|
|
|
 |
| Other comments left by this customer: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
An interesting attempt, yet so half-baked. Piece by piece, it looks rather well made, and doesn't seem to have great flaws, but… it's not quite obvious what G&G is supposed to be, but it noticeably falls short in any case.
- If it's supposed to be very generic-D&D5-compatible for the ease of conversion, what's with CoB added to AP and with spells?
- If not, why import everything in the dull generic state?
Bad import: weapon qualities. While simple/martial weapons concept is not so bad in itself, d20 lists are quite obviously "gamey balance" based and make no sense beyond that (see where bows, crossbows and slings are, and laugh).
Why not use what's already here?
- "armour piercing weapon" is not a new idea even for D&D (back in Birthright, crossbows at short range). And there's already penetration rating by damage type…
- If you determine locations for wounds anyway, why sometimes use generic AP, much less by counting from location-specific values? The result may also "jump" due to Db with varying multipliers dependent on the categoryb added to the rest of AP. Then it's mixed up with encumbance to make things more roundabout, calculating weight from AP.
- What's the point in using CoB x30 if CoB is already Con/10?
From what's there… attack DoS being added to damage looks like a good idea, but needs some refinement, mainly for tying to weapon types/qualities. Also, this means ability contributes to damage twice (directly and via attack roll), not sure if this makes things better or not overall (if not, two-weapon fighting will need overhaul too).
Wound Rating needs refinement - at very least, to be directly countered by some function of size (as in, "like birdshot to the elephant"), and later tied to weapon qualities.
"Advantage/Disadvantage" reroll mechanics works for strategy, but IMHO is too clumsy for RPG in general, and when everything else is done via stacking adjustments, "advantage for this but disadvantage for that" it's just a pointless side-step.
Likewise, flat "always 5%" critical success/failure borders on slapstick in d20 and is just too clunky for d100.
Of course, if d20v5 bugs are not features, why not improve a little - e.g. make armour work differently from evasion, or use more than 6 attributes (much like in certain other d100 games)?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Creator Reply: |
|
It is most definitely not a DnD5e compatible product. It did start out as a little 5 page conversion guide for 5e into a d100 game. However it was clunky and eventually with enough smoothing and polishing it created this instead.
The main goal of G&G is to create an experience where mortality is always on the players minds.
I knew the rules the best for 5e and learning other systems grew to be too difficult for my regular group of players (they barely read the 5e rules) so instead of trying to cite and teach new rules as I went I decided to just revert back to what I knew best. After having players literally go 1v1 adult dragons (at 6th level) in 5e I decided I couldn't play that game the same way anymore; which is why the gritty d100 conversion was birthed.
As far as the AP goes I've already started a rework on it. Originally it was to eliminate the need of checking hit location with every attack but in testing it grew to be more trouble than what it was worth. In the next (and hopefully final) update this will be fixed and will be similar to the way WH uses armor (at least in their 40k line of RPGs) where the type of armor provides a certain amount of protection regardless of where it is on the body. (so far padded provides 1 point, leather 2, hide 3, chain 6, scale 7, plate 9. Again, so far; this will probably change after more testing)
As for COb as part of the AP, without the characters heartiness to reduce every incoming attack they will die all the more quickly. While the deadliness is definitely what I was wanting to play on, it was too easy to kill players and no amount of strategy and tactic could stop one well placed arrow. Referencing again the WH 40k line, I'm about 80% certain they used the toughness stat as a means to reduce incoming damage; at least in Rogue Trader.
COb as part of spells? The only thing I can think of that constitution deals with when it comes to spells is concentration. Can you cite that for me so I can clear it up?
Weapon categories were mentioned before when I posted this on reddit. I personally don't see the issue with them and the only explanation I could think of was the only observation I made in 5e's weapons: Price and damage outputs. Simple weapons were cheaper but weaker and martial weapons were stronger but more expensive. Aside from "setting flavor" there is no other difference (and by setting flavor I mean something like "only guards can openly carry martial weapons" or something like that).
A lot of the original 5e mechanics are still present in G&G as you've pointed out. Advantage and disadvantage were one of the concepts I liked as it eliminates tables of modifiers. Criticals were decidedly better than WH's version (roll another damage die each time you roll max damage (it's a love/hate for me honestly, happens more frequently and can happen multiple times in a single attack)). etc. etc. etc. This product is still in beta and has made massive strides away from 5e since I first posted it (that probably clears up a lot of the confusion).
Finally, the attributes. I sat down and tinkered with that for a few days. Ultimately I hated the way any other attributes sounded. Trying to make them sound less generic than the over used DnD attributes made them sound even more generic... And why not more? I thought on that too but why need more? the six cover 3 mental and 3 physical aspects which fluently describe every function you can perform, no need to split hairs between abilities which are mostly the same. Which also brought me to why not less, I've seen systems use less than 6. And I always felt they lumped things together that shouldn't be, like strength and constitution... just no...
Anyway, thank you for taking the time to read over and review my product. I hope the final release is a more satisfactory product (as much for myself as for others). |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Indeed, this preview doesn't even tell us whether the game uses drawing cards or it's just d20 cut down to 3 stats. But has lots of bright pics that probably can attract a 10-years old. The only facts that became transparent:
- Cypher is basically a tri-stat.
- Cypher is supposed to be universal (genre-wise) - but that's expectable for a tri-stat. It's modular but has very light mechanics even with add-ons.
- Cypher is loaded with excess of ideosink… idiosyncraz… proprietary gimmicky duckspeak.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nice. In a good "Old School" style and look like pencil illustrations, not sliding into cartoonish territory.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
As extras go, it's a great one.
It even has classics from dead albatross to Bottomless Salted Pork Barrel.
A little editing mistake: you put the clockwork parrot in the first part rather than second with other clockwork.
Also, perhaps a wooden leg is a bit small to contain a musket, though it may be good for a pistol.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Not the Aurora's Catalogue, of course, but as a basic list of common items for quasi-medieval RPG, well rounded.
Has some strange stuff (such as mules being significantly slower than donkeys and weigh half a ton), and shortcomings in form (tack/harness entries has text, but no tables), but in general not bad.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Simplified, but viable mechanics. Things like PO:S&P -but-even-more split of Dexterity vs. Agility with dropping Athletics skill there, while strength and health are merged - dubious, though not too bad.
Well made setting. Of course, the idea to build thoroughly postapocalyptic gaslight fantasy is remarkable in itself.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Very interesting.
Great stuff:
- Styles choreography.
- Motivation mechanics.
Flaws:
- Generic weapon/armor "quality", while has a point (heh), ignores things important for the fencing era tactics. E.g. weapons designed to punch through a specific sort of armor, but not inflict on unarmored more damage than a lowly knife. Conversely, light mail good is good vs. slashing weapons, but not much against crushing or stabbing. * Given that "interesting tactics" seems to be the main advantage, it's a flaw.
- A warrior can't "go through his forms in the coat closet" and burst out with the best move. But he's free to go through his forms against one opponent and then turn with the best move at another, who just walked in?
Dubious:
- Some styles' graphs look plain weird, starting with archery.
- 1d6+1 gives the same average as 1d8, and so on. Is it really better to increase/decrease die size than give a flat bonus/penalty to the same? It counts as simple with 1-2 dice set, but SK switches them every round, so this only increases dice-juggling without obvious benefit.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Quantity-wise: good lists.
Detail-wise: at times gives some details, but gallops over others going to be equally important in the game; "Tech-levels" are rather... primitive, heh.
Usability: clean, structured, has nice little things like coloring cp/sp/gp
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
An attempt to reincarnate "The Chronicles of the Princess Ark"? A good idea, but its implementation obviously falls short.
Not bad, but most entries fail to go beyond general campaign sketchbook stage.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Plain stupid "exploding dice" from AD&D firearms + an Excessively Buxom Pirate Wench (TM) as "art" + lyrics of "The Pirate's Song" by Landon given a fancy alias and squeezed to one side =
= meh
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Log In 
