|
Astus posted:I noticed you went back on the errata for sharing moves, and now the multiclass moves are back to giving you another playbook's core move. I think I like sharing custom moves more and might continue to use the old errata in my games, but I'm also interested to know why you reverted the change for Fellowship 2e. gently caress It was not supposed to be reverted, that was an oversight EDIT: Okay I've updated the files everywhere, so they should all say Custom Moves now. gnome7 fucked around with this message at 20:18 on Mar 27, 2019 |
#
?
Mar 27, 2019 19:24
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 22:47 |
|
|
On a related note, the Harbinger"s Doomed Soul move says that when it Share it, their Doom stat is +1, but then says this move cannot be Shared. E: Disregard, Read Mode formatting on my phone got weird and I missed the header for the Doom and Gloom move. GimpInBlack fucked around with this message at 20:54 on Mar 27, 2019 |
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2019 20:52
|
|
|
I'm not so sure about the speak softly changes. Personally, I find lying to the players gets really frustrating, people should at least know out of character which of the answers is false- my preferred method in games I've run is to tell them the information is false on a failure, but give them a fate point/xp/ext to go along with it. Now, fellowship doesn't have an easy Benny like that, but as is I think quite a few people are going to be frustrated about how information that might be false but you don't know which information or if it is false.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2019 21:44
|
|
|
Something that definitely isn't true is kind of like something else that's true, no? Telling you a sentence along with "this sentence is false" is kind of like telling the truth, not much of a failure. You know that their answers are generally untrustworthy, isn't that enough? (I think it's better if it's 50/50 true/false or something half-true or a lie by omission or something other than just a "simple" false statement, depending on circumstance.)
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2019 22:09
|
|
|
Yeah, but the player knows it's false, not the character. Thusly, you can still get the fun play out while being open and mitigate frustration. Knowing that it's coming ahead of time helps, but not enough
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2019 22:50
|
|
|
Jeffrey of YOSPOS posted:Something that definitely isn't true is kind of like something else that's true, no? Telling you a sentence along with "this sentence is false" is kind of like telling the truth, not much of a failure. You know that their answers are generally untrustworthy, isn't that enough? (I think it's better if it's 50/50 true/false or something half-true or a lie by omission or something other than just a "simple" false statement, depending on circumstance.) I mean, it means you, for most of the game, can't believe anything anyone says, which is a weirdly paranoid mindset for a hero to be in. It's fine for the Nemesis (which also has a nice element of "Torture doesn't work", since you should probably OOC be reinforcing that growling questions at people while force-choking them isn't the most efficient way of gathering information).
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2019 22:53
|
|
|
spectralent posted:I mean, it means you, for most of the game, can't believe anything anyone says, which is a weirdly paranoid mindset for a hero to be in. I know the character is separate from the player, but I'd honestly kinda dig if even the referee didn't know which statement was false until the moment made sense for one of them to have been. Then the lie can be something that has dramatic effect, chosen at the moment where it optimally heightens a scene. Deciding it in advance seems like it takes away opportunities to me - sure, the player can roleplay that their character doesn't know its false and believes it, but I think it's still more likely to come up if you go in unknowing. I don't really find NPCs lying to players to be frustrating myself, it's hard to imagine that, but I believe Neopie when they say they do.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2019 23:21
|
|
|
Jeffrey of YOSPOS posted:That's an extreme way to look at it - it means when you ask someone something and they have a reason to lie about it, they might. So, in other words, literally all the time about anything because you no longer know which things are true or not. Like, I just want to focus on this because it's the lynchpin everything else you said rests on. If you can't know anything with certainty (assume no 10+), "someone with a reason to lie about things" could be anyone. You don't know who might be lying, because you don't know if the fact they wouldn't have an ulterior motive is also a lie, because if you ask questions about whether they're lying they can lie on that. They never lie, and it wasn't a lie when they said they don't lie because they never lie. This means you have to approach everyone, practically, with some degree of distrust, even when you're seeking reassurances. There's an arc power in Chuubos for one of the arcs I forget the name of that has a simple but major tone impact on your character. Ordinarily, when you emote, the emote has to be honest; you can't say "Thanks, come again!" cheerily if you're not having a good time, for example, you have to say you're forcing a smile, or whatever. The arc power in question lets you emote dishonestly. It's a tiny note, but it has huge rammifications, even if you never, ever use it, because you're the only person who, on an OOC level, can truly, truly lie to someone's face. It will always change the tone of interaction with them, because everyone will remember that you're allowed to lie, and if they don't, and you lie, then, hey, look, there's the foreshadowing for this dramatic betrayal! The fact that you can lie on a category of results is massively altering for the tone of interactions, and creates tension where it isn't welcome. It's entirely appropriate for the Nemesis who's marching around interrogating people with the implicit threat of violence to loosen people's tongues; it's entirely appropriate for that character to be a bit paranoid and to suffer trust issues. It's not for the kindly old wizard, the jolly halfling, or the wide-eyed farm-boy.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2019 23:33
|
|
|
Yeah. Like, if a knowledge gathering power produces false information, it should be clear what information is false, essentially, and there should be some sort of mechanical reason to go along as if it was true anyways, imo.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2019 23:52
|
|
|
I just wanted to say I'm looking forward to reading Fellowship 2e when I'm back; I've always wanted to run PbtA but it seems like so many of the themes are really dark, and Fellowship was really fitting for what I wanted! (Something more like a JRPG)
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2019 00:14
|
|
|
So. On one hand, I don't actually disagree with you two. On the other hand, being a fan of the characters is still one of the core principals and part of that is assuming everyone's competent enough to tell that they only got a partial success on something and thus can tell the person they're talking to isn't being completely open here. I mean, Speak Softly is still fundamentally representing a conversation you're having with someone. "The farmer doesn't want to tell you everything you want to hear about that dragon attack, and he might not be telling you the whole truth but pushing it won't get you anywhere" and "the vizier is at minimum bullshitting you enough to not tell you what he's planning on doing next, possibly more" just doesn't seem like it erodes the players' ability to trust what the GM tells them as much as you're saying it does.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2019 00:26
|
|
|
I see what everyone is saying and do not know the best course of action forward, so I've made a poll. https://twitter.com/Veliministriari/status/1111049826819604483
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2019 00:40
|
|
|
Lurks With Wolves posted:So. On one hand, I don't actually disagree with you two. On the other hand, being a fan of the characters is still one of the core principals and part of that is assuming everyone's competent enough to tell that they only got a partial success on something and thus can tell the person they're talking to isn't being completely open here. I mean, Speak Softly is still fundamentally representing a conversation you're having with someone. "The farmer doesn't want to tell you everything you want to hear about that dragon attack, and he might not be telling you the whole truth but pushing it won't get you anywhere" and "the vizier is at minimum bullshitting you enough to not tell you what he's planning on doing next, possibly more" just doesn't seem like it erodes the players' ability to trust what the GM tells them as much as you're saying it does. Okay. Putting this in a new post for maximum clarity because a friend explained a point to me: The move says they may refuse to answer a third question and may lie about one answer, which doesn't mean they have to do one/both of those, which means they could just answer all three questions truthfully and there's no way to tell they aren't bullshitting in some way when the assumption from rolling a 7-9 is "they aren't going to tell me everything I want to know", which is 1) pretty bullshit and 2) feels like such an unintended outcome imo that I didn't even consider it. So yeah, maybe just poke the 9- outcome a bit so that doesn't happen. A "if they're answering all three questions truthfully anyway, the GM will say so" clause or something.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2019 00:45
|
|
|
Lurks With Wolves posted:So. On one hand, I don't actually disagree with you two. On the other hand, being a fan of the characters is still one of the core principals and part of that is assuming everyone's competent enough to tell that they only got a partial success on something and thus can tell the person they're talking to isn't being completely open here. I mean, Speak Softly is still fundamentally representing a conversation you're having with someone. "The farmer doesn't want to tell you everything you want to hear about that dragon attack, and he might not be telling you the whole truth but pushing it won't get you anywhere" and "the vizier is at minimum bullshitting you enough to not tell you what he's planning on doing next, possibly more" just doesn't seem like it erodes the players' ability to trust what the GM tells them as much as you're saying it does. No, that's exactly what we're saying. That's the method of doing it that reinforces the fundamental honesty of the GM-player relationship; you're being upfront that the information is unreliable, instead of springing the fact that they were lying the entire time on the players later. Which, that's fine, too, in that it's at least the good-gameplay way of doing things but I feel like it's tonally inappropriate for the heroes who make the world better. You should generally expect 7-9s on your decent stats and be happy with 10+s, so having a default assumption that everyone is cagey and shifty is kind of a weird worldview to instil on the guys who're meant to believe in people (per the GM principle).
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2019 00:46
|
|
|
spectralent posted:No, that's exactly what we're saying. That's the method of doing it that reinforces the fundamental honesty of the GM-player relationship; you're being upfront that the information is unreliable, instead of springing the fact that they were lying the entire time on the players later. I'm still going to disagree, mostly because I just like the idea of "I'm just some farmer and you're the Crown Prince, but I'm still a person and I'm not going to tell you everything about myself you're asking unless I'm completely comfortable about it, because that's a lot to ask of anyone" as a thematic element, since Fellowship's about befriending people and part of that means accepting that everyone isn't comfortable revealing everything and etc, and knowing the exact amount of not-sharing isn't as important in my estimation as it is in yours. Anyway, I don't know how much this will matter, since the percentage of people who want to change Speak Softly in some form is clearly outweighing the percentage who want to keep it the same at this (very early) point in the poll. Personally I voted for saying when someone lies, because tbh "are all of these true" and "which of these is a lie" is a semantic difference most of the time. EDIT: I say, as the percent voting "the move is fine as-is" slowly climbs higher. Lurks With Wolves fucked around with this message at 01:17 on Mar 28, 2019 |
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2019 01:14
|
|
|
Yeah. I'm fine with lies, half truths, ect as long as I know when it's the case, personally, or people refusing to answer or clamming up about some questions as is.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2019 01:19
|
|
|
I'd definitely prefer a flat refusal to answer a question (of which, "the Vizier says some stuff, but he doesn't seem like he's being forthright" would qualify) or just some sort of rider on a 9- that gives the GM an avenue to introduce an unwelcome truth. It'd bring the dynamic closer in with the new Look Closely.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2019 02:52
|
|
|
Oh yeah, the new look closely, in contrast, rocks rear end. That's a real good 7-9.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2019 03:37
|
|
|
Speak Softly poll round 2: now with actual rewrites https://twitter.com/Veliministriari/status/1111128270785970177
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2019 05:52
|
|
|
I think removing the lie entirely best suits the spirit of the game, especially alongside the Overlord generally keeping promises they make, so bargaining is actually possible and players can trust in deals they make and requests that have been agreed to. every bit of info being truthful makes more sense to me considering the system as a whole it's super fun as an overlord to lie to players and see where that goes (and further your plans due to it, get them into bad situations because of it, etc), but, as a player it's really just frustrating not knowing when you're working with good info or not. there's a level of trust between the Overlord and the other players that's broken down with including the lie rule refusing to answer is also fine, there's plenty of reasons someone would be too scared to tell you something, or just a dick about it, or whatever, and it doesn't break down the understanding between players and overlord Sea Lily fucked around with this message at 06:07 on Mar 28, 2019 |
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2019 06:04
|
|
|
For these moves, do you make a hard move on a 6-, or is it just the one question?
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2019 06:43
|
|
|
Neopie posted:For these moves, do you make a hard move on a 6-, or is it just the one question? Just the one question.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2019 07:16
|
|
|
gnome7 posted:Speak Softly poll round 2: now with actual rewrites I don't have a Twitter to vote in the poll, but I like option one the best of the ones that is presented. But, in order to more closely parallel Look Closely, can I suggest something more like the following? 9-: your questions create problems down the line, either for you or for the person you asked. That keeps the consequences directly connected to actual play, and doesn't rely on NPCs arbitrarily deciding to screw you over. It also creates a perfect opportunity for the fellowship to be heroic again, when the overlords minions find out that George the blacksmith has been talking to the fellowship and show up to explain to him why that's not the best thing for his long-term health. Alternatively, it's still really easy to twist it as the NPC betraying the fellowship and Reporting whatever information he gave them to their enemies, while still retaining the fundamental honesty of interactions between players and the Overlord. And of course, it also very easily covers things like " this character doesn't actually know everything about what they're talkin about and some key piece of information is missing," or " the answer is something you really didn't want to hear" like in the current version of option one. EDIT: as long as you're making changes, I found one other small mistake in the witch's potion Master move. The option for the potion to get the user Drunk still says "choose two stats," but that's not how the Drunk tag works anymore. GimpInBlack fucked around with this message at 08:50 on Mar 28, 2019 |
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2019 08:34
|
|
|
I like GIB’s option a lot.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2019 08:52
|
|
|
It is very nice, but I wonder if it might grow frustrating to keep getting sidetracked by the problems that the information you get causes.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2019 09:46
|
|
|
paradoxGentleman posted:It is very nice, but I wonder if it might grow frustrating to keep getting sidetracked by the problems that the information you get causes. It doesn't have to be a side track though. I mean, sure it can be "now you have to go rescue George the blacksmith from the overlord's dungeons," and that spawns a new side quest so to speak, but it could also just as easily be "while you're engaged in your primary objective against the Overlord's armies, you find a bunch of prisoners being sent to a processing facility and oh look your old buddy blacksmith George is in there, boy letting them out right now sure would complicate things but he's only in there because of you. What are you going to do, hero?" There are plenty of ways for your questioning to cause problems down the line that doesn't completely derail the adventure. The problems also don't have to be as straightforward as "blacksmith George is now a prisoner and you have to rescue him," either. Like, it could just as easily be that one of the overlords minions was spying on you and heard you asking him about stuff, so now the bad guys know you're coming, or the thing that George tells you is "oh sure, the only way into the Metal Dungeon is to get the Sapphire Key from the Star Dragon, and she really doesn't like parting with any of her treasure."
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2019 12:08
|
|
|
I don't think a lie is a big problem. Speak Softly is, and was, a very safe move as it was, always assured to do something good. PbtA is supposed to have 7-9 as either 'your barely succeed' or 'you succeed but', and I think that speak softly as it is has never really done either: its 7-9 was strong! I also oppose forcing the MC to tell players what the lie is, because even with groups that don't want to meta that kind of thing, it is something that is naturally impactful on decisions of characters, and changes how they feel.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2019 13:05
|
|
|
Some partial successes are just partial successes. Even in the original AW, read a person and read a sitch work similar.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2019 14:34
|
|
|
gnome7 posted:Speak Softly poll round 2: now with actual rewrites
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2019 18:48
|
|
|
Jeffrey of YOSPOS posted:"Keep the move the same" won in the earlier poll fwiw - I like the (2e) original better than any of these. Maybe add a caveat for "if the character has a reason to lie" will make it feel less arbitrary? Again, you're the player and this is your move that gathers info on people. How do you know what their reasons to lie are?
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2019 19:04
|
|
|
Jeffrey of YOSPOS posted:"Keep the move the same" won in the earlier poll fwiw - I like the (2e) original better than any of these. Maybe add a caveat for "if the character has a reason to lie" will make it feel less arbitrary? Yes, but the votes for the options to change it outpaced it together
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2019 19:11
|
|
|
EDIT: ^^^ fair point You make inferences about who they are and what things they might be inclined to lie about. If a farmer is suffering because of the overlord, believes you intend to challenge the overlord, and you ask for information that he knows about the overlord, he's probably going to tell the truth. If you ask why he was left unscathed when his neighbors' crops were burned, maybe he's more cagey or gives a half answer. Information being imperfect doesn't mean it's not largely true or not helpful. My point is that I'm cool with a "7+ results in finding things out*, and a 10 removes the asterisk". I think it sounds fun to get mostly true information as a result of a partial success, use what context you can to try and figure out what's really true, and move forward with that. I don't think you need to sweat the blacksmith lying to you for no reason about something he's not motivated to lie about any more than you have to sweat any stranger lying to you IRL. I think it'd cheapen it if the player knows what's a lie right away, and removes the possibility of the ref revealing the lie later at a dramatically appropriate point. I think that's the real loss here, beyond that it doesn't matter that much. I just don't really understand the frustration, it's hard to put myself in the shoes of someone who does - finding out the blacksmith had lied as I'm hosed over by that lie sounds pretty fun and doesn't feel like it takes away the ability to feel heroic to me. Jeffrey of YOSPOS fucked around with this message at 19:19 on Mar 28, 2019 |
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2019 19:15
|
|
|
Jeffrey of YOSPOS posted:You make inferences about who they are and what things they might be inclined to lie about. If a farmer is suffering because of the overlord, believes you intend to challenge the overlord, and you ask for information that he knows about the overlord, he's probably going to tell the truth. EXCITING NON-FRUSTRATING PLOT TWIST! When he said he was a farmer he was ALSO lying! Hopefully you see the issue with allowing for lies on an OOC level.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2019 19:31
|
|
|
If it happens once that someone is disguised as a farmer? Not really bad at all. If every random townsperson lies about who they are, such that it's not reliable to assume a random guy in the kitchen of a bakery who's making bread is a baker, you have hosed up way beyond what changing one move text can fix. Yes, it goes without saying that if the lies are dumb and lead nowhere, that's bad. "Don't make up stuff that's dumb and bad on purpose" is kind of at the core of a system where everyone had narrative control, I don't think that's a reason to change a move which sometimes makes for very cool interesting lies that you believe until they're shown to be wrong. Frodo asking if the ring is safe to carry, and gandalf saying yes was good for Lord of the Rings and didn't detract from the heroics on either of their parts, because the truth revealed itself in ways that fail forward in advancing the heroic story. Trust the players a little.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2019 19:42
|
|
|
Addendum: I am at least convinced that lying by the ref should be something done thoughtfully and not willy-nilly. Accompanying textual guidance in the book might serve the game well if you leave in lying in some form.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2019 19:53
|
|
|
There's literally a threat in the game that's about a village of ordinary looking people who actually hate you. Successful rolls (even mixed successful rolls) to investigate things shouldn't lead to players being assured, OOC, of false things. And what if the baker's a cultist, or a relative of the overlord, or, or, or? There's literally a hundred reasons that someone who doesn't raise suspicion on a normal inspection might lie, so, again, 7-9 results can't be trusted on an OOC level. This isn't a "don't do silly things" issue. This is a "playing the game in a normal way will lead to really frustrating and bad experiences a reasonable portion of the time", which is a bad line of text for a rulebook to have.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2019 20:43
|
|
|
Jeffrey of YOSPOS posted:If it happens once that someone is disguised as a farmer? Not really bad at all. If every random townsperson lies about who they are, such that it's not reliable to assume a random guy in the kitchen of a bakery who's making bread is a baker, you have hosed up way beyond what changing one move text can fix. Yes, it goes without saying that if the lies are dumb and lead nowhere, that's bad. "Don't make up stuff that's dumb and bad on purpose" is kind of at the core of a system where everyone had narrative control, I don't think that's a reason to change a move which sometimes makes for very cool interesting lies that you believe until they're shown to be wrong. Frodo asking if the ring is safe to carry, and gandalf saying yes was good for Lord of the Rings and didn't detract from the heroics on either of their parts, because the truth revealed itself in ways that fail forward in advancing the heroic story. Trust the players a little. Yeah, that's interesting because dramatic irony has it be blatantly clear to you, the reader, and soon enough the hobbitts too, that that is in fact not the case. The known irony is what makes it interesting. Like I said, I'd be fine if I knew which information was false, albiet not how false.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2019 20:57
|
|
|
Yeah, you have to keep in mind that on ground level, from the players' POV, you are just pulling the rug from under them.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2019 21:30
|
|
|
Alright, I've done a lot of thinking on this, and right now, my opinion strongly leans towards this as the new Speak Softly: My reasoning is as follows. 1) Its the version I liked the most from the poll anyway, and it also is winning the poll right now. That said, this poll is very contentious, so I do not think the poll by itself is a strong enough source to base this final decision on. 2) While I liked GimpInBlack's suggestion a lot, it has two major problems. One, the one brought up before about leading to 7-9 results causing small sidequests is a bad feedback loop, and something I'd rather not encourage. And two, Speak Softly is meant to be usable against other players, not just NPCs. With the addition of the Nemesis playbook, this is especially relevant, as rolling moves against them will happen frequently. While "you or they will get into future trouble" is a pretty good downside when talking to NPCs the Overlord can harass, its less useful when your Heir player wants to figure out why your Spider player is being so cagey all the time. 3) The people who do not like the lie REALLY hate the lie, and mostly seem to hate it as a 7-9 result. I feel like moving that awful result to a 6- is appropriate. With this, your 6- result gives you one true answer, one lie, and one refusal or bad news answer, making it an extremely untrustworthy/actually bad outcome, in a way that most closely matches other 6- outcomes. 4) Since the topic of "why would they lie" seems to be in contention, I will include a paragraph in the book after the move defining the lie as follows: When rolling a 6- on Speak Softly, they will lie to you. However, this lie does not need to be on purpose. One of their answers is simply wrong. They might lie because they do not know, or they just want to tell you what they think you want to hear. They might lie to deceive you, or to protect you. They might lie because they can't tell you - someone's keeping them quiet. Just because you rolled a 6- does not mean the person you're talking to hates you, is secretly evil, or wants the fellowship to fail. It just means they told you some bad information. I hope this version of speak softly addresses at least most of the concerns people had. Let me know if you think I can improve on this in any way. If the print processing is going to be delayed by this fix anyway, I might as well keep delaying it to get it right.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2019 21:37
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 22:47 |
|
|
Moving the lie to a 6- result is probably the best answer, because it is essentially making a hard cut against the player (if you wait to reveal the lie, it's combining the Principle "Think off-screen, too" with the cut "Reveal an unwelcome truth"). Definitely was a bit too harsh for a 7-9 result.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2019 23:21
|
|