Also, I've been experimenting with using this system for solo games. Ie. GMing myself.
This' worked really well but I only make rolls for my character, not for NPCs. So while NPCs may have aspects, these are only used for non-combat checks.
Thus in combat, NPCs have resolve which can be reduced, but the combat itself is dictated solely by the rolls of my character, whether those rolls be fail, success with consequence, or etcetera. This' made combat very fast and streamlined.
Hi again. You were right about classes such as 'barbarian' being too broad to use as aspects...
On another note, I was wondering how best to create a mech pilot. Would the Mech itself be a collection of aspects, or would the mech simply be classified as gear, and be represented as a single aspect die on a character sheet?
Would it ruin the game too much if I used classes as aspects as well? So a fantasy character might be: barbarian rank 3, thief rank 2, horse riding rank 2, goblin language rank 1, and swim rank 1 or some such.
Generally, the intent is to be more specific than just 'thief' or 'barbarian'. Those are more concepts than Aspects. A lot of the design wants to push you towards using your Aspects, so having them too broad makes it easier to achieve things, and dilutes down the character concept. 'Horse riding' and the rest are good examples though.
That said, as long as everyone is on the same page going in, then you should be good. The worst case is if one person is making narrow Aspects and another is making broad, versatile ones. I'd feel frustrated if my aspects were 'climbing', 'lock-picking', 'sleight of hand', etc., and another player just had 'thief'.
Yeah I definitely see what you mean. I'll play around with the idea a bit, perhaps reducing the amount of aspects if I include a broad concept as an aspect. Barbarian and thief worked great when I ran myself solo the other day, so I may revisit the idea with players.
← Return to game
Comments
Log in with itch.io to leave a comment.
Also, I've been experimenting with using this system for solo games. Ie. GMing myself.
This' worked really well but I only make rolls for my character, not for NPCs. So while NPCs may have aspects, these are only used for non-combat checks.
Thus in combat, NPCs have resolve which can be reduced, but the combat itself is dictated solely by the rolls of my character, whether those rolls be fail, success with consequence, or etcetera. This' made combat very fast and streamlined.
Hi again. You were right about classes such as 'barbarian' being too broad to use as aspects...
On another note, I was wondering how best to create a mech pilot. Would the Mech itself be a collection of aspects, or would the mech simply be classified as gear, and be represented as a single aspect die on a character sheet?
Thanks again. :)
Hey there:
Would it ruin the game too much if I used classes as aspects as well? So a fantasy character might be: barbarian rank 3, thief rank 2, horse riding rank 2, goblin language rank 1, and swim rank 1 or some such.
Thanks
Generally, the intent is to be more specific than just 'thief' or 'barbarian'. Those are more concepts than Aspects. A lot of the design wants to push you towards using your Aspects, so having them too broad makes it easier to achieve things, and dilutes down the character concept. 'Horse riding' and the rest are good examples though.
That said, as long as everyone is on the same page going in, then you should be good. The worst case is if one person is making narrow Aspects and another is making broad, versatile ones. I'd feel frustrated if my aspects were 'climbing', 'lock-picking', 'sleight of hand', etc., and another player just had 'thief'.
Thanks for your reply!
Yeah I definitely see what you mean. I'll play around with the idea a bit, perhaps reducing the amount of aspects if I include a broad concept as an aspect. Barbarian and thief worked great when I ran myself solo the other day, so I may revisit the idea with players.
Either way, I love these mechanics. :)
I freaking love this game!
Thanks I'm glad you enjoy it!