*
*
Home
Help
Login
Register
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
September 22, 2014, 06:16:42 AM

Login with username, password and session length
Forum changes: Editing of posts has been turned off until further notice.
Search:     Advanced search
275647 Posts in 27717 Topics by 4283 Members Latest Member: - otto Most online today: 53 - most online ever: 429 (November 03, 2007, 04:35:43 AM)
Pages: 1 [2] 3
Print
Author Topic: Agon - First Among Equals  (Read 4700 times)
iago
Member

Posts: 863


WWW
« Reply #15 on: August 27, 2006, 02:57:32 PM »

You might also talk about the Mook rule we tossed in. Pretty broken, too, I think.

Eh, that was an attempt at a house rule that proved itself not to fly.  But it's worth saying:

When fighting Minions, we would occasionally score more than just one victory -- but with only one wound level, and only one minion killed on a success, those extra victories seemed "wasted".

Now, in retrospect, I figure those extra victories should be racked up as position bonuses for the next exchange -- but at the time, I tried a fight where extra victories meant additional minions killed and, boy. That just made it end way too fast.
Logged

John Harper
Moderator
Member
*
Posts: 1054

flip you for real


WWW
« Reply #16 on: August 27, 2006, 03:34:04 PM »

Yeah, I can see that not quite working, Fred. Extra position bonuses work fine, and help break up those nasty minion groups.

Darren: If you have a zeroed ability, you automatically lose any contest that uses that ability. Or, more accurately, you automatically get a zero result. You don't get to roll your Name die, and you don't get to add in other abilities. Having a zeroed ability sucks.
Logged

Agon: An ancient Greek RPG. Prove the glory of your name!
Darren Hill
Member

Posts: 861


« Reply #17 on: August 27, 2006, 05:07:33 PM »

Thanks, John. I was asked last session what happened when an abilty reached zero and gave the wrong answer. Oops.

Fred and Adam: I like the position bonuses idea, but I think I'd apply it as a position penalty for that unit of mooks - sorry, minions. I'll be having a fight with three NPcs and a bunch of minions, and it doesn't make sense that the hero would get a bonus against those other NPCs which a bonus would give. A penalty means every hero does slightly better against that one group of minions - which will be a lot more effective at breaking them up than one hero getting a bonus.
Logged

iago
Member

Posts: 863


WWW
« Reply #18 on: August 27, 2006, 06:02:19 PM »

Fred and Adam: I like the position bonuses idea, but I think I'd apply it as a position penalty for that unit of mooks - sorry, minions. I'll be having a fight with three NPcs and a bunch of minions, and it doesn't make sense that the hero would get a bonus against those other NPCs which a bonus would give. A penalty means every hero does slightly better against that one group of minions - which will be a lot more effective at breaking them up than one hero getting a bonus.
I hear what you're saying, but the system already supports turning victories into position bonuses, and doesn't support turning them into position penalties.  So I'm sticking with my suggestion, as it causes the least trauma to the existing system.
Logged

Darren Hill
Member

Posts: 861


« Reply #19 on: August 29, 2006, 07:39:32 AM »

Fred, you mentioned a sliding scale of d4-d12 costing more oaths. I bring it up again just to mention the method we'll be using in the future.

here's the cost:
d4: 0
d6 or d8: 1 Oath
d10 or d12: 2 Oaths
Ability with +2: +1 Oath.

The way it works: the above are the accepted, standard costs for oaths, the costs which no-one should feel guilty about asking for. Players can be generous and charge just 1 Oath or try to negotiate for more, as they prefer. (Sometimes, that d4 might well be worth an Oath, if you have rolled really badly!) But those are standard, guilt-free, no-hassle costs.
Logged

iago
Member

Posts: 863


WWW
« Reply #20 on: August 29, 2006, 07:49:39 AM »

That's a good scale.  Thanks.
Logged

Adam Dray
Member

Posts: 676


WWW
« Reply #21 on: August 29, 2006, 09:49:29 AM »

This seems overcomplicated. When you steal a d10 from someone, why not incur a d10 oath? When you give someone a d4, why not receive a d4 oath from them?
Logged

Adam Dray / adam@legendary.org
Verge -- cyberpunk role-playing on the brink
FoundryMUSH - indie chat and play at foundry.legendary.org 7777
iago
Member

Posts: 863


WWW
« Reply #22 on: August 29, 2006, 09:56:25 AM »

This seems overcomplicated. When you steal a d10 from someone, why not incur a d10 oath? When you give someone a d4, why not receive a d4 oath from them?

Well, character sheet would have to be redesigned a little, as your oaths will now read:

Narkyssos 3d4 2d6 d8 d10 d12
Logged

John Harper
Moderator
Member
*
Posts: 1054

flip you for real


WWW
« Reply #23 on: August 29, 2006, 01:19:23 PM »

That sounds like a fine way to deal with the Oath economy, Adam.
Logged

Agon: An ancient Greek RPG. Prove the glory of your name!
iago
Member

Posts: 863


WWW
« Reply #24 on: August 29, 2006, 02:06:56 PM »

That sounds like a fine way to deal with the Oath economy, Adam.
It is! I just despair of abusing the character sheet in order to accommodate it.  Though I do like the idea that oath-strength is basically "Must be a die no smaller than...", and basically having d4 d6 d8 d10 d12 as columns. Makes for an easier, explicit reminder that god-oaths are d12's, too, in that light. Nice.
Logged

Darren Hill
Member

Posts: 861


« Reply #25 on: August 29, 2006, 02:26:52 PM »

This seems overcomplicated. When you steal a d10 from someone, why not incur a d10 oath? When you give someone a d4, why not receive a d4 oath from them?

Your idea is nice in theory (very nice), but I think it would be the more complicated of the two in practice if only in the extra-book-keeping. And how do you compare abilities with "+2" against those that don't have them (without just ignoring it)?
My method is a quick rule of thumb, a place to start from in negotiations, not a hard and fast rule. I would be very surprised if players couldn't remember if very easily (Little dice = 0, Middle Dice = 1, Big Dice = 2, Bonus gets +1) after using it a couple of times.



Logged

iago
Member

Posts: 863


WWW
« Reply #26 on: August 29, 2006, 02:29:43 PM »

Yeah, I'd want the compromise position in play, that a +2 is worth a die-size bump, but some blending of the two sounds pretty attractive.
Logged

Darren Hill
Member

Posts: 861


« Reply #27 on: August 29, 2006, 02:50:38 PM »

One thing I like about Adam's method.
"You owe me a d10 Oath, I want it now."
"But the only D10 I have left is Sword!"
"How sad. Give."
Logged

Adam Dray
Member

Posts: 676


WWW
« Reply #28 on: August 29, 2006, 05:31:30 PM »

Technically, based on averages and not potential value, the +2 is worth two die sizes. A +1 is worth one bump.

dice       range     mean     
d41-42.5
2d41-43.1
d61-63.5
d4+23-64.5
2d61-64.5
d81-84.5
d6+23-85.5
d101-105.5
2d81-85.8
d8+23-106.5
d121-126.5
2d101-107.2
d10+23-127.5
2d121-128.5
d12+23-148.5
Logged

Adam Dray / adam@legendary.org
Verge -- cyberpunk role-playing on the brink
FoundryMUSH - indie chat and play at foundry.legendary.org 7777
iago
Member

Posts: 863


WWW
« Reply #29 on: August 29, 2006, 07:36:19 PM »

You could just as easily base your logic on how the bonus increases the maximum reach of your die range, however, instead of on the mean -- which was the basis on which I was comfortable with it being one die size.
Logged

Pages: 1 [2] 3
Print
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.11 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines LLC
Oxygen design by Bloc
Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!