Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Systematic Questions, PLEASE FOR THE LOVE OF GODS HELP!

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • PenDragon
    replied
    While the book could be slightly better organized it does make it clear, on Origin Page. 116 in the sidebar entitled Antagonists and Variable Stunts, that Antagonists should take complications as a appropriate.

    As for the reason behind this, it is there to reduce system bloat on the storyteller. Antagonists don't need full conditions, complete with Momentum triggers and resolutions and large descriptive text blocks describing the effect. They are leaving it to the storyteller to adjudicate the effect on the fly, which is IMO quite sensible and explicitly benefits the players. As the storyteller you have to work through player's lower level injuries before you can deliver a truly nasty injury complication, with these rules players are not limited in this way, and are free to cut off antagonists arms and sear out their eyes from the get go.

    Leave a comment:


  • Heavy Arms
    replied
    Originally posted by JohanDracys View Post
    Basic Definitions:
    Complication: A negative effect that is a "consequence of success that you can spend threshold successes to overcome
    Condition: A longer term Complication
    Your definition of Condition is inaccurate. Conditions are long term status effects that usually (but not exclusively) result in Complications if negative, Enhancements if positive, or both if mixed (Origins p. 66).

    A complication is applied individually to a roll. It's a 1 and done event.
    No, it isn't. Complications last as long as it makes sense for them to last. Field Complications can be temporary or constant, or Complications from Flaws in crafting objects are there until you try to get rid of them. You cite Field Complications later in this paragraph, contradicting this assertion. If there's razor wire on the top of a fence, it's there. It doesn't go away unless someone changes it. It might only matter for one roll (the character get around it and don't come back out that way), but it doesn't cease to exist after on roll.

    This assertion is stated nowhere... and you point out places where it's clear the book doesn't abide by this reading. So... the book isn't contradicting itself, it's contradiction an interpretation you've added that has no basis in the text.

    In fact there are 3 different versions of this to relate how complications can apply (basic complication, condition, and field), so while throwing dirt in the enemies eyes might cause a 1c complication, the smoke filling the halls in a burning building is a 1-3c field complication.
    There aren't different versions of Complications. There's different sources of Complications with different attendant applications. You label something a Field Complication to denote it applies to everyone in the Field. You label something an equipment Complication to denote it only counts while carrying/using that equipment. Etc. They all still work the same way (spend extra successes, or deal with the consequences).

    So by the literal definition of the books rules as printed, you can throw sand in their eye, but you can't break their arm? How is that supposed to work?
    Since Complications last as long as makes sense (not one and done), if you break an antagonist's arm, they suffer a Complication to actions that require using that arm until it makes sense for that to end. Simple.

    I'm trying to prepare to run combat (fairly) for my players, and since there is a glaring rules issue that immunizes Antagonists from the core combat mechanic player characters obey I sought help.
    You got help. You're reading the book incorrectly. The book explicitly states that while antagonists don't suffer Injury Conditions, they can still have Complications applied to them when they're injured. The passage has been cited for you. You're arguing a position with no basis in the text.

    It's not some sadistic want to destroy...
    For someone flaunting their skills and education, please Google "destructive testing" and get back to me for how justified you are in claiming I called your desire sadistic just because you ran into a phrase you don't know the definition of or how it's used.

    But this book, as written is not reconcilable.
    And yet... we all keep pointing out how easy it is to reconcile these things.

    So since I have now explained the basic reading of the Base Systematic, The Combat Chapter, and the Antagonists Chapter and their interactions, perhaps someone else can treat me like a fool and describe how I'm just an idiot being snippy because I read a book, and expected it to make sense.
    We're not treating you like an idiot.

    We're treating you like someone that's done nothing but whine and complain, and be obnoxiously and purposefully obtuse. You ask for help, and respond with derision, passive aggression, and similarly unpleasantness when you get it.

    Respect goes both ways, and you've demonstrated you have none for anyone that doesn't kowtow to your entitlement... so I'm not surprised you can't seem to grasp why so many people here aren't treating you like the royalty you seem to think you are above.
    Last edited by Heavy Arms; 05-23-2019, 03:37 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • MoroseMorgan
    replied
    Originally posted by JohanDracys View Post

    And as Morose quotes on page 116, even in the combat chapter is makes it explicitly clear that Antagonists don't suffer from injury conditions.
    I think you have the wrong reading of that. My quote explicitly shows that while they don't suffer injury conditions, they do suffer from Complications and their associated penalties to actions, which was the initial complaint, from my understanding.

    It is a clearly explained rule with a clear exception, with a suggested use case. While there are some ambiguous rulings in the book, this isn't one of them, although it would have been helpful to reiterate this sidebar in the antagonists section in my opinion.

    Leave a comment:


  • Possessed
    replied
    I am truly sorry, mate. But the fact is that while true that the books are far from perfect, and somethings are a bit all over the place, this particular matter is quite clear. Personally I cannot see how much clearer it should be than what has been already quoted. And before you accuse me of insulting you or your intelligence I assure you I am doing neither.

    I am, and to my understanding many others are as well, like you in that when I started playing rpgs the rulebooks were just that, rulebooks. Everything had a rule and if it didn’t in worst scenario it was interpreted as something you were unable to do and not only that but there was a chart for everything, you botched a roll and you had to roll that specific abilities botch chart to see what happened, you rolled a critical success and it was the same. There were whole books of charts. Rifts had loopholes and such but by the time I was gming it I was past that phase where I blindly followed the book and if someone told me they would Dodge the missile barrage, well that just didn’t happen because you do not Dodge missile barrages.

    But now times have changed and we have moved to more narrative and lighter rules and games. These often require quite different approach to both reading and leading than the old rules heavy games. Scion is a narrative game and it is storybased game and while not rules light exactly it has still moved away from strict rulebook games of yore. It’s best to read with all that in mind. That being said in my personal reading this particular matter is made quite clear in the book.

    Originally posted by Origin- Page 116
    Antagonists don’t per se suffer from Injury
    Conditions, but they should have Complications
    penalties applied to them as necessary.
    It quite clearly, in my personal opinion, tells us that while Antagonists do not suffer from Injury complications the ST, or was it SG in Scion, should give them complications penalties as appropriate. So if a player described his attack as snapping the npc’s arm the ST should give that npc complications penalties suited to a broken arm even though the npc does not infact have the Broken Arm Condition. It really is as simple as that. Naturally though YMMV and it seems that it truly does vary conserning this particular matter at least, but the fact is that is what the book has to say about the matter. Whether you choose to accept it and move on or decide to House rule Antagonists as being susceptible to Injury Conditions or comeup with another ruling that satisfies you is up to you, but we really cannot do much more than what we already have to help you with the matter.

    Leave a comment:


  • Florin
    replied
    Have you tried running a combat with the system? I think part of the problem you're having is so much of the system is driven by the narrative of the combat. It's hard to just white-room things and attempt to analyze them logically. The narrative is the driving force in a Storypath game, not the rulebook, which means sometimes logic gets wonky.

    As an example, if the PCs are fighting a giant, and one of them hits the giant with an injury stunt, it's pretty obvious you're going to apply some complication involving the lower-half of the giant's body, because it's what the setup demands based on relative heights. Maybe it moves at half-speed now because its knee was smashed. Maybe it falls prone because the PC hamstrung it. Maybe it gets a -1 to defense rolls because the PC bruised its thigh. What would seem fair to you as storyguide given everything that's happened in the game up to that point? Whatever seems fair to you is how the complication works in this instance. You look at the stunt, how many damage boxes are already filled, how many it has left, and any other extenuating circumstances, and you make a decision.

    As an example of the example, say a scion of Thor is using a hammer and hits the giant with an injury stunt. It's the first round of combat, so the giant is still at full combat capability with, say 5 health boxes. So, it seems reasonable to me the scion of Thor hits the giant in the right foot and hears a bone crack. Cross off one health box for the giant, and now it has a complication causing it to move at half-movement speed if using its right foot. If the giant had already been injured for 3 health levels, then I might have ruled the scion of Thor hit the giant in the kneecap, shattering it, causing it to fall prone and making it unable to get up, giving it a complication of -2 to its Defense rolls and losing its ability to move, and it also now has 4 health boxes filled.

    If the scion of Thor had been wielding two swords instead, it might hamstring the giant or cut an artery in its thigh, with complications simulating those types of wounds instead. Obviously at first, you're going to probably either over- or underestimate the severity of complications you need to apply. You'll get the hang of it, though.

    Seriously, stop trying to figure out the logic of specific wording in the books and try it out, see what feels right to you. Does it feel better to you to think of the complications you give antagonists as injury conditions? Then use that term in your brain to make it make sense to you. Just remember you don't have to worry about the momentum or resolution portions of injury conditions when you're running antagonists.

    Leave a comment:


  • JohanDracys
    replied
    Originally posted by Florin View Post
    Here is a bare-bones breakdown which might help:

    1. Antagonists cannot get Injury Conditions
    2. When damaged, antagonists should get Complications based on the narrative sense of the injuries.
    3. When an Antagonist's damage boxes are full, they are Taken Out.

    None of those are mutually exclusive. Not all complications come from conditions. So, you can have complications without conditions. Which means you can give complications to an antagonist without giving them an injury condition.

    Thank you for actually responding with respect unlike others. I still don't agree, but let me break down the why, and it's not because of some 'destructive need' to rip apart a book that obviously wasn't properly tested. I really don't care about the final product. I've played good systems and bad. Everything from Rifts to Dark Heresy to AD&D (2-5) to In Nomine. In Nomine is so rediculously rules vague and Rifts is so contradictory and unbalanced to the point of being insane. And they were designed that way. The developers admit it. But once you learn the game you can enjoy it. This game... despite whatever good I might find (and me and my players have found things we like), has very glaring and obvious contradictory entries when it does actually manage to give a black and white game definition. But lets try and make my own succinct break down:

    Basic Definitions:
    Complication: A negative effect that is a "consequence of success that you can spend threshold successes to overcome
    Condition: A longer term Complication

    Now, I still don't know how you can spend successes to overcome a negative to your own defense, or how many successes are needed to remove a halving of speed, but that's really a different question. Right now I'm directly concerned with the fact that Antagonists are listed as Never taking Injury Conditions.

    So As I read the rules to this book: A complication is applied individually to a roll. It's a 1 and done event. In fact there are 3 different versions of this to relate how complications can apply (basic complication, condition, and field), so while throwing dirt in the enemies eyes might cause a 1c complication, the smoke filling the halls in a burning building is a 1-3c field complication. Now Since we are discussing Injury Conditions, I'll return to the issue directly at hand: Under resolving damage the book describes all Injury conditions as complication severities (reading it right now) as Bruised, Injured, and Maimed. Then further goes on to talk about the narrative. Since I am only interested in the systematic at the moment, the operative part of this paragraph is the fact that the "Bruised, Injured, and Maimed" complication values that everybody is clinging to as "rules" are in fact part of and under the overall umbrella of the Injury Condition. They are the Complication of having an Injury Condition.

    Basic system of combat as described in book: Attack succeeds, resolve damage: do 1 damage, Character takes 1 Injury Condition. The condition itself is not the box. That is how it's marked. The condition is the long term complication that can only be resolved by first aid, healing magic, or waiting (aka natural healing) a set amount (again ignoring a question about downgrading or removal since I'm focused on 1 specific mechanic.)

    All these complications are continuously described in the book as Conditions levels.

    Now we get to the Antagonists, who as I've pointed out repeatedly, the book says do not take Injury conditions. So by the literal definition of the books rules as printed, you can throw sand in their eye, but you can't break their arm? How is that supposed to work?

    I am literally reading the book, and for that Milo and Heavy Arms continuously condescend, because I went to school, went to college, studied English, and applied those skills to the material I read. I'm trying to prepare to run combat (fairly) for my players, and since there is a glaring rules issue that immunizes Antagonists from the core combat mechanic player characters obey I sought help. It's not some sadistic want to destroy... my players want to play this game. And since my players are my god, I will run to the best of my abilities. But this book, as written is not reconcilable. In Rifts there was a rules loophole in the core rulebook that allowed characters to dodge missile barrages of 8+. This rule remained for years until the Ultimate Edition clarified that that was not in fact the case (you can, as a Juicer, still auto dodge a surprise laser attack from a satellite in low orbit).

    So since I have now explained the basic reading of the Base Systematic, The Combat Chapter, and the Antagonists Chapter and their interactions, perhaps someone else can treat me like a fool and describe how I'm just an idiot being snippy because I read a book, and expected it to make sense.

    Leave a comment:


  • Florin
    replied
    Here is a bare-bones breakdown which might help:

    1. Antagonists cannot get Injury Conditions
    2. When damaged, antagonists should get Complications based on the narrative sense of the injuries.
    3. When an Antagonist's damage boxes are full, they are Taken Out.

    None of those are mutually exclusive. Not all complications come from conditions. So, you can have complications without conditions. Which means you can give complications to an antagonist without giving them an injury condition.

    Leave a comment:


  • milo v3
    replied
    Originally posted by JohanDracys View Post



    Yay! That was very... unhelpful. So I'm the village idiot because I read a book and understood the words that were written down?
    Nothing in my post suggested that at all. So I'm very confused by this. I am saying you are overthinking the words written down and are ascribing them with meaning past that which the book is actually presenting, which leads you to incorrect conclusions. There was also no hostility in my response at all, so I don't really understand why you are saying things like "village idiot".

    Definition per book for Condition: A longer term status (not to be confused with Persistent Condition) lingers on a character. Can either be an enhancement or complication. In the case of Injury conditions these are complications that only resolve once the character receives first aid/healing magic/wait. And as I point out, 3...yes 3 different places in the book point out that Antagonists do not suffer these conditions (and therefor do not suffer the complications of the conditions). It's explicit. The book says it. So, either every person who has answered me on this thread is intuitively house- ruling an obvious problem in the book, or there is something in the book I missed.
    The bolded is the part in error. Complications exist outside of the context of conditions. You can have complications without suffering from a condition. I do feel like the information should have be reprinted in the antagonists section rather than just mentioned in a sidebar in a section of combat that isn't actually the section on damage, but you are adding things to the text that isn't there.

    "Antagonists don’t per se suffer from Injury Conditions, but they should have Complications penalties applied to them as necessary." means that they don't suffer from Injury conditions, but they have Complication penalties applied to them if the attack would do that. Simple as that. Doesn't break anything, since Complications can come from many methods, not just conditions, the developers just don't want enemies getting the player-specific mechanic of conditions because condition rules are specifically a complication + how it interacts with the player-only mechanic of Momentum.

    Leave a comment:


  • Heavy Arms
    replied
    Originally posted by JohanDracys View Post
    And as I point out, 3...yes 3 different places in the book point out that Antagonists do not suffer these conditions (and therefor do not suffer the complications of the conditions). It's explicit. The book says it. So, either every person who has answered me on this thread is intuitively house- ruling an obvious problem in the book, or there is something in the book I missed.
    Yes, you are missing something. Something quoted and page referenced for you already:

    "Antagonists don’t per se suffer from Injury Conditions, but they should have Complications penalties applied to them as necessary."

    Emphasis mine.

    So yes, the book does say directly that, "and therefor do not suffer the complications..." is not an accurate reading of the text. When antagonists take damage, they suffer complications. It's not treated as conditions; since conditions include mechanics not worth tracking for NPCs.

    As said, you're overthinking things.

    ...and continue to be frustrated.
    Your frustrated for a pretty obvious and simple reason:

    This isn't a game made by people that care about writing for people that want to go through destructive testing of a game before bothering to get around to playing it. A lot of game designers these days don't, because it's always a losing proposition since there's always someone on the Internet that's going to argue something isn't clear enough or rigorous enough or etc. and time spent trying to please them is a black hole you don't want to fall into. You've made it clear you're the type of person that prefers to stress test the game like that first. So you're left with the choice of find a way to compromise your preferred approach.and enjoy Scion 2e on it's merits, or not and never be happy with it.

    Getting snippy with us because you don't like that we figured out the answers by reading the text under the framework it was intended to be read under (focusing on the interpretations that create the most fun in play instead of worrying about how 'thin' they are) isn't going to "shame" us into feeling like the bad guys here.

    Take if from someone that will openly admit to being closer to the "low bar to meet to be a poster that doesn't get kicked off the board," instead of someone to really look up to: you get what you give. You give a ton of negativity, and you're getting it back.

    Leave a comment:


  • JohanDracys
    replied
    Originally posted by milo v3 View Post
    Dude, you're over thinking it. They get the complications, but they don't get the actual conditions themselves with full on condition mechanics. It's literally that simple.

    A burger might contain a beef patty, but the world doesn't suddenly not make sense just because you can have a beef patty without buying an entire burger.


    Yay! That was very... unhelpful. So I'm the village idiot because I read a book and understood the words that were written down?

    Definition per book for Condition: A longer term status (not to be confused with Persistent Condition) lingers on a character. Can either be an enhancement or complication. In the case of Injury conditions these are complications that only resolve once the character receives first aid/healing magic/wait. And as I point out, 3...yes 3 different places in the book point out that Antagonists do not suffer these conditions (and therefor do not suffer the complications of the conditions). It's explicit. The book says it. So, either every person who has answered me on this thread is intuitively house- ruling an obvious problem in the book, or there is something in the book I missed.

    After much brow beating the people here managed to convince me that the combat section didn't actively contradict itself with lethal tags and Injury conditions (something even one of my players actually disagrees with btw) and I was willing to accept that thin interpretation of the entries in the book. But here it's quite clear. And I had a week to mull it, look at the posts here, and continue to be frustrated.

    Leave a comment:


  • milo v3
    replied
    Dude, you're over thinking it. They get the complications, but they don't get the actual conditions themselves with full on condition mechanics. It's literally that simple.

    A burger might contain a beef patty, but the world doesn't suddenly not make sense just because you can have a beef patty without buying an entire burger.
    Last edited by milo v3; 05-23-2019, 01:28 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • JohanDracys
    replied
    Originally posted by MoroseMorgan View Post
    In case you are able to come back and your frustration has subsided, or just for posterity and anyone else looking through this thread-

    Origin- Page 116
    "Antagonists don’t per se suffer from Injury
    Conditions, but they should have Complications
    penalties applied to them as necessary."

    It's in the sidebar about Antagonists.
    Thank you. This actually was the most direct answer to any question I've gotten for this system. And while it only further complicates my issue, it was a direct response. I appreciate that.

    Originally posted by Mateus Luz View Post

    Thats one of the points, the penalties don't need to be -1, -2, -4, it can be any number. Lets say your target is a mechanical automato, the penalties it suffers is different from the ones a regular person would. The same way you can chose with complication you will suffer when you get hit, the SG can pick the proper penalty the antagonist will receive.
    This is a problem since the book explicitly details that Antagonists do not in any way suffer injury conditions. It is one of the very few black and white areas of the book that I understand (even if I can't reconcile with the rest of the combat system).

    Originally posted by Kyman201 View Post
    They can be if it makes sense. Remember that -1 is a Mild Penalty that you slap on first the first injuries inflicted on the Antagonist while -4 is a Large Penalty that you would use to represent the Antagonist near death.
    This is again applying the combat rules of characters, and not the ones that explicitly described about how an antagonist takes damage.

    Scion Origin pg 144 Quote "Antagonists do not have Injury Conditions, but are Taken Out when their last Health Box is filled."
    This is further enforced by the section on Armor for Antagonists on pg 146 Quote "When a Quality of Flair gives Antagonists Hard Armor, they receive two extra Health Boxes rather than two extra Bruised Injury Complications"

    And as Morose quotes on page 116, even in the combat chapter is makes it explicitly clear that Antagonists don't suffer from injury conditions.

    Now the sidebar does say they should have complications assigned to them as necessary. Which if you look through resolving damage the complications for Bruised, Injured, and Maimed are described but under the umbrella of Injury Conditions. Since the book again explicitly states this mechanic does not apply to antagonists, these complication severities cannot be ruled to apply using the Rules as Written.

    For a Player and Game Master who grew up writing character sheets in pen and expecting my game books to actually have... rules... this book is already an issue for me. But since my players insist on stripping my sanity away with it, and when I do actually find good parts of this thing even I enjoy it... I still need some translation that isn't someone inferring a rule that clearly isn't present.

    Leave a comment:


  • milo v3
    replied
    Originally posted by Nevalie View Post
    So... Is anyone planning to make a "Quick Guide" for Hero-level character creation? I've read that stuff all together six times now and wanted to create a few Scions to learn how to actually apply the rules and... Maybe I'm missing some key lines or so, but I just can't wrap my mind and the whole purview and boons bit.
    Also a quick reference for birthrights would be appreciated... While I managed to get it in the end, I'm not sure I'd be able to help my players without intensive rereading on the spot.
    1. Pick Concept
    2. Make three paths for your character. Each with three skills associated with them.
    2.1. First Path corresponds to your character’s origin, who they were before the story started.
    2.2 The second corresponds to their role, who they are now.
    2.3 The third corresponds to their pantheon, how they relate to the gods and myths of their patron’s pantheon. Must include your two pantheon skills in your three associated skills.
    3. Pick a path, get 3 skill dots in each skill associated with that path. Pick a second path, 2 dots each skill. Your third path's skills gets 1 dot each.
    3.1. Skills with 3+ dots get a specialty.
    4. Start with 1 dot in each attribute.
    4.1. Assign Mental/Physical/Social into primary, secondary, and teritary. Primary gets 6 dots to spend, 2nd gets 4, 3rd gets 2.
    4.2. Choose Force/Finesse/Resistance. Each attribute under that approach gets 2 free dots. Excess dots go to other attributes of the same approach.
    5. Pick 3 callings. One must be from parent.
    5.1 Spend 5 points on your three callings.
    5.2 Get a heroic knack for each dot you put in each calling. Can take an immortal knack, but it counts as 2.
    6. Spend 7 dots on relics, creatures, followers, and guides.
    7. You get a purview from your pantheon and you get to pick one purview from your parent. You get the innate benefits listed for those purviews and can perform marvels with those purview. (IMO you should pick purviews before step 6).
    8. Choose 2 boons, that can be from any purview you have.
    9. Legend 1, Middle Virtue, calculate health and defence.
    9.1. Get 5 extra skill dots to spend and an extra attribute dot.
    9.2. Get either 2 extra knacks or 4 points of birthrights.

    Not really sure what to say about the birthrights that isn't just directly repeating the sections.
    Last edited by milo v3; 05-20-2019, 02:33 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Mateus Luz
    replied
    Originally posted by Nevalie View Post
    So... Is anyone planning to make a "Quick Guide" for Hero-level character creation? I've read that stuff all together six times now and wanted to create a few Scions to learn how to actually apply the rules and... Maybe I'm missing some key lines or so, but I just can't wrap my mind and the whole purview and boons bit.
    Also a quick reference for birthrights would be appreciated... While I managed to get it in the end, I'm not sure I'd be able to help my players without intensive rereading on the spot.
    I honestly would use the Origin Quick Guide (as you are asking for a Hero, you probably have the Origin one) and add the One for transforming Origin Tier in Hero Tier.

    About the guide of BRs. I would also enjoy.

    Leave a comment:


  • Nevalie
    replied
    So... Is anyone planning to make a "Quick Guide" for Hero-level character creation? I've read that stuff all together six times now and wanted to create a few Scions to learn how to actually apply the rules and... Maybe I'm missing some key lines or so, but I just can't wrap my mind and the whole purview and boons bit.
    Also a quick reference for birthrights would be appreciated... While I managed to get it in the end, I'm not sure I'd be able to help my players without intensive rereading on the spot.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X