|
Most of the complaints seem to be directly ignoring the plot hooks given, as Kai Tave pointed out twice now, because nerds can't think of fantasy conflict that doesn't involve killing an evil king. For a genre that supposedly doesn't allow for conflict, it's remarkable that Mercedes Lackey's Valdemar series alone has managed to get 55 books out of it. Valdemar isn't great, mind you, but it is clearly the primary inspiration for this game, and there's plenty of conflict to be had. Blue Rose provides a handy list of suggested reading for the genre; reading some might shine some light on how there can be plot beyond murderhoboing or a Game of Thrones simulator. Criticizing a game on its own merits is one thing, but blatant ignorance of, or willfully misconstruing, the genre it's emulating because it's not gritty enough makes for a terrible comparison that results in grognards.txt Based on what's been posted so far, if someone ran Blue Rose with, say, FAE, I'd be all over it.
|
#
¿
Jul 25, 2015 18:47
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Jan 15, 2025 13:41 |
|
|
fool_of_sound posted:PurpleXVI once argued to me that FATE compels are unfair GM control of player characters. I don't think this is going to go anywhere. But-...  I didn't play Exalted 2e, but the social system there sounds like a horror show. 3e's seems pretty good from what I've used of it, though. You tag intimacies that the characters hold to try to convince them to do something that works toward their benefit (and yours), or the defender can tag them to resist doing things they don't want to. Instilling a new intimacy starts weak and gets stronger with repeated persuasion, or reduced in the same stages, so there are degrees of their impacts that take actual effort to change. (The drawback being that the defensive social stat which everyone would want ties into an Ability with an awful charmset, but supposedly that's being changed...) Personally I just wouldn't allow things like "Go kill yourself" -rolls triple the TN- "yes right away sir" because it's ridiculous. (One of my players did triple the TN on convincing an NPC to help them, so I reflected it as giving him an intimacy for that and cooperating with another NPC he was antagonistic to. Rather than making him drop everything to become their best buddy, the players now have an intimacy to tag if they want his help, or to dissuade him from doing something that would cause them problems - which means they are much more likely to convince him, but still not guaranteed. I expect I would treat NPC vs PC or PC vs PC similarly, as reasonable persuasion rather than a compulsion.) I feel that all PvP stuff should be discussed at least briefly ahead of time unless your group has fun with unexpected results, and that has nothing to do with systems used. Ignoring that to remove all agency from your character, or you as a player, is probably a sign of jerk players or a jerk GM. Unless the system really is as terrible as 2e, in which case it shouldn't be played as written anyway. But that is certainly not the only kind of social system out there. (I had an analogy to basing expectations off of 2e as being like hating all fantasy because of that pacifist killing spree in Sword of Truth, then realized that said scene makes a terrifying amount of sense if it was using 2e's social rules: The protagonist had to kill everyone before they drained his WP and then told him to chop his own head off. Don't play games that make SoT sensible, guys.)
|
|
#
¿
Oct 9, 2015 07:03
|
|
|
Nessus posted:I am gonna be fair to Exalted 2E that the section on social combat said, first, that outside of super top-tier Solar/evil Solar brain-gently caress magic (which of course inevitably everyone, ever, will have, because Exalted loves power escalation more than Doc Smith did), the absolute most you would have to do is spend 2 WP and your brain and precious bodily fluids are safe for that scene. It also said that people who are using social combat to get their friends to cover this round of beers are going to come off as relentless bullies and it was meant for high stakes persuasion rather than "literally every time you argue, ever." Haggling over a ship vs. haggling over lunch. This is Richard Rahl we're talking about, he wouldn't have anything less.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 9, 2015 20:00
|
|
|
PurpleXVI posted:For some reason some of the stuff I love the most from the F&F thread is when someone completely breaks a game in half with some unintended results of RAW. Same. In fact, it'd be fun to have a series that was just How To Break Games Into Pieces without necessarily needing a full writeup for each one (or just referencing existing writeups).
|
|
#
¿
Nov 7, 2015 19:25
|
|