Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

A Not-Quite-Newb's Read-through of Ex3

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Sometimes how the ST should rule isn't immediately obvious.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Sanctaphrax View Post
      Sometimes how the ST should rule isn't immediately obvious.
      The scenario I was responding to was arguments at the table because 2 people's guts disagreed.

      In the case in question here there shouldn't be any confusion for the Storyteller as obviously the rules are not intended to result in "and you can never use this Charm again". Application of common sense solves the issue.

      (There can be some Charms that result in that, but they are much bigger plot events and are explicit about being one off things)


      Check out my expansion to the Realm of Brass and Shadow

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Sanctaphrax View Post
        Sometimes how the ST should rule isn't immediately obvious.
        Though in the case of the Tiger Style Charm that was mentioned, my ruling would be that you use it once per scene, and can use it again either by using the Dawn Anima "REFRESH!" power, or by meeting the Reset condition.

        Yeah, legalistically, one could read that in order to use the Charm again, period, ever, you need to meet the Reset condition. At my table, I would go against that on the grounds that this particular reading does not make the game more fun or engaging. I don't think many players would want to Join Battle on a new scene and make a note "Oh yeah, this Charm here is still resetting".

        Yeah, sometimes it's not clear, but that's when you discuss it with your players, come to a rule on that sort of thing, and make a note to keep it consistent at your sessions.


        Disclaimer: I'll huff, grump, and defend my position, but if you're having fun I'll never say you're doing it wrong.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Sanctaphrax View Post
          Sometimes how the ST should rule isn't immediately obvious.
          As an ST I approve this message.

          Comment


          • Most rules arguments on the Internet seem to stem from the fear that they'll someday be trapped in a group where they think one of the two interpretations is more jackassish, and everyone else thinks that interpretation is more fun.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Stephen Lea Sheppard View Post
              Most rules arguments on the Internet seem to stem from the fear that they'll someday be trapped in a group where they think one of the two interpretations is more jackassish, and everyone else thinks that interpretation is more fun.
              That's a reasonable and well founded fear. Even worse is when it's roughly even. These things cause arguments, even in otherwise good groups. It's an ugly truth, but it's true.

              Comment


              • I think sometimes it's more well-founded than others. In the case of "A strict legalistic reading of this Charm suggests you can never use it again unless you meet its reset condition," I think the fear is sort of un-founded; at that point, the person insisting on the strict legalistic read is a jerk and we enter "The book can't solve the problem of jerks at the table" territory. In other places, yeah, I'll admit it could have been clearer.

                Comment


                • I dearly hope that the "natural language" stuff will be ditched in future Ex3 charm design.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Aranfan View Post
                    I dearly hope that the "natural language" stuff will be ditched in future Ex3 charm design.
                    Quoted for truth. I'd rather find the charms a little dry to read through than read one and go "... So what the hell does THIS mean?"

                    I mean, I do respect that the creators were going for something new and exciting and different. I do, really. That's why I try to say things like "I would prefer if the charms were focused on mechanical clarity in the future".


                    Disclaimer: I'll huff, grump, and defend my position, but if you're having fun I'll never say you're doing it wrong.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Stephen Lea Sheppard View Post
                      Most rules arguments on the Internet seem to stem from the fear that they'll someday be trapped in a group where they think one of the two interpretations is more jackassish, and everyone else thinks that interpretation is more fun.
                      Part of what I don't like about it is that even now I don't have a really substantially solid grasp of the combat system, or any system really, so I find it hard to rule different cases. I mean on the one hand one ruling might be really insanely powerful, but on the other hand some other charms are also super powerful, so I can't judge if that was the intended reading or not.

                      Then add on to that the minor houserules that I do to help balance things a bit more to my liking anyway, like the rule that decisive attacks against battle groups can only gain initiative break once in a round.*

                      It doesn't happen a huge amount of the time, but enough that it's come up more than half a dozen times, and I hope future charmsets tone it back a bit.

                      *otherwise I've had people at 12 initiative make multi-attacks, destroy a size 3 battlegroup and reset to 19 initiative for their trouble. I find that since decisive attacks bypass all the battlegroup bonuses anyway, they're kind of good enough without also being a source of positive initiative gain.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Stephen Lea Sheppard View Post
                        Most rules arguments on the Internet seem to stem from the fear that they'll someday be trapped in a group where they think one of the two interpretations is more jackassish, and everyone else thinks that interpretation is more fun.
                        I mean, on the one hand, sure, that's arguably true?

                        And on the other hand, it's arguably true because that's a really common occurrence, even in good, healthy games.

                        Like, in the ideal case, with perfectly spherical frictionless players, what happens is exactly what glamourweaver says, and the ST makes a good common-sense ruling, and the game moves on. But in every table I've actually seen, "Wait, I think there's a rule for that, let me dig for ten minutes," is... shall we say, not uncommon, if the rules have any complexity at all.

                        (Plus, there are questions where the answer to "Which is less of a jerk move?" is really hard to suss out. "At exactly what point do Onslaught penalties kick in?" is a fairly important question, with a number of little knock-on effects, but heck if I know what the non-jerk answer to it is.)


                        Homebrew: Lunar Charms for 3e

                        Solar Charm Rewrite (Complete) (Now with Charm cards!)

                        Comment


                        • Seconding both Irked and DrLoveMonkey here.

                          In my group, I have one player whose running a clash-specialized brawler. I have another one running a glass-cannon ambush ninja.

                          The first time an enemy launched a large surprise attack against the brawler, I had to ask whether charm-created clashes could be used against ambush attacks. Go one way, and I've ambush-smashed the brawler. Go the other way, and I will almost certainly reverse-ambush smash the other player at some point in the future.

                          I made a call. I'm not thrilled with it, but going another way won't neccessarily make things better, and I still have no idea what was intended by the rules, or what's actually balanced for play.

                          Comment


                          • What stops you from ruling in favor of the player in both situations? Especially since it isn't a physics engine.


                            I am no longer participating in the community. Please do not contact me about my previous work.

                            Comment


                            • I'm not SkepticTank, but if it was me, it'd be because of consistency. Changing the rules on the fly is generally frowned upon, even if the rule in question is a house rule made by a GM dealing with unclear text rules.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by JayTee View Post
                                I'm not SkepticTank, but if it was me, it'd be because of consistency. Changing the rules on the fly is generally frowned upon, even if the rule in question is a house rule made by a GM dealing with unclear text rules.
                                I guess that's fair. I was thinking that, since it's all meant to simulate a dramatic situation anyway that you might rule it one way or another due to context. Like how you rule that a character is a trivial opponent or not, or who wins when the character and their opponent tie in an opposed check (Better stunt, IIRC) it's all the sort of contextual stuff you rule on the fly, and if you're in the situation where the player isn't gonna have fun just getting trounced in that first round by the ambush, you might say "Y'know what? In these instance, you can activate it."

                                I think you ideally anchor it in some kind of narrative context justification, but it's probably clear that it's for the sake of fun. Another example might be because a character starts a scene by holding a knife to an NPC's throat and they then try to kill them, you could make them go through the rigamarole of rolling to do a Hold at Bay action, or you might just waive it because the chance of failure there wouldn't have been interesting.

                                Not saying anybody has to do this, but it's another way to look at it. If my players were more comfortable having a hard ruling on it, I'd probably just do that too.


                                I am no longer participating in the community. Please do not contact me about my previous work.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X