General Exalted Thread
HamSandLich
MEAT WIZARD
- Location
- Somewhere in NOVA, possibly, maybe, presumably
- Pronouns
- He/Him
Marriage contracts and lineages are extremely important in establishing power bases and cementing alliances in a pre-modern setting. In Exalted's case, Lunars have been establishing moon-touched lineages for centuries as a way of projecting their power and disguising their influence(and in 1e-2e actually had to have sex to create beastmen), Necharan nobles have been porking literally everything remotely magical so their offspring can channel essence (and "Adversaries of the Righteous" features a particularly pushy wedding planner/arranger who thinks PCs would be a great addition to her patron family's bloodline), gods might demand "hieros-gamos" in order to secure their blessing, the Tengese are pretty neurotic about having a family, and a single exalt who establishes a kingdom is probably going to get marriage proposals from neighboring states(tinged with threats of war if they refuse).
1e, Yurgen Kaneko isn't ace, but he's an old man who's outlived several wives and is deeply uncomfortable with the fact that the Icewalkers keep throwing prospective brides at him and they take it out on the would-be bride when he rejects the proposal.
Last edited:
Sucal
The Devil’s Cut
- Location
- Bottom of the barrel
Just because your asexual, doesn't mean you can't Realpolitik.
HamSandLich
MEAT WIZARD
- Location
- Somewhere in NOVA, possibly, maybe, presumably
- Pronouns
- He/Him
So true, but so many writers seem to forget that, for both asexual character and gay characters, which leads to irritating political outcomes where succession is muddled because the reigning aristocrat wouldn't sire an heir(or clandestinely hire a surrogate to do it for him)
Last edited:
Sucal
The Devil’s Cut
- Location
- Bottom of the barrel
Yeah, like there are things where an Asexual would have a disadvantage, such as cultures that indulge in flyting (which can be memetically considered viking rap battles) since they would have a few extra points they could be 'attacked' on. Or in cultures that consider having a number of satisfied conquests to be a sign of personal power. Mere marriage for the sake of political advantage isn't one of those things by default, but as Codex Alera shows, there can be downsides to having an unsatisfied spouse you married for politics when they thought they were getting epic romance.
HamSandLich
MEAT WIZARD
- Location
- Somewhere in NOVA, possibly, maybe, presumably
- Pronouns
- He/Him
And in ASOIAF's case, muddled succession, grumbling vassals, and threats of civil war because a monarch refused to sire an heir
Just gotta lie back and think of the Realm.
- Location
- United States
You are ignoring content by this member.
Show ignored content
oh god just remembered an argument from the same 4chan geeks crying about 3e being too gay now that willingly changing your sexual characteristics and genitalia through magic means you aren't trans. holy hell, what a load of dumb fucks.
- Location
- Denmark
- Pronouns
- She/Her
actually, as an asexual person who lives in a society that is entirely structured around partnership and sex, i'm pretty fine with calling amon mora a sincere asexual character
- Location
- South Carolina
I don't think OPP gets any of the money from this these days? They just have a license to make books; they don't own the Exalted IP. As far as I know the Vault is an agreement between Paradox and DriveThruRPG.
- Location
- Ottawa
I think it would take a pretty brave or stupid mortal servant to mutter something derogatory within a hundred meters of a DB. Some of them have amazing hearing, some of them can almost read minds, and some of them absolutely will not hesitate to kill you if even slightly offended. For all a random mortal knows, any given DB could be all three categories.
Most likely, a DB who belongs to a stigmatized category will have every mortal around them trying very hard to act like that they have absolutely no problem with that category. They'll form a little bubble of not-quite-coerced acceptance.
I suppose that could get annoying in its own way. Especially if you're one of the ones who can almost read minds.
Cool.
And as another asexual person who also lives in such a society, I don't.
Strictly speaking I agree with you, it would be unrealistic for a small group of Dragon-Blooded to push for progressive rights without becoming kingmakers.
On the other hand, I kinda... don't care? I generally consider PCs to be more special and exceptional than NPCs, and that includes other Exalts. So long as they play it smart and don't do anything too stupid, I'm willing to cheat a little bit in their favor. Not to the point where they're guaranteed success, obviously, but enough so that the possibility of success is there.
- Location
- Denmark
- Pronouns
- She/Her
I suppose I might as well write a longer essay about why I think what I do and related issues in Exalted when I wake up tomorrow. Could be a nice bit of exercise in getting my ability to fucking write back, so I can actually update my quest (no I haven't forgotten it, I just write slowly, for those in this thread who read it and hadn't forgotten, lol).
I look forward to both of these things.
Storytelling Action Part 2
- Location
- Gladstone, OR
Storytelling Action - Part 2
Overview
There is a huge list of intimidating factors to possibly account for when developing an action scene, but one of the most important in my opinion is the choice of doing one in the first place.
Common Pacing Pitfalls
As mentioned in the first part, one of the most obvious pacing issues is the belief or perception that action must happen because action hasn't happened in a while. The rules themselves suggest this by dint of there being so many rules about resolving actions- and very few games- Exalted especially, giving you a strong foundation to decide when not to use them.
The second pacing pitfall is due to how Exalted has simultaneously one of the stronger but more open-ended approaches to player parity. At its simplest, it emerges out of the following logical chain:
The unfortunate consequence, especially in Exalted, is that it's very easy to create a character who is so good at one thing, that no other character can compete with threats meant for the singular outlier. So a number of action scenes (social drama, physical altercations, etc) leave one or more players by the wayside. The either can't contribute, or are simply going to leave the scene as their participation would complicate the engagement and detract from everyone's experience.
Related to the above point, is that there are a number of player archetypes- and I don't have an exhaustive list at hand. I do however recognize the following types:
The solution to the first problem- that of 'Arbitrary Action Setpiece Syndrome', is basically to not do that- or to take the time to develop the setpiece as to simply not be so obviously arbitrary. I do not mean to say that 'Random thing happening' is bad- it should remain a tool in the storyteller's toolbox, but being able to recognize the external impulse of 'There hasn't been a big rockem sockem setpiece in awhile' is a valuable storyteller skill.
The second problem is a lot more thorny, relying both a more developed set of rules or houserules, and a great deal of communication between players and storyteller. It can be divided into two broad domains- the setpiece and the character.
For the setpiece:
Earlier, I specifically invoke 'action scene' as opposed to combat, though they're often closely related. It is supposed to be entirely reasonable for a player character to invest nothing in combat abilities, because Exalted is not about every Exalt being a good warrior. It's about being an exceptional hero, who happens to have god-shaming powers.
But Creation is also a violent, aggressive, action-packed world. It's a place where nearly everyone learns a little bit about fighting and defending themselves- but it's also a place where a number of people, even heroic types like Exalted, don't have to fight. This can create a balance issue at the table level- where one or two players may have a great deal of investment in one kind of action that the other players don't. As mentioned, the most common split is 'combat character' vs 'Non-combat character'.
Exalted specifically exacerbates this by simply not having strong teamwork mechanics or ways to apply 'Archetype A' actions into 'Archetype B' situations. It relies, to the point of storyteller arbitration and frustration, on making a judgement call. Judgement calls are fine- they need to exist in a tabletop RPG experience- but in an ideal world we'd have stronger more concrete rules for these kinds of logical cases.
Result versus Process
A general school of design thought is as follows: Result-based Resolution versus Process-based . Most granular systems are inherently process-based, with lots of itemized steps and specific results based on those steps. The fun is in moving through the process and seeing the result take shape bit by bit.
Result-based is heavily invested in abstraction and low-to-medium frequency rolls that are often pass-fail, or use very broad threshold success metrics to govern the results. A character says 'I want to do this', the storyteller gives them a pass/fail roll, they beat the difficult and the action is resolved as the player desires. Any extra detail, bonuses or maluses are provided at the storyteller's discretion.
Process-based play is focused on mechanical resolution, most combat/action mechanics in most tabletop games are heavily process based, to provide numerous hooks for modifiers as well as increasing randomness that helps extend the length of the play experience. Your mileage may vary of course on how useful a granular resolution system is. Most process-based systems involve high-frequency rolls and mechanical decisions.
Frequency, by the way, is how I'm describing rolls/actions over time. The more complex something is, the lower it's frequency. Simple, easy to arbitrate actions and mechanics can get away with higher frequency like pass/fail checks.
Put another way- Result is "Thing Happens, Reaction occurs" and Process is "Sequence of events is spelled out, the Thing happening is the Reaction."
To boil it down into the most base elements, Results-play is "You kill a man in front of the king" vs Process-play of "You are in the king's court, you attack the man, the man dodges, the man fails to dodge, you deal damage, the man dies. The king is also there, witnessing this."
Despite appearances of being very strongly "say it and it Happens" effects, Result-based resolution is very self-contained. Sure, you killed a man in front of the king, but unless the storyteller or player calls attention to extraneous elements, the action itself and any relevant roll is focused on the act.
Process allows for nuance, and for extra details to be inserted into that sequence to overlap and interconnect with other ongoing things. Like if that man was on fire, that proximity or contact means you're on fire now. Results can handle that by going, "you killed a burning man in front of the king and are now on fire," but its not caring about that last part. The fire is a footnote to the killing, whereas the process goes "oh no, my consequences of killing this man are Immediate. Also the king is there."
Example Results-Based Play:
The Right Tool for the Right Job
So this subtopic basically contends with two key points: How often should 'Action' happen, and how granular should it's resolution be?
Now I'm not here to tell you how to do that part- a lot of it is to taste of your table or your STing style. I am going to however tell you a few logical tricks that might help.
Rolls, and by extension specific resolution mechanics, only matter when failure is meaningful. Or when the specific results those rules matter. Consider the potential cost/benefit of using granular rules in favor of a more abstracted resolution.
For example- combat mechanics especially are best utilized when injuries and death are relevant to the challenge at hand.
It is entirely reasonable to abstract out an overwhelmingly powerful opponent against an unprepared, unarmored barracks of mortals. Abstracting or outright waiving a balance roll for a master gymnast is perfectly fine. Exalted itself often included rules for arbitrating automatic success for precisely this reason.
Consider this- let's say a storyteller has thrown a hundred guards at a circle of Exalts and started a big brawl- instead of modeling this as a hundred extras each rolling for Join Battle and all that rigamarole, the 'action' is less about threat of injury to the player characters and more about how they choose to deal with the problem of 'A hundred guards are trying to capture/hurt you'.
If the Dawn flares their anima and terrorizes them into compliance, that has a different effect than say the Night trying to snipe the leaders, or the Zenith shaming them. All of those actions can be resolved with single rolls that do not use DVs, MDVs or anything, abstracted as difficulties with threshold successes. The downside to this level of abstraction, is that most Charms are very specific about rolls they can and cannot supplement, or bring in the resolution mechanics- creating some of that bias I mentioned earlier.
Foundations of a Good Action Scene
Before you even get into the nitty gritty of stats, specific locations, and interactive elements, there are some metatextual fundamentals that need to be addressed. Calling back to the Action Test- you have to have a reason or cause for the action scene! Reasons can be logical extrapolations of the environment, or how various characters and courts behave within the world when prodded with stimulus.
After reason, you want to examine the scene's Relevance, which I would define as 'How does this action setpiece advance the plot, challenge, or empower the players.` Think of it as your validation against an action scene sort of spiraling off into not mattering. "We fought some bandits… and it didn't do anything other than be a fight."
Relevance is akin to impact- it can be positive or negative, costing some resource like time or material or goodwill, or generating the same. Ideally it should do both- and is one of the many ways an action scene can fail-forward or push the game on.
Lastly, one should have a rough idea of the scene's intended result. In terms of both how the setpiece concludes, and any advancements both concrete or symbolic the players secure. 'We survived!' is a possible result, but 'Deadly stakes' are a hard thing to sell and should be managed carefully.
Reason
The reason for the action scene can be informed either by external factors- the storyteller wanted to shake things up, an opportunity based on player action present itself, or it was the logical consequence of player action or inaction- all kinds of reasons. The best action scenes are rooted in narrative or logical reasons. Things that derive from the game world or the actions of the players.
Reason is closely related to motive, which I'll touch on in more depth later on. The goal here however, is to take the time to think of a reason or motivation that transcends beyond the external 'there has not been any action recently' and 'the PCs need to have someone try and kill them'.
Instead, develop your reasons for action sequences out of the world and the choices the players make.
Examine what the players are currently doing- and yes that can include 'nothing'. Examine their locale, the region they're in, and the circumstances around it. Generally most 'encounters' can be grouped into 'Environmental' and 'Actor'- either the 'world' is presenting a challenge like a rickety bridge, a ruin full of traps, bad weather, and so on. Or, a character or characters are exerting effort on the players to achieve some goal.
Basic Examples
Bandits for example are a very common staple in the fantasy-epic that Exalted draws from. Let's examine them as an illustrative example: Why do bandits go out and prey upon the locals? It honestly should not be because they're bloodthirsty little murderous savages.
Before I get into examples, I want to take the opportunity to elaborate on how there can be entire chains of motive, linking character to event to another character to who knows what else. A little bit of critical thinking and imagination can go a long way!
Having said that, we can assume that bandits bandit for a number of possible reasons- as below:
How about an environmental reason? Environmental challenges are commonly associated with weather, travel or both. Let's look at Nexus in fact, as it has a canonical hazard that it's citizens endure quite regularly- flooding.
Extreme Examples
'Extreme' means the dramatic, the mythic, the alien. This is a tough thing to account for, one of which is the Wyld Hunt, which honestly deserves an entire section all to itself.
So what do I mean by 'extreme'? Consider a Hungry Ghost- most often a singular hungry ghost is a monster, it has very little complex morality or motivation- but that's actually not true. At a glance it is monstrous, but it too follows a core logic that informs how it behaves and how the storyteller is intended to use them.
But What About Fight Scenes?
One of the most common and easily accessible action setpieces is 'Combat'. We have the most rules for it, a lot of the game is sold on having a wild combat experience, and so on. Fight scenes are important, but they are not the total breadth of action. As a consequence though, combined with other setting elements like the Wyld Hunt, is the expectation that action must be deadly, and that if the statistics don't make them deadly, they aren't deadly.
Now a lot of that is put on the game book and setting for establishing tone- Exalted's problem is that a lot of it's content upsells how violent the setting is, that death is common and for players this is doubly true- that's a topic for a whole other section of this essay.
I'll repeat it though- Death is boring. Don't start your action scenes with death. You can include peril, which can range from 'bandits' to 'wild animals' to 'treacherous navigation' and more, but trying to aim for deadly right off the bat ends up making a lot of people focus on statistics instead of meaningful stakes.
Think of it like this- if players are traveling through a mountain and get hit by a rockslide, the 'threat' of the scene is more interesting if it's less about 'you take X damage from the falling rocks' and more 'You have to somehow endure this hazard, and how well you endure it determines how injured you are going forward- and maybe you got separated from your crew'.
A character being knocked off a cliff with a broken leg is a lot more interesting than just 'I took X HLs of damage and now I'm dead.' If you're confident in using the HL rules to achieve that end, more power to you- but don't be afraid to generalize or abstract these challenges if your players are on the same page as you!
Relevance
One of the most terrible failings of an action sequence, is the emphasis on the action itself. That is to say, it only exists to be action, and to not progress the plot forward. This ties closely into reason- if 'Reason' is why the setpiece or actors within the setpiece are participating, Relevance is why the setpiece matters to the players. This is closely related to the result of the setpiece, as in rewards or the 'stuff' you get that marks progress.
Remember also that most of this essay is couched in terms of setpieces being put in front of players, instead of players generating setpieces intentionally- that's a separate discussion.
Relevance can be personal or self-actualization. A clash of ideals is relevant to the players who hold them, for example. Or if the players care about the stakes the setpiece describes. "Defend this pass or the peaceful villagers are at risk of being enslaved!"
Relevance in an Environmental setpiece usually has to do with resource management (time, health, equipment, etc), over moral or ethical questions- but it can also be a character defining experience of refusing to give up, of learning when to compromise, or anything else.
Result
The Result is closely connected to the Relevance of an action sequence- usually some clear mark or boon that allows the players to progress forward in their ongoing plots. As previously mentioned- making the result too transparently contrived is a concern.
For example, let's say that a circle of Exalted are being jumped by bandits while en-route to meet with a local scavenger lord. The mechanical resolution of this is less important than the way the storyteller handles the aftermath- The understanding here is that the setpiece itself takes time and energy to resolve, as well as in-game resources that may not be recovered in time for the next challenge.
Depending on the setpiece, the advance may not be worth the cost- or be so valuable that it deforms the plot around it. It's the difference between beating the bandits and getting a few sacks of treasure, or discovering that the scavenger lord the players were going to meet was already captured by said bandits.
A simple form of Result is 'Clear mark of progress'. If the challenge is 'Get from point A to B', then the mark of progress is 'You are now closer to B'. This is largely unsatisfying, but with a bit of polish it can be engaging. It is useful when you have small sub-challenges denoting the leg of a journey or the cumulative progress towards a goal. It's such a simple form of Result , that it's easy to nest it alongside others- such as 'How quickly can you get it done' combined with 'The player cares about this subject'.
Another form of Result that I believe should be used sparingly is actionable game assets and rewards- up to and including Experience or 'Loot'. Character advancement resources are extremely valuable and can force all kinds of awkward cost/benefit examinations- best not to tempt fate.
One possible form of Result is an immediate if transitory reward or boon. Consider say- defeating a bandit raid, it gives the players a key to the lockbox the bandits are carrying, which is entirely reasonable and is easy to resolve. The storyteller should be careful here, because it is all too easy to create a contrivance. If the resolution reveals the boon needed to progress without cause or foreshadowing, it feels cheap and underwhelming.
Information is also incredibly useful- though it again risks contrivance. Any given setpiece can as part of it's relevance or result generate knew information for the players to engage with- in the form of plothooks, history of the local area, notable personages or potential assets to explore.
The last and most powerful form of Result is that of plot. As setpiece that has a clear connection to the ongoing plot of the campaign or the personal plots of it's characters is the goal- not every setpiece needs to be this relevant- but making sure several of them are is crucial to a memorable game experience.
A military campaign, for example, can be broken up into a number of logical setpieces that are all explicitly relevant to the ongoing plot of 'The war'. Same as a trade mission, or a spy intrigue plot, or any number of greater ongoing narratives. The storyteller's job is to make sure that the 'input' of the setpiece (the reasons, the player's presence, etc) matches appropriately with the output.
Goals - Player Driven Setpieces
The above discussions were primarily focused on the storyteller developing a setpiece or challenge and then deploying it in front of the players, and expecting a reaction. The goal of Reason/Relevance/Result is to get the storyteller thinking about more than just 'It would be cool to have THIS happen!'
Players, however, are intended to be movers and shakers. Often getting into or making spectacles and setpieces more often than the storyteller does.
Now player-driven setpieces can still have Reason/Relevance/Result, but they're sometimes harder to parse due to most tables having 3-5 players all vying for attention or other organizational hazards. As trite as this sounds- good communication is critical.
An important thing to note is that a goal is separate from a plan or method. A goal is the player's intent or end-state. The plan is how they're going to do it.
Goal: "Rule the world!"
Method: "Daiklave Everything!"
The above example is facetious, I admit, but it still is accurate. Obviously smaller goals can have more concrete, actionable methods and approaches. Often times games- especially Exalted, condenses methods into single actions or granular systems.
By having a clear goal, the storyteller can start developing potential methods and paths to accomplishing it. Note that depending on game tone and player personality (active vs passive, etc), the storyteller is not required to define every possible path and especially not devise a perfect path. Players and Storytellers cannot read each other's minds, and trying to identify the Exact Perfect Solution isn't fun for anyone.
Instead, the Storyteller should help the players break their goals up into smaller sub-goals, which in turn can be spun out into logical setpieces as appropriate- remember we're not trying to say Every Single scene needs a big airship battle with exploding demon artillery.
So with a goal or subgoal in mind, the storyteller can start spinning out logical or at least narratively consistent reasons for the world or other actors to get involved. A player who wants to free all the slaves will invite the ire of slavers and the plantations and miners that profit off of slave labor. A fearless cartographer is going to encounter hazards in the distant wilds, while a scavenger lord will contend with trapped ruins and angry spirits.
Since the goal is player-defined, relevance tends to take care of itself- but for really large goals or ones that have been broken up into numerous smaller goals- or tangents- it pays to keep the greater overarching desire in mind.
Lastly, ensuring that each resolved step has a clear contribution to the primary goal helps promote a feeling of progress and continuity, instead of an endless spinning wheel or moving goalposts.
Overview
There is a huge list of intimidating factors to possibly account for when developing an action scene, but one of the most important in my opinion is the choice of doing one in the first place.
Common Pacing Pitfalls
As mentioned in the first part, one of the most obvious pacing issues is the belief or perception that action must happen because action hasn't happened in a while. The rules themselves suggest this by dint of there being so many rules about resolving actions- and very few games- Exalted especially, giving you a strong foundation to decide when not to use them.
The second pacing pitfall is due to how Exalted has simultaneously one of the stronger but more open-ended approaches to player parity. At its simplest, it emerges out of the following logical chain:
- Storyteller/Group: "I want to play [This kind] of game!"
- One or two exceptional players: "I want to play [that kind]. of game!"
The unfortunate consequence, especially in Exalted, is that it's very easy to create a character who is so good at one thing, that no other character can compete with threats meant for the singular outlier. So a number of action scenes (social drama, physical altercations, etc) leave one or more players by the wayside. The either can't contribute, or are simply going to leave the scene as their participation would complicate the engagement and detract from everyone's experience.
Related to the above point, is that there are a number of player archetypes- and I don't have an exhaustive list at hand. I do however recognize the following types:
- Active players tend to engage with the game the storyteller is presenting, or take action to move it into domains they are interested in or their character is good at. This is not necessarily a malicious action, or something the player does to be a jerk. It can be as innocuous as the socialite trying to flirt with every NPC, or the crafter trying to solve every problem with the craft rules they've invested so much in.
- Passive players meanwhile are more interested in being an audience that participates in an ongoing story, offering input usually in the form of a die roll or charm activation. They tend to care more about their choices mattering- they tend to look for having a significant stake in the outcome, and tend to become distant and bored if those choices end up meaning nothing at all.
A good example of the passive player is the fast-travel sorcerer: "People need me because I am basically a car."
The solution to the first problem- that of 'Arbitrary Action Setpiece Syndrome', is basically to not do that- or to take the time to develop the setpiece as to simply not be so obviously arbitrary. I do not mean to say that 'Random thing happening' is bad- it should remain a tool in the storyteller's toolbox, but being able to recognize the external impulse of 'There hasn't been a big rockem sockem setpiece in awhile' is a valuable storyteller skill.
The second problem is a lot more thorny, relying both a more developed set of rules or houserules, and a great deal of communication between players and storyteller. It can be divided into two broad domains- the setpiece and the character.
For the setpiece:
- There should be multiple ways to engage the setpiece- and the storyteller should be very permissive- that is the point of Stunting! Part of this is down to game tone as well, and conveying with great strength what you want to see and rewarding it appropriately.
- Be mindful of not over-specializing elements in a setpeice. A lot of players can immediately recognize when a given element is specifically set aside for one character or another, and that can be jarring or frustrating- up to even immersion breaking.
- A puzzle for the smart character, a lock for the thief, a monster for the fighter, and so on- are all obvious and often very stale cliches. Instead of making a lot of things that are tuned for the characters you have, make things a little easier overall and let players pick what they want- and/or force them to engage with their weaknesses- the stress of dealing with that can more than make up what you give up trying to impress them with higher difficulties.
- This is especially true when a storyteller borrows from MMO or similar design where roles are often a lot more concrete with clear gameplay loops like aggro and DPS.
- Graduate failures! A setpiece, be it Physical, Social or Mental should not hang on the balance of a single roll with no chance for recovery. Even a botch should not irrevocably imperil a character.
- Explore alternate ways to contribute to action scenes- maybe the socialite has a henchman background, and work with the players to let them play their bodyguards or porters in action scenes as extensions of themselves. (Mind you be careful of allowing a single player to upset the action economy.)
- Make it easy to attain a minimum level of competence in your campaign's main experience with training or experience discounts
- Maybe have a character strong in one dimension mentors those who aren't as competent, giving an in-game justification for a bonus that offsets their poor stats.
- Take a hand in character generation- making sure all characters have a few dots in a combat or defense ability unless critical to their concept
- Encourage characters to be well-rounded- and if necessary, develop houserules or incentives to develop in that regard.
Earlier, I specifically invoke 'action scene' as opposed to combat, though they're often closely related. It is supposed to be entirely reasonable for a player character to invest nothing in combat abilities, because Exalted is not about every Exalt being a good warrior. It's about being an exceptional hero, who happens to have god-shaming powers.
But Creation is also a violent, aggressive, action-packed world. It's a place where nearly everyone learns a little bit about fighting and defending themselves- but it's also a place where a number of people, even heroic types like Exalted, don't have to fight. This can create a balance issue at the table level- where one or two players may have a great deal of investment in one kind of action that the other players don't. As mentioned, the most common split is 'combat character' vs 'Non-combat character'.
Exalted specifically exacerbates this by simply not having strong teamwork mechanics or ways to apply 'Archetype A' actions into 'Archetype B' situations. It relies, to the point of storyteller arbitration and frustration, on making a judgement call. Judgement calls are fine- they need to exist in a tabletop RPG experience- but in an ideal world we'd have stronger more concrete rules for these kinds of logical cases.
Result versus Process
A general school of design thought is as follows: Result-based Resolution versus Process-based . Most granular systems are inherently process-based, with lots of itemized steps and specific results based on those steps. The fun is in moving through the process and seeing the result take shape bit by bit.
Result-based is heavily invested in abstraction and low-to-medium frequency rolls that are often pass-fail, or use very broad threshold success metrics to govern the results. A character says 'I want to do this', the storyteller gives them a pass/fail roll, they beat the difficult and the action is resolved as the player desires. Any extra detail, bonuses or maluses are provided at the storyteller's discretion.
Process-based play is focused on mechanical resolution, most combat/action mechanics in most tabletop games are heavily process based, to provide numerous hooks for modifiers as well as increasing randomness that helps extend the length of the play experience. Your mileage may vary of course on how useful a granular resolution system is. Most process-based systems involve high-frequency rolls and mechanical decisions.
Frequency, by the way, is how I'm describing rolls/actions over time. The more complex something is, the lower it's frequency. Simple, easy to arbitrate actions and mechanics can get away with higher frequency like pass/fail checks.
Put another way- Result is "Thing Happens, Reaction occurs" and Process is "Sequence of events is spelled out, the Thing happening is the Reaction."
To boil it down into the most base elements, Results-play is "You kill a man in front of the king" vs Process-play of "You are in the king's court, you attack the man, the man dodges, the man fails to dodge, you deal damage, the man dies. The king is also there, witnessing this."
Despite appearances of being very strongly "say it and it Happens" effects, Result-based resolution is very self-contained. Sure, you killed a man in front of the king, but unless the storyteller or player calls attention to extraneous elements, the action itself and any relevant roll is focused on the act.
Process allows for nuance, and for extra details to be inserted into that sequence to overlap and interconnect with other ongoing things. Like if that man was on fire, that proximity or contact means you're on fire now. Results can handle that by going, "you killed a burning man in front of the king and are now on fire," but its not caring about that last part. The fire is a footnote to the killing, whereas the process goes "oh no, my consequences of killing this man are Immediate. Also the king is there."
Example Results-Based Play:
- Player: "I want to climb to the top of the highest tower in the castle."
ST: "Okay, roll me dex+ath at Difficulty 4."
Player: "I got 5 sux!"
ST: "You get there no problem, and because you got threshold 1, you got there just in time to see the beautiful princess at her balcony down below." - ST: "Alright, you need to roll Intelligence+Bureaucracy at Diff 3, to secure your business deal."
Player: "Alright, I roll it- and get six successes!"
ST: "You got your deal, and have a lead on two more! - Player: "I want to take down every guard in the camp and tie them up so they'll scare everybody else when we show up for real."
ST: "Okay- that's a complex one. How about two rolls- Strength+Martial Arts to wrestle them all down Diff 3, with a -2 External Penalty since you want to do it without alerting everyone- and a Dex+Stealth roll to do it silently, Difficulty 4, -2 external penalty again."
Player: "Got it- I passed both rolls!"
ST: "Excellent! So when you do show yourself in the camp, you'll get a bonus to your social actions because you set this all up."
Player: "What would've happened if I fail?"
ST: "Depends- the guards might've alerted everyone, and there would've been a scuffle."
- Almost any combat system that separates attack, defense, armor and damage.
- Craft
The Right Tool for the Right Job
So this subtopic basically contends with two key points: How often should 'Action' happen, and how granular should it's resolution be?
Now I'm not here to tell you how to do that part- a lot of it is to taste of your table or your STing style. I am going to however tell you a few logical tricks that might help.
Rolls, and by extension specific resolution mechanics, only matter when failure is meaningful. Or when the specific results those rules matter. Consider the potential cost/benefit of using granular rules in favor of a more abstracted resolution.
For example- combat mechanics especially are best utilized when injuries and death are relevant to the challenge at hand.
It is entirely reasonable to abstract out an overwhelmingly powerful opponent against an unprepared, unarmored barracks of mortals. Abstracting or outright waiving a balance roll for a master gymnast is perfectly fine. Exalted itself often included rules for arbitrating automatic success for precisely this reason.
Consider this- let's say a storyteller has thrown a hundred guards at a circle of Exalts and started a big brawl- instead of modeling this as a hundred extras each rolling for Join Battle and all that rigamarole, the 'action' is less about threat of injury to the player characters and more about how they choose to deal with the problem of 'A hundred guards are trying to capture/hurt you'.
If the Dawn flares their anima and terrorizes them into compliance, that has a different effect than say the Night trying to snipe the leaders, or the Zenith shaming them. All of those actions can be resolved with single rolls that do not use DVs, MDVs or anything, abstracted as difficulties with threshold successes. The downside to this level of abstraction, is that most Charms are very specific about rolls they can and cannot supplement, or bring in the resolution mechanics- creating some of that bias I mentioned earlier.
Foundations of a Good Action Scene
Before you even get into the nitty gritty of stats, specific locations, and interactive elements, there are some metatextual fundamentals that need to be addressed. Calling back to the Action Test- you have to have a reason or cause for the action scene! Reasons can be logical extrapolations of the environment, or how various characters and courts behave within the world when prodded with stimulus.
After reason, you want to examine the scene's Relevance, which I would define as 'How does this action setpiece advance the plot, challenge, or empower the players.` Think of it as your validation against an action scene sort of spiraling off into not mattering. "We fought some bandits… and it didn't do anything other than be a fight."
Relevance is akin to impact- it can be positive or negative, costing some resource like time or material or goodwill, or generating the same. Ideally it should do both- and is one of the many ways an action scene can fail-forward or push the game on.
Lastly, one should have a rough idea of the scene's intended result. In terms of both how the setpiece concludes, and any advancements both concrete or symbolic the players secure. 'We survived!' is a possible result, but 'Deadly stakes' are a hard thing to sell and should be managed carefully.
Reason
The reason for the action scene can be informed either by external factors- the storyteller wanted to shake things up, an opportunity based on player action present itself, or it was the logical consequence of player action or inaction- all kinds of reasons. The best action scenes are rooted in narrative or logical reasons. Things that derive from the game world or the actions of the players.
Reason is closely related to motive, which I'll touch on in more depth later on. The goal here however, is to take the time to think of a reason or motivation that transcends beyond the external 'there has not been any action recently' and 'the PCs need to have someone try and kill them'.
Instead, develop your reasons for action sequences out of the world and the choices the players make.
Examine what the players are currently doing- and yes that can include 'nothing'. Examine their locale, the region they're in, and the circumstances around it. Generally most 'encounters' can be grouped into 'Environmental' and 'Actor'- either the 'world' is presenting a challenge like a rickety bridge, a ruin full of traps, bad weather, and so on. Or, a character or characters are exerting effort on the players to achieve some goal.
Basic Examples
Bandits for example are a very common staple in the fantasy-epic that Exalted draws from. Let's examine them as an illustrative example: Why do bandits go out and prey upon the locals? It honestly should not be because they're bloodthirsty little murderous savages.
Before I get into examples, I want to take the opportunity to elaborate on how there can be entire chains of motive, linking character to event to another character to who knows what else. A little bit of critical thinking and imagination can go a long way!
Having said that, we can assume that bandits bandit for a number of possible reasons- as below:
- The local economy is bad.
- There was a bad harvest
- A bunch of Dynasts or Outcaste DBs are eating the locals out of house and home.
- A merchant is hiring them to hurt their competitors or drive up prices
- They're actually soldiers of another kingdom in disguise, working to destabilize an enemy nation!
How about an environmental reason? Environmental challenges are commonly associated with weather, travel or both. Let's look at Nexus in fact, as it has a canonical hazard that it's citizens endure quite regularly- flooding.
- Nexus is on the convergence of multiple rivers.
- It has poor (almost non-existent) sewage system.
- The dam infrastructure upriver is damaged/inoperative.
- Seasonal rains make too much water for any of the rivers to handle.
Extreme Examples
'Extreme' means the dramatic, the mythic, the alien. This is a tough thing to account for, one of which is the Wyld Hunt, which honestly deserves an entire section all to itself.
So what do I mean by 'extreme'? Consider a Hungry Ghost- most often a singular hungry ghost is a monster, it has very little complex morality or motivation- but that's actually not true. At a glance it is monstrous, but it too follows a core logic that informs how it behaves and how the storyteller is intended to use them.
- Hungry ghosts attack everyone, looking for the cause of their death
- Ghosts can exhibit predatory behaviors, seeking out life/blood/etc to satisfy their new hungers or to sustain their unlives.
- Organized ghosts like military warbands have a goal or similar, much akin to bandits or army units.
But What About Fight Scenes?
One of the most common and easily accessible action setpieces is 'Combat'. We have the most rules for it, a lot of the game is sold on having a wild combat experience, and so on. Fight scenes are important, but they are not the total breadth of action. As a consequence though, combined with other setting elements like the Wyld Hunt, is the expectation that action must be deadly, and that if the statistics don't make them deadly, they aren't deadly.
Now a lot of that is put on the game book and setting for establishing tone- Exalted's problem is that a lot of it's content upsells how violent the setting is, that death is common and for players this is doubly true- that's a topic for a whole other section of this essay.
I'll repeat it though- Death is boring. Don't start your action scenes with death. You can include peril, which can range from 'bandits' to 'wild animals' to 'treacherous navigation' and more, but trying to aim for deadly right off the bat ends up making a lot of people focus on statistics instead of meaningful stakes.
Think of it like this- if players are traveling through a mountain and get hit by a rockslide, the 'threat' of the scene is more interesting if it's less about 'you take X damage from the falling rocks' and more 'You have to somehow endure this hazard, and how well you endure it determines how injured you are going forward- and maybe you got separated from your crew'.
A character being knocked off a cliff with a broken leg is a lot more interesting than just 'I took X HLs of damage and now I'm dead.' If you're confident in using the HL rules to achieve that end, more power to you- but don't be afraid to generalize or abstract these challenges if your players are on the same page as you!
Relevance
One of the most terrible failings of an action sequence, is the emphasis on the action itself. That is to say, it only exists to be action, and to not progress the plot forward. This ties closely into reason- if 'Reason' is why the setpiece or actors within the setpiece are participating, Relevance is why the setpiece matters to the players. This is closely related to the result of the setpiece, as in rewards or the 'stuff' you get that marks progress.
Remember also that most of this essay is couched in terms of setpieces being put in front of players, instead of players generating setpieces intentionally- that's a separate discussion.
Relevance can be personal or self-actualization. A clash of ideals is relevant to the players who hold them, for example. Or if the players care about the stakes the setpiece describes. "Defend this pass or the peaceful villagers are at risk of being enslaved!"
Relevance in an Environmental setpiece usually has to do with resource management (time, health, equipment, etc), over moral or ethical questions- but it can also be a character defining experience of refusing to give up, of learning when to compromise, or anything else.
Result
The Result is closely connected to the Relevance of an action sequence- usually some clear mark or boon that allows the players to progress forward in their ongoing plots. As previously mentioned- making the result too transparently contrived is a concern.
For example, let's say that a circle of Exalted are being jumped by bandits while en-route to meet with a local scavenger lord. The mechanical resolution of this is less important than the way the storyteller handles the aftermath- The understanding here is that the setpiece itself takes time and energy to resolve, as well as in-game resources that may not be recovered in time for the next challenge.
Depending on the setpiece, the advance may not be worth the cost- or be so valuable that it deforms the plot around it. It's the difference between beating the bandits and getting a few sacks of treasure, or discovering that the scavenger lord the players were going to meet was already captured by said bandits.
A simple form of Result is 'Clear mark of progress'. If the challenge is 'Get from point A to B', then the mark of progress is 'You are now closer to B'. This is largely unsatisfying, but with a bit of polish it can be engaging. It is useful when you have small sub-challenges denoting the leg of a journey or the cumulative progress towards a goal. It's such a simple form of Result , that it's easy to nest it alongside others- such as 'How quickly can you get it done' combined with 'The player cares about this subject'.
Another form of Result that I believe should be used sparingly is actionable game assets and rewards- up to and including Experience or 'Loot'. Character advancement resources are extremely valuable and can force all kinds of awkward cost/benefit examinations- best not to tempt fate.
One possible form of Result is an immediate if transitory reward or boon. Consider say- defeating a bandit raid, it gives the players a key to the lockbox the bandits are carrying, which is entirely reasonable and is easy to resolve. The storyteller should be careful here, because it is all too easy to create a contrivance. If the resolution reveals the boon needed to progress without cause or foreshadowing, it feels cheap and underwhelming.
Information is also incredibly useful- though it again risks contrivance. Any given setpiece can as part of it's relevance or result generate knew information for the players to engage with- in the form of plothooks, history of the local area, notable personages or potential assets to explore.
The last and most powerful form of Result is that of plot. As setpiece that has a clear connection to the ongoing plot of the campaign or the personal plots of it's characters is the goal- not every setpiece needs to be this relevant- but making sure several of them are is crucial to a memorable game experience.
A military campaign, for example, can be broken up into a number of logical setpieces that are all explicitly relevant to the ongoing plot of 'The war'. Same as a trade mission, or a spy intrigue plot, or any number of greater ongoing narratives. The storyteller's job is to make sure that the 'input' of the setpiece (the reasons, the player's presence, etc) matches appropriately with the output.
Goals - Player Driven Setpieces
The above discussions were primarily focused on the storyteller developing a setpiece or challenge and then deploying it in front of the players, and expecting a reaction. The goal of Reason/Relevance/Result is to get the storyteller thinking about more than just 'It would be cool to have THIS happen!'
Players, however, are intended to be movers and shakers. Often getting into or making spectacles and setpieces more often than the storyteller does.
Now player-driven setpieces can still have Reason/Relevance/Result, but they're sometimes harder to parse due to most tables having 3-5 players all vying for attention or other organizational hazards. As trite as this sounds- good communication is critical.
An important thing to note is that a goal is separate from a plan or method. A goal is the player's intent or end-state. The plan is how they're going to do it.
Goal: "Rule the world!"
Method: "Daiklave Everything!"
The above example is facetious, I admit, but it still is accurate. Obviously smaller goals can have more concrete, actionable methods and approaches. Often times games- especially Exalted, condenses methods into single actions or granular systems.
By having a clear goal, the storyteller can start developing potential methods and paths to accomplishing it. Note that depending on game tone and player personality (active vs passive, etc), the storyteller is not required to define every possible path and especially not devise a perfect path. Players and Storytellers cannot read each other's minds, and trying to identify the Exact Perfect Solution isn't fun for anyone.
Instead, the Storyteller should help the players break their goals up into smaller sub-goals, which in turn can be spun out into logical setpieces as appropriate- remember we're not trying to say Every Single scene needs a big airship battle with exploding demon artillery.
So with a goal or subgoal in mind, the storyteller can start spinning out logical or at least narratively consistent reasons for the world or other actors to get involved. A player who wants to free all the slaves will invite the ire of slavers and the plantations and miners that profit off of slave labor. A fearless cartographer is going to encounter hazards in the distant wilds, while a scavenger lord will contend with trapped ruins and angry spirits.
Since the goal is player-defined, relevance tends to take care of itself- but for really large goals or ones that have been broken up into numerous smaller goals- or tangents- it pays to keep the greater overarching desire in mind.
Lastly, ensuring that each resolved step has a clear contribution to the primary goal helps promote a feeling of progress and continuity, instead of an endless spinning wheel or moving goalposts.
- Location
- Ekaterinburg, Russia
You aren't looking at it correctly, though.
The general rule for Thaumaturgy is:
1) You need to have Occult 3 to become a "scientist" - to get the Art of Alchemy or whatever as an actual thaumaturgic specialty. To understand how to make soap, make cosmetics, and how to design new ones. This costs 10 EXP.
2) You need to have Occult 1 to become a "technician" - to learn one specific procedure from said Art of Alchemy. To learn by rote how to make soap, how to make a cosmetics with a specific scent, etc. However, IF you have several related procedures (make soap, make lipstick, make fragrance), then your studying the correct thaumaturgic Art gets a discount. A procedure costs 1 EXP apiece, and the discount is 1 EXP apiece.
So, no, you don't need to be a wizard to be able to make soap and cosmetics.
You need Occult 1 (the equivalent of "I know local gods, temples, and elementals, and know how to appease them" - something really basic), a bit of instruction on how to "make magic soap" (in the style of DIY manual "how to make homemade soap"), and you can now make magic soap. Simple.
EDIT: Also, still salty I can't get the "ten exorcists channeling their holy power to chain a single demon to uselessness because he has to flurry ten actions before doing anything else, or be banished" anymore.
Last edited:
greensun
You shall all burn beneath my light!!!
So, would there be space for 'Lesser' War-Striders in 3E? Mass Produced versions of the superior found in the Arms of the Chosen. Hmm, i'm thinking they'd have lower strength, Soak and Hardness, an increased stat requirements in terms of physical attributes(they're of poorer design) and a lower amount of learnable powers, maybe 4 or 5 and they'd all be fairly narrow in focus and ability.
But they'd be easier to maintain, requiring a lesser degree of knowledge to repair (but an increased amount of downtime), they probably don't have as many exotic or rare components to worry about, and probably lack artifact equipment. Actually, scatch the last one. They most definetly do lack artifact equipment that hasn't been procured or created later on.
I'm thinking that a Border Kingdom has a War-Strider is the pride and joy of their military; an ugly, giant thing, blocky and painted a bright orange and with hazard strips along its edges. Who a sufficiently educated scholar of the First Age would recognize as a Civic Walker, a tool made for construction and demolition of buildings and infrastructure in the 1st Age, where they were common place whose abilities focus on moving and creating earth and buildings, along with destroying them. And who, in this fallen age, make it's owners a relative super power who can face off against larger nations with relative parity and who can duel wyld behemoths and demons where a normal nation would fall.
Or maybe Lookshy has a squad of 1st Age Scout War-Striders that they jealously guard and only deploy on the most important or hazardous Spec-Op Missions, because even if they're easier to maintain and repair (even if they require more downtime) creating new examples of them pushes their resources and manpower to a very uncomfortable point for a nation that is being pressured by the Realm.
But they'd be easier to maintain, requiring a lesser degree of knowledge to repair (but an increased amount of downtime), they probably don't have as many exotic or rare components to worry about, and probably lack artifact equipment. Actually, scatch the last one. They most definetly do lack artifact equipment that hasn't been procured or created later on.
I'm thinking that a Border Kingdom has a War-Strider is the pride and joy of their military; an ugly, giant thing, blocky and painted a bright orange and with hazard strips along its edges. Who a sufficiently educated scholar of the First Age would recognize as a Civic Walker, a tool made for construction and demolition of buildings and infrastructure in the 1st Age, where they were common place whose abilities focus on moving and creating earth and buildings, along with destroying them. And who, in this fallen age, make it's owners a relative super power who can face off against larger nations with relative parity and who can duel wyld behemoths and demons where a normal nation would fall.
Or maybe Lookshy has a squad of 1st Age Scout War-Striders that they jealously guard and only deploy on the most important or hazardous Spec-Op Missions, because even if they're easier to maintain and repair (even if they require more downtime) creating new examples of them pushes their resources and manpower to a very uncomfortable point for a nation that is being pressured by the Realm.
Maybe Omnicron's Bunraku ?
- Pronouns
- she/her
I'm not saying you couldn't do those things and make it awesome but that would be down to your ability as a Storyteller, not the merits of sexism and homophobia in the Realm.
- Location
- United States
You are ignoring content by this member.
Show ignored content
I'm not opposed to depictions of homophobia, sexism, and the like in the settings of roleplaying games, but in RPGs, most players tend towards escapism or having a good time, and those themes at base value work against that for people on the receiving end unless that player can meaningfully work towards ending that as a problem or triumphing despite institutional obstacles. The people who are really mad about the Realm not being homophobic or transphobic frame it as a "realism" thing, which is very telling; they cannot imagine a society which lacks those traits, and it drives them mad that the biggest faction a player can join is lacking what they consider to be a basic and very enjoyable part of society to them. Certainly they don't seem to come off as very well-meaning considering they can't stop calling LGBT people by slurs for five minutes when decrying how the game is now ruined because all these "modern politics" are being injected into the game for people living in the modern age.
Last edited:
Though I would like to see some of the stranger take on sexism and prejudice, like the Delzahns hyper-strict gender norms, if due to exoticism for the most part.
- Location
- United States
I like having details about Bad Shit like how sexism and assorted kinds of bigotry manifest in fantasy cultures because if I want to use it in game, it lets me use it in a way that's not "what I grew up with" so I can explore it in a more detached, safer-for-my-head way. It's also something that NEEEDS to be addressed in a Session Zero for any game, because you need to figure out what everyone is comfortable with exploring - not every game is one where you NEED to explore how much politcial shit you have to deal with if you prefer sleeping with/not sleeping with a particular gender.
- Location
- Ottawa
Which period?
As I said in the earlier discussions about science, philosophy, and the like, I don't think Creation corresponds to any point in human history. It takes some details from various bygone eras, but I don't think that means other details must come from those same eras. And even if it did, I wouldn't know which real-life society to mimic for each Creation society.