What's /tg/'s opinion on this game ?

>>53485660
It's fine, but it needs some tweaks. The way the book is written, nothing overtly supernatural ever happens because "demons" are invisible beings that bring random natural misfortunes like bandit raids and famine.
If it were more American Frontier Fantasy, I would like it more.

File: 1459667389374.jpg (607KB, 1812x2504px) Image search: [Google]

607KB, 1812x2504px

>>53485720 gets it. Going by the examples in the book, all the actual conflict in the game is about boring nonsense like infidelity and family drama. Who cares about 'escalation' and raising stakes when the core of the story just isn't interesting? The setting has no real hook to grab the attention of the players - I can't imagine anyone anyone getting excited about enforcing sumptuary laws or digging wells.

By no means is my opinion the best one but I despise everything Vincent Baker has done because he never explains things in concrete terms, which to me makes him come across as a bit up his own ass.

>>53486483
I think if you have a group who can engage in social drama stuff it works fine. When I ran it for my group we got an entire session out of 'the steward is giving his fiance a bunch of lavish gifts and paying for them by not paying his servants properly and they're pissed about it'. Then again this same group made MonsterHearts our longest ever campaign due to interest.

>>53486483
>>53485720
>If it were more American Frontier Fantasy, I would like it more.
Not only is there nothing stopping you from running it that way, not only does the book actively encourages it, but I'm not sure what you're even talking about considering the book constantly talks about magic, demonic possession, sorcery, and ritual and has rules for all of the above.

>>53486863
This. I actually like the idea of the game and the mechanics, but damn Baker comes across as insufferable 90% of the time.

>>53485660

One of the few rules light indie titles with mechanics worth a damn and actually interesting ideas. Not perfectly executed, but there's plenty there to learn from or steal/adapt if you're so inclined.

>>53485720
>because "demons" are invisible beings that bring random natural misfortunes like bandit raids and famine.

Personally I like this. I generally like when magic and supernatural are subtle, vague and barely visible even when it stands right in front of you. That's what makes it truly mystical and supernatural.
When fireballs follow clearly outlined rules and werewolves and demons have well-described properties that's not magic, that's just different kind of science following sets of natural laws that are present in that setting but not in ours. Magic by definition must be something that breaks such laws in half.

>>53485720
>It's fine, but it needs some tweaks. The way the book is written, nothing overtly supernatural ever happens because "demons" are invisible beings that bring random natural misfortunes like bandit raids and famine.
But that's bullshit?

I like lots of it. The interaction and escalation dice mechanics are great, skills/abilities/gear are easy to grasp and see the value of, complications are easy to introduce. I find character creation overly fiddly with options personally, but its not a big deal. Players can get pretty powerful so sometimes the amount of dice the gm/mc/storytalker gets can seem lacking.

Its easy to hack for any group of powerful authority groups doing problem solving. I find the raise/see dice mechanics are linked to poker/westerns, but it doesn't have to be.

>>53486863
What sort of game writing have you found to be concrete?

>>53486483
>>53485720
I don't think you got the part of the book where it explicitly tells you adjust the amount of demonic/occult to your taste. You can have horned devil bandits with possessed six shooters holding up banks if you want. I think their groups/play testers tend to be more interested in melodramatic games than combat games, but it works fine for either.

Too many dice, could be more streamlined. The developer even says he regrets having the handful of dice rolling shit. But it is a cool idea and a cool rulesset and honestly a good setting even in another system.

>>53494368
This. Even if I'd never get a group to try it out, it has good ideas and worth a read nevertheless.

I like the game a lot. It's not perfect, like this thread already goes into, and while reading the book, it does feel like Baker's got his head up his ass.

However, I've played it both straight up and twice reskinned as a Steven King's Dark Tower game, and I still consider it to be some of the most fun I've had RPing.

https://1d4chan.org/wiki/Campaign:End-World

I like the character creation, I like the way stats work. I like how failure still leads to new stats - that are likely to get you into even more trouble.

For what is basically the first big product of an indie developer the writing isn't so bad.

>>53485720
>The way the book is written, nothing overtly supernatural ever happens because "demons" are invisible beings that bring random natural misfortunes like bandit raids and famine.
That's the point basically. It creates drama by cheating basically. First the character creation is full of advice that if you have no other ideas, make a trait or few about how good gunslinger you are.
And then you take these bad-ass gunslinger action heroes, and make them solve situations that should not be solved by shooting.