|
Scrape posted:I actually really like how*World does role protection, but if you don't, that's a neat idea for sure. The role protection in AW is mostly a narrative conceit based on the characters being the paragons of whatever it is they do. Dungeon World doesn't have this, so the underlying engine works without it.
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2012 21:43
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 8, 2024 03:51 |
|
|
mllaneza posted:The role protection in AW is mostly a narrative conceit based on the characters being the paragons of whatever it is they do. Dungeon World doesn't have this, so the underlying engine works without it. I was going to argue with you on this, but come to think of it you're right. Though, honestly, I actually like applying it to Dungeon World too. Hell, I'd consider applying it to D&D or something just because it helps ensure some party flexibility. My hack'll probably use the same role protection, despite being based on DW.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2012 21:48
|
|
|
RyuujinBlueZ posted:I was going to argue with you on this, but come to think of it you're right. Though, honestly, I actually like applying it to Dungeon World too. Hell, I'd consider applying it to D&D or something just because it helps ensure some party flexibility. My hack'll probably use the same role protection, despite being based on DW. Make all your playbooks cool enough that nobody thinks getting their second choice sucks.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2012 21:52
|
|
|
mllaneza posted:The role protection in AW is mostly a narrative conceit based on the characters being the paragons of whatever it is they do. Dungeon World doesn't have this, so the underlying engine works without it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2012 21:55
|
|
|
Evil Mastermind posted:Uh, it actually does. It has the same idea that while there may be soldiers and mercenaries, there's only one Fighter. You're right. Dungeon World posted:Look over the character classes and choose one that interests you. Everyone chooses a different class; there aren't two Wizards. If two people want the same class, talk it over like adults and compromise.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2012 21:57
|
|
|
mllaneza posted:Make all your playbooks cool enough that nobody thinks getting their second choice sucks. This is basically what I'm aiming for. More importantly, I'm trying to make each class cool enough that I would want to play it. I'm exactly the type to always pick Fighter and stick with it, and never play a Cleric or something. I figure if I make the playbook in a way where I'd be excited to play it myself, then hopefully so will other people.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2012 22:08
|
|
|
Evil Mastermind posted:Uh, it actually does. It has the same idea that while there may be soldiers and mercenaries, there's only one Fighter. Welp, my AW hack just gained niche protection.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2012 23:19
|
|
|
Eh, with Improvements you can horn in on the other players' shticks anyway; it's one of the few things you can do (in A-World) that isn't a cynical numerical bonus before you hit L6-10. And what bugs me about the role-protection is that it only makes metagame sense, especially in A-World. With D-World or MotW, you can do the Warriors of Light chosen one spiel to explain it. With Monsterhearts, the heartthrob monsters are supposed to be a very rare breed. But "dangerous sexy chick", "gang leader" and "dude who has a hardon for guns" don't strike me as things that nobody else can do like you. Unless you full-on say "you are the protagonists, you are better than everyone else" but A-World is a little too gritty for that. It's just a personal peeve; it awkwardly straddles narrative and mechanics in a way that's more noticeable since the rest of the system blends those aspects together so smoothly. I don't like "seeing the wires" in these kinds of systems, as it were. A fair compromise would probably be giving out the "pick a Move from another playbook" as a freebie at those breakpoints. Therefore, I still get my FFT Job system and everybody else gets to keep role-protection. Actually, that'd be pretty cool if it were something a player could trade one of their Moves for at first level. If you're doing D-World spells, keep the multiclass caster hiccup. Making classes that are just loving awesome should be priority #1 after making a base system that works. That's a given, since it's how your players are going to interact with your world.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2012 01:08
|
|
|
Given the sheer amounts of gear options and moves for even a single class in A-World I kinda doubt that two Gunluggers/Battlebabes/etc. would come out the same even if you allowed multiples of a given playbook. Furthermore there's so MANY playbooks for basic A-World that I'd be amazed if you wound up having to take two of a single playbook anyway. 
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2012 01:10
|
|
|
MadRhetoric posted:And what bugs me about the role-protection is that it only makes metagame sense, Welcome to story-swine country. E: seriously, it's a rule that exists to make each pc distinctive and kickass, because the goal of the design is to tell stories where each pc is distinctive and kickass. All rules exist to serve the design. The term "metagame" has totally stopped making sense to me, since it means th considerations of the people sitting at the a table, which we also call, you know, "the game." Doc Hawkins fucked around with this message at 01:47 on Aug 30, 2012 |
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2012 01:38
|
|
|
My impression of ApocWorld is that "you are the protagonists and you are better than everyone else" is part of the narrative conceit. Like, there are plenty of sexy people but only one Battlebabe, and everyone knows who she is. The idea that players are paragons of the world was something I hammered home during my campaign. I can understand if that bothered someone but I really liked it, letting the players be the VIPs right out of the gate. I kept the same feel in Dungeon World, but it is much easier to ditch it in that game.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2012 01:45
|
|
|
The rules don't force npcs to treat your character as The Gunlugger, they force the universe to. You of course can make the pcs be infamous for their poo poo-kickery if you wish, and that can be very cool.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2012 01:50
|
|
|
I guess that's true. Maybe that's just what the rules implied to me, but that's how it was at my table.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2012 02:18
|
|
|
Doc Hawkins posted:Welcome to story-swine country. I'm down with story-swining it, the rule just seems to be there because the writer/MC doesn't trust the players to be mouthbreathing fucksticks to me. Granted, this is tradgaming, where 99% of players are mouthbreathing fucksticks. With A-World, it seems to be there more because not all the playbooks have the same amount of Moves and the writer couldn't be arsed to create parity. It's almost completely nonsensical with certain D-World classes (the casters and Paladin immediately come to mind). And *-World tells all playbooks to keep in character precisely because it wants you to ignore the considerations of the people sitting at the table over the characters they inhabit. But I've rambled on too much about this.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2012 02:31
|
|
|
MadRhetoric posted:I'm down with story-swining it, the rule just seems to be there because the writer/MC doesn't trust the players to be mouthbreathing fucksticks to me. quote:With A-World, it seems to be there more because not all the playbooks have the same amount of Moves and the writer couldn't be arsed to create parity. It's almost completely nonsensical with certain D-World classes (the casters and Paladin immediately come to mind). So do you mean, a playbook with more moves to choose between makes it more possible to differentiate between two "builds" ? quote:And *-World tells all playbooks to keep in character precisely because it wants you to ignore the considerations of the people sitting at the table over the characters they inhabit. Well, it does tell the MC to address the characters, and "to make Apocalypse World seem real," but I don't notice any specific instructions like that for the players. And it's a bit circular, right? The rules of a game are a layer on top of a social gathering, which try to give that gathering some particular tenor of fun, and even if you're trying to induce "rapt contemplation of the shared fiction without sparing a thought for the dice and the rules," you have no tools to do that except the dice and the rules, and no material to work on except your particular group of cool friends sitting at a particular table. There are movies that benefit from making you not think at all about the friends watching it with you, but I wouldn't like a game that tried to do the same, and I wonder if that might just make it a worse game. RPGing is not an experience that would be improved by making it eusocial....although that doesn't necessarily have anything to do with what you were talking about, sorry. quote:But I've rambled on too much about this. As I said, I'm finding your perspective on this valuable and would like to hear more.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2012 03:41
|
|
|
I see where you're coming from, Rhetoric, but ultimately I think it's just a difference of opinion. What I like about it is that it makes the The part of the playbook names important. You're not A Battlebabe. You're The Battlebabe. There might be a thousand more like you, but at the end of the day you take it a step further. You're on a different level. I like how that makes the characters feel special, even in DungWorld, unlike say D&D or something where your paladin is just another paladin like every other paladin and it's totally possible for any paladin in the world to reach the same level as you. Even if the inhabitants of the world don't recognize it (yet), the world itself has.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2012 03:43
|
|
|
RyuujinBlueZ posted:What I like about it is that it makes the The part of the playbook names important. You're not A Battlebabe. You're The Battlebabe. There might be a thousand more like you, but at the end of the day you take it a step further. You're on a different level. I like how that makes the characters feel special, even in DungWorld, unlike say D&D or something where your paladin is just another paladin like every other paladin and it's totally possible for any paladin in the world to reach the same level as you. Even if the inhabitants of the world don't recognize it (yet), the world itself has. It doesn't matter how many women were driving around that wasteland, there was only one Tank Girl.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2012 03:46
|
|
|
There were a bunch of kangaroos, though.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2012 04:02
|
|
|
More importantly, it means you only have to print out one copy of each of the playbooks when it's time to dump them out and let the players each pick one.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2012 04:06
|
|
|
Tendales posted:More importantly, it means you only have to print out one copy of each of the playbooks when it's time to dump them out and let the players each pick one. That's the angle I'm coming from. Maybe I'm thinking too cynically about this but the best reason I can think of for only having one of each playbook is that everybody gets one and it forces players to get out of their comfort zone or do something besides play the same loving Fighter/Street Sam/Nosferatu/Whatever. If it were, say, Power Rangers World and you couldn't have multiples of the same color Ranger or Holy Grail World (which would loving own) and there's only one Saber/Archer/Lancer/Caster/Berserker/Rider/Assassin because the Grail only vomits up one of each I'd be okay with that. It is a personal taste thing, and I admit it. I like multiclassing, I like remixing things, I like having options. Always have, always will. Getting put in a box only to ultimately be able to get timeshares in other people's boxes just bugs me. I totally get why they do it, and it's mechanically smart. As a player it burns my rear end. Doc Hawkins posted:In what way? Not attacking you, not being rhetorical, honestly interested in hearing more about your impression. It feels like the writer doesn't trust players to be creative or mature. Again, if players actually were creative or mature we wouldn't have That Guys or grogs.txt but I like thinking the best of people. Disregarding that, the archetypes don't feel binding enough (outside of Hardholder, Brainer, and Hocus) to be one-offs. Some of the playbooks are so broad that just by picking different weapons or stat arrays you could have meaningfully different characters; at least until it's time to retire. For example, I can think of a few different ways to play a Gunlugger (Sniper, Heavy, Pistolero in Man With No Name and Jigen from Lupin III flavor) or a Battlebabe (The Bride, Ninja chick, Vasquez-like asskicker, female wrestler, razorgirl, nerdbait Strong Female Character). Storywise, those are all very different characters. Mechanics-wise, you can make them play differently enough that the Starting Move would be all they have in common. quote:So do you mean, a playbook with more moves to choose between makes it more possible to differentiate between two "builds" ? Exactly. That's an admirable goal to me. With A-World especially, I can't tell if that was a goal they strove for ('Lugger, Battlebabe, Brainer kinda) or not (Hardholder, Chopper, Hocus kinda). And then you get the Driver, who's kind of stuck in the middle. It's even more noticeable in D-World, when everybody gets 4 Starting Moves and 9 Advanced Moves per "tier" but there still is only one Fighter, only one Cleric, only one Thief, etc. It raises mechanical questions that run into fiction questions. Mechanically: "How come we can't do the same thing but I swap a move for Multiclass?" or "How come we can't all be the Knights of the Round Table?". That last one might be due to D-World holding sacred cows in order to differentiate classes. Fiction wise it's pretty much one thing: "What makes us so goddamn special?" In A-World, the whole thing is grit and sexy pain; life sucks but not as much for you. Outside of being protagonists, what makes you so goddamn special you're the only healer, ganger, or deadly chick blessed with a skillset in the whole wide wastes? D-World could have a good reason (you're the Chosen Ones) but it doesn't. A-World has no excuse, fiction wise. Maybe Monsterhearts does? quote:Well, it does tell the MC to address the characters, and "to make Apocalypse World seem real," but I don't notice any specific instructions like that for the players. And it's a bit circular, right? The rules of a game are a layer on top of a social gathering, which try to give that gathering some particular tenor of fun, and even if you're trying to induce "rapt contemplation of the shared fiction without sparing a thought for the dice and the rules," you have no tools to do that except the dice and the rules, and no material to work on except your particular group of cool friends sitting at a particular table. I'm a very postmodernist, "meta-text matters" sort of guy so maybe I was reading too much of my own biases into it, but to me that seems to ignore the part of the game where you're a bunch of people loving around and playing pretend. That awareness of the player built fourth wall is where I got (and get) a lot of my enjoyment playing elfgames. Since the MC is a character, and the MCs Moves are meant to impact, keep, and develop character, an MC "playing right" would completely remove the player from the character. They'd be so drat good they made their players method actors with all the right Moves. That's hyperbolic, but it's the feeling that I get. There's a sort of storygame/crunch tension I feel in A-World and D-World. The MC section is where I feel it the most because the game has made storyteller into a player with their own crunch, but the game tells you that the crunch is meant to create a story. It's a novel idea, but sometimes there are hiccups that you can't blame on MC fiat. I'm not sure where I'm going with this and I don't know what bees or a society based on one caste of reproductive animals and another caste of caretaking neuters have to do with elfgames. And there is a way to induce the tenor of "rapt contemplation of the shared fiction without sparing a thought for the dice and the rules" without tools; that's what improv is. Or Apples to Apples. You have the basics like "don't say no" or "put down a card you think will make your friends laugh at your monkey cheese humor" but those are mere guidelines. It's another one of those sperg triggers of mine; I don't like being told to act or roleplay because I'm doing that already. If I weren't, I wouldn't be playing elfgames. quote:As I said, I'm finding your perspective on this valuable and would like to hear more. Is this the "opening your mind" kind of valuable or the "remove the madman's brain for science" kind of valuable?
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2012 05:25
|
|
|
gently caress it, if you have a player's fun get broken by niche protection, then allow a duplicate playbook. They just have to deal with having a Rival.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2012 05:39
|
|
|
I understand where you're coming from and I think it depends on the game. ApocWorld is a game that is built on and based on players with different goals, and the tension that arises from it. It says that the players know each other, but are not a group necessarily. In order to facilitate that tension, the playbooks are unique so that each player has different goals and methods built right in. You're right, it's 100% metagame. But it does reinforce the uniqueness of each PC, something that the rules really stress. It wouldn't break the game to have duplicates, but I think that it was done this way for a very particular reason and I think it accomplishes that goal. I totally understand your point and agree with it for many other games, but I think unique playbooks totally fits what the game is made for.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2012 06:19
|
|
|
The real question is, do you really want to deal with the Highway Helot and the Freeway Fighter showing up at the same time ?
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2012 06:39
|
|
|
Some playbooks are more exclusive than others-obviously having two Hardholders is more problematic than two Gunluggers. But by specializing, it guarantees interaction. When the Hardholder needs muscle, there's a clear player to turn to. It's definitely meta, but it guarantees the kind of interaction that ApocWorld is made for. Depending on your viewpoint, I guess that's either restrictive or elegant.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2012 16:03
|
|
|
Doc Hawkins posted:Welcome to story-swine country. I was about to say something about doing a design that would allow "samey" characters to exist as their own distinct playbooks and ask if anyone had done that when the Regiment PDF linked earlier finally loaded and I saw someone had done nearly exactly what I was imagining already.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2012 16:33
|
|
|
Scrape posted:Some playbooks are more exclusive than others-obviously having two Hardholders is more problematic than two Gunluggers. But by specializing, it guarantees interaction. When the Hardholder needs muscle, there's a clear player to turn to. It's definitely meta, but it guarantees the kind of interaction that ApocWorld is made for. Depending on your viewpoint, I guess that's either restrictive or elegant. I don't really see that having two hardholders would be tougher than two gunluggers assuming you don't find the hardholder being kinda stationary in the game world to begin with. Two settlements (or two gangs, really) entering an alliance to deal with some issue is probably a more interesting story hook than two badasses teaming up to see who is more badass, honestly.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2012 16:37
|
|
|
Winson_Paine posted:I don't really see that having two hardholders would be tougher than two gunluggers assuming you don't find the hardholder being kinda stationary in the game world to begin with. Two settlements (or two gangs, really) entering an alliance to deal with some issue is probably a more interesting story hook than two badasses teaming up to see who is more badass, honestly. Exactly. If A-World were more distinctly a team game (like Leverage or Guy Ritchie World) (seriously someone make these) it'd make more sense. Also, have I mentioned that Cactus Jack owns today? Because Cactus Jack owns. Cactus Jack 
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2012 17:03
|
|
|
MadRhetoric posted:Exactly. If A-World were more distinctly a team game (like Leverage or Guy Ritchie World) (seriously someone make these) it'd make more sense. You know, that's an interesting thought. How would you go about reinforcing the idea of a team in a World game? Story is easy, obviously. You can fiction up anything you goddamn well please. But mechanically? How would you encourage that sense of being a team? Honestly, thinking about it, I'm not sure I've played a TTRPG that's given me a sense of "you're part of a team".
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2012 17:08
|
|
|
RyuujinBlueZ posted:Honestly, thinking about it, I'm not sure I've played a TTRPG that's given me a sense of "you're part of a team". I hear Mouse Guard is great for that. Not that I've ever had the chance to play it  . This is a little off-topic though, Mouse Guard discussion fits better in the general Indie Games thread.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2012 17:20
|
|
|
RyuujinBlueZ posted:You know, that's an interesting thought. How would you go about reinforcing the idea of a team in a World game? Story is easy, obviously. You can fiction up anything you goddamn well please. But mechanically? How would you encourage that sense of being a team? Deathwatch definitely reinforces the team mechanic while also providing a challenge, as the team members may be from Astartes chapters that do not see eye to eye. As for ApocWorld, I'm thinking combo moves. To whit: -A Juggernaut using his entire armored body as moving cover so that his buddies can move up safely in a gunfight. -A Battlebabe or other social type putting the moves on a guard while the rest of the team sneaks into position. -A Hardholder could add some of the stats of his enclave to combat rolls the rest of the team makes if the others are holed up in the Hardholder's fortress.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2012 17:24
|
|
|
Tollymain posted:I hear Mouse Guard is great for that. Not that I've ever had the chance to play it I have heard good things about Mouse Guard, but yeah not the right thread for it. I was more brainstorming how to get that feeling from a World game. InfiniteJesters posted:As for ApocWorld, I'm thinking combo moves. To whit: This is an interesting idea. Maybe both general combo moves, and then perhaps also dual or triple tech style moves? I'm not as familiar with ApocWorld, but with the more free and open flow of combat having each playbook share a move that's something like: When you and your Gunlugger buddy both Seize By Force roll+Whatever. On a 10+ you both do something loving awesome, and surviving enemies are stunned by it. On a 7-9 same as 10+ but no stun. On a 6- you gently caress up and everybody laughs at you.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2012 17:44
|
|
|
RyuujinBlueZ posted:This is an interesting idea. Maybe both general combo moves, and then perhaps also dual or triple tech style moves? I'm not as familiar with ApocWorld, but with the more free and open flow of combat having each playbook share a move that's something like: I was actually thinking of Chrono Trigger when I posted that. And I meant for *World games in general, not ApocWorld. My bad. Also: Brainers giving social types an edge in diplomacy, for obvious reasons.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2012 17:47
|
|
|
InfiniteJesters posted:I was actually thinking of Chrono Trigger when I posted that. I actually have something like this planned for my Persona hack. Basically, the way I'm handling Social Links is as a role playing thing and similar to the games. When you spend time with someone, one-on-one, you gain Social Link experience. When you get enough, your bond grows stronger. Which is all a nice way of saying "play nice with others and eventually the GM gives you poo poo". Each level of the SL gives you some kind of bonus, which ultimately should be pretty modular for whoever wants to run it. But, I've also been thinking of adding special combo moves for Links at high levels. Now, that would only work for SLs between PCs. NPC links would probably give special super-moves, possibly only at max link, as a reward for spending your time doing something else. Of course, a lot of that is also probably going to basically be homework for players. In PbP it works decently, as players can PM each other or something for some quick story bits and then toss the GM a log. For non-digital, it gets a bit iffier and might require a session here and there (as players want) to kick back and just gently caress around some with personal side stories. The idea, really, is to help build up bonds between the characters and make them feel like both an important part of the world and part of a team of people they actually like. Or at least respect.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2012 18:09
|
|
|
InfiniteJesters posted:-A Hardholder could add some of the stats of his enclave to combat rolls the rest of the team makes if the others are holed up in the Hardholder's fortress. I want a move called Bring Down the Fire that lets me use my hardhold defences in battle alongside the other players, now.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2012 18:35
|
|
|
RyuujinBlueZ posted:Persona Persona Persona Persona... *-World already has the Bonds mechanic; just use that and be more lenient on them getting it during downtime. Or give them a shonen anime bullshit Move. Like so: When your friend gives you the strength to carry on roll +Hx. On a 10+ you and that friend mark experience right there, without losing bonds. On a 7-9, you and that friend Hold 1, only usable for Helping a Bond. And for Improvements, add "[] Gain a Move from the player you have the highest Hx with". Allows you to model the P4 special moves like Yosuke Strike or Galactic Punt. MadRhetoric fucked around with this message at 18:38 on Aug 30, 2012 |
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2012 18:36
|
|
|
MadRhetoric posted:*-World already has the Bonds mechanic; just use that and be more lenient on them getting it during downtime. Or give them a shonen anime bullshit Move. See, my problem with the Bonds mechanic for what I'm trying to do is that it seems to me like you just say what the Bond is. You say "me and this dude are buddies, because of such-and-such." I want to encourage people to actually play that. Of course, it's not like I'm making it a required part of the game or anything. The way I see it you'd have the Party Social Link, like the SEES or Investigation Group, which would give bonuses just like any other. Stats, gear, etc. But aside from that, which would progress along with the story, nobody would have to gently caress with it at all. If they just all want to be dudes who work together, cool. Maybe I'm weird, though. I like watching bonds forge and grow, instead of just being stated.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2012 18:54
|
|
|
RyuujinBlueZ posted:See, my problem with the Bonds mechanic for what I'm trying to do is that it seems to me like you just say what the Bond is. You say "me and this dude are buddies, because of such-and-such." I want to encourage people to actually play that. The way I read it, it's the other way around, new bonds are created from play. Every time you create a new bond with a character it's based on events that happened, that you just played. When you write in your sheet "so-and-so has my back" it's not because you just felt like it, it's because so-and-so held your hand as you were falling off a cliff in this session. The only sort-of-arbitrary bonds are the ones that you make at character creation, but those are alright. I guess you could make the character creation bonds really shallow and allow them to grow in play. As in not "_______ can be trusted implicitly", but "_______ seems like a trustworthy person". And let the deeper relationships grow through between sessions when you scratch a resolved bond and write another one down, based on what happened in the session. Or just use vanilla AW. Rename Hx to Social Link and reskin sex moves as hanging out moves and allow SL to fluctuate through them. Cyphoderus fucked around with this message at 19:15 on Aug 30, 2012 |
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2012 19:06
|
|
|
RyuujinBlueZ posted:See, my problem with the Bonds mechanic for what I'm trying to do is that it seems to me like you just say what the Bond is. You say "me and this dude are buddies, because of such-and-such." I want to encourage people to actually play that. In Dungeon World at least, resolving a Bond lets you mark experience; that gives players an incentive to create dynamic Bonds that can change over time, and then play to actually change them. So if the Bond was "I owe X my life," you could resolve it by returning the favour, or just by realising that they don't want you to feel indebted. Either way, though, it requires addressing the fiction of the Bond in play. Then you can create a new Bond that reflects a closer relationship, like "I want to find out what X is hiding," and start the process again.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2012 19:16
|
|
|
RyuujinBlueZ posted:See, my problem with the Bonds mechanic for what I'm trying to do is that it seems to me like you just say what the Bond is. You say "me and this dude are buddies, because of such-and-such." I want to encourage people to actually play that. You want to see bonds forge and grow but you don't want to be hosed with people loving with your The Fool/The World SLink; isn't that a contradiction? And don't you get XP for actively invoking Bonds for weal and woe? (fake edit: yes) Ain't that the whole point of the exercise? Or roleplaying in general? But enough about you, let's talk about me. I've been hashing out that anime-tarot-Nasu-bumfights thing a little bit more and I want to share preliminary stuff with you.Suits: Everybody has Suits, whether they're a Major, a Minor, or some no-count extra. The Readers say they are signs of your mystic journey as a complete human being but that's mumbo-jumbo bullshit. It's who you are and how you act; the heart you always wear on your sleeve. Get it? Wands stand for balls-out bad decision drat the torpedoes nownowNOW. They're the impulses, the leap before the look, the monkey pissing on Buddha's fingers just because. A fire burning on the edge of control. All outwards, all action, all the time. When you need to just do something, or you want to leave your mark, that's Wands. Cups stand for the touchy feely inner peace deal. They're emotions, the center, the heart, whatever you wanna call it. Cups can be anything they want to be, fit any gap you put them in. A soothing chalice of water or a torrential downpour. When you want to play with emotions, yours or otherwise, that's Cups. Swords stand for the four Ss: sharp, savvy, smart and smug. They're the logic you use to break down illusion and the altar of knowledge scientists worship at. Swords stand for that unassailable idea and the tools to destroy them. With gale force, cut through ignorance. When you need to know or already know, that's Swords. Coins stand for reality. Harsh, crushing, FYGM reality. They show all of the world's flora and fauna, and how to exploit them for survival. Your survival. gently caress looking pretty, gently caress high concept, Coins get it done dolo. Stack ducats rock solid. When you need to get by or get over, that's Coins. Nobles: Your Nobles are how well you wear that Suit. It's how "grown up" you are. A Wand with a pissant Noble is liable to hurt himself. A Wand with an Ace can see the loving code his reflexes are so good. Page: You're a kid at this poo poo. Go away, the adults are busy. (-1) Jack: You're a pimply teenager with this. Way things are, lotta people are like that nowadays. (+0) Queen: You've got the spark in you, but you haven't let your freak flag fly yet. Let's say you're a twentysomething. (+1) King: You've got the spark in you and you know how to use it. You've got this full-grown. (+2) Ace: You own the spark, you own this suit, you own your destiny. You're the wise old loving grandmaster. (+3) MadRhetoric fucked around with this message at 19:47 on Aug 30, 2012 |
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2012 19:40
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 8, 2024 03:51 |
|
|
You know, using the old school names for the suits I totally expected you to toss in some major arcana action to go with that. That aside, it sounds interesting. I assume that's a part of character building. Reminds me, some how, of something like PDQ or FATE. Course there's probably a lot more still coming. Really dig the Page through Ace bit.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2012 01:44
|
|