Recent Posts
From categories:
page 1123...next »

I am missing loot lists for plots 17.3 and 18.2. If anybody has those, please give them to me so that I may enter everything into the spreadsheet.

Re: Lootlists by reddragonfirereddragonfire, 15 Jan 2019 21:39
Re: Guild Insurance by reddragonfirereddragonfire, 15 Jan 2019 21:32

If you do not get enough loot to make a profit, the guild covers the difference - you get just enough that you make 1 copper profit.
(up to a thousand per person, amounts over that are handled on an individual basis; and if you keep needing support every week we'll look into why that may be)

Whenever you need to use this service, please note in this thread:

  • The plot you were on
  • How much you need to make a profit

This makes it easier to keep the spreadsheet up to date.

Guild Insurance by reddragonfirereddragonfire, 15 Jan 2019 21:31

I did, actually. I just left the campaign rather than ruining other people's fun when my suspension of disbelief was destroyed.

[Long rant about last years campaign removed. My issues with how resources were handled in that campaign are neither here nor there, and complaining about it now isn't beneficial to anyone.]

Perhaps more telling is the fact that this was never mentioned to the GM team, no such complaints were made (at least in a way we were made aware of), and there were no requests to help with problems about 'suspension of disbelief'.

It's difficult to fix a problem players have if none of the players tell you the problem exists. And conversely, it seems disingenuous for a person to criticize afterwards if they made no effort to adress the issue at the time.


That whole "listening to players when they voice their dissatisfaction", paying attention to feedback and actually doing something about it, is an incredibly important part of running any RPG, and especially something so demanding as a club saga.

Take this year, for instance:

Lots of players said the rules for wait times to buy new things was problematic, and before too long, the GM team implemented a plot line where we could change things so goods arrived quicker.

Or when players asked for the upkeep aspect to have more options, for it to be more interesting, possibly with the chance to pay extra for more effects? As a response, the GM team has now provided exactly that.

So the GM's listen to the players, and try to arrange to fix some of the things people are upset about. They did good work, and this is exactly the sort of thing that so many others fail at.

It shows the skill and thought they put into this game.

…..but now they're criticized because some of it wasn't already implemented from the beginning? What?

I feel it's not exactly the best thing to complain when you get what you asked for, simply because you didn't get it before you asked for it. If for no other reason than that giving people a negative reaction usually means they won't do that thing again, so it just "teaches" the GM's that they shouldn't bother in the first place, if this is the reaction their efforts get.

While the tavern-effects wasn't something I myself was invested in, it's still cool to see that the GM's listened to the players who wanted more of that stuff, and figured out a solution.

It's a wonderful quote let me explain it.

If you have a process or a product you want it to be efficient at what it is supposed to do. So you remove all the unnecessary steps and parts from it until it is as streamlined and efficient as it can be. If you take away more you make it worse again. At that point your process and product is perfect for what it is supposed to do.
So it is not just remove all the things until it is as simple as possible.
But that also means that two things can be perfect at different stages for different people depending on what they find necessary for it.

For me the campaign is about looting the dungeon. So the 150% upkeep is an unnecessary part that does nothing for the game play. So the step to change it to a positive spin with the boosts is makes it better, or removing it would make it even better.

Re: Tavern Offerings! by LentorLentor, 12 Jan 2019 11:51

The merit system in World of Darkness easily wrecks suspension of disbelief. One guy buys Resources 5 and lives like a king, while someone else in the same company buys Status 5 (in the company) and lives in a hovel. Not much sense being made there.

Anyway, you're free to think of the weekly upkeep as optionally paying $150 for 1d6 extra HP that week.

Also that's a terrible quote. That's not perfection, that's simplification.

Re: Tavern Offerings! by Mr SiwekMr Siwek, 12 Jan 2019 00:38

The paranormal division was your job so you got a salary from them. That salary + any other wealth or source of income was represented by the "resource" merit. The merit told you what you can reasonably afford with your salary. If you have 0 dots basically nothing besides a cheap flat and frozen pizza for food if you had 5 dots you were loaded. I can't really understand why this would destroy your suspension of disbelief. But I think this is a matter of personal taste.

In a game about looting treasure and getting rich, on the other hand, tracking expenses is an integral part of the game. Upkeep costs are then just as relevant is tracking arrows lost or alchemist fires thrown.

Are the living expenses really a relevant part? Is there ever the chance that someone will run out of money and says at the start "I can't afford to pay and failed my survival roll".
I did the math from the xp log on average a character got 1100$ per week so the 150$ upkeep are 13.6% of a weekly income. The question is now when is an expense worth tracking and when not. I would say the 150 ukpeep is not worth tracking because it is not an item I take a limited amount with me and it is not something I can get multiple of. If you then think that the amount of money we make is too great adjust the amount of loot we get down by 10% problem solved.

You mention arrows and alchemist fire. I would agree with alchemist fire I don't agree with arrows (says the scout the only one using arrows). Alchemist fire or any other potion is something a player usually only brings 1 or 2 to the dungeon so a very limited resource which is rather expensive on a per use basis. While arrows… They cost 2$ for regular arrows, it becomes slightly more expensive when you want fancy arrows but that is not really the point here. I keep track of rounds of combat and adjust my money accordingly (with scrounging for arrows etc). I simplified it so that I don't have to start each session with going to the GM and saying "I order X amount of fine cutting arrows and Y amount of impaling" and generally waste everyones time with my arrow bookkeeping. The amount of money I spend on arrows would be the same either way. I keep exact track of special arrows (my meteoric ones) and for those I talk to the GM when I buy new ones.

If it were up to me I would say normal arrows are free and you always have the max amount in your quiver at the start of a session. Because the amount of money for an arrow is so small it might as well be ignored and you could say arrows are a form of "weapon upkeep".

Making a profit after your expenses is the stated goal of the campaign, so there needs to be some way to represent off screen expenses as well as the on screen ones.

I disagree with that, the description of the campaign says :But adventurers are flocking to Portstown anyways, hoping to find a way down into the mountain to see what lies below. And to loot it. Thoroughly. and Everything that isn't about dungeon crawling has been stripped back as much as possible to leave more time for the important things in life: killing monsters and taking their stuff.

I would say the goal is "kill monsters and loot treasure" and that cost for living is not a part of that and can be ignored. They or you should have stripped away the whole "cost of living" and "making extra money in town" because who cares about "10 more $ for public speeking" etc. If we come home on average with 1100$ per session.

mechanics for time spent decompressing after terrifying experiences or losing teammates

So basically the darkest dungeon.

All of that has been abstracted away into "pay $150 and don't worry about the details". Needless to say, GURPS has rules for all the above

It has been simplified to the point where it could have been removed entirely without a problem. The rules just hang on to it for the sake of hanging on to it.

Perfection is achieved, not when there is nothing more to add, but when there is nothing left to take away.

- Antoine de Saint-Exupery

Re: Tavern Offerings! by LentorLentor, 11 Jan 2019 15:29

The "Rule of 16" applies only to supernatural attacks targeting living beings. I'm assuming you mean "Since 17-18 is always a failure". And while it is true that if your Research is already at 16 or higher, additional bonuses won't increase your chance to succeed or crit, it does help you absorb penalties and increases your margin of success (which usually gives more detailed information).

Re: Tavern Offerings! by GnaskarGnaskar, 11 Jan 2019 14:14

They don't fit in a dungeon fantasy campaign, however, and they require too much bookkeeping for a club campaign.

This can't be emphasized enough, the dynamics in a club campaign is a bit more different from a smaller group.

Regarding the actual benefits I'm not sure of the actual values yet. People with IQ would want to research, but can't benefit from the +2 in the same way as others (since it's rule of 16). Maybe you could swap it, treat the result as "1/2" less, but this could also turn out to be too effective for critical success. I'll play with the drunk wizard next week probably. Maybe hirelings in the future, I'll see.

Re: Tavern Offerings! by AlderaAldera, 11 Jan 2019 13:32

And no one cried "Oh but the 'realism' what about the 'realism'? Why won't anyone ever think about the 'realism'?"

I did, actually. I just left the campaign rather than ruining other people's fun when my suspension of disbelief was destroyed.

[Long rant about last years campaign removed. My issues with how resources were handled in that campaign are neither here nor there, and complaining about it now isn't beneficial to anyone.]

It's not the only thing that broke my suspension of disbelief in that campaign, but it is the biggest single issue.

That's not to say that we should been counting every dollar in that campaign. It wasn't a campaign about looting; it was a campaign about befriending supernatural threats and witlessly serving as pawns in their plans. The campaign wasn't centered around the acquisition of wealth, so didn't need any handling of living expenses beyond "ok, one of you have invested 12 xp into being wealthy, so you can afford to rent rooms at the local hotel for everyone". Or, as I would have preferred: "you check into the hotel" (no point in even checking if they can afford it, spending money shouldn't be an issue in a spy-fi campaign).

In a game about looting treasure and getting rich, on the other hand, tracking expenses is an integral part of the game. Upkeep costs are then just as relevant is tracking arrows lost or alchemist fires thrown. Making a profit after your expenses is the stated goal of the campaign, so there needs to be some way to represent off screen expenses as well as the on screen ones.

It's a matter of realism. "Realistically" people's expenses would vary. Some people would be fine staying at cheap dives, eating gruel, and not spending anything on alcohol at all. Others would prefer a private room, great feasts every day, or are party animals without equal. "Realistically", there should be mechanics for weapons and armor maintenance costs (both in time and money), mechanics for time spent decompressing after terrifying experiences or losing teammates, and a more realistic depiction of long term malnutrition than "lose 1d HP if you fail the survival roll".

All of that has been abstracted away into "pay $150 and don't worry about the details". Needless to say, GURPS has rules for all the above; and if I ever run a gritty low fantasy campaign I might well use them. They don't fit in a dungeon fantasy campaign, however, and they require too much bookkeeping for a club campaign. So I'm perfectly happy accepting DFRPG's way of ignoring the minutia, so that we can get back to killing monsters and taking their stuff.

Re: Tavern Offerings! by GnaskarGnaskar, 11 Jan 2019 11:28

You could look at it differently: In most campaigns you are assumed to take care of your living expenses by paying for them, somehow. This system gives you the option not to - by surviving in the wild instead of paying upkeep. The fact that the default is "paying extra" instead of "no benefit" speaks to an inherently grittier, more simulation heavy system. GURPS, and variants thereof, inherently strives towards simulating a real world, and many if not all decisions that seem "weird" derive from this fact. Some people like this approach. Some don't. Most really aren't bothered enough either way to make a stink about it, nor about the "lack of realism" when certain elements are skipped.

And also, while this isn't necessarily relevant to whether this is a good or enjoyable mechanism, the character starving is exactly what this is concerned about. If you are unwilling to pay for food and shelter, and unable to find it in the wild, then you starve, and freeze, and get wet socks.

Edit: Also, the $150 upkeep cost DOES add something to gameplay in the campaign: it provides an incentive for doing anything at all to gain a profit beyond making up stories about the dungeon and selling them.

Re: Tavern Offerings! by SigurdGSigurdG, 11 Jan 2019 07:45

I play this game not emulate reality but to slay monsters and loot treasure. The pay 150 is falling a step short of reaching the goal. It is not forsaking reality enough.
I could also argue that it does not forsake reality at all. Go to a hotel and you can get a deal where you pay X per day and get food and a room and everything is cleaned for you. Basically the inns in game work the same.

But from a pure gameplay view a system that always takes something away from the player and he just gets to decide what (hp or money) (or you pay with xp by getting survival or a similar skill to bypass it) without any positive feedback is not a good system. There has to be some good gameplay purpose for a system like that and it needs to be important for the game balance in some way. And the upkeep might be important in another campaign but not in this one.

Like you said we are not concerned about the char starving or anything. Unless the campaign is specifically made so that the chars are dirt poor no one will ever not have enough money to survive.

Consider the last campaign did we have to do anything for food and a home? No because it was all put into the "resources" merit. And no one cried "Oh but the 'realism' what about the 'realism'? Why won't anyone ever think about the 'realism'?"

The system how it was original adds nothing cool or interesting to the gameplay loop.

Re: Tavern Offerings! by LentorLentor, 11 Jan 2019 07:30

Forsaking realism for gameplay is why those 150 are there. Nobody wants to go through all the details of downtime.

"Pay or get a penalty" isn't bad design, it's reality. Except we're generally not that concerned if our characters starve a bit, while starving in reality is kinda hard to do if you can afford to avoid it.

Re: Tavern Offerings! by Mr SiwekMr Siwek, 11 Jan 2019 02:59

During a discussion at the GM meeting today, we discovered that there have been a few misunderstandings of the Move and Attack maneuver, both among the players and the GMs, so in order to make sure the players and the GMs alike will treat this correctly going forward, here is a summary:

  • You can not use a deceptive attack when using Move and Attack. A deceptive attack is an option when you take the Attack or All-Out Attack maneuver in melee, and not simply when you make a melee attack. (Exploits p. 38 "Melee Attack Options")
  • You can not make a rapid attack when you take the Move and Attack maneuver. See the above point for reference.
  • If you have an extra attack and trade your first attack for a feint when using Move and Attack, your skill for the feint is not limited to 9. You do however still take the -4 for Move and Attack.
  • You can however make a dual-weapon attack as part of a Move and Attack maneuver, as this is an option when you make an attack, independent of your maneuver. Of course both of these attacks are still capped at 9 due to Move and Attack, and requires having two ready weapons. (Exploits p.46)
Move and Attack by SigurdGSigurdG, 11 Jan 2019 00:04

I prefer to forsake "realism" for gameplay. For your enjoyment what does "you pay 150$ not to bother with nitpicks" add to the game? Nothing.

I'd rather "play out" what I have to do to survive or not think about it at all. But just having a cost for the sake of having a cost is stupid.

Like I said I like the options we now have. Getting some boon for paying upkeep is cool and should be the default option over not having anything over paying to avoid a penalty. And lets face it the original 150$ upkeep was just "pay or get a penalty" and from a pure gameplay logic that is a bad system.

I can go on a tagent about other similar system and how players rejected them until the game makes remade them and gave them a positive spin if you want to hear it.

Re: Tavern Offerings! by LentorLentor, 09 Jan 2019 14:59

Yeah I feel it is a nice simplification, but these offers are rather nice and I think my characters are more likely to choose to live in taverns.

Nah, it's actually quite clever. Pay 150 every week and you don't need to think about all of life's little daily upkeeps. The alternative would be to deal with all the little nitpicks and minor day to day expenditures, or to just gloss over it entirely, which seems a bit dumb.
Plus, it's amusing that you can save money by living as a money-grubbing hobo.
The option of getting boosts depending on where you stay is also pretty cool though.

Re: Tavern Offerings! by Mr SiwekMr Siwek, 09 Jan 2019 12:48

Quite probably so!

That said, while this is not a defense of DF in particular nor upkeep in general, I nevertheless feel like I ought to inform you (and anyone else apparently unaware individuals who happen to read this) that this is not an issue in any way unique to Dungeon Fantasy: Powered by GURPS. In fact, most or all systems I've read somewhat thoroughly have rules for living expenses, often dependent on what you do, how you choose to live, etc. but while these are factors, it rarely gets more detailed (or interesting) than DFs "You pay X, unless you have something that means you pay more, or do something to pay less". There is a fair amount of (usually justified, in my opinion) bashing of the rules in the forum, but this is a case where the system is not so much to blame as the genre, and if you so choose, the GM team for deciding to emphasize rules as written when crafting the campaign proposal.

Re: Tavern Offerings! by SigurdGSigurdG, 09 Jan 2019 09:31

I personally think the upkeep system of DF is stupid to begin with. It adds nothing to the game and is a negative game experience for players.

This system is something the campaign should have started with. A positive implementation of the upkeep. Instead of just "pay 150$" every week we now have options to get some boosts for paying a little extra.

Re: Tavern Offerings! by LentorLentor, 09 Jan 2019 05:53
page 1123...next »
Unless otherwise stated, the content of this page is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 License