Jump to content

Morridini

Members
  • Content Count

    176
  • Joined

  • Last visited

1 Follower

About Morridini

  • Rank
    Member

Recent Profile Visitors

287 profile views
  1. Very cool and useful. However, it says that once Wounds=Threshold that people are incapacitated (and likewise for strain), shouldn't it be Wounds>Threshold?
  2. While it does sound easy to "just buy 5 skills in Knowledge (One Power)" to unlock all elements, you'd still need to spend exp on the Weaving skill to be able to cast any complex combinations due to the increased difficulty system you have set up, so just having access to all 5 elements (which all channelers do to some degree) isn't that noteworthy, it is having access to all AND being able to cast them in combination. Aslo regarding it being easy to gain, it would still set the player characters back 100 exp to get all 5 elements, and that's not counting any skills to Weaving to actually use them. But this is just my two cents, I'm interested in seeing where you go with this.
  3. Very cool seeing someone working on WoT. I'm not quite sure if each element should get their own skill. This becomes a huge experience drain for those who wan't to play Aes Sedai/Asha'man characters. A cheaper way of doing this could be to have two skills, Weaving and Knowledge (One Power), where the Weaving skill represent how good you are at weaving elements together and is what you use for magic skill checks, while Knowledge (One Power) could represent your understanding of the different elements and you unlock one element for each rank in the skill (while also counting as the Knowledge skill referred to in the magic effects). I like the increased difficulty of mixing elements. Regarding gender differences, I feel that in both cases the One Power tests your Willpower and wouldn't link them to different characteristics. From the books as far as I remember men are better at raw destructive weaves and are better at doing things in the heat of the moment as well as having a higher capacity for raw power, while women need to be cool when performing weaves, potentially allowing them to create more complicated weaves. Hmm, at the moment I don't have a good idea for another way of doing this, but different characteristics feels a bit off for me. And as for the mana cost, why not just use the RAW, 2 strain for each magic test (utility may very well be free) and see how it goes? Strain is already a precious resource, with people usually having around 12-15 strain, so having men have a cost of 4 is very harsh, and also an exp sink if you need to buy a talent only to get the cost down to RAW.
  4. Yeah that's basically how we've set it up. For those who will be playing as themselves they start out with the basic human or human intellect archetypes, and skills matching their real life characters (the "boon" as I've called it previously. Then the "boot camp" happens which is essentially the rest of character creation, where they choose a career (8 career skills, 4 of which you gain skill points in) and spend starting xp. The players who do not wish to play as themselves are free to choose any species from all fictional universes we can think of, with the only restriction is no God-level beings (like, no Kryptonians unless we can somehow explain why they would be nerfed to be less than Superman).
  5. A general comment about my players and the setting: We all have very similar background 3 have PhDs in Physics and 3 have masters in physics, which give us a set of skills not immediately useful beyond modern day settings. Our setting however are all settings, it is a universe jumping campaign, the last 3 weeks (the campaign stars before character creation, during these 3 sessions they have played characters I designed for them) we have been in Skyrim, next up might be The Matrix, Dresden Files or whatever. We've named this setting the OmniVerse and have a thread about it on this forum somewhere. Thanks for your suggestions, having fun is the very reason I'm trying to figure this out, and I'm sure we'll find something we agree on, option 2 and 3 are some I might consider. I'll take a look, thanks. I'm sorry but I think you missed one point; not all my players are inclined to choose making themselves. The people who end up wanting to play as themselves, do it because it is the fun option, however using character creation as written for all players will mean that these players will have far inferior characters than the players who opt to create custom characters., which is anti-fun. The focus for us when playing Genesys is the narrative and fun aspect, and when game mechanics collide with the entertainment value we often house-rule things to make things more fun, and is in essence what Genesys is about. So what I am trying to do is find some boons to give the players who want to play as themselves, to counteract the fact that they are forced to put skill points into sub-optimal skills, without the boons being so good that this choice is inherently better than custom characters. I hope it's clearer now.
  6. The max 1 tank was for balancing purposes, but maybe that could be removed. As for "over complicating" this, I need to do something, otherwise using the standard character creation will only punish the people who choose to play themselves, which is no fun. EDIT: I wrote the above during my commute, just thought I'd clarify a bit. You say you're confused for why I would need a separate rules for creating yourself vs a normal character. In the current setting there are compelling reasons for why you would choose to play as yourself, from a narrative point of view, but also possible to not do so. If people were to choose to play as themselves because it's the fun/interesting thing to do, then they are severely punished if using normal character creation, since you are forced to use your starting exp on less worthwhile skills since that is what you have in real life. Note, from a story perspective the players will be sent on an intensive training period (imagine a special ops bootcamp) prior to the game start. So character creation thus represent them as themselves + 6 months of new training on top, which is why the character they end up with will be their base + a bit extra. This isn't a concern for my group. EDIT: I wrote the above during my commute, just thought I'd clarify a bit. I am not asking if this is a good idea or not, for a lot of groups letting people play as themselves is a very dangerous pitfall for hurt feelings and disagreements and is absolutely not for everyone. This is however not a problem for my group, who consist of real life friends who hang out besides playing roleplaying games and who have played together for 4+ years and who have already tried this before with no hurt feelings.
  7. In my current campaign my players may choose to either create new characters based on their real selves, in order for them to play as themselves, or to create brand new characters. Playing as themselves should both give them some benefits and disadvantages. For one, they should have skills matching their real life skillset which puts them stay disadvantage compared to players who freely choose whatever skills they want. Furthermore I want the benefits to be noticeable in early game, but get more diluted as experience points accumulate. I've thought about several options, such as giving them 4 extra career skills and reducing starting exp by 50 or so, however right now I am favouring the following; Give those players 8 free skill points they may only place in skills they have in real life (limit 1 rank), to compensate for this they only choose 6 career skills on character creation. This way it is a great benefit in early game and less beneficial as time goes by, and it mirrors the fact that they have baggage (they have skills already developed, but learning new skillsets is more difficult). Anyone got any thoughts on this or ideas for other ways to do this? I want both options (create yourself or create new character) to be attractive, neither should be the optimal choice for character creation. EDIT: Due to some confusion I'll clarify a few points: I am not asking if this is a good idea or not, for a lot of groups letting people play as themselves is a very dangerous pitfall for hurt feelings and disagreements and is absolutely not for everyone. This is however not a problem for my group, who consist of real life friends who hang out besides playing roleplaying games and who have played together for 4+ years and who have already tried this before with no hurt feelings. From a story perspective the players will be sent on an intensive training period (imagine a special ops bootcamp) prior to the game start. So character creation thus represent them as themselves + 6 months of new training on top, which is why the character they end up with will be their base skills + a bit extra.
  8. I've started a campaign (1 session down so far) where my players started playing versions of themselves (no character creation, all characteristics at 2 and skills matching their real life skills) and then travel through the Omniverse (the one created by me and Johan Marek here on the forums) in order to stop "the Errants" from corrupting worlds. In this first session they ended up travelling to Skyrim and needed to figure out how the world is corrupted (they noted that the Stormcloaks commanding an army of Dragons didn't quite match up with their memory of the games), and next session they'll attempt to course correct the narrative of the world to return it to more or less the status quoe of the games. The first session went pretty well,we tested out the magic system (which is very good RAW for Elder Scrolls), my players and I have 30 or so sessions of Star Wars under out belt, so adapting to the Genesys ruleset was pretty straightforward to us.
  9. Awesome, definitely going to use this.
  10. I didn't quite catch that, if it runs out after an encounter then just reload between encounters?
  11. Hey @TheSapient, just wanted to make sure this comment of mine wasn't missed in the pile of other posts, any thoughts on this?
  12. Yeah, but like TheMan said I'm only interested in that part, not the setting, so hoping for some way to get only the mechanics.
  13. Check the master resources list, one of the three pinned posts, right here, there they have links for things like GM binder to get the proper fonts etc. As for a missing advantage and triumph table, wouldn't many of the same things that is in table 1.6-2 work for magic as well?
  14. Apparently Side Step should be a maneuver and not an action, should this list be updated to correct this, or wait for an official errata first?
  15. Magic is short range, but you can increase the range of a spell by one range band by increasing the difficulty by one, which can be done multiple times.
×
×
  • Create New...