I will have most sections laid out by then, and we can see how to best order and organize the various sections.
The biggest thing that is still up in the air for the Children of Eriu is the board organization. I have been trying out quite a few since we made the pregens last year. Here are the options so far:
1) 4 boards per archetype: Actives, Passives, Social and Skills - that means 4 bindings per rune (2019 version)
2) 2 boards per archetype: Actives/Social & Passives/Skills - that means 2 bindings per rune and 2 types of abilities sharing a board.
3) 2 boards per archetype: Actives/Social/Skills (Talents) & Passives - that means 2 bindings per rune and all 3 Talents sharing a board.
4) 1 massive board per archetype: a full mix of all 4 bindings all over the place and each spec starts somewhere unique on this massive 2-page board.
There are other permutations of these ideas, but you get the point. Which would you lean towards and why?
Maybe I'll make this into a forum poll and invite more peeps.
I'll leave the Swarm rules for our other thread, but as for the Talents working the same way, that was my big goal after DotN. That's why LotA actually had a skill with meta tags. I wanted Social, Actives and Skills to work with one unified mechanic. So how do you propose the logical concepts ordered in the rules chapter?jstomel wrote:So, in the most recent RGS3 rules I have read both skills and social abilities have meta tags and work off of the same basic calculation as an attack or other combat action. As far as I can tell, when you level your essence you pick two things, a passive and a talent (which could be an active power, a skill, or a social ability). In that case, it makes sense that all talents should mechanically work the same, or at least similarly. If skills, active powers, and social abilities are each going to me their own thing then that's fine and they can all have their own mechanics, but that isn't the way the rule set seemed to be developing.
I think that passives altering skills is totally doable. In fact, the same passive could alter all three (active power, skill, and social) when they share a situation. I can envision a passive called "group effort" or somesuch that applies a +1AV mod whenever three or more dwellers are working together to accomplish the same goal, wether that is attacking the same monster, convincing the guards to let them in to a fort, or forging a blade.
As for maintaining compatibility with RGS2, that might be more difficult. But I don't think that the change under discussion alters that problem in either direction. On the other hand, I find that RGS2 sometimes has difficulty being compatible with itself, especially if you are using stuff from LotA and FotN:R together. Swarm rules just don't work with half the conditions out there and the simplified combat rules make some powers useless and others super powerful.
Well if we start with Talents, I think we're putting the cart before the horse. I strongly believe we need to start with Cinematic actions first, and even let the player know that they can start playing after reading that section and learn the rest as they go.Panjumanju wrote:So, if I understand you right, the kind of structure you're suggesting is:jstomel wrote:...all active powers are talents, which can be skills, powers, or social abilities. They all have meta tags, are played as a rune chain from a wyrd, and generate an Action Value mechanic. Passive powers could affect skills, powers, social abilities, or any combination of them. It looks to me like when you level up your essence you pick a new (or increase rank in) talent and a new passive. The talent could be a skill, power, or social. The passive is its own thing.
1. Talents (Active by default)
* Social Ability
2. Passive Powers
* Augment any of the above
Is that right?
It's an interesting idea. The framework of RGS2 was:
1. Active Power (things you activate)
2. Passive Power (always on)
3. Skill (typically outside of combat, no meta tags)
In restructuring to accomodate the social aspect (Social Ability? Social accumen? Social skills? The term does not quite stick yet) the problem is constructing a new information hierarchy for RGS3 that makes sense but can co-exists with the simpler RGS2.
But you make a solid point. If all the Talents are going to work the same way, which they're doing on purpose, then why aren't they all sorted under Talents? If that's the case I feel like Passive Powers need a new name, because they want to be able to augment Powers, Social Blah-Blahs, and maybe even Skills. (Is that too much? Getting them to alter Skills? I'm not sure off the top of my head if Skills could use any tweaks other than more +1s. Maybe the way that the Blacksmith augments some skills could be Passive Skill-Powers?)
The rules are solid. It's just a case of how best to present them.
I think you're onto something here, so let me play devil's advocate, how about rolling Skills into Actives as well, do away with the "Active" monicker and call them all talents, with sub-types of: spells, social, skill, manoeuvre, etc...Panjumanju wrote:I support the idea of making [Social] an sub-type like [Manoeuvre] or [Spell]. For many reasons.
On the player end, it's easier to understand. It maintains the dichotomy of Active Powers and Passive Powers. Some of those Powers may be social, some magic, some just fancy physical maneuvers. It's all good - what's operative is whether they are governed by an Active behaviour or a passive. That makes a lot of sense to players, as well as from a design perspective.
Looking at where RGS3 is going, I'd say we'd have to do this anyway, down the line, if not this time, if we wanted to have both Active Powers that are Social and Passive Powers that are Social. Currently, the Social mechanics are not much more or a departure than Mental damage or Spiritual damage. What we don't want is people having to flip through several sections to look up what their powers can do - which is already the biggest player-end slowdown in the entire FotN system.
At the end of the day it's just more streamlined. If we want Social offencive and defensive techniques to be used as a core part of the systme; make it a part of the core. They're Powers, like any other, and should be folded into that architecture, not trying to hover around outside it.
If it conceptually makes sense, and all that has to change is the layout, the damn the layout. Do it once, do it right. Make the changes that will help save player and GM time for the next ten years.
This way it's Talents with many sub-types and Passives.
This is more than a section re-org, but I have to rewrite tons of content, so the question is: is the juice worth the (proverbial) squeeze?
If powers/social lookups is time-consuming, we can just section part of the book as Talents and place everything in the in alphabetical order.
What are other good reasons for this re-org?
Yes all previous books will be 100% usable, and you will be able to "bolt-on" Social powers to existing RGS2 dwellers to give them all of the best innovations of 3.0creativehum wrote:Hi,
I got the email for the Creatures Kickstarter.
Creatures from Fairy-Tale and Myth FOTN will contain a new application of the RGS rules.
I can use the materials in the FotN:R books I already have, but replace some/all of the current RGS rules found in FotN:R books with the new rules. I'm assuming the spells, skills, and abilities will remain pretty much the same, but that the rules "around" their use will be altered.
Is this pretty much correct?
The goal is to allow players playing dwellers from Core Rulebook to play alongside players with archetypes from the Children of Eriu and the process shoudl require minimal Norn acrobatics.