Author Topic: Conflict with Campaign Style  (Read 10377 times)

Offline Deadmanwalking

  • Posty McPostington
  • ***
  • Posts: 3534
    • View Profile
Re: Conflict with Campaign Style
« Reply #45 on: July 13, 2010, 09:45:11 PM »
who you are reading needs to be more focused.  Wording it that way makes it so you can say you are reading whoever you are applying the action to, which is the same as +2 with no conditions.

Yeah, some sort of restriction needs to be made explicit. Maybe it can only be focused on one person at a time?

/shrug, the flesh mask power has something similar to a skill swap in "what lies beneath", letting you use deceit to hide a gun aimed at your opponent for example (instead of stealth).

Nope. Concealing small items is always Deceit, Flesh Mask does let you use Stealth instead, though. Which is nice. On the other hand, Flesh Mask has significant downsides which your power really doesn't. 

My power has limiting factors that are up to the GM (like the power says, you can read the surface whenever the Gm deems appropriate, and if he deems it inappropriate then tough cookies).

I'm still not sure if that's enough to justify the skill swap AND the +2, and it certainly needs to be made more explicit in the power description.

Offline KOFFEYKID

  • Conversationalist
  • **
  • Posts: 776
  • Im BLEEDING Caffeine!
    • View Profile
Re: Conflict with Campaign Style
« Reply #46 on: July 13, 2010, 09:49:13 PM »
How is this?

Reading the Surface [-1]. You are a natural psychic, and can read the surface thoughts of individuals around you. This is not a violation of the laws of magic, as the thoughts "radiate" out from the thinkers mind. You may use discipline to defend against deceit attacks and maneuvers instead of the usual skill, and possibly in place of other skills whenever the GM deems it appropriate. On a successful defense against a social attack while using "Reading the Surface" you may place the aspect "Open Book" on the attacker. This aspect lasts for one exchange (not sticky) and may be tagged for a bonus on any other social roll.

Offline CMEast

  • Conversationalist
  • **
  • Posts: 468
    • View Profile
Re: Conflict with Campaign Style
« Reply #47 on: July 14, 2010, 11:16:21 AM »
Or you could tie the +2 bonus to social rolls to pure mortals only, wizards are too disciplined to give out surface thoughts and the mental processes of other supernatural creatures are too alien. If the GM wants he might allow you to pick up hints as to the kind of supernatural from the jumbled mess of static given out; for instance the demonic hunger of vampires or the bestial cries of were-creatures, but I wouldn't make that part of the skill in case it'd affect the plot.

That way the +2 is very useful, and yet appropriately limited in scope.

Offline Nomad

  • Conversationalist
  • **
  • Posts: 306
    • View Profile
Re: Conflict with Campaign Style
« Reply #48 on: July 14, 2010, 01:09:29 PM »
maybe add a downside like "distracted" as a non sticky aspect to the user (or worse) as Harry sometimes gets with his sight.

Now that I think about it, you could pattern it on the "Sight" power, dealing with hearing (to surface / radiating thoughts) instead of seeing...
Waiting eagerly for the day when Arry will enchant a fluorescent tube lamp and use it as a lightsaber.

Quote from: Archangel62
Magically speaking he may be a thug, but tactically speaking...he's the cast of looney tunes after a few bong hits.

Offline KOFFEYKID

  • Conversationalist
  • **
  • Posts: 776
  • Im BLEEDING Caffeine!
    • View Profile
Re: Conflict with Campaign Style
« Reply #49 on: July 14, 2010, 01:28:34 PM »
Nah, Im happy with it as is, feel free to make your own version, though.

Offline JosephKell

  • Conversationalist
  • **
  • Posts: 317
  • Total Refresh Cost: +2 (Pure Mortal)
    • View Profile
Re: Conflict with Campaign Style
« Reply #50 on: July 14, 2010, 06:33:29 PM »
Unfortunately, I have to agree with Ultra.  This co-GM thing isn't going to work if his style of gaming is that different from mine.  Unfortunate, because we both enjoy the books, we've gamed together for some time, and we're friends...and this is the sort of thing, even handled correctly, that can easily lead to hard feelings.

It's not that he's wrong and I'm right; it's a fundamental difference in approach.  His style would be fine for the right group of players...but I don't think (judging from the basic concepts people have come up with so far) we have a group that will work for him.  ("Best Cat Burglar in the City" wouldn't be a problem...but "Novice Were-Jaguar" with the trouble "Failed Emissary" would be.)  Ironically, he should be fine as a player.

It just means I don't get to be a player...again.
Never being a player is a small price to pay to avoid a close minded storyteller/GM/DM/whatever.  Feel free to deviate from canon.

I promise Jim Butcher and Evil Hatters aren't going to show up to steal your books and dice.

On surface thoughts.  You could require the person to be in a rattled state (their mind is "screaming").  I.e. the target has been taken out with social or mental stress (or conceded), has a any social or mental consequence, or a physical consequence of at least moderate level.
« Last Edit: July 14, 2010, 06:57:31 PM by JosephKell »
If you have to ask, it probably breaks a Law of Magic.  You're just trying to get the Doom of Damocles.