Printable View
I've only been reading through the Narrator's Guide for a few days now, but one thing that I think could have been improved is the rules split between the Player's and Narrator's Guides.
Basically, I think that chapters 6 (Coda Rules) and 13 (Hazards) should have been included in the Player's Guide instead of the Appendix, as they are the basic rules of the game. I realise that this would have meant an extra 34 (?) sides in the Player's Guide but still think it would have been a better split.
Why does a book designed for players have to have those rules in them? The great majority of the rules for ANY RPG only have to really be the concern of the Gamemaster/Narrator/Whateveryoucallit. The only players I know who feel they have to know anything more than the character creation rules and the basics of the system are the ones who want to know how to bend and exploit the rules.
I like the set-up of the books just fine.
Allen
Takei: The Coda rules are already in the PG. There isn't a lot in the NG rules that isn't in the PG appendix.
The chapter that I really think should have been in the PG is the starship combat one. Since the players are expected to choose maneuvers for combat, surely those maneuvers should be in the PG.
True, they are in the PG.
But you have to wait for the NG to get an easy-to-read explanation of them...
The PG suffers from reading too much like "Well, you already know ICON, so here are the short-hand changes to the rules".
I pity first-time gamers who pick it up.
bump :).
The PG and NG both have tables titled "Degree of Success" but they are different.
The table in the PG (p.104) shows a complete success from TN+5 to TN+9, below that it's a marginal success, above an extraordinary success. No superior success at all.
In the NG (p.81) it's complete success at TN+1 to TN+5, superior success with TN+6 to TN+10 and extraordinary at TN+11 and above.
Which table is correct?
If it's the one in the NG, then what about the references to Complete Success in the PG, e.g. for attack results that deal extra damage. Does that mean a result of TN+1 to TN+5 (complete success in the NG) or should that actualy read "superior success (about the same range of TN+x as the table in the PG has for complete success)?
Well, first off, I can tell you the LOTR Core Bok uses the same table as the NG. And in that book (LOTR), the text refering to Combined Tests and Combat Damage have been modified to reflect this.
Combined Tests: The amount added to or subtracted from the primary character's test and based off the success of theose assisting are are follows (from worst to best):
- Disastrous Failure: -2
- Complete Failure: -1
- Failure: +0
- Marginal or Complete Success: +1
- Superior Success: +2
- Extraordinary Success: +3
Combat Damage: The added damage for success in unarmed combat has apparently been removed (wasn't mentioned in the NG either) and now the "Maximum Damage on an Extraordinary Success" applies to both armed and unarmed combat. LOTR also gives a list of possible cinematic consequences to a Superior or Extraordinary Success (like breaking an opponents limb, unhorsing your opponent, and other fun goodies).BTW, Since the examples given of additional effects list both Superior and Extraordinary sucesses, I would suggest extending the maximum damage to Superior Success as well. (But that's from me, not Decipher... :))
Just a few thoughts. :)
Correction (7/24/02): Just got off the phone with TPTB and the maximum damage thing is ONLY on an Extraordinary Success. The others are more for color due to the more martial nature of LOTR as a game.
>>Still, I am sorry to say it, I am not convinced. After all, where in the rules does it say anything about stacking courgae enhancing abilities?
The intention of these abilities could have been:
a) to give you a really high benefit if having both abilities or
b) to apply each ability only to the skills that are professional skills for the profession that grants you access to the ability in question. <<
I can provide an official answer...
First, if we'd used the term "stack" in the rules, we'd get even more criticism that we'd copied D20 than we already do. =) (as an interesting aside, do we need any more proof that D20 has become the lingua franca of the RPG hobby?)
Unless otherwise stated, everything "stacks." That's a fundamental assumption of the rules. We didn't say "everything stacks" because there's nothing that says it doesn't. There was no way to say "everything stacks" without using the dreaded D20 language.
If everything stacks (unless otherwise stated), then Skill Focus combines with the Diplomat professional ability.
What about stuff that doesn't make sense to combine? Then it doesn't make sense to combine and has no effect on the rules (like the ability to ignore distractions and the edge to ignore distractions).
There are some professional abilities that mimic edges. This was done for several reasons. First, we wanted to give all characters access to some game effects; we didn't want only scientists or diplomats to be able to do a particular thing. Second, some professional abilities are required to get other abilities. Sure, you can get some of the same effects by choosing an edge, and get it cheaper, but you need the 3 pt. professional ability to get higher effect professional abilities. Does this affect min-maxing? Sure it does. But you can choose to ignore "illogical" min-maxing effects. If it makes no sense for you to choose a professional ability because you already have the same edge, then don't choose the professional ability. If, however, you're going to need the professional ability to advance to a Tier Two or Tier Three ability, then why not use that edge slot for something else useful?
I'm not going to suggest this explains all instances. This is a first edition of a new game system, so we have to expect 30,000 players will discover all kinds of things that were missed the first time around. We're not perfect. We're game designers. =)
I hope this helps.
Ross A. Isaacs
Doug: Thanks for the glimpse of the upcomming LOTR game. I think I'll use +1, +2 +3 damage as a house rule - not too much to unbalance the game but still good enough to give the players the feeling they did something special.
Ross: Thanks for the clarifications. :)
But if you want to draw any conclusions from my use of the word "stack" why not just assume that's because D&D is the game I play the most at the moment. ;) I am sure if I played Coda for a year or so and then went back to D&D I'd start calling "saves" "reactions" instead. ;)