Table Top games

[tetsamaru]

de-railing be a really bad thing.

I chose the subject Table top to give us more flexiblity on what to talk about.

[Jabor]

Works for me.

Seeing as I'm sticking with 3.5 for the time being, is anyone else interested in making up some 3.5 GC-inspired homebrew?

[Count Casimir]

I'd be interested, but I probably wouldn't have a chance to implement it for a while. Someone else would have to test, as our sorcerer is about to go to boot camp, and our rogue to Alabama.




The main problem as I see it is going to be monsters to fight. Most of the monsters we've seen in-comic have been rather benign, and I think just fighting Ysengrin or the ghost lady would be a pretty killer Challenge Rating. So we'd have to make up some monsters, and we'd probably have to make the setting extremely non-canon to justify killing tons of monsters.


Now is probably as good a time as any to point out that I play a druid, so I may be looking at this from a Gillitie perspective as well.

[tetsamaru]

Well remember Sivo? we could make a down played version or something. Or maybe some Generic Ysengrin type monsters or something. And we dont really need to keep it organic either. Those lame guard bots could be the equivalent of level 1 orcs or something.

Oh and maybe someone can remind me. What was the most sided Dice used officially? i remember using a 16 sided dice or something, its been a while.

[Jabor]

Dice used are as follows:

d4, d6, d8, d10, d12, d20, d% (also known as d100)

[Count Casimir]

d% can be used as a d10 as well, of course. I like the idea of fighting robots, but somebody might have to look up d20 modern. Of course, we're not using that and my DM just gave me a pistol, so...whatever.

[Jabor]

Actually, the common way of rolling a d% (due to actual 100-sided dice being almost spherical and hard to read exactly) is actually to use two d10s.

We likely won't need to head into d20 modern rules for this - D&D already contains rules for Constructs, which could probably be used unmodified.

[cenit]

I guess for low level you could use robots and glass-eye people... a little stronger are Tic-Tocs and faeries..

uhmm, brain meltdown

[Count Casimir]

Honestly, Tic-Tocs seem like they'd be pretty easy to kill. Just hard to catch and elusive.

[Jabor]

High dexterity (especially on a flying creature) is a pain to deal with at lower levels. If you can't hit them, you can't really hurt them.

[Count Casimir]

Ah yes...the lower levels. I remember those.

[Jabor]

By the way, exactly what do you define as "low levels"?

Personally, it's the levels pre-Fireball, but I'm interested in what other people consider it to be.

[monkeybucks]

Who's for a game of coin rugby?

Oh, I see. THOSE kind of tabletop games.

[ronokki]

Jun 5, 2008 1:09:04 GMT Jabor said:

By the way, exactly what do you define as "low levels"?

Personally, it's the levels pre-Fireball, but I'm interested in what other people consider it to be.

My group considers awesome levels in 3.5 to start at about 7th

[Count Casimir]

well we had played for a while and then we rerolled at 6th level. 6th level is pretty darn sweet.

Man...so is 9th. 13th WOULD be awesome if I had a hope of getting there...Because I'd get UNIBEAM.

[vexation]

I'd say awesome levels start at Improved Invisibility, but I was a sorcerer, and mostly just really really wanted to try out that spell, so I'm biased. Haha. And it was RIGHT after I got the spell that our party broke up, so sad. D:
Anyhow, I think pre-Fireball sounds like a pretty decent description of low level.
And I think the game would probably end up sort of more puzzle based than fighting based, if you were to make it more canon. Since it's sorta two warring factions, the forest and the Court, and you could either pick a side and have the advantage of their resources and strengths but be stuck with their opinions and enemies, or go solo and not have the help but not have the built in enemies.
But if you picked a side, there'd be an easy excuse to fight people. Like, if you were the forest, you could take the kind of thing that Ysengrin said, like, they're trying to invade, all treaties called off because they're doing stuff they agreed not to -> fight.

Dunno.

[aijuan]

I've been told Burning Wheel is the best system for norma roleplaying, and I must say Battle of Wits sounds awesome.

[Count Casimir]

Characterwise, I would love playing as S1. That is freakin' EPIC.

[Ed130]

We could ask Tom about about some of this like low level monsters and if the lady with a sword is really evil/killable

[invalidgriffin]

I realize we seem to be talking about actual D&D here, but it occurs to me that GC might be better suited to a White Wolf/World of Darkness system (or your favored RP system here), where the system itself is centered around politicking and character interaction, rather than hack'n'slash. Worrying about leveling seems like a mood-killer for the world we're talking about.

I know it's possible to do roleplay-heavy D&D games, but whenever I've played, I've always expected to just kill the things I encounter, rather than argue with them over why they should die so I can have their gold.

_{Just a suggestion..}

[Mezzaphor]

I agree the GC setting really doesn't lend itself well to a fighting-centered RPG. That said, I'm playing 2nd Edition D&D with a group from my church (all of us are complete newbs, but it's fun), and I'm considering making a campaign and being the GM. If I do go through with it, I'll be incorporating some GC-inspired characters as NPCs in a completely unrelated, pirate-y setting.

Speaking of D&D, where do you all think GC characters would fall in the D&D character alignment? Here's my initial thoughts.

[todd]

I definitely agree with you on Jones being lawful and Parley chaotic. (Smith would definitely have to be lawful as well.)

Annie's an interesting case. She's ready to break school rules more than once, which would suggest "chaotic", but she's also tightly self-disciplined, which would suggest "lawful". Probably placing her in the neutral category is the best decision.

[AluK]

Jun 20, 2008 20:31:13 GMT invalidgriffin said:

I realize we seem to be talking about actual D&D here, but it occurs to me that GC might be better suited to a White Wolf/World of Darkness system (or your favored RP system here), where the system itself is centered around politicking and character interaction, rather than hack'n'slash. Worrying about leveling seems like a mood-killer for the world we're talking about.

Had thought exactly that. WoD can deal way better with the kind of setting GC is, IMO. The nWoD, inclusive, has a supplement especially dealing with psychic, non-Mage magical characters, etc. It also has a supplement dealing with ghosts and hauntings.

That said, Smith would be an awesome Fate-based Acanthus Mage. Long life to chance manipulation.

[Count Casimir]

I would perhaps swap Eggs an' Kat; he seems somewhat like the pretentious paladin type.

[Mezzaphor]

What pushes Eggers into Neutral territory in my mind is that he enforces the school rules while simultaneously encouraging Annie to break them.

[Jabor]

Indeed. "It's ok if you don't get caught" is pretty descriptive of Neutral on the Law-Chaos axis.

[todd]

I forgot to ask about this from last time, but I'm also curious about Coyote being described as lawful evil. I'd think that tricksters would be chaotic, because of their anarchic glee in causing mischief and confusion. On the other hand, Jones' statement that Coyote keeps his word would suggest that he has at least some lawful tendencies.

[Mezzaphor]

Based on what we've seen of Coyote so far, he doesn't strike me as very interested in mischief and confusion for their own sake. During the meeting, he (mostly) followed protocol, and he even reined in Ysengrin for acting up. His only clear violation of the rules was when he stuck his nose up Annie's skirt. (And isn't the widely accepted theory that he did this to test if she and Rey were connected, rather than doing it to sow mischief?) He seems to me more like a manipulative chessmaster than an anarchic archetypal trickster.

On the other hand, I'm not entirely sure that Coyote is evil.

[Tierra Y Libertad]

Hey, maybe this isn't exactly for a tabletop, but would be anyone be interested in a Gunnerkrigg Court online roleplay? Just throwing that out there. It might cost a bit less and be more immediate. Not that there couldn't be a market for a tabletop roleplay or board game(Aiee!), but it might be easier at the moment.

[Count Casimir]

I believe Tom nixed that a while ago, but I could be mistaken.