Zornhau Forums

Hi Marras, and welcome to the boards!

I'm glad you like the direction of our game, but to address your concerns, I'm not quite sure what exact sort of bookkeeping you have in mind, as all gaming systems have some of it. In 3.5 you need to know the hit points your NPCs have lost, whereas in 'Bastards, you'd be much better served knowing what body parts of your NPCs are and aren't covered in armor. Both of these are bookkeeping of a different kind. It's the players that need to decide which form of bookkeeping is more fun for them and choose their system accordingly.

So, such general inquiry is hard to respond to, but keeping accounting at a minimum has been a high priority design goal.

As for your concern of 4 PCs facing 6 NPCs in melee combat... I've yet to see that happen, period. One of those ten people is bound to pull out a pistol or a bow and then most these fights will break apart instantaneously as the characters scramble for cover.

In short, most fights of that scale become skirmishes by necessity. And if a character or two have their ranged weapons out in advance, these massive every PC vs every NPC melee brawls won't even occur as there are much more effective tactics to employ.

Tere, Higgins!

I admit that I was quite a bit vague in my previous post, so I will try and be more clear on my concerns now

I have never played (or run) D&D above 1st edition AD&D. Although I have some books for version 3.5 I couldn't force myself to run it because of all the feats, special abilities etc. Just too much of a hassle for my tastes as a GM. Still, I am no stranger to bookkeeping having run Rolemaster for some time and playing it quite a bit.

I got a bit excited about Burning Wheel some years ago because of all the mini games it has. Then I began to read about the Fight! rules where combat is scripted (3 maneuvers in a row, IIRC) for every combatant. I am sure this works wonderfully for players and even for duels between a PC and NPC but as a GM I have to think of the situations where every PC in the party have to face at least one enemy at the same time so I would be swamped while trying to take care of all those maneuvers for all the NPCs.

Granted, these examples are for other games but that sort of thing have been known to cause me problems I brought up the maneuver thing above because Bastards use maneuvers, too. At least that's how I have understood it. In RQ6 you get to choose maneuvers after rolling dice and that way you get the effect immediately and bookkeeping is still pretty minimal in that regard.

Now, finally I get to the point. Do I have to mark in advance what maneuvers my character(s) use and how many dice they use for attack/defence or do I make the decision on the spot when the character's turn is up? Does the effects of maneuvers linger and spread out to multiple turns that I possibly have to keep track of? These questions might be totally irrelevant as I don't really know how the mechanics go.

If I have a good NPC record sheet with place for armor etc. that kind of bookkeeping is no problem. Even though that kind of situation that I mentioned previously (4 vs 6) might not ever happen I like to be prepared for that kind of occasions. Proper Preparation Prevents Piss Poor Performance, as the saying goes

As for ranged weapons I am quite at loss what kind of firearms are in use at the setting proposed in Bastards. Maybe I think too low tech? I thought that there were no muskets at the time, yet (like in Three Musketeers there were).

Terve , Marras!

Marras wrote:Do I have to mark in advance what maneuvers my character(s) use and how many dice they use for attack/defence or do I make the decision on the spot when the character's turn is up? Does the effects of maneuvers linger and spread out to multiple turns that I possibly have to keep track of?

You make the decision on the spot. For example, when a PC Thrusts [a maneuver] at your NPC's head [target wheel] for 6 dice [the amount of effort], you need to decide whether then NPC uses Block [if he has a shield], Parry, Counter or Dodge, just to bring four easy examples, and for how many dice. Let's say you choose Parry for 7 dice. Then there's an opposed roll. Thrust vs Parry. Only one of those maneuvers can succeed.

If the Thrust succeeds, then the NPC is hit. If the strike resolves in a wound, then the wound effects will linger, but the maneuver effects won't. The maneuver is just a term we use to refer to the body movements of a character. Also, since PC's maneuver succeeded, it's his turn to strike again.

However, if the Parry succeeds, then there's no wound and nothing to carry over, save for a couple defensive maneuvers that give bonus dice to the following maneuver. Also, since NPC's maneuver succeeded, it is his turn now to strike at the PC.

In case of a tie, there's no wound but the offender retains their control of the bout. In our example, the PC won't connect, but can strike again.

I hope this answers your question.

Marras wrote:As for ranged weapons I am quite at loss what kind of firearms are in use at the setting proposed in Bastards. Maybe I think too low tech? I thought that there were no muskets at the time, yet (like in Three Musketeers there were).

'Bastards will include both matchlocks and wheellocks. We feel that the matchlocks are unfairly discarded in the terms of RPG coverage -- almost every game that uses muzzleloaders jumps straight to flintlocks instead. So, for that reason, as well as being true to our Renaissance era, we don't include the rules for flintlocks and bayonet lugs in the core (although our modular weapon system makes them dead easy to add, should anyone want to use our rules for more modern games).

If you want realistic effects you have to be prepared to handle lingering effects like bleed and stun so that's not a problem for me.

You said that there are maneuvers that give bonus to next maneuver. So, does these effects carry over to next turn or does Bastards use some other method to handle these exchanges? For example if the PC managed to strike, is his next strike again at the same turn or is it time for other combatants (another PC and NPC for example) to act next?

Whichever way it is, it sounds manageable.

Matchlocks and wheellocks, ok. From what I know about Renaissance I thought that flintlocks were not in use at that time, thanks for the confirmation.

I am looking forward to seeing the game, then.

Marras wrote:You said that there are maneuvers that give bonus to next maneuver. So, does these effects carry over to next turn or does Bastards use some other method to handle these exchanges? For example if the PC managed to strike, is his next strike again at the same turn or is it time for other combatants (another PC and NPC for example) to act next?

Our goal is to emulate adventure movies and fiction, so, in the terms of most other role playing games, we give the player "multiple actions in a row" when they are engaged in melee combat. Taking that into account, it wouldn't make much sense to cut to the next player while these bonuses linger. Off the top of my head, only two maneuvers have that bonus, so, that lingering isn't going to be a constant occurrence.

And to pre-empt your next question, yes, this "multiple actions in a row" contrasts very much with the ranged combatants that get to roll less, but have a much greater impact on how the skirmish is set up in general. Getting to roll less might sound like being unfair towards the archers, but truth be told, I have never seen them as respected and feared as in 'Bastards.

So, having multiple actions in a row is still handled in one go or in one turn? Sounds good to me.

It's not too bad if archers can have less actions than melee combatants as that is how it is and that's how it is in many other games, too. After all you have to take into account the reloading times.

But if archers are formidable in Bastards, then it gets even more points from me. Not that I have a particularly soft spot on archers but they are often underpowered in RPGs.

Thanks for all the answers!

Just going along with everything that my comrade here has said:

One of the highest priorities for us was making the game playable and manageable - both for the player and the GM. I'm a bit like you. I played 1st e D&D, and never could get into 3.x or higher because i have zero interest in micromanaging all of the feats and other nonsense required. I am an extraordinarily lazy GM. I want 99% of my prep time to be focused on story-crafting, not fiddling with stats and kit, and because of the nature of the player-driven narrative, literally everything in this game has to be at least to some degree improv friendly for the GM.

So from my end, I've basically gone through the design process with "would I actually want to run this?" as my standard for design. On more than one occasion, we've built up some really crazy simulationist mechanic that worked fine, but ultimately went another direction because we thought that there HAD to be an easier/simpler/less book-keepy way to do it. So I am right there with you, man.

Our skirmish / dueling system works out pretty well for handling convoluted combat scenes. This was a major weakness in the original TROS, and we've corrected it along the way. As an after-effect of that correction, we managed to really empower ranged characters. Without meaning to boast, 'Bastards is probably the best system to play an archer/marksman in a fantasy game I've ever fooled with and as Higgins said, they make a huge impact on a combat scene. Since bows, crossbows, and firearms can all be customized in the same way that swords and things can, they even have a similar selection of toys. Possibly moreso, since bows and crossbows have multiple arrow/bolt heads to choose from.

That's great to hear! There are too many otherwise great game systems that work on paper but doesn't really work all that well in practice, at least for my needs. As your style to GM seem to be similar to mine I have high hopes on this one.

Now, back to waiting to hear more news about Bastards...

I am really excited about the skirmish system! I had been making some clumsy stabs at it for my own TROS home brew, but it wasn't really working as well as I wanted. Then I read about your system and was really impressed. It's one of the main reasons I've been so excited about your game.

higgins wrote: Every major gaming system that I'm aware of started off being successful as a focused product first. <...>

So, I challenge you.

Name one.

Wow, I've been challenged by the mighty Higgins himself! There now, that's an honor!

I must admit, I'm no big expert in the field of role-playing games: there are not many games to be found in these here place I've been living in for the last 20 years. In 90s and 2000s I fetched books from my trips to London and other similar blessed places. Now torrents do the job (shame on me!). Nevertheless, I've already named GURPS as an example of what kind of system SoS could become in the future (and I still hope that Bastards can do it!). I admit, I didn't know that GURPS came from The Fantasy Trip (and I haven't heard of that game before).

So, you've dismissed GURPS and asked me to name one. All I've got is Fudge. Not terribly successful, but everyone's heard about it. I've even encountered a game that adopted Fudge mechanics in its second edition (that's Shadow of Yesterday).

So, we've got Fudge, and we've got GURPS. And what the Bastards are about to bring us - we have yet to discover!

Hello I'm Drakestar. Not Drakestat as the user name states. It was late at night in my part of the world and I didn't see my mistake until it was to late. So could someone please change it. Please?

Hi, Drakestar!

Don't forget to use your fixed name for the login now.

Siggi wrote:So, we've got Fudge, and we've got GURPS. And what the Bastards are about to bring us - we have yet to discover!

Well... FUDGE is more like a toolkit for building a gaming system, rather than a usable system in itself, which is the reason I didn't list it.

So, on one hand, we have TEN successful universal systems that spawned from focused products, and on the other hand, we have GURPS, which may or may not be really similar to its preceding The Fantasy Trip (I've never seen that game personally). In any case, the road to success seems pretty clear to me.

higgins wrote:Hi, Drakestar!

Don't forget to use your fixed name for the login now.

Many thanks to You o'mighty higgins

Not a problem.

higgins wrote:Hi, Drakestar!

Don't forget to use your fixed name for the login now.

Siggi wrote:So, we've got Fudge, and we've got GURPS. And what the Bastards are about to bring us - we have yet to discover!

Well... FUDGE is more like a toolkit for building a gaming system, rather than a usable system in itself, which is the reason I didn't list it.

So, on one hand, we have TEN successful universal systems that spawned from focused products, and on the other hand, we have GURPS, which may or may not be really similar to its preceding The Fantasy Trip (I've never seen that game personally). In any case, the road to success seems pretty clear to me.

This was definitely something Higgins and I talked about a lot as well. I've got a bad habit of telling you guys way too much and letting Higgins grumble at me later, but it's too fun to stop:

We've tossed around future plans for the core system that 'Bastards runs on. If we can get it going the way we need to in order to get full production going, we would definitely like to expand what you can do with the system and support a lot more options in the future, possibly even opening the game up to be its own generic basis like GURPS or the like. It will all depend on how the core book is received though, and what we can get time to support.