Club PA 2.0 has arrived! If you'd like to access some extra PA content and help support the forums, check it out at patreon.com/ClubPA
The image size limit has been raised to 1mb! Anything larger than that should be linked to. This is a HARD limit, please do not abuse it.
Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

[Roleplaying Games] Thank God I Finally Have A Table For Cannabis Potency.

1235794

Posts

  • DelduwathDelduwath Registered User regular
    Solar wrote: »
    I don't like the illusion of choice

    I prefer actual choice

    If the PCs go down one path, they won't find what's on the other path. I know what's down each path and they're not the same, not even reskinned because they go to different places, and what is in a place is based on what's I've written and planned to be there.

    Harder work but a more complex world, and besides, the stuff in both places is still there, they can go back to either.

    Is it fair to say that in this scenario, you are the only person in the entire universe who knows for a fact that the players missed something that was there?

  • admanbadmanb the bored genie Seattle, WARegistered User regular
    Delduwath wrote: »
    admanb wrote: »
    Delduwath wrote: »
    Joshmvii wrote: »
    The illusion of choice thing to me is not about using your prep that goes unused. Most people are not going to fight with you if you say "I prepped these cool encounters, but I ended up using them in a place that was different than my original plan."

    The problem is when you get railroady situations where the GM goes "Alright, there are two paths, and only one of them leads to the thing you want, choose wisely." And the players do what they think is due diligence to make the right choice, then the GM just puts whatever he wants at the end of the path the players choose.

    That is problematic to a lot of players, because the GM is lying to them about whether or not their choices matter. Just don't give me a choice if you are just going to plug your content at the end of whichever choice I make, etc.

    The two things are not the same. A good GM doesn't need to trick the players and make them feel like they are making choices that matter. It's remarkably easy to just actually put situations in front of your players and let them decide how to approach them. It's less work for the GM and more fun for the players. Sure it requires more improv chops than planning everything out ahead of time, but it's a skill you need.
    Wait, sorry, would you mind elaborating? To me, "I made a cool encounter so instead of letting it die on the untaken path, I put it on the path the players actually took" sounds the same as "whichever path the players decide to take will bring them to the encounter I made". I think I'm missing something.

    It's more like this: I made two cool encounters, one of which I put on path A and one I put on path B. My players chose path B so they ran into that cool encounter. But my other encounter was really cool, so later when they were in a completely different area I put that encounter in front of them.

    And so, indeed, both paths led to encounter B (although one of them contained encounter A first), no?

    EDIT: Oh, I should note that I understand that "encounter B that the players ran into later" in this case can mean "elements of encounter B but in a different time, location, and with a different coat of paint on top".

    If the context is completely different, but it happens to still be a 7th-level-wizard Ogre or whatever, is it actually the same encounter? Are all 7th-level-wizard Ogre encounters actually the same encounter? If so, has every D&D game ever actually been the same D&D game?

    I'm going a bit absurdist but yes, I think there's a fundamental difference between putting the ogre encounter on whichever road they go down (a clear false choice) and eventually reusing the unused ogre encounter in a completely different context that they chose to enter.

    JoshmviiSteelhawkElvenshae
  • ArdentArdent Registered User regular
    Joshmvii wrote: »
    There are 100% GMs who are terrible "you must do only what I let you and how I think you should do it" GMs and who don't hide it at all. It's like half the posts on the big D&D subreddits on any given day. They're out there, in numbers far too large.
    But this is affirming the consquent.

    Just because there are bad GMs out there and false choice is possible, doesn't mean every false choice is instigated by a bad GM.

    Steam ID | Origin ID: ArdentX | Uplay ID: theardent | Battle.net: Ardent#11476
    admanb
  • SolarSolar Registered User regular
    Delduwath wrote: »
    Solar wrote: »
    I don't like the illusion of choice

    I prefer actual choice

    If the PCs go down one path, they won't find what's on the other path. I know what's down each path and they're not the same, not even reskinned because they go to different places, and what is in a place is based on what's I've written and planned to be there.

    Harder work but a more complex world, and besides, the stuff in both places is still there, they can go back to either.

    Is it fair to say that in this scenario, you are the only person in the entire universe who knows for a fact that the players missed something that was there?

    Well I mean not really

    Thing is, if I say to the PCs "you can go to village A or B tonight" that doesn't mean that the one they don't go to tonight is not there tomorrow. There are very few genuinely exclusive choices in most of my campaigns, because the world doesn't work like that, and I don't lose any planning. But even when there are, I still plan both. Because what is at each place depends on what is actually there.

  • UncleSporkyUncleSporky Registered User regular
    edited May 2017
    Solar wrote: »
    I don't like the illusion of choice

    I prefer actual choice

    If the PCs go down one path, they won't find what's on the other path. I know what's down each path and they're not the same, not even reskinned because they go to different places, and what is in a place is based on what's I've written and planned to be there.

    Harder work but a more complex world, and besides, the stuff in both places is still there, they can go back to either.

    You never leave encounter blanks on the map and roll/decide what might be lurking there as the PCs travel, with a yet-unplaced tougher encounter in case you misjudged their strength and they breeze through everything you throw at them?

    And if you've got a couple paths like this, they all have unique potential encounters?

    UncleSporky on
    Switch Friend Code: SW - 5443 - 2358 - 9118 || 3DS Friend Code: 0989 - 1731 - 9504 || NNID: unclesporky
  • DelduwathDelduwath Registered User regular
    I think I'm starting to get turned around with the conversation, and feeling like there's no difference between anything. I admit that to me, it makes perfect sense that the GM would shift things around behind these scenes all the time in order to create a more interesting and engaging experience for the players. Like, a computer game only simulates that part of the world where the player currently is, and renders an even smaller chunk of that world. The rest of the world doesn't exist (well, doesn't exist to an even greater degree than the video game world chunk in which the play is, which also doesn't exist). In my mind, in a roleplaying game, the players see the appearance of a fully-realized world, but the GM knows that it's all facades. The temple priest didn't have a name until the players asked about him, and the temple didn't exist until the players stumbled into town in need of healing - but the players see the Seventh Temple of Ratho, staffed by Chief Cleric Rupert, a well-integrated and well-respected member of the community.

    I feel like it would help me understand if I were to see a concrete situation, but that's also a lot of work to write up, so I'm not going to ask for that.

    DevoutlyApatheticThe Hanged ManFuselage
  • UncleSporkyUncleSporky Registered User regular
    Delduwath wrote: »
    The temple priest didn't have a name until the players asked about him, and the temple didn't exist until the players stumbled into town in need of healing - but the players see the Seventh Temple of Ratho, staffed by Chief Cleric Rupert, a well-integrated and well-respected member of the community.

    This is a good way to look at it too, no ogres required. Anyone with a list of 100 Plausible Fantasy Names on hand who chooses one and crosses it off when a character needs a name is engaging in the same kind of quantum gameplay. Someone was probably going to have that name eventually...if the players had gone to another town, Rupert might've been the innkeeper's moronic son.

    Switch Friend Code: SW - 5443 - 2358 - 9118 || 3DS Friend Code: 0989 - 1731 - 9504 || NNID: unclesporky
    OatsRhesus PositiveOptimusZedElvenshaeMsAnthropyErin The Redjakobagger
  • Grunt's GhostsGrunt's Ghosts Registered User regular
    I think it's a problem of real world and trying to copy that in the game world.

    In the real world, we go the wrong way, we make bad choices, sometimes we are late.

    So we are playing in the game world, the question becomes "Should our characters be able to make bad choices?" Should they be allowed to go the wrong way, be late, make those bad choices.

    For me, it depends on the context of what the characters know and what the game allows. If you are playing an investigation game, red haring and bad clues should exist but your players should have enough context to know that such clues may exist and have a way to figure out the difference between a good clue and a bad clue before they act on them. If your players are trying to find a place they've never been to, allow them to try to discover it and if they fail, let them go the wrong way. If your players waste time doing other things, feel free to push up the time line so that the mission they could have been doing has already progressed in some fashion, but only if they knew that the mission existed and was time sensitive. As long as your players know enough information to make informed decisions then give them the freedom of choice. But at the same time, don't force shit into their paths unless they haven't encountered it before. That idea of having the same encounter, just reskinned, sucks.

  • SolarSolar Registered User regular
    Solar wrote: »
    I don't like the illusion of choice

    I prefer actual choice

    If the PCs go down one path, they won't find what's on the other path. I know what's down each path and they're not the same, not even reskinned because they go to different places, and what is in a place is based on what's I've written and planned to be there.

    Harder work but a more complex world, and besides, the stuff in both places is still there, they can go back to either.

    You never leave encounter blanks on the map and roll/decide what might be lurking there as the PCs travel, with a yet-unplaced tougher encounter in case you misjudged their strength and they breeze through everything you throw at them?

    And if you've got a couple paths like this, they all have unique potential encounters?

    Not really

    If the PCs travel in an area with Bandits, then I'll roll to see if their scouts notice them, and then if they decide to ambush them. If they travel in an area without Bandits, there's no Bandits.

    If the Bandits get smashed then the Bandits get smashed. More, more deadly Bandits with wizard powers or whatever don't just appear because why would they? I know what's there. The setting makes sense and has the complexity it needs to make internal sense. Why are those Bandits there? Where did they come from? Why haven't they been driven out? I've answered all these questions so whatever the players do, the world can react accordingly.

  • Hahnsoo1Hahnsoo1 Make Ready. We Hunt.Registered User regular
    Turns out the illusion of choice is a hard thing to maintain and often arbitrary if viewed as a purely semantic thing rather than a weird art form.
    I think the Illusion of Choice was the friends we made along the way.

    Di87pOF.jpg
    PSN: Hahnsoo | MHGU: Hahnsoo, Switch FC: SW-0085-2679-5212
    ElvenshaecrimsoncoyoteAistanErin The Reddestroyah87
  • Rhesus PositiveRhesus Positive GNU Terry Pratchett Registered User regular
    Hahnsoo1 wrote: »
    Turns out the illusion of choice is a hard thing to maintain and often arbitrary if viewed as a purely semantic thing rather than a weird art form.
    I think the Illusion of Choice was the friends we made along the way.

    I didn't make those friends because I chose the left hand path

    Elvenshae
  • Albino BunnyAlbino Bunny Quantronic Dreamgirl Registered User regular
    Hahnsoo1 wrote: »
    Turns out the illusion of choice is a hard thing to maintain and often arbitrary if viewed as a purely semantic thing rather than a weird art form.
    I think the Illusion of Choice was the friends we made along the way.

    I mean yeah, in a way kinda the nature of the situation is that often the game is less about the choices and more about the goofy interactions that lead up to them.

  • DarkPrimusDarkPrimus Registered User regular
    Farangu wrote: »
    My group took that handy tip with them when we started Edge of the Empire, since I an the person in the group that most knows about Star Wars fiction. Then they shorted it to adding the prefix "sb-" to anything that was specific to the fiction.

    "We have to get the spotorcycle working to catch that guy who stole our spoogle maps" was a legit phrase I heard at one point.

    The crazy thing is that hyperspace lane mapping is really like Google Maps, only moreso.

    wpyz0Y5.png
    Gamertag: PrimusD | Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
  • Hahnsoo1Hahnsoo1 Make Ready. We Hunt.Registered User regular
    DarkPrimus wrote: »
    Farangu wrote: »
    My group took that handy tip with them when we started Edge of the Empire, since I an the person in the group that most knows about Star Wars fiction. Then they shorted it to adding the prefix "sb-" to anything that was specific to the fiction.

    "We have to get the spotorcycle working to catch that guy who stole our spoogle maps" was a legit phrase I heard at one point.

    The crazy thing is that hyperspace lane mapping is really like Google Maps, only moreso.
    It ain't like dusting crops, let me tell ya.

    Di87pOF.jpg
    PSN: Hahnsoo | MHGU: Hahnsoo, Switch FC: SW-0085-2679-5212
    Elvenshae
  • GlaziusGlazius Registered User regular
    edited May 2017
    Glazius wrote: »
    Stupid Fate Question: How much control do the players have over narrative details?
    Suppose that they were fighting a Big Monster summoned by the Village Druid. The Village Chief did some actions defending the Druid but did not help the Monster. Now, they defeated the monster, and I kind of want to say that the Chief was an unwilling ally (acting out of fear to protect his villagers), but can a player say "I think he's lying. I'm want to see if he's a liar and if he's acting out a ruse as a Plan B, rolling a contest of my Empathy versus his Deceive"? Can I just say "No, he ain't lying, he's telling the truth", or can they roll successfully and have the chief Actually Lying?

    Lying is defended by Empathy. You can't create lies any more than you can create invisible arrows by rolling Athletics to dodge them.

    Empathy can give you aspects that "already exist", though, and it's up to you as GM to decide what the chief's aspects are in order to reveal them.

    But I've heard of examples where players want to look for a secret tunnel - and because they rolled successfully, find one (even if the GM did not plan for it); I take it NPC aspects are a different scenario than secret tunnels?

    Yeah, lemme drive a narrative shim right into the heart of my earlier fusion gamist/simulationist example.

    So there's this game called Swords Without Master. It's super narrative and basically designed to help people brainstorm through stories with titles like "City of Fire and Coin".

    (If you google "City of Fire and Coin" you'll find a module with that name that contains a trial version of Swords Without Master.)

    A concept in Swords Without Master is "slipping and struggling". When you're a PC in Swords Without Master and it's not your turn, but you want to speak up anyway, you can speak up as long as it's your character "slipping and struggling", which means that you're holding on to what you have, or slowly losing it, but either way not making meaningful progress.

    Back to how I'd deal with the question of "is there a book on botany", the decision to say yes or set the stakes to roll the dice is going to take into consideration exactly why a player is asking if there's a book on botany, and I'll make a different decision depending where on the spectrum from "slipping and struggling" to "win the campaign" their answer lies. Generally, if there's some appreciable benefit and I can think of a cost, my decision will be to hold up a letterpress sign that says "Discern Realities" and let the +1 be the benefit or help with step 2 of the trail to get it.

    But, I mean, if you just want it as a flavory thing, sure, lemme dial up the flavor dispenser: you find a book on botany from Kobold Press (that is, a kobold named Press) who believed that everything in the world was the body part of some different kind of dragon. He had elaborate theories about radishes.

    The key is that when I put on my GM hat I make myself curator of the experience. While I should respect the players' wishes ultimately it's my call to make.

    So back to your situation, it sounded like you didn't want the chief to actually be lying about things. So, I mean, he doesn't have to be. And if you don't want there to be a secret tunnel, no matter how much the players sing the "secret tunnel" song, you don't need to let them make a roll to find one. In the spirit of good sportsmanship, if you can come up with a reasonable alternate benefit (and in Fate that's just a plot element with a couple Fate Points ready to go) you can have them roll for that instead and reward their willingness to investigate with useful information. Just, like, not what they wanted.

    (Maybe there's no secret tunnel because the place was built by golems and they don't have the imagination for that, but they do tend to build very predictably, so here's a card that says "Golem-Patterned Passages" with two Fate Points on it that you can use to get the drop on things.)

    Glazius on
    admanbWearingglassesMcKid
  • WearingglassesWearingglasses Of the friendly neighborhood variety Registered User regular
    Aight, that clears things up. Thanks, all of you!

  • UncleSporkyUncleSporky Registered User regular
    Our first Dungeon World session was pretty cool. Everyone seemed to take to it right away, enthusiastically interjecting with what they wanted to do (more so I think than in past d20-based games) interspersed with the GM calling for action from specific players who were less outspoken. Still impressed with how much the game enforces something happening, it's never "ok you roll to attack, you missed, next on initiative..."

    We have a ranger with a cougar named Dave, a fighter with an extremely spiky flail, a self-flagellating cleric who worships the tentacled god of What Lies Beneath, a thief who prefers to remain mysterious, a wizard who foregoes both armor and attack spells to rely more on his ritual skills, and me, a bard who is also something of a journalist. Maybe not super unique and interesting across the board but it doesn't need to be, we're not necessarily in it to break new roleplaying ground. In the first session we traveled through some catacombs to infiltrate a war-torn city, on a mission from a prince to make sure his brother is safe.

    I like how the bonds easily can be rationalized to tie into each other. The wizard is convinced the ranger knows an important secret she is keeping from him, but thinks I am woefully misinformed and know little...however my bond with the ranger is that she shared an important secret with me. So we've both got this something on him, or at least some information he wants, yet to be determined. And he doesn't suspect me because he thinks I'm a moron.

    My bonds with the thief are that I'm gradually composing a ballad about him, but it's for this reason that he doesn't trust me, because he's a thief and doesn't want to be well-known for any reason.

    What I got so far, based on events in the session:

    "Rook, noble thief from the highland,
    Trap finder extraordinaire,
    When several spikes in his thigh land,
    He learns that a trap had been there"

    Switch Friend Code: SW - 5443 - 2358 - 9118 || 3DS Friend Code: 0989 - 1731 - 9504 || NNID: unclesporky
    crimsoncoyoteOatsErin The RedMcKidElvenshaedestroyah87Foolish ChaosAnialosJacobydiscriderCalicaNips
  • Erin The RedErin The Red The Name's Erin! Woman, Podcaster, Dungeon Master, IT nerd, Parent, Trans. AMA Baton Rouge, LARegistered User regular
    We ran a session of our bighuge Dungeon World campaign last night. Party is escorting a dude through a dungeon to see where his ex husband died and pay his respects. They happen across the den of a mind flayer! And it transports 5/6 of the party to their own personal hell so it can feed off of their emotions.

    Wizard resists and gets to have a chat. The flayer demands a sacrifice. Wizard offers a scroll he has in his pack.

    After all is said and done the party is debriefing and the wizard is explaining how he bargained to get some folks free and all it took was a scroll!

    Ranger says 'uh. Which scroll, exactly'

    Wizard says 'oh. The uh... Teleport. One.'

    So now I have a great thread to tug later and everyone else in the group thinks the wizard is the loosest cannon

    Help a trans woman (me) afford GRS!
    Hi Santa/Satan!
    Video games -> PSN and Twitch: The_Road_Virus Steam: TheRoadVirus
    OatsElvenshaeOptimusZed
  • OatsOats Registered User regular
    We ran a session of our bighuge Dungeon World campaign last night. Party is escorting a dude through a dungeon to see where his ex husband died and pay his respects. They happen across the den of a mind flayer! And it transports 5/6 of the party to their own personal hell so it can feed off of their emotions.

    Wizard resists and gets to have a chat. The flayer demands a sacrifice. Wizard offers a scroll he has in his pack.

    After all is said and done the party is debriefing and the wizard is explaining how he bargained to get some folks free and all it took was a scroll!

    Ranger says 'uh. Which scroll, exactly'

    Wizard says 'oh. The uh... Teleport. One.'

    So now I have a great thread to tug later and everyone else in the group thinks the wizard is the loosest cannon

    It's gonna be real hard not putting that Mind Flayer in a dark corner when someone fails a Discern Realities.

    Erin The Red
  • WearingglassesWearingglasses Of the friendly neighborhood variety Registered User regular
    edited May 2017
    EVEN MORE FATE QUESTIONS
    (Apologies if I have too many)

    So one guy wants to play an enchanter mage. His character idea is, while he's normally an okay mage with one element, he can write runic script on foci during downtime (or in a magical workshop), giving him limited access to magic that's not within his "attunement". So with prep time, he can also do Wind, Ice, or Light magic, for example.

    I'm mainly asking if this Stunt Family will have balance issues:

    Runic Artifacts: you may substitute your highest Rune Magic skill for Crafting, but only for creating magical artifacts.
    Runic Attuner (Requires Runic Artifacts): Once per session, you may craft a magical device that gives you access to other Runic Magic "attunements". This is an aspect with two free invocations (three on a success with style), each invocation allowing you one use of a +2 Runic Magic skill of your choice. Only mages can use this magical device.

    Too powerful / weak / versatile / limited? Does this need a Fate Point payment, or would making the guy go ingredient hunting be enough? Guy loves his magical enchanting writing schtick, so if this is a no go, I'm open to suggestions on how to do it better.

    Wearingglasses on
  • Hahnsoo1Hahnsoo1 Make Ready. We Hunt.Registered User regular
    I think he needs a bedazzler and a leather jacket with glitter letters on the back that says "Born to Rune". :D

    Di87pOF.jpg
    PSN: Hahnsoo | MHGU: Hahnsoo, Switch FC: SW-0085-2679-5212
    ElvenshaeThe Hanged Mandestroyah87
  • OptimusZedOptimusZed Registered User regular
    That wizard was always the loose cannon of the guild. Which is saying something, what with the sand shark taming and whatnot.

    He's just solidifying his claim on the title is all.

    We're reading Rifts. You should too. You know you want to. Now With Ninjas!

    They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
    OatsErin The RedElvenshae
  • Erin The RedErin The Red The Name's Erin! Woman, Podcaster, Dungeon Master, IT nerd, Parent, Trans. AMA Baton Rouge, LARegistered User regular
    b0zcc3qtwuch.png

    Help a trans woman (me) afford GRS!
    Hi Santa/Satan!
    Video games -> PSN and Twitch: The_Road_Virus Steam: TheRoadVirus
    ElvenshaeDarkPrimuscrimsoncoyoteAlbino BunnyOptimusZedMostlyjoe13ArdentMsAnthropyAuralynxRhesus PositiveDr. Phibbs McAtheyAegisAistanjakobagger
  • GlaziusGlazius Registered User regular
    EVEN MORE FATE QUESTIONS
    (Apologies if I have too many)

    So one guy wants to play an enchanter mage. His character idea is, while he's normally an okay mage with one element, he can write runic script on foci during downtime (or in a magical workshop), giving him limited access to magic that's not within his "attunement". So with prep time, he can also do Wind, Ice, or Light magic, for example.

    I'm mainly asking if this Stunt Family will have balance issues:

    Runic Artifacts: you may substitute your highest Rune Magic skill for Crafting, but only for creating magical artifacts.
    Runic Attuner (Requires Runic Artifacts): Once per session, you may craft a magical device that gives you access to other Runic Magic "attunements". This is an aspect with two free invocations (three on a success with style), each invocation allowing you one use of a +2 Runic Magic skill of your choice. Only mages can use this magical device.

    Too powerful / weak / versatile / limited? Does this need a Fate Point payment, or would making the guy go ingredient hunting be enough? Guy loves his magical enchanting writing schtick, so if this is a no go, I'm open to suggestions on how to do it better.

    It's going to depend on how magic works in your system and in your fiction, honestly.

    Does knowing magic let you know how to craft magic things? Are all mages expected to be magecrafters? Are there magecrafters who aren't mages at all? If it's not weird that ya boy can make magic runes, it's not really stuntworthy. And if it is weird, how is it weird? Would a +2 to Crafts when making magical things account for someone who can sling a spell but not a pot?

    Similarly, are all mages specialists, and if not, how does that work? Does Archmage Wan Shi Tong, He Who Knows Ten Thousand Magic Things, have an entire pyramid full of different magic skills, or is there just the one? If there is just the one, does your enchanter have an aspect like "Dedicated Flame Rune Specialist" and periodically they run into one fatepointsworth of problems that common magic from another rune might easily address?

    Because "make an aspect with two free invokes like you rolled and styled it, 1/session" is a standard stunt structure, and you can always buy off a fate point with a fate point.

  • DarkPrimusDarkPrimus Registered User regular
    There should be a stunt called "Road to Rune"

    wpyz0Y5.png
    Gamertag: PrimusD | Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
    Erin The RedElvenshaewebguy20
  • Mostlyjoe13Mostlyjoe13 Evil, Evil, Jump for joy! Registered User regular
    Ugh. Having a roleplaying creativity crunch. I'd just like to play something in real time.

    PSN ID - Mostlyjoe Steam ID -TheNotoriusRNG
  • ArdentArdent Registered User regular
    EVEN MORE FATE QUESTIONS
    (Apologies if I have too many)

    So one guy wants to play an enchanter mage. His character idea is, while he's normally an okay mage with one element, he can write runic script on foci during downtime (or in a magical workshop), giving him limited access to magic that's not within his "attunement". So with prep time, he can also do Wind, Ice, or Light magic, for example.

    I'm mainly asking if this Stunt Family will have balance issues:

    Runic Artifacts: you may substitute your highest Rune Magic skill for Crafting, but only for creating magical artifacts.
    Runic Attuner (Requires Runic Artifacts): Once per session, you may craft a magical device that gives you access to other Runic Magic "attunements". This is an aspect with two free invocations (three on a success with style), each invocation allowing you one use of a +2 Runic Magic skill of your choice. Only mages can use this magical device.

    Too powerful / weak / versatile / limited? Does this need a Fate Point payment, or would making the guy go ingredient hunting be enough? Guy loves his magical enchanting writing schtick, so if this is a no go, I'm open to suggestions on how to do it better.
    No, this looks like it would function well in play. The bottom of the family is useful but not quite as strong as more standard stunts. That the second one is slightly stronger than a standard stunt seems, in balance, to be fine. Three free invocations is a lot, but it won't be gamebreaking since you can't stack them or anything.

    Steam ID | Origin ID: ArdentX | Uplay ID: theardent | Battle.net: Ardent#11476
  • Hahnsoo1Hahnsoo1 Make Ready. We Hunt.Registered User regular
    http://www.drivethrurpg.com/product/211293?affiliate_id=77000

    Eclipse Phase 2E's open playtest is available.

    ... it's just 7 pages? I don't think it's quite "there" yet.

    Di87pOF.jpg
    PSN: Hahnsoo | MHGU: Hahnsoo, Switch FC: SW-0085-2679-5212
    Edith Upwards
  • OptimusZedOptimusZed Registered User regular
    I think someone replaced the whole thing with a single chapter. It says they "added the game mechanics" chapter, but that's all there is to download.

    We're reading Rifts. You should too. You know you want to. Now With Ninjas!

    They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
    Oats
  • WearingglassesWearingglasses Of the friendly neighborhood variety Registered User regular
    Glazius wrote: »
    EVEN MORE FATE QUESTIONS
    (Apologies if I have too many)

    So one guy wants to play an enchanter mage. His character idea is, while he's normally an okay mage with one element, he can write runic script on foci during downtime (or in a magical workshop), giving him limited access to magic that's not within his "attunement". So with prep time, he can also do Wind, Ice, or Light magic, for example.

    I'm mainly asking if this Stunt Family will have balance issues:

    Runic Artifacts: you may substitute your highest Rune Magic skill for Crafting, but only for creating magical artifacts.
    Runic Attuner (Requires Runic Artifacts): Once per session, you may craft a magical device that gives you access to other Runic Magic "attunements". This is an aspect with two free invocations (three on a success with style), each invocation allowing you one use of a +2 Runic Magic skill of your choice. Only mages can use this magical device.

    Too powerful / weak / versatile / limited? Does this need a Fate Point payment, or would making the guy go ingredient hunting be enough? Guy loves his magical enchanting writing schtick, so if this is a no go, I'm open to suggestions on how to do it better.

    It's going to depend on how magic works in your system and in your fiction, honestly.

    Does knowing magic let you know how to craft magic things? Are all mages expected to be magecrafters? Are there magecrafters who aren't mages at all? If it's not weird that ya boy can make magic runes, it's not really stuntworthy. And if it is weird, how is it weird? Would a +2 to Crafts when making magical things account for someone who can sling a spell but not a pot?

    Similarly, are all mages specialists, and if not, how does that work? Does Archmage Wan Shi Tong, He Who Knows Ten Thousand Magic Things, have an entire pyramid full of different magic skills, or is there just the one? If there is just the one, does your enchanter have an aspect like "Dedicated Flame Rune Specialist" and periodically they run into one fatepointsworth of problems that common magic from another rune might easily address?

    Because "make an aspect with two free invokes like you rolled and styled it, 1/session" is a standard stunt structure, and you can always buy off a fate point with a fate point.

    That is a ton of interesting questions, actually. I'ma ask him later for his take, but from what I understand:

    - Magic needs an innate knack for it, in addition to practice and study. In the party, there's only a Pyromancer and Magecrafter dude whose initially an Earth guy.
    - Does knowing magic let you know how to craft magic things? - Yes, but you need to have training and resources for that.
    - Are all mages expected to be magecrafters? - Not all, I imagine there's a respectable line of work for a mage that involves being in an R&D of a magical manufactory. However, his runewriting schtick is largely a pioneering/experimental thing; only a handful of mages would have any interest in it (no reason right now for why, but it'd be interesting to find out why exactly).
    - And if it is weird, how is it weird? - Normally magical item crafting is just... timed usage of a certain spell (a la Explosive Runes), or magical flashlights.
    - Similarly, are all mages specialists, and if not, how does that work? Does Archmage Wan Shi Tong, He Who Knows Ten Thousand Magic Things, have an entire pyramid full of different magic skills, or is there just the one? - All mages have one element/concept they'd be adept as, which usually makes a mage a specialist. I figure the stronger one is, the more generalized his magic skill in an area would be (from mere Fire -> Heat -> Energy, Light -> Light/Dark, that sorta thing?), but only the best could be that.
    - "make an aspect with two free invokes like you rolled and styled it, 1/session" is a standard stunt structure, and you can always buy off a fate point with a fate point. - This one I did not know, thanks!

  • Grunt's GhostsGrunt's Ghosts Registered User regular
    Looks like 2nd Edition is more of patch to 1st Edition than it is a completely new version of the game.

    McKid
  • BrodyBrody The Watch The First ShoreRegistered User regular
    Looks like 2nd Edition is more of patch to 1st Edition than it is a completely new version of the game.

    It could just be that they are posting the playtest as a patch, and will move to a more full structure later.

    "The shore does not dream of you." - Blind poet Gallan.
    Grunt's Ghostscrimsoncoyote
  • GlaziusGlazius Registered User regular
    Glazius wrote: »
    EVEN MORE FATE QUESTIONS
    (Apologies if I have too many)

    So one guy wants to play an enchanter mage. His character idea is, while he's normally an okay mage with one element, he can write runic script on foci during downtime (or in a magical workshop), giving him limited access to magic that's not within his "attunement". So with prep time, he can also do Wind, Ice, or Light magic, for example.

    I'm mainly asking if this Stunt Family will have balance issues:

    Runic Artifacts: you may substitute your highest Rune Magic skill for Crafting, but only for creating magical artifacts.
    Runic Attuner (Requires Runic Artifacts): Once per session, you may craft a magical device that gives you access to other Runic Magic "attunements". This is an aspect with two free invocations (three on a success with style), each invocation allowing you one use of a +2 Runic Magic skill of your choice. Only mages can use this magical device.

    Too powerful / weak / versatile / limited? Does this need a Fate Point payment, or would making the guy go ingredient hunting be enough? Guy loves his magical enchanting writing schtick, so if this is a no go, I'm open to suggestions on how to do it better.

    It's going to depend on how magic works in your system and in your fiction, honestly.

    Does knowing magic let you know how to craft magic things? Are all mages expected to be magecrafters? Are there magecrafters who aren't mages at all? If it's not weird that ya boy can make magic runes, it's not really stuntworthy. And if it is weird, how is it weird? Would a +2 to Crafts when making magical things account for someone who can sling a spell but not a pot?

    Similarly, are all mages specialists, and if not, how does that work? Does Archmage Wan Shi Tong, He Who Knows Ten Thousand Magic Things, have an entire pyramid full of different magic skills, or is there just the one? If there is just the one, does your enchanter have an aspect like "Dedicated Flame Rune Specialist" and periodically they run into one fatepointsworth of problems that common magic from another rune might easily address?

    Because "make an aspect with two free invokes like you rolled and styled it, 1/session" is a standard stunt structure, and you can always buy off a fate point with a fate point.

    That is a ton of interesting questions, actually. I'ma ask him later for his take, but from what I understand:

    - Magic needs an innate knack for it, in addition to practice and study. In the party, there's only a Pyromancer and Magecrafter dude whose initially an Earth guy.
    - Does knowing magic let you know how to craft magic things? - Yes, but you need to have training and resources for that.
    - Are all mages expected to be magecrafters? - Not all, I imagine there's a respectable line of work for a mage that involves being in an R&D of a magical manufactory. However, his runewriting schtick is largely a pioneering/experimental thing; only a handful of mages would have any interest in it (no reason right now for why, but it'd be interesting to find out why exactly).
    - And if it is weird, how is it weird? - Normally magical item crafting is just... timed usage of a certain spell (a la Explosive Runes), or magical flashlights.
    - Similarly, are all mages specialists, and if not, how does that work? Does Archmage Wan Shi Tong, He Who Knows Ten Thousand Magic Things, have an entire pyramid full of different magic skills, or is there just the one? - All mages have one element/concept they'd be adept as, which usually makes a mage a specialist. I figure the stronger one is, the more generalized his magic skill in an area would be (from mere Fire -> Heat -> Energy, Light -> Light/Dark, that sorta thing?), but only the best could be that.
    - "make an aspect with two free invokes like you rolled and styled it, 1/session" is a standard stunt structure, and you can always buy off a fate point with a fate point. - This one I did not know, thanks!

    Right, sorry for all the back and forth. It probably isn't going to stop here, either. It sounds like your players really care about this stuff, is all, and in order to actually put numbers and mechanical widgets onto things in Fate you need to think about the story.

    If crafting is are something any mage could learn do, given time, it probably works off Crafts. Being a narrow prodigy in a skill is a standard stunty thing, so +2 to Crafts to do the runey thing would make sense.

    If crafting is part of magic but needs resources, maybe it's limited by Resources and how good of a lab the mage can put together. Since he doesn't need a lab, you could say that your mage can treat Resources as three points higher when it comes to capping his ability to do the runey thing.

    (Both of these are going to depend on how high he thinks Crafts and Resources should be already but that's a good place to start.)

    Since every mage has a narrow focus, getting compelled to not be an ice mage doesn't really make a lot of sense, so throw that idea out the window for now. Spending a fate point or free invoke as narrative permission to do something else with magic makes sense in that case.

    Wearingglasses
  • WearingglassesWearingglasses Of the friendly neighborhood variety Registered User regular
    Glazius wrote: »
    Glazius wrote: »
    EVEN MORE FATE QUESTIONS
    (Apologies if I have too many)

    So one guy wants to play an enchanter mage. His character idea is, while he's normally an okay mage with one element, he can write runic script on foci during downtime (or in a magical workshop), giving him limited access to magic that's not within his "attunement". So with prep time, he can also do Wind, Ice, or Light magic, for example.

    I'm mainly asking if this Stunt Family will have balance issues:

    Runic Artifacts: you may substitute your highest Rune Magic skill for Crafting, but only for creating magical artifacts.
    Runic Attuner (Requires Runic Artifacts): Once per session, you may craft a magical device that gives you access to other Runic Magic "attunements". This is an aspect with two free invocations (three on a success with style), each invocation allowing you one use of a +2 Runic Magic skill of your choice. Only mages can use this magical device.

    Too powerful / weak / versatile / limited? Does this need a Fate Point payment, or would making the guy go ingredient hunting be enough? Guy loves his magical enchanting writing schtick, so if this is a no go, I'm open to suggestions on how to do it better.

    It's going to depend on how magic works in your system and in your fiction, honestly.

    Does knowing magic let you know how to craft magic things? Are all mages expected to be magecrafters? Are there magecrafters who aren't mages at all? If it's not weird that ya boy can make magic runes, it's not really stuntworthy. And if it is weird, how is it weird? Would a +2 to Crafts when making magical things account for someone who can sling a spell but not a pot?

    Similarly, are all mages specialists, and if not, how does that work? Does Archmage Wan Shi Tong, He Who Knows Ten Thousand Magic Things, have an entire pyramid full of different magic skills, or is there just the one? If there is just the one, does your enchanter have an aspect like "Dedicated Flame Rune Specialist" and periodically they run into one fatepointsworth of problems that common magic from another rune might easily address?

    Because "make an aspect with two free invokes like you rolled and styled it, 1/session" is a standard stunt structure, and you can always buy off a fate point with a fate point.

    That is a ton of interesting questions, actually. I'ma ask him later for his take, but from what I understand:

    - Magic needs an innate knack for it, in addition to practice and study. In the party, there's only a Pyromancer and Magecrafter dude whose initially an Earth guy.
    - Does knowing magic let you know how to craft magic things? - Yes, but you need to have training and resources for that.
    - Are all mages expected to be magecrafters? - Not all, I imagine there's a respectable line of work for a mage that involves being in an R&D of a magical manufactory. However, his runewriting schtick is largely a pioneering/experimental thing; only a handful of mages would have any interest in it (no reason right now for why, but it'd be interesting to find out why exactly).
    - And if it is weird, how is it weird? - Normally magical item crafting is just... timed usage of a certain spell (a la Explosive Runes), or magical flashlights.
    - Similarly, are all mages specialists, and if not, how does that work? Does Archmage Wan Shi Tong, He Who Knows Ten Thousand Magic Things, have an entire pyramid full of different magic skills, or is there just the one? - All mages have one element/concept they'd be adept as, which usually makes a mage a specialist. I figure the stronger one is, the more generalized his magic skill in an area would be (from mere Fire -> Heat -> Energy, Light -> Light/Dark, that sorta thing?), but only the best could be that.
    - "make an aspect with two free invokes like you rolled and styled it, 1/session" is a standard stunt structure, and you can always buy off a fate point with a fate point. - This one I did not know, thanks!

    Right, sorry for all the back and forth. It probably isn't going to stop here, either. It sounds like your players really care about this stuff, is all, and in order to actually put numbers and mechanical widgets onto things in Fate you need to think about the story.

    If crafting is are something any mage could learn do, given time, it probably works off Crafts. Being a narrow prodigy in a skill is a standard stunty thing, so +2 to Crafts to do the runey thing would make sense.

    If crafting is part of magic but needs resources, maybe it's limited by Resources and how good of a lab the mage can put together. Since he doesn't need a lab, you could say that your mage can treat Resources as three points higher when it comes to capping his ability to do the runey thing.

    (Both of these are going to depend on how high he thinks Crafts and Resources should be already but that's a good place to start.)

    Since every mage has a narrow focus, getting compelled to not be an ice mage doesn't really make a lot of sense, so throw that idea out the window for now. Spending a fate point or free invoke as narrative permission to do something else with magic makes sense in that case.

    I appreciate the assist you guys have been providing, so the back and forth isn't a problem.
    It actually is just the one guy with this kind of gimmick, haha. (The other mage is a straightforward burn-things-down type) The other PCs aren't as complicated as his is (maybe the Magical Terminator, but that's a whole other story).
    They're being bankrolled by a party member who's hella rich, so I imagine Resources will not be a problem for the whole party. How would this work?
    I also don't understand the "treat Resources as three points higher when it comes to capping his ability to do the runey thing" bit, can you elaborate?

  • admanbadmanb the bored genie Seattle, WARegistered User regular
    My girlfriend and I watched Moana last night annnnnnnd now I own Godbound.

    Whoops.

    destroyah87McKidElvenshaeMostlyjoe13JacobyRainfall
  • Hahnsoo1Hahnsoo1 Make Ready. We Hunt.Registered User regular
    admanb wrote: »
    My girlfriend and I watched Moana last night annnnnnnd now I own Godbound.

    Whoops.
    You're welcome... you're welcome...

    Di87pOF.jpg
    PSN: Hahnsoo | MHGU: Hahnsoo, Switch FC: SW-0085-2679-5212
    Jacoby
  • Mostlyjoe13Mostlyjoe13 Evil, Evil, Jump for joy! Registered User regular
    admanb wrote: »
    My girlfriend and I watched Moana last night annnnnnnd now I own Godbound.

    Whoops.

    So many options eh?

    PSN ID - Mostlyjoe Steam ID -TheNotoriusRNG
  • GlaziusGlazius Registered User regular
    Glazius wrote: »
    Glazius wrote: »
    EVEN MORE FATE QUESTIONS
    (Apologies if I have too many)

    So one guy wants to play an enchanter mage. His character idea is, while he's normally an okay mage with one element, he can write runic script on foci during downtime (or in a magical workshop), giving him limited access to magic that's not within his "attunement". So with prep time, he can also do Wind, Ice, or Light magic, for example.

    I'm mainly asking if this Stunt Family will have balance issues:

    Runic Artifacts: you may substitute your highest Rune Magic skill for Crafting, but only for creating magical artifacts.
    Runic Attuner (Requires Runic Artifacts): Once per session, you may craft a magical device that gives you access to other Runic Magic "attunements". This is an aspect with two free invocations (three on a success with style), each invocation allowing you one use of a +2 Runic Magic skill of your choice. Only mages can use this magical device.

    Too powerful / weak / versatile / limited? Does this need a Fate Point payment, or would making the guy go ingredient hunting be enough? Guy loves his magical enchanting writing schtick, so if this is a no go, I'm open to suggestions on how to do it better.

    It's going to depend on how magic works in your system and in your fiction, honestly.

    Does knowing magic let you know how to craft magic things? Are all mages expected to be magecrafters? Are there magecrafters who aren't mages at all? If it's not weird that ya boy can make magic runes, it's not really stuntworthy. And if it is weird, how is it weird? Would a +2 to Crafts when making magical things account for someone who can sling a spell but not a pot?

    Similarly, are all mages specialists, and if not, how does that work? Does Archmage Wan Shi Tong, He Who Knows Ten Thousand Magic Things, have an entire pyramid full of different magic skills, or is there just the one? If there is just the one, does your enchanter have an aspect like "Dedicated Flame Rune Specialist" and periodically they run into one fatepointsworth of problems that common magic from another rune might easily address?

    Because "make an aspect with two free invokes like you rolled and styled it, 1/session" is a standard stunt structure, and you can always buy off a fate point with a fate point.

    That is a ton of interesting questions, actually. I'ma ask him later for his take, but from what I understand:

    - Magic needs an innate knack for it, in addition to practice and study. In the party, there's only a Pyromancer and Magecrafter dude whose initially an Earth guy.
    - Does knowing magic let you know how to craft magic things? - Yes, but you need to have training and resources for that.
    - Are all mages expected to be magecrafters? - Not all, I imagine there's a respectable line of work for a mage that involves being in an R&D of a magical manufactory. However, his runewriting schtick is largely a pioneering/experimental thing; only a handful of mages would have any interest in it (no reason right now for why, but it'd be interesting to find out why exactly).
    - And if it is weird, how is it weird? - Normally magical item crafting is just... timed usage of a certain spell (a la Explosive Runes), or magical flashlights.
    - Similarly, are all mages specialists, and if not, how does that work? Does Archmage Wan Shi Tong, He Who Knows Ten Thousand Magic Things, have an entire pyramid full of different magic skills, or is there just the one? - All mages have one element/concept they'd be adept as, which usually makes a mage a specialist. I figure the stronger one is, the more generalized his magic skill in an area would be (from mere Fire -> Heat -> Energy, Light -> Light/Dark, that sorta thing?), but only the best could be that.
    - "make an aspect with two free invokes like you rolled and styled it, 1/session" is a standard stunt structure, and you can always buy off a fate point with a fate point. - This one I did not know, thanks!

    Right, sorry for all the back and forth. It probably isn't going to stop here, either. It sounds like your players really care about this stuff, is all, and in order to actually put numbers and mechanical widgets onto things in Fate you need to think about the story.

    If crafting is are something any mage could learn do, given time, it probably works off Crafts. Being a narrow prodigy in a skill is a standard stunty thing, so +2 to Crafts to do the runey thing would make sense.

    If crafting is part of magic but needs resources, maybe it's limited by Resources and how good of a lab the mage can put together. Since he doesn't need a lab, you could say that your mage can treat Resources as three points higher when it comes to capping his ability to do the runey thing.

    (Both of these are going to depend on how high he thinks Crafts and Resources should be already but that's a good place to start.)

    Since every mage has a narrow focus, getting compelled to not be an ice mage doesn't really make a lot of sense, so throw that idea out the window for now. Spending a fate point or free invoke as narrative permission to do something else with magic makes sense in that case.

    I appreciate the assist you guys have been providing, so the back and forth isn't a problem.
    It actually is just the one guy with this kind of gimmick, haha. (The other mage is a straightforward burn-things-down type) The other PCs aren't as complicated as his is (maybe the Magical Terminator, but that's a whole other story).
    They're being bankrolled by a party member who's hella rich, so I imagine Resources will not be a problem for the whole party. How would this work?
    I also don't understand the "treat Resources as three points higher when it comes to capping his ability to do the runey thing" bit, can you elaborate?

    That's an idea you're going to have to introduce - the idea that your ability to work magic is limited by the quality of the workspace you have available. Maybe you don't want to bother with this, in which case I'd link crafting magic to Crafts instead? But if you feel like it's important to treat workspace quality as a thing to care about, here's a way to care about it. At character creation, you get a skill column as high as your rating in Resources which represents the workspaces you can have. When you're using a skill specifically to create or repair something, on a scale big enough to require a workspace, your rating in the skill is capped by the quality of workspace you have available. So even with resources 0, your runer can still craft runes at +3.

    (You can if you like come up with "industrial applications" for other skills, like needing a certain quality of house to make an enduring relationship through Contacts or a certain quality of theater props to make a good disguise with Deceive.)

    But, again, if it isn't something you think is ever going to be important, just ignore that whole idea and key magic crafting to Crafts.

  • admanbadmanb the bored genie Seattle, WARegistered User regular
    admanb wrote: »
    My girlfriend and I watched Moana last night annnnnnnd now I own Godbound.

    Whoops.

    Follow-up: Godbound is fuckin' rad.

    ElvenshaeRainfall
Sign In or Register to comment.