The point is, insulting people is kind of the norm here too, and I'm not sure what example, if any, we're supposed to set re: civil interactions with other people.
General Exalted Thread
The point is, insulting people is kind of the norm here too, and I'm not sure what example, if any, we're supposed to set re: civil interactions with other people.
Warning: Warning
Generic_Generica
Notice me Senpai~
- Location
- Right behind you
warning
@Deations, don't do this. Don't take potshots at other users like that. @Dif please don't continue this... Thing. @Deations might have started this mess but I'm ending it.
So stop it. And don't start it again, or I will begin handing out infractions and threadbans.
Everyone else, please continue posting normally.
So stop it. And don't start it again, or I will begin handing out infractions and threadbans.
Everyone else, please continue posting normally.
- Location
- Gladstone, OR
Re: Terrain rules: I actually did try to account for them, but it's not clear yet apparently. Basically 'When you move' through a node, either from feature to feature or node to node, you look at it and go "Okay, so here's the real-world-distance and all of these features also countfor travel modifiers. How long does it take to traverse this?"
So in your Isle of Gulls, you'dlook at it and go "I want to move out this node into the neighboring node. It's 500 hectares across, and the terrain has these modifiers from the travel rules, it takes me X time to move out."
There's a degree of common sense to be applied here- you're likely not moving from one end of the node to the other, for example.
- Location
- New York City
With an understanding that I largely agree with this, I guess this is some nitpicking.
In my 3rd Edition experience, I haven't really had this problem, but I can't tell if that's a matter of how my group tends to balance encounters or if it's simply that we haven't had a million fights or anything like that with Fair Folk Cataphracts and Octavian. This hasn't seemed to be a problem so far in the mortals story we did or the Solars story.
If I'm approaching this incorrectly, is what you're talking about doing The Thing with the most successes possible/the greatest effect possible? Is it a matter of accessing Charms through prerequisites? Is it just meeting Difficulties for actions? I understand this idea absolutely in theory, but my practice just hasn't yielded the same resulting problem.
Can you give an example of this? I think I get what you mean, but an example of something successfully doing this would be helpful.
Is this about being competitive with other players or with NPCs?
Last edited:
- Location
- Spain
He is talking about how getting 5/5 in your main skills is such a no-brainer that in effect it's a fake choice.
- Location
- New York City
Maybe my time playing too much Chronicles of Darkness has effected me on that. I honestly wouldn't shoot past 3 dots on a lot of things if I didn't have to for Charms.
Aaron Peori
Rest in Peace
It has to do with the way Defenses function. In nWoD defense is a penalty to the dicepool, so a Defense of 2 versus a dicepool of 4~6 just means you're rolling 2~4 dice, still not much of a difference. In Exalted you compare successes to DV, however. So a Dicepool of 4 against DV 2 is going to miss half the time while a Dicepool of 6 versus DV 2 means you hit way more often than not. And the effect is pretty linear throughout the pool sizes.
A 10 dice attack versus DV 5 is 50/50, a 12 dice attack versus DV 5 is much more likely to succeed. A 14 dice even more likely and so on. Same is true of DVs. A DV 6 versus dicepool 10 is going to result in many more misses than hits. So you want to max out your Attribute/Ability and all other permanent mods as much as possible as quickly as possible. Basically it makes "increase numbers" always the optimal choice with more interesting effects being of secondary concern.
This applies equally to non combat, since 'dicepool vs DV' is basically the same as 'dicepool vs difficulty' which is how 99% of the game works.
So since any competent player is going to max out their primary dicepool in whatever their specialty so they can pull off the kind of stuff their epic hero is supposed to be able to pull off why bother making it a choice? The only reason is to allow deliberately suboptimal play. Which, by the way, you can also do in class/level systems. Just declare that a player can purposefully lower their stats if they want to. Sure, you don't get anything for it, but you're playing deliberately suboptimal anyway so who cares?
- Location
- Spain
Indeed.
When i have to introduce new people to Exalted i just make them choose from pre-made, optimized templates. (With some xp left for customization).
(So, basically classes).
- Location
- New York City
But conversely, you do get something for it when you're building in a system with customization, because those points you might've spent concentrated in that one thing can be placed in other things as well, and the benefit you gain from that isn't a matter of linear competence but of a greater variety of ways to interact with the system. If Competence isn't interesting (which strikes me as mostly a matter of the genre you're working in, again see CofD) but Options are, doesn't it make sense that losing out on some measure of Competence for greater Options would be a thing players might enjoy?
Plus, it seems like there is a difference in the way people think about it as a negative choice (Where you just choose to lower your stats for reasons) and a positive choice (Where you lowered your stats in this specific arena for broader benefits in others.)
There is a difference in the sense of agency between those two things, and that's sort of what I enjoy about making that choice.
As far as defense goes, it seems like doing stuff like picking Intimacies that help and making good use of Stunts/Willpower, or in the case of Solars, Excellencies to spruce up those things means that the problem of picking 2 versus 4 isn't nearly as big of a deal, which would theoretically mean that you could move those points around to other things.
Sure, you can violate the framework of a Class/Level system to achieve what seems like a similar result, but there isn't really the same satisfaction of making something which feels like it accurately reflects itself if you have to work outside the framework to make it happen. Kinda like how you can cheat and look up what a word is in the daily crossword puzzle, but the satisfaction often comes from having figured it out within the limitations of the game. (i.e. without looking up the answers.)
Last edited:
- Location
- Spain
Well.
The other thing where the system falls is that there is a lot of overlapping competences between different abilities. It's much more effective for a Social character to have Presence 5 and performance 0 that having both at 4.
Last edited:
- Location
- New York City
Wouldn't that be contingent upon your ST always calling for Presence whenever you make social rolls, rather than calling for a mixture of the two? Or a mixture of those two and Socialize?
EDIT: And doesn't this just enter into the typical issue of Sail and Ride? If your ST doesn't incorporate those things into the campaign, then they're a waste of dots. If your ST is never thinking about having people use Performance for the situations where one might use it, then of course it's a waste of dots.
EDIT: And doesn't this just enter into the typical issue of Sail and Ride? If your ST doesn't incorporate those things into the campaign, then they're a waste of dots. If your ST is never thinking about having people use Performance for the situations where one might use it, then of course it's a waste of dots.
Last edited:
- Location
- Spain
That's the thing. The ST isn't the one calling for presence or performance, you are. (Based in your stunt).
And sure, sometimes having both help, if you are heavily invested in social, but in general you can get just fine with a single maxed one.
(Same applies to combat).
Excellencies don't help the situation, because your max is determined by your abilities/attributes. If you have a pool of 6 your max is a pool of 12. If you have a pool of 10 your max is 20. And having a higher base/max is really critical. Two dice can create a huge difference in probabilities. Which, given how excellencies work, mean each dot is a huge boost.
Moreover, Exalted really gives a middle finger to anyone who spread out and then tries to specialize, as opposed to the opposite. If a character goes 5/0 to 5/3, that player has spent less than someone who went 3/3 to 5/3.
Part of the issue is that charisma and manipulation still aren't really clearly defined. At least, not in a way that's not completely arbitrary. It's like law and chaos in 3.5 dnd.
Last edited:
- Location
- Brittany, France
- Pronouns
- He/Him
There's a long standing assumption in the Exalted fandom that a good player can always bullshit their way into using their best ability to cover for related but different skill they're missing, often invoking the magic words "with a stunt." This is especially true with social traits. You don't need both Presence and Performance because you can always justify swapping one for the other, and you don't need both Manipulation and Charisma because they're just flavors of social action that you can swap by rephrasing your speech.
Imrix
Periodically Malevolent QM
Not really, because you have influence over when you roll these things. If you have Presence 5, Performance 0, then you can focus your persuasive efforts on finding lynchpin individuals to talk to, and avoid situations that would call on Performance. Likewise, if you have Performance 5, Presence 0, you can focus your efforts on stirring up crowds and engaging with institutions, avoiding individuals. In either case, you'll get more out of it than being middling at both. Being half as good at both abilities is only a worthwhile trade when you have to use each one half the time, to say nothing of the possibility of being not good enough at either to do anything, or missing out on the rewards of extraordinary successes.
Mind, you can't always blag your way into using your best ability, but the complexity of the setting and the power of the Exalted does tip the scale more than a little.
- Location
- Spain
Honestly i think that actions that create/reinforce intimacies should use charisma, and those that exploit intimacies to persuade to make actions should be based in manipulation.
(But that's just me).
This.
Same reason why you don't need melee and brawl, really.
And given that you can start with seven maxed abilities, well, there aren't really many competence holes left.
(But that's just me).
This.
Same reason why you don't need melee and brawl, really.
And given that you can start with seven maxed abilities, well, there aren't really many competence holes left.
Last edited:
- Location
- NYC
IMO, a big part of the issue is the very real lack of collaborative mechanics in the game: outside of something like combat where every player has a clear stake and numbers give mechanical bonuses, most situations ultimately come down to one guy doing stuff without the ability to get bonuses from others aiding them. If the party already has a Perception 5 Survival 5 guy then there is literally no benefit (unless that guy isn't able to help for some reason) to even slightly dipping into Survival for tracking or animal taming. Often all that matters is what the most competent character can do, resulting in there being very little incentive to invest in a subject at all if someone else in the party can already do it well enough to pass.
Imrix
Periodically Malevolent QM
Think of it like this. Suppose I have two traits, A and B, with two points to spend between them. Then there are challenges which grant points equal to your rating in the appropriate trait.
Now, if challenges alternate between A and B, then the two traits are equal. If I spend 2 points in one trait and 0 in the other, I'll gain 2, 0, 2, 0 points, and if I keep them equal, I'll gain 1, 1, 1, 1 points.
Except, the setting is more complicated than that. Problems can be approached from many angles, and the power of the Exalted gives them lots of options. So it's more like challenges alternate between A, B, and one chosen by the player. Maybe the player chooses one in three challenges, maybe they choose one in ten, but the result is the same - a specialised build will reap greater benefits over time.
The above is incredibly abstract, mind you, but I hope it demonstrates the principle.
Now, if challenges alternate between A and B, then the two traits are equal. If I spend 2 points in one trait and 0 in the other, I'll gain 2, 0, 2, 0 points, and if I keep them equal, I'll gain 1, 1, 1, 1 points.
Except, the setting is more complicated than that. Problems can be approached from many angles, and the power of the Exalted gives them lots of options. So it's more like challenges alternate between A, B, and one chosen by the player. Maybe the player chooses one in three challenges, maybe they choose one in ten, but the result is the same - a specialised build will reap greater benefits over time.
The above is incredibly abstract, mind you, but I hope it demonstrates the principle.
Last edited:
It's not just an assumption, though - in my actual-play experience with a number of groups, this is pretty reliably true. You probably can't sweet-talk the GM into rolling Charisma + Melee to convert the crowd by the sheer magnificence of your daiklave, but choosing to cast an interaction as Presence vs. Performance really is a pretty trivial exchange, in my experience.
Last edited:
Most of the math end has been explained, so I'll just touch on this part:
You might want to play a "bumbling" fighter for example, who is inexperienced and gets by in combat largely on luck and daring than by her own skill, but the mechanical reality of Melee 1 over Melee 5 means that you are literally playing by luck with a higher chance of "Do Nothing whatsoever" and "You can never hit this target ever" on top of locking you out from Charms which would allow you to do more Meaningful Things in that combat as a whole. Most things like boss monsters are built with the presumption that anyone who will be fighting them will Have some of these things already, and frequently your low-pool combined with lack of Options becomes a much bigger danger to you than anything the enemy is actually doing. Better to simply play a Conceptually "inexperienced/bumbling" fighter at Melee 5, who has all the necessary tools at her disposal.
All the options in the world go nowhere if you can't roll enough dice to cause a result to trigger.
NPCs, because as you say, there is no metric established for creating or balancing encounters which says whether or not at any given moment your character will not be faced with a rotating cast of disposable mortals or a tag-team of Octavian and his Agata. But because the way games are played, typically as "all hands on deck" for dramatic scenes, any player who is capable of standing and fighting at all should still be able to contribute to either such fight, no matter what their level of combat investment might be. Unfortunately that's not usually the case, and any given Octavian will walk all over a character who is not fully prepared and equipped for the kind of fight he (or something like him) brings to the table.
You might want to play a "bumbling" fighter for example, who is inexperienced and gets by in combat largely on luck and daring than by her own skill, but the mechanical reality of Melee 1 over Melee 5 means that you are literally playing by luck with a higher chance of "Do Nothing whatsoever" and "You can never hit this target ever" on top of locking you out from Charms which would allow you to do more Meaningful Things in that combat as a whole. Most things like boss monsters are built with the presumption that anyone who will be fighting them will Have some of these things already, and frequently your low-pool combined with lack of Options becomes a much bigger danger to you than anything the enemy is actually doing. Better to simply play a Conceptually "inexperienced/bumbling" fighter at Melee 5, who has all the necessary tools at her disposal.
This is the primary drawback to Storyteller because the method of resolution means that there is no inherent "fail forward" to its otherwise binary results. Dice are not interesting and having something Happen because you made an action Is interesting, but having a measurable result at all is usually only something which occurs when you have Passed the roll to begin with. Your ST can enforce it themselves, but in most situations where you do not have the Competence to complete a task successfully, it simply means you have done and contributed nothing.
All the options in the world go nowhere if you can't roll enough dice to cause a result to trigger.
Last edited:
- Location
- NOVA
There's also a problem where some abilities allow a single character to provide competence for an entire party(Survival, Sail, Occult, Craft, Lore, Medicine[provided the doctor isn't sick]), while others have the party's success or failure be based on the weakest link(Stealth, Athletics, Ride, Integrity, Resistance, anything combat related).
The first grouping leads to the problem @DayDreamer brought up with collaboration. Lesser successes don't do much, if anything, so the best decision is to either invest heavily or not at all.
The second group runs into the decker problem, where small differences in investment result in massive swings of usefulness. Anyone who wants to enter the field needs to be skilled or they'll just bring everyone else down.
I think both issues could be fixed with better collaboration mechanics. In the first case, other contributors could provide meaningful bonuses. Even simply reducing the amount of time something takes would be valuable enough justify a lesser investment.
I'm not sure of the best way to resolve the second, and am unsure if it's even possible given how the dice curve works. The best idea I had was allowing a highly skilled character to reduce the difficulty everyone else worked against by taking on a higher one themselves. This would be most directly applicable to Stealth where the character good at it distracts guards or finds routes to get everyone inside.
The first grouping leads to the problem @DayDreamer brought up with collaboration. Lesser successes don't do much, if anything, so the best decision is to either invest heavily or not at all.
The second group runs into the decker problem, where small differences in investment result in massive swings of usefulness. Anyone who wants to enter the field needs to be skilled or they'll just bring everyone else down.
I think both issues could be fixed with better collaboration mechanics. In the first case, other contributors could provide meaningful bonuses. Even simply reducing the amount of time something takes would be valuable enough justify a lesser investment.
I'm not sure of the best way to resolve the second, and am unsure if it's even possible given how the dice curve works. The best idea I had was allowing a highly skilled character to reduce the difficulty everyone else worked against by taking on a higher one themselves. This would be most directly applicable to Stealth where the character good at it distracts guards or finds routes to get everyone inside.
- Location
- New York City
I appreciate hearing all of these answers! For whatever reasons these things aren't a huge problem in my group, but it really helps me understand where people are coming from when they express their frustration.
I wonder how many of these problems are problems that are actually unique to Storyteller though, or if the problems are more fundamental than that. Like, it sounds like Storyteller certainly isn't helping, but won't this sort of thing always be an issue where any attempt at gradiating player ability comes into play? EDIT: What I mean is that is the only way to handle this by giving people a Physical Dicepool, a Mental Dicepool and a Social dicepool? Or will the problem then simply become people trying to push for their highest of the three to be the most relevant solution all the time? Is that actually a problem or just a method of expression? If the latter, is the problem that Performance and Presence overlap too much?
On the problem of overlapping, it seems kind of important that abilities overlap in some way to provide some nuance for how different characters might overcome similar challenges, which seems like a sound principle to work with due to the way tabletop abstracts skills and the like in general. I wonder if the problem then is that Exalted, by virtue of being high powered, by virtue of how dicepools work or by virtue of the prerequisites on Charms actually creates the problem because it incentivizes to a much greater degree focusing on a single thing for all the other benefits. If that incentive didn't exist as much, I wonder if it'd be a problem?
(This prompts further musing about whether it's an Exalted problem or if it's a Solar problem, but I guess we'll have to wait and see what the prerequisites on Dragon-Blooded Charms are to get a bare minimum sense of it.)
Is it just that Storyteller fails to provide explicit benefit (either to players or to the story) for failure?
I'm reminded of how Storypath has that system of Momentum, where failing a roll can generate a die in the momentum pool or another benefit with a complication, but you can use that momentum pool in the future with agreement by the rest of the party to try to further ensure the success of another action.
I wonder how many of these problems are problems that are actually unique to Storyteller though, or if the problems are more fundamental than that. Like, it sounds like Storyteller certainly isn't helping, but won't this sort of thing always be an issue where any attempt at gradiating player ability comes into play? EDIT: What I mean is that is the only way to handle this by giving people a Physical Dicepool, a Mental Dicepool and a Social dicepool? Or will the problem then simply become people trying to push for their highest of the three to be the most relevant solution all the time? Is that actually a problem or just a method of expression? If the latter, is the problem that Performance and Presence overlap too much?
On the problem of overlapping, it seems kind of important that abilities overlap in some way to provide some nuance for how different characters might overcome similar challenges, which seems like a sound principle to work with due to the way tabletop abstracts skills and the like in general. I wonder if the problem then is that Exalted, by virtue of being high powered, by virtue of how dicepools work or by virtue of the prerequisites on Charms actually creates the problem because it incentivizes to a much greater degree focusing on a single thing for all the other benefits. If that incentive didn't exist as much, I wonder if it'd be a problem?
(This prompts further musing about whether it's an Exalted problem or if it's a Solar problem, but I guess we'll have to wait and see what the prerequisites on Dragon-Blooded Charms are to get a bare minimum sense of it.)
Is it just that Storyteller fails to provide explicit benefit (either to players or to the story) for failure?
I'm reminded of how Storypath has that system of Momentum, where failing a roll can generate a die in the momentum pool or another benefit with a complication, but you can use that momentum pool in the future with agreement by the rest of the party to try to further ensure the success of another action.
Last edited:
The alternatives are: nobody does Stealth, and everybody does Stealth. Which, in my experience, neither the Stealth guy nor the non-Stealth guys want.