Exalted 3E Discussion

Skitzyfrenic · Dec 2, 2016

Prospel said:
I'm not sure what that is. Usually what I had to do was mark which ticks each player or NPC got their first action, and then add from there in a column. It would look something like this.

IIRC the core book for Ex2 had something like this(X and Y are characters)(I forgot to add a column on the left for numbers forgive me) and its pretty much what you did:

X				X
	Y	X		Y	Y
Y	X		XY		X
		Y
	Y
X				X

And it looks stupidly confusing.

What I do is (something like) this(O is a turn where X or Y acted, * is the current tick, O is when someone hasn't acted yet):

X	Y
O

	O

O

*
	O
O

and add more rows as I go down. And count one at a time. On 'dead' ticks, they just get struck through and I move on. And I normally don't even do this much. Because all I have to do is keep track of my own actions. When I act on the same tick as someone else, I try to get in a co-ordinated attack or dance the dance of death, hoping I don't make a misstep.

Prospel said:
But again, at least in 3E, you don't need to actually do any of this. As long as you know your current intiative, none of these are necessary. And calculating initiative shifts aren't even all that different from calculating the Seven Steps in 2E combat, you just substitute Health Pools for Initiative when it comes to withering attacks.

So I have two health pools to keep track of. One is attack momentum and one is actually health. Okay. And I would probably still do that (well stuff like it) because I'm not a shitter and I like my charsheet to be nice and easy to read for anyone. Especially my GM.

Prospel said:
I still would much rather do something like "I hit someone for 6 withering damage, so my Initiative goes up by 7 and his goes down by 6. Because his initiative is now 6, he now goes after my friend with initiative 8." The math is more linear, and we don't need to look at the overlap in actions that might occur. We just need to know that 12-6 < 8

That's more complicated than: I act with a speed 4 action and act again in 4 ticks, no math required (Which is what happens 90% of the time for me. The remaining 10% is when I attack at speed 3 with charm augmentation or use rocket pack to slam into someone/fly). I don't understand how wait 4 ticks before acting again is less complicated than ipc1 = 5+7 = 12 and ie = 12-6 = 6. And then comparing init values and going 12 > 8 > 6 for the next round. And that's the simple version. That you just gave me. And if I read something you posted to Val (will find and quote) then the order in which people act inside of a round can change as well.

Prospel said:
A change in initiative is only meaningful if the person whose initiative changed has yet to act. If so, they are pushed backwards or forwards in the turn order, relative to other people who have yet to act. Otherwise, the change only takes effect at the start of the next round.

The math is less linear.

If we were going by how I understand the RAW in Ex2 for ticks its on an action tick do: Tickcurrent+Speed = Tickmynextaction. When Tickcurrent and Tickmynextaction are the same, act. Which is still less math and even more linear. What makes it 'complicated' is that you have to do it for everyone, on their 'own track.'

Prospel said:
Speaking as someone who GMs E on a weekly basis, all I need is a player's initial Initiative values. From there, I can track how combat shifts pretty easily as long as I have a pencil or a word doc. But I can guarantee to you that, if you can keep track of all the combat resolution steps in 2.5E, you can definitely handle ticks. It's just that one form of attack hits initiative, and another form of attack hits HP.

Yes... I can handle ticks. That's what I've been saying? Sorry, sorry. You mean handle initiative.

I'm sure I can. But one (ish. The equation of does x = y yet every tick, I suppose, counts) math equation for one character every time instead of possible several per round (just for my PC) is pretty appealing.

I can also handle the withering/decisive thing. I think its great in theory. Really allows you to paint a fight changing direction, and gaining momentum and finally crushing your foes. Very action/wuxia movie. I don't like the charm bloat it causes or that I have to remember that one accounts for hardness, that my weapon only counts when I'm attacking a certain way (which... is kinda weird a weapon's accuracy should affect both because its the same weapon basically doing the same thing). It basically doubles (a little hyperbole) the basic combat rules because there are two kinds of attacks.

But I only have to write down my next action tick every time I act. Once. I don't have the possibility of changing my init value more than once as the round progresses. My previous action's speed has dictated when my next action happens.

I understand the basics of both systems and continue to find ticks simpler and easier. It was less simple at a glance, but once I figured it out, ticks are a -less- complex system, in my opinion. They are poorly explained in Ex2, core tho. Init+Rounds is simpler on the surface and gets more complicated.

Prospel said:
Init + Rounds is easier

This is your opinion and likely from your experience in having players who didn't understand ticks. I think Tickcurrent + Speed = Tickmynextaction is easier as a player.

I will admit that there is a lot more 'gaming' of init values that can happen strategically, because of its deeper complexity. I think that the rounds system is easier to explain and understand because of the ease of explaining it, but it -is- more complex.

Edit: shit wording

Prospel · Dec 2, 2016

Valette-Serafina said:
You seem to be confusing editions. That's E.

No, that's definitely 2E.

Valette-Serafina said:
For every single character in the fight, yes.

That's much simpler than you genuinely seem to think it is.

Valette-Serafina said:
No, it doesn't. You do, but the system doesn't. The tick an action took place on doesn't matter in the slightest. Only the next tick the character will act on.

...It's very important for a player to know not just when they get to act, but when an opponent gets to act relative to them, you know? Especially if both that player and that opponent have already exchanged blows previously!

Valette-Serafina said:
The difference in attacks isn't a flaw, by the way. Using a pair of magical items designed to boost speed should have some benefit for the commitment.

The problem is the benefit of attuning a Jade weapon completely outweighs the benefit of attuning an Orichalcum one. Seriously, -1 to Speed, or +1 to Accuracy, Damage, and Rate?

Valette-Serafina said:
After any successful Withering attack in E, four pieces of information must change: The current Initiative of both combatants, and their place in the turn order. These things may change again before either character's next action.

But all that only requires keeping track of one detail: their initiatives. Because what you seem to be forgetting is that their initiative IS their place in the turn order!

Valette-Serafina said:
For Ex2, you need one: The speed of the action. The tick they act from doesn't matter, because it's always going to be the current tick. This will not change before the character's next action.

You still need to know, as a GM, where they are tick-wise compared to the other combatants. If a player who did a faster action gets to go before that character's next action, you need to know that and make sure to tell the player 'hey, you're up!'

Valette-Serafina said:
A player doesn't, no. That's the Storyteller's job. A player may, but it's not obligatory.
This is also the case for E, by the way.

It's important information if a player wishes to strategize, and E

makes it far, far simpler for both GMs and players.

Valette-Serafina said:
I'm such a fool, I completely forgot that Excellent Strike isn't a constantly applicable charm that's easy to grab for any character who feels like dipping into Melee. It certainly doesn't have simple but constantly helpful effects that scale up the more dice are being rolled, and three motes is totally unaffordable.

I didn't know that every charm was identical to excellent strike.

And don't get me wrong, it's still a very good charm, you're just vastly overestimating the maybe handful of seconds that may come from needing to reroll ones.

Valette-Serafina said:
Combat does, but sure. Dismiss Craft as a niche ability, rather than a core subsystem.

If that's how E views it, why does it have so much focus? There are far more Craft Charms than there are Investigation charms. There's no Investigation subsystem. No Lore subsystem. There's no Disguise subsystem, no system tracking a Crew for sail, no business management for Bureaucracy.

E craft is a broken mess, but it earned how many pages to explain all the hoops a player needs to jump through? How many Charms to bypass all the artificial limits?

Craft got more focus than Social in E. Try again.

Now, be very honest with me. How many people are going to roll Crafters over say, Combatants and Socialites. Are you seriously naive enough to think that because Craft is overdesigned, that the intention is that Crafters are the main focus of the system? Do you honestly think that the system's goal is to emphasize craft over combat? Reread the book, then, because your analysis is terribly flawed.

Further, there is an investigation subsystem. There is a lore subsystem (declare a fact). There are rules for disguises. There is an entire subsystem for naval combat. There is a loose system on how to handle kingdom management and kingdom projects, with bureaucracy charms interacting with that system.

Valette-Serafina said:
Those aren't new.

They're fucking unprecedented for 2E.

Valette-Serafina said:
You're holding up some of the most terrible bullshit the E devs have pulled as if it's a badge of pride. If nothing else, you can spin.

I mean, you can take issue with non-combat focused characters getting something to help them in combat, but I would not play whatever system you are designing.

Valette-Serafina said:
...Ah. That's it, huh. You're taking...
No, wait. Even a tick column wouldn't explain it. A tick column would make it quite simple to track actions. Take more time to mark actions, but it'd be absurdly simple to follow.

I honestly can't understand why you'd have difficulty looking at a horizontal line and checking for tick marks. Or xs, whatever you use to mark them.
And a chart? Why the hell do you need a chart?

You're misconstruing my arguments. What's simpler, a single score-board, or a series of separate columns?

Valette-Serafina said:
...And once again, you take a quality as a flaw.

No, absolutely not. There's nothing quality about having to ask 'is anyone going this tick? No? Next tick? Bueller?.' None. No. Hell no.

Valette-Serafina said:
Because it's doing two things at once, perhaps? Regardless, no. It doesn't.

You're just telling me no, without explaining it. But I see, anecdotally at least, that there is a far greater investment in one's Initiative than Speed.

Valette-Serafina said:
And that matters how, exactly? The changes still take place, turn order is still adjusted, and that doesn't stop once most of the character have taken their actions.

Why is an adjusting turn order a bad thing? When 2E had actions changing turn order too, but did it in a far more obtuse way?

Valette-Serafina said:
Perhaps you'd like to stop picking problems that apply to E as much as they do to Ex2 when you're trying to argue for the system?

The difference is that unlike 2E, 3E at least makes that much simpler to track as opposed to everyone on the table making their own series of columns.

And don't even let me get into the problems that result when one person's series doesn't match up with another person's series, and then we get into arguments about who made what mistake where.

Valette-Serafina said:
Fifty actions. Not fifty ticks, fifty actions. Ticks do not change turn order.

And as long as one is less than four, that won't be true.

It is true, and I'm not sure how stating an unrelated tautology accomplishes much of anything.

Skitzyfrenic · Dec 2, 2016

Prospel You've been pretty chill through out this, so thanks for that.

I don't really agree with you, and that's okay. I think ticks look more complicated than they are, and that E

's rounds are more complicated than they look. I prefer ticks because I think it runs smoother. E

has some good things, imo, but mostly in concept. I feel a great many things were poorly implemented. Not the Ex2 is free from flaws. But I am more familiar with Ex2, and my favourite splats are a long way from being implemented in E

.

So I see no reason to put money into that system.

But I'm going to bed now, and to avoid any early morning hurr durr angry grumpy face morning mistakes that cause a shitstorm I'm going to ask you if it is okay is we agree to disagree. And I will, of course, allow your final rebuttals to my points, I just won't respond to them.

Prospel · Dec 2, 2016

Skitzyfrenic said:
IIRC the core book for Ex2 had something like this(X and Y are characters)(I forgot to add a column on the left for numbers forgive me) and its pretty much what you did:

X X

Y X Y Y

Y X XY X

Y

Y

X X

And it looks stupidly confusing.

What I do is (something like) this(O is a turn where X or Y acted, * is the current tick, O is when someone hasn't acted yet):

X Y

O

O

O

*

O

O

and add more rows as I go down. And count one at a time. On 'dead' ticks, they just get struck through and I move on. And I normally don't even do this much. Because all I have to do is keep track of my own actions. When I act on the same tick as someone else, I try to get in a co-ordinated attack or dance the dance of death, hoping I don't make a misstep.

Okay, but, I honestly am way more confused when I try to figure this out, compared to anything in E

. I'm going to have to read what you wrote a few times to really understand it, and I'm fairly certain that my players won't get it all at once either.

Skitzyfrenic said:
So I have two health pools to keep track of. One is attack momentum and one is actually health. Okay. And I would probably still do that (well stuff like it) because I'm not a shitter and I like my charsheet to be nice and easy to read for anyone. Especially my GM.

You have a health pool to keep track of, instead of your position on a tick column.

Skitzyfrenic said:
That's more complicated than: I act with a speed 4 action and act again in 4 ticks, no math required (Which is what happens 90% of the time for me. The remaining 10% is when I attack at speed 3 with charm augmentation or use rocket pack to slam into someone/fly).

Now, I get that it's easier for you. But keep in mind, your GM has to track not only you but also the other players, the NPCs, and so on. Further, I'd much prefer a brief scoreboard to the column layout that you posted above.

Skitzyfrenic said:
I don't understand how wait 4 ticks before acting again is less complicated than ipc1 = 5+7 = 12 and ie = 12-6 = 6. And then comparing init values and going 12 > 8 > 6 for the next round. And that's the simple version. That you just gave me. And if I read something you posted to Val (will find and quote) then the order in which people act inside of a round can change as well.

Again, understanding that you are on Tick 4 and go again on Tick 8 is easy, but your GM needs to know that the person who went on Tick 2 will go on Tick 7 (before you), the guy on Tick 3 will go on Tick 8 (the same time as you), the guy going on Tick 4 will go on Tick 7 (before you), and all of that is critical for him to get down before he has everyone else declare their turns.

Skitzyfrenic said:
The math is less linear.

If we were going by how I understand the RAW in Ex2 for ticks its on an action tick do: Tickcurrent+Speed = Tickmynextaction. When Tickcurrent and Tickmynextaction are the same, act. Which is still less math and even more linear. What makes it 'complicated' is that you have to do it for everyone, on their 'own track.'

What is easier for you to track becomes a nightmare for someone who has to keep this in mind for about 8-10 other actors, depending on the combat scenario.

Skitzyfrenic said:
Yes... I can handle ticks. That's what I've been saying? Sorry, sorry. You mean handle initiative.

Sorry about that, I edited it too slow ;-;

Skitzyfrenic said:
I'm sure I can. But one (ish. The equation of does x = y yet every tick, I suppose, counts) math equation for one character every time instead of possible several per round (just for my PC) is pretty appealing.

I can also handle the withering/decisive thing. I think its great in theory. Really allows you to paint a fight changing direction, and gaining momentum and finally crushing your foes. Very action/wuxia movie. I don't like the charm bloat it causes or that I have to remember that one accounts for hardness, that my weapon only counts when I'm attacking a certain way (which... is kinda weird a weapon's accuracy should affect both because its the same weapon basically doing the same thing). It basically doubles (a little hyperbole) the basic combat rules because there are two kinds of attacks.

But I only have to write down my next action tick every time I act. Once. I don't have the possibility of changing my init value more than once as the round progresses. My previous action's speed has dictated when my next action happens.

I understand the basics of both systems and continue to find ticks simpler and easier. It was less simple at a glance, but once I figured it out, ticks are a -less- complex system, in my opinion. They are poorly explained in Ex2, core tho. Init+Rounds is simpler on the surface and gets more complicated.

I'm going to have to agree to disagree here. While you have established that it is easy to determine what Tick is the next tick you act on, you have not addressed my point: that it is difficult for a player or a GM to know where other players are in terms of the ticks they can act on, relative to each other!

Skitzyfrenic said:
This is your opinion and likely from your experience in having players who didn't understand ticks. I think Tickcurrent + Speed = Tickmynextaction is easier as a player.

Yes, it's very easy for a player to track the tick of their next action relative to their current action. Where it gets complicated is tracking everyone else's Tickcurrent + Speed = Ticktheirnextaction. And this is what I've kept on wanting to stress: that E

makes tracking everyone else's timings in relation to each other much, much simpler.

Prospel · Dec 2, 2016

Skitzyfrenic said:
I'm going to ask you if it is okay is we agree to disagree.

Well I say as much in my post above, so no stress :3. Sleep good!

Skitzyfrenic · Dec 2, 2016

Prospel said:
that E makes tracking everyone else's timings in relation to each other much, much simpler.

Not quite to bed yet, but I think I agreed with you on this somewhere. Too sleepy to make sure. But I think I said that it (rounds) was easier-ish on the GM in my first 'from home' post. Or something similar.

Prospel said:
Well I say as much in my post above, so no stress :3. Sleep good!

Thank you. You too, whenever you make it to bed.

Valette-Serafina · Dec 2, 2016

Prospel said:
That's much simpler than you genuinely seem to think it is.

And yet you seem to take issue with doing it less often in Ex2.

...It's very important for a player to know not just when they get to act, but when an opponent gets to act relative to them, you know? Especially if both that player and that opponent have already exchanged blows previously!

But it remains optional. It is not mandatory for a player to keep track of that information.
If you really need to, though, it's rarely hard to guess. You could also ask your storyteller.

The problem is the benefit of attuning a Jade weapon completely outweighs the benefit of attuning an Orichalcum one. Seriously, -1 to Speed, or +1 to Accuracy, Damage, and Rate?

You're forgetting the required Occult roll to fully attune a weapon made of a non-resonating magical material, and the doubled attunement cost if you do.

Or you're assuming Dragonblooded user, in which case the reasons not to use Sunsgold are both in setting and out of setting. And, of course, Dragonblooded don't have native Perfects five steps inside their charm trees.

But all that only requires keeping track of one detail: their initiatives. Because what you seem to be forgetting is that their initiative IS their place in the turn order!

No, it's what determines their place in the turn order. There is a difference, because Initiative is a spendable resource and health track.

The distinct units of information that can change are [Attacker's Initiative value], [Attacker's place in the turn order], [Defender's Initiative value], and [Defender's place in the turn order].

In comparison, for Ex2 there's [Character's next action tick].

You still need to know, as a GM, where they are tick-wise compared to the other combatants. If a player who did a faster action gets to go before that character's next action, you need to know that and make sure to tell the player 'hey, you're up!'

Things that aren't universal in roleplaying systems, please?

It's important information if a player wishes to strategize, and E makes it far, far simpler for both GMs and players.

No, it doesn't.

I didn't know that every charm was identical to excellent strike.

Do you want me to get the list? Because, as I said, I made a list of every charm that allows a conditional reroll.

And don't get me wrong, it's still a very good charm, you're just vastly overestimating the maybe handful of seconds that may come from needing to reroll ones.

This is an extra step in attack resolution, so it makes the game slower. Given that E

hasn't actually shed any steps there, that results in an attack resolution that's slower than Ex2.

Now, be very honest with me. How many people are going to roll Crafters over say, Combatants and Socialites.

I've never run a game without someone choosing to dip into Craft. I have run many games.

Now, you might perhaps have failed to notice, but Exalted characters are supposed to be able to do more than one thing. A character's role is not Either/Or. It is quite possible to have ability in all three of the roles you mentioned.

Or rather, it would be if the Craft system hadn't carried over the worst parts of Ex2 before adding more nonsense on top of it.

Are you seriously naive enough to think that because Craft is overdesigned, that the intention is that Crafters are the main focus of the system? Do you honestly think that the system's goal is to emphasize craft over combat? Reread the book, then, because your analysis is terribly flawed.

It's part of the core, yes. One of the archetypical ability trees that emphasises the role of the Exalted in Creation. The Solar Exalted do not simply kill people, they also bring fourth Wonders.

Over combat? No, but if combat is the entirely of your game then there's no point talking to you. Have fun throwing numbers around.

Further, there is an investigation subsystem.

Not really.

There is a lore subsystem (declare a fact).

We call that "Stunting".

There are rules for disguises.

But not a subsystem.

There is an entire subsystem for naval combat.

You know, I forgot about that.

There is a loose system on how to handle kingdom management and kingdom projects, with bureaucracy charms interacting with that system.

Is there now? I don't recall that, either. How many pages did it take up?

They're fucking unprecedented for 2E.

No, they're not.

I mean, you can take issue with non-combat focused characters getting something to help them in combat, but I would not play whatever system you are designing.

I'm sure I'd miss your valued input and deep mechanical understanding. Until I regret such, however, I'll remind you that Stunting exists.

Exalted is a point-buy system, not a level-based one. If a player wishes for their character to be consistently better in combat, they should invest in combat abilities.

You're misconstruing my arguments. What's simpler, a single score-board, or a series of separate columns?

What, you have every player keep track of a separate tick column?
...You don't, do you?

Actually, how do you game? In person, or over the net? Because if it's in person you should just print out a battlewheel.

No, absolutely not. There's nothing quality about having to ask 'is anyone going this tick? No? Next tick? Bueller?.' None. No. Hell no.

And yet you're fine with doing it more often.
"24 Initiative? No? 23? 22? 21?"

What empty ticks provide is something that a turn-based system will never have.

You're just telling me no, without explaining it. But I see, anecdotally at least, that there is a far greater investment in one's Initiative than Speed.

Because it changes, making things more difficult to keep track of. Speed is a mostly static value.

Why is an adjusting turn order a bad thing? When 2E had actions changing turn order too, but did it in a far more obtuse way?

Frequency.

The difference is that unlike 2E, 3E at least makes that much simpler to track as opposed to everyone on the table making their own series of columns.

Hahahahaha, you do! I almost can't believe it.

No, the problem's not with the system. Half of it lies with Ex2's corebook being terribly written, and the other half lies with your group. Seriously, did you never look into things like better Character sheets? There's been a fix for your issue for Years.

And don't even let me get into the problems that result when one person's series doesn't match up with another person's series, and then we get into arguments about who made what mistake where.

This is why we have someone called a Storyteller. They resolve these arguments by having the final say and being right about the rules even if they're wrong.

It also helps to have a single canonical set of columns, or a battlewheel.

Now, come on. How would this not apply to E

's Initiative system if everyone at your table was maintaining their own tally? Go on, tell me.

It is true, and I'm not sure how stating an unrelated tautology accomplishes much of anything.

It's not unrelated. If one is less than four, then one variable value is a smaller number of variable values than four variable values.

As I've shown, Ex2's ticks have one variable that changes with actions. E

's Initiative system has at least two, and most often four.

That said, with new information I can see the truth in your words. Of course you'll have difficulty tracking initiative, if that's how you're tracking it.

Prospel · Dec 2, 2016

Valette-Serafina said:
But it remains optional. It is not mandatory for a player to keep track of that information.
If you really need to, though, it's rarely hard to guess. You could also ask your storyteller.

Okay, really, that's enough. My argument is that 3E makes relative initiatives easier to track. Of course asking your GM would give you the answer, but that doesn't make it any easier.

Valette-Serafina said:
No, it's what determines their place in the turn order. There is a difference, because Initiative is a spendable resource and health track.

The distinct units of information that can change are [Attacker's Initiative value], [Attacker's place in the turn order], [Defender's Initiative value], and [Defender's place in the turn order].

In comparison, for Ex2 there's [Character's next action tick].

...But...

Your initiative is your place in the turn order!!! If your Initiative is highest, you go first. If your Initiative is second highest, you go second. You can't possibly convince me that this is complicated, or that it takes even a remotely significant amount of time.

Valette-Serafina said:
I've never run a game without someone choosing to dip into Craft. I have run many games.

So have I. Just, in terms of my own subjective experience, Craft is about as likely to come up as Sail.

Valette-Serafina said:
Over combat? No, but if combat is the entirely of your game then there's no point talking to you. Have fun throwing numbers around.

My games are not just combat. But you seemed to be arguing that Craft is somehow more central or core than the combat or social system, which every PC would be involved with regardless of their build.

Valette-Serafina said:
Exalted is a point-buy system, not a level-based one. If a player wishes for their character to be consistently better in combat, they should invest in combat abilities.

I don't see any reason in throwing a bone to characters that don't specialize in combat, especially when the failure state of combat is death, while the failure state of social is typically just an unreceptive audience.

Valette-Serafina said:
What, you have every player keep track of a separate tick column?
...You don't, do you?

For the record, I don't, but I did keep track of ticks independently of the GM in a couple of games, and we found that either one or both of us were making mistakes when keeping track of ticks. Because with this system, it is very easy to make mistakes!

Valette-Serafina said:
Actually, how do you game? In person, or over the net? Because if it's in person you should just print out a battlewheel.

Typically in person, and frankly I'd just rather not have to rely on something like an excel column, or a battlewheel, or etc. It remains that I can keep track of things perfectly well with a paper and pencil with E

.

Valette-Serafina said:
And yet you're fine with doing it more often.
"24 Initiative? No? 23? 22? 21?"

Again, as long as I know everyone's initial initiative, I'm more than able to keep track of everyone's initiative no matter how often it shifts.

Valette-Serafina said:
Because it changes, making things more difficult to keep track of. Speed is a mostly static value.

What? My argument was simply that my players are more invested in reporting their Initiative, where they would frequently need me to remind them to tell me their Speed.

Valette-Serafina said:
Frequency.

Frequency is fine, as long as it's easy to track.

Valette-Serafina said:
No, the problem's not with the system. Half of it lies with Ex2's corebook being terribly written, and the other half lies with your group. Seriously, did you never look into things like better Character sheets? There's been a fix for your issue for Years.

I've looked into better character sheets, but stuff like Mr. Gone's character sheets for 2E doesn't seem to have anything that makes tracking ticks easier for me :/

Valette-Serafina said:
Now, come on. How would this not apply to E's Initiative system if everyone at your table was maintaining their own tally? Go on, tell me.

I want to reiterate that the separate tracking was only a one-time thing. But generally? My players are very invested in reporting their initiative scores.

Valette-Serafina said:
It's not unrelated. If one is less than four, then one variable value is a smaller number of variable values than four variable values.

As I've shown, Ex2's ticks have one variable that changes with actions. E's Initiative system has at least two, and most often four.

It has Initiative. Which determines both a person's Initiative Value and their Turn Order, because they are precisely the same thing. If you know their initiative, you will know what order everyone goes: from the biggest number, to the smallest number. To keep track with ticks, you still need a person's [Current Tick] and [Tick After Action] to determine the turn order. You don't seem to be grasping this.

I'm not sure how useful further debate will be over this, but I want to at least say: having actually used both combat engines, Initiative is far simpler and quicker than Ticks. While you may wish to argue that I was simply using Ticks wrong, consider the possibility that knowing how to use Ticks properly is more difficult than knowing how to use Initiative.

Valette-Serafina · Dec 2, 2016

Prospel said:
...But...

Your initiative is your place in the turn order!!!

No, it is not. More exclamation marks will not make your point for you.

It determines your place in the turn order, but it is a spendable resource pool that can be leached by enemy attacks. It is relevant both as an exact value and as a relative value.

If your Initiative is highest, you go first. If your Initiative is second highest, you go second. You can't possibly convince me that this is complicated, or that it takes even a remotely significant amount of time.

It is more complex than the tick system, because it has more moving parts. Thus, it will take more time than the tick system because two is greater than one.

So have I. Just, in terms of my own subjective experience, Craft is about as likely to come up as Craft or Sail.

...Yes. Craft is indeed exactly as likely to come up as Craft. I don't think I could possibly create an example quite so perfect as that.

My games are not just combat. But you seemed to be arguing that Craft is somehow more central or core than the combat or social system, which every PC would be involved with regardless of their build.

No, I am not. I am, however, arguing that it is as central, because it is.

And it is broken irreparably.

I don't see any reason in throwing a bone to characters that don't specialize in combat, especially when the failure state of combat is death, while the failure state of social is typically just an unreceptive audience.

This is a setting feature. Unless a character can fight, they are vulnerable and should seek protection.

If you, as a storyteller, feel like letting them contribute with stunts, feel free. That's why stunting exists.

Consistent, reliable combat ability should come from being capable in combat, however. That's why players invest EXP in combat abilities.

For the record, I don't, but I did keep track of ticks independently of the GM in a couple of games, and we found that either one or both of us were making mistakes when keeping track of ticks. Because with this system, it is very easy to make mistakes!

No, I'm going to put the fault in you here. You can't keep track of it, and that's no fault of the system's.

Typically in person, and frankly I'd just rather not have to rely on something like an excel column, or a battlewheel, or etc.

And yet you're singing the praises of something just as complicated.

Again, as long as I know everyone's initial initiative, I'm more than able to keep track of everyone's initiative no matter how often it shifts.

Unless they forget to mention a Charm that gives them initiative in certain circumstances, perhaps? Or does that only give you trouble when it's about ticks?

What? My argument was simply that my players are more invested in reporting their Initiative, where they would frequently need me to remind them to tell me their Speed.

Most of the time, you should be able to tell what speed their action was from the action.

Frequency is fine, as long as it's easy to track.

You know what's easy to track? Something that doesn't change.

I've looked into better character sheets, but stuff like Mr. Gone's character sheets for 2E doesn't seem to have anything that makes tracking ticks easier for me :/

Battlewheel, five to seven poker chips. Perhaps ten at most. There, all the notekeeping's gone.

It has Initiative. Which determines both a person's Initiative Value and their Turn Order, because they are precisely the same thing.

Again, they are not. They are related. One is a derived value from the other. Much like STR and Damage, or Dex and DDV, or STM and Soak. You need more than someone's current Initiative to know what their turn is in E

.

If you know their initiative, you will know what order everyone goes: from the biggest number, to the smallest number. To keep track with ticks, you still need a person's [Current Tick] and [Tick After Action] to determine the turn order. You don't seem to be grasping this.

Because you are factually wrong, and I'm not inclined to let you push forward without correcting that.

A character's [Current Tick]? That isn't a thing. There is one, universal current tick. It is shared among all characters, and it will only change in one direction ever.

I'm not sure how useful further debate will be over this, but I want to at least say: having actually used both combat engines, Initiative is far simpler and quicker than Ticks. While you may wish to argue that I was simply using Ticks wrong, consider the possibility that knowing how to use Ticks properly is more difficult than knowing how to use Initiative.

Yes, but I think I made that point several posts ago.

Prospel · Dec 2, 2016

Okay, I know we're just going to be going back and forth forever at this point, but there's still a last thing I want to address.

Valette-Serafina said:
No, it is not. More exclamation marks will not make your point for you.

It determines your place in the turn order, but it is a spendable resource pool that can be leached by enemy attacks. It is relevant both as an exact value and as a relative value.
It is more complex than the tick system, because it has more moving parts. Thus, it will take more time than the tick system because two is greater than one.

This argument still doesn't make any sense. Turn order is not even remotely a derived value of initiative in the way Join Battle is a derived value of Wits+Awareness. If Person A has 13 Initiative, Person B has 19 Initiative, and Person C has 8 initiative, you know that the turn order is B, A, and then C. There's no element of calculation here, you're just identifying the biggest number, then the second biggest number, etc. You seem to think that deriving turn order from Initiative is somehow complicated. It isn't. 1 + .0000001 is not 2!

Valette-Serafina said:
...Yes. Craft is indeed exactly as likely to come up as Craft. I don't think I could possibly create an example quite so perfect as that.

I made a typo, am sleepy -_-

Valette-Serafina said:
Again, they are not. They are related. One is a derived value from the other. Much like STR and Damage, or Dex and DDV, or STM and Soak. You need more than someone's current Initiative to know what their turn is in E.
Because you are factually wrong, and I'm not inclined to let you push forward without correcting that.

If I know that I have 18 initiative, and that the other person has 0 initiative, it's pretty obvious that I go before the other person. You seem to be trying to make the argument that I have to know more than the relative Strength scores to determine whether a person with Strength 5 has a higher Strength than someone with Strength 1. Jesus!

Valette-Serafina said:
A character's [Current Tick]? That isn't a thing. There is one, universal current tick. It is shared among all characters, and it will only change in one direction ever.

You're being willfully obtuse. You need to know what tick a person had their last action on, and the speed of that last action, to determine the next tick they get another action. That's two things, and both are so fundamental to the tick system that you have to know this, don't you?

Either way I seriously need to get some sleep and I don't see the point in carrying on. I've made my point, again and again, but we seem to keep returning to the same things.

Valette-Serafina · Dec 2, 2016

Prospel said:
This argument still doesn't make any sense. Turn order is not even remotely a derived value of initiative in the way Join Battle is a derived value of Wits+Awareness. If Person A has 13 Initiative, Person B has 19 Initiative, and Person C has 8 initiative, you know that the turn order is B, A, and then C. There's no element of calculation here, you're just identifying the biggest number, then the second biggest number, etc. You seem to think that deriving turn order from Initiative is somehow complicated. It isn't. 1 + .0000001 is not 2!

But you were quite clear. You said that Initiative is turn order. Thus, in order to know turn order, all you should need is Person A's Initiative.

I made a typo, am sleepy -_-

It wasn't a typo, your spelling was perfect. It was a slip of the mind, one that illustrates my point perfectly.

If I know that I have 18 initiative, and that the other person has 0 initiative, it's pretty obvious that I go before the other person. You seem to be trying to make the argument that I have to know more than the relative Strength scores to determine whether a person with Strength 5 has a higher Strength than someone with Strength 1. Jesus!

That's two combatants. Practically no fight in the game will involve two combatants, so exact values matter.

Initiative must be known as both an absolute value and a relative value. 18 initiative does not, on its own, give you your place in the turn order. You know this, but you're overlooking it. 18 Initiative does, however, determine one of your damage types and how much Initiative you can spend on Charms.

You're being willfully obtuse. You need to know what tick a person had their last action on [~] to determine the next tick they get another action.

No, you don't.

That's two things, and both are so fundamental to the tick system that you have to know this, don't you?

By that very same logic, then, the Initiative system needs eight. Attacker's current and former initiative, Defender's current and former initiative, Attacker's current and former place in the turn order, and defender's current and former place in the turn order.

Either way I seriously need to get some sleep and I don't see the point in carrying on. I've made my point, again and again, but we seem to keep returning to the same things.

Because you haven't made your point. You've stated it, but as long as one is less than two your point will be wrong.

evildice · Dec 2, 2016

I had no difficulty tracking initiative in 1e or 2e.

I foresee no difficulty tracking initiative in 3e.

The main concern I'd have about 3e is what happens when two different 1-on-1 combats are going on simultaneously. Does it make sense that I can cash in my huge initiative bonus vs. some mook to interject a decisive attack against someone else's opponent?

tehelgee · Dec 2, 2016

evildice said:
The main concern I'd have about 3e is what happens when two different 1-on-1 combats are going on simultaneously. Does it make sense that I can cash in my huge initiative bonus vs. some mook to interject a decisive attack against someone else's opponent?

If the two combats are completely separated, then you wouldn't be able to. If they are 1v1 by a 'gentlemen's agreement' then you could. And it makes sense in that you've got a momentum going, you're feeling confident and strong, and the world seems to be going in your favor. That you can turn that on another opponent makes sense to me.

evildice · Dec 2, 2016

tehelgee said:
If the two combats are completely separated, then you wouldn't be able to. If they are 1v1 by a 'gentlemen's agreement' then you could. And it makes sense in that you've got a momentum going, you're feeling confident and strong, and the world seems to be going in your favor. That you can turn that on another opponent makes sense to me.

How do I tell the difference?

E.g.: two PCs are caught by two opponents in a busy city market. The PCs each square off against one opponent. One of the pairs ends up fighting at street level, shoving each other through walls and cabbage carts and the like. The other pair leap above the crowd, and fight each other along the nearby balconies, atop the marble statues, and upon the tent-poles which support the market tents.

The two fights sometimes intersect -- and are sometimes visible to each other -- but other times do not, and are not.

What would make this two separate combats, vs. a "gentleman's agreement"?

Valette-Serafina · Dec 2, 2016

evildice said:
How do I tell the difference?

E.g.: two PCs are caught by two opponents in a busy city market. The PCs each square off against one opponent. One of the pairs ends up fighting at street level, shoving each other through walls and cabbage carts and the like. The other pair leap above the crowd, and fight each other along the nearby balconies, atop the marble statues, and upon the tent-poles which support the market tents.

The two fights sometimes intersect -- and are sometimes visible to each other -- but other times do not, and are not.

What would make this two separate combats, vs. a "gentleman's agreement"?

If the combats are separate, then you are utterly incapable of launching an attack against the other opponent. Otherwise they're one combat.

tehelgee · Dec 2, 2016

evildice said:
How do I tell the difference?

E.g.: two PCs are caught by two opponents in a busy city market. The PCs each square off against one opponent. One of the pairs ends up fighting at street level, shoving each other through walls and cabbage carts and the like. The other pair leap above the crowd, and fight each other along the nearby balconies, atop the marble statues, and upon the tent-poles which support the market tents.

The two fights sometimes intersect -- and are sometimes visible to each other -- but other times do not, and are not.

What would make this two separate combats, vs. a "gentleman's agreement"?

That they are unable to interact at all, like being on different sides of the city. The situation you describe is all in the same combat.

EDIT: Damn you, ninja!

evildice · Dec 2, 2016

Valette-Serafina said:
If the combats are separate, then you are utterly incapable of launching an attack against the other opponent. Otherwise they're one combat.

tehelgee said:
That they are unable to interact at all, like being on different sides of the city. The situation you describe is all in the same combat.

So... what if one combat involves a chase scene across the city, and ends up within striking range of the other combat?

Or a character escapes from her combat, and Stealths her way back to the other combat, and then attacks from Stealth?

In 2e I know how to handle that -- and in the worst case, everyone just rolls Join Battle again and we pick up wherever that leaves us.

What can I do in 3e?

tehelgee · Dec 2, 2016

evildice said:
So... what if one combat involves a chase scene across the city, and ends up within striking range of the other combat?

A chase scene is a speed test, not a combat, and they both lost their initiatives when the chase scene starts. When they get to the other combat, the winner will roll JB and join the combat. A certain number of turns as set by the ST later, the second one arrives and rolls JB fresh and things proceed normally from there.

If they were to stop elsewhere and start fighting again, both would roll a fresh JB and combat starts all over again.

Or a character escapes from her combat, and Stealths her way back to the other combat, and then attacks from Stealth?

Same, they roll fresh JB when they get to the second combat, since they disengaged from the previous fight.

evildice · Dec 2, 2016

Excellent, thanks.

tehelgee said:
Same, they roll fresh JB

As an aside, that is the best kind of JB.

Skitzyfrenic · Dec 5, 2016

I present to you all:

Smoke Dragon Style.

I had some free time and this has been put together. It's meant to be a mortal/extra killer while wearing down an Exalt type MA. Hope you like.

Lykaia · Dec 22, 2016

I can't help but wonder why Exalted hasn't been banned in Versus Debates as the setting itself operates on No Limit Fallacies and needs to constantly refer to game mechanics rather than feats.

Prince Charon · Dec 23, 2016

HeWhoWasMarduk said:
I can't help but wonder why Exalted hasn't been banned in Versus Debates as the setting itself operates on No Limit Fallacies and needs to constantly refer to game mechanics rather than feats.

I've been avoiding Vs Debates for, I think, some years, now, but I suspect it may be allowed specifically because it's how the setting works, rather than how the posters choose to debate. Also, possibly because it's popular with some of the mods, though I'm not sure about that.

vyor · Dec 23, 2016

Prince Charon said:
I've been avoiding Vs Debates for, I think, some years, now, but I suspect it may be allowed specifically because it's how the setting works, rather than how the posters choose to debate. Also, possibly because it's popular with some of the mods, though I'm not sure about that.

Pretty sure the mods of that area hate it almost as much as nasuverse when it comes to debates.

TLW · Dec 23, 2016

Prince Charon said:
I've been avoiding Vs Debates for, I think, some years, now, but I suspect it may be allowed specifically because it's how the setting works, rather than how the posters choose to debate.

No, you can debate Exalted just fine.

Problem is that every single Exalted fan in VS is a complete and utter idiot. These people had mods and other users explain them for literal years how to analyse and properly present feats and they are still incapable of doing even the most basic shit.

It's not just Exalted even, RPGs in general seem to attract same group of retards that seem incapable of using basic logic and providing any evidence for their claims beyond logical fallacies.

vyor said:
Pretty sure the mods of that area hate it almost as much as nasuverse when it comes to debates.

Nasuverse is pretty okay in VS, mostly because core debaters know how to back their shit up with feats. You have few retards like Garbs and that Tohaska dude floating around, but it's mostly alright. Biggest issue is that Nasu fans will usually just start arguing about interpretations of their feats and hijack the thread for that purpose.

Graypairofsocks · Dec 25, 2016

TLW said:
No, you can debate Exalted just fine.

Problem is that every single Exalted fan in VS is a complete and utter idiot. These people had mods and other users explain them for literal years how to analyse and properly present feats and they are still incapable of doing even the most basic shit.

It's not just Exalted even, RPGs in general seem to attract same group of retards that seem incapable of using basic logic and providing any evidence for their claims beyond logical fallacies.

Referring to 2/2.5 edition here:

Exalted doesn't have feats for pretty much everything that would matter in a debate. All you have is the game mechanics.

In 2/2.5 the game mechanics and lore are pretty intertwined, and we have indication that the game rules are intended to represent how the world works.

Graypairofsocks · Dec 25, 2016

HeWhoWasMarduk said:
I can't help but wonder why Exalted hasn't been banned in Versus Debates as the setting itself operates on No Limit Fallacies and needs to constantly refer to game mechanics rather than feats.

How can a setting "Operate on NLF"? That makes no sense at all.

Exalted refers to game mechanics because it is a RPG game, and most of the lore doesn't actually give usable feats.
There are no rules (I have checked this multiple times) against using things that aren't feats for proof of your claims.

Graypairofsocks · Dec 25, 2016

Graypairofsocks said:
How can a setting "Operate on NLF"? That makes no sense at all.

Exalted refers to game mechanics because it is a RPG game, and most of the lore doesn't actually give usable feats.
There are no rules (I have checked this multiple times) against using things that aren't feats for proof of your claims.

Another thing is that Perfect Defenses don't make exalted unbeatable. While they cause raeg, they are not a instant win condition.
Most of them are kind of expensive and only block/dodge(/whatever) 1 attack per usage. So vs people like the flash (when he isn't jobbing ) they aren't that good.

Lurking Shade · Dec 25, 2016

Graypairofsocks said:
Another thing is that Perfect Defenses don't make exalted unbeatable. While they cause raeg, they are not a instant win condition.

From the debates I've seen that doesn't tend to be how they're treated. Whenever I've seen exalted debates it tends to go "you can't overpower perfect defenses and they will always get them up before you hit them and will win before they can't continue using them so you autolose lol"

Nekraa · Dec 25, 2016

Rani said:
you can't overpower perfect defenses

True.

Rani said:
they will always get them up before you hit them

False. If taken by surprise, you can't use it without a surprise negator. They are also costly.

Rani said:
win before they can't continue using them so you autolose lol

False. As perfect defenses are pretty easy to get (in 2e/2.5e at least, which is what is debated most of the time) even exalts that aren't combat spec'd can have them without great offensive capabilities.

*shrugs*

People are simply bad at debating.

Lykaia · Dec 25, 2016

Nekraa said:
True.

That's a NLF.

Exalted 3E Discussion

Elves are for lewding.

Getting out there.

Elves are for lewding.

Getting out there.

Getting out there.

Elves are for lewding.

Shameless Shadow

Getting out there.

Shameless Shadow

Getting out there.

Shameless Shadow

(emotionally stable clown posse)

The stern gaze of justice.

(emotionally stable clown posse)

Shameless Shadow

The stern gaze of justice.

(emotionally stable clown posse)

The stern gaze of justice.

(emotionally stable clown posse)

Elves are for lewding.

Well worn.

Just zis guy, you know?

Oh that's cute

I trust you know where the happy button is?

THIS IS A TITLE!

THIS IS A TITLE!

THIS IS A TITLE!

Versed in the lewd.

Nekraa

Well worn.

Users who are viewing this thread