|
Post by joecrak on Sept 27, 2016 3:53:47 GMT -8
A follow up question. Are the players going into this game knowing that it will be a smart zombie game?
Cause that being a sudden twist could be souring. I know for me, it's not what i would want in a 7th sea game, but different strokes for different folks.
|
|
|
Post by Kainguru on Sept 27, 2016 4:43:12 GMT -8
To be honest, after the first session, we're still trying to get to grips with the 2e system. It's a very different mindset for play than they are used to - the ruleset for 2e is very light on detail. The smart zombie twist has come in already, it's the driving mystery at the moment "what has changed and why?" So far they've had rumble with some zombies headed by a 'smart' zombie who was actually a Montagaine spy caught up in the apocalypse and 'recruited'. He's also the same person who robbed our Capt Uther (Player) of his ship leading to Capt Uther having to accept a commission as a zombie hunter (Brethern of the Night). Prior to that he was 'Captain' of a prison hulk in Livrpoole. Unfortunately, mid-exposition, the Eisen put a flintlock pellet through the zombies head - said zombie was skewered, by the Cpt Uther, at the time. Cpt Uther was questioning the zombie but the Eisen really hated it's voice and had 'heard enough'. They found a survivor from the Mayor of Lothans financial 'tour': the Mayor was trying to attract Vesten investors into helping rebuild the dock lands. The surviving Vesten was returned safely to the Great Bridge of Lothan. A reward will be sent from the Vesten to bank to the Players employers. They also found the remains of Col Cromwells fight. In the wreckage of the two man powered 'anti zombie' tanks they found a another suvivor - mortally wounded but untouched as the 'cordial' given to troops and zombie hunters to protect them from 'turning' made his flesh unpalatable to the zombies. Knowing he dying from his wounds he confirms that Col Cromwell was still alive as he made a fighting retreat to the Thames. The players pursued that lead to the Thames to find the rest of Cromwell's regiment slain on a pier and the water. They also found the remains of a tapestry caught up on the pier indicating a craft had been docked there. We ended the session there as at that point it became awkward to work out, with the 2e mechanics, if one of the PC's can identify the origin of the tapestry. On reflection we tend to feel that the 2e mechanic should be 'spend a hero point to say you can identify it if you can narratively justify having this knowledge'? - input would be welcome as this sort of 'mystery solving doesn't seem to be covered too well in the new ruleset (because it's not an action sequence and doesn't seem to suit the drama guidelines either'. We're learning as we play, hopefully by session 3 it'll flow a bit smoother, provided the players can comfortably break free of the more traditional simulationist mindset. Aaron
|
|
|
Post by joecrak on Sept 27, 2016 9:44:02 GMT -8
Yea, the books not super well written, but you can do non action sequence, non dramatic sequence skill rolls.
A couple different people that worked on the game informed me of that, to which I asked why the heck it wasn't in the book.
But yea, a history check, get To g multiple raises could get you more information, or the player can spend those raises and make some stuff up themself.
|
|
|
Post by Kainguru on Sept 27, 2016 9:58:42 GMT -8
Yea, the books not super well written, but you can do non action sequence, non dramatic sequence skill rolls. A couple different people that worked on the game informed me of that, to which I asked why the heck it wasn't in the book. But yea, a history check, get To g multiple raises could get you more information, or the player can spend those raises and make some stuff up themself. That really is a big omission from the CoreBook. So basically set a 'difficulty level' as the number of raises needed to get the basic information - spend more raises to get more specific detail or to grab narrative control? Aaron
|
|
|
Post by joecrak on Sept 27, 2016 10:16:50 GMT -8
Yea, the books not super well written, but you can do non action sequence, non dramatic sequence skill rolls. A couple different people that worked on the game informed me of that, to which I asked why the heck it wasn't in the book. But yea, a history check, get To g multiple raises could get you more information, or the player can spend those raises and make some stuff up themself. That really is a big omission from the CoreBook. So basically set a 'difficulty level' as the number of raises needed to get the basic information - spend more raises to get more specific detail or to grab narrative control? Aaron Well, we always take the basic difficulty to always be the same, 1 raise. Sort of like gunshot, 1 raise gets you the clue you need. Additional raises could be like: Oh, and I'm going to spend one raise to recognize the maker of the tapestry, one Margaret Holmes, famed tapestry maker. Additional raise can be made for whatever, details or other fun stuff relating to the skill used. I.e. where Margaret currently resides, or whatever.
|
|
|
Post by Kainguru on Sept 27, 2016 10:44:30 GMT -8
As a straight skill roll I can see that as fair - if trait + skill the odds are heavily in favour of always getting that first raise purely because of the number of dice in the pool. In action/drama it works because you may need that one raise for something other than firing your pistol? Aaron
|
|
|
Post by joecrak on Sept 27, 2016 10:49:48 GMT -8
As a straight skill roll I can that as fair - if trait + skill the odds are heavily in favour of always getting that first raise purely because of the number of dice in the pool. In action/drama it works because you may need that one raise for something other than firing your pistol? Aaron I maybe misunderstanding, or there may be a typo. But we run it as fine that they are almost guaranteed to get that 1 raise. Sometimes you don't even need to require a roll, just give them a clue, the worst part of any mystery/investigation is failing a roll and not getting the clue needed to move along the story. Giving them the roll to create additional opportunities to make stuff up just ties in with the narrative aspect of the game.
|
|
|
Post by Kainguru on Sept 27, 2016 10:58:08 GMT -8
Well what I have is someone who can answer the clue - or rather somewhere. Smythfield Market to consult with a trader who would definitely be able to identify the origin of the work. I feel uncomfortable having the PC's be 'knowledgeable' about everything because that relegates 'experts in their field' irrelevant - reducing the opportunity for for RP. Basically no man is an island, even Sherlock used others to gather certain intelligences beyond his sphere of influence for him. A more 'logical' outcome would maybe have that first raise indicate who might know the specific answer - eg a specific trader. Aaron PS: (now I'm home and not typing on a phone) The 'skill' the Player is trying to invoke is their Innish Background as a 'SAOI (WISE ONE) - You hold the highest honor bestowed by Aosdána, a state-supported association of Inish creative artists'. Which is a pretty tenuous link to claiming in character knowledge of the origin of a tapestry manufactured in Mortlake (just outside of Lothan).
|
|
|
Post by joecrak on Sept 27, 2016 15:25:51 GMT -8
I mean, the skills I see being usable would be Wits+Notice, or Wits+Scholarship.
I see it less as you having the PC's be knowledgable, but it's meant more to encourage them to make stuff up on the fly. Does it make sense that their character would recognize that? Yes? Then BS away Sir or madame.
That all being said. I think the game isn't really suited for investigation styled play. At least not in the same sense as a Sherlock Holmes, or Columbo.
It's about swinging on chandeliers and being over the top heroes.
|
|