2nd ed Demo... wha?

[Cynis Filthist]

official Demo is out for 2nd ed on official site.


im confused... this new 'simpler' system is so much more confusing than 1st ed...


or im stupid...


or both...


oh hell i know im stupid, but thats not the point.


++edit: starting to get it, but not starting to like it


+++ edit: woo! i get it! but i dont like it. Im not using social combat in my games, and I hate HATE HATE HATE <b><u>HATE</b></u> static defense values so i seriously doubt ill be using 2nd ed.


still get it of course... damn me and my compulsion. all the purdy pictures.

 

[Persell]

I really wish I had your problems.

 

[Fruan]

I don't get why people hate the social combat rules.


Or, rather, I suspect I do. Don't think of it as 'social combat'. Think of it as 'This is the mechanical framework for talking people into stuff'. If you look at the maximum effects of 'losing' a social combat, it's practically nothing - You lose up to 2 willpower. If you run out of willpower (or you just want to let it happen) you do what you're being asked to.


Of course, remember that people without willpower act under compulsions normally anyway.


it's *nothing*. But it finally sets a framework for social charms.

 

[Flagg]

I don't like the idea, not because it's "combat", but because I think boiling social interactiond own to a bunch of dice rolls is boring and unimaginative to the extreme.


(YES, before you monkeys start hollering and flinging poo at me, I know there are ways to mitigate this, but I find that the system is set up to favor this result. I've also never seen a need for crunchier social rules. They're just going to become another way for twinks to avoid actual roleplaying.)


-S

 

[uteck]

I like the social rules, or at least I hope I do.  The social rules as they stand just boil down to whom ever has the most will power wins the argument.  Either by forcing others to spend it to resist, or just use a few Charms to dasel them or use the Jedi Mind Trick, aka, Memory Reweaving Technique.  


That last one is an open hole in the game system, not only is it a vaugly written, (does it last for a whole sceen were I can give them many false memories, or do I give them 1  memory that only lasts for 1 scean, or does the memory last until they break the Charm?) and there is virtually no defense from it.  Right now the only thing that defines social-fu is the Charms, but a character with them is unstoppable unless against another charater, but then it comes down to why there are not small pockets of mind controlled mortals everywere.  

I don't like the idea, not because it's "combat", but because I think boiling social interactiond own to a bunch of dice rolls is boring and unimaginative to the extreme.

Social combat will always come down to a dice roll since the players are not always capable of role-playing a 4 or 5 Social character when they only have a 2 or 3.  At least this way there are some rules now over how hard it is to convivnce/seduce/bribe someone other then saying what you want to do then rolling some dice verses a target number the ST picks out of the air.  And for people that only want to role dice, well they will lose out on a lot of stunts then.  It will also speed up the social stuff for thoughs that are not involved in it.   Nothing is more boring then watching someone roleplay every little social encounter.  Just bribe the guard and go in, don't make it a 10 minute scean with 3 stunts.

 

[Gustav]

They're just going to become another way for twinks to avoid actual roleplaying.

So so true...

 

[Cynis Filthist]

I dont dislike social combat because its 'social combat' in fact I was rather looking forward to seeing what it entailed in the game. I dont like how they did it, and there was never any problem in social interaction in the games before hand and it was wholly unneccessary, and as they have not provided me with a better way to take it, i wont use it.


and my problem with static DV is it is now impossible to botch a dodge, or to roll a bunch of "0"s and totally blow everyone out of the water the exemplory and lucky evasion.

 

[Flagg]

and my problem with static DV is it is now impossible to botch a dodge' date=' or to roll a bunch of "0"s and totally blow everyone out of the water the exemplory and lucky evasion.[/quote']
I see no way out of the botching problem, but I hardly see that as much of a loss. The super-badass-dodging is probably still going to be possible. Remember that there are going to be Dodge Charms, and WW has said that ALL Abilities will have Excellencies, at a bare minimum.


-S

 

[lowguppy]

I don't know if I like static defense either, but it looks like you could probably convert defense to being active without too much effort.


As for social mechanics, yes I think its good for the game to have them, but I think its just as important for the ST to use them as little as possible, and really let the roleplaying tell the story.


There are situations where as an ST you might want to just leave the situation up to the mechanics, like when your tentacle-monster totem lunar is trying to "seduce" one or more of your NPCs, do you really want to roleplay all that shit? If the answer is no, just roll the dice and save everyone the innuendo.


Oh come on! Its a frikkin anime game, how can there not be tentacle monsters?

 

[Hanat-Osul]

There are situations where as an ST you might want to just leave the situation up to the mechanics, like when your tentacle-monster totem lunar is trying to "seduce" one or more of your NPCs, do you really want to roleplay all that shit? If the answer is no, just roll the dice and save everyone the innuendo.
Oh come on! Its a frikkin anime game, how can there not be tentacle monsters?

Very easily.  I've been running Exalted for almost 3 years, and we haven't had a single tentacle monster.

 

[Flagg]

As for social mechanics, yes I think its good for the game to have them, but I think its just as important for the ST to use them as little as possible, and really let the roleplaying tell the story.

Agreed. The bitch of it is, though, that I'm expecting nearly ALL of the social Charms to use "social combat" mechanics, thus redering them USELESS to games that don't use social combat regularly.


-S

 

[lowguppy]

Yeah, but that can happen even with the current social mechanics. The ST just has to make sure that the mechanics suppliment the roleplaying, not subvert it. Likewise, if a character invests in crunchy bits related to social skills, they should not be ignored. Generally getting an NPC to do something other than what they were planning on doing is going to require a roll of some sort. I try to see the dice as a measure of how much better (or worse) the character's speech goes over in-game than what the player actually said.

 

[memesis]

As for social mechanics, yes I think its good for the game to have them, but I think its just as important for the ST to use them as little as possible, and really let the roleplaying tell the story.

Agreed. The bitch of it is, though, that I'm expecting nearly ALL of the social Charms to use "social combat" mechanics, thus redering them USELESS to games that don't use social combat regularly.


-S

As opposed to what?  Charms that make the player more eloquent?


Charms are game mechanics.  They can only have game-mechanical effects.  Sooner or later, unless you have a social Charm like "I win", you are gonna be rolling dice.


Right now, when the player rolls, the ST decides:  what dice to subtract.  how many successes to subtract.  the difficulty of the roll.  what Virtues or other traits are involved in that roll.  All your existing Social Charms are going to affect this process, or be affected by it.


Social combat, from what we have seen, simply says "hey, ST!  I now have consistent values for you to assign there".  So what is the problem?


You hear people yelling "I hate static reductions to to-hit values, DV sucks", but I don't hear a lot of people yelling "you should get parry bonus dice when using a shield rather than subtracting successes".  Newness is blinding people to some basic facts.

 

[Obsidian Soul]

I dislike the new system because Exalted is a Storyteller system.  That means that the storyteller gets to decide the difficulty, die penalties, etc within the bounds of reason.  I am staying with the First edition.  I know it, I know its problems, I have fixed all of the problems that I have seen, and I am not about to support any nWoD lookalike.

 

[Flagg]

As opposed to what?  Charms that make the player more eloquent?

As opposed to the current system, which I find adequate.


-S

 

[memesis]

I dislike the new system because Exalted is a Storyteller system.  That means that the storyteller gets to decide the difficulty' date=' die penalties, etc within the bounds of reason.  I am staying with the First edition.  I know it, I know its problems, I have fixed all of the problems that I have seen, and I am not about to support any nWoD lookalike.[/quote']
And if the rules say "here, STs, use these guidelines", you are magically compelled to follow them?  NO.  The Storyteller gets to decide absolutely anything he wants, no matter WHAT rules the game of the moment uses.


Maybe this is just my own GMing experience talking, because I don't see the problem you guys apparently do.  In my universe, there is GURPS, hands down one of the most solid games on the market today.  When I was playing actively, GURPS 3rd ed. offered two varieties of combat:  Basic Combat, and Advanced Combat.  The basic combat system was just what it sounds like:  roll dice, see if you hit, do some HP damage, lather, rinse, repeat.  The full-on, Chapter 14, badass advanced combat system covered hex movement, effects of damage in great detail (knockdown, stunning, disabled body parts, called shots).  It handled weapon reach and movement scenarios that gave clear tactical advantages to certain weapons and styles of fighting which mirrored the real world.  In other words, it was the last word in a realistic fighting model.


Not everyone used advanced combat.  For those who said "this is too cumbersome", there was basic.  And NOBODY felt like there was some evil compulsion to dive into all the rules.  NOBODY felt like, just because advanced combat was there, that like some child with a shiny bauble you had to go poke and prod at it and get sucked in.  It was there if you wanted it.


But now I read crap like this, and my thought is:  Damnation.  Are you guys such a bunch of by-the-rules pussies that you can't just say "I'm glad the rules are there for those that need them and I don't feel personally offended by their inclusion"?  Social combat is not impugning your ST masculinity, gentlemen.  Don't cover up your dicks and get that scared looks on your faces.  Just accept that it's there for those who want it, and not mandatory for those who don't.


"Oh, but I think all the Social Charms will use all these rules".  Show me.  Show me where this has been published.  Otherwise, wait and see!  Mail and Steel came out in the Player's Guide.  How many Charms did PG modify to accommodate the M&S rules?

 

[Flagg]

"Oh, but I think all the Social Charms will use all these rules".  Show me.  Show me where this has been published.  Otherwise, wait and see!

We both know I can't point to sources. I've been quite clear in stating that this is my own prediction. If I'm wrong, I'll eat my words later, but what if I'm right? Let's assume for a moment that I am. Now, doesn't that suck for people (like me) who won't likely use social combat often, if at all? That's several Abilties worth of Charm trees that are worth fuck all.


-S

 

[memesis]

"Oh, but I think all the Social Charms will use all these rules".  Show me.  Show me where this has been published.  Otherwise, wait and see!

We both know I can't point to sources. I've been quite clear in stating that this is my own prediction. If I'm wrong, I'll eat my words later, but what if I'm right? Let's assume for a moment that I am. Now, doesn't that suck for people (like me) who won't likely use social combat often, if at all? That's several Abilties worth of Charm trees that are worth fuck all.


-S

If you're right, then sure, it'd be bad.  On the other hand, how many Charms from 1st ed do you consider worth fuck-all because you don't use them?

 

[Flagg]

On the other hand, how many Charms from 1st ed do you consider worth fuck-all because you don't use them?

Quite a few, unfortunately. I was hoping that I wouldn't have the same problem with 2nd Edition. I guess that's naive of me.


-S

 

[Cynis Filthist]

You hear people yelling "I hate static reductions to to-hit values, DV sucks", but I don't hear a lot of people yelling "you should get parry bonus dice when using a shield rather than subtracting successes".  Newness is blinding people to some basic facts.

newness has nothing to do with it, I was looking forward to what they might change, I went into it with quite an open mind and was let down, im not saying DV values wont work for some people, i know some people that like them, and some that dont, Its simply a matter of prefered mechanics.

 

[Persell]

You hear people yelling "I hate static reductions to to-hit values' date=' DV sucks", but I don't hear a lot of people yelling "you should get parry bonus dice when using a shield rather than subtracting successes".  Newness is blinding people to some basic facts.[/quote']
newness has nothing to do with it, I was looking forward to what they might change, I went into it with quite an open mind and was let down, im not saying DV values wont work for some people, i know some people that like them, and some that dont, Its simply a matter of prefered mechanics.

I prefer the mechanics that work not those I like for some reason. I would use poker cards for determining results if it would work well.

 

[Djalan Pride]

i'm curious, is  it still possible to dodge AND parry? ToFC seems to imply otherwise...

 

[Persell]

I assume there will still be dodge and parry charms allowing this.

 

[Cynis Filthist]

You hear people yelling "I hate static reductions to to-hit values' date=' DV sucks", but I don't hear a lot of people yelling "you should get parry bonus dice when using a shield rather than subtracting successes".  Newness is blinding people to some basic facts.[/quote']
newness has nothing to do with it, I was looking forward to what they might change, I went into it with quite an open mind and was let down, im not saying DV values wont work for some people, i know some people that like them, and some that dont, Its simply a matter of prefered mechanics.

I prefer the mechanics that work not those I like for some reason. I would use poker cards for determining results if it would work well.

Old system works well for me. how do they not?

 

[Samiel]

My views:


First Ed:


Cumbersome combat system was designed for oWOD, and was poorly optimised to a game involving powers that essentially allowed one to break and re-write the rules. Each turn had a tendancy to take ten minutes.


Social systems were poorly defined, which is fine if you're a talker but a bitch if you're an average gamer without much in the way of social skills. Still, not much of a problem, although trying to convince someone of your point of view was largely down to how flexible the ST was, or if you had a good charm to mess with them.


Charm trees were inconsistant with regard to power. Melee owned for power, archery for range and numbers, MA for versatility. Ride required crap charms to get to the good ones, and the entire sail tree was easily replaced with a four-point artifact.


The background was fine, and the world was one of the best fleshed out I had read, personally. I failed to see many of the inconsistancies people cited; it left much to the imagination.


---


Second ed:


Keeping much of the background, and allegedly expanding on it, Second ed purports to add more depth to an already great game.


Adds a social interaction system, which has yet to be confirmed as mandatory or not (whether or not charms depend on the system). May help solidify rules for social characters, and could make a purely diplomatic approach possible in circumstances that would otherwise favour direct action. Should be renamed; Social Combat implies a flattening approach, where social interaction is made rigid and uninteresting. The system as presented appears simply to ensure that everyone gets a say and their comments and arguments count.


Should, nonetheless, be optional.


Add higher essence charms, so that essence 4+ doesn't end up being solely for sorcery. Adds new basic charms to every tree to make the system more balanced towards all skills; there are apparently dice adders and success adders for every tree.


New combat system uses ticks instead of turns. Advantage: Faster combat, more fluid use of special combat manouvers. Disadvantage: Speed system means players must take care to count when they next act. No firm explanation in the demo as to how charms interact with this system, but seems to make reflexive combos much, much more important.


Static defence values eliminate the possibility of "failing" defence, per se, but still allow for stunts. Should take another time-consuming element out of combat, and should help streamline the system towards charm use.


Appearance means something now.


---


I think I shall look forward to my copy of 2nd ed, but all is not lost if it turns out to be a step backward. If you want to fix many of the bugs in 1st ed, look at Sol Invictus.


Incidentally, I think that Patternspider should host a copy of Sol Invictus, it's not common but it should be.


[/my two cents]