On 24/11/2017 at 9:15 AM, AK_Aramis said:

Wrong. The rules are there to provide the framework for the fantastic, and working within them is a creative exercise. The moment you stop using the rules is the moment it's no longer a game.

Ho I agree you have to respect tue rules allwright (and thus know them by heart as a good GM), but not when they're stupid : when they are you have to modify them to match your mastering style. you do as you wish man, but I'm not the guy that follows rules blindly just because they are rules : first rules of an RPG : the GM makes the rules. it's in almost evry RPG book

12 hours ago, Kyros Skyfall said:

Ho I agree you have to respect tue rules allwright (and thus know them by heart as a good GM), but not when they're stupid : when they are you have to modify them to match your mastering style. you do as you wish man, but I'm not the guy that follows rules blindly just because they are rules : first rules of an RPG : the GM makes the rules. it's in almost evry RPG book

You missed my point: ANYONE can do shared storytelling without the rules, and that may be fun for some, it it's not a game unless there are rules and the rules matter.

I also think the second stupidest words ever penned in a roleplaying game is (paraphrased) "The GM can change the rules on a whim"... (The stupidest are the entirety of F.A.T.A.L.)

For me, the Game is equally as important as the story... because there's no risk in shared storytelling, no chance of failure, and thus no fun.

There is a difference between "no rules" and table-specific rules adaptations that a GM has the right to implement as long as they're clear for everyone and work best for their group. This decision in not (or at least should not be) whimsical. At some point, you can make a choice of whether you are playing a game or flagellating yourself with pieces of text that do nothing to further the fun you and your group are having.

If someone wants to reduce Strife and Fatigue to half of Composure and Endurance respectively at the end of each scene, it won't break anything and it will still be a RPG, not pure storytelling. I even think it would work pretty well in the current system. If it also reconciles the perceived inconsistency between RAW Calming Breath mechanics and common sense, all the better.

Yes, I really like the gameplay consequences of "you go automatically down to half, but anything beyond that requires special effort". I'm personally experimenting with an idea that both Strife and Fatigue would require special attention beyond that half-point - only Passions and special narrative events (like Geisha House visits, or Unmaskings) to reduce Strife past "half point", and only medical attention to reduce Fatigue past "half point".

Auto-reset would help with tempo in scenes where you have to face multiple encounters in rapid succession while still making sure that expending resources (Strife and Fatigue) has consequences. At this point, I would be fine with Passions having an ability to FULL-PURGE Strife to 0 when dedicating a Downtime Activity slot to them.

16 hours ago, AK_Aramis said:

For me, the Game is equally as important as the story... because there's no risk in shared storytelling, no chance of failure, and thus no fun.

man, I think we just have trouble comprehending each others, because that's exactly how I feel about RPG in general. Reading that I feel like we master games with the same philosophical way : apply the rules, because they make the game more dangerous and balanced, and thus : more fun.

I'm just saying that rules should not prevent any character of doing something they would logically be able to do : if so, it mean the rule is not well written, and thus it is the duty of a gamemaster to change the rule. But it should indeed not change on a whim : because rules need to be stable, and one does not change it just like that : once you changed the rule you let all your players know and you stick to the ''new rule''.

On ‎26‎/‎11‎/‎2017 at 1:55 AM, WHW said:

Yes, I really like the gameplay consequences of "you go automatically down to half, but anything beyond that requires special effort". I'm personally experimenting with an idea that both Strife and Fatigue would require special attention beyond that half-point - only Passions and special narrative events (like Geisha House visits, or Unmaskings) to reduce Strife past "half point", and only medical attention to reduce Fatigue past "half point".

Simply because it requires less thought mid-game, I approve of this concept; "at the end of a conflict scene, your strife and fatigue is reducted to half of your composure and endurance respectively if they are higher than this".

In narrative time, dropping strife and fatigue by a set value per time increment (currently 2 x water per day, I think?) is fair enough - obviously multiple days of rest should be enough to recover non-critical fatigue to zero whether you indulge any passions or not....

On ‎24‎/‎11‎/‎2017 at 8:15 AM, AK_Aramis said:

Wrong. The rules are there to provide the framework for the fantastic, and working within them is a creative exercise. The moment you stop using the rules is the moment it's no longer a game.

On ‎26‎/‎11‎/‎2017 at 1:21 PM, Kyros Skyfall said:

man, I think we just have trouble comprehending each others, because that's exactly how I feel about RPG in general. Reading that I feel like we master games with the same philosophical way : apply the rules, because they make the game more dangerous and balanced, and thus : more fun.

I'm just saying that rules should not prevent any character of doing something they would logically be able to do : if so, it mean the rule is not well written, and thus it is the duty of a gamemaster to change the rule. But it should indeed not change on a whim : because rules need to be stable, and one does not change it just like that : once you changed the rule you let all your players know and you stick to the ''new rule''.

I'd put it this way: I am used to being the GM, and am used to ad-libbing rules. I agree with Kyros that something that should logically be able to happen in a game-world reality should be allowed to happen unless there's a good story reason not to allow it, even if the basic rules do not support it. I wholeheartedly agree that whilst rules need to be stable so that everyone round the table knows how the universe 'works', changing them is not the end of the world if it's done properly.

However....

Currently, this is an open beta. Essentially, it's FFG saying "here are our set of rules, what do you think of them?" which as far as I'm concerned means I should be trying to use them unmodified - if they don't work, then you follow the rules as best you can, note the logical or mechanical breakdown, and report that via these forums for the problem to be picked up in updates.