Jump to content

jenh

Member
  • Posts

    75
  • Joined

  • Last visited

1 Follower

Converted

  • RPG Biography
    Freeform, Nobilis, Changeling.
  • Current games
    Freeform, own setting.
  • Location
    -
  • Blurb
    Roleplayer.

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

jenh's Achievements

Newbie

Newbie (1/4)

82

Reputation

  1. This seems a common sentiment among respondents to this thread, and I'm really curious as to why. If the player remembers, they are choosing whether the character remembers or forgets. This is the ideal state - we'd all like our players to remember everything, and make choices for/as their character. When the player forgets, we don't get to the ideal state by introducing a new mechanic to figure out what's going on with the character. We get there by reminding the player. Is it that there is an assumption that if the player remembered, then of course the character would remember and do the thing? And that in such a case, where the player forgets, there is now an opportunity for the GM to slip in some drama that would otherwise never occur? I'm really grasping at (terrible) straws here; I just don't understand what the desired goal is for any approach other than reminding the player.
  2. You said you didn't want to be too mean, nor too lenient, and that you were not wanting to be punishing. You explicitly want to know how mean to be. I think that being mean at all is not really what I'd consider part of a fun game, and that the simplest and best solution to the underlying matter of whether it's the players or the PCs who forgot is to ask the players. No meanness, no leniency, because it's not operating on that spectrum at all.
  3. I would just remind the players OOC that the PCs made the promise, and let them determine what their PCs do. I don't know what leniency has to do with it, unless you think there is a problem with your players' behaviour that you're trying to correct by punishing them. At that point I wonder whether this is about playing a fun game. The players are absolutely more likely to forget than their characters, and it's vastly more interesting to have the fulfilment or not of promises be a matter of intention on their part.
  4. So it seems the Chaosium announcement of suspending plans was in fact because they believe that we're all confused and bewildered, but will either stop fussing and learn to love NFTs, or just quieten down so they can get back to being part of this horror. Is that about right, Chaosium?
  5. JonL said: "Or it can not be, as the marketplace is infested with bad actors and there is no meaningful oversight." Yes? There are numerous examples in the video, or you can read the never-ending stream at https://web3isgoinggreat.com/ Rather than assume that everything is surely fine and that there must be lots of legitimate and good uses of NFTs and cryptocurrency out there, perhaps find examples where everything is good and above board and not an environmental disaster scam with no upside for non-scammers (whether witting or not).
  6. In order to buy the NFT, you have to buy into the cryptocurrency. In order to mint the NFT, you have to buy into the cryptocurrency. Both of these bump up the value of the cryptocurrency. So people with cryptocurrency want more and more people to make NFTs and buy NFTs, so that they can sell the cryptocurrency that they have for a lot more than they bought it for. Now a whole bunch of new people have cryptocurrency, because they want to sell it when the price goes up. That requires that other people buy cryptocurrencies. Your profit depends on more and more people buying into the scheme. It is a scam. It is not merely speculating, it is an environmentally disastrous scam predicated entirely on greed where whatever the NFT points to is absolutely meaningless. You can argue that a Pollock painting and speculation around that is predicated entirely on greed, but NFTs are vastly worse in multiple ways.
  7. No, but the entire point of NFTs is for people to cash out cryptocurrencies into actual money. It's not about whatever the NFT is pointing to, it's about speculating on suckering more people into the scheme so that you can sell the NFT on and get out. The whole thing is laid out well in the video posted in the other thread. Without the cryptocurrency element, there wouldn't be NFTs. There would be a few collectors buying actual things.
  8. Aranda's folio, in the "How to Play Aranda" section, the final bullet point mentions the "Status Rune"; this should be the "Stasis Rune".
  9. It seems okay to me - it's mechanically quick to resolve, involves the players deciding which bits of the Aldryami position they find most appealing/least unappealing, and has concrete outcomes. It would definitely benefit, for my tastes, from the process of selecting items including bits of roleplay. The point of this process is to allow for not roleplaying the whole thing (whether for speed, to explicitly include character skill and/or randomness, to cover player gaps of knowledge, or whatever), but to end up with something that isn't abstract. The concrete results are good, but knowing the end result then also enables the roleplaying to be done that gives all of the really good stuff - how people interacted, what they feel, etc. I think I mentioned earlier that you can use the other side's list to include things that are negative consequences that aren't part of the literal bargaining position, that can also feed into the roleplaying: eg, a loss of respect by the Aldryami for the PCs. Indeed, such items might be the majority - I'm always going to be more interested in personal relationships than who gets what. I can easily imagine setting up a negotiation in which - if the negotiation doesn't break down entirely - the other side is guaranteed to get various things, and the list items are all negative consequences. The better the PCs' roll, the fewer negative consequences they need to take. I should point out that this is all something of an inflection on the general system in 7th Sea 2nd edition (or what I recall of it).
  10. I think (in my quest for something really simple) that I'd have a baseline of 0 points when the negotiation's opposed roll comes out with both sides equal. If one side is in a superior position, I'd reflect that with a negative modifier to the PC's points, meaning that they must buy more of the stronger sides items. I'd possibly couple this with the other side having more items on their lists, if necessary. A item costs 10, B item costs 5, C item costs 2? If a really good opposed roll (critical vs fumble) gets four points, that's a big chunk but still requires negotiating. Each side has to get at least one item on their list, and must have an item of the same level or one lower than the highest level item on the other side. So you can't have one side get their A item and buy it solely with C items. This might only apply to the non-PC side, so that PCs who rolled very poorly might decide to settle for C items when the others get their A item. Since this is all PC driven, they determine if they can get a set of items that fulfill those criteria and which satisfy them. If they can't, the negotiation ends with no one getting anything, if they can, each side gets the items the PCs selected. Modification to the skill used in the opposed roll, I assume.
  11. One issue I have with that system is that it doesn't feel like a negotiation, because the two sides are operating almost entirely independently. I suggested earlier have an opposed roll that determines the starting number of points the PCs get to spend on items on the lists. A really good success compared to the others means starting with a few points - but still not enough to get their A item. The only way to get more points is to select items from the other side's lists. This I think would make it feel much more like a negotiation, even if the GM doesn't get involved at all after making the lists (which I would - this is where I'd roleplay out arguments in favour of or against particular items).
  12. Looks alright to me. It seems like a lot of rolling on the GM's part, but combat is much the same, so in terms of making something that has similar mechanical heft that's probably a win? What do the people who like and want fuller social mechanics think?
  13. The PCs are involved in a dispute between an Orlanthi stead and a nearby Aldryami enclave. The Orlanthi have recently had a significant increase in population due to their acceptance into the group of refugees. The Orlanthi have increased resource needs (firewood, grazing land, etc) and want to extend the traditional borders of their holdings further into the forest that the Aldryami hold. There is a second Orlanthi settlement, of another clan, also nearby, who have been encroaching on the forest. The PCs are representatives of the first stead. This only really becomes interesting though when it is enriched by more specific contexts, of the people involved, the history of the people and places, etc. Those are the sources for many of the items on the lists that I'd construct. I hope this helps!
  14. I would be operating, I think, on a slightly different scale than the one you're trying to model; I'd want the whole negotiation encompassed by the one roll (or a few in a row; augments or some other bits and bobs). So rather than the mechanics simulating a step by step process, I'd have an initial phase of IC talking that sets up the negotiation, which would provide the basic context for what is happening. It's partly from that that the lists would grow from. Then, since the one roll is covering the whole negotiation, the interpretation phase would then retroactively generate the fiction of what occurred - such as the PCs learning of something the others wanted and which was rejected, causing the negotiation to break down, or whatever. The more intermixing of non-IC with IC there is, the more disruptive I find things, so I try to avoid having to jump out and back several times to build up what's happening. Does that help at all? Sorry, I don't want to distract from the actual mechanics, since that's the topic of the thread and I don't have any more of a system than what I presented initially. I'm glad it's something you're taking and generating something more robust from!
  15. It's more involved than suits me, in terms of mechanics used to engage with the lists. But that's no surprise: my aim in play is to introduce the minimum level of abstractions necessary either to speed up a process that would be too slow run real-time IC and/or to accommodate players unwilling or unable to run the situation IC. So I would have the interpretation phase of a fairly simple mechanical element (likely just an opposed roll, or maybe a few) be the meat, where the abstraction of the lists gets fleshed out by partially IC discussion. Basically, I"m a bad person to give feedback on this sort of thing - what you have might be amazing, and work really well for many people, but I wouldn't know because mechanics aren't my jam. (I ran a HeroQuest game once, that almost immediately turned into a systemless game because after rolling the dice once I realised I never wanted to do that again.) There must be others reading this thread who have an opinion. Having said all that, I don't like the GM's list being secret. It's pretty hard for someone to get what they want in a negotiation without telling the people they're negotiating with what they want. Sure, you have the insight rolls to find out, but that seems both punishing and misaligned with the fiction. I imagine that you have it that way because it adds more doubt and more mechanical engagement, which will suit those really wanting to engage with the game side of things?
×
×
  • Create New...