Playtesters Wanted! "New" Erfworld Game!

[thaco4]

Well, so it is... lol I hadn't check my account on there since the last Erf game I played. If I could get a wave to my account -sammoo12@gmail.com
That is if you all are still taking new members.

[maceman121]

Indeed wave is fully functional. The game currently set up is apparently already full, but right now as it stands there is me and the two of you apparently interested. Let me relook the posted rules tonight and make a few changes, see what you two think, and perhaps start up another game?

[thaco4]

I'm down for that. I lurk around these forums all the time just pm me. I would not make a good DM though. 3 people I have a feeling would be too few, but if that's all the others interested I am down to play.

[maceman121]

Yeah, like I said, need another at least. But I would play as well, as they are in the other game, since it is more a play test. I can automize it all so that it is still random, and I won't use my DM knowledge to cheat (since that would make the game quite dull....). I will send you a PM later, and will start a new thread once I rework the rules a bit. I like most of them, some are just a little off and a few mistypes in a few places.

[Twoy]

Well, so it is... lol I hadn't check my account on there since the last Erf game I played. If I could get a wave to my account -sammoo12@gmail.com
That is if you all are still taking new members.

You still have a google wave account. I can see you in some of the waves from the last game. I sent you an invite anyway and invited you to join the bragging rights wave for Oberon's test, though there is not much bragging going on ATM.

I think that running a second game is a great idea, though I really would like to see one set of rules that really works well. I'm still not happy with the set that we have.

[maceman121]

Well, I spent quite some time this weekend reviewing the rules, thinking about how they work and trying out a few new ideas. Please feel free, because I would love to start up a second game. The only things I am not sure about and why I don't offer to start up a second now is the map (it is huge, how do I go about making such a big map so I can track things?) and how to do the player turns. For a while, that won't be an issue as long as they are on wave when I am, we can do it pretty easily, but once they start to act with other players I can see where it will get very time consuming (after all, when they have units by, they MIGHT need to interact, than again they might not come into contact, so everyone who could be involved needs to be on even though likely not all of them will be.)

To compensate at least for the later I edited the rules a bit, making it so the player has a few less choices about how to maneuver their stacks. They have their warlords with plans in mind (commands of how to act basically) and than they move and act accordingly. Hoping this keeps things flowing as otherwise it can be a very long process to make a single turn per player. Not as nice as the comic I know (less freedoms and controls) but more feesable.

Please, give thoughts on the rules. I turned them into the next version from the rules in the current game, but have no issues editing them. Major difference I think is the inclusion of Siege Units (two, towers and ladders) as well as how combat modifiers work. Instead of leadership and terrain giving + whole numbers, now they give * % a number. Forests now give * 1.1 on defense instead of +1. I think that is what is meant by needing modifiers to win.

https://docs.google.com/leaf?id=0B5ruza2uTix3ZjFhZDFlNDgtMGFmMy00NmYwLWJiM2MtNTM1OWIxMTZkZGI4&hl=en_US

[WaterMonkey314]

On making huge maps - I think your predecessors used Hexographer (http://www.hexographer.com/). It makes quite nice, professional-looking maps.

Time is indeed an issue (and incidentally a major reason why my campaign is now in stasis). Unfortunately, I can't really tell you what will work best for you; you'll have to find that out yourself.