BLUE BALLS OF BUDDHA

[Persell]

the system gives a one die stunt bonus for actually talking!

For talking in character, actually.

 

[Persell]

Sounds like the Dodge feat to me. Or Combat Expertise. Only requireing flowery prose.
Same effect, different flavor text.

The effect is quite different: stunts aren't a permanent boost to defense like those feats are. You get stunts for acting cool, not for picking the right option when you level up. This is one of the things that makes Exalted fundamentally different to D&D, and DV hasn't changed that dynamic at all. In fact, it's increased the effectiveness of stunts.

 

[Guest]

Sounds like the Dodge feat to me. Or Combat Expertise. Only requireing flowery prose.
Same effect, different flavor text.

The effect is quite different: stunts aren't a permanent boost to defense like those feats are. You get stunts for acting cool, not for picking the right option when you level up. This is one of the things that makes Exalted fundamentally different to D&D, and DV hasn't changed that dynamic at all. In fact, it's increased the effectiveness of stunts.

Neither Dodge nor Combat Expertise are a permanent adjustment to AC, which proves you've never read or played, but I'll forgive. Not everyne plays enough of these that they all fundamentally look alike.


Dodge must be declared vs a target, combat expertise trades off attack for defense.


I don't like a fixed DV, because to me it makes dodge/parry no different mechanically from armor. It defends without percieved effort. Which doesn't fit the theme of the setting.

 

[memesis]

I don't like a fixed DV, because to me it makes dodge/parry no different mechanically from armor. It defends without percieved effort. Which doesn't fit the theme of the setting.

Then you are purposefully ignoring what the rule is trying to represent.  That's your choice, just be aware that you are doing it.

 

[Lotus1]

that title offends ME!


and when you can offend me... you know you have gone too far.

 

[Pheobus Oles]

Dodge must be declared vs a target, combat expertise trades off attack for defense.


I don't like a fixed DV, because to me it makes dodge/parry no different mechanically from armor. It defends without percieved effort. Which doesn't fit the theme of the setting.

"That proves you've never read or played, but I'll forgive" right back at you.


DV is a *dynamic* trait, which goes down for every action you take on your tick. Since you're a D&D fan, the best way I can think of to relate it to you is that its like Combat Expertise of the d20 system, in that each attack you make will impose a -1 penalty to your DV until your next action.


So its not fixed at all. In fact, I've noticed my players have suddenly realized the worth of stunting their defenses now, when it gives them 1 or 2 dice to roll and (hopefully) bring their DV back up after their awesome flurry settles and the big bad guy is still standing.


Lastly, Charms (Excellencies come immediately to mind) can bring your DV up as well.

 

[Guest]

I don't like a fixed DV, because to me it makes dodge/parry no different mechanically from armor. It defends without percieved effort. Which doesn't fit the theme of the setting.

Then you are purposefully ignoring what the rule is trying to represent.  That's your choice, just be aware that you are doing it.

I see it different, but I like you, so choose to bypass this arguement.

 

[Solfi]

*cough*bullshit*cough*

 

[memesis]

*cough*bullshit*cough*

Hmmmmm?

 

[Persell]

Think about most of the people who roleplay' date=' Orm.  Consider the drooling masses of fanboy mouth-breathers with a hardon in their left hand and dog-eared copy of some DBZ manga in their right.  THEN tell me White Wolf's lack of trust is misplaced.[/quote']
I like to think the best of people.

I think if White Wolf put little stock in peoples' ability to roleplay, they would not have released this lavishly-detailed setting complete with intricate political and social themes, you know?  The weight of the setting as an argument (in MY opinion) totally blows away the "distrust" idea that you say the 1-die bonus represents.
In other words, don't miss the forest for the trees.

That is a good point. It just irks me that WW can't take two steps forward without taking a sted back again. The setting is, in my oppinion, even better presented in the 2nd ed, but still they have to go and talk down to their clientele with a thing like this. Bonus dice for talking in character! Pffft! It annoys me, because I like this game. It's like seing a person you really care for suddenly behaving like an asshole...


Hmm. Am I getting too attached to a roleplaying game?

For talking in character, actually.

Fair enough. But it's still a must in my book. What's the alternative? "My character persuades him! He's really persuasive! He has a dicepool of a gazilion in persuading! And a cool charm! And Appearance 5!"? That's not roleplaying to me.


Then again, I might just be a bitter, old, arrogant bastard.

 

[Silence In Daylight]

How big an effort do you insist on for a one-die stunt, Orm? Cause that's what the 'talking in character' bonus amounts to. Not dice.


 Besides, there's plenty of wiggle room for the ST to determine what kind of 'talking in character' rates the 1-die bonus...

 

[Persell]

Hm. I think I am just complaining about the notion of giving any kind of reward for talking in character. Talking eloquently, fine. Making epic speeches, fine. That should warrant some kind of bonus. As I said, I am an arrogant bastard, when it comes to roleplaying

 

[Persell]

Neither Dodge nor Combat Expertise are a permanent adjustment to AC, which proves you've never read or played, but I'll forgive.

My apologies. I'm only familiar with Neverwinter Nights; I wasn't aware it was  a strange bastard version.


My basic point though, was that those feats are, well, feats. You have to purshcase them, then you have something noone else has, just cos you took that build option. In Exalted, stunts are equally available to all players, and reward good roleplaying rather than efficient character build.

 

[memesis]

Hm. I think I am just complaining about the notion of giving any kind of reward for talking in character. Talking eloquently, fine. Making epic speeches, fine. That should warrant some kind of bonus. As I said, I am an arrogant bastard, when it comes to roleplaying

I know far too many players who think they are more eloquent, moving, and epic speechmakers than they actually are.  I'd rather reward in-character behavior than (perceived) "high dramatics".  For that, I'd give 1 die in social combat, sure.

 

[Persell]

But it's still a must in my book. What's the alternative? "My character persuades him! He's really persuasive! He has a dicepool of a gazilion in persuading! And a cool charm! And Appearance 5!"? That's not roleplaying to me.

That is the other option: it's much the same as saying "I hit him with my mace. Here are the relevant stats."


It's in order to level the rewards for stunting social efforts with those from stunting combat.


Is it also a must for all your players to describe every attack they make? I'm not suggesting you need to do that to be consistent or anything, merely raising the question to show you that in 2nd Ed, combat and social combat mechanics are put on as equal a footing as they could. Naturally, different play groups will place different emphasis in their games, but the mechanics are even-handed. I think that's a good thing.