Posts made by Seraphim73

@arkandel I remember it. As someone who wasn't into the channeling side of things until the last couple of years of my 20 years on WoT games, I thought it was a kind of bleh way for male channelers to avoid the most interesting thing about being a male channeler. Granted, I'm also the weirdo who RPed through a male channeler rotting and going mad and enjoyed it greatly. (The Tai Sedai were a homebrew concept of 'True Servants' who were mixed male and female channelers from, as I recall, a mirror world where Saidin was never tainted by the Dark One.)

For me at least, part of the fun of playing in many established canon is the ability to interact with events and/or characters that I remember from that canon. I wouldn't be particularly interested in a Post-WoT WoT game, because it wouldn't feel like WoT to me. Strangely, The Golden Crane's setting still feels like WoT to me, even those it's before the books -- probably because it still has the same 'realities' of the world.

@girlcalledblu Yeah, you definitely need lots of ongoing storylines (not just singular events) to make up for the lack of canon plot. In some ways it's even worse than in an original theme game, because players who know the canon plot want to see things just as cool as that in the world. But if you try to replicate the canon plot in your mirror universe, you end up with expies and too-familiar plotlines with the serial numbers filed off (and most of us aren't as good of writers as the folks who get paid to do it).

I generally think that if you want to do a mirror universe, you've got to have several game-wide storylines plotted out, and have to have enough storytellers prepared to run them. Granted, that's about the same as an original theme game, but you'll have players who know the setting at least -- and that can be both good and bad (they can help run events, but they'll be more judgmental because they're expecting something like canon).

@krmbm I'm also a big fan of the Mirror Universe Method. Either replace all the book characters (including random nobles), or just remove the Dragon and his friends and see how things run with the PCs in place instead.

I also enjoy the Zeppo Method (most often used in Star Wars) where major events of the canon still happen -- to a point -- and the PCs are tasked with enabling those things to happen. From the Star Wars perspective, sure, Luke's going to blow up the first Death Star, but the PCs have to steal the X-Wings that Red Squadron flies, have to destroy an Imperial scouting mission to Yavin IV, and have to defend the temple after the Death Star explodes.

In either case, the canon events shift subtly based on PC actions, but they still stay close enough to canon that the setting is recognizable if someone who knows canon joins the game a year or two later.

@three-eyed-crow Yeah. I think that an Age of Legends MUSH... you might as well just make it a sci-fantasy original theme MUSH. There's not enough information about it to be useful, but there's enough to leave hang-ups.

@girlcalledblu said in Wheel of Time MU*:

Honestly, I'd be curious to see how a WoT game might work just using a traits system and pocket dice.

For the last five or six years (at least), A Moment in Tyme ran pretty much just like that... except without even a dice system. It just (basically) had those three stats I mentioned before. It worked fine. I think you could honestly use FS3 and versus rolls for Wheel of Time just fine... just don't use the autocombat system. I mean, you'd be losing what I think is the coolest part of FS3, but you could do it, and still have all of the chargen, XP, and roll parts of FS3. Heck, you could even just use FS3 to keep track of the things @Sunny and @krmbm were talking about and not worry about dice at all.

@wildbaboons said in Wheel of Time MU*:

(the nazi punching one I can't remember the name of, for example)

The Savage Skies. It's actually the third FS3 game that Blu and I have opened that has magic in it (one in FS3.2 and now two in FS3.3). In each of those three cases (The Fifth World, The Eighth Sea, and The Savage Skies), we designed the magic system around what FS3 could do.

In The Fifth World (FS3.2), we just made magic like any other weapon or armor, and put severe limits on what magic users could do/wear. We went too far on our restrictions on that game, because I tend to be leery of magic being too powerful.

In The Eighth Sea (super-early FS3.3), we added a few other codified things that magic users could do besides just weapons (no armor, since it was a pirate game and not many people wore armor), but they were all outside of combat, or just provided small modifiers in combat. Magic characters could only use their AoE attacks a few times, and their more powerful single-target attacks a few more times, but both had limited "ammo," while the defensive "weapon" did not. We had exhaustion as a consequence of magic use, but it was all RPed, not coded. I think this was actually a very interesting magic system for FS3, even if it required a little ammo manipulation and uncoded rules. Sadly, we leaned too hard into monster-hunting and not hard enough into piracy on our pirate game, and all of the Staff had various life crises at the same time. The rules are still up at: http://the8thsea.wikidot.com/faith.

In The Savage Skies, we got a little more ambitious and included Advantages to track the ability to do different types of magic and full spell lists. But still, everything was designed to work inside the FS3 system; there was no magic healing, no damage-inducing shields, no immobilizing people (although that could be done with Distract, I suppose), no lifting people with telekinesis (mostly because we didn't have damage rules for dropping people off a zeppelin), no countering spells in combat, and other limitations imposed by the system. Exhaustion was mentioned, but not coded. Every character had the capability to learn magic, so we dodged balance issues in that way, but we still made magical attacks in the same realm of damage as pistols, rifles, and the like. I like what we had there, and that's my suggestion on how to generally set up magic on an original-theme game (while tuning it to your own setting, of course).

Unfortunately, if you're using an existing license like Wheel of Time or Lord of the Rings or Shadowrun or D&D, there are going to be some expectations on how magic works that don't fit with what FS3 can do (without a loooooooot of fudging). You either have to make changes to how magic works (you can't slice an attack weave because the system just can't handle it... but you can slice a tied or held weave, because we can handle that by having you use 'combat/pass' and do a versus roll), sometimes very significant changes, or you have to leave a ton of the fudging in the hands of the GMs (which means that your GMs have to really understand your house rules, which cuts down on the number of people who can GM for you), or you can do a lot of specialty coding -- and then you might be better off starting from scratch with your own system that's actually designed to do exactly what you want it to do.

@derp said in Wheel of Time MU*:

This is pretty much what Dev and I decided to do.

We get that it isn't the super dooper complicated channeling system from the books but also:

Considering the length of your 6,000-word Channeling House Rule page, I would say that you've actually got a pretty complicated system at work. Sure, it's not coded, but you've got a 2-3-step Compulsion system, a condition-based exhaustion system, multiple rules about splitting dice pools to split weaves... it's a pretty complicated system.

The system I was talking about literally just had the three numbers. So you'd share them with the person you were sparring/fighting/whatever, and they'd be like, "Okay, so my CMS (Channling Mastery Strength) is lower than yours, but my CMF (Channeling Mastery Finesse) is higher, so I can't stand up to your strength head on, but I can weave faster and better, so I better be dodgy." For non-channelers it was more like, "Okay, my WM (Weaponmastery) is 10 points higher than yours, so I've got a slight edge, but that's it" or "My WM is 50 points lower than yours, you're definitely going to win this fight, let's see how it happens."

@sunny It absolutely could be run like that. Heck, the game that @Arkandel and I played on for... 20 years? Something like that, ended up having (essentially) 3 stats: Channeling Strength, Channeling Finesse, and Weaponmastery. All you did was compare those things and pose accordingly. That had its own issues (you "tested" with Staff to get and raise those stats, so there was room for a TON of favoritism), but it was nice and simple.

@arkandel Oh, what I listed was already a pretty major compromise on channeling in my mind. You can compromise wherever you want on the spectrum from "channeling works like arrows" to "massive in-depth system that gets every nuance right," I was aiming for something right about in the middle of that. I would say that the nuances between Saidin and Saidar can be handled via RP, and same with who weaves are visible to. Learning weaves versus being a wilder wouldn't need to be coded, just handled via House Rules on learning weaves.

Also, sure, Whitecloaks killed Aes Sedai without losing thousands of them, but if you lose a dozen men to kill a single Aes Sedai and her Warder (and I think the number is likely to be a little higher than that unless it's an -awesome- ambush), that suuuuucks on a PC-scale. And it's a major power imbalance if one pair of PCs can kill 12-20 NPCs before they get killed pretty regularly, while a pair of non-channeling PCs can kill... I don't know, 5? 6? NPCs before they get killed, depending on how the dice go.

Also, as @faraday points out... WoT definitely isn't what FS3 is designed for. Even just with my suggestions above, we're beyond Faraday's Simple Skill System.

That wasn't me waiting to be named thrice, I promise. Just running errands and getting breakfast.

You -could- do a version of Wheel of Time with FS3, but like @krmbm said, FS3 isn't really designed for something like WoT. Any relatively-stock implementation of FS3 for WoT would massively water down channeling. Using some version of @Tat's spell system from Spirit Lake would actually get you a good portion of the way there, but there would still need to be some pretty extensive code additions. Off the top of my head:

• Allowing multiple elemental flows and overall Power rating to be used as prerequisites to a single spell.
• Slicing weaves/shielding that allows for a defense (maybe all weaves work like melee attacks where you get Channeling+Reflexes or +Wits as a defense, since that would still give non-channelers the same or similar defense as ranged attacks?).
• Splitting weaves for multiple attacks without using the explosive type (explosive attacks auto-target a single location, which you wouldn't want for multiple weaves).
• Exhaustion/overdrawing system for channeling.
• Broader range of Power ratings than the standard 1-4 Attribute.

... um, I'm sure I could come up with more additions with more than 10 minutes of thought, but that's just what I'd have right off the bat.

And I can't code that. Heck, I couldn't even get my brain in gear to code a simple mana system.

And none of this is going to solve the problem of "channelers are just flat-out better than anyone but the sneakiest non-channeler."

@arkandel said in The Wheel of Time:

It's quite possible authors like George Martin - or Robert Jordan - told a pretty good story. I wish those who adopt them actually showed more respect for it rather than try to 'fix it'.

I agree with almost everything that you said, but I think that it's absolutely possible to fix what's actually wrong with a book series (misogyny, for one) without "fixing" what isn't wrong (giving Perrin a wife and then fridging her for one).

I, who loved (many of) the books (despite their many, many flaws), was terribly disappointed by the finale (but not angry about it). Blu, who did not like the books, enjoyed the finale quite a lot.

I agree with @Arkandel that it feels like some MUSHer's fanfiction of the books, and I think that they've set up some things that will be problematic in the future if they stay anywhere even remotely close to the books (Stilling Moiraine, disconnecting Mat from the dagger/Horn, for instance), and some things that will be problematic no matter if they stay close to the books or not (Healing the dead removes all stakes from the series until they introduce balefire). But if I disconnect myself from the books, the series was enjoyable as generic fantasy fiction, and I'll watch Season 2.

@arkandel I would want the character to have some purpose beyond traumatizing/driving one of the "main" characters. I would like her life to have some impact on the characters around her, not just her death.

Here are two examples, one iffy and one pretty good: ***=Show Spoilers***

@jennkryst said in Testing the Waters for Battletech Interest:

As for setting... I dunno. Everyone hates the Dark Ages but that is also when everyone had mechs armed with giant chainsaws, so there is some appeal. I hear good things about ilClan era, which is the newest. We'll see if Comstar is back to being space wizards or not.

As someone who worked on the Dark Ages CMG, I love the Dark Ages timeline. Not just because of the AgroMechs and the like, but they're pretty awesome. I also have a soft spot for the Republic of the Sphere in that era. I also enjoy the Clan Wars era, and the FedCom Civil War and... look, I just like giant Mechs, okay? But I'm with you in liking the Dark Ages.

@ghost said in Testing the Waters for Battletech Interest:

The modern MUer seems to prefer roleplay that doesn't involve technical systems, doesn't include risky pass/fail combat, and always seems to default to relationship/TS roleplay involving coffee or bar roleplay. Combat and PVP are avoided and the whole point behind Battletech is combat and pvp.

I think you're conflating two things that are not always the same. There are a fair number of "modern MUers" who enjoy combat and risky actions, but who have no interest in PvP. It's perfectly possible to have a playerbase intensely interested in PvE combat, but not interested at all in PvP combat (beyond sparring).

I agree with @faraday that there's a lot of room for a L&L-style BattleTech game (although I would include significant combat elements, rather than light ones -- that may just be me though).

@derp said in The Wheel of Time:

People keep saying this is fridging. It’s not.

I disagree intensely with this statement. The death of Perrin's wife is absolutely fridging. TVTropes defines "Stuffed in the Fridge" as "A loved one is hurt, killed, maimed, assaulted, or otherwise traumatized in order to motivate another character or move their plot forward." That is 100% what happened to Perrin's wife. She was killed in order to traumatize Perrin and to make his choice between Hammer and Axe all the harder. That's like... the definition of fridging.

The fact that the show passes the Bechdel test and is (generally) fantastic about representation doesn't change the fact that this is fridging, and utterly unnecessary. Killing off Master Luhhan would have been fridging too, but this was creating a character specifically to fridge them. That's worse.

Oh, yeah, @Runescryer said the same thing. Well, I already had this typed up, I'm going to keep it. Also, to Runescryer's point, there were bare breasts in the latest episode in the sauna.

@crayon It's only one anecdote, but my wife, who has only read about 40 pages of Book One (although we both played on Cuendillar a ways back), has not gotten lost despite the blur. I've answered a few questions for her, but haven't had to do much.

I have to admit that I was disappointed that they cut Caemlyn/Elayne/Galad/Gawyn/Min entirely and transposed Loial and Logain's procession and a few other things to Tar Valon. But I understand why they did it, especially with only 2 episodes left. Blu and I finished the episode and looked at one another and said, "Other than people getting to Tar Valon and Perrin going wolf-y for the first time, was there anything that actually -happened- in that episode?" I can see @Arkandel's viewpoint of letting the characters breathe, but it felt like a major change in pacing from the previous episodes, and a jarring one at that.

I did allow for some very interesting character and setting explorations though. I like Loial, I like the eterna-gold where the rings go back into it after an Aes Sedai dies (and presumably where new rings are forged from), I found the Warder-funeral very interesting (only one member among them grieves? maybe so that all of the rest can stay combat-ready?).

... I still hate the costuming for the Children of the Light. They look like Peter Jackson's Tolkien elves, not like cavalry soldiers.

@runescryer Exactly all of this with Perrin. Fridging an invented-for-the-show wife was horrible and unnecessary. I get that they're leaning HARD into the hammer-or-axe, but I agree that the wife plotline wasn't necessary at all for that to happen. He's one of my favorite characters, and now I'm just seeing him moping hard all the time.

I agree with those above that the whole "The Dragon Reborn" could be a woman thing could be problematic for the Red Ajah, but it does have the interesting point of making souls genderless (theoretically), which is nice. If someone can be male or female in different turnings of the Wheel, that's very interesting and has strong implications.

To @Arkandel's note, I loved that Alanna and her Warders were a throuple.

@arkandel I would include that sort of information in the mission statement if it was particularly important to the game: "an immersive exploration of Middle Earth, focused on storytelling in the themes of Tolkien's works" (or something like that). In my opinion, the intent of the Mission Statement is to include whatever the Staff thinks is most important.

This is one of the reasons that I think games having a Mission Statement is so important: it tells players what Staff is interested in focusing on and what they should (generally) build their characters around. It sets expectations right off the bat, and lets people decide if it's the game for them. For example, here's our Mission Statement from The Savage Skies:

Fly the unfriendly skies in airplanes that never were, casting spells, dodging dragons, and fighting fascism in the late 1930s. Characters will be members of a "free" militia, The Sky Guard, secretly serving the interests of the French and British governments from an airship base. They will crisscross the Continent finding high adventure.

The Savage Skies MUSH is a game of dieselpunk adventure and modern fantasy. Players might be flying against air pirates one week, gathering information on Nationalist Spanish movements the next, trading spells with minions of the Drachenordnung another, and then treating with a great dragon to convince it to join the cause at the end of the month.

All characters will be explicitly tied to the militia group at the heart of the game, either as a fighting member or one of the smugglers, informants, and hangers-on that work directly with them. From there, you'll work together with other players to create your own adventures within the setting and metaplot provided by Staff.

It tells players that we're going to be focusing on action, adventure, and spy-work, that they all have to be part of the militia, and that they'll be at least partially responsible for creating fun (although Staff will be providing metaplot). It also gives Staff something to go back to for all their major decisions and ask, "Are we fulfilling our Mission Statement with this choice?"

To @Devrex's actual question though, I play for pretty much the exact same reasons as @Pyrephox -- I want to have cinematic action and drama, and to contribute to the plot of the game. I want to see the game world change because of the actions of my character. It doesn't have to be a -big- way, if my character contributes some lasting slang or creates a location that people use, that's enough. I want my character to succeed against NPCs about 2/3 - 3/4 of the time (more or less) and about 51% of the time against PCs (or more truthfully, I want outcomes between PCs that make sense ICly), and I OOCly want to be told when something is simply impossible -- I may have my character keep trying it anyhow, but at least then I know they'll never succeed.

@pyrephox I agree. I think it's incumbent on Head Staff to step in when something like that happens and then make a clear ruling.

But yes, if you're creating your own system, you can try to avoid those spirit-of-the-rules issues.