Wel­come, Guest
User­name: Pass­word: Remem­ber me

TOPIC: Giant asset clarification

Giant asset clar­i­fi­ca­tion 1 year 10 months ago #3963

  • Anarak
  • Anarak's Avatar
  • OFFLINE
  • Posts: 149
  • Thank you received: 67
  • Karma: 1
Hello, just a quick clar­i­fi­ca­tion:

Giant:
Good: The character’s Ter­rain Check TNs are reduced by 1. In addi­tion, all his weapon lengths in com­bat are increased by one incre­ment, effec­tively allow­ing him to attack at Short with his bare hands

Poor: The character’s hulk­ing frame lacks grace. The TNs for all Checks involv­ing grace­ful and agile body move­ment are increased by +1, includ­ing eva­sion Checks in combat

In the poor aspect, does these grace­ful and agile move­ments include ter­rain checks?

The text implies so, as is the case with many of the “agile move­ment” assets — that fun­nily often seems to cause such con­fu­sions. Its just that its not often that an asset’s poor aspect off­set* some­what a good aspect.

*another case being relent­less, a very sucky asset that has a poor aspect that not only negates the good, but sur­passes it. I take It that you are sup­pose tô just go with either the good OR bar aspect and never both, but still, a lack­lus­ter asset.
Last Edit: 1 year 10 months ago by Anarak.
The admin­is­tra­tor has dis­abled pub­lic write access.

Giant asset clar­i­fi­ca­tion 1 year 10 months ago #3966

  • Aghori
  • Aghori's Avatar
  • OFFLINE
  • Posts: 70
  • Thank you received: 15
  • Karma: 1
Anarak wrote:
In the poor aspect, does these grace­ful and agile move­ments include ter­rain checks?

I would say yes.

Anarak wrote:
I take It that you are sup­pose tô just go with either the good OR bar aspect and never both, but still, a lack­lus­ter asset.

I play it in the way you men­tion: Either go with the good aspect or the bad, never both. Oth­er­wise the Asset Pri­or­ity would be too much a dump­stat.

By the way. The good asset of “Leg­endary beauty” vio­lates the rule of good and bad. Because there is a good aspect with a very bad side­ef­fect. You have a bonus when deal­ing with peo­ple of the oppo­site sex. But there is a big dis­ad­van­tage when deal­ing with peo­ple of your own sex. When my player, who chose this asset for his PC, learned about that, he was really annoyed. We changed it.
Last Edit: 1 year 10 months ago by Aghori.
The admin­is­tra­tor has dis­abled pub­lic write access.
The fol­low­ing user(s) said Thank You: Michael, Anarak

Giant asset clar­i­fi­ca­tion 1 year 10 months ago #3967

  • Anarak
  • Anarak's Avatar
  • OFFLINE
  • Posts: 149
  • Thank you received: 67
  • Karma: 1
Yes, I too have mod­i­fied Leg­endary Beauty (for the off chance a player may ever pick it). I’ve ruled that the good aspect sim­ply gives –1TN to com­pat­i­ble sex­ual peo­ple. The poor aspect gives the +2TN to sex­u­ally incom­pat­i­ble + unwanted atten­tion (overules the good aspect, if you have both).

I don’t think good aspects should come with hin­drances or buts, its a good aspect and thats it. Unless it func­tions like the berserker asset, which hav­ing the asset gives a fixed effect and hav­ing the good or bad aspect mod­i­fies it.

Ide­ally, all assets should allow hav­ing both good and poor aspects in har­mony at the same time, allow­ing specifics bonuses and penal­ties with­out inter­fer­ing much with each other (au con­traire, com­plet­ing it).

Its some­thing that fall­out (1&2) did really good –and the pre­cur­sor of bal­anced and ambigu­ous traits as far as my knowl­edge goes.
The admin­is­tra­tor has dis­abled pub­lic write access.

Giant asset clar­i­fi­ca­tion 1 year 10 months ago #3969

  • Michael
  • Michael's Avatar
  • OFFLINE
  • Posts: 756
  • Thank you received: 518
  • Karma: 12
Anarak wrote:
In the poor aspect, does these grace­ful and agile move­ments include ter­rain checks?

Most of them. Not Checks to resist being shifted from a cer­tain posi­tion and the likes, but the major­ity of Ter­rain Checks would suf­fer from the Poor Asset.

Aghori wrote:
Either go with the good aspect or the bad, never both. Oth­er­wise the Asset Pri­or­ity would be too much a dumpstat.

Exactly. There are a few Assets like that, where only hav­ing either the Good or the Poor incar­na­tion makes sense, but those cases should be pretty much obvi­ous — when­ever the mechan­ics would con­tra­dict each other.

Aghori wrote:
The good asset of “Leg­endary beauty” vio­lates the rule of good and bad. (…) We changed it.

And you were quite right to do it! This is one case where the clar­ity of design emerged only in hind­sight. Good Assets are only ever good, noth­ing else, and Poor ones only ever bad.

Anarak wrote:
Yes, I too have mod­i­fied Leg­endary Beauty (for the off chance a player may ever pick it). I’ve ruled that the good aspect sim­ply gives –1TN to com­pat­i­ble sex­ual people.

Good that you mod­i­fied it, but with that mod­i­fier I am not sur­prised that nobody ever takes it! :P It is not being beau­ti­ful or pretty — that’s fluff. It’s being a beauty of leg­end, the most beau­ti­ful per­son you can think of, who­ever that may be for you. Not Adri­ana Lima or Gisele Bünd­chen or who­ever, but Helen of Troy. Leg­endary.

Anarak wrote:
Ide­ally, all assets should allow hav­ing both good and poor aspects in har­mony at the same time, allow­ing specifics bonuses and penal­ties with­out inter­fer­ing much with each other (au con­traire, com­plet­ing it).

Ide­ally, yes. In prac­tice we found it dif­fi­cult with some, at least com­ing up with some­thing worth­while. I mean, it is pos­si­ble to devise some rea­son­able ben­e­fit of Necrophilia, but at least we couldn’t think of a really major one that comes up in play ofter, of the cal­iber that Good Assets are meant to impart.
Bow down: I am the emperor of dreams;
I crown me with the million-​colored sun
Of secret worlds incred­i­ble, and take
Their trail­ing skies for vest­ment when I soar.

Clark Ash­ton Smith, The Hashish Eater or The Apoc­a­lypse of Evil
The admin­is­tra­tor has dis­abled pub­lic write access.
Mod­er­a­tors: Mozusuke, Phil, Michael
Time to cre­ate page: 0.161 sec­onds