|
It's kind of messed up how everyone arguing against verisimilitude in this thread is demonstrably incapable of evaluating context, since that's the classical defect of the idiots who are obsessed with rules-as-physics-engine.
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2014 09:36
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 20, 2024 06:31 |
|
|
Ferrinus posted:No, that's stupid. Riddick isn't, like, an astral thoughtform whose current armament is purely a function of the innermost feelings and prejudices of whoever is looking at Riddick at the time. If Riddick comes at you with a teacup, it means something different than if Riddick comes at you with a gun. This is the sort of thinking that leads to Monks only having a d4 for unarmed strikes and everyone else having to take a feat just to get it to d4 (instead of a flat 1!) Riddick coming at you with a teacup is only different only with regards to the specific circumstances of your death, because Riddick is coming at you regardless.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2014 09:37
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:This is the sort of thinking that leads to Monks only having a d4 for unarmed strikes and everyone else having to take a feat just to get it to d4 (instead of a flat 1!) No it isn't.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2014 09:38
|
|
|
If you watched a scene where Vin Diesel kills a dude with a teacup/mug and went "Yes, the fact that he's ignoring the penalty to using an improvised weapon shows how strong he is, though it is a shame he is not using the weapon with which he has all his bonuses" then it amazes me you're able to even type coherent sentences on the keyboard. Maybe in that scene he uses a teacup/mug because it's sweet, then in another scene he uses a battle axe because it's also sweet but in a different way, and at no point in time is he or does he have to bean count his way to success. Because if your ONLY frame of reference is "At some point he HAD to start counting out penalties and bonuses" then congrats on being fundamentally wrong about everything. EDIT: Literally your argument is "we have to mathematically prove Vin Diesel is awesome" and if you'd just add some random misogyny we'd have the Ur Nerd Statement. ProfessorCirno fucked around with this message at 10:08 on Oct 5, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2014 10:03
|
|
|
Tendales posted:We just got in our copies of Through the Breach, the Malifaux RPG. Has anyone had a look at it yet? This sounds neat, and I'd enjoy hearing more about it!
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2014 10:11
|
|
|
I don't think it's necessarily a numerical penalty, but there's absolutely some substance to the argument of 'it is more badass because of the limitation' because that's the entire point of the scene. If you're applying game mechanics to the situation without evoking that aspect then it loses a lot, if not all, of its narrative weight.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2014 10:11
|
|
|
Chaotic Neutral posted:I don't think it's necessarily a numerical penalty, but there's absolutely some substance to the argument of 'it is more badass because of the limitation' because that's the entire point of the scene. If you're applying game mechanics to the situation without evoking that aspect then it loses a lot, if not all, of its narrative weight. And the whole initial point is that it isn't a penalty to Riddick because he's that awesome. Like, nobody else kills dudes with a teacup! That's a thing Riddick does because he's at MAX MURDER DUDES all the time. He isn't just taking a penalty and then managing to be cool in spite of the penalty. He's cool because he isn't taking that penalty to begin with - because his whole thing is that he will murder dudes no matter what the situation is! Most people can't kill with a teacup, but he does because gently caress! He's that awesome! Not because he's a high enough level or whatever, but because he has I Am Riddick which includes amongst other bonuses "IS ALWAYS ABLE TO KILL YOU" There's a difference between "Well, the teacup gives these penalties, but Riddick is a higher level, so his bonuses outweight those penalties" and "Literally it does not matter that all he has is a teacup, Riddick is Never Not Murdering People."
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2014 10:20
|
|
|
Would IS ALWAYS ABLE TO MURDER YOU be better as an aspect or a stunt?
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2014 10:50
|
|
|
Obviously that's a high concept.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2014 10:52
|
|
|
I mean the main point to go back to the beginning was that a fighter should always be a fighter. You have a sword? You're a fighter. You've got some brass knuckles? You're a fighter! A heavy rock? You're a fuckin' fighter! It's not that you have a high enough bonus to use these in spite of their penalties (and them being penalties is something I'll go back to), it's that You Are A Fighter: Killing Is Your Thing. Riddick's the fighter. It doesn't matter what he's got. Battleaxe? Gun? Tea mug? When Riddick says "I'm going to kill you with this teacup" the audience isn't shaking their heads and wondering if that's even possible, they're going "poo poo yeah, Riddick's gonna kill this dude with a teacup!" This is something I talked about waaaaaay back when 5e was just being announced. The fighter should be equal parts action movie star, action game protagonist, and Every Fighting Game Character. They don't have specific weapon proficiencies, they have Proficiency: Killing Dudes. No matter what they're using to kill you with, you better believe they are killing you with it. Riddick uses a teacup because it doesn't loving matter, he's Riddick! We don't watch that movie to see the logistics or to ponder how Riddick is so murderful, we do it to watch Vin Diesel Be A Badass. The narrative weight was not "he killed that dude with a teacup, nobody can do that," the narrative weight was "Oh man he killed that dude with a teacup, what's he gonna do next?" In other words, Riddick killing the guy with a teacup wasn't an extraordinary feat. That's just how he rolls. It's not the individual scene that's memorable, it's the overall character being able to just kill everything. And to go to the penalties thing, this is like saying "A 3.x Fighter who pushed a dude is a super badass." Just because something is mathematically unoptimal doesn't make it cool. Penalties are the game's way of telling you "DON'T DO THAT." And you know what? Most players won't. Combat maneuvers had tons of penalties in 3.x. End result? Most players never used them! Fighters with high BAB didn't go around killing dudes with teacups because the game was actively telling them not to do it. Like, games do not advertise themselves on "Hey, you can make this really boring!" The idea that players will self regulate themselves was dismissed LONG ago in video games. Players aren't going to look at the obviously mechanically better but boring option and go "Well, it just won't be fun if I do that." They're gonna do that then complain to you that they're bored. And good! Don't make your loving game boring! So if teacups have a whatever penalty to use them, the actual answer is "nobody ever uses them, and when people do, it's not badass, it's mostly just laughable." On he other hand, if teacups have a penalty and Fighters just straight up ignore any and all penalties that involve murdering someone, then it's different. Nobody else could kill a dude with that teacup, hell, nobody else would even try. The Fighter? He doesn't give a poo poo! He jams that teacup into the dude's chest because he's the loving fighter and killing the baddies is what he does! To hit on Malcolms point, that isn't to say Riddick + Teacup beats everything. It's to say that Riddick killing you with a teacup is absolutely just a thing he does. The Fighter is never accessory to the weapon, the weapon is always their accessory. Yeah, John McClane is better with a gun, but he's not dealing 1d4 damage with a penalty to attack before grabbing the gun. He doesn't suddenly do an additional 1d8 damage when he stone cold hangs a dude. That's just his execution! In Fate, it's invoking the environment. John McClane does not have Weapon Focus: Chains.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2014 11:29
|
|
|
Having the right weapon still changes the context of what the character is capable of. Riddick with a teacup can kill a dude, no problem, but Riddick with a minigun can kill a roomful of dudes. John McClane without a gun needs to play it smart, stay in the shadows, get within arm's reach of guys, because if he just screams and charges someone, he's going to get shot. Lots of action movies with murderizers have scenes where they're at a disadvantage, whether they're outnumbered or don't have the right equipment, and "you don't have the right weapon for this job" should still be a reasonable narrative concept to apply to the situation. Having that manifest as -4 attack is really, really bad, but it's also too much to say that weapons are purely an accessory. An abstracted system where negative aspects or problems are relatively freeform feels like the best solution. Then you can have Riddick killing a dude with a teacup in a scene where nothing else is entering the picture, while also later on hypothetically having a scene where he has to stalk some badass with a machine gun while he only has a knife, where just charging that enemy would end poorly. Or you could have an aspect on the enemies that there's a whole lot of them, so even though Riddick's a murderizer, he can't just use a teacup, he needs a minigun or a bomb or needs to divide and conquer or something different than usual.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2014 11:47
|
|
|
ascendance posted:what's even more frightening is that rpgpundit's post was also mostly reasonable. Basically, if you are playing D&D with no roleplaying, you are doing it wrong. I disagree. 1e had a tournament scene and I can't imagine a group in a tournament taking much time to roleplay. You could play 4e as table top Disgaea if that was your thing. 3e character gen was a fun game that some people played more than actual 3e. These seem like perfectly acceptable and reasonably mainstream ways to play the game. That D&D can be fun without roleplaying is, weirdly, the only thing from this essay I agree with. I don't think the definition of roleplaying game he uses is useful or valid. I think CoC is a particularly dumb counter example because your can easily play CoC as a point and click adventure with dice rolling. Having a weapons list that provides some tactical options is totally cool in the right game. OTOH, unnecessary complex weapons lists in games that don't need them mostly went out the door around the mid 2000s.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2014 13:31
|
|
|
What I'm getting from this approach to "narrative-based gaming" or whatever is that, if we take the cliche narrative scene of a dude's sword breaking in a fight and grabbing a random sword buried in rubble or whatever that turns out to be some sickass magic sword that carves steel like butter, there should be no mechanical weight attached to either the sword breaking or the new sword being magic, or at the very most, you can burn a steady stream of resources to make it mechanically involved.
|
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2014 14:07
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:What I'm getting from this approach to "narrative-based gaming" or whatever is that, if we take the cliche narrative scene of a dude's sword breaking in a fight and grabbing a random sword buried in rubble or whatever that turns out to be some sickass magic sword that carves steel like butter, there should be no mechanical weight attached to either the sword breaking or the new sword being magic, or at the very most, you can burn a steady stream of resources to make it mechanically involved. Wrong. What Cirno is defending (correct me if I'm wrong) is that screwing the character's baseline effectiveness/concept because of "realism" is a dick move and bad game design. Forcing a fighter, the game's melee character par excellence, to deal d4 melee damage — the same melee damage a wizard deals — because "realism" is lovely. The fighter should be able to have access to their baseline damage potential regardless of weapon choice. But that doesn't mean that either disarming or superior gear should lack mechanical significance. In Dungeon World, being disarmed means — since fiction comes first — that the character won't be able to trigger their Hack and Slash move. In order to regain access to that move, the character will need to draw a backup weapon or improvise one; once the character does that, they regain access to the Hack and Slash move at baseline d10 damage. Superior weaponry is also relevant in Dungeon World, mechanics-wise. One of the fighter's class features, their signature weapon, adds benefits to their regular attacks. If they use non-signature or improvised weapons, they lose the added benefits, but retain their d10 baseline damage (provided that, in the fiction, said character has means to access the Hack and Slash move). In Fate, being disarmed would probably be a temporary aspect the opposition can exploit (and the disarmed character gets a Fate Point when that happens, because that's how the Fate Point economy works). A kickass magic weapon can be either a regular aspect and/or stunt or a full-fledged extra (with a fractal of it own), depending on the game's focus. There are ways to mechanically represent such things without tedious gun porn lists or punishing players when they deviate from the GM's idea of "realism". Nancy_Noxious fucked around with this message at 14:33 on Oct 5, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2014 14:30
|
|
|
In the words of the blessed prophet Muhammad (Peace be upon him) on an apocryphal hadith of his: Sometimes a balance must be found between magical tea party and gun/polearm tables.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2014 14:37
|
|
|
Jesus loving Christ you people. Worse weapons aren't worse, better weapons are better. Riddick can kill with a teacup, but he can kill better with a gun. Not because the teacup has penalties, or because the gun has bonuses, but because a gun allows him to do more. A magic sword is good because it is loving magical, not because you get a +1 to attack rolls on it. I thought we all decided that poo poo was boring years ago.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2014 14:40
|
|
Nancy_Noxious posted:Wrong. How can you say "fighters doing the same unarmed damage as wizards is wrong" and "unarmed fighters can't attack at all" in the same post with a straight face? The literal answer to the problem of being disarmed in Dungeon World is, apparently, that only certain playbooks can fight unarmed, or more charitably it's DM fiat whether cracking your knuckles counts as rearming yourself. And again, the argument is that Riddick-with-teacup and Riddick-with-axe should be mechanically equivalent. Meanwhile, in Fate, you have the opposite issue. If my sweet Durandal knockoff is an Aspect, in order for it to have mechanical weight, I need to invest a steady stream of Fate Points (RAW, every go-round) into it. That means that most of my narrative weight is in my gear, and that I need to regularly compel myself, meaning that my other Aspects suddenly become more negative. Making it a stunt simply automates this process by lowering Refresh, and the whole point of this argument is that gear shouldn't be important, so making it an Extra runs counter to that notion. And nobody's saying "the fighter must be completely useless when unarmed" or d4 versus d10, etc.
|
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2014 14:45
|
|
Loki_XLII posted:Jesus loving Christ you people. Worse weapons aren't worse, better weapons are better. Riddick can kill with a teacup, but he can kill better with a gun. Not because the teacup has penalties, or because the gun has bonuses, but because a gun allows him to do more. Mechanically, "doing more" or being "loving magical" requires bonuses compared to more ordinary things. If a magical sword offers no mechanical bonus, all it seems like is the character waving it around and saying "This is me granddad's magic sword. Please believe me." Going to my default of a Durandal knockoff, once you stop assuming that it has to be a +1 or +3 sword or whatever, you can model it as doing more damage with a hit, ignoring armor, breaking armor, breaking weapons, etc. and give it uses like slicing through locks and carving stone, etc. that are entirely out of combat. But all of these are bonuses. Not to mention that, fiction-wise, dealing substantial damage with a pen or cup is inherently much more brutal than dealing it with a two-by-four or a dagger.
|
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2014 14:54
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:How can you say "fighters doing the same unarmed damage as wizards is wrong" and "unarmed fighters can't attack at all" in the same post with a straight face? The literal answer to the problem of being disarmed in Dungeon World is, apparently, that only certain playbooks can fight unarmed, or more charitably it's DM fiat whether cracking your knuckles counts as rearming yourself. And again, the argument is that Riddick-with-teacup and Riddick-with-axe should be mechanically equivalent. That's not a bad thing. Compels are great; they make the story more interesting. They make your aspects matter more.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2014 14:54
|
|
|
You get free stunts, make it one of those.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2014 14:55
|
|
|
 Seriously though, there is nothing fun or cool about taking penalties to attempting superlative examples of Your Thing.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2014 14:57
|
|
Gazetteer posted:That's not a bad thing. Compels are great; they make the story more interesting. They make your aspects matter more. Ettin posted:You get free stunts, make it one of those. Why should finding a magic sword with a completed character mean that the character automatically becomes built around that sword in order to use it? Aragorn and Bilbo weren't defined by Anduril/Sting, and Bilbo, if anything, becomes less beholden to the negative parts of his Aspects when he names Sting. And again, this is a significant increase in compels. Getting a magic sword decreases character agency- they have to be much more greedy or lecherous or drunken or stupidly heroic from now on compared to how they were before.
|
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2014 15:05
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:
Yes, they're bonuses but aside from the extra damage thing, those are all fictional. They might interact with mechanical elements, but they exist entirely in the fiction. It's when you get to the out of combat abilities that I think magic items are their most interesting. I would phrase the "carving stone" thing as "can slice through any stone or metal", which would handily wrap in the armor ignoring through fictional means. quote:Not to mention that, fiction-wise, dealing substantial damage with a pen or cup is inherently much more brutal than dealing it with a two-by-four or a dagger. Also, I'd like to say that you can definitely attack unarmed in Dungeon World, and you use your class damage die for it. It's harder than using a sword though, because fictionally, it's hard to get close to a guy swinging a sword. You would have to fictionally position yourself, or possibly role defy danger to get within striking distance of the guy.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2014 15:10
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:Why should finding a magic sword with a completed character mean that the character automatically becomes built around that sword in order to use it? Aragorn and Bilbo weren't defined by Anduril/Sting, and Bilbo, if anything, becomes less beholden to the negative parts of his Aspects when he names Sting. And again, this is a significant increase in compels. Getting a magic sword decreases character agency- they have to be much more greedy or lecherous or drunken or stupidly heroic from now on compared to how they were before. Compels increase character agency. Like, they give you Fate points. That's what Fate points are for. Compels aren't bad, they're supposed to be fun. If I put down "This Is Why I Don't Do The Talking" as my Trouble, then I am going to go out of my way to run my mouth off at inopportune moments anyway. If that kind of thing doesn't appeal to you, you might just not enjoy Fate. Which is perfectly cool. You don't need to base your character around the magic sword, either. You could, but just having it exist as an aspect doesn’t necessaryily force that. There are lots of ways to model weapons in Fate. I'm also pretty sure that in Dungeon World, it'd be perfectly acceptable for the following to occur: DM: Your sword goes flying out of your hand, you're disarmed. Fighter: Then I punch the goblin and grab his spear! DM: Okay, Defy Danger. How this teacup thing is going to play out really depends on the tone the system is trying to achieve, but players are pretty rarely helpless in PbtA or Fate. Gazetteer fucked around with this message at 15:19 on Oct 5, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2014 15:14
|
|
Loki_XLII posted:Yes, they're bonuses but aside from the extra damage thing, those are all fictional. They might interact with mechanical elements, but they exist entirely in the fiction. It's when you get to the out of combat abilities that I think magic items are their most interesting. I would phrase the "carving stone" thing as "can slice through any stone or metal", which would handily wrap in the armor ignoring through fictional means. Not really. If you have skills or any mechanical weight to out-of-combat stuff, then there's a mechanical bonus that should be attached to not-Durandal. But this is quibbling over whether there's a clear dividing line between the two. Stabbing a guy with a dagger or knocking him out with a plank are things you can get away with in a PG-rated movie. We can understand that getting stabbed or getting a blow to the head are dangerous things without detail. Killing someone with a fountain pen, outside of a farce or gadget-spy movie, requires a hard R because you're jabbing it into the brain through the eye or mouth, slicing their throat with it, or something else very brutal and visceral in order to be believable. Fictionwise, killing with a teacup means you're not only badass, but that you're also incredibly brutal. And that's why I used "apparently". Gazetteer posted:Compels increase character agency. Like, they give you Fate points. That's what Fate points are for. Compels aren't bad, they're supposed to be fun. If I put down "This Is Why I Don't Do The Talking" as my Trouble, then I am going to go out of my way to run my mouth off at inopportune moments anyway. If they kind of thing doesn't appeal to you, you might just not enjoy Fate. Which is perfectly cool. Compels decrease character agency, because the character loses freedom of action and acts according to their drives for a moment, but Fate points increase player agency. It's a simple tradeoff- you lose a little control over the character to gain more control over the environment. But Fate points represent how much narrative weight something has. Activating an Aspect every time you attack requires a stream of Fate points, which means you either need to neglect other Aspects to fuel your magic sword, or you take a lot more compels to compensate. In other words, having a magic sword mean something without turning it into an Extra with a permanent bonus to Weapons or additional shifts of stress or whatever requires that it be pretty important to you, enough to swap out a Stunt or Aspect, a fundamental part of your character (or I guess it could be an Extra with just an Aspect attached). Effectronica fucked around with this message at 15:26 on Oct 5, 2014 |
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2014 15:17
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:Not really. If you have skills or any mechanical weight to out-of-combat stuff, then there's a mechanical bonus that should be attached to not-Durandal. But this is quibbling over whether there's a clear dividing line between the two. Okay, I concede, at leas partly. My main thing is that purely numerical bonuses are poo poo, and it seems that we at least both agree on that. And stabbing a guy with a dagger or hitting him with a plank can both be brutally shot if you're going for an R, just like they can be toned down if you're going for a PG, but that's splitting hairs and not really relevant. quote:Compels decrease character agency, because the character loses freedom of action and acts according to their drives for a moment, but Fate points increase player agency. It's a simple tradeoff- you lose a little control over the character to gain more control over the environment. Fate points don't exactly represent how much narrative weight something has. Aspects are always true, whether you spend a fate point to specifically get a bonus to it or not. If you have a magic sword with the aspect Can Cut Through Anything, it can always cut through anything, which grants you fictional permission to do a lot of things, including spend a fate point to mechanically reinforce slicing through a guy or whatever.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2014 15:33
|
|
|
If only there was a teacup-related idiom in the English language to describe something inconsequential that nerds blow out of proportion and argue over with vitriol.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2014 15:35
|
|
|
My GF and I are going to be taking a train to New Orleans, and we were thinking of things to do to kill 20 hours besides sleep, drink and play Netrunner. The idea of me running a game for her came up and I was wondering if anyone has recommendations for a one PC game or things that they've done in the past to make it easier? Any systems that lend themselves to it?
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2014 15:40
|
|
Loki_XLII posted:Okay, I concede, at leas partly. My main thing is that purely numerical bonuses are poo poo, and it seems that we at least both agree on that. They do, because if you have two guys, with the same Aspect, and one guy invokes it regularly and the other rarely, the first guy clearly attaches more importance to it. To put it to a fictional example, King Arthur has a magic spear and dagger alongside Excalibur and its scabbard. They aren't mentioned often, and generally not at all in anything more recent than Mallory. Excalibur is more important to his story, or in Fate terms, he invokes it more often. Or getting away from gear, Arthur was also Emperor of Rome and King of Germania and Gaul, but these are again less important than his status as King of Logres or High King of Britain. These would be Aspects he invokes rarely or removes from his character sheet in favor of other ones.
|
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2014 15:43
|
|
|
Does anyone know of any games that simulate aircraft combat in detail? Factoring in things like altitude and different kinds of turns and such.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2014 15:46
|
|
|
Tulul posted:But really, here's the disconnect: why should it be modeled as a penalty, instead of something else? Hell, why shouldn't it be modeled as a bonus? It's a cool scene idea, and you should get some bennies for trying to do something cool. You could just kill the mooks workmanlike, but no, you decided to do it in a neat way, and that deserves applause.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2014 15:48
|
|
|
Strange Matter posted:Does anyone know of any games that simulate aircraft combat in detail? Factoring in things like altitude and different kinds of turns and such. Down in Flames http://www.dvg.com/.sc/ms/dd/ee/22/Down%20In%20Flames%20-%20Aces%20High
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2014 15:51
|
|
|
So I have a "which system should I use?" question. I hope everyone doesn't toss out the *Worlds because I don't particularly care for those. I have an idea for a TMNT game. Players would create their own mutant or human and run around fighting the Shredder and doing all of that nonsense. I don't know which system to use for this. I know TMNT had its own system a long time ago, but I've heard that it's based off Rifts, so gently caress that nonsense. As far as systems I know of pretty well, there's all of the various Star Wars systems, d20/3.5/Pathfinder, and WFRP. I'm pretty good at learning a system quickly if I have access to the core book, though. I have Fate, but I've never actually played in a Fate game, so I don't know if I'd do the whole Aspects thing right. Also, Fate's whole damage mechanic is nutty and I can't wrap my head around it. So I guess I'm wondering if anyone has run a game like a TMNT kind of thing before and if so, what system they've used.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2014 16:05
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:They do, because if you have two guys, with the same Aspect, and one guy invokes it regularly and the other rarely, the first guy clearly attaches more importance to it. To put it to a fictional example, King Arthur has a magic spear and dagger alongside Excalibur and its scabbard. They aren't mentioned often, and generally not at all in anything more recent than Mallory. Excalibur is more important to his story, or in Fate terms, he invokes it more often. Or getting away from gear, Arthur was also Emperor of Rome and King of Germania and Gaul, but these are again less important than his status as King of Logres or High King of Britain. These would be Aspects he invokes rarely or removes from his character sheet in favor of other ones. You probably wouldn't make "Emperor of Rome and King of Germania and Gaul" and "King of Logres or High King of Britain" separate Aspects -- those are highly redundant. Either you'd wrap them up into one Aspect ("The High King" or whatever), or if the first one doesn't matter as much as you're saying, just don't make it an Aspect. Aspects are not an exhaustive list of things that describe a character, they are the things that matter narratively. Same with the magic spear and dagger. If they're not important, don't make an aspect out of them. You also should just never have two guys with the same aspect, ideally.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2014 16:17
|
|
|
Hey guys I skipped the last two pages did I miss anything?
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2014 16:26
|
|
|
Not really.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2014 16:29
|
|
|
I mean, I hardly even said anything.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2014 16:30
|
|
|
Evil Mastermind posted:Hey guys I skipped the last two pages did I miss anything? No.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2014 16:31
|
|
|
Evil Mastermind posted:Hey guys I skipped the last two pages did I miss anything? I don't see you making an attack roll 
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2014 16:32
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 20, 2024 06:31 |
|
|
Evil Mastermind posted:Hey guys I skipped the last two pages did I miss anything? Should magic teacups be more lethal than mundane teacups?
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2014 16:35
|
|
