So, today's update for followers was the reveal that Sorcery is now something you can get for FREE, as a Background. "No more something you have to pay half your points in character creation for", or something.
Question is, if it really is free, what's to stop everyone from playing a sorcerer, mechanically speaking?
>>45281578 >Mechanical limitations made no sense Lemme put this another way. If I want to be good at swording shit, I have to actually PAY for it, right? Mechanically, I mean. Why the FUCK should Sorcery work differently from literally any other skill?
>>45281690 One of the sample PCs in a quickstart is a sorceress. Looking at her charsheet, it seems that you still need to buy a sorcery skills and dedicate one of the two backgrounds to being a sorcerer.
So now instead of R&K we have this whole sets of 10 thing going on. It seems like a pretty simplified version of the previous game, which isn't necessarily a bad thing. I'm gonna reserve judgement until I get more info.
>>45282143 It's actually a version of the Houses of the Blooded system (naturally, since that's the only thing John Wick can do these days) made up to look like R&K if you squint. Mathematically, it's pretty garbage, and it doesn't suit the game since it encourages player narrative control a huge time while Wick's settings demand absolute adherence to the railroad.
>>45282425 Misleading? I'm just repeating what Wick said in his e-mail.
>"One of the things I’m most excited about in the new edition is the way we’ve updated both Sorte and Porte and sorcery in general. Being a sorcerer no longer costs half your points (honestly, I don’t know what I was thinking), but instead, is part of your Hero’s Background. In other words, when you make a Vodacce Hero and you choose the Fate Witch Background, you get Sorte for free! Likewise, if you make a Porte Mage from Montaigne, you get Porte for free! Of course, both of these come with their own costs…"
Am I really the only one who thinks the necessity for Sorte witches to kiss their targets to give curses is pretty silly? Like, it's romantic and thematic and dramatic and all, but realistically speaking, who'll agree to that? I mean, the text itself says people avoid looking them in the eye - so the social consequences are clearly not high on anyone's minds. A kiss isn't exactly easy to give to someone who gives so much as the most minimal resistance, so how would that ever happen?
No matter how horny you are, if you know that your companion has the power to cause you severe damage through their kisses you won't let them kiss you. ESPECIALLY if they're from a class of people from among a NATION who is well known for being deceptive and two-faced. That anyone would BELIEVE A THING THAT COMES OUT OF A WITCH'S mouth is ludicrous. That they'll just agree to let her do her touch magic on them even moreso.
>>45282520 >It's no more garbage than any other system mathematically Objectively false. It is very much possible for a system to be more or less elegant or more or less efficient mathematically. That's why some are called "clunky" while others are "smooth". Greg Stafford's ORE system is an example of an extremely well-designed one (or at least, it's core mechanic is). FATAL (to use a blatant example) is not.
>>45282586 Seems like that's sort of the point though. Witchcraft and sexuality are entwined historically, this is a riff on that concept. The seduction is part of the magic, if you can't distract the weak-willed, you have no business witching. Taking on stronger opponents requires playing on their hubris rather than their loins.
>>45282681 Witches in folklore are rarely members of a famous organization of witches whose exploits are known far and wide. Even if they have a reputation for witchcraft, it's far easier for them to fool someone into touching them, or whatever it is they need to do their magic. Sorte witches in Vodacce practically have a glaring pink neon sign floating over their heads saying "if you touch this you deserve what you get". It's like a whore with STD sores all over her face. I'd get it if the witches needed like a sympathetic connection or something from someone, at least those can be gotten in secret. But no, they need to actually KISS them.
>>45282702 Sure they can, that doesn't change the fact that people who don't know anything about the system, or haven't actually looked at it with an open mind, because they decided that they don't like Wick or games he makes, post in these threads.
>>45282764 >Secondly, that doesn't mean the math doesn't work out, which is what something being "mathematically garbage" would imply.
Oh, the math "works out", just in a stupid, limited, cumbersome way. Compare the d20 system to the GURPS system. If you honestly think that both are equally viable mathematically just because they both "work out", you're either stupid in general or just don't know maths.
And "that a system is elegant is an opinion"? Really? I think it might be you who doesn't know what the word means. It comes from "eligere". It's Latin for "choose". It's about pickiness. Just what's necessary from amidst the rabble. Elegance implies attractiveness through simplicity. It's the opposite of needlessly cumbersome, ostentatious or overdone.
Tell you what, here are two example systems.
In this one, you roll a six sided dice, and it's a success if you roll 5 or 6.
In that one, you roll 5d100, multiply the result of the one which landed closest to you with the number of dice that landed on the table, subtract 34 than divide the result by 37.6, rounding up if it's January to June and down if it's July to December.
>>45282424 If you get a lot of high rolls that are not 10s, then a shitton of your actual result will go right into the garbage can.
If you roll 6 dice, then there is no difference between six 9s or three 9s and three 1s. And that is bullshit.
The system also produces medium results (you always get Raises equal to half the rolled dice) all the time unless you roll extraordinarily well (lots of 10s) or really-really shit (lots of <5s). If you roll with only a few dice (2-5), then you don't have to roll that shit for a truly shit overall result as the system gets increasingly unforgiving as the number of dice you roll decreases.
>>45283095 >The system also produces medium results (you always get Raises equal to half the rolled dice) all the time unless you roll extraordinarily well (lots of 10s) or really-really shit (lots of <5s). If you roll with only a few dice (2-5), then you don't have to roll that shit for a truly shit overall result as the system gets increasingly unforgiving as the number of dice you roll decreases.
Yup. For a system that's meant to simulate furious dramatic swashbuckling action, it is really, really, really, REALLY predictable. Like, Linear6 predictable. There's a reason exploding dice worked for R&K, even if the character creation mechanics still ended up turning the heroes into wusses. The core mechanics were fine at what they did.
>>45282805 Yeah, but you're acting like everyone who is not dropping to their knees so they can work the shaft and cradle the balls in preparation for Wick ramming cock in fucking ass is just a blind hater.
>>45283177 That's funny, Friday the thread was lousy with people saying the old system was terrible at producing a swashbuckling adventure. I never played, the game was already gone by the time I got into gaming. I wish people weren't constantly saying opposite things so I could actually decide whether to care about this or not.
I think the only thing you can agree on is that Wick is a shitty dude.
>>45283282 >That's funny, Friday the thread was lousy with people saying the old system was terrible at producing a swashbuckling adventure. Read the whole post. The problem with the old system was the CHARACTER CREATION mechanics, not the core mechanics. Or if you really want to be specific, character creation and advancement. Too few starting points, shit is too expensive, and DDs are required for advancement result in characters that start of weak and remain weak while average difficulties are too high. There's nothing wrong with R&K itself - which, by the way, works perfectly for Legend of the Five Rings.
Willfully ignoring the flaws in a system just so you won't come off as a "hater" is every bit as retarded as blindly hating it. At least these guys are actually giving it some in-depth analysis rather than deciding whether it's good or bad rather than what they think would be more moral to think of the creator.
>>45283354 Eh, if you only had what tg said to go on:
John Wick is a terrible game designer 7th Sea was shit 7th Sea was a great world with shitty mechanics 7th Sea was a shitty setting with shittier mechanics John Wick touched me 7th Sea was fine in first edition 7th Sea 2nd ed is going to be great 7th Sea 2nd ed is going to be the nail in Wick's coffin 2e doesn't use the Houses of the Blooded mechanic 2e uses the Hoses of the Blooded mechanic.
>>45283282 Look at the QS and decide for yourself. Asking /tg/ to have a unified opinion about something is pointless. It's like asking /v/ if Undertale is a good game, or /pol/ if anything.
>>45283613 How is it shitposting to point out the inconsistency of providing a great deal of narrative freedom while at the same time designing an airtight setting filled with railroady adventures, an issue that Wick is very well known for?
>>45283095 >If you roll 6 dice, then there is no difference between six 9s or three 9s and three 1s. And that is bullshit. Incorrect second example the GM could buy the 1s with hero points and add them to the danger pool where he can then use to make it require 15s to get a success thus causing that player only to get 1 success. You could have saved it by reading all the rules and saying 8s and 2s but then you're also ignoring the whole GM can go fuck you and make each success require groups of 15.
>>45283824 Or you could pretend a little less hard that you're an idiot and understand that the point of the post was that the mechanics lend themselves to producing incredibly blend results, not that a particular roll does. People's issue with the d20 system isn't that it sometimes rolls 17 and sometimes rolls 4, it's that every number has the same chance of coming up.
>>45283698 Again, one person did that, and I didn't respond to him, because I didn't have a good rebuttal; the other said nothing of merit, I called him out on it, and he said I was sucking John Wick's dick.
>>45284002 You cited two posts. Between >>45283698 and >>45284002, you've just said that BOTH of them got a pass from being called "shitposting" (first the one that provided the analysis, then the one that pointed out inconsistency).
Why isn't Mirage the Montaigne national sorcery? It's thematically more fitting, more versatile, and can do everything Porte can do and do it better.
Why isn't Scrying the Avalon national sorcery? It allows for the existence of mythologically appropriate wizards and witches while keeping the fairy abilities with the fairies, while at the same time keeping their sorcery style versatile yet balanced, unlike Glamour.
>>45283887 >Probability has discrete possibilities! Oh my god! I better switch to games with a bell curve.. no wait those have discrete possibilities as well how do I escape these predictable determined results and get to true role playing? I can't go on knowing that the set of possibilities of numbers I roll are already knowing.
>>45284048 I feel like you're not really reading the post.
>>45284044 This is also an example of a shit post. Adds nothing to the discussion. Pretends it's taking the high road by not "wasting words" on it, when if that was truly the goal, he just wouldn't have posted anything.
>>45284101 >Why isn't Mirage the Montaigne national sorcery? For once, it's overpowered as hell. Second, it's dubiously official in the first place. Third, it messes up with the cosmology in all sorts of ways by verifying the existence of souls, which is kind of a big deal.
>>45284184 The grouping will almost always result in a number of Raises equal to half the rolled dice. You will almost always have to pair up the dice to get the 10, regardless of the results of the two dice, and the only exceptions are the two extreme results (10s and lots of <5s) that shouldn't count as much, especially if you don't roll that many dice.
>>45284452 Mirage is from a web supplement called Noblesse Oblige that came out after AEG realized they weren't going to be able to fund anymore actual books. Very low quality stuff, but technically official. It's mirror magic. "It can do everything Porte can" in the sense that it can be used to transport objects and people through mirrors, but it can also do plenty of other stuff like using mirrors for spying, to see the future, to control reflections, steal people's souls...
Scrying is from the Sophia's Daughters sourcebook. The more common form is usable only by women, and generally speaking it allows two distinct abilities: the ability to see things in pools of water (either other places or other times, or to spy on other people if you've got a sympathetic connection to them), and the ability to brew potions. There are dozens of potions, but in practice a single Scrying sorcerers could probably never learn them all so it's kind of like with Laerdom where it's a very versatile ability in theory but you got to specialize to make it work.
There's also "Male Scrying", the men only equivalent which is really just sorcery in name only. It makes you supernaturally strong, fast, perceptive, and handsome and grants you regeneration. It goes from "Captain America" at the Apprentice level to "Exalted" at the Master.
I'm assuming anon was referring solely to female Scrying, which does have a very strong "fairytale witch" flavor to it.
>>45284476 But, again, you're not looking far a given amount of raises, and you only need one raise to succeed. Period. Saying, "I have a pretty good idea how many raises I'm getting, doesn't really mean anything. It's how you use them and how the GM sets up consequences,
>>45284522 I meant LOTS of <5s. You can roll <5s up to half of the rolled dice, and it will be even good as you won't waste good results on overkilling groupings. Everything above that will force you to spend 3+ dice to get a single group, possibly killing a Raise.
Even the 10s can be tricky, as you either need them from an odd dice or to come in even numbers to not fuck up your grouping.
Unless your GM busts a Danger Point for the "the group limit is 15" effect, because then you are screwed big time.
>>45284813 I'd argue about the way consequences are set up (and you can see that even the writers themselves are having a hard time thinking about original uses for Raises that won't screw up the story... "err... a secret door!"), but that's not even always the case. In combat, Raises are just used as they are, in all their sometimes ridiculous glory.
Jesus Christ, NPCs with EIGHTY ONE MOTHERFUCKING WOUNDS. YOU NEED TO COLLECT AT LEAST EIGHTY ONE RAISES TO DROP THEM. And the example one's a one on one fight. Just take the player for a solo session so you can have the night for yourselves. Wasn't part of the greatness of R&K that a really good roll could literally drop ANY character in one hit, potentially?
>>45284813 The problem is that the result of the roll is extremely predictable, almost 100% sure. You will get half the rolled dice as Raises most of the time, no more, no less. It simply takes away the risk from the Risk and degrades it into simple resource-management. It is kinda fucked-up if you ask me.
>>45284910 Assuming you mean the Zyta vs. Ennio duel that the sample adventure gets railroaded into, consider this:
Ennio has a dice pool of 8 for sword attack (Panache+Weapon, because of Amborgia). In practice, a player can basically always count on another die in their pool for description (since any description more than "I roll to hit" is worth one). That's a solid 9 dice, which comes up to 4-5 Raises per round. But you can't Slash on two consecutive rounds, and you need to save some for Parrying, and Zyta herself can cancel out some with her Parries...
>>45285094 In the system's defense, you don't HAVE to agree to let the GM buy Danger Points. It's your decision, and you get Hero Points in return. So it's not QUITE one of those truly stupid systems where you've got a higher chance of failing the more dice you roll.
>>45283117 Jesus christ that salt. Are you really so worried about what anonymous image boarders think that you have to spew at him and end it with 'I'm leaving but its because I don't care, so noone think that I lost, okay? Because I don't care.'
>>45285409 >a magic arrow The Black Arrow was literally just a regular arrow of fine make, due to being Dwarven craftsmanship. >saying a prayer that It wasn't a prayer. That's like calling Han Solo saying "Hear me baby, hold together." a prayer. And even if it had been a prayer, that isn't how the Valar operate so it would have done fuckall. Bard was a normal guy, using a normal arrow, who felled teh last of the Great Dragons. This ties directly into the book's central idea that even the smallest and most seemingly insignificant of people and things can be of great import, can do great things, can shape the world around them.
>>45285181 Meh. Doesn't say so explicitly, but the word "buy" does imply a degree of voluntarism. Then again, we're talking about John Wick here. It's always safe to assume the GM has all the power all the time.
>>45285543 It's not expressly stated, but it has a name, was always successfully retrieved (not unlike a statedly magic arrow), and the song/poem/prayer seemed pretty magic-y to me. And even if it wasn't, he hit a special weakpoint.
The guy in our group just pulled a trigger then dice exploded 4 times.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the shown content originated from that site. This means that 4Archive shows their content, archived. If you need information for a Poster - contact them.
If a post contains personal/copyrighted/illegal content, then use the post's [Report] link! If a post is not removed within 24h contact me at email@example.com with the post's information.