically, this might also be why this game remains underrated. Folks who already enjoy old-school gaming have already found a system that serves them, at least well enough to see little incentive to switch to something similar.
On the other hand, folks who don't enjoy any of the existing old-school games aren't probably very interested into trying out any game that flirts with being old-school, so FtA! isn't even taken into their consideration.
(I don't except myself from this. If it hadn't been for the cheap price of the PDF version and an "just peek at it, you've seen less productive ways to get rid of 10€" attitude, I probably wouldn't have picked it up at all. After all, there's probably every other the week the offer of "everything you want from a fantasy game, but more elegant/streamlined/overall improved" - which then often turns out as "my D&D, but with a skill system, and with STR and CON as well as INT and WIS thrown together for streamlining purposes, and we also have winged monkeys as PC race while getting rid of gnomes".)
Quote from: Skyrock;283151(And not to forget a monkey, everything's better with monkeys :D)
That was basically the rational for The (FtA!GN!'s) Setting's Gorilla Kingdoms.
RPGPundit
Quote from: Skyrock;283151As someone who's currently prepping his own version of the Western Marches idea with FtA!, I'd wholeheartedly agree to this.
I certainly hits an oldschool nerve, but with very elegant, clockwork-like rules and the absolutely fresh idea of the stunts (which is yet my main selling point for the system, and has been the one hint that helped me the most to recruit players at conventions for this game).
Tragically, this might also be why this game remains underrated. Folks who already enjoy old-school gaming have already found a system that serves them, at least well enough to see little incentive to switch to something similar.
On the other hand, folks who don't enjoy any of the existing old-school games aren't probably very interested into trying out any game that flirts with being old-school, so FtA! isn't even taken into their consideration.
(I don't except myself from this. If it hadn't been for the cheap price of the PDF version and an "just peek at it, you've seen less productive ways to get rid of 10€" attitude, I probably wouldn't have picked it up at all. After all, there's probably every other the week the offer of "everything you want from a fantasy game, but more elegant/streamlined/overall improved" - which then often turns out as "my D&D, but with a skill system, and with STR and CON as well as INT and WIS thrown together for streamlining purposes, and we also have winged monkeys as PC race while getting rid of gnomes".)
I agree with everything you said, Skyrock. It's in a weird place - I can't pitch it to old schoolers, and people who might really like it think it's retro old school, and dismiss it out of hand. And I've been there and done that with the "my D&D, with X, and flying monkey PCs" too often not to understand why it gets dismissed this way. Nailed it.
-clash
Quote from: flyingmice;283158I agree with everything you said, Skyrock. It's in a weird place - I can't pitch it to old schoolers, and people who might really like it think it's retro old school, and dismiss it out of hand. And I've been there and done that with the "my D&D, with X, and flying monkey PCs" too often not to understand why it gets dismissed this way. Nailed it.
-clash
This was all I was trying to say in the other thread Clash.
Quote from: Elliot Wilen;283142Sorry, complete and utter misunderstanding on my part, I'm afraid. All my comments were regarding the montage as a cover, not as a selection of alternate illos for the skill section.
The actual cover (http://jalan.flyingmice.com/FTA-fing.jpg) which I've now located is much better:
Whew. I was worried there for a sec. "He doesn't like the portcullis cover? Is this the El I know... or have Th-They replaced him?"
From the Ashes? Carl Sargent can write his ass off.
ok, honestly-
1. The lack of a free pdf kills my interest in any self-published game - fair or not, that's how it is.
2. The comparisons to T&T. I hate the combat system in T&T- completely.
3. Not using your real name to publish with - lame and cowardly. Again, fair or not, that's my impression and I don't know you from adam.
Quote from: mhensley;283168ok, honestly-
1. The lack of a free pdf kills my interest in any self-published game - fair or not, that's how it is.
2. The comparisons to T&T. I hate the combat system in T&T- completely.
3. Not using your real name to publish with - lame and cowardly. Again, fair or not, that's my impression and I don't know you from adam.
Cool, Mike. People who will like it will like it. People who won't like it won't like it. People who won't look at it cannot be moved from their pre-judgment. Fair or not, that's how it is.
Honestly, OK?
-clash
Maybe a free intro version of FtA! would help to build a bridge...
Just start with a small dungeon romp of five rooms or so, provide the basic rules and the combat rules, omit character creation in favour of some pre-gens (together with a generic henchman as replacement for dead PCs), and offer only the "ammo" that is directly needed for that one dungeon adventure (the spells that are actually known to and the weapons that are actually owned by the characters, the monsters that actually play a role in the adventure, the magical items and dungeon features that can actually be found in the dungeon etc.).
It would be enough to think over the rule system and to give it a shot for an evening, or maybe a second if you are ready to make up a second adventure of the known stuff, but for any prolonged play, it would probably more sensible to just pay at least the 10$ for the PDF and to have all the "ammo" ready to be thrown in.
I wouldn't crop the basic system for an intro version, though - first, there isn't much unnecessary stuff to crop in the main rule book, and second, a big part of the charm of FtA! lies in the clockwork-like interaction of the combat sequence and in the bandwidth of the stunts, so any cropping would result in a very crippled playing experience that has little to do with the actual game.
Quote from: Skyrock;283192Maybe a free intro version of FtA! would help to build a bridge...
Just start with a small dungeon romp of five rooms or so, provide the basic rules and the combat rules, omit character creation in favour of some pre-gens (together with a generic henchman as replacement for dead PCs), and offer only the "ammo" that is directly needed for that one dungeon adventure (the spells that are actually known to and the weapons that are actually owned by the characters, the monsters that actually play a role in the adventure, the magical items and dungeon features that can actually be found in the dungeon etc.).
It would be enough to think over the rule system and to give it a shot for an evening, or maybe a second if you are ready to make up a second adventure of the known stuff, but for any prolonged play, it would probably more sensible to just pay at least the 10$ for the PDF and to have all the "ammo" ready to be thrown in.
I wouldn't crop the basic system for an intro version, though - first, there isn't much unnecessary stuff to crop in the main rule book, and second, a big part of the charm of FtA! lies in the clockwork-like interaction of the combat sequence and in the bandwidth of the stunts, so any cropping would result in a very crippled playing experience that has little to do with the actual game.
That's actually a kick ass idea, Stefan! Maybe I could base it on the adventure I put together for GenCon last year...
-clash
Quote from: Skyrock;283192Maybe a free intro version of FtA! would help to build a bridge...
Just start with a small dungeon romp of five rooms or so, provide the basic rules and the combat rules, omit character creation in favour of some pre-gens (together with a generic henchman as replacement for dead PCs), and offer only the "ammo" that is directly needed for that one dungeon adventure (the spells that are actually known to and the weapons that are actually owned by the characters, the monsters that actually play a role in the adventure, the magical items and dungeon features that can actually be found in the dungeon etc.).
It would be enough to think over the rule system and to give it a shot for an evening, or maybe a second if you are ready to make up a second adventure of the known stuff, but for any prolonged play, it would probably more sensible to just pay at least the 10$ for the PDF and to have all the "ammo" ready to be thrown in.
I wouldn't crop the basic system for an intro version, though - first, there isn't much unnecessary stuff to crop in the main rule book, and second, a big part of the charm of FtA! lies in the clockwork-like interaction of the combat sequence and in the bandwidth of the stunts, so any cropping would result in a very crippled playing experience that has little to do with the actual game.
That's actually a kick ass idea, Stefan! Maybe I could base it on the adventure I put together for GenCon last year...
BTW - I just lowered the pdf price to $6 - maybe temporary, maybe permanent. We'll experiment.
-clash
While you are at thinking about it, I'd look that the intro highlights the strengths of FtA!. I'd need to think about what should be highlighted and how it could be done, and Pundit probably has a keener eye for the strong points of FtA! then I, but it should definitively offer challenges that are especially prone to stunts.
Ah, and I'd definitively also include a brawl with improvised weapons in the hands of the monsters. While just a minor nicety, it's also nice how the categorization of weapons in broad categories makes it easy to determine how much damage a chair leg does in comparison to a broken bottle and so on.
Quote from: flyingmice;283158I agree with everything you said, Skyrock. It's in a weird place - I can't pitch it to old schoolers, and people who might really like it think it's retro old school, and dismiss it out of hand.
I bought a PDF copy when Pundit started this thread to try to see why he thought old-school gamers should just play it instead of working on retro-clones if they want currently published games. It is definitely not an old school game and I can't see why any old-school player would prefer it to their favorite edition of D&D (or a retro-clone thereof). However, it shares a number of things that most old-school gamers like in a game-system.
* it is rules-light (although the large print and resulting large number of pages hide this).
* it has abstracted combat so a single combat situation does not take one-quarter of your available game time
* it is easy to house-rule without breaking too many things unexpectedly.
* it lends itself to the "rulings not rules" style old school players tend to prefer.
So while it is not an old-school game by any stretch of the imagination, I looks like it would be relatively easy to use FtA! to run a campaign in the old-school style. Unlike most modern RPG designs I've seen, there is little designed into FtA! that would interfere with this. This will not attract Old School Players, but it could attract people who sort of like the old school style of play but really want to use a more modern set of rules.
Quote from: RandallS;283247I bought a PDF copy when Pundit started this thread to try to see why he thought old-school gamers should just play it instead of working on retro-clones if they want currently published games. It is definitely not an old school game and I can't see why any old-school player would prefer it to their favorite edition of D&D (or a retro-clone thereof). However, it shares a number of things that most old-school gamers like in a game-system.
* it is rules-light (although the large print and resulting large number of pages hide this).
* it has abstracted combat so a single combat situation does not take one-quarter of your available game time
* it is easy to house-rule without breaking too many things unexpectedly.
* it lends itself to the "rulings not rules" style old school players tend to prefer.
So while it is not an old-school game by any stretch of the imagination, I looks like it would be relatively easy to use FtA! to run a campaign in the old-school style. Unlike most modern RPG designs I've seen, there is little designed into FtA! that would interfere with this. This will not attract Old School Players, but it could attract people who sort of like the old school style of play but really want to use a more modern set of rules.
I agree entirely with your analysis, Randall - or perhaps it may be you agree with mine! :D
In any case, I think we may have to be explicit - something like "Old school style of play [with] a more modern rule set" pretty much nails it. May I use that phrase in possible copy? With attribution, I mean.
Thanks!
-clash
Here is a question for you Clash. What makes FtA a great game for beginners?
Quote from: HinterWelt;283265Here is a question for you Clash. What makes FtA a great game for beginners?
Let me first state that I am very familiar with introducing new players into the hobby. I have brought perhaps fifty people into long-time gaming, most starting when they were young. None of my current group, for example, had ever played RPGs with another GM before playing with me. I'm very familiar with newbies, especially young ones, unlike a lot of GMs.
First, the generic nature of the setting. It's familiar to anyone who has read fantasy books or played a fantasy computer game. Yes, they are all descended from D&D ultimately, but this is just the first reason.
Second, Stunting. Stunting is exactly what newbies want to do, which is not at all codified in D&D. Stunting is not some power move - it's basically using your non-combat skills, imagination, and brains in combat. The structure is forgiving, adaptable, and easily extended because rather than setting up rigid rules, Pundit expresses the structure in the form of a set of guideline templates. Insert the intent into the most applicable template, or modify a template to suit the circumstance, and away you go. Thus you have freedom with structure - perfect for newbies. This is the part of FtA! that made me fall in love with it.
Third, Pundit's writing. Clear, concise, yet entertaining. Never long-winded or obscure. A very important point, especially with kids who are used to instant communications. I had read Herodotus long before I read Gygax, so I could appreciate a good digression, but these kids haven't.
Fourth, the system structure. Structure is important to newbies! They want to experiment and go where they list, but they don't know what is possible and what is not. Many people on tBP would bring up this or that rules ultra-light game as perfect for rookies, but there is no internal support for them! Rules ultra-light can only be appreciated by experienced RPGers. You need to know a lot before you can reliably determine what you actually need, and thus what you can dispense with. That's why Palladium and D&D are far better games for new - particularly young, new players - than Wushu or Risus or the like. The system is structured like clockwork, as Stefan said, yet it's very easy to understand, and within that structure you have a lot of freedom.
That's what I can think of right now.
-clash
That then, is the basis of what you should present to people. Your points are more than "just for newbies". They apply to anyone who will pick up the game.
I will say though, that you point 2 and point four seem to contradict one another but that could merely be my unfamiliarity with the game showing. Regardless, it is immaterial to the exercise here.
So, sum those points to four sentences.
Quote from: flyingmice;283270Second, Stunting. Stunting is exactly what newbies want to do, which is not at all codified in D&D. Stunting is not some power move - it's basically using your non-combat skills, imagination, and brains in combat.
Kids today may call it 'stunting', but we used to just call that 'playing smart'. :)
I want a print copy and have been too poor to get it.
About my only complaint..other than "Half Mermen, man WTH?" (not the strangest PC race, but a bit too specific..)
I liked it for the most part, and I liked the dungeon charts a lot. However, my pink tie turns blue to think that the combat system is rough on single players.
Quote from: StormBringer;283281Kids today may call it 'stunting', but we used to just call that 'playing smart'. :)
I didn't say it wasn't there, just that it wasn't codified. The senility hasn't eroded those memories yet... :D
-clash
Quote from: flyingmice;283290I didn't say it wasn't there, just that it wasn't codified. The senility hasn't eroded those memories yet... :D
-clash
True story. :)
I think 'stunting' is better for supers games anyway, where the power descriptions have to be necessarily vague. Using the Thief's skill at picking pockets to palm small objects is neat and all, but most of what you could do was pretty straightforward anyway, in regards to skills and class abilities. Clever use of those skills is great, but when you boil it down, most of them were
simple rather than
vague. The rest of them were usable in just about one situation each, and it was pretty specific. Spells, of course, are a different story. That was the fun of playing the spellcaster; inventive use of spells. Turning undead, on the other hand, was a one trick pony. As was backstabbing and swinging a sword.
That isn't to say Magic Users were the only ones with options. Aside from that, their abilities were pretty limited, too. Especially considering their combat options were severely deficient, with low hit points and no high damage weapons. You can always describe your Fighter doing combat rolls through enemy positions and whatnot, so the 'stunting' is there. The basic skills, though, were rather too limited to provide for stunts.
Quote from: flyingmice;283249I agree entirely with your analysis, Randall - or perhaps it may be you agree with mine! :D
Agreement is always good no matter which way you look at it.
QuoteIn any case, I think we may have to be explicit - something like "Old school style of play [with] a more modern rule set" pretty much nails it. May I use that phrase in possible copy? With attribution, I mean.
Be my guest. I'm going to list FtA! in the "if you like Microlite74, but want a more complete game" section of the next edition of Microlite74 and will be saying pretty much what I said here. FtA! is a great game if you want to run an old-school style game with a more modern set of rules.
Quote from: Dr Rotwang!;283288I liked it for the most part, and I liked the dungeon charts a lot. However, my pink tie turns blue to think that the combat system is rough on single players.
Well, it certainly wasn't designed for single-PC gaming in mind; but there's nothing in it that's inherently BAD for single PCs either, it just means that a player by himself has to be much more careful about which battles he gets into and where he does so; which just makes sense, really.
And its not that different in that sense from D&D; one player can fight one Orc, but you'll want more than one player to fight five Orcs at a time, unless you do some very clever things to beat them.
RPGPundit
Quote from: RandallS;283297Be my guest. I'm going to list FtA! in the "if you like Microlite74, but want a more complete game" section of the next edition of Microlite74 and will be saying pretty much what I said here. FtA! is a great game if you want to run an old-school style game with a more modern set of rules.
Wow; well thank you very much for that!
RPGPundit
Quote from: RPGPundit;283307And its not that different in that sense from D&D; one player can fight one Orc, but you'll want more than one player to fight five Orcs at a time, unless you do some very clever things to beat them.
RPGPundit
Very, very true; when I went down into Greyhawk with nothing but one first-level magic user, alone, I was VERY aware of the fact that the odds strongly favored my character ending up dead.
But he didn't.
If it's meant to be introductory & Roguelike-like, why not emphasise that by making it more 'boardgamey', and having more 'extra bits' (cardboard figures, rooms etc) - like HeroQuest or this thing (http://www.rpgquest.com.br/rpgquest/default.asp).
Quote from: RPGPundit;283308Wow; well thank you very much for that!
You're welcome! Many people don't realize that the entire point of Microlite74 (http://www.retroroleplaying.com/content/microlite74) is to introduce modern players to the "Old School" style of play with a simple set of rules that mimics 0e with a variant of the modern D20 system they are probably most familiar with. I think of M74 as an old school roleplaying version of those 4 page "introductory" wargames SPI used to give away.
While M74 is playable for a full campaign, most people who try it and find the old school style enjoyable are going to want to move on to a more complete game. I currently provide info in M74 on all the retro-clones out there to help them do that. However, I realize that some people will want the old school feel without old-school rules. FtA! is the first game I've seen that I think could really handle this well, so it'll be listed in the next edition.
While old school me doesn't have a great deal of interest in playing it, I can see how those who don't actually like old school gamesystems but find they like the old school style might find FtA! to be just the thing to scratch their itch.
In regards of melee for single PCs: I guess it wouldn't be too hard as a houserule to break the melee down to one-on-one-action, or to apply the ranged combat rules to melee. That way, a single character would yet have to take loads of damge, but at least he could chip away at a foe one at a time, rather then being totally helplessly slaughtered.
I probably wouldn't do it, though: I think it would make ranged combat and melee mechanically too similar and take away a great deal of tactics.
Rather, I'd change the campaign set-up so that the single adventurer has some henchmen to aid him in the dirty bladework. If you use the abbreviated monster stat block for these henchmen, it should be performable quite smoothly without too much paperwork and math.
Quote from: RandallS;283297Agreement is always good no matter which way you look at it.
Be my guest. I'm going to list FtA! in the "if you like Microlite74, but want a more complete game" section of the next edition of Microlite74 and will be saying pretty much what I said here. FtA! is a great game if you want to run an old-school style game with a more modern set of rules.
Whoa! Thank you Randall! That's an honor!
-clash
Quote from: Skyrock;283350I probably wouldn't do it, though: I think it would make ranged combat and melee mechanically too similar and take away a great deal of tactics.
Rather, I'd change the campaign set-up so that the single adventurer has some henchmen to aid him in the dirty bladework. If you use the abbreviated monster stat block for these henchmen, it should be performable quite smoothly without too much paperwork and math.
Yes - that would be my preferred method of dealing with the situation, too.
-clash
Quote from: Skyrock;283350In regards of melee for single PCs: I guess it wouldn't be too hard as a houserule to break the melee down to one-on-one-action, or to apply the ranged combat rules to melee. That way, a single character would yet have to take loads of damge, but at least he could chip away at a foe one at a time, rather then being totally helplessly slaughtered.
I don't see why he'd be helplessly slaughtered currently, unless he was an idiot. Yes, if he went up against three or four orcs at a time, he'd be slaughtered (unless he was like, 11th level or something). But if he was going up against a single orc, there's no difference in terms of challenge level than if three PCs were fighting three orcs.
In a way, Fta! is made for one-on-one combat; it presumes that to be the paradigm. What you can legitimately complain about FtA! isn't that it doesn't handle single play very well, but that it doesn't handle the paradigm of "ultraheroic lone warrior wading into 20 orcs at a time and slaughtering them" kind of play.
QuoteRather, I'd change the campaign set-up so that the single adventurer has some henchmen to aid him in the dirty bladework.
And yes, if you're going out into the dungeon all by yourself, you'd better hire henchmen!
QuoteIf you use the abbreviated monster stat block for these henchmen, it should be performable quite smoothly without too much paperwork and math.
Shit. Now THERE'S a good idea I hadn't thought of. Henchmen with only monster stats! Awesome.
RPGPundit
Quote from: RPGPundit;283367Shit. Now THERE'S a good idea I hadn't thought of. Henchmen with only monster stats! Awesome.
RPGPundit
Huh? That's one of the first things I thought of when reading it! It's sweet, logical, and perfectly in-character for the game. Then again, I try to do this with any game I'm going to run - reduce NPC prep and handling time wherever possible. If I can't do this, I use a game that will.
-clash
Quote from: RPGPundit;283367I don't see why he'd be helplessly slaughtered currently, unless he was an idiot. Yes, if he went up against three or four orcs at a time, he'd be slaughtered (unless he was like, 11th level or something). But if he was going up against a single orc, there's no difference in terms of challenge level than if three PCs were fighting three orcs.
Well, "live to fight another day" and "use your terrain, stupid" are of course important tactics, and they're even more important if you walk alone through a monster-infested cellar, but I can yet see how a single character is especially disadvantaged, as even one additional foe means a massive loss of chance. A bigger group has a bit more leeway, as the ratio grows slower with each enemy.
And there might also be instances where you hardly have the luxury of living to fight another day, like falling into a snake pit. In a typical one-on-one combat system, you could at least whack a path to the wall and try to escape battered and wounded; in FtA!, even being cornered by 4 snakes means pretty much death to anyone but high-level heroes, and you can't even scratch one of those scaled vermins.
QuoteShit. Now THERE'S a good idea I hadn't thought of. Henchmen with only monster stats! Awesome.
I actually assumed that this is the standard procedure. At least it seems to me from the NPC chapter in FTA!GN! that the monster stat blocks for the various lvl1-humanoids (Peasant, Barbarian, Dwarven Miner etc.) are meant for brigands, henchmen and other nameless "mooks" that should remain manageable while roaming the scene in numbers, while the more detailed standard stats divided by class and level are meant for solitary and more important NPCs like merc group captains, town mayors, the Ice Wizard from the standard setting and so on.
Quote from: Skyrock;283371And there might also be instances where you hardly have the luxury of living to fight another day, like falling into a snake pit. In a typical one-on-one combat system, you could at least whack a path to the wall and try to escape battered and wounded; in FtA!, even being cornered by 4 snakes means pretty much death to anyone but high-level heroes, and you can't even scratch one of those scaled vermins.
That's where you'd stunt!
RPGPundit
Quote from: Age of Fable;283341If it's meant to be introductory & Roguelike-like, why not emphasise that by making it more 'boardgamey', and having more 'extra bits' (cardboard figures, rooms etc) - like HeroQuest or this thing (http://www.rpgquest.com.br/rpgquest/default.asp).
Well, because we're an actual RPG? I'm not saying cardboard figures might never be produced, but its hardly the emphasis.
RPGPundit