All Posts

[#][F] Plague of Hats - 1/30/2013
Social Charm spoiler -> Ammo accounting in RPGs

Exalted!

[#][F] John Mørke - 1/30/2013
Imrix wrote:
John Mørke wrote:
I want to play an archer who runs the risk of running out of ammunition, because making every shot count is part of the psychology of playing an archer, and valuing every arrow, and putting a bit of my heart and soul into every shot, and dealing with replenishing my ammo, knowing when to hold back and when to shoot, and having carefully crafted arrows that do different things are all important parts of playing my archer, and having a Charm that gives me infinite ammo for life shits in the face of that character.

I get what you mean here, but as an archer myself I'm compelled to point out that this is a really bad example to support your point. The psychology of an archer vis-a-vis ammunition management is "I have a quiver of two dozen arrows on my back, and when I run out one of the armies gopher boys will bring me another quiver from the huge thwocking barrels of the things in the supply train." English longbowmen, especially, were expected to just hurl an unending storm of arrows downrange. Running out of ammunition was something that happened over the course of battles that had gone on for several days. Generally it only happened in a siege.

Archers DID want to make every shot count, of course, but that was a symptom of how bows aren't automatic weapons, and you can't instantly drop in a few more rounds if your first shot goes astray.


Trade the example for a bracer of throwing knives.

Or assume that I was talking about an archer who isn't walking around with sixty arrows on his back and an army of guys waiting to reload for him. A character more like Robin Hood, who has a small quiver so that he can haul ass and swing from tree to tree without pulling a George of the Jungle. Or Green Arrow, who lives or dies by the way he uses his last arrow on a regular basis. The guys Exalted is likely to emulate.



[#][F] Plague of Hats - 1/30/2013
John Mørke wrote:
There won't be ammo counting.

There goes 5k of my fulfilled word count, damn you!

[#][F] John Mørke - 1/30/2013
Fanservice wrote:
John Mørke wrote:

I find it necessary to have Charms that are less powerful but let me play a completely epic character, rather than Charms that steal all the credit from my character by perfectly performing every task associated with my character. I want to play an archer who runs the risk of running out of ammunition, because making every shot count is part of the psychology of playing an archer, and valuing every arrow, and putting a bit of my heart and soul into every shot, and dealing with replenishing my ammo, knowing when to hold back and when to shoot, and having carefully crafted arrows that do different things are all important parts of playing my archer, and having a Charm that gives me infinite ammo for life shits in the face of that character.


I don't think I've ever seen a game outside of Post Apocalyptic games where ammo wasn't so plentiful as to make it a completely pointless exercise in book keeping to track it.


There won't be ammo counting.

[#][F] John Mørke - 1/30/2013
Eternal_King wrote:
John Mørke wrote:
I dunno, guys. Maybe it's because you're prefacing everything you say with "I don't know the system, but" and then arguing as if you do even after several posts where I tell you you're off.

Though I will say, EX3's mechanical power level is toned way down from EX2's. I've been saying I was going to do this all along. I want Lawgivers who are dominant, god-slaying, city-sacking, army-smashing individuals, but I don't want to make it as easy or as reliant on single Charm purchases, or indeed, because the Charm set acts like a bunch of buttons you press to make the Charm rock out for you.

I find it really hard to play a convincing artist when I have Paint Mona Lisa Prana.



The system can be toned down in different ways.

I personally have great fears that the extent of "toning down" will be to big for me to handle - because usually when facing some faults of the system people - even talented ones - are prone to overreaction.

I do not want such responses and I'm going to play the Devil's advocate here.

Complete elimination of "glorious solar power" thing as worse as "Charm bypasses storytelling".

Reduction of Solar Charms to the "tricks" is bad in my opinion.

Guys, you are freaking awesome writers. Do not make a 3rd edition like an extreme counter-reaction to the faults of 2nd.



I'd had much lesser number of problems if there were words "major intimacy" and an upgrade to do that a "defining intimacy" if a certain contested roll was successful.


I find it necessary to have Charms that are less powerful but let me play a completely epic character, rather than Charms that steal all the credit from my character by perfectly performing every task associated with my character. I want to play an archer who runs the risk of running out of ammunition, because making every shot count is part of the psychology of playing an archer, and valuing every arrow, and putting a bit of my heart and soul into every shot, and dealing with replenishing my ammo, knowing when to hold back and when to shoot, and having carefully crafted arrows that do different things are all important parts of playing my archer, and having a Charm that gives me infinite ammo for life shits in the face of that character.

That doesn't mean there won't be powerful Charms, or powerful magics in general. Right now, Sorcery is so powerful that I probably have to nerf it. While 2e informs my opinions, I am not ripping the game apart because of it. I want the game to be this way because I genuinely believe that it will make Solars more impressive and it will make them more fun and more rewarding to play, thereby drawing more customers to the game.








[#][F] Holden - 1/30/2013
Eternal_King wrote:
I'd had much lesser number of problems if there were words "major intimacy" and an upgrade to do that a "defining intimacy" if a certain contested roll was successful.


d00d. you do not know what these words mean yet. Come on!

And I am not going to be baited into explaining them either lol

But I will say, the difference between "no Intimacy" and "minor Intimacy" is very similar to the difference between "unarmed" and "brandishing a handgun."

[#][F] John Mørke - 1/30/2013
Day_Dreamer wrote:
John Mørke wrote:
I dunno, guys. Maybe it's because you're prefacing everything you say with "I don't know the system, but" and then arguing as if you do even after several posts where I tell you you're off.

Though I will say, EX3's mechanical power level is toned way down from EX2's. I've been saying I was going to do this all along. I want Lawgivers who are dominant, god-slaying, city-sacking, army-smashing individuals, but I don't want to make it as easy or as reliant on single Charm purchases, or indeed, because the Charm set acts like a bunch of buttons you press to make Charms rock out for you.

I find it really hard to play a convincing artist when I have Paint Mona Lisa Prana.


Don't want to make this a thread about depowering. May post one tomorrow if I feel like it.

The core point here, which I evidentially have failed to communicate, has nothing to do with systems or such. This charm doesn't feel epic to me, like a Lawgiver-level charm.


We don't roll on power tiers anymore. You're going to see some Lunar Charms that are better than Solar Charms. Maybe even a Dragon-Blooded Charm that can compete with a Solar Charm. One thing that stays true between EX2 and EX3 is that judging an entire splat by one Charm is not the best way to look at things.

[#][F] John Mørke - 1/30/2013
CycloneJoker wrote:
John Mørke wrote:
I dunno, guys. Maybe it's because you're prefacing everything you say with "I don't know the system, but" and then arguing as if you do even after several posts where I tell you you're off.

Though I will say, EX3's mechanical power level is toned way down from EX2's. I've been saying I was going to do this all along. I want Lawgivers who are dominant, god-slaying, city-sacking, army-smashing individuals, but I don't want to make it as easy or as reliant on single Charm purchases, or indeed, because the Charm set acts like a bunch of buttons you press to make the Charm rock out for you.

I find it really hard to play a convincing artist when I have Paint Mona Lisa Prana.


...This makes me wonder something, and I unfortunately don't think it's something you and the squad are ready to properly answer right now.

Specifically: Have linked combinations of active Charms to produce a net effect greater than the sum of any one Charm in the sleight been made more feasible via adjustment of how Essence pools are calculated and/or how Willpower bases are figured?

If so, it puts a whole new damn meaning on "Charm Combo", that's for sure. XD


Sorry if I have misunderstood your question, but:

The Solar Charm set will feature Charms that activate other Charms. IE, "the five motes you just spent on this Charm also covers the cost of the three motes you would have had to spend on this other Charm" and this feature crosses Abilities.

This might not be apparent in any Charms we post, because cost calibration is something I want to do when I am looking at the mostly-finished set. So this is a feature I will likely be implementing after most of the Charms are written.

Also, the out of combat economy and the in combat economy are different, so...if I do end up posting one of these, it will be for Charms I am 100% positive will not change one iota between now and playtesting.


[#][F] Holden - 1/30/2013
Lioness wrote:
My speculation on Minor vs. Major Intimacies is that the distinction exists to create a divide between a woman's fondness for cats (minor) and her love for her baby (major).
In 2nd edition social combat the two intimacies have equal value* which is kind of silly and the only way you can get her to love her kids more than cats without magic is to work them into her Motivation but that's pretty damn clumsy, especially if she was an established NPC with goals before she had a child.

*before willpower expenditure at least, but that should be an executive veto rather than a fallback from the system not making as much sense as it should.





Bingo.

[#][F] Holden - 1/30/2013
indarkestknight wrote:
Sort of off-topic for the debate at hand, but...

I can't say for sure without seeing the system, but comparing it to the charm presented yesterday, I was surprised at how high the mote cost was. Is treating someone as having a minor Intimacy they don't have really going to be that big a swing in the system that it's worth 6 motes, when Taboo Inflicting Diatribe only costs 3 motes and 1 willpower?


What does mote regain look like in 3e?

What about Willpower regain?

How often do you use social influence actions to get what you want? Recall that 2e social combat magic was metered around the idea of two guys beating eachother over the head with repeated social rolls. What might this visibly different pricing indicate?

[#][F] John Mørke - 1/30/2013
I dunno, guys. Maybe it's because you're prefacing everything you say with "I don't know the system, but" and then arguing as if you do even after several posts where I tell you you're off.

Though I will say, EX3's mechanical power level is toned way down from EX2's. I've been saying I was going to do this all along. I want Lawgivers who are dominant, god-slaying, city-sacking, army-smashing individuals, but I don't want to make it as easy or as reliant on single Charm purchases, or indeed, because the Charm set acts like a bunch of buttons you press to make Charms rock out for you.

I find it really hard to play a convincing artist when I have Paint Mona Lisa Prana.

[#][F] Holden - 1/30/2013
Eternal_King wrote:
Day_Dreamer wrote:
Eternal_King wrote:
John Mørke wrote:
Eternal_King wrote:
And what if the Taliban member have a major Intimacy (hate) about your kind of people?


I'm an Eclipse. Socialize Charms 101 says I am a part of his culture.







And what if he's properly paranoid and enjoys benefits of Major Intimacy (distrust - strangers)? It's not really a culture.

I think that if it is a conditional effect - it needs to be pretty powerful and bypassing simple means to make it fail.

Not a "minor" and not "may fail if someone just hate your hair color or the way you are dressing".

Pause!

It might still work. People can have contradictory feelings. Maybe if you roll well enough, you can still get them to not kill you, as long as you have a foot-in-the-door intimacy.


When I use a heavily conditional Solar Charm I expect it not just "probably work".

I expect it to crush the opposition.

I expect it to work greatly and without ant "ifs".


We discovered that a set that was full of nothing but this? It was boring, as it simply bypassed most conflict and storytelling.

To the degree that people are calibrating this against 2e social combat, I would say that your basic social combat attack in 2e is about on par with some of the stronger social magic in 3e. Your basic, meat-and-potatoes 2e social attack could make a complete stranger murder and eat his wife, then sell his children into slavery, based on a single dice roll.

Social influence actions don't really work that way.

[#][F] Holden - 1/30/2013
Mizu005 wrote:
Quote:


This feels like something a skilled mortal should be able to do. If someone shows up on my doorstep unannounced and asks to be let in, I'll shut the door. If they bring up the fact that it is Passover and I'm supposed to let them in, even though I'm an Atheist I still will. My culture is a strong part of me, even though all of its traditions are not.


You don't follow all your cultural traditions, I'm willing to bet. The fact that you can point to one that you would honor even though it doesn't make sense doesn't change that.

Take me, for example. I live in the ass end of the boonies in Eastern Kentucky. It goes without saying that we have some less then savory traditions that are appalling to anyone who isn't a racist ass hole. If a random person walks up to me on the street and tried to get me to do something based on those traditions, I would probably deck them. But this charm would give me an intimacy towards those traditions that I don't normally have.


I privately think of this Charm as "the one that lets me get away with all kinds of shit anywhere I go in Halta, as long as I can relate what I want to hating the Linowan."

[#][F] John Mørke - 1/30/2013
Day_Dreamer wrote:
John Mørke wrote:

It's annoying when someone tries to play rope a dope shifting the goalposts every time he gets served an answer he doesn't like.

That wasn't a goalpost shift.


"Creation is dangerous. It makes dangerous strangers amenable to you."

"But what if they specifically hate my people."

"Through Socialize Charms, you can become one of them."

"So what if I knocked on the door of the guy who hates everyone?" <- Goalpost shift

[#][F] John Mørke - 1/30/2013
Eternal_King wrote:
John Mørke wrote:
Eternal_King wrote:
John Mørke wrote:
Eternal_King wrote:
And what if the Taliban member have a major Intimacy (hate) about your kind of people?


I'm an Eclipse. Socialize Charms 101 says I am a part of his culture.







And what if he's properly paranoid and enjoys benefits of Major Intimacy (distrust - strangers)? It's not really a culture.

I think that if it is a conditional effect - it needs to be pretty powerful and bypassing simple means to make it fail.

Not a "minor" and not "may fail if someone just hate your hair color or the way you are dressing".


So you want a Charm that makes it impossible for someone to dislike you. I am writing a Charm set that makes for an extremely fun and rewarding gameplay experience. I find Charms that play themselves to be horrible for the game because they are boring and they make it impossible for me to actually play my character. I don't want to play Charms, I want to play my character. And when my Solar facerolls an entire direction, I want it to be because of effort, roleplaying, luck, cleverness, creativity, and wit. Not because I bought a Charm and set it off and it did all the work. I want to be loved because my character inspires people, and I want my Charms to back up the details of the character that I wish to emphasize, not to replace my character and make all of my accomplishments come on the back of XP in increments of eight, and not because I walk around with a Charm that makes it impossible to dislike me.






It's actually pretty annoying and sad when someone says something about what I want while taking some strange assumptions no matter who it is.

I'm not going even to start that kind of discussion because it is derailing and it is an awful, terrible debate technique.


*back to the topic*


It is a concrete power.

You already used your wit - it's conditional. You have to use it in specific way.

And it looks pretty weak for a Solar conditional Charm. It is not an AWD. It looks more like "+3 to attack".


I did not saw the system, so I'm possibly mistaken, but based on what I already saw - here is my frakking opinion.


It's annoying when someone tries to play rope a dope shifting the goalposts every time he gets served an answer he doesn't like.