The Forge Reference Project

 

Topic: [TSoY] Ability categories 1st vs. revised
Started by: Matt Snyder
Started on: 12/9/2005
Board: CRN Games


On 12/9/2005 at 4:53pm, Matt Snyder wrote:
[TSoY] Ability categories 1st vs. revised

In the first edition, Clinton organized abilities into categories (for example, the Craft Abilities category, which included Haggling, Fine Crafts, Rough Crafts, and Complex Crafts). Players prioritized these catgories, and when they earned an advance, they could increase 1-3 abilities in the category depending on its priority.

But, in the revised edition, the categories exist, but I believe they are merely organizational titles. Players purchase advances for individual abilities only.

So, my questions to Clinton are: Can you explain a bit about why this was a revision? I'm interested in using the Categories in a way that's much closer to the 1st edition method. Did you find this problematic in play? Or, did you just "like" the more straightforward advance system better? Was it an issue of currency, where revised characters have fewer skill levels, for example?

Message 17955#189820

Previous & subsequent topics...
...started by Matt Snyder
...in which Matt Snyder participated
...in CRN Games
...including keyword:

 (leave blank for none)
...from around 12/9/2005




On 12/9/2005 at 6:42pm, Clinton R. Nixon wrote:
Re: [TSoY] Ability categories 1st vs. revised

Matt wrote:
In the first edition, Clinton organized abilities into categories (for example, the Craft Abilities category, which included Haggling, Fine Crafts, Rough Crafts, and Complex Crafts). Players prioritized these catgories, and when they earned an advance, they could increase 1-3 abilities in the category depending on its priority.

But, in the revised edition, the categories exist, but I believe they are merely organizational titles. Players purchase advances for individual abilities only.

So, my questions to Clinton are: Can you explain a bit about why this was a revision? I'm interested in using the Categories in a way that's much closer to the 1st edition method. Did you find this problematic in play? Or, did you just "like" the more straightforward advance system better? Was it an issue of currency, where revised characters have fewer skill levels, for example?


It was a lot of issues, but mainly this one: the 1st edition version was unjustifiable. It served no mechanical purpose beside acting as a brake on character progression. When I eliminated the need for that brake, then there was no need for the categories. I left the organizational titles for posterity's sake.

Other notes:
- The categories will not really work out with the newer ability system. You could make abilities cost more if they aren't in an A category, but that would be another brake, which I can't recommend.
- Requiring that someone raise three abilities when they just wanted to raise one was frustrating in play.

Message 17955#189857

Previous & subsequent topics...
...started by Clinton R. Nixon
...in which Clinton R. Nixon participated
...in CRN Games
...including keyword:

 (leave blank for none)
...from around 12/9/2005




On 12/9/2005 at 7:32pm, Matt Snyder wrote:
RE: Re: [TSoY] Ability categories 1st vs. revised

Ok, thanks. I suspected it was something along those lines. Here's what I'm working towards:

I wanted to give each of five possible "ranks" some utiltity and identity. For example, I wanted Rooks to have stealthier tendencies than, say, Knights.

Now, I already plan on doing that via Secrets and Keys (and Pawns -- they're new and very swank). And, maybe that's enough. But, I was toying with the means to do it with the categories. I was going to hybridize the two versions, but I think I'm going to step back and re-think, simply offering special Abilities, Secrets, and Keys to each rank type.

FYI, players can choose one of five ranks (Rook, Knight, Bishop, Queen, or King) and one of four+ houses or guilds (Grimm, Magirious, Clockworkers, Fleshworkers, possibly more).

More questions as I think of them!

Message 17955#189876

Previous & subsequent topics...
...started by Matt Snyder
...in which Matt Snyder participated
...in CRN Games
...including keyword:

 (leave blank for none)
...from around 12/9/2005