Mistborn

[Wolverine]

You guys are still assuming this is going to be Mastercraft. Just sayin'.

I remember you and Pat saying that this might be getting its own system if it is more appopriate to do so.

Even if it does, you know the forums are going to make it work with Mastercraft anyway, right

[Crafty_Pat]

As far asi know/remember (been out for a few weeks) all setting books will be stand alone books, thanks to Mastercraft (powered by mastercraft). 10KB, Farthest Star, and of course Mistborn.

Yes, they will.

By the way, great news. i think i will take a look to the first book, and see what's ahead. only problem... farthest star, making honor to the name, seem even farther now...

Not really. Mastercraft brings everything much closer than you think.

[Sletchman]

You guys are still assuming this is going to be Mastercraft. Just sayin'.

It'd be awesome if this was entirely powered by 7th Sea.  I'm not saying it'd be a sensible choice, but awesome nevertheless.

Disclaimer: I haven't read the books, but intend on it when I get through my current stack.  The following is based on whats in this thread.

IF this is Mastercraft, there seems to be alot of parallels to what we already know about FantasyCraft magic - the Mistborns operate alot like the Mage [good at lots of stuff], with the Mistlings operating how its been suggested the Priest will [one or two very big sticks].

On the other hand I'd love to see the it very heavily feat driven allowing you to be a Soldier / Mistborn, or an Assassin/Mistling, and having it take up feat slots allows mundanes to keep an equal, if different footing.  Either way I just hope for power parity, cuz whenever we play Star Wars I never wanna play a Jedi.

[iconoplast]

...
  Either way I just hope for power parity, cuz whenever we play Star Wars I never wanna play a Jedi.

One problem is that the novels specifically address the lack of Parity - Non-powered characters wish they were born Mistings, and Mistings in turn feel totally useless when a Mistborn is around.

There's a balance between Mistings & Mistborn w/r/t Specialization & Generalism, but I feel like it's going to be a stretch to design a compelling and engaging magic system that is at parity with not knowing magic.

The only games I can think of that accomplish this are D&D4 and Unknown Armies - both have power parity as first principle of both setting design and system design.  And that parity really influences the boundaries of what's possible with magic.

[Krensky]

...
  Either way I just hope for power parity, cuz whenever we play Star Wars I never wanna play a Jedi.

One problem is that the novels specifically address the lack of Parity - Non-powered characters wish they were born Mistings, and Mistings in turn feel totally useless when a Mistborn is around.

There's a balance between Mistings & Mistborn w/r/t Specialization & Generalism, but I feel like it's going to be a stretch to design a compelling and engaging magic system that is at parity with not knowing magic.

The only games I can think of that accomplish this are D&D4 and Unknown Armies - both have power parity as first principle of both setting design and system design.  And that parity really influences the boundaries of what's possible with magic.

But then you're left with the issue of how do you make a party out of a hazekiller, a kandra, a mundane fixer, a mistling, and a mistborn.

The only viable solution there is something similar to Ars Magica's troupe play, but that whole idea is very scenario specific.

[Mister Andersen]

The Buffy RPG addresses this problem I believe

[Crafty_Alex]

...
  Either way I just hope for power parity, cuz whenever we play Star Wars I never wanna play a Jedi.

One problem is that the novels specifically address the lack of Parity - Non-powered characters wish they were born Mistings, and Mistings in turn feel totally useless when a Mistborn is around.

There's a balance between Mistings & Mistborn w/r/t Specialization & Generalism, but I feel like it's going to be a stretch to design a compelling and engaging magic system that is at parity with not knowing magic.

The only games I can think of that accomplish this are D&D4 and Unknown Armies - both have power parity as first principle of both setting design and system design.  And that parity really influences the boundaries of what's possible with magic.

Parity is the core of fun for fully 95% of gamers. It is the rare gamer who chooses roleplaying a character with decidedly fewer advantages overall than one who doesn't (most may take setbacks, but only as a path to excellence in something else). If you're at a table and one character is able to do all sorts of cool stuff and you're just...not, your perception (if not experience) will in all liklihood be the other guy's having more fun.

This is absolutely why balance is such an intergral part of Spycraft and now Mastercraft, and anything else we do in gaming. There needs to be a balance of kewl amongst all players, and that's going to continue to be the case. As I said in the seminar, 'we may not know if this game will be a Mastercraft product, but it WILL be a Crafty product" and some people visibly relaxed. Part of our contract with the players of our games.

[iconoplast]

Parity is the core of fun for fully 95% of gamers. It is the rare gamer who chooses roleplaying a character with decidedly fewer advantages overall than one who doesn't (most may take setbacks, but only as a path to excellence in something else). If you're at a table and one character is able to do all sorts of cool stuff and you're just...not, your perception (if not experience) will in all liklihood be the other guy's having more fun.

See, I know this, and I agree with this, and yet people still insist on playing Monks and Bards and Fighters in a D&D 3.5 game.  People make suboptimal choices all the time, for whatever reason - fluff, misunderstanding of the crunch, a fond memory of how badass Fighters used to be in AD&D - whatever. 

Anyway - there's the parity that (I think) WotC chose in 4th ed - where the classes are benchmarked against one another mechanically, or the kind of parity that they chose in 3.5, where each person at the table expected to be the best at doing whatever it was their character did.

Actually, I think that's a particularly bad example, since certain classes can just inadvertently walk all over another class's party role while still fulfilling their own.  But there are probably other systems that better show off the 'role protection' parity.

I can honestly see either way working for Mistborn - the magic we've seen so far is very specific and detailed and limited, so it wouldn't be hard to balance the mechanical potential of Allomancy with the mechanics of not being an Allomancer.  Ferruchemists seem to be self-balancing. 

On the other hand, you could just make sure that a PC who wants to be "The sneaky guy" has the capacity to be sneakier than the Mistborn who hasn't spent a single skill point on being a ninja.

[Krensky]

Parity is the core of fun for fully 95% of gamers. It is the rare gamer who chooses roleplaying a character with decidedly fewer advantages overall than one who doesn't (most may take setbacks, but only as a path to excellence in something else). If you're at a table and one character is able to do all sorts of cool stuff and you're just...not, your perception (if not experience) will in all liklihood be the other guy's having more fun.

See, I know this, and I agree with this, and yet people still insist on playing Monks and Bards and Fighters in a D&D 3.5 game.  People make suboptimal choices all the time, for whatever reason - fluff, misunderstanding of the crunch, a fond memory of how badass Fighters used to be in AD&D - whatever. 

Anyway - there's the parity that (I think) WotC chose in 4th ed - where the classes are benchmarked against one another mechanically, or the kind of parity that they chose in 3.5, where each person at the table expected to be the best at doing whatever it was their character did.

Actually, I think that's a particularly bad example, since certain classes can just inadvertently walk all over another class's party role while still fulfilling their own.  But there are probably other systems that better show off the 'role protection' parity.

I can honestly see either way working for Mistborn - the magic we've seen so far is very specific and detailed and limited, so it wouldn't be hard to balance the mechanical potential of Allomancy with the mechanics of not being an Allomancer.  Ferruchemists seem to be self-balancing. 

On the other hand, you could just make sure that a PC who wants to be "The sneaky guy" has the capacity to be sneakier than the Mistborn who hasn't spent a single skill point on being a ninja.

Well, ignoring Atium, the houses kept Hazekillers around for a reason and Dockson was an integral and important part of the crew, both of which imply that there's parity. Even with Atium, it's possible for someone not burning it to beat someone who is.

[Aldus Vertten]

i really hope the book is mastercraft. Tough i have a lot in faith in your work, and probably will like it anyway, i think it's a waste of recourses to not use the setting with the system you have already. Even more with fantasy craft so close...

And by way, i just bought the 1st book and started reading. Only the first chapter, but i liked the introduction of Kelsier...

[Glacialis]

Just one comment.

!!!!!!!!

That is all.

[MilitiaJim]

So I picked up the first two Mistborn books, and I'm chugging through the first.  Good stuff.  I see how neatly Allomancy drops into the Crafty system as talents and feat trees.  Mistborn seems to be a bit more of a challenge, especially since it apparently can lay dormant.  Keeping Allomancers balanced against the norms seems rather do-able, but the Mistborn will be rather more difficult.

Maybe a base class for Mistborn, an expert class for latent Mistborn, expert classes for Allomancers with most Allomancy covered by feats and a skill or two?

[Valentina]

...
  Either way I just hope for power parity, cuz whenever we play Star Wars I never wanna play a Jedi.

One problem is that the novels specifically address the lack of Parity - Non-powered characters wish they were born Mistings, and Mistings in turn feel totally useless when a Mistborn is around.

There's a balance between Mistings & Mistborn w/r/t Specialization & Generalism, but I feel like it's going to be a stretch to design a compelling and engaging magic system that is at parity with not knowing magic.

The only games I can think of that accomplish this are D&D4 and Unknown Armies - both have power parity as first principle of both setting design and system design.  And that parity really influences the boundaries of what's possible with magic.

Parity is the core of fun for fully 95% of gamers. It is the rare gamer who chooses roleplaying a character with decidedly fewer advantages overall than one who doesn't (most may take setbacks, but only as a path to excellence in something else). If you're at a table and one character is able to do all sorts of cool stuff and you're just...not, your perception (if not experience) will in all liklihood be the other guy's having more fun.

This is absolutely why balance is such an intergral part of Spycraft and now Mastercraft, and anything else we do in gaming. There needs to be a balance of kewl amongst all players, and that's going to continue to be the case. As I said in the seminar, 'we may not know if this game will be a Mastercraft product, but it WILL be a Crafty product" and some people visibly relaxed. Part of our contract with the players of our games.

*cheers*
Sig'd.
I was that rare gamer and while I'd do it again that's just the level of endurance I have when the reason's good enough. It was like a little shot of iodine in everything I drank for a couple of years; just the price of not glowing in the dark -but I still wanted to find someone plausibly responsible and shoot them in the face every few months all the same.
Superior mechanics are the core of the superior experience, and Crafty delivers.

Yeah yeah, preachin' to the choir. I like to reinforce things that matter to me every so often. 

[spinningdice]

Some of my favourite characters have been poor or downright stupid on paper. That said, aim for balance when writing, players are quite capable of creating stupid characters regardless.

[Sletchman]

Parity is the core of fun for fully 95% of gamers. It is the rare gamer who chooses roleplaying a character with decidedly fewer advantages overall than one who doesn't (most may take setbacks, but only as a path to excellence in something else). If you're at a table and one character is able to do all sorts of cool stuff and you're just...not, your perception (if not experience) will in all liklihood be the other guy's having more fun.

This is absolutely why balance is such an intergral part of Spycraft and now Mastercraft, and anything else we do in gaming. There needs to be a balance of kewl amongst all players, and that's going to continue to be the case. As I said in the seminar, 'we may not know if this game will be a Mastercraft product, but it WILL be a Crafty product" and some people visibly relaxed. Part of our contract with the players of our games.

*cheers*
Sig'd.
I was that rare gamer and while I'd do it again that's just the level of endurance I have when the reason's good enough. It was like a little shot of iodine in everything I drank for a couple of years; just the price of not glowing in the dark -but I still wanted to find someone plausibly responsible and shoot them in the face every few months all the same.
Superior mechanics are the core of the superior experience, and Crafty delivers.

Yeah yeah, preachin' to the choir. I like to reinforce things that matter to me every so often. 

If this were almost any other gaming company I'd be dubious about the product based on what I heard about the setting.  Seeing as its you guys [while trying to avoid sounding like some gushing fanboy], and seeing the vast majority of your design descisions stay in sync with things I would do were I to make an RPG, I have faith.  My main hope is that we get a useable option to play someone who either by choice or birth, doesn't use magic.

See, I know this, and I agree with this, and yet people still insist on playing Monks and Bards and Fighters in a D&D 3.5 game.  People make suboptimal choices all the time, for whatever reason - fluff, misunderstanding of the crunch, a fond memory of how badass Fighters used to be in AD&D - whatever. 

Actually Bards and Fighters can be badass in D&D 3.5, if, and only if, you understand the crunch and choose to make the most of what you get.  I have had my group literally laugh out loud when I announced I was playing a character, only to reverse their opinion after a combat encounter or two.  The problem is that these classes require more understanding of crunch to avoid sucking, rather then starting out not sucking, and improving along the way.