Mundane Old Worlders

[forthecause]

Maybe I've been playing/running too much 7th Sea (probably have) where nearly everyone of importance was trained in at a fencing academy. But what is the difference between an Asana-Lea duelist wielding an Akino Spear with Ora and a Silana Sheakamaster? (beyond flavor text and weapon damages)

To be honest the prospect of the Book of Races does not excite me too much depending on what it contains but it seems like CoE is a little lacking of stuff for people who would rather their characters to be Zhang Liao instead of Tetsuo. And the best/most common thing that came to mind was race/weapon specific styles that gave mechanical benefits

Just a thought but i would definitely like to hear thoughts from the 6(?) others who post here semi-regularly.

[Elune]

I suppose we could give each weapon or race one or two special attacks (which cost a point of Glow to use perhaps?), such as temporary stun target, cause target to bleed for x rounds, and so on, creating a "style" of combat for just that race.
I must say I haven't even picked up my sword yet.

Paladium Books did something like this with their martial arts rpg Ninjas and superspies, with each martial arts for having its own attacks, defences and forms. (my copy is packed away somewhere, I'll try and dig it out)

[Christopher Ashe]

See you're absolutely right. When one looks at the initial book - from a technical perspective, it's pretty much all about playing an Ethromancer (I say Eth because I wrote it - you can defeat pretty much anything with the right Eth combination). There is a a lot of technicality that was left out. Here's a bit on that:

First, games that have too many rules considerations from the get-go can muddle and slow things down - even with the centralization of Seven13 this is a factor, not necessarily due to complexity, but rather the result of simply seeing to many rules. This becomes intimidating and can confuse the hell out of both player and GM. RIFTS and Rolemaster were great examples of this, as is HERO (though I love their book). When first drafted CoE, I had around 700+ pages of material and a lot of what is being ironed out represents much of the remainder of that material.

Second, being very technical with the rules would have changed my entire demographic. I've always planned to market to a certain niche of gamers from the get-go and branch from there. The general starting demographic has been more story and visualization-oriented gamers. I'm a huge fan of technicality, but I also need the game to be fast.

Those are just some insight-related factors, now on to an actual response.

First off, the difference between a character designed as an Asa God-Warrior (one of their Elite) and a Silana bladesman comes in both style an execution. The first and easiest discernible difference comes in that the Asa relies on avoidance and absolute precision, where the Silana will rely on careful application of force strength. Not only are the styles different to begin with, but the character builds are different.

For example: Your Asa speed-jock would want to have the max possible in Blinding Speed, Finesse (use RTN and get a 4 also DEX 4), and weapon focus as well as others. He will take less damage but deal more attacks. Your Silana will tank like mad with his 24 starting Break Level (yup, you can get it with 120), also weapon focus and whatnot. I'm presently at my day job so I cant give you absolutes, however I will tell you that there are considerable advantages to not playing Tetsuo. I know this because I do it.

In general, as a personal preference, I play characters with no supernatural aspects about 90% of the time in campaigns. Nonetheless I manage to own demons, Ethromancers, Dark Avatars, and pretty much anyone else. 120CP really can be tweaked with when you dont have to drop a load of it into powers.

To babble on...

Book of Races will include more than stories. It will also include insight into the combat styles and maneuvers of the races. So, while it makes a less noticeable difference now, it will more so in the future.

One of the key factors in BoR right now falls into both time and cost constraints. I'm working on both of these, but the indy publishing business is not extremely glorious ;)

However, I do plan on introducing extended rules for generic seven13 in the future, probably for free if I can get time to writing again.

I'll try to get on later today and post some design examples and rules citations if I can get the time.

- Ashe

[ThePainter]

I must say I haven't even picked up my sword yet.

Ooooooooooo!!!! What lies!!!

You did indeed pick up your sword Elune!!! ... And then you immediately threw it away again in an extremely elegant combat fumble :p But you did pick it up!

On the initial point of the thread however...

I don't believe that my players have really noticed any great lack of variation in attack styles etc. Perhaps this is because we (as a group) don't really indulge in too much actual combat, and when we do, it tends to be extremely confusing and people tend to concentrate on what to do next rather than the fact that 'my sword does x points of damage' or that 'I can only slash/stab at his y'. Hopefully they worry a lot too!!! :)

On a more general note I must admit that I tend to agree with Ashe on this one. It rapidly became apparent that the differences in the game's combat system lay in the physical differences between the particular races and consequently, their resultant fighting styles.

In my group I have an Asa, a Silana and a Lirie-Kana. It quickly became noticeable that the Asa with her Rio was significantly faster (attacking more often) than any of the other players. On the other hand, our Silana had significantly fewer attacks, but could hit a lot more solidly due to the weight class of her Sheari (if she ever ends up using it - see above!). The Lirie-Kana, of course, fell somewhere in-between. I haven't really looked at the Oraki; so far they haven't really featured significantly in my campaign.

From my somewhat limited experience of the combat system I'm actually quite impressed with the rule system. It seems to me that the system has managed to create four quite distinct races who are actually very well balanced when it comes to combat! No one race overwhelms the others as the strengths and weaknesses of the races seem to balance out quite well!

On a side issue, I must admit that I particularly liked how the game system (Ashe) tries to persuade the players to describe their combat actions. Personally I've always found that doing this added quite a lot to a combat scene ... now if only I could persuade my player's to do it too :p

Don't get me wrong forthecause, I'm not trying to rubbish your question; it's well worth asking and I'm certainly not against adding special forms of attack that do something extra, or use a specific technique that can only be learnt from a particular school etc. This could indeed add to making the races and combat styles even more distinct. What I am saying is that the lack of such doesn't seen a significant point for my particular group ... or at least no one's complained to me about it :)

Personally I think that it comes down to the interests of a particular group or person! I'm not saying either point of view is correct or superior; it's just a matter of interest/preference!

[Scarlet]

It would also help if our Silana had a desent set of dice and didn't fumble all the time!:p

[forthecause]

Yeah the races themselves have their own intrinsic differences but I was thinking of something just a tad more substantial.

What I was thinking of is more like fighting styles that require an investment of starting CP's or XP post creation
that provide special Extended Aspects that form the signature maneuvers of the style itself as well as one free rank in two applicable Aspects. Depending on your rank within these Aspects determines your level of mastery within the style and provides mechanical benefits as well. It sounds a bit complex but it really isn't and it's just an idea, maybe split styles along racial lines or something.

Actually Painter, from simply an aggro point of view. Between an Asa and Silana of equal strengths the Asa with an Akino hits for more damage, more often and a greater chance to evade. The Silana reduces break level by 2 more and has higher critical tolerances.

[Christopher Ashe]

For styles in the fashion you are referring to, you need to determine whether the style is what I call Progressive Fixed, Progressive Dependent or Progressive Dynamic: these are the three models I used to design Avatar, Eth and Raze and are among the models you will see in some of my seven13 generic work eventually. For a quick breakdown:

Progressive Fixed (Avatar):
Each rank in the seven-rank method of ability represents an actual fixed ability that varies little and is progressively more beneficial, deadly or powerful than the previous. Fixed progressions of these type are generally rigid, direct, and powerful in their spectrum, but provide little room for interpretation.

Progressive Dependent (Ethromancy):
This progression of ability ranks increases in ability, but is also highly dependent upon other factors to generate its full potential. Progressions of this type are less powerful by themselves, but have great potential for creativity and combination, rewarding imagination.

Progressive Dynamic (Raze):
This type of ability progression would be very specific in its application, but would increase dynamically in effectiveness based on the wielder's investment in it as a focus. Very specific in purpose but highly flexible in application.

The closest thing to what Forthecause is talking about here is a Progressive Fixed style. The character could be given a number of focus points like Glow, but instead of being based on MND+AFF, they could be based on MND+DEX or DEX+RTN, though I think from personal experience Mind is essential in combat disciplines. I've been working on something for a pet seven13 project called The Crawl (working titl) that's geared more toward the strategy-based dungeon hack.

For everyone, however, I'd like to let you all know that the rules I use in my campaigns probably equal out to about only 60% of what is in the book. We as a crew are very comfortable in the game and the story and make our scenes move. I could easily design you a system that would resemble World of Warcraft or Neverwinter Nights, but I'd really rather just play WoW myself. The superiority of tabletop style in the roleplaying world is based solely on its freedom and imagination, which is why (if you noticed) I am vague on many accounts of description in the book. 9 out of 10 there is no damage dealt in my campaign when an Ethromancer launches actual lightning into an NPC - they die. Likewise when a character successfully maneuvers an opponent prone and hits him in the neck, I do not consider damage as the GM as much as I consider what that actually does to a person. Then again, my campaigns actually sit slightly more on the realism side of the fence than CoE portrays ;)

The reason is simple: I am comfortable in my style, but it's not yours, so I want to give you what you need for your campaign, and for everyone else's.

- Ashe

[sykes]

Interesting thought my self i play heavy on the gritty feel of hte world for example iron kingdoms world setting the feel of it is interesting but it also depends on the gm as well but as a palyer ive seen first hand that the realism aspect can be mishandled in some cases but thats a matter of opinion im working on a setting but i have not had manny opions on it could you review it for me if so thanks

[ThePainter]

My apologies forthecause, I wasn't really talking exact rules (although I may have given the impression that I was); I was merely talking off the top of my head about my (the groups) impressions and remembrances of 7/13 combat based on our experiences in the game.

I don't really want to get into a dispute about what the rules do say. In reality it's actually quite difficult to talk about rules long distance, unless you go into relatively lengthy detail. For example, in order to accurately compare, you would need to know things like:

the details of the two specific weapons being used (for Weight Class, Base Damage, etc.)
the specific strengths levels of the characters; same or other wise (can make a BIG difference due, for example, to the high Weight Class of the Sheari)
the relative Speed Factors involved (complicated by things like the Asa's Blinding Speed)
the ... but I'm sure you get the idea!


Quite simply, I don't want to do this, I'll happily take your word that you're right. My apologies if I annoyed/misunderstood!

I do however stand by my main point i.e. the statement 'I don't believe that my players have really noticed any great lack of variation'! As far as I can see the lack of specific racial fighting styles etc. isn't a great point for my particular group! Please note the emphasis that I place on the word my in that last sentence ... other groups may feel differently :)

Personally (as a GM), if I don't like a specific rule I adjust it! Actually, I've already done this with the 7/13 combat system; although it's more in the way of a one off tweak done for what I considered to be player balance. I will not tell you what it is, as my players read the forum and I don't want them to know :)

I did understand that you were actually advocating something along the lines of special combat manoeuvres for the particular races that gave some specific advantage when used with the intention of differentiating the races etc. I even agree that such (racial) combat manoeuvres could indeed help to personalise the races. That said, I don't really miss their current lack (there’s an awful lot to put into a basic rules system), and am quite happy to wait for their official appearance, or to add them myself.

PS: Personally, I don't really know my Zhang Liao from my Tetsuo! Honest, no real idea who they are :)

[sykes]

My best piece of advice to players as well gm's this one and only thing



Rule 0 GM HAS FINAL SAY ON THE RULES WHEN IT OBTAINS TO THE GAME
:) but as a a player it means dont argue the point of it until after the session if there needs to be any clairifcation then check the book and rules then consult the gm about it but once its been done in game its set in stone unless its up to the gm..... Well i hope i didnt come off as a bit of jerk in the :confused:

[ThePainter]

Yes, the GM must always have final say on the rules ... makes me glad I'm a GM :) in this particular game anyway!

As for any previous confusion as to players, characters and sexes, well, you can hardly be expected to be knowledgeable about things that we haven't told you. Lacking certain knowledge you make a brave guess and hope for the best... :) Believe me, I've put my foot in my mouth more than a couple of times :(

[sykes]

to me it seemed to be a logical thought and the idea of preventing any bloodshed of the verbal caliber in hope no misunderstanding but i do have a bad case of foot in mouth syndrome from time to time so rule 0 seemed the best option at the time as per gm styles each are differnt but on gm can learn from other gms in the same respect as well bounce ideas to one another :rolleyes:

[forthecause]

Seems like i figured this issue out on my own, no need to 'dwell' on it anymore. Teh Q and I will be posting a whole lot of stuff involving our own 7/13 campaign setting, which laces into the standard mythos, as of May 20th. Nothing so fancy as a website, mostly just alot of forum posts in the campaign angles section.

[ThePainter]

Teh Q and I will be posting a whole lot of stuff involving our own 7/13 campaign setting, which laces into the standard mythos, as of May 20th. Nothing so fancy as a website, mostly just alot of forum posts in the campaign angles section.

I'll look forward to seeing it ... should be interesting :)

[sykes]

kool hey painter hows it goin long time no see lol

[ThePainter]

kool hey painter hows it goin long time no see lol

Hi there sykes! Welcome back and very nice to hear from you again :)

I've posted a bit of a longer welcome back reply on the other thread.