For one powerful, arrogant wizard it's perfect

Very cool, great map and idea. Thank you!

yeah, it really depends on the group. Some people love learning new stuff. Some people are like absolutely phobic of it. Though I have a half-serious hypothesis: Some players are so bad at rules, the kind of player that asks every week "what do I roll to attack again?", that you could just change the system without telling them and they wouldn't notice and do any worse. Though that's less true for systems that require creative player buy-in like Fate. D&D in the "I move and attack" mode can be phoned in easier, I think.

If you look for acrylic paint sets on Amazon, you'll find tons of them have reviews testifying whether or not they're suitable for minis. I'm talking about the artist tube sets, not the pots, here. The key factor in suitability for these is the amount of pigment. The consistency can be changed easily with water.

This post did not contain any content.

I'm running a Lasers & Feelings game over at Every Post is an RPG. Join up if you want to participate in some quickplay (week or so, maybe two) Galaxy Quest/Star Trek shenanigans! It should be a Phase Blast! (ok ok, I'll see my way out...)

A really fun comparison of some sample hacking/decking/netrunning runs in Shadowrun (1st, 4th, 5th), Cyberpunk (2020, RED), and a couple of systems I'm unfamiliar with. It's interesting to see the ludic philosophy for each system: Shadowrun seems to value stealth for deckers, meaning cybercombat only occurs when something goes wrong. Cyberpunk seems to expect netrunners to steamroll everything in the system they're attacking. I have a personal attachment to the Shadowrun style, and I'm trying to figure out how "sneaking" works in Cyberpunk RED. I think the short answer is it doesn't, and I'll have to figure out what an alarm means in this system and how it should be triggered.

This post did not contain any content.

I'd say it's probably closest to Dungeon World? It is a d12 system, and the design of the character classes is pretty clearly inspired by Apocalypse World and the like, but it drops some of the quirkier, fluffier aspects of those systems for a more d20-like approach. For example, combat is a little crunchier and a little closer to d20 systems - it's still theater of the mind but there are turns and initiative. Your character has an attack modifier, damage die, and a defense score that determines how hard you are to hit - which work in ways familiar to d20 players. Some characters also have Block, which is damage reducton. If you roll poorly on your attack, though, you can be counterattacked - but the players can do that to enemies on their turn, too, so it balances out. You also make skill checks like you would in a d20 system, though it does still use the degrees of success that PtbA is known for. But you don't have that little quirk of the NPCs only acting when the PCs make a move. NPCs don't have stats for things like skill checks, but there's nothing stopping the GM from assigning an appropriate modifier and rolling for NPCs if needed - although the players should still be using their skills whenever possible. And when the PCs are elsewhere on the map, the GM is encouraged to keep NPCs and factions proactive and advancing their own plans.

I'm looking for feedback for generic opposition. Problem My players have gotten to the point where gangers and bodyguards don't really threaten unless they show up in force (like 2x the number of players). The Solo has made great choices about equipment and IP assignment, so they're dancing around most mooks I throw their way. I'm trying to create a general corporate "Rapid Response Team" (borrowing from Shadowrun) that can pose a serious threat to the PCs. I plan to use them as reason why the players try to avoid triggering alarms or waltzing into corporate areas guns blazing. Solution Rapid Response Teams are deployed when an alarm goes off, or there's a confirmed threat in an area a corp wants to keep safe. They're deployed in groups of 1.5x the party size (6 in my case). One group is deployed at each exit, to a maximum of 3. Loadout: +14 on weapons and brawling skills. They are "Elite" according to the 3 Goon Method. MOV 5 or 6. Melee Nightstick (heavy melee: ROF 2, 3d6) Karate: hit with nightstick, then hit with Martial Arts attack, then break armour. (4d6 due to linear frame's BODY stat) Range Nearish range: <6 squares, Shotgun (ROF 1, 5d6), AP ammo Longer range: 6+ squares, Assault rifle (ROF 1, 5d6), AP ammo Grenades Indoors: smoke Outdoors: AP Cyberware Thermal optics Linear frame Sigma (Body 12) Tactics: Goal: overwhelming force to flatten opposition Move in groups. Take extra turns to stay together. Move silently. Cluster at the end of hallways, on their turn, step out to fire then back under cover. When entering rooms: cluster at doorway, throw a smoke grenade, then rush in. Focus targets - aim for whoever they think they can pick off. Fill space with smoke grenades to blind opposition, then use their thermal optics. Some alternatives Flashbangs rather than smoke grenades - they trigger 20 rounds of Damaged Eye/Ear critical injuries. I think I'd rather save those for the next level of operatives tho. A ROF 1 heavy melee weapon. I'd prefer to stick with ROF 2 so they can use martial arts attacks when in melee range. Give them four arms and shields. Again, I'd prefer to save that for the heavier hitters. Other martial arts. I haven't looked at the new Interface, but I'd prefer to avoid choking, since that means a player is just rolling against a DV for 3 rounds. So, any suggestions or improvements?

So I've just learned that Chasidim had released a new edition of Quest World that I have heard precisely nothing about. As a long time fan of Hero Quest/Quest World I winter if anyone here can tell me anything about this new version. First disappointment: they're doesn't seem to be a Glorantha dedicated version. But is there anything new and exciting about it?

It's the most influential publication on RPG designers that you never heard of. To be precise, I've never heard of any publication haha. They have never reached my country. Sometimes I stumble upon one, like this one, and learn about their story.

Cant recommend it sadly. Theres no credited editor, and once you read it it becomes obvious that no professional proofreader ever came near the book. I counted 7 or 8 errors on one page alone, and they werent purely typographical either. Some make rules way more ambiguous. I was honestly so pissed off I wrote Free League about it. Usually theyre good about QC, so putting their name on this book, even if theyre just publishing it, definitely made me way more cautious about buying other titles sight unseen...

True, but OP wants to run an impostor/mystery, so i feel i'm not completely out of touch, there.

…yeah so if you’re the kind of player who argues and fights at the table. Maybe stick to structured games with clearly defined rules. You ignored the "or play a game I don't like" part. That is what this process is extremely likely to create. Go look at the blog post again. Go look at those rules. Furthermore, the process described in the blog post is When a rule is needed, everyone at the table quickly discusses what the gameplay should feel like and what rule(s) would support that. If a majority of players agree on the rule (voting is necessary only if there is dissent) Arguing is built right into the process! Someone proposes a rule, and you talk about it. And you know what I don't want to do? Discuss the merits of rules mid-session. Especially large systems like "how does magic work?" or "can you change someone's mind?". That sounds awful. It's one thing to do a quick "Do you think Alex can climb a ladder with this 'Broken Arm' consequence?" discussion in Fate. It's a whole other thing to invent aspects whole cloth, and then try to integrate them with whatever else people came up with this week. Or, if I pass on discussing why (for example) dropping your sword on a low roll is going to have weird effects, then I end up playing a game with rules I don't like. Why would I want that? What don't you get about this? Do I need to make you a flow chart? System doesnt know how to handle something | |-- Propose a new rule |- is the rule good? --> yes --> oh that is surprising. carry on | no | discuss <-- the void of wasted time | | - were they convinced? --> yes --> go back to 'propose a new rule' | |-- no --> keep discussing? -- yes --> well this sucks |-- no --> give up --------^ Ironically, the game I mentioned as an example of what I do like (Fate) is very light weight. But not so light weight that it doesn't exist, and I have to deal with Brian trying to introduce hit locations mid session, again. You seem to be imagining this like perfectly spherical frictionless group of players that are all super chill, on the same page about everything, and happy to just do whatever. I'm imagining what has been more typical in my experience, which is not that. Again…this isn’t your scenario. I don’t know what to tell you. You’re conflating taking game systems and adding other mechanics to it and just goofing around and making it up as you go. The blog post is about building a game system! Look at all the weird rules they made up! This whole blog post is about taking game systems (ie: rules people know from other games) and smushing them together! Anyone doing this process is going to start with some baseline system(s) in their head. Even if it's just "let's rock paper scissors for it" or "flip a coin". It is in fact taking game game systems and adding other mechanics to it. They certainly had fun, but as I said that sounds like my personal hell. It’s okay to say “I need a game with explicit structure and rules”. That’s fine too, but maybe don’t argue with your players though. Arguing is built into the process described into the blog post. Unless you're splitting hairs and saying "argue" isn't the same as "discuss".