Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  1. This has been one of my thoughts. In essence though I think you are right in that whether or not you might have to shake the RAW up a bit depends on the setting. Anyway, what I am thinking right now is this (and allow me to keep using Brawn as the example stat because it feels an obvious choice): Since 2 is the average human let's say you want to describe an Olympic athlete. I would say that is not a 5 brawn but instead a 3 with 4 in Athletics. A 5 in Brawn would probably describe Hercules or maybe Kratos. And that feels OK if you think that an elephant has probably a 5 too. The aforementioned dinosaur would be a nemesis and maybe even have a 6. Furthermore silhouette has to play a part and I think a simple multiplication can do the job, since most PCs are silhouette 1 their effective encumbrance (including lifting weight ), brawl/melee damage etc remain unchanged. But a gecko has silhouette 0 which essentially makes its encumbrance 0 too (technically not true but in the context of the tests usually performed in game it stands). Finally silhouette can help with the dreaded (for me) difficulty setting: if a creature of silhouette 2 or 3 needs to make a brawn check that for a player would be e.g. hard, they can reduce the difficulty by 1 and 2 respectively. These are just thoughts right now, I don't know if they break the game in some way, just willing to see what you guys think too. P.S. All posts here make good points nonetheless.
  2. Thanks for the replies people. All valid points and seriously taken into consideration. Coming from a long background in DnD (2nd, 3rd and now 5e) I always found my self struggling with these points in more narrative games. Even when I played the old WoD. But I can accept that the characteristic ratings are not absolute measuring values for everything. Let me be that annoying guy for a little more though. The way I understand it from this conversation is: For characters generally it stands that brawn 5 is stronger than brawn 3, talents not withstanding. For adversaries it is more of whether the adv. is a minion, a rival or a nemesis. Thus describing more the threat level TO the characters than its own power. With this reasoning there is also a clear association between simple difficulties and what the adversaries bring to the table. Am I understanding this correctly? If so, when I want the adversary to make a skill check out of combat will I follow the tables as they set diff for characters or should I adjust if I feel that for this creature the task would be easier?
  3. I am confused. In fact sometimes I feel like I completely understand these parts of the system and then I think about it a little more and I get confused again. What am I talking about? Well characteristic ratings, their meaning and how they relate to difficulties. To elaborate, according to the book the average human has 2 in all attributes and a five can be considered the absolute peak of human ability. But is this rating an absolute value? If a human has 5 brawn and a triceratops also has 5 brawn does that mean they are tied strength wise? The obvious answer would be no, because for one the dinosaur is bigger. Much bigger. Probably silhouette 3 or 4 and that means that it's stronger. But then does that mean that a gecko can also have brawn 5 and since it's silhouette 0 it is obviously relatively weaker? The book doesn't seem to imply so. And even if it were so, how do you then set difficulties. Say there is a test to push a very huge boulder. Is the difficulty just formidable for everyone? Can't be because all three example creatures would have the same chance of success. Should it be formidable for the human, impossible for the gecko and just hard for the dinosaur? If so then how does that then translate to combat rolls etc? Perhaps I am overthinking it but if you guys can provide me with any insights it would be nice.
  4. @Johan Marek Phoenix Knight I find this project extremely interesting. Fascinating even! Some of the ideas I already love. I would like to be involved, albeit in a limited capacity since my free time is little now days. I had an idea a while back for a parallel earth of mid-late 20th century, where events had diverted from our own history around the time between ww1 and ww2 resulting in different technological and geopolitical advances. After reading Genesys core book I feel it would fall under the weird war setting with mystery/spy flavors. I never got to flesh it out very well but if you are interested we could discuss it further.
  5. I Like this ranked characteristics idea quite a bit. I was thinking about something like this as a solution to more super/supernatural characteristics too but I hadn't quite pinned it down. Your description is very good. Unfortunately I am not very familiar with savage worlds and its supplements (i've only read the deluxe core book once) so I can't help in the conversion process, but i'll gladly pitch in anytime i think i have something usefull to say. Can't wait to see where this will lead. As a side note, my interest is not that much in a supers supplement, but something more like a world of darkness themed setting, where players can be humans, vampires, mages and what have you, where (obviously?) an [agility 3] for a vampire should be "more" than [agility 3] of a human (there was another topic on this around, about supernatural characteristics). I believe your solution fits well with this too.
  6. Yeah your explanation does make sense emsquared, i like it. Maybe what confused me mostly was that the description specified that "This can be because of your character's actions" or it could just be luck. Also I do like Kommissar's remark that "Can't We Talk About This" can allow for near comical situations and that sets it apart from a simple skill check.
  7. I suppose I'll better understand it once it comes up in sessions more, although my original confusion came from one such moment. The other day I run a very small test play with my brother in which his character acquired the walkie talkie from some minions and when later he encountered another patrol, running the danger of them calling for backup, he wanted to use the radio he had to create a spike to their devices to stop them from using them. I let him attempt a hard mechanics check and he generated success with advantage which we ruled resulted in the spike frying the enemy radios completely. Or anyway something along these lines. But then I saw How Convenient in talents and thought that maybe the skill check we did was supposed to be covered by such a talent.
  8. So, I've been reading through the talents section of the book with much interest, and I came upon this one talent that kinda threw me off. Could someone give me some insight on the use of the specific talent (and others like it) versus a simple Charm/Deception check (with no talent) in order to stop an enemy from attacking you or to calm the situation down during combat? Another example I found is the "How Convinient" talent that states "This can be because of your character's actions, or it can simply be...". I get that it can be a talent if it is invoking a coincidence (though wouldn't a Story Point activation make more sense?), but when it's "your character's actions" why doesn't it work with a simple skill check? Perhaps I am overthinking this?
  • Create New...