Difference between revisions of "Talk:WHFRP Reboot"

Revision as of 17:35, 23 July 2007

--Dieter the Bold 17:58, 22 July 2007 (MDT) As fun as it is for the players to drive the plot and have freedom to do as they will, I'd like to see some more stringent (than ever before) controls during character creation, in terms of backgrounds. I enjoy interplay and tension between group members as it can lead to awesome and exciting sessions, but I don't like complete loggerheads and constant scheming at cross-purposes that leads to PvP. I'd really like the group to choose some kind of focus, quest, job-type, etc. and have everyone be 100% for at least most aspects of it. I'd like to be involved in some over-arching story that had a definite starting and ending point, although not necessarily only one path to get between the two. I'm down playing any class that fits with whatever the group decides on. I'm fine with Matt's attribute and class set-up, and I'm intrigued and positively inclined to his Spirit system.

--Edmiao 20:23, 22 July 2007 (MDT) I am considering playing Jacob again, but reboot his class and skills to fix up some of the "random roll" problems. Not attached to the idea as he might make an interestin NPC also and depending on the hook of the game. One request: can we start out as more advanced characters, say around the level of our old characters. I find the skills open to "level 1" characters constrained. suppose it might depend on what the hook was that would determine how experienced the characters should be. A band of seasoned adventurers vs a bunch of peasants. I think that Ben's prologue idea was a good one if you want to start out the hook as a group that has been together for a longer time, likely with different mechanics, and I liked Gabes idea of the "once upon a time" card game (I have a set as well). For a newly formed group, obviously that's not appropriate.

--Matts 20:56, 22 July 2007 (MDT)I'd really prefer to start at first careers again, but if you wanted to play a similar character as Jacob, that'd be fine. The thing I want to make sure is that your characters grow into "adventurers" rather than ARE adventurers, which would be a job for the first several sessions.

You could assume a similar rate of progression as the last WHFRP game.

--Edmiao 22:29, 22 July 2007 (MDT) could we do a faster progression than the last game, because the game ended just when our characters were just getting proficient. and while it's fun for a while to play numb skulls, it is also fun to play kick ass characters.

Ben:I agree with ed to some extent: growing into adventurers is fine, except that having your character develop that conviction during the course of game sessions is pretty difficult/taxing without metagaming. Everytime Anjou got into a major situation, I had no idea what to do with him, because I was like "he's just a kid! He's got no clue how to handle this!" It's interesting for a bit, but I'm not sure I want to play a "numb skull" very much. The other thing about growing into adventurers is that it may make it difficult for the characters to have much background together (although I'm sure you could GM that problem away). That all being said, i have no problem playing a tier 1 starting character...I'm really more concerned with restraints on the background I create.

--Edmiao 22:54, 22 July 2007 (MDT) A common complaint about DnD is that characters "level up" and have major and kind of unrealistic jumps in their abilities over a relatively short time. likewise, starting from a 0 xp WHFRP and going to an advanced class is somewhat unrealistic. I actually enjoy games more that start with proficient characters and have relatively low xp for tune up. That said, if there's a consensus that we want to play a low level game as we did last time, that'll be fine. I would consider our characters in the last WHFRP to have gone from peasant level to just proficient adventurer level.

--Matts 23:00, 22 July 2007 (MDT)I think what I'd like to do is run the first sessions as sort of an "accelerated prologue". I want to do a group-hook generation similar to Gemini, with an extended few sessions as prologuey bits as well - we can establish the group hook, then go back to the "origins" of these characters and play them out in more detailed fashion.

I'd say after 3 or 4 sessions you guys would be up to second-career level, if that sounds good. The catch is that your backgrounds have to connect way more than tangentially by the time we're done with those sessions.

--Edmiao 09:46, 23 July 2007 (MDT) muy bueno. (that means "hello" in spanish)

--Gdaze 10:26, 23 July 2007 (MDT) Well I'm going to go out here on a limb and pretty much disagree with everyone meaning that A. I'm mostly likely wrong hahaha.

Anyway let me first explain why I like the random career choice. The warhammer world is a harsh place. Most people in these times aren't like "I'm gonna be a mercenary when I grow up!" They either follow in their dad's foot steps or just fall into something. Plus who is going to choose rat catcher, or charcoal burner or even peasant if you can choose mercenary or marine? For me it really adds to the idea of BECOMING a hero or adventurer. I like it gritty and dirty like that.

That being said I understand that people might not want to play the class they got, and want their character to be something else. Well, it’s kinda like too bad. Your guy just doesn't have the training for it. I think it'd be a good rp chance to role-play a character who resents his career.

As for the spirit system I'm very leery of it. For one being killed in Warhammer is very easy, very very very easy. Even easier then cyberpunk I'd say. With magic being rare again that means almost no healing magic... Anyway, I just don't think it would be good to have an almost constant rotation of characters. Oh this guy died... now we have to go through yet ANOTHER adventure of adding someone in. From all the rping I've done, introducing new characters is always somewhat of a challenge.

I agree with Dieter that I want a more uniform group goal; I think this system could derail that. People are going to choose different believes and things to dedicate themselves to and this is going to lead to more group conflict. Sorry to use your character Ed, but take Aedil for example. Now imagen an entire party of him with different believes. After all, we are all going to take every chance to fill out our spirit bar, since that is what gives us re-rolls and levels us up.

Also while starting with one or two free advances, I don't want to start out mid-power range. I like the idea of crawling up to higher levels, BUT. If my characters are always dropping like flies it will feel more like a re-lay race. Also this could cause huge meta-gaming... its like oh this guy... well you guys run on, I'll stay and fight and die, don't worry, I have a feeling someone will replace me.

Basically I'm saying that being able to make a new character at your old one's ending point won't really fix the no fate points problem. And, I think anyway, make the characters seem somewhat empty as each one must be created. It really wouldn't allow one to get "into" his new character. Also humans are given more fate points then the other races, save Halflings, so how would this balance out in their favor?

--Matts 10:55, 23 July 2007 (MDT)The races as they're given aren't really balanced anyways, and I haven't really been thinking about the possibility of people selecting "Not Elves" or "Not Dwarves" as a race. If someone did, they'd probably get capped on at least one of their Spiritual Attributes, because like in classic fantasy, the world is a world of Men and the chief reason for that is Man's astonishing passion for life.

As for the spirit system itself: I'll let you in on the secret of Riddle of Steel, where I stole it from: Your character needs to believe something. He needs to have drive, purpose, a reason to be a hero; if he's not a hero (or at least an anti-hero) he's not worth telling a story about. Without that emotional structure, he has no real advantage over anyone of similar advancement in the game world. So yes: if you charge headlong into a fight without a purpose, your character can die. So think about charging into a fight and make sure you want to do it in the first place.

The system is built to ensure that you as players pursue what your characters think is important. It's critical to note that you can change your goals at any time; if you're not getting traction pursuing one set of them, either because you don't like your spiritual attributes as you have them defined, or because the group isn't really trending that way, you can change them.

One final point about the attributes: I said to expect a similar rate of advance as before, so do the math and that means about 5 SA points per session. You can expect I'm going to make it easy on you for the first few points you gain per session, and that it'll get more difficult after that.

With group unity, I'm going to give your group a purpose and a plot goal. I'm likely going to design challenges such that some teamwork is required. Loggerheads, as Dieter put it, might happen; I won't dictate your characters' morality or whatever. But think: time spent yelling at each other is time not spent upholding your Spiritual Attributes; if you want to advance during a session, it behooves everyone to come to a compromise that's at least orthogonal to your goals.

As for power level: I did some thinking last night, and here's how I want to do it: I've got an introductory arc planned out. The game proper will start with the group already together and in the first bit of trouble. We'll flash-back to when the group wasn't together, maybe years and years back in some cases, and we'll piece together how the group assembled over the course of three or four sessions. For every advance you took for your character at the adventure's start point, you'll have to describe how it happened, and other players will get a chance to chime in, and so will the GM. So: Have a background for your character up to their first normal advance, after that bring ideas.

Now, if you don't want to start out at that point, the game would be able to handle it fine.

--Gdaze 11:09, 23 July 2007 (MDT) Well I don't we fought every chance we got last time. In fact many times it was just that lots of fights seemed to happen to us. Weither it was a guy pulling a sword in a bar fight or then being jumped by his crew later.

I think the system contridicts itself. You say that as heroes we need drive and purpose... Well I fealt we had that last time, or in Robert's case a lack of but that helped develop the character. And fate points did in a way represent the character's ability to be above normal people.

Anyway, why I say it contridicts itself. These goals are suppose to be very important yet we can change them at any time? While I know you won't allow clear rule abuse (such as drive, defeat enemey, drive aid comrades, ding, filled up those two bars), to me it doens't seem to tell a great tale at all. Instead you have people who every week change what they believe. Also this epic tale of a hero is going to be pretty null in void because the way Warhammer is built is that it is easy for characters to be killed. Right we don't want to go charging into combat all the time, but it is freaking warhammer, how much can we really avoid it?

Also group goal is great, but with everyone picking their spirit paths, and redoing them on the fly whenever they like, I really think this is gonna cause head butting.

It is a neat system, but I don't like the idea that it becomes a rely race of characters dying off and passing on earned exp. After all there is really nothing wrong with me just throwing my guys against every foe we come against. Besides making up a new character I start out with everything I had.

Also I fealt that all of our past character were pretty much worth telling tales about as they were. We all developed drives and purposes based on how things where unfolding around us. So I guess I'm saying why make rules for something that happens naturally?

--BenofZongo : once more into the breach, my friends! I agree a bit with gabe on part of the fate point thing: I actually do fundamentally like the spirit idea, but unless you can make your opponent reroll, say, an ulric's fury damage dice, no amount of rerolls are going to save you from that one really unlucky shot: and in warhammer, especially early on when you have low parry, dodge, and wounds and no armor, that'll kill you right quick (as we saw). I like the spirit thing, as I said: my one problem is that your defense, matt, is incorrect, in regards to people yelling at each other will be reduced by this system: the simple reason is that some people's spirit goals may coincide with taking strong positions against other players, not just against the game world or NPCs. In fact, I was definitely planning to take some spirit goal(s) relating to the other characters to generate interaction. A character like Samuel, for instance, might gain lots of "bars" for trying to convert the other group members, or something, while stalling out the group in a huge argument, discussion, etc.
to respond to Gabe's character creation comment: to me, the difference is whether the player is thrown into circumstances or the character is. I like to write an involved background for a character that tells the story of who they are and why they ended up in the unlikely place of an adventure. But that means having a character concept, which means picking a career. I disagree that you inherently get better roleplaying when the player is forced to play something random: I loved playing Anjou, who was random, but I also loved playing Hrulfgarr, who wasn't. Furthermore, I played Anjou as if his stats were completely different from what they were (high fellowship, high willpower, good intelligence), because to me, that's what his concept demanded. In the end, I think this is a player preference thing, and I think it's great if you want to take a random character, but I would like to have the choice of picking stuff for myself, because that's how I like to make characters.

--Gdaze-- Oh yeah I know, I just don't like people planning out every career they are going to take kinda thing. That is more with my other group though... I just like the random job thing, not sure why. I guess I like the idea of starting as a nobody and working my way up.

Matt, regarding the spirit thing. Have you thought of maybe making it more along the faiths that exist in warhammer? That might be interesting. I also like the special goals I gave out using the "Once upon a time" cards. Basically all the cards are along the lines of fixing a problem, which means in addition to whatever else is going on, the character has a personal thing he needs to fix. I dunno, I just see this system causing a bit of trouble when it comes to group unity, less we all pick the same thing... No its my turn to aid the sick! No me! Bitch, eat this! Wham. Hmm maybe not even then...

--Matts 12:34, 23 July 2007 (MDT)Ben, if you don't log in, at least do like User:Ben or something so we can see where your comment starts.

Also, I don't want to get into extensive "theorycraft" regarding the rules systems I'm proposing; ultimately the proof is in the pudding, and after a few sessions we'll see if the rules work or don't. If they don't (which I doubt), the system is limited to a smallish part of the actual game, and will be easy to retrofit. So, I'm just asking for you guys to give it a chance, and see if it works.

That said, I'll engage in the idle debate. Maybe your character is all about proselytizing; if there's a lot of time in an adventure for your character to do that, then characters with SAs more inclined towards action may end up changing theirs to take advantage of downtime. The point of the system is to allow you to set goals for your character that can mesh with the current pace of the game, so that if you have a character who's all about the fighting, and there's not much fighting, you can put him in a "reflective mood".

Now, you can't do that all the time; as I said, SA during sessions isn't unlimited, and when you change your attributes, you lose any points currently in them. If you do it willy-nilly, you won't see any advancement. If you max out an attribute, spend it, and then change it, great; that is a narrative progression.

And Gabe: I'm definitely not defining religions that you adhere to and gain experience through. If you want a "Conviction: Tenets of Sigmar", then by all means, take it, but functionally it's similar to "Conviction: There is No God".

--BenofZongo 13:11, 23 July 2007 (MDT)my bad. and I agree, it's idle debate. I'm happy to just give it a chance. I'll start working on a character concept. Currently, I'm thinking faceman, or a caster of some kind (a wizard, a priest, or a runesmith). But that may all change, I need to wait for some inspiration. Quick question: how will the random "starting talent" thing work if you choose to buy your attributes? I take it it will still be random?

--Edmiao 13:24, 23 July 2007 (MDT) Ok, so i just read the SA stuff for the first time. Unless I am way off base, I am strongly opposed to it because it places a strong focus on XP. Actually, I am strongly opposed to the way we have handed out XP in almost every game we play, but especially how it played out in WHFRP last time. If you hand out XP (or SA points, whatever you call XP in a system) based on how well the GM thinks the character has been roleplayed then I find there is some kind of competition or kudos to reward or punish players. This only encourages whining for XP, which I hate to do (but am forced to at times). I think that folks should be able to show up and play their character and have fun. Some of us may not attend as regularly as others and thus get penalized in their XP. This is of minor consequence in a game like Champions, or Gemini, where XP is a minor perk for the character advancement and without it they are more or less on par with other characters. However, take the Northman in WHFRP, by the end he had half the XP as other characters. What's the point? Is the idea to punish Nate for not showing up? Does that make him want to continue to play? It just kind of makes the character lame and the story loses continuity as the big bad fighter turns into a pussy. I would rather see XP dealt out to all players equally regardless of attendance. I think I can make this argument with impunity since I have one of the best attendances.

If the GM wants to reward good roleplaying and/or attendance, I would suggest allowing the character to progess in their plotlines, and other in game perks. This will occur naturally anyway in the game, but a GM could enhance it for truly distinctive characters.

Regarding dead character reboots. I think that a player should be able to generate a new character with exactly the same XP. Why penalize someone for dying, dead character is penalty enough. it's not like we all want our character to die. Robert was one of the most memorable characters and he was nearly permanently dead; we shouldn't penalize Gabe for making a very interesting, yet unstable and likely to die character.

That's my gripe on XP. Other than that, for SA, I still don't like it. It promotes a character to be three dimentional to act in accordance with his three chosen spiritual attributes. Honestly, I want a character to have full flexibility for growth and development, this system actually promotes a character to be a stereotype, acting in accordance with his three attributes.

In response to Gabe on random characters, i say if you want to do that, then go for it, but other players are not interested. thus, you will have your random character that interests you and we will be able to make our deep backstory that interests us.

--Gdaze 13:39, 23 July 2007 (MDT) Right right, my random character thing is more that I want a bonus 100 xp, mwuhahaha!

Anyway, I think Ed is saying what I tried to say, that basically why put rules on something that is going to happen anyway. It will be really hard to avoid just filling up the meters and getting exp. And I mean on really lame things like... Conviction: Buy a load of bread, or get to next town or whatever. I mean it is neat that at some points you can use the re-rolls because you "excell" in that area, but fate points already do that! Due to the limited number we get we use them when we want to on things our characters want to.

THAT being said, are the rules for temp fate points only for combat? Like extra action here, etc? I think a system to allow them in socail contexts would be nice as well. I can't remember the rules right now...

On exp, I do like the 100 + bonus every season. Maybe instead we could do something like we give the gm a sheet of paper saying our goals for that season and if we do them we get a bonus 25 exp, or whatever.

Actually, what attracts you about this system anyway Matt? We've only heard it but not why you want to bring it in.

On dead characters! Well the thing is, with this system there is nothing to make you want to avoid it. Its like big deal, I just re-spawn. You could always make a fighter unaffraid to die, and there be no penality even though it would be server meta-gaming.

Overall I just see this system as causing a lot of arguments over "No no, I did follow my spirit path!"

--Dieter the Bold 14:18, 23 July 2007 (MDT) I personally enjoy the whole XP thing, since it helps me engage the world more if I have to work within it in order to advance my character, but I can understand how others wouldn't enjoy it. Given Matt"s previous endeavors in experimental gaming, I"m willing to give him the benefit of the doubt and try it out. His SMiTV turned out to be quite interesting and well-made, and I can see how the Spirit system is intended to work. Wanton skipping in and out of various SAs could be game breaking, but I think Matt's a good enough GM to ride herd on it. And like Ben always says, if players want to break something, they will. The SAs work just like Fate Points and give you re-rolls, but only if the action is related to the Attribute. That is limiting, and maybe dangerously so, but it does provide serious incentive to not go willy-nilly into everyone else's business. The problem that I'm most worried about is that if there isn't enough group streamlining in this regard is we'll have someone really passionate about X who drags everyone else into something that they have no SAs in and get them all killed. I could easily see me holding everyone back from something, then getting jumped by teh evilz and having them all killed because they weren't pursuing any of their SAs. As for characters, I would appreciate some base starting point to work from in character creation (everone's from X, going to be doing Y, and no whammies or Zs).

--Edmiao 14:56, 23 July 2007 (MDT) come on, no incentive not to die? this isn't a FPS, we're role playing. and if you are not attached to your character then you are not doing it right. that's the penalty for dying, that the character you have developed and are invested in is now gone.

So SA is essentially taking WHFRP fate points and making them restricted to some actions. Was the fate point system especially broken, and why does it need to be fixed?

--Matts 15:01, 23 July 2007 (MDT)I'm fixing it because mechanics that facilitate narrative are my primary interest.

Okay! I'm not going to debate this anymore on a wiki where I can't possibly convince anyone. Like I said, the first couple sessions are the testing ground; if it doesn't work, I'll come up with something better. The only thing I'm fucking with are your fate points, the rest of the system is intact.

Now, does anyone have character concepts, backgrounds, or hook ideas they'd like to share?

--Gdaze-- <<Hits Matt with chair>> FUCK YOU NAZI! Yeah, how about that for narrative? Your ass kicked, THE END!

Ahem. I for one am interested in the potential invading army. Or that magical things are starting to come back into the world (this is correct... da?) OOOOOR, invovled in the division that is happening in the church. Could make the campign a lot more urban.

--BenofZongo 15:21, 23 July 2007 (MDT)oh shit, that was funny...anyways, I was just about to ask you what the "unifier"/group-maker was gonna be, since that will strongly influence appropriate character concepts.

--Gdaze 15:39, 23 July 2007 (MDT) Well here are some ideas Criminals on the Run - I know we were this last time BUT, if we are this from the start it might flow better.

(*)Related to the Church Division - Merchants, warriors, priests, whatever, we are somehow tied into it.

(*)Part of those mobster families - The ones we met in that southern town. Might be fun to play tied into them. (That is we ARE part of it, not get blackmailed into doing shit)

With the resulting Chaos of everything falling apart, what if we played a ban of people trying to defend their village? Limited, but very 7 Samurai.

Remember those people hired to get the axe the first time and fail? Well its not that they didn't come back, they just never made it to the axe... due to.... INSERT PLOT DEVICE

Just some ideas.

-Matts 15:44, 23 July 2007 (MDT)I'm not going to dictate that; I've got a plot in mind, but my ideas so far don't demand a particular shared background. It could be that the hook that keeps everyone together evolves over the course of the first few sessions, before we get into the first adventure proper.

But if you wanted to throw out the idea that everyone's crew on a riverboat called the Argo, or something like that, here's the place to do it, since that sort of thing probably wouldn't evolve. The assumption I'm operating from is that by the time you're imprisoned in the cave, I mean, er, that by the time the game starts, you'll be a group with a few trials-by-fire already under your belt. I haven't explained fully the prologue system I want to use, but let's be real here; I've got a job! Maybe I'll write it up tonight.

Lol, the dudes hired to get the axe! That'd be some Rosencratz shit right there.

--Dieter the Bold 16:01, 23 July 2007 (MDT) I'd love to be smugglers. I mean, straight up, dishonest smugglers. We're moving items that can get us imprisoned or worse about the Empire and we're all in it deep enough to hang the others. We can smuggle by wagon, boat, mule or foot. We can have facemen, muscles and scholars (legal, hopefully), and maybe a dishonest lawman or two. I think it offers all the fun of trading, troubleshooting, scheming and fighting that we could want, with emphases on any of those depending on how much effort each person wants to exert in any particular direction. It also encourages group unity because each one of us could well and truly fuck any of the rest.

--Gdaze 16:29, 23 July 2007 (MDT) Hmm I like Dieter's idea. Though I dunno if this group can be that ruthless... Oh wait... I forgot our first Space Opera game. Whipping priests and beating kids with skateboards.

--Dieter the Bold 16:49, 23 July 2007 (MDT) I see Ed as Jacob: general criminal
Ben as Anjou: faceman extraordinaire
Gabe as Robert: muscle and legal counsel
Jeremy as Samuel: conman and fixer
Dieter as Germanicus: fixer

--Matts 17:27, 23 July 2007 (MDT)That's a fantastic idea! Keep em coming!

--Edmiao 17:28, 23 July 2007 (MDT) I like the downright smuggler idea. enough of do gooders. let's be criminals. very world appropriate as well.