|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Circus: The Dungeon Master's Guild: constructing a Ship- friendly RPG
|
Autenrieth Road
Shipmate
# 10509
|
Posted
Regarding Skills vs. Background: as an inexperienced player with a strange way of thinking, my reactions to this may be completely irrelevant. But here is how it strikes me: the Skills seemed fine to me. By contrast, Background seems like a source for all sorts of misunderstandings and disagreements about what fits a given Background, plus it seems to encourage something which I find unsettling in the way people sometimes discuss characters: a tendency to think in terms of stereotypical types, rather than allowing each character to be fully unique and not pigeonholed into a type at all.
--------------------
Truth
Posts: 9559 | From: starlight | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
This is my current draft recruitment thread OP, which contains the W&W system as I currently understand it. I believe we are currently discussing any final changes to the skills and gifts system.
WRITES & WRONGS Recruitment Thread
Writes & Wrongs is the Ship of Fools roleplay gaming system, that was developed by shipmates from a series of circus threads once upon time. The system runs at L2-S1-V2 on the Universal RPG Rating System.
Roleplay gaming is a sort of communal story telling. You have a gamesmaster (GM) and a group of players. The GM has an overarching plot for the players, and acts any people they meet. The players each have a character with specific knowledge and abilities, and the group of players will be told they have some sort of mission. A set of rules provides a way of resolving chance, conflict and interesting situations.
I am offering to GM & run a game using this system. Please read on for further details about the game system. The second post on this thread will give you an outline of my proposed game, including which approach to combat we will take, and an example character sheet.
Generating Your Character
There are six fundamental Potentials, which reflect your strengths and weakness in dealing with the world. You have a rank of Useless, Weak, OK, Good or Excellent in each Potential. You can distribute a total of 18 points across these six potentials, investing from 1 to 5 points into each individual potential, whereby you can obtain the ranks of; Useless - costs 1, Weak - costs 2, OK - costs 3, Good - costs 4, or Excellent - costs 5.
These Potentials are Wits, Readiness, Inspiration, Toughness, Elan & Spryness. To give you an idea of what they are good for, here are some suggested synonyms:
-
- Wits- Intelligence, Strategic Insight, Learning Capacity
- RReadiness - Perception Ability, Sensing Capacity, Reaction, Vigilance
- Inspiration - Magical ability, Spiritual Strength, Wisdom, Soul
- Toughness - Physique, Constitution, Strength, Melee Combat, Muscles
- Elan - Charisma, Social Capacity, Speak, Charm
- Spryness - Dexterity, Agility, Precision Handiwork, Finesse
There are three types of combat resolution that can be used for a campaign, explained further below. If the campaign will used the advanced combat system, you will need to add a further set of statistics derived from your Writes - called Wrongs. These will give numerical values and are calculated using the point buy cost.
- Wellbeing = Toughness x 20
- Recovery = 1/2 Toughness rounded down regained every 3 combat rounds
- Onslaught = Relevant Potential value + combat roll
- Negate = Spryness + Armor Bonus (penalty to opponent's roll)
- Gouge = Overkill* + Weapons Bonus + Toughness (Gouge reduces targets' Wellbeing)
- Speed = Spryness + Readiness
(*Overkill is the amount by which the dice roll exceeds a target figure given by the GM.)
You then select six Skills, these can be anything it is possible to learn - you can be inventive, just agree the final list with the GM. Each skill will be based on one of your Potentials - for example, if you have bluff based on Elan and your Elan is good - then your bluff will be good. If you attempt a skilled action when you do not have the skill, it will be Ridiculously Hard to succeed.
You may then agree a Gift with the GM, this is a unique special ability your character has - such as night vision, underwater breathing or teleporting. What is acceptable as a Gift is primarily a game balance issue.
You then choose a single special item or transformation. In a magical setting, you may choose an enchanted object - in a non-magical setting this may be something unique, valuable or highly unusual. In a magical setting you can choose to have a Transformation instead. Transformations usually work by switching the ranks of two Potentials and roleplaying the effect. Again, this will need to be agreed with the GM.
Additonal Skills and Gifts will be acquired through game play. This system has no levels, or experience points - and it is through Gifts, Skills and Special Items that your endeavours will be rewarded.
Now you have the skeleton of your character, you need to flesh out the details. Where do they come from ? What are their motivations ? what race or social class are they ? What experiences have they had that lead them to be who they are today ? What Mundane equipment are they carrying ? Races are ornamental, because some feel that racial biases can be an issue that bleeds over too much into the real world. This means the characteristics of fantasy races are toned down, a troll may not like the sun, cover up a lot in daytime and grumble - but she is not going to turn to stone.
Metagame
There will be a story thread, with an opening post by the GM, and a metagame thread. Anything you need to say out of character should be said on the metagame thread. When making reference to game mechanics on the story thread, please use starred qualitative descriptions - this is an ***easy*** fight, it will be ***ridiculously hard*** to climb that cliff, I would like to see if I can ***find hidden*** gems in this cave etc.
You can make multiple posts per day to either thread, but only upto one post per day per character should require non-combat dice rolling. All posts with numbers in, roll results etc, go on the metagame thread. You can use the metagame thread to ask for help from other players or the GM if you are not sure about something.
A GM day will last midnight to midnight in the GM's timezone. Time in the story itself will comform to the needs of the narrative.
Mechanics
So how do your Potentials and Skills work in practice ? When you want to do something narratively important, the GM tells you how hard it will be based on your rank in the relevant Potential or Skill and any relevant story factors.
You then roll a 20 sided dice to see if you succeed, if you do not own a D20 you can find websites to do this. The difficulty will be either Ridiculously Easy (1 fails), Easy (5 and under fails) OK (10 and under fails), Hard (15 and under fails) or Ridiculously Hard (only 20 will do.)
You will only need to roll one die for any non-combat action, and magic objects or weapons will just add a set bonus/buff e.g. +1 to your roll.
If you succeed on a roll with a natural 20 (i.e. the dice roll is twenty even without any additional bonuses) then tell the GM - they will give you a permanent additional skill, working it into the story. If you roll a 1, you will suffer a temporary ill effect woven into the story by the GM.
Combat
There are three combat options, and the GM will state which one is being used for a specific campaign:
- Minimalist
- Standard
- Advanced
Minimalist: for use in campaigns/settings where combat is intended to be largely insignificant. Combat is managed exactly like a non-combat roll - the GM tells you how hard the fight will be based on your character's Toughness and you roll a single D20 to succeed or fail.
Standard: for use in campaigns/settings where combat is intended to be narratively important from time to time. This is framed within three phases; plan, narrate battle & crisis/resolution, and it uses a win/lose/spawn fight structure. In the narrate battle phase Readiness either decides turn order, or gives an attack bonus, depending on GM's narrative decision. Players can not aid each other in fights, monsters that defeat players run off rather than attacking other party members. Subject to GM agreement and story elements, it may be possible for healing actions to happen between the narrate battle & crisis phases.
Plan
When players come to a combat opportunity, the GM will post a special context post on the story thread, requesting the players plan what they are going to do. There will be a time limit for how long this can continue - perhaps 24hrs to ensure all players have a chance to contribute. Players may use their daily non-combat skill roll over this time, to prepare weapons, analyse information etc if they wish to do so.
Narrate Battle
Once the planning stage has ended, the GM will post a meta-combat post on the meta thread. This post will specify the enemies the players will fight, the difficulty of their fight and any special considerations that apply. The choices in the plan stage can effect the difficulty of the coming fight the GM gives each player, if narratively appropriate.
There are two kinds of enemy: Minion & Nemesis
The meta-combat post for Minion will look something like this:
quote:
Fight begins:
- 1st: Bayani: your combat is ***easy***
- 2nd: Ik: your combat is ***hard***
- 3rd: Jetse: your combat is ***OK***
- 4th: Guriania: you have planned to be a sitting duck, so your combat is ***ridiculously hard***
Your party is fighting three kinds of minion: shadow demons, ghasts and the occasional giant rat. They have weak Readiness, if your Readiness is better than theirs you get +3 to your first combat roll in this encounter.
You have until 21:00 hrs GMT to defeat them.
For minion combat each player now makes two D20 rolls.
First dice roll - Combat - decides between outcomes:
- Win: Enemy is "left for dead"
- Lose: Be "left for dead" by the enemy & it seeks safety
- Spawn: "Combat continues & more enemies join the fight"
The GM has set the thresholds for these via fights via difficulty level in the meta combat-post:
- Ridiculously Easy, win = >1, lose = 1
- Easy, win = >5, lose = < 3, spawn = 3-5
- OK, win = >10, lose = < 5, spawn = 6-10
- Hard, win = >15, lose = < 5, spawn = 6-15
- Ridiculously Hard, win = > 20, lose = <10, spawn = 11-19
(Combat bonuses are added to this roll only, they are not added to the spawn roll.)
Easy & OK minion fights spawn one creature fight, and hard minion fights spawn two creature fights. After each pair of Combat+Spawn rolls, you may choose to attempt to run away - to succeed you must roll 7 or more.
The second dice roll - Spawn level - decides whether the fights this player spawns are to be:
- One rank harder (1-5)
- Same difficulty rank (6-15)
- One rank easier (16-20)
A spawn level roll of 20 also removes a fight.
This process continues until the character has won all their fights, been left for dead or run away.
The meta-combat post for combat with a Nemesis will look something like this:
quote:
Fight begins:
- Bayani: your combat is ***easy***
- Ik: your combat is ***hard***
- Jetse: your combat is ***OK***
Your party is fighting the Nemesis Boftzag, the mountain troll:
Boftzag has weak Readiness, if your Readiness is better than his you get +2 to your first combat roll in this encounter. Boftzag is tough, he will recover five times from being left for dead. If you fight Boftzag and he spawns an action, rather than generating additonal fights, you roll your second die and the spawn level roll resolves as follows:
- Boftzag is enraged by your attack, fight becomes one rank harder for you (1-5)
- Boftzag throws you off balance, no bonuses apply on your next combat roll & -1 to your combat roll (6-10)
- Boftzag stuns you, you have no opportunity to run away before the next combat roll (11-15)
- Boftzag taunts you, -1 to your combat roll (16-20)
If you roll a 20 on this spawn roll, your fight becomes one rank easier.
You have until 21:00 hrs GMT to defeat him.
This process continues until the player has either won, lost or run away. If you win, and the Nemesis recovers - you can initiate a new fight with the Nemesis. Everytime you start a new fight with a Nemesis in succession, without another character having attacked in between times, makes your fight a rank harder - this resets back to the fight difficulty given by the GM once your character has had a breather.
Having resolved either Minion or Nemesis combat, the player makes a post to the story thread, and to the meta thread. They can completely decide themselves how to describe the outcome of the fight determined by their various rolls.
All party members may be attacking a nemesis, so it is important to read prior posts on the meta and story threads to maintain narrative consistency.
Crisis / Resolution
Once either, all fights are completed, or the deadline is passed, the GM makes story and meta posts. These can either declare the combat over and clear up any remaining issues, or set-up a second narrate battle phase that operates exactly like the first one. Perhaps you have defeated the minions of evil and now have to face the demon himself.
Advanced: for use in campaigns/settings where combat is intended to be of primary importance to the narrative. You derive your Wrongs and have these on your character sheet. Combat is turn based, if narratively appropriate, the GM may require the players to act in order of Readiness rank or Speed. The GM will keep track of the enemies statistics.
In each combat turn players can make Onslaughts, use Skills or run away. Each action in a combat round requires 2 speed points to attempt, except running away which only requires 1 speed point and a roll of 7 or more. Speed points reset each combat round. A combat round is complete when all players and enemies have acted, attacks can be held, no geographic strategies (i.e no flanking, backstab, cover bonuses though acceptable in story description.)
The GM will tell you how much you need to roll to succeed on your Onslaught combat roll. (The GM would usually calculate the target figure by starting at 10 then adding or subtracting 5 for each rank difference between the relevant combat Potentials - and then adjusting for penalties and bonuses.) If your Wellbeing is 0 or less, you are incapacitated. 3 combat rounds at negative Wellbeing will result in Character death. Successful healing returns 1/4 of total wellbeing points.
The GM will probably need volunteers from the player group to act as additional combat GMs, when using the Wrongs system.
Settings
This system can be used for any world, with any level of technology and both with and without functional magic.
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
May I put in a plea for critical failures to be abandoned please?
A critical failure punishes a player for trying to do something. I don't think that's a good idea: trying to do things moves the plot along and is entertaining. Since it penalises the character it means that the character is less likely to take actions until they've recovered from the penalty. Again, that slows things down and is dull for everyone.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Adam.
Like as the
# 4991
|
Posted
The next campaign will use standard combat, right? I'm good with that. I think WRONGS should be road tested before we start a whole campaign using it, but I'm also in favor of shelving that until we've actually gotten through a campaign on standard.
Also, I like critical failures. I don't think they overly dissuade action, and they are generally narratively interesting. The fact that they're equally likely to happen no matter how adept you are at a particular task is a great leveler.
--------------------
Ave Crux, Spes Unica!
Preaching blog
Posts: 8164 | From: Notre Dame, IN | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kelly Alves
Bunny with an axe
# 2522
|
Posted
Critical failures make life... interesting.
--------------------
I cannot expect people to believe “
Jesus loves me, this I know” of they don’t believe “Kelly loves me, this I know.”
Kelly Alves, somewhere around 2003.
Posts: 35076 | From: Pura Californiana | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
I'm with Kelly on this - but at some point we can take a vote - or it could be campaign specific. In the meanwhile, have any of you guys got ideas for a skills/background fix ?
Ideally, we want something easy to use and flexible - that constrains characters enough that they do not become jack of all trades or gods - but does not result in having to have endless gm/player arguments or needing to use up creation slots on things like walking, breathing etc.
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
Meant to include, the current main suggestions are:
- A) Background + three key skills that are not predictable from the background
B) And/or clear specification of default skills for a normal person in the campaign setting
C) System as it currently is
D). System as is with slightly more skill slots - maybe eight.
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Jay-Emm
Shipmate
# 11411
|
Posted
I'd be tempted by some variant of A.
I don't think B could ever be done fully but probably makes sense to have some description as far as reasonably practical.
(I guess if there is agreed reasonable doubt we could always resolve it with the dice or other compromises)
Posts: 1643 | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Autenrieth Road
Shipmate
# 10509
|
Posted
I will betray that, as usual, I have no idea about how this game works, and will probably only learn by playing it many times. But I don't understand how Backgrounds are supposed to work.
To start with, I didn't understand IngoB's objection that if no-one had a Fire Starting Skill, we wouldn't be able to start a fire, and if no-one had a Fire In The Rain Skill, we wouldn't be able to have a fire if it were raining. Usually, I would expect that to be window-dressing, not essential to quest success, and so it could just be narrated by anyone who felt that they could do it and make narrative sense of it. (But there I again I may be wrong because I think my sense of what can make narrative sense is much more elastic than some other players' sense of that.). But if making the fire, or the fire in the rain, seemed to be something that was linked to quest success, or even just if a player wanted to play it cautiously, I would have thought they would just use a Potential on it, and the GM would then state the difficulty:
AR: Arabella wonders if she has enough ***wits*** to figure out how to get a fire going in this downpour.
DT: Arabella realizes it will be ***hard*** to light a fire in the rain.
I'm sure, that as usual, I have completely misunderstood how the game works.
--------------------
Truth
Posts: 9559 | From: starlight | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Autenrieth Road
Shipmate
# 10509
|
Posted
The other part of Backgrounds that I don't understand is this: by specifying a Background, is that just meant to cover stereotypical things that someone with that background or role or occupation (or however we would name our characters' backgrounds) might have?
For example, if I think about myself as if I were a character:
AR is a database programmer.
That presumably has some set of abilities that go along with it. (An analytical mind, attention to detail, ability to brainstorm, systems thinking, attention to people's needs both stated and implicit, etc.). But there are a bunch of other things that are true about me, that are part of my personal background in real life, but not connected to my database work.
AR was a Girl Scout for a few years, and lived in a house with a fireplace.
What that means in reality for me is a mixed and uneven bag of skills. I don't think of myself as being very good at building fires, but I can manage. I've never built a fire in the rain, but if I had to I can think of several ideas I'd try. I can't actually recognize poison ivy; I rely on playing it safe with "leaves of three, let it be." I can tie a square knot and a bowline. And, although I almost never wear makeup, for several years I received the Girl Scout magazine aimed at teenage girls, and picked up a lot of tips, which means that when I do wear makeup I know a surprising number of sophisticated things to pay attention to.
AR took sailing lessons for a few months.
So if we're trying to escape a band of orcs and come to a sail boat, I probably can't figure out the rigging fast enough to make a quick getaway before the orcs catch up to us. But if we're questing without pursuers and find a sailboat, I can work out how to handle it enough for us to successfully set sail and cross the body of water.
So, supposing I were trying to design a character like the real-life AR, how does any of that translate into a Background, or a Background and Skills, system? Because to me, naively, it seems as if all those things are part of my background, at least as I would use the word "background" colloquially in real life. I wonder if "Background" has a certain technical meaning in RPG that I don't have the experience to understand yet.
To be clear, I'm not necessarily wanting to design such a character for the next game. I'm using this as an example of what puzzles me, and what might help to unpuzzle me.
I hesitate to even have asked the question. I quite expect that the answer is that I can only learn how this works by playing it, and/or that I'm the only newbie confused by this.
--------------------
Truth
Posts: 9559 | From: starlight | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jay-Emm
Shipmate
# 11411
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Autenrieth Road:
The other part of Backgrounds that I don't understand is this: by specifying a Background, is that just meant to cover stereotypical things that someone with that background or role or occupation (or however we would name our characters' backgrounds) might have?
I think so.
Some variations from the stereotype will come from your skills, some (hopefully minor details) will probably be fleshed out in play...
But still fictional ARoad will have to be slightly idealised and stereotyped.
Again I think you both have a point on the fire lighting skill. It will end up (IIUC) as you suggest HOWEVER the GM needs something to go on*. IngoB's example then holds, unless either we give loads of information to cover every eventuality, or (and here the background helps a bit) the GM has some tough decisions and might be seen as too soft/harsh.
So in your example rather than doublethink constantly having to decide what a guide/programmer/pirate** can do, you need to pick one and then summarize the rest into a single skills from that time and then be selective (e.g. sailing and woodcraft) and just accept fictional ARoad isn't as good at makeup (or however you chose).
*else we'll see a chance to light a fire and remember our time in Scouts. See a fight and remember that we know Kung Fu. (even if we try to be good).
**I've deliberately exaggerated the sailing.
Posts: 1643 | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
Does anyone have a view on what I posted on skills vs backgrounds earlier in the thread ?
Here - also, are you happy to change from perks to gifts (which would work slightly differently, hopefully more easily).
[ 25. May 2014, 17:46: Message edited by: Doublethink ]
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jay-Emm
Shipmate
# 11411
|
Posted
Mixed feelings.
The good thing about backgrounds seems to be the flexibility for unforeseen situations, bad thing about them is the ambiguity (which is basically the mirror image).
I'd be tempted to have it, but make it clear that if we've not explicitly mentioned it as a skill (or as a extremely trivial consequence of background), then we have no guarantees (and even in we think we have a nice case should be surprised if we're good and not just better than average).
Posts: 1643 | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Adam.
Like as the
# 4991
|
Posted
I still like option A (it being my idea...). I don't think backgrounds make it too easy to plough through stuff because they still have to be linked to potentials which are limited by the point buy. I can see some gatekeeping function for a GM here. Say someone has pirating as a background, but really lousy finesse, and they say they're going to tie some kind of super impressive knot. Then, you say: sure, you can try, but it'll be based on your finesse so you probably won't succeed.
I think I'm fine with gifts rather than perks. I'm still trying to think what Hestor's would be if I was to adapt him to the new set up. Probably would be something to do with him having a large network of acquaintances who owe him favors.
--------------------
Ave Crux, Spes Unica!
Preaching blog
Posts: 8164 | From: Notre Dame, IN | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Hart:
I think I'm fine with gifts rather than perks. I'm still trying to think what Hestor's would be if I was to adapt him to the new set up. Probably would be something to do with him having a large network of acquaintances who owe him favors.
That would be a struggle to formulate as an innate, always on, ability.
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
I think that going into the skills system with the understanding that thesewere the six things that were going to be what my character did, I was able to build a character who'd be able to contribute something in a broad range of situations, despite having a reasonably focussed specialism. Whereas trying to build the character from a background would require a certain amount of judgement as to whether Turn Undead and Investigation are or are not part of 'Van Helsing-style scholar who hunts vampires and other Hammer Horror monsters'.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kelly Alves
Bunny with an axe
# 2522
|
Posted
(reading through various arguments for and against backgrounds.)
I think I am more familiar with/ comfortable with the skills system-- I do agree that, just to move stuff along, a basic skill set should be assumed for all characters.
--------------------
I cannot expect people to believe “
Jesus loves me, this I know” of they don’t believe “Kelly loves me, this I know.”
Kelly Alves, somewhere around 2003.
Posts: 35076 | From: Pura Californiana | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
First thanks for the mega-rules post, DT. I know how long it takes to write stuff up like that.
The system as described there seem fine to me. I hope to see the Advanced combat being trialled eventually (though presumably not for the first campaign).
As for the background vs. skills problems: I propose a tripartite system. Don't worry, I think this makes things simpler, not harder.
- "Common skills": There is no prior list of general skills. But where a skill that would apply to all players is being queried for the first time, the GM's response sets the rule for the rest of the game. Example:
Regular adventure play in moderate climes:
Player: I want to make a fire. GM, what's required?
GM: In regular conditions, no roll is required, just narrate. If it is raining or there are strong winds etc., then roll a d20+Spryness. If you get over 15, you succeed.
Expedition to the Himalayas:
Player: I want to make a fire. GM, what's required?
GM: Only the sherpa class can attempt to make fire. Roll d20+Spryness+Wit, and get at least 18 to succeed. Only one attempt per 24 hours is allowed (scarce fire making resource).
Etc. Basically, from that point forward we do not need to consult the GM (unless something exceptional happens), but what happens is under GM control given the intended story.
. - "Class abilities": The GM states a range of classes which people can pick from. These classes have no other function during the campaign than to keep track of "always available" skills certain players do have, but others not.
Example:
GM: This campaign we will play with warriors, who have heavy and light weapon skills, regulars, who have light weapons and healing skills, and defenders, who have healing and protection skills. Tell me on meta what class your character belongs to.
Player: I'll be a regular.
... later in the game ...
Player: I will use that sword to attack the gnome.
GM: That's a two-hander, a heavy weapon. If you attempt this it will be Hard for you, in spite of this being an easy opponent.
...
Player: I'll be a defender.
... later in the game ...
Player: I'll attempt a protection spell on that other player.
GM: OK, you are a druid and have defender class, so you can do that on Easy.
Etc. The GM is completely free to make up the classes and the skill sets they contain appropriate for the story. They are also simply bookkeeping devices, and would not show up otherwise in story or meta. For example, Bayani of the trial run, while all about fighting, would have been a "regular" in the above example, not a "warrior" since he had not heavy weapons skill.
The GM does not have to pre-specify class skills necessarily, they can also be compiled with the same system as for common skills above, but then only for the class. But he needs to give players enough information to pick a class meaningfully.
. - "Special skills": Every player gets one or two special skills that individualise them according to their chosen background. These get pre-negotiated with the GM into rule sets in order to avoid game breaking
Example: Most special skills in our trial run, except for a few that would now be class abilities, like weapon handling.
I think this pretty much matches player expectations (well, at least my expectations...) into a workable system
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jay-Emm
Shipmate
# 11411
|
Posted
I like the general suggestion.
I'm in two minds about whether we need such specification of the background or if we can rely on players to chose sensibly (and if not rely on the price to be extracted later). Being flexible would mean the book-keeping becomes more of a chore though. Though that's a tiny variation that can be evaluated after the next game.
I think it's good that we have something between a pure specialist skill and a pure common skill (like the fire lighting example shows).
I also think there should be the option for the class effects to be an negative. I.E the Prince ought to be lacking in common house-craft skills.
Posts: 1643 | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
"Common skills": There is no prior list of general skills. But where a skill that would apply to all players is being queried for the first time, the GM's response sets the rule for the rest of the game. Example:
Regular adventure play in moderate climes:
Player: I want to make a fire. GM, what's required?
GM: In regular conditions, no roll is required, just narrate. If it is raining or there are strong winds etc., then roll a d20+Spryness. If you get over 15, you succeed.
Expedition to the Himalayas:
Player: I want to make a fire. GM, what's required?
GM: Only the sherpa class can attempt to make fire. Roll d20+Spryness+Wit, and get at least 18 to succeed. Only one attempt per 24 hours is allowed (scarce fire making resource).
Etc. Basically, from that point forward we do not need to consult the GM (unless something exceptional happens), but what happens is under GM control given the intended story.
I like this solution. Simple & flexible.
I still don't like class systems, partly because I think it corrals the players' imaginations during character generation. Might be simpler to just decide, you get - say - seven skills - and you are recommended to assign three of them as specifically relevant to your trade/profession/status. That leaves you four for madz skilz. I like having more than two for this, as it allows folk to have some just for flavour - like Testwe's courtly poetry.
Together with IngoB's approach to common skills, I think that would give us everything we need.
[ 26. May 2014, 16:43: Message edited by: Doublethink ]
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jay-Emm:
I also think there should be the option for the class effects to be an negative. I.E the Prince ought to be lacking in common house-craft skills.
Can't you just roleplay that ? Just have the prince decline on the grounds of skill or status ?
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jay-Emm
Shipmate
# 11411
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
Can't you just roleplay that ? Just have the prince decline on the grounds of skill or status ? [/QB]
Should be able to and if I do, things are fine.
But if you (the GM) think of some contradiction relating to background then you should have an explicit right* to question/be mean even if it's a common skill so long as it ought be reasonably predicted. And again we should be our explicit duty to raise it if it seems likely to be in doubt.
If there's never such an occasion (or we work round it without you) then there's no problem.
If there's some occasion that's too hard to fix you can just ignore it other than a sarcastic post (and it's no worse).
But the one time it makes the story more interesting, it won't be a [total] surprise.
*you of course have the right as GM anyway.
[ 26. May 2014, 17:39: Message edited by: Jay-Emm ]
Posts: 1643 | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kelly Alves
Bunny with an axe
# 2522
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
"Common skills": There is no prior list of general skills. But where a skill that would apply to all players is being queried for the first time, the GM's response sets the rule for the rest of the game. Example:
Regular adventure play in moderate climes:
Player: I want to make a fire. GM, what's required?
GM: In regular conditions, no roll is required, just narrate. If it is raining or there are strong winds etc., then roll a d20+Spryness. If you get over 15, you succeed.
Expedition to the Himalayas:
Player: I want to make a fire. GM, what's required?
GM: Only the sherpa class can attempt to make fire. Roll d20+Spryness+Wit, and get at least 18 to succeed. Only one attempt per 24 hours is allowed (scarce fire making resource).
Etc. Basically, from that point forward we do not need to consult the GM (unless something exceptional happens), but what happens is under GM control given the intended story.
I like this solution. Simple & flexible.
I still don't like class systems, partly because I think it corrals the players' imaginations during character generation. Might be simpler to just decide, you get - say - seven skills - and you are recommended to assign three of them as specifically relevant to your trade/profession/status. That leaves you four for madz skilz. I like having more than two for this, as it allows folk to have some just for flavour - like Testwe's courtly poetry.
Together with IngoB's approach to common skills, I think that would give us everything we need.
This feel right and good and comfortable to me.
quote:
Originally posted by Jay-Emm:
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
Can't you just roleplay that ? Just have the prince decline on the grounds of skill or status ?
Should be able to and if I do, things are fine.
But if you (the GM) think of some contradiction relating to background then you should have an explicit right* to question/be mean even if it's a common skill so long as it ought be reasonably predicted. And again we should be our explicit duty to raise it if it seems likely to be in doubt.
If there's never such an occasion (or we work round it without you) then there's no problem.
If there's some occasion that's too hard to fix you can just ignore it other than a sarcastic post (and it's no worse).
But the one time it makes the story more interesting, it won't be a [total] surprise.
*you of course have the right as GM anyway.
Thank you for introducing the idea of the GM's right to be final judge on a call. One we get into game play, we really need to remember that.
[ 26. May 2014, 19:03: Message edited by: Kelly Alves ]
--------------------
I cannot expect people to believe “
Jesus loves me, this I know” of they don’t believe “Kelly loves me, this I know.”
Kelly Alves, somewhere around 2003.
Posts: 35076 | From: Pura Californiana | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jay-Emm
Shipmate
# 11411
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
Thank you for introducing the idea of the GM's right to be final judge on a call. One we get into game play, we really need to remember that.
I wouldn't have remembered if you hadn't said it first.
(but also there's a distinction between 'rights' and 'rights', I'm just not sure what it is)
[ 26. May 2014, 19:10: Message edited by: Jay-Emm ]
Posts: 1643 | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eliab
Shipmate
# 9153
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
Does anyone have a view on what I posted on skills vs backgrounds earlier in the thread ?
I really don't think the system we used for the playtest needs tweaking. It worked. We could define a large number of different character concepts, with lots of chances for using non-combat skills, and without anyone (I think) either dominating the game of being excluded from it.
I see backgrounds/common skills as 'skills the GM can use' and defined skills as 'skills the player can use'. What I mean is, Prince Testwe could have taken 'Heraldry' as a character skill, but didn't. However it's hard to believe that someone of his background grew up in complete ignorance of that field. Clearly he knows something - he'd recognise his own family's crest as an absolute minimum - but he didn't make it an area of expertise (or it would be a skill). So if a knight rides up to the party with a flame device on a green and white quartered shield, it's entirely up to the GM whether Testwe recognises him from his bearings. Jay-Emm can't insist on a right to roll for this - it's not a skill - but if its info that the GM wants us to have, the background is there to do that. It's fine to remind the GM that a character might know a little about this, but its wholly a GM call.
quote:
Here - also, are you happy to change from perks to gifts (which would work slightly differently, hopefully more easily).
In principle, yes, I'm happy with that. The trouble is, I really like Gunriana's current perk: a bonus to magic when she really needs it at the cost of a rather scary curse. It fits so well with how I see the character. It wouldn't work as an 'always on' gift. The whole point of that perk is that it's pretty much 'always off'. Gunriana never wants to use it - it represents everything about magic that scares her. So I'd resist the change for purely selfish reasons.
Posts: 4619 | From: Hampton, Middlesex, UK | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kelly Alves
Bunny with an axe
# 2522
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jay-Emm:
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
Thank you for introducing the idea of the GM's right to be final judge on a call. One we get into game play, we really need to remember that.
I wouldn't have remembered if you hadn't said it first.
(but also there's a distinction between 'rights' and 'rights', I'm just not sure what it is)
I think a good GM would only invoke that right when absolutely necessary, but if we don't lay that down, it could bog down a game pretty fast. Some people would challenge a GM if they narrated, "You encounter water, and it is wet..."
--------------------
I cannot expect people to believe “
Jesus loves me, this I know” of they don’t believe “Kelly loves me, this I know.”
Kelly Alves, somewhere around 2003.
Posts: 35076 | From: Pura Californiana | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
OK - I am just finishing my campaign brief, and then I will post the recruitment thread.
(I think I can finangle a version of Guriana's gift that will work in the sort of way you want.)
[ 26. May 2014, 19:25: Message edited by: Doublethink ]
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
I still don't like class systems, partly because I think it corrals the players' imaginations during character generation. Might be simpler to just decide, you get - say - seven skills - and you are recommended to assign three of them as specifically relevant to your trade/profession/status. That leaves you four for madz skilz. I like having more than two for this, as it allows folk to have some just for flavour - like Testwe's courtly poetry.
Together with IngoB's approach to common skills, I think that would give us everything we need.
Fine, but then I would recommend more a five trade / profession / status skill and one or two unique skills ratio. After all, we get special skills on lucky rolls, so they should be special. Furthermore, negotiating these takes quite a lot of time.
I would suggest that the skills should be specified as "always on" or "regular roll" or "case by case rolls".
For example:
Light weapons for a fighter is "always on", meaning one doesn't need to roll just to pick up a dagger and use it as a weapon. (Obviously one needs to make combat rolls for the dagger. But one doesn't need an extra skill roll just to start using it.) So there is no need for negotiation or throws during the game, except perhaps to decide on whether a skill can be applied to something (is a one-and-a-half handed sword a light weapon or not?).
Playing a tune for a bard is "regular roll", meaning the threshold for success can be set once at the beginning by the GM, and no interaction with the GM is needed during usual game play. Though the GM can advise a player that some special circumstances affect the roll. For example, maybe any roll over 5 means playing a delightful tune, almost the entire game. But if walking through an ice storm, the GM might tell the bard "transient increase to roll over 15 for a good tune" because of the cold.
Whereas scavenging for food for a hunter is a "case by case roll". How hard it is to search for food always depends on where and when one is searching. So the GM should give a specific roll threshold every time the skill is used.
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
That will be agreed in the character design prior to commencing play, as you suggest. But I am going to keep the 3 & 4 skill split.
This could be adjusted in a future campaign.
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
Recruitment thread is up.
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kelly Alves
Bunny with an axe
# 2522
|
Posted
Bumping thread for discussion of game mechanics.
--------------------
I cannot expect people to believe “
Jesus loves me, this I know” of they don’t believe “Kelly loves me, this I know.”
Kelly Alves, somewhere around 2003.
Posts: 35076 | From: Pura Californiana | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
Wise bunny is wise.
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
Re Concerns raised about the opening of The Kavetseki Incident
Nature of the opening premise
I am sorry that some players have disliked the way the opening of the game was managed. However, I do feel it falls within fairly common types of RPG scenarios.
It is really not that uncommon to begin a campaign where you start and discover immediately or very soon into the game that you are currently captured and all your equipment is elsewhere, or you have fallen through a portal into another world, or there is a time rift or whatever.
The most conventional way to do it in tabletop is to have some encounter happen that the characters just can not win, but allow them to roll and just tell them every attempt failed - then inflict the consequence. In a play by post game like this, that would have meant taking you through a week's worth of gameplay to a pre-determined failure outcome - that seemed likely to be frustrating, unpleasant and off putting.
So why would I want to inflict a detriment on you to start with ? Why do GM's use these kind of narrative devices in the first place ?
The set-up needs to achieve a couple of essential tasks, and a couple of optional tasks. Essentially:
- Explain why the party are together, (and with the diversity and number of characters this is quite difficult)
- Give the characters a shared goal
- Give the characters relationships to each other that don't seriously constrain their play
- Provide plot hooks
Optionally,
- Be interesting, i.e. something other than "you all heard the town crier saying the king promised a thousand gold pieces to anyone willing to slay the dragon"
- Create clear opportunities for all characters to do something meaningful quickly in GM time (folk don't want to have to wait days before they can try to do something if at all possible)
- Be surprising, (basically part of the attempt not be boring)
Having been misused by someone or something, is a powerful motivator for characters to band together and venture forth - who may otherwise have little in common - and this why GMs often use this trope. You will also have seen it many times on film.
(This wasn't just some easy way to mess with you guys, it took me literally hours to amend each character sheet, including trying to make sure they weren't crippled by the changes, the gifts were character consistent, formatting, pming, reposting etc. I am not complaining about this, merely pointing out it wasn't done for convenience.)
So that is the why.
Method
Folk felt the reveal of ageing was too subtle, in my defence I did post *everybody's* altered character sheets on meta - I suspect people may only have read their own. But, really, the subtlety was in order for the players to have a puzzle to solve and make the discovery gradually. Your characters were disorientated and I felt it reasonable for you to take time to realise.
Re plausibility issues, this is not a simulation and I am not aiming for that level of realism - I also don't think it is achievable in play by post or rpg generally.
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
And more generally speaking, I am a bit astonished at the sheer level of setup interference with the characters here, which is out of player control and simply imposed. And I can't even complain, I've merely lost gear that I had spent quite some time designing for my character, traded a point on my key enabling potential for a skill that I didn't want, and now apparently need to play a different age range than I intended to do. If I had been playing Jetse and lost an arm on a fighter character willy-nilly, I would have simply quit.
I feel this somewhat misunderstands the situation, at this point in the game you don't know if most of the changes are permanent, this is a magical world - in theory you can walk around a corner and trip over a flask containing an elixir of youth (or more elaborate equivalent opportunity). Jetse could get a powerful wizard to regrow his arm, you just don't know yet. (And his case - the arm loss itself makes no difference to his combat functioning, if you look closely at the mechanics)
More prosaically, you don't know what will happen when the characters leave the shore and frankly I have now dropped hints, so heavy they have torn holes in the fabric of space time, that it would be a good idea to do so.
Likewise characters basically need to get some money, and get to a place with some merchants in order to replace mundane equipment.
I feel that in many ways the playtest set-up was both more boring and more constraining. All characters had hierarchical relationships to each other that would have been tricky to break out of - the game was also vulnerable to player/character loss as it was very much tied to the character of Testwe.
In the Kavetseki set-up, power dynamics and relationships between the party members are effectively all left open. No one is beholden to anyone. Your goal is more defined which allows for better plotting, and more of a story arc. You have a clear antagonist, even if you haven't identified them yet, and a mystery to solve. And that is before your ideas start to mutate and permeate the story (I note a shark-lord was mentioned for example - I am sure we can develop something from that.).
Game tone
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
<snip>I see three options for Jack here. Either he basically shrugs the time capture off, and I play this simply as an initial handicap to his abilities and equipment and pretty much ignore the set-up otherwise. This is far too "unrealistic" for my liking, I like to keep my character "coherent" within the story framework. Or I am playing him as a severely depressed character for the rest of the game, who struggles to find some way to cope. Or I play him as full of hateful rage, seeking to destroy whoever or whatever stole his youth from him. Neither of the latter two options is at all attractive to me.
Just to make this clear, I'm not opposed to dramatic situations or indeed "in story" damage to the characters, all the way to mutilation and death. But there is a big difference between losing your health, arm or even life to a dragon, and being ground down by time. I want to have fun with heroics and puzzles, I want to have an adventure time. That I enjoy, that takes my mind off reality. I heart this kind of escapism in a game, it's what I thought I signed up for. Facing your own mortality and deep psychological questions about life? Thanks, but no thanks. I prefer shallow fun.
+++
<snip>So this is not about the lack of action in a Schwarzenegger sense, it is about the overall story mood.
+++
<snip>. But again trying to be in-story coherent, I think this is a realistic response from Jack.
In an rpg, rather like in EastEnders, if you try to play an entirely realistic response to a character's experiences - then the character is liked to be curled up in a corner quivering within about a week.
Say you are attacked by bandits and you are not a combat character, you survive - perhaps you kill an NPC - in real life, this would be a *very* major event in your life. You could have nightmares for years, you might never recover your confidence, become agoraphobic or whatever. But in a rpg (unless you are playing Cthulu) this doesn't happen. It is next to impossible to rpg that level of emotional realism.
Likewise most combat or rogue characters in an rpg would be psychopaths in real live, lawful good alignment or not.
I have to be honest and say, I really don't get why being middle aged is so horribly worse than being mauled by a dragon.
Maybe that is because I am middle aged.
[Eta: Reason why I didn't post these explanations earlier is that I didn't want to bugger up the plotting by revealing key information too early.]
[ 05. June 2014, 18:59: Message edited by: Doublethink ]
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kelly Alves
Bunny with an axe
# 2522
|
Posted
We players gotta remember too, that this game has to be not only player friendly but GM friendly-- Doublethink happens to be a seasoned GM, but eventually someone else might run. Someone less seasoned.In order for game play to progress smoothly, we have to give the lion's share of control to the GM.
--------------------
I cannot expect people to believe “
Jesus loves me, this I know” of they don’t believe “Kelly loves me, this I know.”
Kelly Alves, somewhere around 2003.
Posts: 35076 | From: Pura Californiana | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kelly Alves
Bunny with an axe
# 2522
|
Posted
(and for the record-- I really, really wanted to play a coyote. ![[Waterworks]](graemlins/bawling.gif) )
--------------------
I cannot expect people to believe “
Jesus loves me, this I know” of they don’t believe “Kelly loves me, this I know.”
Kelly Alves, somewhere around 2003.
Posts: 35076 | From: Pura Californiana | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
Maybe someone will run a wild west game next time ?
I once ended up in a wild west style game with added werewolves - but I imagine were coyotes could happen.
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kelly Alves
Bunny with an axe
# 2522
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
Maybe someone will run a wild west game next time ?
I once ended up in a wild west style game with added werewolves - but I imagine were coyotes could happen.
World of Darkness had a whole book on Wild West campaigns-- bet that was what it was from.
WoD used to have all kinds of were- creatures-- that's where I got the idea for a coyote. They also based a lot of their mythos on Native American lore. In other words-- when I get the hang of things, maybe I will run one!
--------------------
I cannot expect people to believe “
Jesus loves me, this I know” of they don’t believe “Kelly loves me, this I know.”
Kelly Alves, somewhere around 2003.
Posts: 35076 | From: Pura Californiana | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
Yes it was WoD
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Curiosity killed ...
Ship's Mug
# 11770
|
Posted
Me, I'm tagging along, but my rpg-ing co-player wasn't at all surprised and had picked up the time lag from one of the other characters (very ambiguous age / gender / species Er Maker, not so easy to mark time on).
--------------------
Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat
Posts: 13794 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ariston
Insane Unicorn
# 10894
|
Posted
As I think I mentioned, I actually quite liked being nerfed like that—it raises the stakes a bit, means that we're starting out in the hole, and that, rather than being Big Bad Bland Bigdude, I'm working at a disadvantage. Sure, I had him planned out, but now I have to actually think how he's going to act now, to deal with frustrations, and figure out his plans for the future based on his background. It's a hook for character development and action, rather than simply "oh, everything's going swimmingly, I think I'll kill a dragon because I feel like it." Now we have to do something, rather than simply moseying along.
It also means I get to bring out some of what makes him Weird (or at least different than every other Burly Goon With a Past), which I wasn't expecting to get to do so early.
--------------------
“Therefore, let it be explained that nowhere are the proprieties quite so strictly enforced as in men’s colleges that invite young women guests, especially over-night visitors in the fraternity houses.” Emily Post, 1937.
Posts: 6849 | From: The People's Republic of Balcones | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Yorick
Infinite Jester
# 12169
|
Posted
I think the whole thing is bloody brilliant, and the GM is doing a superb job. I don't use these things very often, but...
![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
Thank you, DT.
--------------------
این نیز بگذرد
Posts: 7574 | From: Natural Sources | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
Re Concerns raised about the opening of The Kavetseki Incident
Having been misused by someone or something, is a powerful motivator for characters to band together and venture forth - who may otherwise have little in common - and this why GMs often use this trope. You will also have seen it many times on film.
I don't really want to comment on how you're running the campaign until the postmortem, but I can't resist pointing out that at the moment the party isn't even motivated to get off the beach.
Last time when the party seemed to be faffing about, I decided it was in character for Daniel to poke the hornet's nest and generally try to make something happen. This time, I'm being far less gung-ho.
Trying to make a more constructive comment: Eliab made a roll, got a critical failure and the result was that his character collapsed unconscious, and somebody else had to resuscitate him. Result: back to square one.
In general, critical failures result in characters taking fewer actions, therefore making less happen because they're less likely to succeed in doing so, being more cautious about taking actions (because they were punished for it last time), and generally makes things more tedious. If the critical failure had resulted in some threat that would have made things more interesting, and probably have helped to kick us into action.
quote:
I feel this somewhat misunderstands the situation, at this point in the game you don't know if most of the changes are permanent, this is a magical world - in theory you can walk around a corner and trip over a flask containing an elixir of youth (or more elaborate equivalent opportunity).
Daniel made an Occult roll to ask if they could be reversed; you said they couldn't. I think it was reasonable for IngoB to assume that meant they wouldn't be.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
I specifically said time could not be reversed.
(Eta; I do however agree it has taken sometime to get off the beach.
I think this partly because the players are not talking to *each other* much on the meta thread. Partly it is an effect of play by post, I don't think it is possible to do much very quickly.)
[ 05. June 2014, 20:31: Message edited by: Doublethink ]
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Ariston
Insane Unicorn
# 10894
|
Posted
All this faffing about talking may be a consequence of recruiting players from a discussion board…where we spend lots of time faffing about and talking. It's not like there's that much pressure to get things done, so long as we can keep saying "oh, it's still light out, we can get moving later."
--------------------
“Therefore, let it be explained that nowhere are the proprieties quite so strictly enforced as in men’s colleges that invite young women guests, especially over-night visitors in the fraternity houses.” Emily Post, 1937.
Posts: 6849 | From: The People's Republic of Balcones | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Autenrieth Road
Shipmate
# 10509
|
Posted
What I learned in Prince Testwe's Peregrination: I am not in control.
What I learned from the opening of the Kavetseki Incident, in particular the character changes: what it meant in the playtest when people told me "the GM is God" and "trust the GM".
--------------------
Truth
Posts: 9559 | From: starlight | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eliab
Shipmate
# 9153
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
I have to be honest and say, I really don't get why being middle aged is so horribly worse than being mauled by a dragon.
First, I like the 'ship-wreck' part of the start up without any reservations.
Second, the aging of the characters is different from dragon-related risk. For me, it's the unwritten contract thing: we signed up to play an adventure with these characters. 'The adventure' in a fantasy RPG might include fighting a dragon. 'These characters' mean the ones we devised in order that we could play them. Adding twenty years to their ages means that they aren't the same characters. Gunriana's background, for instance, had her young age as an important fact. I'd conceived her as a young woman faced with an unappealing marriage some years in the future, with her duty somewhat at odds with her personality: a Volsung trying to be a Medici.
Aging her twenty years rewrites all of that. I'm not playing that character anymore. It isn't just something that has happened to her - it's a fundamental change in who I am playing.
That said, I'm not objecting. I'm enjoying developing this story, and I'm used to games (Call of Cthulhu being the best known one) where GMs have a very wide implicit permission to piss all over the characters' hopes and dreams, and fundamentally alter their natures in their inevitable descent into madness. I'm happy. But I do see the aging thing as an issue, and the sort of thing that won't be to everyone's taste.
--------------------
"Perhaps there is poetic beauty in the abstract ideas of justice or fairness, but I doubt if many lawyers are moved by it"
Richard Dawkins
Posts: 4619 | From: Hampton, Middlesex, UK | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
I take that point but, if a dragon bit her arm off, or she went through a portal to another world - that would also nix the marriage plans.
Any major event will have a significant impact, and functionally - unless you have a lot of pregenerated resources and geneology for a world, characters are simply not going to be able to interact much with people well known to them - one or two key NPcs might be related but that's about it. The effect is then that adventuring parties would usually need a reason why they don't just send a message asking for help.
Often you have you typical mercenary estranged from family, travelling rogues, orphans etc.
If you need a richly interalated network, in this kind of online situation, I think you would have to place the adventure in a pre-existing fictional world. So you could then say, well as a young woman in Lancre - clearly I know Granny Weatherwax by reputation. But I would probably go to Nanny Ogg for help if I thought I was pregnant etc.
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
