I am. The only caveat would be that I might not have time if all my current games continue running. However, it looks like at least one or two kind of fell apart over or around the holidays, so it's probably ok.
I'll point out that the actual finished game is coming available for twelve bucks, this Saturday [pre-order]. I assume that those rules would be much more ironed out than the existing, early-in-the-process rules. (Though ... I think I remember mention that IaWA uses playing cards now, which we don't really support here.)
He mentioned going to cards for IaWA in his blog a while back. I'm not sure how long ... might've been the better part of a year. But yeah, not anymore.
The three basic stats (Art, Grace, Guts) and the endeavors have been eliminated and replaced with six stats (Directly, Covertly, For Myself, For Others, With Love, With Violence). Each of those gets a die, and you pick two to use in any given conflict.
Conflicts work a little differently - they're more fluid, since you no longer have to switch back and forth between challenger and defender stances.
Conflicts never progress past the third round. Before, the switching back and forth between challenger and defender stances would gradually increase the target number of the conflict, forcing an eventual resolution. Now that's gone, so there's a hard limit.
The rules for conflicts with multiple characters have been tweaked, and work more naturally. In particular, the odd bit where you could only make one character answer your challenge is not longer there - you can name as many characters in your challenge as you see fit.
A few minor changes to chargen. And Masteries are now Strengths, and they're a little stronger than they were.
I've played most of my games like that - two players, one gm. I do get the feeling, though, that more would be better. Maybe a message on the indynetgaming Yahoo group?
Daniel, Welcome. I'd like to have a pretty brisk posting rate; 3-4 posts per week perhaps. But, in reality, I feel any gaming is better than none. So, even if it slows, I'll be cool with it.
That said, I'm really keen on finishing at least one chapter by mid March.
Does that sound like something you're interested in?
Excellent. 3 players sounds like enough to start. More can jump in after the character list is generated. Lets now decide on which oracle to visit. 4 Oracles.
I like all the oracles. I am willing to just pick one randomly: #DiceRoller( 1d4 ) But I would like to know if anyone has a preference.
Nest of Vipers and God-Kings of War both seem really metal to me, so I'd like one of those, but the balls-out violence potential of God-Kings appeals to me the most.
I'm less interested in Blood and Sex, but any of the other three would be cool. I suppose, at this particular moment, I'd be more for Nest of Vipers or Unquiet Past, but that's only a slight preference.
Oh - I'm not sure, but I don't think that oracle set is up to date with the version in the book. There're only a handful of differences (mainly to do with 'location' entries that didn't particularly suggest characters), but they're there.
Any of them, honestly, are fine with me. I'm perfectly okay with skipping by Blood & Sex. We seem to have a lot of interest in Nest of Vipers. Perhaps we should head there?
JD: A wayhouse in which plague-victims have recently stayed. 10C: A devil of the lower air, malicious and full of pranks. QC: The warden ghost of the place, generous to the good-willed. KS: A village executioner, practicing his trade on a caught burglar.
Hey, guys. So, I'm pretty new to the whole PbP deal. Please take this as an honest question: Why is a table talk thread necessary, as opposed to just a play thread? In my head, it seems like it'd make things more cumbersome to organize, but is the opposite true in practice?
Daniel, I've played both ways. In the "play thread only" game we had to be very careful about our formating so we knew what was in game and what was out of game. In the "out of game + in game" game there tends to be some hopping between threads. Which can get confusing.
So there are trade-offs either which way you want to go.
I kind of have this hope that someone oblivious to the game could sit down and read just the in-game thread, and enjoy it almost like reading a short story-- unaware of the all the work that went into it. Thats why I went with the numerous threads. Then again, maybe I'm a bit OCD.
Gotcha, so it's mostly got value for observers who want to read the transcript as a story, not as an RPG play account. That makes sense. I was thinking mostly in terms of emulating a table, the thought of observers didn't even occur to me.
I tend to think of the 'table talk' sort of thread as fairly independent from the game thread. It's a good place to, say, mention that you're going out of town for a week ... that's the kind of thing I was thinking of. Rules questions, also, but we have a specific thread for that.
Comments
I'll point out that the actual finished game is coming available for twelve bucks, this Saturday [pre-order]. I assume that those rules would be much more ironed out than the existing, early-in-the-process rules. (Though ... I think I remember mention that IaWA uses playing cards now, which we don't really support here.)
Yes, I think i'd want to run it here.
The three basic stats (Art, Grace, Guts) and the endeavors have been eliminated and replaced with six stats (Directly, Covertly, For Myself, For Others, With Love, With Violence). Each of those gets a die, and you pick two to use in any given conflict.
Conflicts work a little differently - they're more fluid, since you no longer have to switch back and forth between challenger and defender stances.
Conflicts never progress past the third round. Before, the switching back and forth between challenger and defender stances would gradually increase the target number of the conflict, forcing an eventual resolution. Now that's gone, so there's a hard limit.
The rules for conflicts with multiple characters have been tweaked, and work more naturally. In particular, the odd bit where you could only make one character answer your challenge is not longer there - you can name as many characters in your challenge as you see fit.
A few minor changes to chargen. And Masteries are now Strengths, and they're a little stronger than they were.
2 players and 1 GM enough?
I have the full game and have read it, so the rules should be no issue for me. It looks good. It looks Tony Robbins good.
Regards,
Daniel
Welcome. I'd like to have a pretty brisk posting rate; 3-4 posts per week perhaps. But, in reality, I feel any gaming is better than none. So, even if it slows, I'll be cool with it.
That said, I'm really keen on finishing at least one chapter by mid March.
Does that sound like something you're interested in?
I think I could handle that!
Regards,
Daniel
Lets now decide on which oracle to visit.
4 Oracles.
I like all the oracles. I am willing to just pick one randomly: #DiceRoller( 1d4 )
But I would like to know if anyone has a preference.
The version here should be updated.
Regards,
Daniel
JD: A wayhouse in which plague-victims have recently stayed.
10C: A devil of the lower air, malicious and full of pranks.
QC: The warden ghost of the place, generous to the good-willed.
KS: A village executioner, practicing his trade on a caught burglar.
an audience thread?
a general OOC 'table talk' thread?
I think the later would be handy, and the former might be nice, in case anyone has something to say.
Regards,
Daniel
I've played both ways.
In the "play thread only" game we had to be very careful about our formating so we knew what was in game and what was out of game.
In the "out of game + in game" game there tends to be some hopping between threads. Which can get confusing.
So there are trade-offs either which way you want to go.
I kind of have this hope that someone oblivious to the game could sit down and read just the in-game thread, and enjoy it almost like reading a short story-- unaware of the all the work that went into it. Thats why I went with the numerous threads. Then again, maybe I'm a bit OCD.
Regards,
Daniel