Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Dermonster]

From a strictly players point of view, I enjoy fantasy RTD's the most, as I have excessive ammounts of ways to interpret 'magic'. In Futuristic ones, its mostly just repeating 'point and shoot'. Mad scientist RTD was a different case. I also highly enjoy being the main lead in the story, such as in Trope RTD or GeneRTD, but those died out, because I am an avid reader, trope fan, and I have an above average imagination. I could probably come up with a good few speeches and dialogue scenes, but rarely do I have the chance to do so. GeneRTD was a really good one, I got to write whole paragraphs.

I also enjoy viciously poking logic holes into peoples plans, if I can find any.

[Bdthemag]

I personally think the simpler the better, i've seen quite a few numbers of rtd's because they have to complex rules. I try to make the turns short and sweet so im more willing to do one in more day.

[ExKirby]

I personally prefer Steampunk or Sci-Fi settings, because logical boundaries can be stepped over by creating some kind of machine built to step over logical boundaries. Plus, pew pew lasers and steampunk gears <3

[Tarran]

From a strictly players point of view, I enjoy fantasy RTD's the most, as I have excessive ammounts of ways to interpret 'magic'. In Futuristic ones, its mostly just repeating 'point and shoot'.

Hmmm, good point.

I also highly enjoy being the main lead in the story, such as in Trope RTD or GeneRTD, but those died out, because I am an avid reader, trope fan, and I have an above average imagination. I could probably come up with a good few speeches and dialogue scenes, but rarely do I have the chance to do so. GeneRTD was a really good one, I got to write whole paragraphs.

Well, if people want to be the leader, I think I'll have them fight each-other TO THE DEATH for it. There can only be one.

I personally think the simpler the better, i've seen quite a few numbers of rtd's because they have to complex rules. I try to make the turns short and sweet so im more willing to do one in more day.

Here's the problem, though: If RTDs are too simple (just the 6 sided die), then it feels too... how shall I say it... "Flat" to me.

However, on the flip side, if they're too complex, my brain usually shuts off and exits.

I personally prefer Steampunk or Sci-Fi settings, because logical boundaries can be stepped over by creating some kind of machine built to step over logical boundaries. Plus, pew pew lasers and steampunk gears <3

Don't forget mini-nukes, plasma weapons, insanely fast miniguns, particle beams, shields, insane AIs... yeah.

Mmmmh, I think I'll go with fantasy.

Now, I still need to figure out complexity. I'll work on that.

A few more questions:

How do I make bows an actual equal alternative to ranged magic? Because in most games, bows are completely ignored, which I don't like.

Should I allow the players completely choose what they have in the beginning or should I make, say, a starting amount of money for each player and make a store?

How much attention should be paid to the environment? As in, should I memorize each place the players visit, should I just remember the important parts, or should I make it so they'll never get to a place they've been before? Because trying to find my posts about each area isn't exactly on my mind as ideal.

[Dermonster]

For bows, it doesn't matter. It's what you do with the arrows. Exploding, fire, acid, generates a huge mound of dirt where shot, places a source of light, get creative. Although I suppose a bow that generated it's own ammo made of the physical manifestation of [element] would be nice.

I'd say leave them all starkers a'la Multiworld madness. If they want to do something, let em try. No starting bonuses, but let em have easy access to starter materials.

And from prior experience, people are much more likely to burn shit to the ground than examine it, so pay attention to the important stuff only. Protip: If the payers likely won't care, neither should you.

Thats not to say everything should be bland though. I like a good scenery description as much as anyone else.

[Draignean]

From a strictly players point of view, I enjoy fantasy RTD's the most, as I have excessive ammounts of ways to interpret 'magic'. In Futuristic ones, its mostly just repeating 'point and shoot'.

Hmmm, good point.

Noticing that myself with my current major RTD, kinda want to just make the opponents brain explode just so I can write something more interesting.

...because logical boundaries can be stepped over by creating some kind of machine built to step over logical boundaries...

This. There is nothing more fun than spending some time designing some piece of non-existent tech to beat the shit out of Einstein and/or God. (I mean that in a very reverent and caring way, to Einstein at least.) Space engines aren't fun, so you leave that up to the player, and a lot of little stuff you don't want to hang over too long so you leave that mostly to the player and drop a few Sci-Fi buzzwords (Dilating doors, pads, etc). It's when you decide to find a way to tell physics to cram it that it gets fun, making a device that you really have no clue how it works but the best theory is that it accelerates everything else but it in the universe to light speed simultaneously and thus massively dilates time was a blast. Organic machines with multiple brains each designed to fulfill a single function of our brains. Sci-Fi is endless fun, because it's a magic trick. It doesn't have to be real, you just have to show people one angle of how it might be real and let the audience to take over.



Myself, if I had nothing better to do I would have five or ten RTDs running. As it is the control is nice, lets the fresher ideas ferment before they get sent out into the world like nymphs and get fucked with. They call it Incompetence, I call it quality control. Tomato, Tomahto.

[IronyOwl]

I've got a buttload of RTDs I've been planning to do (eight. Yes, eight.) but I usually get stuck in various places.

Heheh, I find this easy to believe. There's just so many good ideas out there.

I don't plan on compromising between the two because two vastly different universes clashing will only end in tears.

Well, you could always throw in space wizards. Starcraft manages to have melee combat, space wizards, and ancient ruins and artifacts, for instance, while Star Wars is pretty much known for its sword-wielding wizards in space. Anime also does this sort of stuff reasonably frequently.

Another problem is: I don't know how much complexity people are willing to have/read. I usually get so carried away that most of the text on the game is about complexity and when I stop I realize that I don't think I'll be able to do that much complexity and neither will the players. On the other hand, if I cut down I feel like I'm simplifying the game too much.

Indeed. As a player, I tend to not like very much flavor text; at some point it just becomes a bother to read. In terms of mechanical complexity, I'm much more forgiving, but I'm not sure how others feel. It certainly turns "ooh I might join this" to "okay, so melee combat works like this... which means if I use an axe while stacking health... hmmm, upkeep seems a bit odd, I wonder if...?", which presumably means sometimes I don't join after all.

As a GM, I tend to be stuck with a struggle between making it manageable and making the game do what I want. This is particularly exacerbated using a d6, because any straight-up arithmetic has a massive effect; someone who rolls 1d6+2 for dodge is nigh-unhittable against someone who rolls 1d6 to hit, for instance.

And one, final problem that usually hurts me the most is, why should I make an RTD? I want to do stuff my own way, but I get more fun out of making the actions instead of making the results. And I'm dubious on if I should make a character for myself in my own RTD because I'm worried about being biased.

Some people like to create more than others. Some people also like to watch others do stuff more than others. It's a bit of an odd topic, I suppose.

As for bias... that's tricky, but generally a biased game is better than none at all, and if it isn't presumably no one will play it.

How do I make bows an actual equal alternative to ranged magic? Because in most games, bows are completely ignored, which I don't like.

I think this is a function of RTDs being fairly simple, and thus a good example of that "simple versus good" issue I always have. Magic can usually do all sorts of fun stuff, so people are naturally drawn to that. Melee weapons can be cool, and in general there's some good reason why melee wielders are hardier than magic users. Bows... fill magic's slot of "squishy damage," but are less varied (and usually less cool) than either magic or melee. There's no obvious reason to take them, like with magic, nor is there a commonly built in advantage to them, like melee.

There's a thousand different ways to solve that, then, and it largely depends on how everything else works. This includes whether when you say "bows" you're talking about "the archer class," "the bonuses bows give when used," "the special maneuvers you can use with bows," or something else.

[Dermonster]

An extension on the bow vs magic problem: The thing is, I like to think of myself using, say, water magic, to drain all the blood from the opponents body. Or freeze the blood. Maybe using earth magic to manipulate the attackers bones and rip them all out simultaneously.

Bows are another case of point-and-shoot, I think, even if subconsciously. If I had to use one I could think of some pretty neat stuff to do with it, suck as trick shots or long distance sharpshooting, (In Mercenary RTD I once painted a wall, literally, with a guys brains bones and blood with a headshot. It was a painting of a guy getting headshotted.) but I prefer extreme variety.

On RTD's in general, I think I prefer a flexible, well written, and expansive story above it all. No matter space modern or fantasy, if the intro has the markings of something epic, I'll try it out. If it turns out to not be, I'll make it epic by sheer force of will.

But I do have to agree on one thing. If you need more than three or four spoilers to explain stuff, I likely won't bother looking it over and just go elsewhere.

[Bdthemag]

Since i've never dealed with a player dying in an RTD, I was wondering when should I decide to kill a character? I don't want to kill them to soon but then again I don't want a man with no legs and arms crawling around beating up baddies.

[Dermonster]

I hope you don't mean me

Anyway, you kill them once they take enough damage. Or once a set amount of time of a major injury not getting healed goes off.

Or if they are being a dick. or stupid.

[Bdthemag]

I hope you don't mean me

Anyway, you kill them once they take enough damage. Or once a set amount of time of a major injury not getting healed goes off.

Or if they are being a dick. or stupid.

Of course I don't mean you *shifty eyes*.

[Tarran]

Since i've never dealed with a player dying in an RTD, I was wondering when should I decide to kill a character? I don't want to kill them to soon but then again I don't want a man with no legs and arms crawling around beating up baddies.

As a player, I say wait until they get tired of having no limbs and ask to die themselves. I'm pretty sure absolutely no one likes someone else just killing them. They'd rather die on their own terms.

[IronyOwl]

I'll second "when they run out of hit points or blood." If they're crippled anyway that shouldn't take too long, and if they can't wriggle their way into battle in the first place, you should probably just cut to the chase and give them cybernetic limbs or ask if they'd like to reroll now.

[ExKirby]

I'll second "when they run out of hit points or blood." If they're crippled anyway that shouldn't take too long, and if they can't wriggle their way into battle in the first place, you should probably just cut to the chase and give them cybernetic limbs or ask if they'd like to reroll now.

Generally, loss of limbs is death. At least, in Sci-Fi, where all the weapons deal heavy damage on hit.

[ExKirby]

So I had another idea. A sandbox Mad Scientist game, where the aim is to have epic iinventions. NPC tech is barebones minimum, and factions don't yet exist. Players must forge a technological world, and maybe have their own faction to boot. The game would be interesting, because you could literally go anywhere with it.

Also, backstory.

The year is 2026. Despite major natural disasters tearing the less developed countries to shreds, and tossing the better off ones into high turmoil, not much has changed. Despite small technilogical advances being made, the overall scheme of things hasn't changed. Until today.

It is a bitter January morning in the streets of New York. You look out of your window to see a similar street to 15 years ago. Sure, the cars may be more economic, and the buildings may be more efficient, this is still the same old NYC. You look at your room. Amongst a clutter of scrap parts, a computer, a HD3DTV and a door, you see your Science Certificate, designed by yourself. You squat down to admire it for a second.

Suddenly, by pure stroke of luck, a strange beam of light hits your window, bounces of your most prized invention, catches your certificate and hits you square in the eye. You feel inspired enough to regenerate the bog standardness of modern life into something amazing! You grab your clothes, your tools, some parts and your prized invention, and head outside. You notice that five others seem to be inspired on a similar scale. Work with or against them, but you will craft the world again... with the power of Science.

I could run this actually... does it seem good?