Back to Crafty Games Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
September 02, 2014, 11:36:39 PM
Home Help Search Login Register
News: Welcome to the Crafty Games Forums!

Note to New Members: To combat spam, we have instituted new rules: you must post 5 replies to existing threads before you can create new threads.

+  Crafty Games Forum
|-+  Community
| |-+  License to Improvise
| | |-+  [A New Pie] Version 1.2.1
« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 5 6 [7] 8 9 ... 12 Go Down Print
Author Topic: [A New Pie] Version 1.2.1  (Read 7319 times)
Blankbeard
Handler
*****
Posts: 781



View Profile
« Reply #90 on: November 11, 2012, 11:34:28 AM »

One thing I'm running into is that Profession is generally packed and very useful but Expertise is often lacking.  You can see my field list in the Frontiercraft thread.  How does putting repairs into Expertise sound?
Logged
Mister Andersen
Control
******
Posts: 10682


I'm leaving for a destination I still don't know


View Profile
« Reply #91 on: November 11, 2012, 10:52:34 PM »

Sounds reasonable, though to be honest I'd happily shove all of Profession back into Expertise and have a third Precision skill of some kind though I can't think of one off-hand -- Income checks feel like they should simply be a Downtime Expertise or Mischeif check.

Anyhoo, your .PDF and its simple listing of "These are the setting's Fields" has gotten me thinking about Fields and standardisation. To the point that a setting document shouldn't just name the Fields, but as with the front post give concrete examples with each one.

(click to show/hide)

After all, Fields can and do overlap -- take Chemistry and Pharmacy, or Electronics and Site Security -- so illustrating some of the points where this happens is useful for GMs and players alike.

Obviously these are mostly the original Crafting focuses with a few more thrown in to reflect the setting, but the new toys necessitate some bulking up from the simple "These are your potential skill foci". Some might conceivably vanish, absorbed into broader Fields.

(click to show/hide)

« Last Edit: November 11, 2012, 10:55:06 PM by Mister Andersen » Logged

Morgenstern
Control
******
Posts: 5206



View Profile
« Reply #92 on: November 11, 2012, 11:38:22 PM »

Sounds reasonable

Yeah, I'm also seeing it as a workable shift. Its not completely thrilling to put driving and fixing cars on the same skill, but when one considers its not driving- its extreme driving, I'm a little more comfortable with the pairing.

Quote
Income checks feel like they should simply be a Downtime Expertise or Mischeif check.

Clarification - the existing downtime income check usable with ALL skills is retained. The profession income check IS that check - with a built in multiplier. Probably x2, but possibly greater.

Quote
Anyhoo, your .PDF and its simple listing of "These are the setting's Fields" has gotten me thinking about Fields and standardisation. To the point that a setting document shouldn't just name the Fields, but as with the front post give concrete examples with each one.

Absolutely - a field isint complete without saying what gear items/categories it's linked to in that setting.

Quote
After all, Fields can and do overlap -- take Chemistry and Pharmacy, or Electronics and Site Security.

Um, in the modern age I don't think I'd seriously consider making Electronics a field - "Uh, it uses electricity" is far, FAR too broad a category. Ditto with "Chemistry". Gear list first, fields second. Basic principles of technology are not good choices for fields.

I don't see much call for a sculpture field or pottery - not much adventuring gear comes out of sculpture - with makes it an interest not a field. Expertise checks for inscription might involve reading badly damage matierials, and if repair is moved into the skill there could be some use for restoring damaged documants. For the most part though the written word falls pretty squarely under that "the use is self-explanitory". You read it. Structural again strikes me as too broad a principle and lacking an obvious list of gear to be attached too. If your setting involves a lot of fortifications, then maybe, maybe there's a Construction field waiting to be galmourized by being made a heroic activity. Tailoring lines up with armor in some cases and there are a few gear items relating to clothes, so I can see it, but "you wear it" is pretty much the start and finish of the Expertise skill in relatio to that field. Passive gear is like that and will be like that every time the topic comes up.

« Last Edit: November 12, 2012, 01:29:35 AM by Morgenstern » Logged

At your own pace: Do. It. Now.
How about some pie? - Heroes of the Expanse
Mister Andersen
Control
******
Posts: 10682


I'm leaving for a destination I still don't know


View Profile
« Reply #93 on: November 12, 2012, 12:42:22 AM »

Um, in the modern age I don't think I'd seriously consider making Electronics a field - "Uh, it uses electricity" is far, FAR too broad a category. Ditto with "Chemistry". Gear list first, fields second. Basic principles of technology are not good choices for fields.

I'm disagree -- Breaking Bad is a very good example of Walter usingwith the Chemistry field using it to make drugs and explosives, killing people's engines, etc etc.

Quote
I don't see much call for a sculpture field or pottery - not much adventuring gear comes out of sculpture - with makes it an interest not a field.

[...]

Tailoring lines up with armor in some cases and there are a few gear items relating to clothes, so I can see it, but "you wear it" is pretty much the start and finish of the Expertise skill in relatio to that field. Passive gear is like that and will be like that every time the topic comes up.

So a catch-all Art & Perfomance field then? Either that, or a rule that lets you make Profession checks using Interests instead of fully fledged fields. Because there's no way someone like Edna Mode or Janet van Dyne doesn't have some sort of field or other character option specifically related to fashion

Quote
Expertise checks for inscription might involve reading badly damage matierials, and if repair is moved into the skill there could be some use for restoring damaged documents. For the most part though the written word falls pretty squarely under that "the use is self-explanitory". You read it.

It's not so much the reading though, as the making for others to read -- forged documents, fake paintings, meanings hidden in the subtext (absolutely a bypass check)

Quote
Structural again strikes me as too broad a principle and lacking an obvious list of gear to be attached too. If your setting involves a lot of fortifications, then maybe, maybe there's a Construction field waiting to be galmourized by being made a heroic activity.

Combat engineers, miners, and saboteurs all strike me as the exact sort of people who'd have a structual engineering field
Logged

Blankbeard
Handler
*****
Posts: 781



View Profile
« Reply #94 on: November 12, 2012, 12:47:56 AM »

Take out Chemistry, not sure why I put that in.  Also, please remember that this version is largely where I got tired of typing.  I am starting to realize just how big a project I've taken on. Smiley

Here's a couple of things I've noticed so far.

First, there is going to be a section of gear that's quite large and associated with a skill but not a field- Survival.  This is an artifact of my setting.  I could make a field but it doesn't seem worth it.  Survival is mostly about improvising or foraging things to substitute for that gear list.

Second, the archaeology field is also going to be weird in that it won't be associated with much gear in the gear section but rather with found gear.  I'm not sure if it will survive as a field but the mechanics fit perfectly.  Profession lets you say "What do I need to make to get this thing working again?" Expertise is more "How does it work and what does it do?" with some rather hilarious critical failure results.

Except for the spurious chemistry, most of my fields are directly from what I see as the sections of the gear table with one exception - Technician.  I figure anything no one else can make, Technicians can.  I may just eliminate it and say that anyone can make gear that isn't associated with a field.

Couple feat ideas

Instant Expert
"When did you become an expert on Nuclear Physics?" "Last night."
Requirements: Precision 15+, at least 4 fields
Benefit: Once per session, you may declare yourself to have studied up on a field you do not possess.  You gain that field for the rest of the session although your error range with that field increases by 1.

Omnicompetent
Know it all?  Yes, it seems you do.
Requirements: Instant Expert, Precision 17+, at least 5 fields.
Benefit: In addition to your Instant Expert ability, you may make checks using half your ranks on any valid field even if you do not possess it. 

First one is every movie scientist ever, the second is more Dr Who.

Logged
Blankbeard
Handler
*****
Posts: 781



View Profile
« Reply #95 on: November 12, 2012, 01:02:39 AM »

So a catch-all Art & Perfomance field then? Either that, or a rule that lets you make Profession checks using Interests instead of fully fledged fields. Because there's no way someone like Edna Mode or Janet van Dyne doesn't have some sort of field or other character option specifically related to fashion

Quote
Expertise checks for inscription might involve reading badly damage matierials, and if repair is moved into the skill there could be some use for restoring damaged documents. For the most part though the written word falls pretty squarely under that "the use is self-explanitory". You read it.

It's not so much the reading though, as the making for others to read -- forged documents, fake paintings, meanings hidden in the subtext (absolutely a bypass check)
I can completely get behind the idea of using interests in this way.  So Profession (fashion) would let you design and make cutting edge clothing while Mischief (Abstract painting) would let you make a counterfeit Picasso.  The does this associate with a pile of gear in this setting question seems to be a fine way of determining if it should be an interest or field.

One grey area I came up with was Psychology/NLP.  No real gear but hypnosis, planting suggestions, turning someone into an assassin.  That seems field worthy.
Logged
Morgenstern
Control
******
Posts: 5206



View Profile
« Reply #96 on: November 12, 2012, 01:18:54 AM »

Um, in the modern age I don't think I'd seriously consider making Electronics a field - "Uh, it uses electricity" is far, FAR too broad a category. Ditto with "Chemistry". Gear list first, fields second. Basic principles of technology are not good choices for fields.

I'm disagree -- Breaking Bad is a very good example of Walter usingwith the Chemistry field using it to make drugs and explosives, killing people's engines, etc etc.

All of which is about one one-hundreth of what a gamer will extrapolate they should be allowed to do from that Name for a field Roll Eyes. You are far better off stating Walter as having 2-3 much more concise fields rather than one monolith field. "Pharmacology" and "Explosives" probably having a bit more rationally brief lists of gear associated with them - I mean particle physics is "chemisty" too... You can have a good player character chemist who doesn't cook from the Anarchist's Cookbook. You can have a good player character mad bomber who can't brew recreational drugs. You can have a good player charcter who can get any three fields he wants with a trivial amount of effort. Divvy it up accordingly Smiley.

Quote
So a catch-all Art & Perfomance field then?

No. Rule 1. No gear list, no field.

Quote
Because there's no way someone like Edna Mode or Janet van Dyne doesn't have some sort of field or other character option specifically related to fashion.

*shrug* What's the game mechanical benefit of of having a pretty outfit? Not an armored one, an artistically-better-than-your-outfit outfit. Until theres at lest 4 seperate and useful answers, I'm thinking interest.

Quote
It's not so much the reading though, as the making for others to read -- forged documents, fake paintings, meanings hidden in the subtext (absolutely a bypass check)

And thus Mischief (Inscription) is plenty well populated. Expertise (Inscription), much much less so. Unless you have a setting with some kind of written talismans. Then using inscriptions might be a very heroic activity.

Quote
Combat engineers, miners, and saboteurs all strike me as the exact sort of people who'd have a structual engineering field

Show me the gear, and sure. I just wouldn't name the field that (at least until seeing the list).

I get the feeling you are consistently going at this backwards. The field is the last step and virtually the least inportant thing. The segementation of the gear list comes first, not the college course about the principle that lead to the invention of that gear. Good segmentation and you get very few overlaps. Ideally you get NO overlaps at the business end of the process.

If you'd said "my game is going to feature battlefield fortifications in almost every major coflict" I'd be thinking "well then, we're gonna need somebody who can build them..." I don't want the field doing any more than it has to to be immediately tied to the part of the list/dramatic need it sprang from, and that means naming the fields accordingly. No catch-alls. Do I give a shit whether that guy is also handy enough with carpentry to put up an outhouse? No, probably not. Not until outhouses are a critical part of the gear list (and I'm not playing that campaign without a really good sales pitch Grin). If the player with that field tells me he's gonna spend the afternoon making the forward base more sanitary, I'm not gonna make him roll, I'm just gonna chuckle, give him an action die, and plan to start a scene with one of the player characters in the crapper when the fighting starts because that's kinda funny.
Logged

At your own pace: Do. It. Now.
How about some pie? - Heroes of the Expanse
Morgenstern
Control
******
Posts: 5206



View Profile
« Reply #97 on: November 12, 2012, 01:28:44 AM »

One grey area I came up with was Psychology/NLP.  No real gear but hypnosis, planting suggestions, turning someone into an assassin.  That seems field worthy.

Favors are gear too. All of those sound like good fodder for favors, which makes them gear, which makes them a possible base for a field. "Psy-ops" or somehting similar in the modern context.

(heh, The "Treadstone" field in a certain franchise Grin)

Trying to not-poo poo the fashion designer entirely, I could see some favors bulking it out. Invitations to high society. Some services. If you scrounged around you might assemble a list of desirable items. But product first, heroic capacity to manipulate/produce/distort the product second, aways.
Logged

At your own pace: Do. It. Now.
How about some pie? - Heroes of the Expanse
Blankbeard
Handler
*****
Posts: 781



View Profile
« Reply #98 on: November 12, 2012, 01:45:22 AM »

Setting idea: Ru Paul's Drag Race meets Project: Runway meets America's Next Top Model.

Is it scary that I think this could be a viable Mastercraft setting?

Now where are my masterwork pinking sheers?
Logged
Mister Andersen
Control
******
Posts: 10682


I'm leaving for a destination I still don't know


View Profile
« Reply #99 on: November 12, 2012, 06:38:23 AM »

Sorry, but I don't like this at all. If I can't use the use the skill system to make things that exist, things that can earn me money or social catchet, then the skill system is flawed
« Last Edit: November 12, 2012, 06:40:39 AM by Mister Andersen » Logged

Blankbeard
Handler
*****
Posts: 781



View Profile
« Reply #100 on: November 12, 2012, 07:02:16 AM »

I think you're running into the same thing I did.  Fields simply don't model/care about non-specialist gear.  There is no field that makes or uses 50' ropes or mirrors or backpacks.  That's just not what fields are about.  If you want to include such gear in the field system, you either make it basic to all fields or you make a waste bin field like my Technician.

For something like a clothing designer, you've got two options: Bulk up the field to be useful to players in the campaign or handwave it. 

Fields are very neat for classifying gear but there is always going to be some gear that falls outside of them.
Logged
Morgenstern
Control
******
Posts: 5206



View Profile
« Reply #101 on: November 12, 2012, 04:20:47 PM »

I think you're running into the same thing I did.  Fields simply don't model/care about non-specialist gear.

Its not that the field system doesn't care, its that the gear sytem doesn't care. A lot of things exist. Some of those things are addressed as trade goods rather than gear (there are examples for the settings in the companion), but a field that just creates trade goods, say, "grow a pound of spices" is going to inherantly have a boring set of Expertise checks. There is a certain neccessity to be sensitive to the value in play. Starting with a segment of the gear list and naming the field that governs it should result in things that are desirable to some heroic character builds. Starting with the whole of human endeavor and hoping theres a pay off on the back end is gonna send you down some blind alleys. That's what studies are for, and fields do not replace them.

In other words, don't approach it as a way to make characters - approach it as a way to make parts of the setting accessible. The alien artifiacts field seems like a sure fight hit - theres a new type of gear in the setting, and there needs to be a way for characters to interface with them. Gear is introduced, field materializes, checks suggest themselves, then character concepts emerge. Introducing fields is an exercise for when you are wearing your setting designer hat, not your character building hat.
« Last Edit: November 12, 2012, 05:35:59 PM by Morgenstern » Logged

At your own pace: Do. It. Now.
How about some pie? - Heroes of the Expanse
Morgenstern
Control
******
Posts: 5206



View Profile
« Reply #102 on: November 12, 2012, 05:47:02 PM »

Couple feat ideas

Instant Expert
"When did you become an expert on Nuclear Physics?" "Last night."
   Prerequisites: Precision 15+, at least 4 fields
   Benefit: Once per session, you may declare yourself to have studied up on a field you do not possess.  You gain that field for the rest of the session although your error range with that field increases by 1.

Omnicompetent
   Know it all?  Yes, it seems you do.
   Prerequisites: Instant Expert, Precision 17+, at least 5 fields.
   Benefit: In addition to your Instant Expert ability, you may make checks using half your ranks on any valid field even if you do not possess it. 

First one is every movie scientist ever, the second is more Dr Who.

Workable, but it makes me think they might be better off as class abilites. Instant expet, if the duration were until end of adventure, could make a nice 4/8/12/16/20 (as you say its shamefully common amongst protagonist Scientists). Omnicomtetent would be a sweet slectable in a 6/9/12/15/18 array... or the level 1 ability... In either case I'd probably tart it up a bit by calling it "Scientific Method", or maybe "Renaisance Thinker"

Hmm. Might be time to look over the earlier vesion of scientist and pick through the scraps to make a New Pie base class.The addapted keeper is strong, but there are a few tropes that could be better modeld with tools like yours.
Logged

At your own pace: Do. It. Now.
How about some pie? - Heroes of the Expanse
Morgenstern
Control
******
Posts: 5206



View Profile
« Reply #103 on: November 12, 2012, 05:53:22 PM »

Setting idea: Ru Paul's Drag Race meets Project: Runway meets America's Next Top Model.

Is it scary that I think this could be a viable Mastercraft setting?

I was going to ask where you saw the heroic opportunities, the drama in such a scenario arising... then thought better of it. I don't want to know Roll Eyes.

At my table it would somehow morph into a Miss Congeniality remake.
Logged

At your own pace: Do. It. Now.
How about some pie? - Heroes of the Expanse
Mister Andersen
Control
******
Posts: 10682


I'm leaving for a destination I still don't know


View Profile
« Reply #104 on: November 12, 2012, 09:54:43 PM »

I was eyeballing Instant Expert as a 2/11/19 ability cycling every adventure/session/scene
Logged

Pages: 1 ... 5 6 [7] 8 9 ... 12 Go Up Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.13 | SMF © 2006-2011, Simple Machines LLC Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!