Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by DavidJDance

  1. One of my players is in the process of creating a (secondary) character. and has just asked whether the character can be a eunuch. (He's been watching a Korean TV show and it has given him some ideas...) Is there a tradition of eunuchs in Rokugan? I can see nothing in the 5E canon, and I can easily imagine there is no such tradition, given what I know so far of the culture, how gender plays in it etc But I thought I should ask! (All this putting aside the fact that I do not think being a eunuch fits naturally with the rest of his background - Kitsu Medium school shugenja. So if the player does want to do something along these lines, we might have to come up with some exceptional narrative. Perhaps he is not a eunuch via surgical intervention, but via chance medical condition, for example, and is quite a rarity. I can imagine a distinction representing trustworthiness in certain scenarios, perhaps. and/or not easily distracted by sexual ploys. Or perhaps I might just dissuade them from this route. But either way, I wanted to gather the facts about Rokugan first!) I'm a pretty much a noob on this world, so any pointers welcome...
  2. I am not a very experienced GM in FFG RPGs, I have GMd a little Star Wars and some Genesys. However, I am overall probably quite an experienced GM on systems ranging from very tactical (SPI's DragonQuest back in the day, anyone? C&S all editions, even Phoenix Command) through in more recent years to things like Fate, Cortex Plus etc. Anyway, none of that really matters, just wanted to point out I do not speak with much authority as far as FFG RPGs go. However, I DO REALLY like the more abstract range concept, and so I thought it might just be helpful for those struggling, if I mentioned how I have done it... there is no magic sauce here, so I offer this with all humility... So... first things first... in our group, on all matters, the table decides. But the GM is chair of the table with arguably a casting vote if required. Normally the way this works in practise is that the GM typically expresses an opinion, and in reality that is normally accepted. But the right for the table to disagree does exist, and does happen. Anyway, I normally sketch a map of the scene, with an indication of the vicinity each of the foes are in and the PCs are in. I also give an indication of rough scale... what would short and medium look like roughly on this map (Star Wars and FFG terms.. In Lot5R I might show Throw and Bow range indications. I consider Spear, Melee and Hand to be variations of Engaged.) When a character moves, we indicate the new vicinity they are now in, and we agree the range to any other characters we are particularly interested in. So if a PC moves from Bow to Spear for a particular foe, we look at the map and decide what that means for any other 'figures' they particularly want to know about. This has never felt anything other than obvious and easy. You COULD do this with strict distances but we just find this ... less book keeping and easy. I do NOT keep a matrix of distances from every figure to very other.. we just use a coarsely drawn sketch of the scene, and rough indications of vicinities figures are in. I guess you could even use counters for this!... Of course other tables may vary, but that is how we do it, and it has always felt really easy. For Lot5R, I anticipate the same. But I would handle Spear, Melee and Hand as variations of Engaged.. so less about notable movements on the map, and more about engagement with one or more specific foes... Anyway, that is how we do it... it may or may not help... one final comment... I had to go through a process of 'letting go of detail' some years ago on this sort of stuff, especially when I first started using Fate, Cortex and similar... in fact moving to FFG systems is actually a slight return to crunch for me!.
  3. Many thanks for all your thoughts...Watercolour dragon raised tangential questions I hadn't thought of but are very interesting.. Klort was thinking along very similar lines to myself, I think. And Hinklemar, I do agree with the sentiment of 'why bother if it is a sideline'? I do have the option of just sticking with RAW, but it is a strong enough element of that PC’s background and nature that I felt it worthwhile trying to understand if there is something slightly more satisfying but only slightly more complex within reach... or not. I'll come back to this... If I were going to go down this line (but not as far as Klort in terms of fleshing out NPCs, I think), I might up up with.. A knowledge (people/places) roll to know about what items are common on place A and rarer in place B. GM to set difficulty. For example, two big markets close to each other would be hard to find types of goods with a significantly different rarity, I guess. Items a long way apart or of different natures might be easier. So Straight success means you identify and locate items with rarity potential x2. Each success increases rarity delta by 1, failure means rarity modifier of 1. Advantages/threats can be used to help in subsequent negotiation (boosts etc), along the lines of using advantages/threats in social encounters. Or can use other social skills if narrative plays out in that way . Then a negotiation over price. Assume typical merchant has attribute 2 proficiency 1. But GM can make more difficult for rarer items. Each success/failure effects cost price by +/- 5% (say). Advantages/threats can be used as normal, but can also be used to affect portage/storage charges (less bulky items etc). And/or 2 advantages can be used to get another 'batch' of the same size on the same deal if you have the cash. Assume default storage/haulage charge of 5% of book price of goods. +/- 1 per advantage/threat spent from negotiation role (assume you got higher value, lower bulk goods in the deal ) Then at location B we know 'book price' (not the same as what you paid). We know rarity delta. We just use Rules as Written, but I am with Klort that rare items should not be hard to sell unless demand is also rare/unusual. So just say GM to set level of difficulty based on basic merchants being {2 ability, 1 proficiency], and increasing this if he sees fit, perhaps because there is only one hard-nosed merchant interested... Or something like that.. But I may hold this on my back pocket and try to just use Rules as Written, and offer the players the option of trying out a more complex route if they express dissatisfaction and want to try something more elaborate out, in which case I'd trot this out as a draft suggestion... thus revealing my awesome ability to make up rules on the spot <grin>.
  4. One of the PCs in the campaign I run has a background as a merchant, and also 'knower of secrets'. When the party travel any notable distance, he likes to engage in a bit of mercantyling, pretty much as a sideline. So I would like some rules that are pretty streamlined, but support that type of character. In the 'bulk trading' rules as written (~P83), some very simple guidelines are given, and these are ALMOST enough, I think, but perhaps not quite.... Or maybe it is my understanding. My interpretation of the rules as written is that he acquires goods at list price in location A. He then sells in location B using normal selling rules, but with a 'list price' multiplier for change in rarity applied. So if the multiplier for rarity is x2, but he only rolls a success (i.e. quarter of price), he has lost out quite heavily. If he rolls two successes he breaks even etc. Of course, I could decide that the purchase price in location A is not full list, due to buying in bulk etc, but then I might want some structure to that.. So.. has anybody done anything with this? Am I applying the RAW correctly (I like to check these things before starting to fiddle.) If I start to fiddle, I'm inclined to go along the lines of.. In Location A make a negotiation check. as normal for buying, but ... Each success in the location A 'acquisition' roll increases value of goods actually acquired by (say) 10%, or reduce by 10% for failures. Allow advantages to be used to influence how good the stock is in terms of rarity at location B. So say rarity at location B is +1 per advantage, -1 per disadvantage or something like that. Then at location B start with the value of goods acquired in location A (which may be more or less than you actually invested depending on how successful your acquisition roll was). Multiply that according to the change in rarity, remembering that that too is influenced by how 'advantageous' your acquisition roll was. then as per RAW, i..e roll negotiation/streetwise. But we assume that rare items are highly desirable and this overrides 'difficulty of finding a buyer. So difficulty of roll is set to the same rarity the item had at the source location A. This prevents an issue where you use advantages on your location A roll to get items that have rarity in location B, but are penalised for that!!! Then success is 25% of this value, 2 successes = 50%, etc., as per RAW. Can't help feeling this is over-engineered. But you can see the idea, I hope. Thoughts welcome.. I have a tendency to over-engineer at this stage, and eventually realise that's wrong and it can all be much more streamlined or even just done using core rules... but that always takes me ages, so hopefully you can fast-path me through that process!!! (yes, I have read the FAQ item on trading, but it is not so applicable to this topic, I think)
  5. I’m running a homespun S&S setting.. I’m using the rules elaborations in RoT (heroic abilities, new talents, equipment, mounted combat etc) . But I’m also heavily mining the adversaries for abilities, examples of spells, variations on equipment etc.... other than the above, not using the setting-specific content... Seems to be going well so far, and RoT has really helped over and above the CRB. Given me more confidence, more examples to follow etc..
  6. Here’s an interesting link that seems to point to the origins of the older OneOgre map.. https://boardgamegeek.com/thread/1458816/terrinoth-mennara-map based solely on that thread (initiated by the one and only OneOgre!) I’d infer at this stage that the first map is a fan attempt.. but I don’t have Descent so don’t know what came ‘in the box’ so could easily be wrong, I suppose.
  7. Leisure Games’ listing of the book has changed to say ‘Release Date 24th May’... I’ve had a pre-order in with them since it was first announced... so here’s hoping...
  • Create New...