Solo/Co-op play

[ampersand]

you keep track of 1 number that you equate at the beginning of the expedition and thats your offset until you hit another dungeon level.
its pretty simple. i just took the time to explain it over a page with an example.

Oh, I see. It's just that there're more tables and multipliers in yours. I assume then that the pre-generated matrices have to be tweaked as the adventurers gain experience, right? May I ask what's wrong with Slev's system? (the old one anyway). One of the benefits of his method is that one can forget about preparing/editing matrices. The results are more open-ended, and one may get creative in each encounter without being restrained by pre-made matrix tables.

but firs ti do not want to treat this as a competition. i am writing rules to make a compact co-op experience that does nto use a gm. so you have slevs method and you have mine written for my compact set of rules that allow the players to play more...because there is no GM.

ok so there were multiple things. whilst the reforged method off the top of my head uses

you have to cross reference all of the below at various points

dungeon level
expedition
party number
party experience

-roll 2d12 to determine a multiplier which you then have to reference against party number to determine the amount of monsters.
-then you have to roll to determine the PV of the number you reached above which is multiplied by party experience.
-add dungeon level and expedition number to the first number you got to offset and give the final number of pv for the enemies.
-then you roll determine a random factor to the pv which gives you your final final number
-you then have to go away and figure out what you want to fight based on the numbers you determined for pv and number of enemies and divide these up to determine what you are fighting. sift through the monster cards and divide the 2 numbers up to figure this out.. or you could choose to split the pv etc. there a lot more working out here that isnt explained. but you still have to do it.
-roll for sentries.
thats 6 steps that are multi layered. i get why slev done it. but for coop i think a more contained nature is welcome.

my steps start of similar with the 4 factors

dungeon level
expedition
party number
party experience

-using these, you generate a pv modifier that exists for the expedition.
-roll on matrix
- add modifier to the pv of the result and add that many enemies as per rolled up.
- roll for sentries.

so basically its a 4 step linear system with no complexities to it

no changing matrices at all. follow the example in the rules. it explains everything. its all there if you read it.
its 1 multiplier that you work out at the beginning and thats it!. you just roll the dice get the result and add that many enemies plus your multiplier.

as i say i literally put a full walk through. on an entire page so i wouldnt have to explain it. surely reading doesnt fall into the complex bracket now does it?

[RECIVS]

surely reading doesnt fall into the complex bracket now does it?

LOL of course not! I had read it the first time, so you didn't have to go over it again. I was asking something different and very specific about its workings.

Nobody said this is a competition, but the comparisons are inevitable. Now, regardless of whether your system uses more tables and multipliers than Slev's, I see it keeps relying on pre-made matrices (the original ones or whatever), whereas his system doesn't use them. I thought you didn't want more tables to look up.

As I said, I think his method allows for more freedom and variety while reducing the game's footprint. I know that using pre-made matrices is "the AHQ way" (so is to tweak the game), but in this case I think Slev's mechanic improves on that without altering the feel of the old classic. Personally, there's no way I'm going back to using monster matrices.

[ampersand]

As i say. Compact rules set will have compact options. Of course there will be limitations. But you only need so many monster options before it becomes duplication.
I havent posted a matrix yet i think ive put together a decent range of options so far

[RECIVS]

Personally, there's no way I'm going back to using monster matrices.

Of course there will be limitations. But you only need so many monster options before it becomes duplication.

It depends on the bestiary one is using. Take my system, for example. It's based on Slev's, so it too uses tables instead of pre-made monster matrices, allowing for groups of enemies ranging from 1 to 24 monsters that can be assembled on the go. In contrast, putting together the appropriate monster matrices to do the same in the way you’re intending requires a lot of work (believe me), and, in the end, they could never be as flexible, which in my opinion may indeed be considered a limitation of the method you're proposing. As I said in my previous post, using pre-made monster matrices is the way AHQ works, so we could say it's in fact a limitation of that particular "AHQ way" (as is the lack of rules for the Escape and Fate DCs in GM-less mode by the way).

[RECIVS]

Personally, there's no way I'm going back to using monster matrices.

Take my system, for example. It's based on Slev's, so it too uses tables instead of pre-made monster matrices, allowing for groups of enemies ranging from 1 to 24 monsters that can be assembled on the go.

It took me much longer than expected, but here's the updated version.

Any feedback will be greatly appreciated.

[Stabsam]

Hi,
i dont have much time and i found it a little too hard to understand the first few pages.
The formulas are visually not that easy to understand. It should be clearer with less shortcuts. I think Slevs explanation was pretty clear and i understood it after a couple of readings. But yours seems even after learning slevs confusing to me.
Look at this sentence: "If the resultant PV allotted to each enemy is higher than the PV
of any of the enemies available in the bestiary (common or elites) select from the enemies
(common or elites) with the nearest PV, trading any remaining point(s) for enemies with PV=2
(preferably) and PV=1." Who should understand that and be willing to try to understand it in the first place?

The writing has to be easier so anyone, who reads it understand it after at least 3 times! Yours cannot be understood after 3 times because I constantly need to look for your own shortcuts and definitions.

Instead of trying to explain it in general, use an easy example with values and maybe even visualizing it by pictures and colours. It already would be a lot easier if you had specific colours for certain shortcuts!

And i looked up some of the tables for the enemies. Why do you use different short cuts for toughness and strength? Toughness has been t and strength has been s for ages. It just adds to the confusion for me. At least add an explanation so you dont have to guess your thoughts!

Besides that i am very happy and when i have time i will try your attempt! Thy!

[RECIVS]

Hi,
i dont have much time and i found it a little too hard to understand the first few pages.
The formulas are visually not that easy to understand. It should be clearer with less shortcuts. I think Slevs explanation was pretty clear and i understood it after a couple of readings. But yours seems even after learning slevs confusing to me.

Thank you for taking the time to leave your feedback. It's much appreciated, really.

You may see it's almost entirely Slev's system for creating groups of monsters; the one that did work, by the way. In fact, I think I managed to make it even simpler and fit into less space. I changed the Number of Enemies Table, though, so I will assume that's what you're referring to.

Look at this sentence: "If the resultant PV allotted to each enemy is higher than the PV
of any of the enemies available in the bestiary (common or elites) select from the enemies
(common or elites) with the nearest PV, trading any remaining point(s) for enemies with PV=2
(preferably) and PV=1." Who should understand that and be willing to try to understand it in the first place?

Well, what can I say? I still struggle with the language, so please bear with me. Some parts could be clearer, I know. However, it's really not that complicated. I think it's just that you're not that familiar with it yet, which is perfectly normal, and it's fine.

Now, the part you quoted refers to a very specific (and rather uncommon) situation that may occur only to experienced adventurers. I had to add that part because you won't find a solution in Slev's ruleset. It's quite simple actually, and any regular Reforged player should know what I'm talking about. Example: The adventurers find a group of WMs w/VE=24 & NE=1, and the common enemy with the nearest value has PV=6. What do you do in such a situation? I'm proposing solutions; that's all there is to it.

The writing has to be easier so anyone, who reads it understand it after at least 3 times! Yours cannot be understood after 3 times because I constantly need to look for your own shortcuts and definitions.

To be fair, my content is intended for seasoned GMs and players, and the terminology and definitions used in the bestiary are Slev's, which are included in the document, by the way. We could say it's an introduction and tribute to one of the best parts of Slev's system (in my humble opinion).

Instead of trying to explain it in general, use an easy example with values and maybe even visualizing it by pictures and colours. It already would be a lot easier if you had specific colours for certain shortcuts!

You may see some examples included. The four stats used in combat (WS, ST, TH, and DD) are highlighted in order to make them easier to look up. Adding a tab with their initials on top of each page would have added a few pages to the document. The idea of different colors for certain columns could work, though. Again, regular AHQ players shouldn't have any issue with it.

And i looked up some of the tables for the enemies. Why do you use different short cuts for toughness and strength? Toughness has been t and strength has been s for ages. It just adds to the confusion for me. At least add an explanation so you dont have to guess your thoughts!

Each stat in the bestiary has two initials for uniformity. Is TH instead of T really that confusing?

Besides that i am very happy and when i have time i will try your attempt! Thy!

Thank you! Some day I´d like to discuss results rather than presentation.

[Stabsam]

Yeah, thank you for working on the game. I still paint minis and think about scenarios but i am so stressed out and dont have much time- so i cannot enjoy playing atm.
But once i have time i will test it and i am assuming that it will work great!

[RECIVS]

I hope everything works out well for you. I'll be around.

[RECIVS]

The formulas are visually not that easy to understand. It should be clearer with less shortcuts. I think Slevs explanation was pretty clear and i understood it after a couple of readings. But yours seems even after learning slevs confusing to me.

But once i have time i will test it and i am assuming that it will work great!

By the way, you may want to look into this post.

My approach has always been about obtaining better results with less complications.