Observations From Online Game

[mathey]

So I ran a two session game of Fantasy Craft on Infrno.net these last two Wednesdays. We used a homebrew setting of mine, 1st level PCs, and a pretty straightforward premise featuring a snatch-and-grab from a spooky old crypt. One of the players had a copy of the second printing PDF, another had a hard copy of the first printing, and the third had no version of either, having never tried Fantasy Craft before. The first two made their own PCs and the latter used a pregen I made specifically for this one shot; one Assassin, one Soldier, and one Martial Artist. The Assassin missed the second session due to a misunderstanding so that only featured the other 2 PCs for the conclusion. Here's some comments on how things turned out:

Stuff We Liked

1. Character Versatility. Everybody agreed that they felt like their PCs could contribute in each scene, even if their character wasn't optimized for a particular task. While the group slanted towards combat abilities, in other words, they were able to engage in investigation, social checks, infiltration, and the dungeon crawl without feeling totally worthless. They p0wned their opposition in the fight at the end, of course, but the point was they enjoyed having a chance to do things no matter the situation.

2. Action Dice. I liked giving them, they liked using them, and by the end of the second session I think we all comprehended their many uses. Given my experience with SpyCraft I already knew AD were cool, but its still worth noting.

3. Combat was quick and painless. We resolved the concluding brawl with one Special NPC and two mobs of minions in under an hour. Most of us stuck to simple actions given our relative inexperience with the system, but it never became a chore.

4. Stress damage was a lot less fiddly than I thought it would be. Its not a massive revelation, but I liked how simply the save-or-shaken mechanic worked. It helped that we could copy-and-paste conditions from our PDF copies to the virtual game table, but in tabletop I imagine Condition Cards would also keep it simple.

5. Knowledge checks. The players liked that they didn't need to have a whole slew of ranks dedicated to scholastic skills in order to have PCs who knew things. I liked how easy it was to resolve whether or not they knew things. Win win.

Stuff We Didn't Like As Much

1. Classes, Feats, Origin abilities. While I think the Soldier got to use Accurate once during the fight scene, nobody else used their class abilities during either session. We had maybe one use of a feat and one or two uses of origin abilities. This is mainly due to lack of familiarity, but it was still a little surprising given how much space that stuff takes up on a character sheet.

2. Blend/Sneak and Notice/Search. I probably exacerbated things by drawing my players' attention to this personal bugaboo of mine, but we agreed that the fact that our Assassin was more stealthy when he wasn't trying to be stealthy didn't make much sense. I also didn't really dig rolling as much I felt was necessary when it came to resolving the passive skills. It never broke the game but its still something I have trouble explaining (or justifying) to my players. Advice would be appreciated.

3. Spell lists. In contrast to stress damage, magic was exactly as fiddly as I thought it would be. While I was the only one who had to concern myself with page flipping to sort out what each spell did on behalf of an NPC, it was still kind of a bummer. I ended up skipping spell use and falling back on one extraordinary attack they had to keep things moving.

All in all, we enjoyed the game and felt that the system served our purposes. I didn't convert the guy who didn't already have a copy of the rules, but it was nice to see things in play. We may return to it in the future for another one shot.

[Nova]

I'll just focus on the dislikes:

1)  Accurate is simple and straightforward... The assassin one though, that's a passive, not much you can do about that, and the martial artist one requires both familiarity and a few levels for it to shine. The assassin by level 3 should start having serious fun using his abilities, especially if you have some of the social and investigation work.

 If you start looking at the FC abilities the way you look at your cards in a CCG, you'll start having evil fun ideas. Familiarity really is huge, here; the group I'm in only started seeing all the nuances after our first few characters. Especially the assassin, who can make things look very bad for his target or its friends (or another target) once they find his corpse...

2) Blend is natural, sneak is 'on purpose'. It is perfectly possible for someone to be a lot better at escaping notice than they are at "sneaking". Both have, for the most part, the same uses, and the assassin class in Fantasy Craft is a social, "My agency me here to start a war" kind, not the more common fantasy "backstab melee DPS" variant. Blend won't protect you from automated defenses or the like, but it'll keep the guard from getting suspicious at a party you weren't invited at, or that starving bear from caring when there's fish 'just' a km away.

 Think of blend as your natural ability to be unassuming, unimportant, and your natural quietness. They often still see you, but have no reason to be bothered by it. Think of sneak as your ability to hide when you know they have every reason to do something about your presence. Like avoiding guard patrols in an otherwise empty hallway.

3) well, not much that can be done... the spells are fairly simple, but there's little choice but to read an ability so it can be used right, and spells are no different. All fairly simple though, once you know the system a little better. Except the summons. Get used to a few npcs first (NPC XP/Threat system: its simple, it works well, but it takes some getting used to)

[ludomastro]

1) Yeah, I can see that.  I ran a demo game for the FLGS in November of last year.  Three guys were old d20 (all types) players and had no problems keeping up with the options.  One guy though was just overwhelmed.  Familiarity helps.

2) Basically, what Nova said.  The only other thing that I tell my players is that an Assassin is NOT Altair from Assassin's Creed (tm).  If they want that kind of assassin then they should play a Burglar.  The base assassin is more James Bond than Altair.

3) Curiosity question: Do you find that you have the same problem with spells in other games?  I ask because you stated you had to "... concern [yourself] with page flipping to sort out what each spell did ..."  That seems more like unfamiliarity with the spells rather than a complaint against the magic system.

Full disclosure: I thought that magic would be awful - mechanically speaking - when I first read the rules but in practice I found the mechanics work very well.

---~~---~~---

I just had a thought.  Is it possible that #1 and #3 are basically the same concern?  That is to say that the lack of familiarity caused some of the issues your group had with the game?

[Coyote0273]

1) Pretty much what everyone has said so far. Accuracy is the easiest ability to use because it's combat related, whereas most others require some specific skill use. The more sessions you run, the more it'll come into play for the others like a Burglar's sneak, or some such. I've run the game for over a year now, and we've used most abilities so far, even if some get more use than others.

2) Bond is a good example of the Blend/Sneak thing, though you could also think along the lines of some people just blend into crowds and surroundings naturally. We've all got friends that just disappear into crowds, or you never see them approaching. It's not that they're sneaky or such, they're likely just as clumsy as most people when trying to be sneaky, they just do it by instinct.

3) Can't get around the spell thing. Unless you only deal with a couple of spells, you're always going to run into page flipping. I've taken to printing out or writing down major details for npc abilities/spells so I've got it handy, but for some, you're always going to search. That's inherent in any magic system. Least everyone I've ever seen from D&D to Gurps to Palladium.

[Psion]

Stuff We Didn't Like As Much

1. Classes, Feats, Origin abilities. While I think the Soldier got to use Accurate once during the fight scene, nobody else used their class abilities during either session. We had maybe one use of a feat and one or two uses of origin abilities. This is mainly due to lack of familiarity, but it was still a little surprising given how much space that stuff takes up on a character sheet.

I do find a little unusual. The way I run things, skills do tend to be the primary character utility point, but everyone has 1 or 2 favorite class abilities they bank on in my game.

I think familiarity and GM suggestion would make that less of an obstruction. Personally, I find origins one of the key features that makes me like FC characters better than D&D/Pathfinder.

2. Blend/Sneak and Notice/Search. I probably exacerbated things by drawing my players' attention to this personal bugaboo of mine, but we agreed that the fact that our Assassin was more stealthy when he wasn't trying to be stealthy didn't make much sense. I also didn't really dig rolling as much I felt was necessary when it came to resolving the passive skills. It never broke the game but its still something I have trouble explaining (or justifying) to my players. Advice would be appreciated.

I think Blend/Sneak is sort of a fair cop. But to be fair, I'd wouldn't usually not allow someone with blend not to use it. But I think that to make the distinction meaningful, it would go a long way making the utility of the skills a be more distinct, having different situational modifiers for each.

I've never really had much of a problem with differentiating Notice and Search, but to be fair, I go a little beyond the RAW. As written, the advantage of notice is you don't have to ask or spend time to get a roll. The advantage of search is you can explicitly try and retry, which seems a pretty solid distinction right there. I additionally go further and make notice more effective against things that are changing/moving, and search more effective against things that are static.

[Nova]

Accurate gets damn nice when combined with sword supremacy and all-out attack. A character with enough Martial Artist to put in double tricks can turn this into a killing blow.

Accuracy + Martial Spirit stance + All-out attack + Combat Focus (on, perhaps a brawlIII'd stat) + sword supremacy + edged master + Kiai = a LOT of damage doubled. With the keen qualities you'll be adding in, certain ouch table!

[Morgenstern]

I just want to add that I don't think of Blend as a passive skill whatsoever.

To me, its easiest to understand as deliberate subterfuge. It's an entirely different sort of "taking cover" from Sneak, but that doesn't make it any less methodical than Sneak.  Wearing the right shirt and moving at exactly the speed of local traffic is just as deliberate as scanning ahead for your next bush or shadow.

Now, there are people who manifest natural nonchalance, who radiate such complete and total confidence that none think to question their right to be present. But most folks have to work at that facade and it's just that: a carefully constructed facade.

[aegis]

If I can share my own experience on this:

1. Yeah, I had the same observation ... at first. The second session, my players already used a few more feats/abilities, and the third, they were already using most of them. There are still a few abilities that get lost in the warp, though, and I'm trying to find a way to make them more directly usable in play (feats are less an issue, since players quickly learn to take feats that they feel will be useful). Sometimes, it's as simple as you (GM) writing them down next to your player's name (if you have a short list of your player's passive skills for instance) and calling for that ability when it should come into play. That's what I've done for the Explorer's bookworm ability, which I still find underpowered anyway, and it has been quite helpful. Sometimes, it's just about giving the PC an occasion to shine ... through his abilities.

2. A little bit like Morgenstern, though differently, I don't see Blend as a completely passive skill. Blend is for me the art of, well, blending in a crowd or landscape. It's not a question of actively trying to be unseen. It's about being unnoticed. You can act normally (thus the free action) but just try not to attract attention (hence big penalties if you do anything unusual). On the other hand, Sneak is about trying to literally disappear from sight. It requires active hiding (thus the half action) but the benefit is that you are just not there. In some situations, I would say Blend is enough and Sneak doesn't really make sense (try to crouch and hide in the middle of party!). In others, like when you try to infiltrate a castle, there is no way you could look "at your place" (unless you're wearing a guard's uniform maybe), so Sneak is the only way to go ... That's how I handle this anyway.

3. I feel PCs have too many spells known (I hope there will be a campaign quality to change that in Spellbound ), but here you're talking about NPCs. To put it simply: shorten the list. NPCs are easier to use when they have less qualities, whether spells or not. If you only need a few spells, then take the natural spell quality two or three times. Write down the basic effects of the spell if you need. Take the Spellcasting skill only if the NPC really has to know a lot of them. And in that case, better know the spells you are planning to use. Read them a few times before play, or here as well write down their effects. It's a problem I've always encountered, even before D&D 3, and the only way I've found to deal with it is to focus on a small number of iconic spells which you must know completely.

Hope that helps. I don't say these are the answers to your issues, but I recognize some of them and that's how I handle them myself.

[Wolverine]

Sometimes, it's just about giving the PC an occasion to shine ... through his abilities.

This.

Take a look at each of the characters and see if you can include an opportunity for each of your players to have a moment to shine using one or more of their abilities every couple of sessions. It will be harder for some characters, but it's well worth doing as it both encourages your players to pay attention to what they can do, and makes them feel like a real hero when they pull off something major, too.

[Catodon]

I just want to add that I don't think of Blend as a passive skill whatsoever.

To me, its easiest to understand as deliberate subterfuge. It's an entirely different sort of "taking cover" from Sneak, but that doesn't make it any less methodical than Sneak.  Wearing the right shirt and moving at exactly the speed of local traffic is just as deliberate as scanning ahead for your next bush or shadow.

Now, there are people who manifest natural nonchalance, who radiate such complete and total confidence that none think to question their right to be present. But most folks have to work at that facade and it's just that: a carefully constructed facade.

If not blending by confidence you can also blend by being 'quiet' even if in plain view.(by reading and projecting body language, standing aside from natural gaze paths, remaining quiet, avoiding eye contact, staying still)

[mathey]

Thanks for the responses, guys!

Can't reply to each comment individually, but:

I agree; given more time to get familiar with their character sheets, the players probably would have found more occasions or excuses to test out their unique abilities. I would probably have also had more chances to encourage them to try specific ones out. In reviewing their stats, for example, I notice that the Assassin had one of those "at least 21" abilities with Blend, something I overlooked in the session he played in. I could have probably mentioned that when they were scoping out their target, and it might have made my later annoyance/confusion with how to use that skill less of a hassle.

And, speaking of that skill, I think you've all helped me sort out how to think about it and the other related skills. I think I agree that Blend isn't quite passive - not in the same way Notice seems to be. Both could probably be kind of instinctive, but there's a suggestion of conscious adaptation and adjustment to Blend. Notice is just your "average" alertness, sort of like Passive Perception in 4th Edition - only with the chance to get criticals. Out of curiosity, how often do you roll for your players Notice/Blend (assuming you're a GM)? I found myself wanting to roll for it every time they moved or did any sort of action, but that might have been too much.

As for spell lists - I think its the need to reference the specifics of each individual spell that annoyed me, more so than the general Spellcasting rules. I don't see myself memorizing their effects and I usually prefer to have all the necessary info for running an NPC right there in front of me - especially if the scene they appear in is meant to be dramatic and pacey. I think next time around I'll pare down the spell list for bad guys and try to note the basics with their qualities etc. They're going to be a little less versatile but I think having more than two or three special attacks is a case of diminishing returns - particularly if/when your PCs score critical hits.

I'm also looking forward to Spellbound's options for tweaking magic. The campaign qualities in the core rules seem to offer some interesting variety, but even with the use of spell points I find myself wishing FC hadn't leaned so hard on 3.5's magic system. I get that its a familiar starting point, but the assumptions behind old school D&D magic don't really thrill me.

[aegis]

Out of curiosity, how often do you roll for your players Notice/Blend (assuming you're a GM)? I found myself wanting to roll for it every time they moved or did any sort of action, but that might have been too much.

Basically, I roll Notice (once, since it's a group check, taking the highest modifier) when someone tries to Sneak them or when there is something worth noticing without reasonably having to focus on that. For example, I won't roll a Notice check if they enter a crime scene, unless there's some clue directly in their field of vision (i.e. almost obvious). However, I always roll Notice checks if there is a trap nearby and the PCs have a reasonable chance to see there is danger.

Similarly, I roll Blend only when there is someone actually Searching the area, most often guards watching around. Since they have nothing else to do, I consider that guards are basically using Search (often taking 10), not Notice.

They're going to be a little less versatile but I think having more than two or three special attacks is a case of diminishing returns - particularly if/when your PCs score critical hits.

Yep. I think that's also one of the points that D&D 4 got right. Opponents don't need dozens of abilities and, particularly, spells. A few well-chosen, efficient qualities, plus two or three iconic spells will make the villain both easier to play as a GM and sometimes even more memorable.

[Crafty_Pat]

Out of curiosity, how often do you roll for your players Notice/Blend (assuming you're a GM)? I found myself wanting to roll for it every time they moved or did any sort of action, but that might have been too much.

Only when it's dramatically appropriate (i.e. when I have some results in mind that will either help the action or the story along in a meaningful way). Otherwise you're just aimlessly chucking dice.

[blackheart]

Out of curiosity, how often do you roll for your players Notice/Blend (assuming you're a GM)? I found myself wanting to roll for it every time they moved or did any sort of action, but that might have been too much.

Only when it's dramatically appropriate (i.e. when I have some results in mind that will either help the action or the story along in a meaningful way). Otherwise you're just aimlessly chucking dice.

Excellent advice for just about any game.

When in doubt, say "yes" or make 'em roll.

[jolt]

Only when it's dramatically appropriate (i.e. when I have some results in mind that will either help the action or the story along in a meaningful way). Otherwise you're just aimlessly chucking dice.

I agree.  If there's a critical clue in the glove compartment of the car, and someone searches the car, then they find it; no need to roll.  I try to only ask for rolls when both success and failure each lead to interesting, if different, results.  If only a success is interesting, or is necessary to keep the story moving, then they succeed (though I may toss some random dice so it doesn't seem like success was automatic).  Otherwise, the game just gets bogged down and I don't want my game slowing to a crawl because someone failed a skill roll back in scene 1.5a.  I try to avoid failure being necessary to move the story along as players will quickly feel railroaded.

When I design adventures, I try to create situations where failure is certainly a hindrance but one that still leads to interesting results that doesn't slow down the game.  That way players feel a sense of accomplishment for succeeding without killing the game just because they failed.  I try and use failure to increase tension without actually depriving characters of what they need.

jolt