As I said; some people love that and enjoy PBDing their way through fights. Other people dislike it and prefer to go "okay, a demonic assassin tried to kill me and failed" in four or five quick rolls before moving onto "so who sent them and why?" And naturally, in both cases, the players in question will be dissatisfied with a system that caters to the other.
Not to plug a totally different system, but the new Scion makes sure to include a sidebar on how to resolve Down and Dirty Combat in a roll or three, which works very well with its emphasis on failing forward. In the example of the demon assassin... you might succeed at slaying the beast, and use your success to perform a Stunt whereby you recognise the make of the coral-poison knife the demon was equipped with and so know where to look for the summoner.

If you fail you don't kill the demon, but you'll enjoy a Consolation to move the story forward – a new NPC leapt to your rescue, kicking off the next part of the plot, or it leaves you for dead and you overhear it conversing with its summoner, or you flee into another part of town and totally change the context of the battle (or you just straight-up get a benny). Alternatively, you might be allowed to succeed anyway, but suffer a Complication based on the difficulty – sure, you beat down the demon, but it slashed your arm with its venomed weapon and now you're woozy and off-balance at best (or you had to flare your anima and now the guard are beating down the door, or you beat it into retreat but failed to kill it and now it knows your moves).

Of course, there are also full combat resolution rules! But for the kind of combat roll you're describing, these mechanics seem particularly suitable.
 
Last edited:
I don't disagree, but the real problem seems to be in actually writing those in-depth systems. It's not hard at all to just delete the combat system and write up a difficulty table (or just make it based on a single opposed roll, or whatever). It's much more difficult to write a good, fun, tactical combat engine (and easy to screw up).
Yeah, I don't pretend to have a perfect solution ready to go. These is more design philosophy and structure musings on how I'd set it up and arrange the sourcebooks so that the system is friendly to use and offers a wide range of gameplay choices to suit different people's tastes.
Not to plug a totally different system, but the new Scion makes sure to include a sidebar on how to resolve Down and Dirty Combat in a roll or three, which works very well with its emphasis on failing forward. In the example of the demon assassin... you might succeed at slaying the beast, and use your success to perform a Stunt whereby you recognise the make of the coral-poison knife the demon was equipped with and so know where to look for the summoner.
Ooo. This does sound interesting. Very interesting indeed. I like it.
 
To expand on the above; a useful example, I think, is the Creation-Ruling Mandate system from Masters of Jade. The CRM system has problems, yes, but one thing it is not is overcomplex. It doesn't introduce much in the way of new mechanics. What it basically is, at the root, is a few new traits for organisations, and some example Extended Actions to feed those traits into. If you want 'how to use' advice for simple RBD systems, you could do worse than to examine the CRM.
 
As I've expressed to @Aleph before, the depth of what she wants to do is a little bit...

Well, it's kind of crazy. But then so is she. (I say this with love and admiration).

I also think that if anyone were to actually devote the insane amount of time to actually putting all this shit together that her and her friends have done, one day, and to do it right, it would be her.
 
My solution to this dilemma is to make the system modular. This also turns out to be an easy way to solve the fact that there is no existent governing system and not much in the way of social influence, too! Essentially, to use combat as an example; I'd write the corebook chock-full of simple RBD systems. As many as I could pack in, all designed to be done with an example action (and there would be lots of examples) in five rolls or so. It would be basic mechanics, an introduction to the system, an introduction to the setting, and lots of suggestions and "how to use" bits.

And then the other sourcebooks would plug into this core system based on what you wanted out of your game. Now, the corebook alone would be functional - and in fact it would be pretty good for a more narrative, rules-light game where the mechanics matter less than the story. You could sit down and play with just that, and have fun. But say you wanted more out of combat. Say you liked that RBD fighting where you roll out every thrust and parry and roleplay manoeuvring for position and dealing with range bands and cooperating with a group to dogpile a single opponent and all that jazz.

If that's what you want, you buy the combat sourcebook; Blades and Battles. The first half of this book contains a PBD system; a Cinematic Combat Engine that plugs into the Simple Combat Engine rules in the corebook and expands on them massively, probably in something similar to the basic 3e combat system. It would have Charms that interface with these expanded rules, suggestions on using them, etcetera. If your group wants to play a game whose focus is in the actual process of combat, you use that.

If you want to play a game whose focus is still on combat, but on the wider scale of warfare and military campaigns and so on, never fear! That's what the second half of the book is about. It has a Mass Combat Engine - again, one that plugs into the Simple Combat Engine of the corebook and expands on it. It gives you rules and fluff for why and how warfare happens, how to model troops and armies, special assets and sieges, morale and drill, etcetera. If you want to play a nation-state game where instead of swording things yourself you send or lead your armies to do it for you, this is what you use.

This idea of modular design based on game focus is the best solution I've been able to come up with. The players and ST collectively decide what they want to model in-depth, and what they want to just represent with a basic resolution mechanic to get onto the good stuff. If combat is largely incidental to the stuff they all want to do, they can use the corebook combat system but the in-depth project and governance mechanics in the respective sourcebooks. This essentially allows the system to be customised to suit the game - and since the plug-in sourcebooks are fairly thematically restricted and your combat mechanics are all in Blades and Battles, it makes it easier to cross-check for combinational hell. A lot of them would basically be split half and half between a character-scale PBD engine that expands on the RBD corebook rules and a "Magnitude" engine that gives rules for city- or nation-scale games.

Sooo, you'd write it like GURPS?

Alternatively:

I also think that if anyone were to actually devote the insane amount of time to actually putting all this shit together

GURPS already did that!


:D:p
 
I don't think @Aleph, @EarthScorpion, @Shyft, @Jon Chung or myself or anyone in this thread should rewrite Exalted from the ground up. We're all fans with, in many cases, a decade of so of personal grudges, biases and implicit assumptions that we'd bring to the project which would basically make doing it well impossible. Regardless of our intentions or skills we'd just not succeed very well.

Exalted needs a harsh break from Ascended Fanboys and get some professional but unemotionally invested people to step up. Those people can certainly work with fans, but should not be fans.
 
I really like this idea, but could see some problems with implementation if it was ever fully done. The biggest one I can see is that, since the add-on modules would presumably come out over some extended amount of time, you might end up with players really liking whatever new system comes out, but being locked into the simple rules already because of Charms they've bought. This could be helped if there was some sort of conversion in each add-on book, with each simple-rules Charm being expanded into a small cluster of extended-rules Charms.

There could also be pricing issues with the difference between simple and extended Charms. You would need to adjust so that they are equally easy/difficult to invest in.

I also think that if anyone were to actually devote the insane amount of time to actually putting all this shit together that her and her friends have done, one day, and to do it right, it would be her.
I totally agree with you know this. Of all the people I have ever seen doing homebrew, I would trust Aleph and co. to do it best.
 
Last edited:
I don't think @Aleph, @EarthScorpion, @Shyft, @Jon Chung or myself or anyone in this thread should rewrite Exalted from the ground up. We're all fans with, in many cases, a decade of so of personal grudges, biases and implicit assumptions that we'd bring to the project which would basically make doing it well impossible. Regardless of our intentions or skills we'd just not succeed very well.

Exalted needs a harsh break from Ascended Fanboys and get some professional but unemotionally invested people to step up. Those people can certainly work with fans, but should not be fans.
Why?
 
I really like this idea, but could see some problems with implementation if it was ever fully done. The biggest one I can see is that, since the add-on modules would presumably come out over some extended amount of time, you might end up with players really liking whatever new system comes out, but being locked into the simple rules already because of Charms they've bought. This could be helped if there was some sort of conversion in each add-on book, with each simple-rules Charm being expanded into a small cluster of extended-rules Charms.
Yeah, the intent would be that simple Charms would lead into extended ones, and that you could transition from using a simple engine to a plug-in after several, or even many, sessions of gameplay. How possible that would be is a matter for debate, but that would be the goal.
Exalted needs a harsh break from Ascended Fanboys and get some professional but unemotionally invested people to step up. Those people can certainly work with fans, but should not be fans.
Why?
I'll agree that @Aaron Peori has a point here. Coming at something with preconceived notions and bias can lead to bad mojo, and while I'd try my best to avoid that, the risk would still be there.
 
I'll agree that @Aaron Peori has a point here. Coming at something with preconceived notions and bias can lead to bad mojo, and while I'd try my best to avoid that, the risk would still be there.
Sure. But there's being cognizant of bias in approaching something, and then there's deciding that said bias means you shouldn't attempt it; I don't see the connect in this case.
e-missed a word lol
e2- And somehow I put it in backwards.
 
Last edited:
The plug-in sourcebooks would have Charms for all splats, hopefully, so potential sourcebooks would be:

Corebook: Basic mechanics, simple Systems for everything, introduction to the setting. Solar simple charms too, since they're the default splat.
Leaders and Logistics: General Project mechanics and fluff for large-scale actions of any kind. A lot of other books would reference this one.
[Area books]: Cultural information fluff and plot hooks for different setting locations.
[Splat books]: Introduction to each splat; chargen, plot hooks, mechanics, suite of simple Charms.
Pacts and Politics: In-depth social influence mechanics, PR and propaganda, background sociology.
Blades and Battles: Cinematic and Mass Combat Engines. Fluff on setting up and running warfare.
Forges and Factories: Artifact crafting and mass production. Tool sophistication and infrastructure.
Monarchs and Merchants: Governing and trade and empire-building. Laws, diplomacy, Anno 1404 stuff.
Sage and Sorcerer: Occult knowledge, thaumaturgy, Sorcery, example rotes/spells, Workings (Sorcerous Projects).
Gods and Monsters: Spirit mechanics, the differences between gods, elementals, ghosts, demons and raksha. The various realm-of-existence "area" books would go into more detail on these, but the basic spirit mechanics and the unique hooks about each type (like the "how did they die?" ghosts and "what tool are they?" demons) would be here.

There might be various other ones I haven't thought of here. Terrain and Travel, maybe, for a game about being Marco Polo or Francis Drake? Or Crops and Cattle for agriculture? They would all fit the alliterative naming scheme, naturally. You can't stop me doing that. In fact, no-one can stop me! Ahahahaa!

... shut up, Gods and Monsters doesn't count.
Cost wise that seems to create to many purchases for a functional game with depth. Perhaps you could include most if not all of the splats in the core book up to enough detail to run them in the basic mechanics and some fluff for all of them (exempting the more optional exalt types such as Alchemicals), and spread the detailed splat book content to the most relevant other books. That would allow you to play most of the setting with just the core book and pick your expansions to add to it rather than just make other setting pieces playable. For example the relevant conquest based NPC's of all splats would appear in Blades and Battle. Some books would reference some splats more than others for example Sidereals would show up most the Yu Shan setting book, and the book for intrique which is another mechanics book that might be a good idea a book for the James Bond, Ninja (fate and otherwise) or the Lunar playing up the shape shifting cannibal saboteur theme.
 
There are roughly two possible answers to "what if we start a campaign before a book is out, and then want to use it":
  1. Let the players who want to use the new system rebuild their characters to the same XP total, removing (for example) some combat charms in order to buy crafting charms.
  2. Make the Excellencies for a simple-system Ability much more expensive and require progressive purchases (since the only real mechanic in the simple version of a system is # of successes). Then, when switching to an advanced version of the system, convert them back to XP you use to buy real Charms.
The problem with #2 is that generally if you are using the simple subsystem for a campaign that's because its mechanics aren't a significant focus of your story. But if that's the case playing a character whose shtick is being good at that stuff is already a problem, because you're investing a lot of resources in something without much screentime. Players aren't going to want to do that.

But once you let someone purchase "I am good at Bureaucracy" on the cheap since it's just a bit of character fluff, you can't then give them a ton of Bureaucracy Charms for free (on top of the combat or social Charms they already bought, which are on par with the rest of the circle's) just because you switched to the advanced subsystem.
 
Last edited:
Wouldn't it cause a lot of problems to try and put charms for all splats in the sourcebooks? You either write all the splats before the modular books and make people wait forever for the detailed systems or make people buy books with charms for splats they can't actually use. Not to mention that people may be a bit annoyed at buying a book with hundreds of charms for a splat they have no interest in.
 
Sure. But there's being cognizant of bias in approaching something, and then there's deciding that said bias means you shouldn't attempt it; I see don't the connect in this case.
e-missed a word lol

Well, let's use a popular meme @EarthScorpion like to throw around "Fuck the Fair Folk". I'm certain he could write an interesting Exalted rulesset, but fundamentally he dislikes the current vision of the Fair Folk (and would probably replace it with @Havocfett's version if he had his way) but the Fair Folk as implemented are, in fact, a very popular part of the setting and lots of people like them. He may be changing how they work and their importance to the setting solely for what he perceives as very good reason but his bias is still inherent to how he approaches the game. Some of us don't want the Fair Folk to be entirely revamped and just want functional mechanics for them (nor do we want them to be nothing more than refluffed spirits, either).

I'm certain he could make a version very popular to him and people like him but he is not the sole audience of Exalted.

Frankly, we have already seen what happens when ascended fanboys run the game; Exalted 3rd Edition. For those who like it, its a good game. For those of us who disagree with the fundamental assumptions of the developers it is a giant pile of horrible ideas. You can clearly see where bias and favoritism influenced the rules (how many Martial Arts styles do we have? How many Craft Charms are there? Compare that to War and Infrastructure building effects.)

Is it impossible for a fan to write a good version of Exalted. No, probably not. But I don't think its worth the attempt. The risk is too high and we've already tried it and now we have a proper schism in the fanbase comparable to the schism between 3rd and 4th edition D&D.
 
Pretty much! I have negative interest in providing a playable Fair Folk charmset - negative because I feel making them playable actually hurts the game - and so any of the people who like them as they are, or gods forbid even tried to play then, is basically shit out of luck if I'm let near the reins.
 
Wouldn't it cause a lot of problems to try and put charms for all splats in the sourcebooks? You either write all the splats before the modular books and make people wait forever for the detailed systems or make people buy books with charms for splats they can't actually use. Not to mention that people may be a bit annoyed at buying a book with hundreds of charms for a splat they have no interest in.
Which is why it is, as @cyberswordsmen said, a good idea to put all the simple rules in core. Lots of writing time needed prior to publishing, but if it's a fan project/theoretical exercise, that's not really prohibitive.
Make the Excellencies for a simple-system Ability much more expensive and require progressive purchases (since the only real mechanic in the simple version of a system is # of successes).
Not necessarily. They wouldn't be one-roll systems, and there would be a few mechanics to hang Charms on - which could serve as foundations for greater depth. But yeah, this is something that would need careful thought and balance.
Frankly, we have already seen what happens when ascended fanboys run the game; Exalted 3rd Edition. For those who like it, its a good game. For those of us who disagree with the fundamental assumptions of the developers it is a giant pile of horrible ideas.
Yes, that.
 
This is actually a discussion kind of beyond the scope of Exalted more or less, like...

Yeah, I guess some people would cut out the Fair Folk. Some people wouldn't like that. But if it makes for a better game (I'm not saying it does, arguendo), how much does that matter? You can always find someone attached to something about a product, no matter how shitty it is. And that has to be weighed and considered in development but it's just one factor out of many you know?
 
Intrigue and courtier backstabbing would be Pacts and Politics, but yeah, good point.
I was more thinking playing Ninja archtypes and mission impossible style situations. It would require it's own system rather than the court political system even if they are relevant in the same type of setting they would have very different focuses and the system for ninja would have to be more combat and stealth focused rather than the social/political focus of a court based game.

Wouldn't it cause a lot of problems to try and put charms for all splats in the sourcebooks? You either write all the splats before the modular books and make people wait forever for the detailed systems or make people buy books with charms for splats they can't actually use. Not to mention that people may be a bit annoyed at buying a book with hundreds of charms for a splat they have no interest in.
You would only be including relevant charms to the specific theme of the book, and even of the players themselves never use them it provides the GM with fuel for antagonists.

I imagine the basic system would itself be rather simple with charms being fairly streamlined and somewhat standardized in mechanics. Even more so than 2e was.

Another strategy for dealing with the general system to subsystem conversion would be to make charms from the specific system cost less xp while being more narrow in breadth. Basically design the core system such that you only need a relatively small number of charms to be competitive but they cost a lot such that each purchase is a big deal while the subsystem requires much more charms to function inside of it but they can be purchased in bulk. A rule allowing for all xp in relevant abilities to be respent when switching to a new subsystem splat would defend against broken builds.
 
This is actually a discussion kind of beyond the scope of Exalted more or less, like...

Yeah, I guess some people would cut out the Fair Folk. Some people wouldn't like that. But if it makes for a better game (I'm not saying it does, arguendo), how much does that matter? You can always find someone attached to something about a product, no matter how shitty it is. And that has to be weighed and considered in development but it's just one factor out of many you know?
The issue with the Ascended Fanboy is that regardless of skill, they make the game for themselves and their own particular vision rather than for the game's actual audience. Which ends up not being a good game for a huge swath of the playerbase much of the time because it's not what they bought into the series for
 
This is actually a discussion kind of beyond the scope of Exalted more or less, like...

Yeah, I guess some people would cut out the Fair Folk. Some people wouldn't like that. But if it makes for a better game (I'm not saying it does, arguendo), how much does that matter? You can always find someone attached to something about a product, no matter how shitty it is. And that has to be weighed and considered in development but it's just one factor out of many you know?

It's always a nice theory until its the sub-system you hate getting all the attention to the detriment of the subsystems you want. I like Martial Arts but kind of hate the current system. Does this mean Holden producing a dozen or more large Charm cascade Styles for the game is objectively bad?

No. It just produces a product I don't want.You can't really argue what is 'best for the game' because 'the game' is what the developers want it to be. If the game the developers want is one with complete Fair Folk mechanics including a fully fleshed out Shaping Combat system then what's best for the game is having that system. Because that's the game they want to produce.

They may make a terrible system, but failing to include it would be bad for their game.

But the question then becomes is Their Game what the majority of the audience wants.
 
This is actually a discussion kind of beyond the scope of Exalted more or less, like...

Yeah, I guess some people would cut out the Fair Folk. Some people wouldn't like that. But if it makes for a better game (I'm not saying it does, arguendo), how much does that matter? You can always find someone attached to something about a product, no matter how shitty it is. And that has to be weighed and considered in development but it's just one factor out of many you know?
Yeah but people are going to disagree on what makes for a better game and there aren't a lot of objective standards.
 
This is actually a discussion kind of beyond the scope of Exalted more or less, like...

Yeah, I guess some people would cut out the Fair Folk. Some people wouldn't like that. But if it makes for a better game (I'm not saying it does, arguendo), how much does that matter? You can always find someone attached to something about a product, no matter how shitty it is. And that has to be weighed and considered in development but it's just one factor out of many you know?
Problem with this is, that there is no true definition of making better game. You cannot easily create objective system and fanboys are as hell not capable of creating it. You need someone outside to have look at it.
Exalted is weighted down even more here, thanks to the fact, that there is simply too many sacred cows, that would be needed to be slaughtered and too many pieces of the system removed. Pieces that are actually popular and desired by fanboys. The joke about Godbound being better Exalted, than Exalted is sufficiently true to be funny, but Godbound did achieve this by focusing on certain themes and exluding others. it did this by not being Exalted at all.
 
For those who like it, its a good game. For those of us who disagree with the fundamental assumptions of the developers it is a giant pile of horrible ideas.
Well that's going to be true even if the designers are outsiders. Probably worse, actually, since outside designers may bring in ideas from other games that nobody who is into Exalted likes. I mean, imagine if Monte Cook wrote Exalted 3e instead.
 
Back
Top