RGS 3.0

[creativehum]

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?

Thanks!

[andrew]

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.

CfFT&M FOTN edition will have both RGS2 and RGS3 content for each and every creature. The goal with our backwards compatibility is that you can merge both settings and worlds without issues.

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?

Thanks!

CfFT&M FOTN edition will have a rather large primer of RGS3, with my current layout, you're getting most of it. It will allow you to start using some of the new elements like Social Combat by integrating it into RGS2. We will be releasing a free PDF that anyone can download that will be guidelines how you integrate both RGS2+RGS3, but this will be included within the CfFT&M FOTN book. I said it'll be worth the wait!

[jstomel]

Is there any update on when the RGS 3.0 update will hit? I backed tCoE and am about to start my first FotN campaign with a new group. I'd rather use the updated rules from the start than pull a switch on them a few months in.

[andrew]

I'm still doing iconography and layout. The powers will be a lot more visual, as will the rules presentation. Sadly no eta since I'm constantly tinkering with the presentation. This rules set chapter will be inserted in the next few books, so I want it consice and easy to understand.

[andrew]

Alright, so a week of feedback on our April 30 RGS3 drop has been collected and assimilated into the document. I hope to drop a new version on Saturday or Sunday on Patreon, but before I do, there was one thing that has been itching my brain. One piece of feedback came back from 4 people that has me considering a change, but it's major for layout and idea/concept organization, but I'm not sure if it's a big positive impact on the game (it is positive, but just how positive).

The thought was this: Why not merge Social abilities into Active powers as a sub-type like Manoeuvre or Spell. It's a good idea, but is it overhaul the whole chapter into layout #6 good? Looking for some more voices on the topic. The delay could be 2-3 weeks given my current ability to work under pandemic/quarantine (normally would've taken 3-4 days).

[Panjumanju]

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.

//Panjumanju

[jstomel]

The character generation rules aren't in the kickstarter preview yet, so I'm a little confused by how these things are generated. However, it seems to me that this is already done. The way I read the most recent rules drop is that 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.

There is no need to merge social into active power because they are both already subcategories of talents. Doing so would actually demote social abilities. You just need to adjust your organizational thinking to acknowledge talent as the top level domain rather than active power. You can apply the sub-types to any of the talents. A social ability could easily be a social spell ability (sagas are full of those), a social maneuver ability, or a social stance. Skills as well, though they are a bit of a stretch. Rune: scorn pole is clearly a spell skill (i.e. a ritual), as is omens/portents.

[Panjumanju]

...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.

So, if I understand you right, the kind of structure you're suggesting is:

1. Talents (Active by default)
* Skill
* Power
* 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.

//Panjumanju

[jstomel]

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.

[Panjumanju]

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.

That is correct. Go, streamlining rules, go. I can say that with confidence because I don't think that will change at this point.

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.

With very little exception (and exceptions that make a lot of sense) Powers, Skills, and Social Powers all work the same. The differences are things like what happens on the wound track, how to counter, and the timing of them relative to the combat round. I think it's all pretty intuitive.

At first I wasn't keen on Skills getting meta-tags but the allure of all the Talents speaking the same language, the ability to make it easier to use Skills in combat, and generally the neat custom things you could pull off with Skill meta-tags, won me over.

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.

That's a cool idea. My mind immediately goes to Chrono Trigger. It's always sounds like a wonderful idea when you can introduce mechanics that allow player characters to work together, but the reason most RPGs don't have them more is because (with a few exceptions) they're hard to design, hard to manage at the table, and hard for players to impliment unless its the basis of a particular plan. And if it is and it's successful then they feel the need to farm it all the time. So, something you hope will expand play and make it exciting actually becomes a limiting factor.

I'm interested if Andrew has tried this before in one of his playtest groups.

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.

I've never known Swarm Rules to do anything less than make my life easier as a Norn. I don't want to derail this thread, though. If you made a new one pointing out how you think Conditions change under Swarm conditions I'd be very interested to read it.

//Panjumanju