azoicennead
Overly-Affectionate Zombie Squad
- Pronouns
- He/They
I don't understand.
General Exalted Thread
- Pronouns
- He/Him
I'm sorry, you're not making sense.
Dynamesmouse
Bzzzzzz
I think Aleph is talking about taking a bunch of people, having them worship her, and teaching them how to murderhobo in her name. It's the only thing that makes sense, really.
Aaron Peori
Rest in Peace
Isn't a pirate just a murderhobo with a vehicle?
notthepenguins
Neither Spherical Nor Frictionless
- Pronouns
- He/She/They
Nah, missing the 'hobo' part when you have a place to live.
Aaron Peori
Rest in Peace
Ah, so she's upgrading to murdertourist?
I strongly suspect that the base doesn't have a single vision of the setting, and that a single vision of the setting could please everyone.
A good example of this is Lunars, which have enough almost cool things that they have a number of fans; however, it's also very clear at this point that those fans visions of what Lunars should be are fundamentally different. While more probably exist, two fundamentally incompatible version are:
- Chosen of Luna, as Luna is described in Glories of the Most High: Luna.
- Original Vision, as described in the Design document for Lunars first edition.
Of course my own experience is quite limited, so I could be drastically wrong about the above. Why? I thought I was a fan of Lunars, but then I played one. Now I'm not, so I don't spend very much time paying attention to them.
vicky_molokh
Posthuman spidery thingy.
- Location
- Kyïv, Ukraine
Re-reading Core 156 on Multiple Opponents, I have to say that the thing is as fuzzy as a white wolf (predictably). But the way it is worded, one is considered fully surrounded if one is surrounded by 5 (or fewer, if terrain reduces this number) opponents, and the PC gets to choose whom to turn one's back to. What exactly happens if (a) the two PCs stand in such a way that for PC1, PC2 takes up one of the spots that opponents would like to occupy, and vice versa, and (b) both PCs designate each other as the person to whom they expose their back? Either one is not surrounded by five characters but not five opponents (and so is not fully ganged up on), or one is suffrounded by five characters but exposes one's back to the only character who will not attack (assuming a trustworthy ally . . . ).
Multiple Opponents said:
It's complicated. What exactly 'fantastic' (or 'fantasy') means can apparently differ wildly. (For instance, I've heard of 2150 AD being occasionally described as a social/philosophical/sci-fi fantasy.)
But I'm not surprised about people wanting consistency exist - in my normal mode of gaming, I'm like that too. I'm more surprised that there's such a big trend in them coming to Exalted.
To me it looks kinda like people coming to the Marvel (Cinematic or otherwise) Universe, wanting to run and play games in it, but proceed to start with making huge rewrites in order to explore a Marvel-derived world society that is totally unlike the one presented by Marvel. E.g. Hydra being this huge organisation that managed to invisibly infiltrate everywhere, comparable to the Guild being this huge organisation that managed to monopolize trade everywhere - the two both look extremely difficult to pull off based on our understanding of (social) science, but seem to be working as intended in Marvel/Exalted. Both seem to be a cases of 'the vision of the plot/world demands it'.
As an opposite example, I've seen people come to Transhuman Space and then be disappointed that they can't run an action campaign like Lethal Weapon or I Robot, because the society will not be content with the PCs merely turning in their badges after such an amount of mayhem.
Could you please elaborate on what happened as you played one? Just bad mechanics, or are we talking about fluff problems you encountered?
I have very little knowledge of Lunars. I get that 'silver solars' is meant to refer to rather generic charmsets and the fact that like Solars they just did a lot of ruling over mortals (direct or indirect). But what's the similarity with Infernals, at all?
Last edited:
The problem with 1 opponent getting a free action isn't having someone watching your back; it's to do with not having the room to dodge/parry as you like. As such, if you are getting ganged upon having someone watch your back isn't that useful, you're still going to get stabbed because you bump into your friend.
If you want inconsistent bullshit go play raksha. In Exalted the things you do matter, there are no take backs, and even if it runs on the rule of cool at times it likes to pretend and act under the assumption that things would happen exactly as they would in the real world if the real world had superpowers.
This means that there are quite simply a lot of things that you have to keep in mind when constructing the setting, and those include social, political and geological considerations when it comes to figuring out what makes sense. In a flat out kingdoms and sorcery setting where teleportation and gateways across planes are a thing that any high level sorceror can make at modest (for them) cost it makes sense that two kingdoms on the other side of the continent can trade effectively and safely enough to make up notable chunks of each other's trade balance.
In Exalted you have this tiny problem called 'there's a continent in the way and any infrastructure that could have supported such an effort either never existed or got destroyed.' Gem, for example, is on the western end of the great Southern deserts of Creation, locked away from the coast by a mountain range, while Paragon is to the south of Harbourhead, which is on the south eastern coast. There's literally a distance roughly the width of modern day Russia between them, as measured from St. Petersburg to Vladivostock.
The Silk Road was roughly the same size, but no one would say that that was a high volume trading route...
The idea that the Guild monopolized trade is complete nonsense, even if it's supported in part by the books. Rather, the most sensible explanation is that the Guild does a lot of long range trading with low volume high value goods, while more local traders handle the real bulk of trade activity.
Ah, the first realization that leads to Ruling.
"I'm gonna need people to carry my loot."
Not only that, but she's also gotten to "This would go a lot faster if I had people to do it for me."
Normally, it would be paired with "I need a place to put my loot" but Keris side steps this by virtue of carrying a not inconsiderable chunk of real estate around in/on her third soul.
Kylar
In Training Forever
- Location
- Canada
Note sure about @sebsmith, but I can relate my experiences with 2e Lunars.
Basically, I found that I wouldn't want to play a Lunar again, because it would be more or less the same character mechanically. The core of that problem is 2e Lunars are incredibly one true build. Not to the extent of 1e I understand, but that's honestly more damning 1e then anything. Basically, if you didn't take the Deadly Beastman Transformation tree, and the Relentless Lunar Fury tree (battle form shape shifting and berserk fury, look there is a reason people call these guy werewolf clones) your were damning your self to horrific sub-optimization. This was largely a function of how their dice caps worked: Lunars have the worst die caps in the game without those charms. Yes, worse then Sidereals, who get the undiluted bullshit that is Fateful. They are capped at Attribute. DBT raises it by one, a further charm upgrades that to two, and RLF bumps it by Essence. So basically your the worst off you don't take certain charms, and at Solar+ levels if you do. And then there is the Gift keyword, which makes not taking DBT fuck you over more, as most of your scene length charms (including the Lunars batshit healing array) are Gift keyworded.
Net effect is there are a very small subset of hyper-optimal Lunar charms that you need to buy for them to be effective. Now, that's true for most Exalts to an extent (fuck paranoia combat), but Lunars had more charms, and it was far more baked in. And this is before get into the fact Lunar mechanics were complete shit. Ok, not complete, in that they actually worked (see DBs and Sidereals) and didn't fuck you up the ass for not playing a certain way that no one really wanted to play (Abyssals) which put them above most of the other splats, but there was so much mechanical shenanigans producing completely inane results. Like, any plan that involves Furious Hound Pursuit just makes me roll my eyes at this point. And then there were the Charms that only functioned in the Wyld, the fact shapeshifting sucked unless you dumped a dozen charms into it (baring certain asinine tyrant lizard builds), the fact Lunars had one social trick worth mentioning, absurd levels of bad touch as you went higher, and basically everything involving chimerism. And this is not a complete list.
This is before you get into their fluff, which has them all be nation builders. And failing or being horribly ineffective at it. Or making rape camps. Not a joke: thanks author of the Ma-Ha-Suchi section of Compass East. Enjoy your being fired form the line, because lord knows everyone else does.
Overall, TAWs have problems (I can go into some detail on those, having run a game with them for the last couple years) but they are an improvement in basically every way over canon Lunars.
vicky_molokh
Posthuman spidery thingy.
- Location
- Kyïv, Ukraine
Wait . . . you get to choose who of the five bodies around you gets the right to an unexpected attack because you explicitly choose whom to turn your back to. That's not the same effect as the -2 DDV.
Why would it be the case that if I have 5 opponents, I can put my back to one of the opponents (normally the least-damaging one), but if one of them is a non-opponent, I have to turn my back to one of the remaining four, and if only one of them is an opponent and four are allies, I have to turn my back to the opponent? Not only does this look illogical, but it also doesn't seem to follow from the wording of the rule section I quoted in the post to which this is a reply.
What am I missing?
The underlined part is actually something that seems to come out of left field. Basically, here's my line of experience/thinking/getting answers:
- I saw various settings, with different balances between RuleOfCool/PlotDemands/Tropperificism/etc. vs. Realism/Verisimilitude/Consistency/etc.
- I came upon Exalted, read the setting, seeing all the troperrific and ruleOfCool-oriented bits, as well as cases of inconsistencies.
- I went: Aha! So the authors do not care about verisimilitude, as long as they get to give us awesome mythic grandeur, whether in terms of mythic wuxia combat feats, myth-worthy trade organisations, grand powerful corrupt bickering evil empires etc.
- Aleph, ES, Jon Chung and others: "No! The setting is a realistic, scientific-ish extrapolation of a world where people have powers. Except that Chambers is a slacker/jerk/whatever and so 2e has lots of stuff that is incompatible with that."
- I go take a look at 1e: the core and the Scavenger Sons books.
- I see the very same elements that people attribute to not following the framework that was followed at the dawn of the game line.
- I make the conclusion that the authors were always okay with adding such elements. (Also, thanks to Jon Chung's link, it seems like even the WordOfGod is that the setting wasn't written with a reality-simulation GMing as an assumption, but rather with finding reasons why things go the way the GM wants them to go as the expected mode.)
- I try to figure out why so many people are of the opinion in #4 and not #7. So far unsuccessfully.
A bit of elaboration on my reaction to Borgstrom's linked quote. I'm talking primarily of
That seems to be an attitude where an element of the setting is assumed to work as intended, and the reasons why it works are being explored/invented. So instead of 'Kejak did not kill the party. Why?', one would apply other elements into the same formula: 'The Guild is the only successful world-spanning trade organisation with its own language, made mostly of Mortals. Why?'. Substitute any other element of the setting. Crossbows uninvented here; why? Usurpation successful; why? And so on.[/u]Thus Spake Zaraborgstrom said:
Last edited:
The player
The character
The player, again.
The character, again.
You are confusing the character and the player, as well as the rules. First, if you are surrounded by the maximum number of characters you (the character) can't disengage (barring magic like Monkey Leap Technique) because there's something sharp where ever you (the character) turn.
Second, your (the character) Dodge DV is at a -2 penalty unless you (the player) can somehow explain how you (the character) manage to evade a blow without giving ground that isn't there to give in the first place.
Third, because you (the character) can't move freely a single opponent chosen by you (the player) gets an attack that is handled as if it's unexpected. Note, handled as if it's unexpected. It doesn't actually have to be unexpected to both the character and the player, as it's weird one isn't aware one is surrounded and about to be stabbed from all directions when people have been trying to do exactly that for the past minute.
That said, this is an issue when fighting multiple opponents. When fighting a single opponent the situation is of course different.
That your allies aren't 'opponents refusing to stab you.' Your allies are confining terrain because you can't move across them at will. There is nothing however that says you can't use a Defend Other action to protect an ally from the guy trying to stab him in the face while he can't dodge it, and the same option exists for your ally.
The problem with all that is that there is ample evidence that aside the whole supernatural thing going on, the game's mortals are no different from normal humanity. Which means that in any case you can't reasonably offer 'magic/supernatural bullshit' as an explanation for how things work (and Exalted likes to work on 'mortals get none of that') you have to find an explanation that would reasonably work in the real world.
Chejop Kejak doesn't stomp the party? Ketchup be busy/kept ignorant. This is internally consistent with his own characterisation, the characterisation that Sidereals are epically overworked and factionalised bureaucrats and the fact that there's suddenly some 300 Solar tier Exalts running around while the Realm is busy imploding.
That's an easy enough explanation.
The Usurpation worked before the First Age as a setting was explored, as prior to that there was no canon Elder Charm bullshit that made it impossible. It was simply implied that, as powerful as the Solars were the Terrestrials could, with some backing from the Sidereals, simply bury the Solars in sheer numbers, and they did, taking horrible casualties in the process.
But crossbows uninvented? The idea of a crossbow isn't complicated, and they figured it out up in Halta. What is the main contention with the idea is not that people haven't figured it out, I mean, ballista are a thing in the setting, and those operate on the exact same principle scaled up. The issue is that it's something that after discovery hasn't spread across much of Creation over time, while the Haltan examples that could be found having been trapped to fall apart into a pile of unmarked components.
And the Guild, to an extent, runs into the exact same problem. If the Guild is as powerful as it's said to be either Exalted would be trying to subvert or destroy it, they'd be trying to out compete it or there's something going on that makes it hard for Exalted to involve themselves in the long range trading business. And no explanation for the failure of any of that is offered.
Last edited:
Imrix
Periodically Malevolent QM
Again, why? Internal consistency is not a genre, it's a basic quality of how good a piece of fiction is. Tolkien was exhorting writers to evoke secondary belief in their readers decades ago, this is a fundamental attribute of good fiction. The fact that the comic book superhero milieu so severely fails this metric is, yes, a flaw.
vicky_molokh
Posthuman spidery thingy.
- Location
- Kyïv, Ukraine
I think I've just been spaghettified. Oh well . . .
I mean, barring a case where it is explicitly said to be otherwise (e.g. chargen, use of metagame abilities like luck etc.), I would expect that when a player makes a decision, said decision is translated into a character's action. Particularly when the decision is 'to whom does the character expose her back?'.
More seriously, that seems like a very metagame split, too.
Consider the following example:
There are six characters in close proximity, one of them in the centre (#0) and the rest of them around her (#1-#5). None of them perform body check/slam/bum rush/push/whatever attacks on each other throughout the combat, only regular punches/slashes/stabs/etc. They do not try to pass through each other's hexes. On a given tick of combat, #1 does not a perform any attacks against #0, while #2-5 do. #0 has to be facing one of them with the back. It seems like if #1 is the one chosen for being exposed-back-to, then neither of #2-#5 gets to ignore #0's DVs through the 'benefits of an unexpected attack'. So why is it if #1 is an enemy of #0 yet doesn't attack #0 on this tick (whether one already in combat, or one waiting to perform a backstab once #0 exposes her back to her, or even waiting to backstab because #0 doesn't know #1 is an enemy!), it is rules-legal to designate the #1 as the one exposed-back-to. But if #1 is an ally of #0, then suddenly #0 has to designate #2-#5 as the exposed-back-to?
SpartansSolars come back). Particularly if you follow the Zaraborgstrom advice of assuming the world works the way it is and seeking ways to explain why it does the way it does.
That's the thing I'm pointing out: 'precedents --> emergent behaviour and discovered laws of nature' seems to be an approach that is endorsed by the person usually quoted as the primordial of the game line, while 'top-down predefined laws of nature --> design of everything in accordance with said predefinitions' seems to be treated as one true way by a significant, perhaps overhwlming majority even, of locals.
And the amount of such stuff that is in Exalted, and the way it is treated by the authors, starting from 1e, seems to be putting it firmly in the latter camp. Which is why I'm puzzled by people with preferences leaning to the former camp flocking to it only to drag it screaming to the former camp.
You seem to be saying that the character has no say in choosing which side to expose her back to, but the player somehow does. That seems very metagamey.
I mean, barring a case where it is explicitly said to be otherwise (e.g. chargen, use of metagame abilities like luck etc.), I would expect that when a player makes a decision, said decision is translated into a character's action. Particularly when the decision is 'to whom does the character expose her back?'.
Surely alies cannot be confining terrain because they're smaller than a Yeddim (unless after a mythic year-and-a-day-long feast).
More seriously, that seems like a very metagame split, too.
Consider the following example:
There are six characters in close proximity, one of them in the centre (#0) and the rest of them around her (#1-#5). None of them perform body check/slam/bum rush/push/whatever attacks on each other throughout the combat, only regular punches/slashes/stabs/etc. They do not try to pass through each other's hexes. On a given tick of combat, #1 does not a perform any attacks against #0, while #2-5 do. #0 has to be facing one of them with the back. It seems like if #1 is the one chosen for being exposed-back-to, then neither of #2-#5 gets to ignore #0's DVs through the 'benefits of an unexpected attack'. So why is it if #1 is an enemy of #0 yet doesn't attack #0 on this tick (whether one already in combat, or one waiting to perform a backstab once #0 exposes her back to her, or even waiting to backstab because #0 doesn't know #1 is an enemy!), it is rules-legal to designate the #1 as the one exposed-back-to. But if #1 is an ally of #0, then suddenly #0 has to designate #2-#5 as the exposed-back-to?
Actually, the Guild is ample evidence that mortals have something to oppose the supernaturals and prevent takeover (or at least delay it until the 300
That's the thing I'm pointing out: 'precedents --> emergent behaviour and discovered laws of nature' seems to be an approach that is endorsed by the person usually quoted as the primordial of the game line, while 'top-down predefined laws of nature --> design of everything in accordance with said predefinitions' seems to be treated as one true way by a significant, perhaps overhwlming majority even, of locals.
It certainly can be seen as a flaw, but one could also point out that flaws are very often tradeoffs. For instance, the more cool weird stuff one adds to the world, the more carefully one has to examine its interactions if one wants to maintain consistency, and thus if one holds consistency as a high priority, one can add very little cool weird stuff in a limited amount of man-hours. And so some approaches, which do seem to correlate with genres somewhat, decided to make tradeoffs in favour of adding more cool weird stuff by sacrificing cross-checking for consistency. Such as the Marvel Universe, Star Trek, Illuminati University, the Hitchiker's Guide to the Galaxy, Doctor Who and many others.
And the amount of such stuff that is in Exalted, and the way it is treated by the authors, starting from 1e, seems to be putting it firmly in the latter camp. Which is why I'm puzzled by people with preferences leaning to the former camp flocking to it only to drag it screaming to the former camp.
Imrix
Periodically Malevolent QM
True. This is not one of those cases. Compromising internal consistency is not a trade-off, it just leads to the story/setting turning into nonsense - you will note that when this is seen in Marvel and Star Trek, it is either tolerated or mocked, never praised.
Yes, maintaining internal consistency while dealing with fantastical elements can be difficult, but that's why it's a laudable skill and one of the hallmarks of a good writer.
Last edited:
- Location
- Brittany, France
- Pronouns
- He/Him
Self-consistency is totally a quality that can be discarded to obtain certain other elements in return. It's not an inherent positive, it's just usually a positive. Nobody wants superhero comics to be fully self-consistent, especially not their readers; efforts could be undertaken to make the Marvel universe a self-consistent whole but things would have to be sacrificed that people don't want to sacrifice because they value them more than self-consistency.
...@vicky_molokh is still wrong in that Exalted totally does aim for a self-consistent setting, at least within the scope of its genre. People disagree a lot on what exactly self-consistency means in the context of Exalted, but few people disagree that it should be there.
- Location
- Gladstone, OR
Yeah, I went and did a thing. I think I have created enough 'base mechanics' to actually allow players to play crafty merchants and make oodles of cashmonies.
Please tell me if something doesn't look right or could be phrased better.
=== Market Search ===
Creation has a rich and elaborate economic character, and a navigating that environment is not always straight-forward. Characters can search the market- asking around for buyers and sellers, greasing palms and generally looking for that good deal.
The dramatic action to search the market is [Perception + Bureaucracy] at Standard Difficulty. Each search takes 1 day. The Threshold success determines how advantageous the market is. Market penalties reduce this threshold.
If your character already has a buyer or seller in mind (like a Contact, an Ally or Storyteller Character), they are not required to search the market and likely suffer no penalties.
A character approaches a market looking to buy or sell. After completing a transaction, they move to a new market (with a new search action) and repeat this process. The advantage of securing a high threshold on a Search Market Action means the character can immediately strike a new deal for a good or service with the person or group they just finished dealing with, instead of searching anew.
Repeated and successful transactions can increase a character's Resources, Influence, Backing, Contacts and possibly even other Backgrounds.
Elaborating further, markets can be considered Local or Distant. A local market is one that's in the same general area and needs no extensive travel to reach. Distant markets are those in far-flung towns, or the cities of other nations. Trading goods and services within Gem is a Local Market. Trading goods between Gem and Chiaroscuro are Distant markets.
As a rule, local markets are Safe and Predictable, while Distant Markets are Uncertain and Volatile.
=== Market Penalties ===
While it can be entertaining to create a complex tapestry of mercantilism and the flow of goods throughout a region, it's also very hard to keep track of.
These penalties are applied to the Search Market Action, detailed above.
Availability: Is it locally available? If not, -1 External Penalty.
Acquirable: Can it be traded freely? If not, -1 External Penalty.
Demand: Are you the sole customer who wants it? If not, -1 External Penalty.
These penalties apply to both buying and selling. The Solar Charm Insightful Buyer Technique negates these penalties.
I think it should be stated, that all of those things that influence a market? Players can take action that lifts or levies those penalties.
=== Profit Modifiers ===
These modifiers are for the average deviation in how much a good or service can cost based on the market environment. They represent the maximum possible amount they can be bought or sold for, and these modifiers can raise an item's effective Resource cost above 5. Purchasing such a thing simply requires the character have an equal or greater number Resource dots available than the modified cost.
Local Markets, being safe and well-known, show little deviation. With some careful haggling, a character can usually sell something for [Resources Rating +1], and buy something for [Resources Rating -1]. Most local merchants can earn their way to a single instance Resources 5.
Distant Markets, being well, distant and unknown, are much more speculative and unfamiliar. There is also the idea of what is common locally being seen as rare and useful in far-off lands.
In short, the further away something is from its point of origin, the more valuable it is, baring local substitutes. If you can buy it locally, it does not count as coming from a Distant Market.
A shipment of rare hardwood lumber from the far East costs Resources 1 when its felled, but effectively increases in Resource value by 1 dot as it gradually nears its final destination, even before being worked into finished goods. The load of lumber could be worth Resources 5- or more, if a crafty merchant takes it far enough.
10-100 miles away: +1 Resources, maximum of 5
101-250 miles away: +2 Resources, maximum of 5
251-500 miles away: +3 Resources, maximum of 5
For goods and services that are needed in exceptionally distant markets or in demand, the profits increase dramatically. After a successful sale, Resource dots in excess of five are split into a second Resources rating noted as 'Profit'- which is usually liqiud assets or money in account.
500-1000+ miles away: +5 Resources with overflow profit as above.
1001-2500+ miles away: +7 Resources with overflow profit as above.
This is meant to be a simple abstraction, accounting for both rare finished goods from a distant market to a highly refined raw material (lumber to the beams and planks that make up a mansion). What matters is they move across Creation. Note the same modifiers apply to rare finished goods as well, not merely raw materials.
The advantage goes to a seller who can buy these things cheaply, transport them quickly, and in turn offload them faster than their economic rivals. They repeat the process in reverse as well.
=== Making a Living and Making a Profit ===
Characters can have multiple Resource Backgrounds- each with their own entries and connections to Creation.
One way to achieve this is as follows: a character can earn a profit selling goods, carry the returns back home, and invest in a local property, business or endeavor. By the same token, they can invest in markets all over Creation, and instead of having lots of Resource Backgrounds in the same geographic location, they can have them spread out all over the world.
The 'Resources X: Profit from sales' concept is a mechanical placeholder for characters to have excess money they can spend on goods or invest into other assets. Investment is basically a transformation of liquid assets (often cash) into non-liquid assets like property. If a trader secures a huge profit, they can buy a mine that produces a consistent return instead of having a large sum of cash on hand or money-in-account in a disadvantageous place.
In-setting, when a trader makes a profit, it's likely moved immediately into another tradegood for later sale, or held as money-in-account by a local institution. In practice, getting that money out of an institution isn't easy- they want it to stay local and invested in local businesses or assets. (they also likely want to gather interest on it or invest it themselves like banks are wont to do).
Functionally, Resources X: Profit from Sales works exactly as any other Resources rating for the purposes of purchasing anything, acknowledging that it's either tied up as cash-on-hand, or as money-in-account somewhere. As per normal Resource restrictions, a vault full of silver in Chiaroscruo won't do you much good if you're in Whitewall.
For ease of game play though, it's safe to assume that a determined businessperson (or Exalt) can get their assets in cash or bank drafts and carry them to another part of Creation. Banking in Creation is by no means elegant, comprehensive or standardized, but this abstraction keeps the game moving.
=== Evaluating Goods and Services ===
The assesses may roll [Perception +Bureau/Relevant Ability] at Difficulty equal to target's [Unmodified Resource Value or Service ability]. A masterwork sword is harder to assess due to how easy it is to hide false quality. A master swordsman is likewise difficult to price, as you don't know their personality quirks.
Demonstrations of a good or service can lower this difficulty at the Storyteller's discretion. Characters may also roll another Ability in place of Bureaucracy, if it were more appropriate, like Melee for evaluating a sword, or Ride for a horse.
If successful, the character becomes aware of how much that good or service is worth in the local market- not its objective value. This means they recognize exotic or specialized tradegoods as well.
Characters who take the time to Evaluate goods and services will have an advantage during Haggling, detailed below. Against an honest deal, the character adds +1 automatic success to the Haggle action. Against a dishonest deal, the character adds +3 automatic successes.
A deal is considered dishonest if either side is attempting to gouge the other- offering less than its actual worth or demanding exorbitant prices. A deal is considered honest when either side is merely attempting to make a fair profit.
=== Haggling ===
A normal transaction is an unrolled action, where each party presents their asking price as an unrolled reflexive action. This need not be the objective value of whatever they're selling.
If characters are haggling over the price of a good or service, it is assumed they are trying to maximize profit and minimize their expenses. If all parties agree to initial cost or price, and have sufficient Resources or equivalent assets to make the purchase, the transaction is completed as an unrolled action. If the Storyteller believes the transaction is sufficient to increase or decrease a character's Resource Rating, the relevant traits are adjusted.
Haggling is an extended, contested [Wits + Bureaucracy] roll. The practice happens in most markets across Creation, and almost inevitably after one or more characters have successfully Evaluated the goods.
If a character earns a number of threshold successes equal to the good's cost before modifiers, they may raise or lower the price by one dot, to a minimum of 1 dot and maximum of 5 dots. Two characters haggling over a Resources 3 sword will have to earn 3 threshold successes to manipulate the price.
Merchants can use the Haggle Action to demand prices in excess of Resources 5 on goods from Distant Markets.
Ex. A character is selling rare silk (Resources 3) from An-Teng in Nexus, which is 2500 miles away. That merchant can, with a haggle action, sell that silk for up to an additional 7 resource dots, assuming they consistently earn 3 successes over their buyer during the haggle contest!
Characters can disengage from haggling at any time. Whoever has the higher cumulative successes at the end of the challenge is considered the winner. The buyer secures the low price they wanted, or the seller receives the high payment they desired.
Ex. After bargaining on a sword (resources 3), earning 3 threshold successes), the buyer disengages from haggling with a declaration of 'deal!' and pays Resources 2 for the sword.
Okay so that's that! I have to let the idea fly out of the nest for a bit. Gotta go solo.
Please tell me if something doesn't look right or could be phrased better.
=== Market Search ===
Creation has a rich and elaborate economic character, and a navigating that environment is not always straight-forward. Characters can search the market- asking around for buyers and sellers, greasing palms and generally looking for that good deal.
The dramatic action to search the market is [Perception + Bureaucracy] at Standard Difficulty. Each search takes 1 day. The Threshold success determines how advantageous the market is. Market penalties reduce this threshold.
If your character already has a buyer or seller in mind (like a Contact, an Ally or Storyteller Character), they are not required to search the market and likely suffer no penalties.
- Botch: you found a client, but dealing with them will likely cause more problems- like mercenaries hired to mug you for your valuable tradegoods.
- Failure: You have not found a client and wasted a day's worth of work.
- 0: you have found client; but they are either disreputable, skinflints, or otherwise going to try and haggle the price down.
- 1: You have found a reputable client; They will respond well to negotiation or haggling, but have their profits first in mind. You can expect no major gains or losses from a given transaction. You won't find any new goods worth buying or selling as well.
- 3: You have found an incredibly lucrative deal that is resolved quickly. Perhaps you find someone who received a sudden order for fresh garuda eggs that you just happened to have. They also likely have something you can sell locally.
- 5+: You have found an incredibly advantageous deal- you've located a client from a culture that appreciates the atmosphere of a good haggling session and considers it a sign of respect and a knowledgeable business partner, or they have extensive connections to other rare goods that you can buy or sell.
A character approaches a market looking to buy or sell. After completing a transaction, they move to a new market (with a new search action) and repeat this process. The advantage of securing a high threshold on a Search Market Action means the character can immediately strike a new deal for a good or service with the person or group they just finished dealing with, instead of searching anew.
Repeated and successful transactions can increase a character's Resources, Influence, Backing, Contacts and possibly even other Backgrounds.
Elaborating further, markets can be considered Local or Distant. A local market is one that's in the same general area and needs no extensive travel to reach. Distant markets are those in far-flung towns, or the cities of other nations. Trading goods and services within Gem is a Local Market. Trading goods between Gem and Chiaroscuro are Distant markets.
As a rule, local markets are Safe and Predictable, while Distant Markets are Uncertain and Volatile.
=== Market Penalties ===
While it can be entertaining to create a complex tapestry of mercantilism and the flow of goods throughout a region, it's also very hard to keep track of.
These penalties are applied to the Search Market Action, detailed above.
Availability: Is it locally available? If not, -1 External Penalty.
Acquirable: Can it be traded freely? If not, -1 External Penalty.
Demand: Are you the sole customer who wants it? If not, -1 External Penalty.
These penalties apply to both buying and selling. The Solar Charm Insightful Buyer Technique negates these penalties.
I think it should be stated, that all of those things that influence a market? Players can take action that lifts or levies those penalties.
=== Profit Modifiers ===
These modifiers are for the average deviation in how much a good or service can cost based on the market environment. They represent the maximum possible amount they can be bought or sold for, and these modifiers can raise an item's effective Resource cost above 5. Purchasing such a thing simply requires the character have an equal or greater number Resource dots available than the modified cost.
Local Markets, being safe and well-known, show little deviation. With some careful haggling, a character can usually sell something for [Resources Rating +1], and buy something for [Resources Rating -1]. Most local merchants can earn their way to a single instance Resources 5.
Distant Markets, being well, distant and unknown, are much more speculative and unfamiliar. There is also the idea of what is common locally being seen as rare and useful in far-off lands.
In short, the further away something is from its point of origin, the more valuable it is, baring local substitutes. If you can buy it locally, it does not count as coming from a Distant Market.
A shipment of rare hardwood lumber from the far East costs Resources 1 when its felled, but effectively increases in Resource value by 1 dot as it gradually nears its final destination, even before being worked into finished goods. The load of lumber could be worth Resources 5- or more, if a crafty merchant takes it far enough.
10-100 miles away: +1 Resources, maximum of 5
101-250 miles away: +2 Resources, maximum of 5
251-500 miles away: +3 Resources, maximum of 5
For goods and services that are needed in exceptionally distant markets or in demand, the profits increase dramatically. After a successful sale, Resource dots in excess of five are split into a second Resources rating noted as 'Profit'- which is usually liqiud assets or money in account.
500-1000+ miles away: +5 Resources with overflow profit as above.
1001-2500+ miles away: +7 Resources with overflow profit as above.
This is meant to be a simple abstraction, accounting for both rare finished goods from a distant market to a highly refined raw material (lumber to the beams and planks that make up a mansion). What matters is they move across Creation. Note the same modifiers apply to rare finished goods as well, not merely raw materials.
The advantage goes to a seller who can buy these things cheaply, transport them quickly, and in turn offload them faster than their economic rivals. They repeat the process in reverse as well.
=== Making a Living and Making a Profit ===
Characters can have multiple Resource Backgrounds- each with their own entries and connections to Creation.
One way to achieve this is as follows: a character can earn a profit selling goods, carry the returns back home, and invest in a local property, business or endeavor. By the same token, they can invest in markets all over Creation, and instead of having lots of Resource Backgrounds in the same geographic location, they can have them spread out all over the world.
The 'Resources X: Profit from sales' concept is a mechanical placeholder for characters to have excess money they can spend on goods or invest into other assets. Investment is basically a transformation of liquid assets (often cash) into non-liquid assets like property. If a trader secures a huge profit, they can buy a mine that produces a consistent return instead of having a large sum of cash on hand or money-in-account in a disadvantageous place.
In-setting, when a trader makes a profit, it's likely moved immediately into another tradegood for later sale, or held as money-in-account by a local institution. In practice, getting that money out of an institution isn't easy- they want it to stay local and invested in local businesses or assets. (they also likely want to gather interest on it or invest it themselves like banks are wont to do).
Functionally, Resources X: Profit from Sales works exactly as any other Resources rating for the purposes of purchasing anything, acknowledging that it's either tied up as cash-on-hand, or as money-in-account somewhere. As per normal Resource restrictions, a vault full of silver in Chiaroscruo won't do you much good if you're in Whitewall.
For ease of game play though, it's safe to assume that a determined businessperson (or Exalt) can get their assets in cash or bank drafts and carry them to another part of Creation. Banking in Creation is by no means elegant, comprehensive or standardized, but this abstraction keeps the game moving.
=== Evaluating Goods and Services ===
The assesses may roll [Perception +Bureau/Relevant Ability] at Difficulty equal to target's [Unmodified Resource Value or Service ability]. A masterwork sword is harder to assess due to how easy it is to hide false quality. A master swordsman is likewise difficult to price, as you don't know their personality quirks.
Demonstrations of a good or service can lower this difficulty at the Storyteller's discretion. Characters may also roll another Ability in place of Bureaucracy, if it were more appropriate, like Melee for evaluating a sword, or Ride for a horse.
If successful, the character becomes aware of how much that good or service is worth in the local market- not its objective value. This means they recognize exotic or specialized tradegoods as well.
Characters who take the time to Evaluate goods and services will have an advantage during Haggling, detailed below. Against an honest deal, the character adds +1 automatic success to the Haggle action. Against a dishonest deal, the character adds +3 automatic successes.
A deal is considered dishonest if either side is attempting to gouge the other- offering less than its actual worth or demanding exorbitant prices. A deal is considered honest when either side is merely attempting to make a fair profit.
=== Haggling ===
A normal transaction is an unrolled action, where each party presents their asking price as an unrolled reflexive action. This need not be the objective value of whatever they're selling.
If characters are haggling over the price of a good or service, it is assumed they are trying to maximize profit and minimize their expenses. If all parties agree to initial cost or price, and have sufficient Resources or equivalent assets to make the purchase, the transaction is completed as an unrolled action. If the Storyteller believes the transaction is sufficient to increase or decrease a character's Resource Rating, the relevant traits are adjusted.
Haggling is an extended, contested [Wits + Bureaucracy] roll. The practice happens in most markets across Creation, and almost inevitably after one or more characters have successfully Evaluated the goods.
If a character earns a number of threshold successes equal to the good's cost before modifiers, they may raise or lower the price by one dot, to a minimum of 1 dot and maximum of 5 dots. Two characters haggling over a Resources 3 sword will have to earn 3 threshold successes to manipulate the price.
Merchants can use the Haggle Action to demand prices in excess of Resources 5 on goods from Distant Markets.
Ex. A character is selling rare silk (Resources 3) from An-Teng in Nexus, which is 2500 miles away. That merchant can, with a haggle action, sell that silk for up to an additional 7 resource dots, assuming they consistently earn 3 successes over their buyer during the haggle contest!
Characters can disengage from haggling at any time. Whoever has the higher cumulative successes at the end of the challenge is considered the winner. The buyer secures the low price they wanted, or the seller receives the high payment they desired.
Ex. After bargaining on a sword (resources 3), earning 3 threshold successes), the buyer disengages from haggling with a declaration of 'deal!' and pays Resources 2 for the sword.
Okay so that's that! I have to let the idea fly out of the nest for a bit. Gotta go solo.
Imrix
Periodically Malevolent QM
Uh, speak for yourself, thank you very much.
- Location
- Brittany, France
- Pronouns
- He/Him
You can't want superhero comics to be self-consistent without also wanting them to be completely different from what they are today; a fundamentally different form of storytelling than what they have been for the past 75 years and what the overwhelming majority of their readership wants them to be. Sure, what I'm really saying is that most readers don't want them to be fully self-consistent and my "nobody" was hyperbole; but it's hyperbole with a grain of truth - if you want that you also want superhero comics as a medium to be radically altered into a completely different image.
notthepenguins
Neither Spherical Nor Frictionless
- Pronouns
- He/She/They
I don't think it's unfair to say that superhero comics cannot be made self-consistent within their current paradigm. That it is too herculean a task for anyone to actually do.
That doesn't mean that people don't want them to be. Even continuity-nerd readers tend to want that continuity to work.
- Location
- Brittany, France
- Pronouns
- He/Him
Hmmm, I think we're approaching self-consistency from two different standpoints. "Continuity should be as functional as it can be made" is fair enough and I would generally agree; what I'm talking about when I'm thinking of self-consistency issues in comics is more "prisons are made of cardboards but nobody in-universe behaves according to that fact." That's nonsensical but it's also fundamental to the modern comic paradigm; rather than the product of writer laziness or incompetence it is mandated by the way superhero narratives are framed, and it cannot be changed without radically altering superhero storytelling in a way that a vast number of readers will find displeasing and ultimately inferior to the previous product.
Imrix
Periodically Malevolent QM
First, do not tell me what I want, it's nothing more than domineering rudeness.
Second, what Penguins said. The form of storytelling that superhero comics do that you refer to, which I assume is the shared universe, is not incompatible with internal consistency. That the milieu is, today, so internally inconsistent is evidence of poor editing and many instances of writer failings, to a degree that at this point the rot is set in too deep to be practical to cleanse. That I'm forced to accept its presence and enjoy what I can in spite of it does not make it any less of an unnecessary flaw.
Last edited:
If the characters had the option to choose (including the NPCs, that's a thing) you'd gang up on a Solar with 10 mortals, with 4 mortals with swords or another high accuracy and decent damage weapon trying to distract the Solar by stabbing, 1 guy performing an Aim action with an oversized two handed hammer and the last 5 Defend Othering the guy with the big hammer.
Because in that case you can certainly lay down the hurt on the guy in the middle, and that would be an excellent choice of tactic.
The reason that doesn't happen isn't because the player decides what side the character should expose. Rather, the player decides what side the course of combat leaves exposed. It's a bit metagamey, but that's the way it works out.
When you don't have room to maneuver because there's no space to move to as there's a body in the way? Yes, yes they can be.
First, let's note that there's a difference in system between 'I am unable to do anything' and 'I am not making any specific offensive, defensive or mobility action.' The first is called 'being inactive' and implies that the character is laid out on the ground for one reason or another. If you are inactive you aren't going to oppose any action taken to or around you. The second is called 'taking a Guard' action, where you are invested in not moving from your place and keeping up your DVs.
This is important; to successfully dodge you need the space to move, which #0 doesn't have in this case and as such take a -2 Dodge DV penalty. #0 also needs enough space left during combat to either contort their body into evading the blows (dodge) or to interpose his blade and/or shield onto any incoming attacks (parry), which also requires that he repositions his body due to simple facts of movement. Rules as Written note #0 most definitely doesn't have that space.
And if he has an ally in the battle (let's call her #1), #0 still doesn't have all the space he needs because #1 needs space too, and if #0 were to move into #1's field of movement both of them would foul up each other's defensive efforts. Now, #1 could move away, because she's not being ganged up upon and has the space needed to take a Move action away from combat, after which #0 could likewise try to extract himself.
Of course, generally speaking in circumstances such as this the proper response for the ones being attack is, in fact, to open up the field of battle so they can fight more effectively instead of bumping into walls, each other and getting stabbed in the face.
Well then, let's hear yours.
There are problems when the precedents result in contradicting laws of nature and no method can be devised by which the conflict can be resolved. In such cases you either go for one set of rules which are consistent, important if you want to play a game without having it blow up due to rules conflicts causing silly results, or you go mad.
In modern day science we have the mutually incompatible relativity and quantum theories that break down and cause silly results in each other's general field of applicability. The thing is that these theories both work otherwise and it's known that they are incomplete and inconsistent with each other even though the world most definitely functions in accordance with both theories where they are applicable.
In Exalted you get cases where both rules overlap and offer plausible or sane results, but which are not the same. Which makes it not work properly. If you want to know what I mean, feel free to run a single Exalt against, say, 14 opponents in both the Mass Combat rules and the normal Combat rules.
EDIT: Even better, keep in mind that the Mass Combat rules value opponents based on their Health Levels. An extra has 3, so the system presumes that you take the combined total health levels of a given unit and divide it by 3, then compare it to the Mass Combat Magnitude chart.
At fourteen extras, that means 42 health levels, total.
A Lunar, fresh out of chargen, can have 27, which means that she counts for 9 extras. Which means that she, at chargen and in the Mass Combat Rules, counts as a Magnitude 1 unit. Actually, nearly all Exalts count as Magnitude 1 units, given the way rounding works in the game.
However, the system also presumes that any unit of a Magnitude greater than 0 is made up of multiple characters, and if the Magnitude falls because all health levels were filled the result tends to be 'subtract 1 Magnitude, restart count.' This result is nonsense in this case, but it's valid.
Keeping all that in mind, silly things happen when you have even two such Lunars. In the first, because the total health levels will be 54 it presumes that you are fighting under the same rules as fighting 18 extras...
Last edited: