Heroica RPG General Discussion

[Flare]

^^ Agreed. Who would actually recruit a hero who beheaded their last employer? *cough cough Benji and Lycan.*

Shuddup

[Bricksandparts]

Johon probably won't let Sylph kill Romulus, rather just beat the ever-living-stuffing out of him.

[Palathadric]

QM Note: I hope I did these dual strikes right.

Nope, for dual strike you only roll once for the weapon and if it is successful it hits two enemies/hits the one enemy for double damage.

I would so love to poke holes in all of the Regret's nonsense in #48. Seriously, I hope you guys destroy him.

By the way, nice little MOC scene there, Flare.

[Zepher]

I would like to see more quests that work like 39, where the Heroes have to sign up as a team.

I will host more like that soon.

Telling people that KO is permanent and that characters will die if not revived is not conducive to making them unafraid of KO.

Only if you PM'd me and asked for that.

[Waterbrick Down]

I would like to see more quests that work like 39, where the Heroes have to sign up as a team. Currently there are no reprimands for basically completely going against your employer, your fellow heroes and everything Heroica is supposed to be standing for. If there is the (roleplaying) reason that Heroes would in character perhaps not want to deal with certain others, there could be some feedback to doing something you perhaps shouldn't be doing. I feel I am not explaining this very well, but more sign ups as a team would be good!

I think I see what you're getting at, you're frustrated because characters with different ideologies than yours can seriously mess up their party by making inopportune decisions and there really isn't any sort of mechanism in place to stop that. Unfortunately that's how real life works. We're going to get into situations with people that have different motives than ours and whose actions might really hurt us or anyone else working with them. Of your examples each had a different reason for initially signing up for the quest (with the exception of Romulus), that differed from the party as a majority. However each of those reasons have been character based and not (I believe) game play based. Eric's refusal to fight, Arthur worshiping Wren, Romulus selling out his own party, these were all decisions based upon their character. The solution to this would of course be allowing people to choose their own party, however we have the issue of "character knowledge" versus "player knowledge". If you had been allowed to pick your party, do you think Guts would have realistically been able to discern Eric's true intentions? Maybe, but if anything all the players have to do is act more sneakily to get into a party whose convictions might be different from theirs.

Now of course, we as players also need to make sure that we aren't writing our character in such a direction that they are constantly screwing over their own party. Also we need to remember that this game isn't so much about our characters stealing the spotlight by making rebellious decisions, it's about being part of the story that the QM is telling. Yes we'll influence the outcome in some way (generally), but it shouldn't be at the cost of trampling everyone else down and hiding behind the explanation of "I was just be true to my character". Not to say that you can't do that sometimes, the key is balance between being a good role-player, true to your character, and a good game-player, true and respectful to those playing the game with you.

[Flare]

By the way, nice little MOC scene there, Flare.

Thanks!

[Flipz]

Only if you PM'd me and asked for that.

I'm talking more about NPCs, here. Also, as far as we the players are concerned, any of our fellow party members could also have a "death clause" on, and we wouldn't know it; I think that's part of why CM's been so cautious with us.

[Dannylonglegs]

Well you can stop Sylph. He'd be fine with that.

~Insectoid Aristocrat

[Pandora]

Now of course, we as players also need to make sure that we aren't writing our character in such a direction that they are constantly screwing over their own party. Also we need to remember that this game isn't so much about our characters stealing the spotlight by making rebellious decisions, it's about being part of the story that the QM is telling. Yes we'll influence the outcome in some way (generally), but it shouldn't be at the cost of trampling everyone else down and hiding behind the explanation of "I was just be true to my character". Not to say that you can't do that sometimes, the key is balance between being a good role-player, true to your character, and a good game-player, true and respectful to those playing the game with you.

Very well said.

[Scubacarrot]

I think I see what you're getting at, you're frustrated because characters with different ideologies than yours can seriously mess up their party by making inopportune decisions and there really isn't any sort of mechanism in place to stop that.

Not exactly. Of course Guts wouldn't have known, he didn't, he knew Eric was an arrogant Nord with a high view of himself, but he did not distrust him or would be opposed to questing together. He did not like the Nord, and his actions showed Guts that he may have had an ulterior motive. Guts still doesn't know if that was really the case, other than he had some business with Reno before and therefore didn't want to kill him before. But: Would Guts be willing to quest together with Eric again or would he even work together if assigned together? Not a chance. You're slightly missing my point. Characters that have ulterior motives or go against their quest goals in a non-breaking way, I think that's awesome, do it, absolutely. But make characters able to respond to that by saying: "Yeah... I don't trust you, so..."

Unfortunately that's how real life works. We're going to get into situations with people that have different motives than ours and whose actions might really hurt us or anyone else working with them. Of your examples each had a different reason for initially signing up for the quest (with the exception of Romulus), that differed from the party as a majority. However each of those reasons have been character based and not (I believe) game play based. Eric's refusal to fight, Arthur worshiping Wren, Romulus selling out his own party, these were all decisions based upon their character. The solution to this would of course be allowing people to choose their own party, however we have the issue of "character knowledge" versus "player knowledge". If you had been allowed to pick your party, do you think Guts would have realistically been able to discern Eric's true intentions? Maybe, but if anything all the players have to do is act more sneakily to get into a party whose convictions might be different from theirs.

Character knowledge is always key. I am sometimes pushing it, I know. But I play that in a way that Guts is a good judge of character. (sorry, it's bad, I am aware) I don't think the real life example works, because the situations you are talking about are going to be work or school related, and are always going to have the same goal, more or less. If someone doesn't do their job in these cases, there is going to be some form of retribution. If it's more serious than those situations, there's also retribution. But in Heroica we are talking about situations that cover life and death in a lawless society (sounds lame, heh). So it's a bit different

Now of course, we as players also need to make sure that we aren't writing our character in such a direction that they are constantly screwing over their own party. Also we need to remember that this game isn't so much about our characters stealing the spotlight by making rebellious decisions, it's about being part of the story that the QM is telling. Yes we'll influence the outcome in some way (generally), but it shouldn't be at the cost of trampling everyone else down and hiding behind the explanation of "I was just be true to my character". Not to say that you can't do that sometimes, the key is balance between being a good role-player, true to your character, and a good game-player, true and respectful to those playing the game with you.

Naturally, although I don't really believe we have seen someone that goes against this, honestly.

Again, WBD, you slightly missed my point. I absolutely loved Khorne's way of playing in 58, tension (whatever the kind) is the best drive for roleplaying. If everyone had the same ideologies it would be boring. (So we agree? Yes. Yes. Yes. See? Boring!) But what I propose is (more of) a chance to let the differences show by future quests.

[Flipz]

But what I propose is (more of) a chance to let the differences show by future quests.

I agree, but at the same time I also think the effects shouldn't be (primarily) punitive. Perhaps now some of the men who were loyal to Reno will remember that he refused to fight their leader, and will show some sort of gratitude. That's an important thing to remember in terms of consequences: for almost every action, there is someone who will approve of and/or appreciate that action.

[Scubacarrot]

I agree, but at the same time I also think the effects shouldn't be (primarily) punitive. Perhaps now some of the men who were loyal to Reno will remember that he refused to fight their leader, and will show some sort of gratitude. That's an important thing to remember in terms of consequences: for almost every action, there is someone who will approve of and/or appreciate that action.

I proposed nothing punishinglike that . What I proposed is more quests like 39, where the party signs up as a group, so you basically choose your own party. My reasoning is 100% roleplaying between characters, nothing else.

[Waterbrick Down]

Not exactly. Of course Guts wouldn't have known, he didn't, he knew Eric was an arrogant Nord with a high view of himself, but he did not distrust him or would be opposed to questing together. He did not like the Nord, and his actions showed Guts that he may have had an ulterior motive. Guts still doesn't know if that was really the case, other than he had some business with Reno before and therefore didn't want to kill him before. But: Would Guts be willing to quest together with Eric again or would he even work together if assigned together? Not a chance. You're slightly missing my point. Characters that have ulterior motives or go against their quest goals in a non-breaking way, I think that's awesome, do it, absolutely. But make characters able to respond to that by saying: "Yeah... I don't trust you, so..."

Ah, now I understand. I agree that there should be consequences, Nerwen not giving Eric any loot from the battle is an example, and perhaps it should be taken into account should Sandy ever QM with Hestia being the quest sponsor. I can see how choosing your own party would kind of solve this problem, however then we might run into the RL issue of cliquishness (not to say there is any currently). Perhaps the balance could be found simply in some quests being individual based signups and some party based signups. I also agree that we don't really have a problem with people trying to be outright mean through their character choices, quest 58 and those who participated is an excellent example of party conflict done correctly.

[Scubacarrot]

I think that issue was raised when Quest 39's signups first appeared, and we figured since it wasn't happening then, there really wasn't any reason to suspect it would be happening. Perhaps some people want to quest with each other, but that's fine, I think, and I think most people would also really like to quest with a lot of different people anyways, so I don't think that's a problem we can/will be facing. And if so, we can say: stop it! And yes, I think a combination would be best, but as far as I know, quest 39 was the only one, and we had almost 25 after it, so...

[Brickdoctor]

The Unlimited Quest also allows signing up as a party.

[CorneliusMurdock]

I'm talking more about NPCs, here. Also, as far as we the players are concerned, any of our fellow party members could also have a "death clause" on, and we wouldn't know it; I think that's part of why CM's been so cautious with us.

As dramatic as it would be, I would, of course, like to prevent the death of any PCs, (even Arthur ).

I will say that this quest has been a stressful one to be party leader of because of that. Nevermind that every party split affected the final battle and that there's so many characters to wrangle in battle orders.

[Masked Builder]

The Unlimited Quest also allows signing up as a party.

Actually, I just did that the first time for fun. All the other groups have kept the tradition.

[Brickdoctor]

Wait, are the Quest 48 heroes making a deal with the Regret so they can roleplay finding their long-lost relatives?

[Endgame]

No, most are pretty much flipping The Regret off.

[Flare]

Wait, are the Quest 48 heroes making a deal with the Regret so they can roleplay finding their long-lost relatives?

Seriously laaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaame.

[Kintobor]

Quick question:

Does switching weapons cost a turn?

[Pandora]

Quick question:

Does switching weapons cost a turn?

Changing one's own weapon for another in battle does not cost a turn. Switching weapons with another hero in battle costs one turn each per hero involved per weapon (i.e. switching two weapons between two players would take two turns each.)

[Dannylonglegs]

"Thank you. Sylph and Galen, you to have proved to be merciful, rather than rash and bloodthirsty. And for that I thank you."

Sylph said one thing about Mercy, and it wasn't that he was going to exercise it. \

~Insectoid Aristocrat

[TheBoyWonder]

He said he will finish Romulus quickly. That in Romulus' book is mercy.

[Dannylonglegs]

He said he will finish Romulus quickly. That in Romulus' book is mercy.

Ah, fair enough. I like the way you worded it by-the-way. It makes it rather easy for Sylph especially to comply.

~Insectoid Aristocrat