|
Bedlamdan posted:It helps that the Devs have apparently okayed leak discussion on that one Exalted IRC they're on. Have they answered any rules questions?
|
#
?
May 12, 2015 23:01
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 08:52 |
|
|
Ferrinus posted:Have they answered any rules questions? I remember they did before, but only in a few cases, and they haven't been active online for a while either. Mostly they just okayed other people with the leak to talk about the leak with each other. EDIT: Oh, I just remembered they said they didn't want to do too much tech support stuff until they actually have the game done. They still answered a couple of questions but I don't remember what. Bedlamdan fucked around with this message at 23:07 on May 12, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 12, 2015 23:04
|
|
|
What is the "Beast leak"? That is a phrase I am afraid to google.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2015 23:10
|
|
|
GunnerJ posted:What is the "Beast leak"? That is a phrase I am afraid to google. The playtest for Beast the Primordial was leaked online.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2015 23:12
|
|
|
To get back to Barthes for a second -- the reason The Death of the Author was so important both at the time and in the history of literary criticism wasn't because it posited that the author's interpretation of his work is no more valid than any other (which is not always true, but is never true simply because of the fact that he's the author), but because it posited that meaning is born between the interaction of the reader and the text, not between the author and the text. At best the author is a facilitator of meaning. At worst, he is irrelevant to it. But the point of Barthes' work is to establish where meaning comes from, not to merely assert that every interpretation of a given text is equally valid. Barthes puts MORE of an onus on readers to read properly, not less.
Crion fucked around with this message at 00:09 on May 13, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 13, 2015 00:03
|
|
|
Crion posted:To get back to Barthes for a second -- the reason The Death of the Author was so important both at the time and in the history of literary criticism wasn't because it posited that the author's interpretation of his work is no more valid than any other (which is not always true, but is never true simply because of the fact that he's the author), but because it posited that meaning is born between the interaction of the reader and the text, not between the author and the text. At best the author is a facilitator of meaning. At worst, he is irrelevant to it. But the point of Barthes' work is to establish where meaning comes from, not to merely assert that every interpretation of a given text is equally valid. Barthes puts MORE of an onus on readers to read properly, not less. Yeah, but Barthes is dead. Isn't it equally valid for me to believe that a text can mean anything I want it to?
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2015 00:16
|
|
|
Crion posted:To get back to Barthes for a second -- the reason The Death of the Author was so important both at the time and in the history of literary criticism wasn't because it posited that the author's interpretation of his work is no more valid than any other (which is not always true, but is never true simply because of the fact that he's the author), but because it posited that meaning is born between the interaction of the reader and the text, not between the author and the text. At best the author is a facilitator of meaning. At worst, he is irrelevant to it. But the point of Barthes' work is to establish where meaning comes from, not to merely assert that every interpretation of a given text is equally valid. Barthes puts MORE of an onus on readers to read properly, not less. Yeah, this makes a bunch of sense. I'm of the school that believes that the text is merely a vehicle of communication between the author and the reader, but that's a very new line of thinking and I can totally understand where Barthes came from. Thinking that the reader matters was a huge change from 'text is purely the writer's self-expression'.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2015 00:30
|
|
|
I'm really happy with the withering-decisive split, I wanna say. I think crash especially gives a natural place for NPCs or PCs to start negotiating surrender terms in a way that makes the fallout of a battle a lot more interesting.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2015 01:52
|
|
|
One thing that's missing from the rules is a way to inflict that "my sword is at your throat, listen to me or get Decided" effect mid-combat that you can already inflict on a successful ambush.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2015 01:58
|
|
|
Ferrinus posted:One thing that's missing from the rules is a way to inflict that "my sword is at your throat, listen to me or get Decided" effect mid-combat that you can already inflict on a successful ambush. you mean Hold at Bay?
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2015 02:10
|
|
|
Yeah, that one. It seems like there should be a Hold At Bay gambit that's strictly worse than making a regular Decisive attack but lets you hold the victim at bay rather than actually decapitate them if you roll well enough to hypothetically kill them.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2015 02:22
|
|
|
Ferrinus posted:Yeah, that one. It seems like there should be a Hold At Bay gambit that's strictly worse than making a regular Decisive attack but lets you hold the victim at bay rather than actually decapitate them if you roll well enough to hypothetically kill them. That's definitely the sort of thing that falls within the purview of the ST improvising gambits, which the book does outline. What difficulty would you peg such a gambit at, is the real question? My inclination is like, 5.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2015 03:00
|
|
|
Would it even be a gambit? It seems slightly better than just making a decisive attack.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2015 03:03
|
|
|
Attorney at Funk posted:That's definitely the sort of thing that falls within the purview of the ST improvising gambits, which the book does outline. What difficulty would you peg such a gambit at, is the real question? My inclination is like, 5. The normal Gambit rules don't quite work because you only spend/lose a Gambit's cost after making the attack, and generally Gambits have set difficulties rather than scaling ones. Since you want an attempt to neutralize someone to be measurably worse than just murking them, at least slightly so, you'd need to have it cause you to lose Initiative or take some other penalty first, then make the attack, then count how much damage the attack would've done...
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2015 03:06
|
|
|
Ferrinus posted:The normal Gambit rules don't quite work because you only spend/lose a Gambit's cost after making the attack, and generally Gambits have set difficulties rather than scaling ones. Since you want an attempt to neutralize someone to be measurably worse than just murking them, at least slightly so, you'd need to have it cause you to lose Initiative or take some other penalty first, then make the attack, then count how much damage the attack would've done... 5 it is, then.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2015 03:29
|
|
|
I'd say to base the difficulty/initiative cost of the Gambit on the amount of damage you'd have to do to take them out. Not necessarily the entirety of their remaining health track, in the case of people or critters that aren't inclined to fight to the death, but maybe "damage needed to incap +2" or something works as a baseline, with the caveat that the Initiative is only spent after the Hold At Bay timer has run down or else you run into weird situations where holding a sword to someone's throat is less threatening because you can't actually do enough injury to kill them any longer, or some such.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2015 03:29
|
|
|
I seem to recall rules about defeating people by driving them so far into Negative Initiative that they cannot recover, but I don't think concrete rules were given.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2015 04:02
|
|
|
Mile'ionaha posted:I seem to recall rules about defeating people by driving them so far into Negative Initiative that they cannot recover, but I don't think concrete rules were given. It was more for people farming initiative from a single opponent non-stop. At that point the game just suggests killing them off automatically if they're already that outmatched.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2015 05:25
|
|
|
Bedlamdan posted:It was more for people farming initiative from a single opponent non-stop. At that point the game just suggests killing them off automatically if they're already that outmatched. If Negative Initiative gets too low, I would probably fiat that the opponent runs (if not sorely outmatched speed-wise) or passes out from exhaustion. Or transforms to their final form. Just depends on what's appropriate for the scene.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2015 05:42
|
|
|
MiltonSlavemasta posted:If Negative Initiative gets too low, I would probably fiat that the opponent runs (if not sorely outmatched speed-wise) or passes out from exhaustion. That's what the book says to do. It just doesn't give a number.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2015 07:09
|
|
|
If you spend three turns in negative initiative, your initiative actually resets to base.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2015 07:38
|
|
|
Ferrinus posted:If you spend three turns in negative initiative, your initiative actually resets to base. Maybe that is for only players. Or maybe that is for characters that stay at mildly negative numbers for three rounds, but being pushed to -20 knocks you out of combat. Either way, we need more options for Exalts to beat people without murdering them.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2015 14:32
|
|
|
I like the idea of giving crashed NPCs a Resolve penalty so the talky people have an easier time talking them down.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2015 15:16
|
|
|
Mile'ionaha posted:Maybe that is for only players. So I found myself in the odd position of wishing we'd kill some pricks for a change of pace.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2015 15:19
|
|
|
Nessus posted:Funnily enough, one of the games I was in had the reverse of this problem, in that people were so addicted to beating up and "convincing," SRW-game style, old antagonists and enemies that... we had an extremely unwieldy allies list. And since we were in the West and on a ship, gently caress it, we brought those assholes along! I've absolutely seen people like that who play like that. I've also seen people with 100% Kill Rates who never leave someone alive. Sometimes they end up in the same game and that's when it gets fun!
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2015 19:50
|
|
|
Mile'ionaha posted:Maybe that is for only players. No, the three-round reset is a hard, general rule, and I can't actually find the text for what you're talking about offhand. I think there IS a sidebar like "if you notice one combatant is at -400 initiative and the PCs are just using him as a generator and he can't seem to ever do anything, probably just consider him out of the fight" floating around somewhere, but that's an ST spot judgment okay-i'm-calling-this thing. You can't actually beat someone by withering them forever.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2015 20:00
|
|
|
Ferrinus posted:The normal Gambit rules don't quite work because you only spend/lose a Gambit's cost after making the attack, and generally Gambits have set difficulties rather than scaling ones. Since you want an attempt to neutralize someone to be measurably worse than just murking them, at least slightly so, you'd need to have it cause you to lose Initiative or take some other penalty first, then make the attack, then count how much damage the attack would've done... Counterpoint: is 'holding someone at bay' really neutralizing them, in the same way that killing them would be? It's not disarming them, knocking them out, trapping them behind an obstacle, whatever. It's just stalling them briefly. Possibly I'm misunderstanding.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2015 22:24
|
|
|
Stallion Cabana posted:I've absolutely seen people like that who play like that.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2015 22:28
|
|
|
PleasingFungus posted:Counterpoint: is 'holding someone at bay' really neutralizing them, in the same way that killing them would be? It's not disarming them, knocking them out, trapping them behind an obstacle, whatever. It's just stalling them briefly. Well, maybe. I'm not in position to look up the actual mechanics of the attack you get to make if someone you're Holding At Bay just plain didn't listen, but if it's just a regular old decisive attack vs. DV 0 then a normal if high-cost Gambit might do just fine.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2015 22:52
|
|
|
Ferrinus posted:Well, maybe. I'm not in position to look up the actual mechanics of the attack you get to make if someone you're Holding At Bay just plain didn't listen, but if it's just a regular old decisive attack vs. DV 0 then a normal if high-cost Gambit might do just fine. it also adds 5 levels of damage automatically.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2015 23:06
|
|
|
I've replaced the Crafting system in my game with a modified Sorcerous Project system, though there's some differences, like costing no BP. The Crafting tree is pretty small and sad right now, haha. But that leaves plenty of room for Craft charms that don't just add dice to things if I ever get around to filling them in. https://docs.google.com/document/d/1GYhcVwLT9-2q7zT9cyAMzw2FHmq9bCP1Ire3Kb4SelY/edit?usp=sharing Let me know what you think!
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2015 06:16
|
|
|
So I'm on a phone and can't easily dig it up and quote it in full but isn't the recent word about the book's layout process completely half-assed and/or insane or am I missing something?
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2015 14:04
|
|
|
Ferrinus posted:So I'm on a phone and can't easily dig it up and quote it in full but isn't the recent word about the book's layout process completely half-assed and/or insane or am I missing something? quote:As I write this, Maria is configuring the text, illustrations, and design elements of individual chapters of EX3 so that each chapter has a distinctive visual look and feel. While I think Maria prefers this approach to her books anyway, it will also serve to help differentiate chapters for easier use of the book- which will be important for a book this size!
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2015 14:41
|
|
|
I would guess that it's closer to "Maria didn't start working until she had everything she needed to finish working because she's paid by the job and not the hour."
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2015 17:43
|
|
|
This loving game is never coming out.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2015 19:15
|
|
|
What do you mean it's been out for a while now, I've been playing it for months.  I thought the chibi-iconics in the latest non-update were pretty cute at least.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2015 19:41
|
|
|
Rand Brittain posted:I would guess that it's closer to "Maria didn't start working until she had everything she needed to finish working because she's paid by the job and not the hour."
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2015 21:04
|
|
|
Chernobyl Peace Prize posted:From experience I'd say you don't need the entire book-that-doesn't-exist to come up with a coherent layout plan if you've got any sort of lines of communication open with the people designing and developing it, and that with one of those you can build a template and lay out a book sequentially as material comes in instead of spaghetti-to-wall, wall-to-page. But I'm only basing this on the creation of actual reference materials that saw the light of day on a schedule and not Schroedinger's lovely Christmas. I'm also not an artiste I guess You have to remember that nothing was nailed down for this game. They remade it from the ground up halfway through. Given that, working on the layout before poo poo is DONE is pointless.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2015 22:02
|
|
|
Transient People posted:You have to remember that nothing was nailed down for this game. They remade it from the ground up halfway through. Given that, working on the layout before poo poo is DONE is pointless. Congratulations, if you can answer more than two of these, you can build a full book template regardless of how many charms your book is going to have, whether your artists have or haven't finished their work, and how many times your content has leaked. Especially if you have two prior editions' worth of broad strokes layouts to work with and a general format (reference manual with interlude fiction and possibly frequent sidebars, and at least two chapters that you know are going to be full of flowchart diagrams and stat blocks) to base it on. And that leaves aside the fact that, when poo poo IS done (and if it truly was "remade...from the ground up halfway through" then you have a full year lead-out, don't you?), there's still no good reason to go about it paragraph here, page there, unless you either (1) still don't have content your writers have signed off on enough for you to comfortably lay out (in which case why would they send it to you in layout at all), or (2) just don't feel like finishing things a chunk at a time, because you can't settle on a template (which circles around back to point 1, do it earlier or get better direction from your team lead earlier holy poo poo).
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2015 23:07
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 08:52 |
|
|
Chernobyl Peace Prize posted:because you're not laying things out on a wax machine like Palladium circa 1991
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2015 00:48
|
|
