Messages

31

Role Playing / Re: role playing ideas thread

« on: October 07, 2014, 08:19:55 PM »

@Mike: Two corrections there.

First, humans are the only ones in the Void World able to create and maintain Reasons. The Hitoshura (Nocturne's titular "Demi-Fiend") is half-demon, but that is enough to rule him out as truly human anymore. He can't create a Reason; his incredible abilities, though, mean that the side he backs will likely win.

Second, the Hitoshura did not need to consume others; that was the schtick of the demon shifters created via Atma. Atma shows up in Digital Devil Saga: Avatar Tuner, not Nocturne. :V


And looking back, shit, demi-fiends can't make Reasons. FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF---
Well, that's a dampner to the devil summoner/devil shifter suggestion. Xt

I'd just really rather see an SMT game adapted as one of those "civ game" kind of affairs where you're a leader and can actually direct forces larger than typical party size. The correct term escapes me for the game type...

32

Role Playing / Re: role playing ideas thread

« on: October 07, 2014, 02:36:21 PM »

I concur: cross b/t devil summoner and devil trigger.

33

2.0 Archive- the one no one cares about / Re: Cross Effects: Rebirth (2.0) Discussion Page (OOC).

« on: October 05, 2014, 04:15:25 AM »

>MtG discussion

Oh hey, cool--

>no blue/black

YOU FOOKIN POOZERS.

DX

34

Role Playing / Re: role playing ideas thread

« on: September 27, 2014, 10:05:34 PM »

solsorrow: But is it actually fuinctional, is the point? :V
solsorrow: *functional

YOLF: I think it is?
YOLF: But it would have to be handled carefully and you'd have to consider what each post episode fortune also means in terms of character progression, if the RP is intended to have it.
YOLF: Also think carefully about how to handle rolling for that fortune, because you could end up with players who accomplished more than others feeling disatisfied due to bad rolls in comparison to others.

solsorrow: Hmmm. What if it was a guarantee if everyone drew a new Arcana, but the roll decided it's "position"; in other words if the Arcana represented something of a boon, a neutral progression, or if danger loomed on the horizon?

YOLF: Less chance of that dissatisfaction, but again, unless you can ensure that everyone would always get some degree of progression, as opposed to cases like unluckily getting shafted even though they accomplished the most, it's not without its flaws.
YOLF: Unless from conception it's supposed to have those flaws and everyone comes in knowing that's how it works.

solsorrow: Well, even if you did great in the episode, I think it'd be fair to end up w/ a fortune that hints at things taking a potentially sour turn for you in the next.

YOLF: Perhaps, but you understand that not everyone might see it that way?
YOLF: Especially if someone ends up getting metaphorically shafted in comparison to everyone else.

solsorrow: The idea is for everyone to have their own personal circumstances remain that, and not share in the glories or failures of someone else (or the whole group's). That carries its own degree of risk that you'll maintain high times or take a turn for the worse. Plus, it's meant more for narrative purposes, since I have come to dislike doing things the old timey RPG-party sort of way.
solsorrow: An alternative is to do something like you guys have mentioned in SR.
solsorrow: Which is use accumulated Karma to buy off poor fortunes from earlier readings.

YOLF: > not share in the glories or failures of someone else (or the whole group's).

That's the stickler point. Some people might not like this. Or the fact that even if you obtain a personal victory, you might not really gain anything from it.
YOLF: > solsorrow: An alternative is to do something like you guys have mentioned in SR.
solsorrow: Which is use accumulated Karma to buy off poor fortunes from earlier readings.

This is probably a good balancer, yes.

solsorrow: Since I don't think Lantz is the sort to do "extra build points if you take disadvantages", this mechanic takes on that role mid-game as opposed to pre-game. You can either be a PC who has tons of exp to spend on stuff at the cost of having all kinds of accumulated portents, or you are not as high-level as you (or others) could be, but you also are much more stable in your anticipated events.
solsorrow: It's also kinda like that thing from systems like Dark Heresy where you can burn Edge or Fate Points.

YOLF: > You can either be a PC who has tons of exp to spend on stuff at the cost of having all kinds of accumulated portents, or you are not as high-level as you (or others) could be, but you also are much more stable in your anticipated events.

That said, this is an interesting set of options and one that could definitely be a strength of the RP.
YOLF: or character creation anyways.

solsorrow: It just seems to make sense when taken in the context of the SMT setting; Persona notwithstanding, tarot is a staple motif.
solsorrow: So might as well adapt it so it's more accessible and immediately relevant.

Slight addendum to the concept. :V

35

Role Playing / Re: role playing ideas thread

« on: September 27, 2014, 09:31:24 PM »

I have a potential mechanic for the game to try incorporating, if you don't mind hearing it out.

Regardless of whether or not the PCs are all Persona Users, PCs begin play aligned w/ an Arcana, one they either choose or the GM rolls for them. This starting Arcana serves as it does in the Persona games, as a general skillset and attributes list, but more importantly, it remains a fixture for the character throughout the campaign.

In systems like Shadowrun, a GM would pass out Karma exp at the end of sessions where players were judged to have done a good job and achieved something. Obviously we can't quite handle things the same way here, but my suggestion is to organize the RP in an episodic format, and at the end of each episode, the GM has PCs roll for their fortune that will continue into the following arc. This post-episode fortune is meant to have a new tarot Arcana be drawn, but its significance represents a sort of clue to future events for that individual character.

The idea is that if PCs are designed to exist as part of a larger universe, and not solely for the explicit in-universe events the campaign goes through, then that should mean each one has their own type of sub-plot. Most such things don't really tend to be developed in some RPs I've seen, though, so the episodic Tarots are meant to provide a "preview" of each individual PC's circumstances, rather than have them all be treated by the system as parts of only one entity (ie making them go through every little development together).

Thoughts?

36

Role Playing / Re: role playing ideas thread

« on: September 25, 2014, 04:40:02 AM »

@Lantz: What would be the balancing b/t those, here? :V

Yeah, s'all well and good to say they each start at level one, and what sets them apart is already visible, but how do they scale up? I'd like to avoid the whole so-called "linear fighter, quadratic wizard" situation here, so please, explain/brainstorm how these classes would be able to actually compete w/o "lol MC plot armor".

PCs are gonna be special snowflake enough as it is. :V

37

Role Playing / Re: role playing ideas thread

« on: September 23, 2014, 09:45:47 PM »

@Mike:

>Musubi -- "I am the center of the world."

Musubi is the reason of Isamu Nitta. It is based on solitude and isolation. The self is absolute, and every living being would live in an independent world, completely separate from all other living beings. The individual could use their mind to shape their world at will into their own personal paradise, without consequences or unwelcome interference of others. The name Musubi may possibly refer to the mystical power of becoming or of creation in Shinto religion. It is an isolationistic, solitary reason which resembles the philosophy of René Descartes.

Although in Nocturne, this Reason is said to be based off Neutral, but it's still influenced enough by Chaos that you could make an argument for it. :V

38

Role Playing / Re: role playing ideas thread

« on: September 23, 2014, 07:26:47 PM »

I would be more interested if PCs had the option of actually being able to create their own individual factions a la the Reason mechanic from Nocturne.

39

Role Playing / Re: 4th vs 5th

« on: September 22, 2014, 02:54:46 AM »

Not as limiting as you may be thinking, but surely you can see the issue in what you yourself just brought up? That is a serious storywriting concern (as if everyone really *cared*, sadly... >__>), and deserves to be addressed in a constructive fashion that is not simply ass-pulling a handwave for simplicity's sake. :V

I'm not sure why their refusal to kill each other is an issue. Half of the masters in the fifth war won't kill each other either....

It's not obvious? If there's not enough drama or action to justify such a mass crossover, then what was the point of handling the premise in this fashion? You might as well have gone w/ an alternative idea that *does* present conflict.

...Unless you *want* something more on the slice of life side of things?

40

Role Playing / Re: 4th vs 5th

« on: September 22, 2014, 02:27:37 AM »

Well, presumably it would also need some mechanism to deal with the different Grail War endings, and things like Sakura's situation.

This is simply rectifiable by the GM either picking a "canon" lineage and going from there, or by making it up to the players to decide upon. Foolproof, no, but still a thing.

Well, that limits the ability of the players to do stuff, really. Plus, the characters from the fourth and the fifth are connected, so they're not going to just kill each other easily.

Not as limiting as you may be thinking, but surely you can see the issue in what you yourself just brought up? That is a serious storywriting concern (as if everyone really *cared*, sadly... >__>), and deserves to be addressed in a constructive fashion that is not simply ass-pulling a handwave for simplicity's sake. :V

41

Role Playing / Re: 4th vs 5th

« on: September 21, 2014, 11:47:02 PM »

What it sounds like. :V

Remove the gratuitous slice of life and romcom aspects, focus on a more coherent War-related plotline. "Hollow Ataraxia" was referred to simply out of convenience, as it involves the timey whimey ball that were the looped days and memory alterations featuring the 3rd War. You need something even vaguely like that in order to ground the crossover b/t the 4th and 5th War participants.

Make PCs a shortened roster of options, and make anyone/-thing unchosen NPCs that *will* be encountered.

The closest comparison off the top of my head would be the "world invasion" mechanic of Demon's Souls or Dark Souls, where you'd get triggers at certain times and/or places that'd pit your PC against a "Phantom" from another world/time.

Hell, maybe even try running two games in one under that setup: some players are strictly in the altered 4th War worldline, and some stuck in the 5th, but there are bleed effects b/t the two and someone/-thing can cross over into a time they shouldn't belong, forcing characters who *do* to intercept the intruders.

42

Role Playing / Re: 4th vs 5th

« on: September 21, 2014, 11:07:23 PM »

Mainly streamline the RP; seriously, at maximum optimism, you will get a dozen or players taking up the mantle of multiple PCs. DSM is, strictly speaking, not as popular as BL, nor does it have as many members registered, and not all those who *are* care for rehashed vanilla Grail Wars.

I'm not a GM, so I can't speak w/ any real authority on the subject, but making a large player roster and expecting to be able to fill it up for something like this seems like baiting stagnation. I'm not gonna say "Do one like Alf's RPs," but I *would* implore for some increased verisimilitude; maybe try something like an AU Hollow Ataraxia that's closer in presentation of drama and action like the original Melty Blood?

43

Role Playing / Re: 4th vs 5th

« on: September 21, 2014, 09:06:51 PM »

Ehhhhh, I've seen doujins and fanart w/ a similar basic premise, but doing it this way in RP format seems a tad unwieldy.

It's too large, and if hoping to get all/most spots on that list filled in, well you might want to reconsider a potential restructuring.

44

Role Playing / Re: Grail War RP: Electric Boogaloo

« on: September 15, 2014, 08:56:47 PM »

Personally, I vote a mix: give another week or so of grace period, then shelve the idea for a while until we get 1) an actual GM who will organize and run this RP, 2) a broader mix of individual schedules that hopefully have have more free time again, or 3) do some brainstorming on how to get this thing going once it's re-announced so the current problems don't turn up again (and we can start sooner, natch).

:V

45

Role Playing / Re: D&D 4th Edition

« on: September 14, 2014, 01:28:42 AM »

Also interested.