jstomel wrote:I think you would end up with a lot of runes in your bag that aren't bound to anything.
That is my concern also. Under this model you could, technically, have a rune mapped to 3 different Passives and then the symbol itself would serve no purpose in the game until it gets mapped to something more active.
I think that lessens the impact of the mechanics on a semiotic level—not to get too hifalutin—just that it would feel
jstomel wrote:I also think you might be short-selling the versatility of passives by assuming that they only affect one type of ability or action. I can envision that there are Active spells, Social spells, and Skill spells, and a passive might affect all <spell> type abilities, whether they are active, social, or skill.
I would love that, but I'm not sure the system has that much...integrated modularity? What you're talking about certainly involves making "social" an action type like "seith spell" or "manoeuvre". I don't know what Andrew has made a decision on that yet.
As an argument against that design direction: you'd want the various Archetype boards to always work together, no matter what. If Passives get so specific as, for example: "Street Survival: The skill Survival: Urban can be used to find food in urban environments just as Survival: Wilderness." But what if the character never picked Survival: Urban? The character might end up with a Passive that is dependant on a specific aspect from the active board that they do not have. I've seen players pick things they didn't necessarily want on the board en route to things they really want; under this structure that may result in orphaned abilities.
Otherwise I think it's a great idea, but not easy to pull off from a design perspective considering how entrenched the rules are in RGS2, for good and for ill.
(3) Skills + Skill boosting Passives...Boards 1 and 2 make immediate sense, but 3 takes some imagination. This approach gives us a 1:1 option of boosting your baseline or boosting your possible max value. Thoughts?
I largely agree with jstomel's reasons, but another reason I think this won't work is: there are only about 30 skills in RGS2. Let's assume you added 20 more and made 50. Under RGS3 you can increase the rank in something you already have. That means there's no longer a reason to have a Skill appear multiple times on a Skill board. The grids are, what, 7x7? That's almost 50 spaces. Every Archetype, roughly speaking, would have access to every Skill. I'm afraid Skills, under this new change—of which I approve, it'll be awesome, but—are not enough to support a board on their own, even with Passives.
jstomel wrote:Here is what I would propose: Option 3 for RGS3. Actives (combat), Socials, and Skills) on one board, Passives (that could affect any or all of the above) on a second board.
I agree that at least one board must be entirely "Active". I do think Skills would do better to share well with Passives. But this is a good structure nonetheless.
jstomel wrote:Then have a single social board with some of the most typical social abilities for RGS2.5 and declare that this is a bonus board accessible to all RGS2 archetypes and whenever they increase (or rebind) an essence rune they may bind a rune to the social bonus board instead of to an Active or a Skill, at their option. This would maintain some level of cross playability between RGS2&3, with each playing by their own rules. A headache for the Norn, but anything likely will be.
Sounds like it would add a whole lot more powers to the already potentially overloaded RGS2 characters. Still that does sound like the path of least resistence for getting RGS2 characters social abilities.