Posts by: Holden

Back to List

[#][F] Holden - 6/1/2016
Originally posted by CapitanTypo View Post

Then how do you define Narrativist gaming that it is independent from the mechanics of the game?
You cannot describe any game's structure independent of its mechanics. The nar/sim/gamist triad is a model for describing mechanics. So, a narrativist game is one that is first and foremost interested in modeling a certain style of telling stories or emulating the peculiarities of a particular genre, at the system level.

[#][F] Holden - 6/1/2016
Originally posted by Kyman201 View Post

Glad you are. I'm just noting that I'm glad to take breaks from reality for my game, since playing an average mortal (not a Heroic Mortal, who are emphatically not normal, but rather EXTRAORDINARY) would probably not be very fun.

I think you'll find that the term "heroic mortal" is not used a single time in Third Edition.

[#][F] Holden - 6/1/2016
Originally posted by Boston123 View Post

I understand. And, that is basically what my game is, and this is actually reflected in my story. Most of the PC's use shields because they, well, don't want to die, but the guy with the Longaxe is a regular face-wrecker. He has Specialty: Longaxe, Specialty: Formation Fighting, plus he likes to stunt every chance he gets. Sure, he has to be careful of arrows and other projectiles, and avoid fighting too many opponents at once without backup, and he knows this, but, believe me, he earns all his glory.

I put so much focus on shields in my current story because the location, a Norse/Finnish-thing set in the Northeast, draws on that (the Finnish-expies, for example, don't use shields very much because, well, they have plentiful trees to use as cover, plus they strike from ambush a lot). Most "elite" troops (Huskarl-equivalents) don't use shields, and use two-handed weapons with heavy armor. Most "common" warriors, which is what the PCs started out as, don't have armor. Iron and Steel was very expensive "back then".

One of my PCs actually dropped their shield and picked up a waraxe and a sword, once they got some armor. They understood the defensive penalties, but the ability to go "full Viking" (in their words) was worth it. They, and the Longaxe guy above, negated some of these penalties by fighting with their lackeys in a shieldwall, who used the Defend Other action to help them out.

I must say: mortal games in 3E are much more possible, and much more fun now, both for the players and for me as the ST. So, great job on that.

That sounds awesome, and I'm glad your group is having a good time with it =D

[#][F] Holden - 5/31/2016
(Like, there are going to be a couple of X-Y-Z combinations if you ascribe to that method that I think would only end up occupied by Jenna Moran games. Nobilis is probably the only Sim-Abstract-Middleweight game kicking around out there, while Chuubo is the rare Narrativist-Abstract-Superheavy example)

[#][F] Holden - 5/31/2016
Originally posted by ParanoiaCombo View Post
Exalted is, from where I'm sitting, a high-crunch maximalist game that designed it's mechanics on narrative, rather than gamist or simulationist logic. I don't see how the game has difficulty reconciling narrativist desires.
Yep, although it dips into gamist design quite a lot as well-- it is very interested in being a playable game as well as a story-telling framework-- it just doesn't ever give that top priority, in contrast to say D&D4.

It is probably helpful to look at design as occurring along at least a set of X-Y axes rather than just as a flat list of three styles, because a lot of the problem in this thread-- it's completely turned Totentanz around!-- is coming from conflating "narrativist" with "light" or "abstract" design, and they don't necessarily correspond at all. It might be more useful to consider the goal of the game (gamist, sim, nar) and the method of attaining that goal (trad/rooted, abstract) as two separate matters, with maybe a Z axis for light and heavy systems as well, although I think you'll find that one doesn't have as much variance as expected.

[#][F] Holden - 5/31/2016
Originally posted by Monkipi View Post

I really agree with this. I also think that Ex3 is uniquely designed as a crunchy vehicle for narrative, in some ways like the Powered by the Apocalypse games where things start and end with the narrative and mechanics occupy a lot of the liminal space there. Ex3's mechanics are a scaffold for unfolding narratives, and so they lay in structures and expectations for how things should and will go. They underlie things to an extent that, in my experience, they often don't do much to poke their head out and rub against the narrative in undesired ways.

Generally, call for rolls when dramatically appropriate and things are in question, utilize the game's scaffolds for narrative, and ignore those rules that you find to make the first two difficult. I'm an intensely narrativist player and I find that this works for me well, and that the 3 ed rules play really, really nicely with my narrative mindset and I am usually crunch averse to some extent.

EX3 leans strongly toward narrativist-style goals and design ethos, but comes at it from a core of traditional design and bending trad tools to those ends, rather than the highly-abstract systems that are the norm for narrativist games (such as FATE, CORTEX, and the excellent PBtA engine). Very few other designers are trying to do that right now, so it can be a bit of a challenge to quantify.

[#][F] Holden - 5/31/2016
Originally posted by Boston123 View Post
The "annoying" thing (not really annoying, more of a "huh?" moment") about shields in E3 being so ..... underpowered is that, in the real world, shields WERE overpowered. Something like 95-99% of all martial cultures on the planet used some form of shield, (the Japanese were one of the few that didn't)and the shield was arguably the most important part of defense for the average warrior. Sure, you could use a helmet, or throw on some armor, but not having a shield was such a liability in combat that many cultures refused to take unshielded warriors as part of the battle-line.

And, as someone who has sparred 1v1 with a shield before, the complaint of "increasing the shields Defense makes combat useless" is, well, rather true. In 1v1, with both parties equipped with spears and shields, unless someone rushes the other and pins the shield (a Disarm gambit), or removes the shield entirely from the equation (Disarm gambit, again), chances are you are just going to be bonking blows off each other shields. Which is why most "common" warriors had winged spears and axes, which could be used to hook around shields and pull them away. Or, you team up with a friend, and one person distracts the shield-user while the other goes for the kill.

I, believe me or not, actually prefer mortal games in Exalted, and shields are rather important to mortals. I houseruled that shields give +1 to Parry, +1 on Clash attacks, and lowers Onslaught penalties by 1. Makes shields rather nice to have, and makes teamwork much more important. Now, instead of all fighting as individuals, my characters are working together to disarm shield-wielders, or to distract them through Gambits to take them down quickly. Plus, that +1 bonus doesn't mean all that much to the Exalted, who can usually just take mortal attacks off the chin anyhow, and who throw out so many dice that the shield doesn't really make all that much of a difference.

TL;DR; shields are important for mortals, but when you Exalt, they don't really matter all that much.

Those sound like very good house rules for a mortal heroes game that heavily emphasizes realistic equipment selection.

The basic game deliberately under-stats shields, though (and gives no mechanical weight to helmets at all, so your character doesn't have to hide his cool hairstyle and face tattoos), for the simple reason that many players, especially those who lean more toward the anime side of the game's aesthetics, don't want to use them, and don't want to feel punished for stylishly two-handing a katana or broadsword or jumping around with a spear and no shield or whatever. We're very much aware that the spear and the shield are historically the winningest weapons of all time. We placed top value on "use whatever kit-out makes your character look cool to your satisfaction" above realism.

[#][F] Holden - 5/30/2016
Originally posted by Shaddar View Post

So if the DB is using a normal armor he is screwed if he doesnt win the JB roll?
If he's not wearing magic armor, and has no Charms that grant Hardness, and his Defense sucks, and he has no way to raise it, and he didn't buy any Ox-Body, and he's fighting five named heroes, yeah he's in trouble.

[#][F] Holden - 5/30/2016
Originally posted by Endlessstorm View Post
Firstly I am sorry about the length of this rant I have been holding this in for a while. I want to love this new system I really do but I cant bring myself to use it yet until I can find a fix for these problems or someone can correct my interpretation of the rules.

I am aware its all an abstraction of combat just to put that out there.
My problem is the base system so these are all issues with mortals, no magic no artefacts no charms.

In the first round with a decisive attack you can do some damage regardless of your strength and weapon or your opponents Armour , meaning a peasant slapping a dragon blooded in full plate Armour{not artifact) assuming he hits will cause at least some damage IE initiative +3 so say 5 dice of damage. This wont kill him but it could potentially be quite damageing.
It doesn't make sense it doesn't take into account the Armour at all or the weakness of the attacker.

This also leads to multiple weak attackers with low strength and no weapons hitting the same heavily armored DB and killing him through say 5 different first round attacks.

I know they all have to hit but that makes no sense to me at all.
The Hardness on magic armor tends to negate that tactic.

[#][F] Holden - 5/29/2016
Originally posted by Charlaquin View Post
If we are going to continue having this discussion, we need to be especially careful to conduct it as respectfully as possible. This comment really pushes the line, and is the kind of thing we're not going to be able to allow in this thread if we want to keep it open.

Just so that I am completely clear on this, you're telling us that we have to treat with respect arguments on gender politics put forth by MRA poster child Sargon of fucking Akkad and "biological realist" / "a bit of rape and violence is inevitable and healthy, boys will be boys" Christina Hoff Sommers? In the forum for the game with a transgendered man on its cover? That is a no-can-do, I'm afraid. I have too many friends those chuckleheads and their various disciples have striven mightily to disenfranchise and intimidate.

[#][F] Holden - 5/29/2016
Originally posted by Kyeudo View Post
On the general subject of sexism, here's Christina Hoff Summers laying out a clear picture of what's going on in western society:

On the subject of "Power + Privilege = Discrimination", here's Sargon of Akkad addressing the subject while talking about Bahar Mustafa: In essence, trying to force people to adopt the sociological definitions for "Racism" and "Sexism" instead of their common dictionary definitions is foolish. If a black man hates a white man because of the color of his skin, then he is a racist. Period.

Now, to get back to things that are actually relevant to the gender gap on this forum, let's talk about the fact that men and women make different choices when given similar options. Here's Christina Hoff Summers again, talking about gender gaps between countries:
The pertinent part is towards the end of that video, but basically as freedom and wealth increase, men and women make increasingly different life choices. Hobbies are definitely an extension of that idea. If women do not prefer TTRPGs, that is not necessarily a problem. Yes, let's try to remove slurs, mistreatment, and so on from our community. Let's try to be respectful of each other. Let's not expect this to result in any particular outcome.

On the subject of the "poisoned M&Ms" metaphor, it is a fundamentally broken metaphor. Men, not women, are actually in more danger from random strangers. Women are almost as likely to be rapists, as pointed out by Gallus. If one wants to apply the metaphor of "poisoned M&Ms" to a group, one must apply it to the whole of the human race - every person that you meet might be a thug, a rapist, a con artist, or a murderer. There is no other food available, so one either eats from the bowl of poisoned M&Ms or you starve. We must take each M&M, each person, on their own individual merits and making broad generalizations on superficial characteristics is morally wrong.
Well, your links to two infamous MRA talking heads / avowed Gamergate supporters to prop up your argument have certainly convinced me.

Not of the points you're trying to push, but of something.

[#][F] Holden - 5/27/2016
Originally posted by Gallus View Post
Gambits are explicitly Decisive attacks, as stated in the first sentence of their rules on page 199. Instead of doing damage you do a special effect. If you think there is a contradiction in the rules, you need to actually say what and where that is, instead of stating it to be true.

Gallus is correct.

[#][F] Holden - 5/26/2016
That would be about as big a scandal in the Realm as everywhere else in the world throughout history.

[#][F] Holden - 5/26/2016
Originally posted by Gallus View Post

Codex: Adeptus Sororitas now available. a scrawny corner-cutty eBook, unlike all the other codexes, which are lavish hardcover dealies available in Games Workshop stores. And you can only get the models on eBay-- they don't sell them in GW stores or from the GW website any longer. "Available."

[#][F] Holden - 5/26/2016
But yeah it's 40k. 'S why everything is measured in real distances and women won't be playable for the next four editions. :I