Working on the Book

[DC_Desperado]

OK... not to sound mean or evil or something...

this is the first time i've read this thread and to be completely honest... it made me want to throw up all over the place.... some of the things mentioned here borderline moronic...

1.) nothing in kalarsys should EVER be unsoakable/unblockable. I dont give a damn if you only roll one six or five... six's already have enough going for them... now were just getting way to god damn ridiculous...if it wants to be a house rule... fine... but as for something we want to pass on to others... NO.

2.) I still think that we should keep the role offs between attack and evasion. You guys are saying ( before i got sick of reading) that if I were to attack andy... and his role was just as on par with me as i was him... that i hit anyways.... that i NO way is far to the evader. there has to be a deciding factor that shows clear cut " HIT OR MISS".

3.) The amont of evades a player should get does need modified... I do like in some ways how perilaxis wanted to do evading... and it made me think.... Zain you said that in real life a person would not be able to dodge multiple attacks.... that is bull shit... plain and simple.... i've been in plenty of situations in REAL life were i needed to dodge multiple attacks... it IS possible.... Difficult.... but possible. To me it sounds like everyone wants to increase the value of DMG yet disvalue DEX. I think a persons DEX should be halved round down and thats the number of dodges a character gets against there opponets battle phase... if you want every consecutive dodge to decrease.. fine... I am in no way for punishing a player for having high DEX... if he or she wants to spend there experience on DEX to raise there EVA... then we should be happy to ablige. Players should only obtain merits for there experience... the way everything is sounding a lvl 3 have just has much chance to kill a lvl 7 as a lvl7 does...... That should not happen.... if your character is a dumbass and gets in over there head... fuck 'em... live, learn, do better next time... and most importantly.... heres your new character sheet. Also... if the talespinner throws a lvl 20 demon at lvl 3s...and expects them to win... that talespinner should be shot through the head.

3.) Havent we all talked about this getting copyrighting stuff done... and everyone thought i was moving the game to quickly... what the hell... get it copyrighted END OF DISCUSSION!!!

4.)the so-called Evasion bonus.... I say instead of your sixes going to your VIT... it should instead minus from the opponents DMG.... my reason for this is you may roll a higher VIT pool.. but theres a chance that it wont help you at all.... but if it minused from your oppenents DMG... then the sixes would have done there job of getting you less lethal DMG... of course if the opponent get sixes on his ACC they cancel out... no minuses.

5.) abillities and flaws.... I have a hard enough time with this as it is... but i'll brainstorm some and get back to you on that ^.^

6.)... i cant remember... my brain.. is... fried....ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

[Lurid Sorcerer]

What a delightfully miserable post. Yes, why don't we just insult everyone that's come up with any ideas that we don't necessarily agree with. Saying things like "it made me want to throw up all over the place", and, "some of the things mentioned here borderline moronic", are not excused simply because you say, "not to sound mean or evil or something."

Actually getting into what you had to say, I can see just as many problems as you complained about seeing.

1.) Yes, nothing in Kalarsys should ever be unblockable. Maybe unblockable was the wrong word because I was suggesting that 6s in the defense roll would, in fact, block these. The only difference is that they could be blocked ONLY by 6s in the defense roll. Besides, it was just an idea I had and everyone else seemed against it anyway, so it's already out.

2.) Had you read everything instead of getting sick of reading, you'd have seen my explanation. I have a hard time believing that in Kalarsys it should be impossible to just barely hit someone, that is, to knick them with an attack that is less effective than a direct hit.

3.) I think Perilaxis's rule is fine. You mentioned yourself that dodging multiple attacks is possible but difficult. This is simulated in-game by the increasing evasion penalty for every evasion attempt. It puts plenty of emphasis on Dexterity by allowing swift characters to evade damage more easily than their less nimble counterparts.

3(2).) As I mentioned before, by posting it online with simply (c) 2009 by Andrew Lingenfelter it is copyrighted and I can sue people who steal it. Also, I plan on applying for a registered copyright when I scrape some cash together. It shouldn't take long, but I want to give everyone a chance to contribute. And no, we hadn't discussed copyright, we discussed publication. I'm not turning the game over to some company to produce copies of the book to sell. Copyright just ensures that I have the sole right to make copies of the book, and if someone else tries to take it and claim it as their own, I can sue the shit out of them.

4.) I think ACC 6s increasing Damage and EVA 6s increasing Defense is more consistent and easier to remember. Besides, the overall result probably won't be all that different. Why complicate things more?

5.) The list I mentioned is actually something you helped a lot with, but more suggestions are always welcome.

I hope I didn't go too rough on you, but you did kind of annoy me with the beginning of your post.

[GMidge]

OMG DC!!! i agree with you again!!!! the end ofthe world aswe know it is on its way lmao. i agree 100% of what Dc said.

There is no need to make 6s do anything more, its dumb and as seen in last nights Session with Dc, I got sixes out the ass on my str roll and powned Scott. That battle woulda been over the first hit if sixes were "unsoakable" cause he didnt get any 6s in his vit. Its a weird rule and i believe we should leave it the way we have it.

(Marks on calander that Joe and I agreed again)

[DC_Desperado]

I do owe those of you offended by my last post an apology... I am sorry.

[Zain Winters]

Jan 9, 2010 15:52:57 GMT -5 DC_Desperado said:

I do owe those of you offended by my last post an apology... I am sorry.

best way not to offend is think before you post, sorrys tend to die down as there used

but onto more important matters...well i guess ill be repeating myself, i can see making 6s more special but in the end it is, eh nevermind i already typed all this shit before, just go back a page and read it all <.<

[Lurid Sorcerer]

Don't worry about it too much, DC, but let's try to keep this board a relatively friendly place for people to discuss Kalarsys.

Okay, so let's review:

Example Abilities and Flaws: It's still going to be another week before I get back to school where that notebook is. T_T POOR PLANNING!

"Unblockable" damage: By popular demand, this rule is out. After doing a couple of mock battles with CoF I can see how someone with good rolls could easily stomp someone of similar stats into the ground. Honestly, it's bad enough already. YOU'RE OUT!

Evasion-Bonus Defense: Overall, people seemed to think this was balanced out by the "Unblockable" Damage rule. However, I think it is balanced out by the Accuracy-Bonus Damage rule. Remember that? Probably not because it's never been called that. But we've been using it for a while now, 6s on your accuracy are added dice you get to roll on your Damage. I think having those two rules together balance them out. DISCUSS FURTHER!

Accuracy/Evasion Ties: Some people like the but others don't. I like it because it's faster play-wise, plus I think it is fair to both the attacker and defender. They both got the same score, so the attacker gets to hit, but the evader's efforts are rewarded by having the attacker do less damage. It makes more sense to me than someone who attempts to get out of the way and loses the roll-off being hit just the same as though he was standing still, not bothering to dodge. DISCUSS FURTHER!

Copyright Junk: Okay, everyone calm down, I'm doing it already. Try to scrape up some money for when we next meet. I think I'll add a page at the end of the book to name off everyone who contributed (which will remain in the book if we ever get to the point where we get the book published and sold). In any case, it's going to happen, so everyone chill out. RESOLVED!

Game-play Example: kalarsys.exofire.net/documents/kalarsys_0.7.0.html#gameplay_example Haven't gotten much feed-back about this... READ IT!

New Evasion Rule: After playing with the suggested rules a bit, I'm starting to think that the -1 every time that Perilaxis suggested is not a stiff enough penalty. (And there can certainly be legitimate reasons for being attacked by three or more enemies at a time. Let's not insult each other's Tale Spinning abilities over it, please.) I'm starting to lean more towards what Lt. Pwnage suggested, splitting the evasion in half after successive attempts. I think, however, it should be rounded up because, in Kalarsys, everything else has been rounded up so far, so why complicate things over one die? DISCUSS FURTHER!

Okay, I think I covered about everything.

[Zain Winters]

Evasion bonus defense: eh ill say yes just for the fact that in theory it should help balance things a little more.
Accuracy\evasion ties: yeah id say keep that too. again its more realistic and at least does make evading worthwhile even if you miss. but depending on our evasion rule this could be subject to change.

game play example: i liked it, so where do those names come from again? youve been taunting atleast me with it and you havent answered!. but i do like the example and it should help out the insanely unexperianced.

new evasion rule: eh id still rather have only 1 evasion per turn. i kinda fail to see the attempt unless at much higher levels. but if were going with it defiantly the cutting it in half for each attempt

[DC_Desperado]

Even though we still have alot to debate about I have one more thing to throw into the mix...

Teacher/ Student= In the game that im TS-ing... I have been asked the question... "Since im lvl 6 in *blank* skill... would it be possible for me to teach a player who is trying to learn the same skill?"... sort of like an assassin with lvl 6 Shadow...something... (still havent come up with a perminent name... any thoughts?) teaching an assassin thats a lower lvl in said skill to be better at it... So i said sure you can teach him/her... now to do this.. at the end of the session when exp is given... the teacher can sacrifice his/her exp and give it to the student to spend in the skill only... this is were im having trouble... for now the trade off would be exp= to exp need for advantage point.... but to me .... that seems a little low... should it be doubled?... even tripled.... should there be dice rules to see iof the student even comprehended what was being taught?... and if fail... should the teacher lose exp?

I need a little help with this one... and im eager to see what we come up with.. ^^

[Lurid Sorcerer]

I would just think they'd have to spend a couple of sessions on the training and then the student would then be allowed to spend the experience needed to gain the skill. Here's what the book says about it, though I'm not sure how much it'll help.

"A character can also gain new abilities through the use of experience points. However, a player cannot just pick an ability out of the clear blue sky and throw it on their character sheet. The character must work on this new ability for a significant amount of time before they get the hang of it. For instance, a character that wants to know how to use a bow cannot learn to use one effectively in a single afternoon in the game. Someone must teach them, and they must work at it for a while before the skill can be developed. After this requirement is met, the player can spend 15 of their character's experience points to add the new ability."

[Child of Flame]

I second Lurid's idea...there has to be a significant amount of role-playing involved with learning that ability, and the teacher is an option (meaning that the master of Shadow-whatever doesn't even have to exist; the person who wants that ability could be motivated to learn all by his/herself).

And I would say that if a teacher is there to help, it can be of any ability level. However, the teacher will be unable to teach the student beyond the teacher's current, exact (points in the level) ability level -1.

In example: Let's say Felicia wants to teach Monay how to cook. Felicia has 2 points in her Level 2 Cooking Skill. That means that Felicia can only teach Monay how to cook up to 1 point in the Level 2 Cooking skill. Monay can continue her learning by teaching herself (which I would think would take longer in the long run), or finding someone with a higher ability level.

In any case, in order to be a master of Cooking, she must teach herself (Give me an example of how you became a master of anything in this world just by learning from other people, and not through self-practice and motivation, then I'll rethink this sentence out).

And of course...this has to be explicit and mutual between both characters. One character can't say "I wanna teach this character this" or "I want to learn this from this character" and the other one doesn't WANT to or doesn't realize that the other character wants to teach or be taught.
Secondly, though not explicitly stated in the book, this must be something that the character is doing for a while. You want your character to learn how to cook? Well, when the character has some free time, just state that "my character is going to practice cooking some more".
Or if you want to spice it up (just HOW is your character going about this?), "Leona spots a cooking book and begins reading it." ------ "Ronaldo attempts to make a meal using an egg and some onions."
Simply put...at the end of the session, the player can't say, "oh, well my character was practicing this throughout the game so I'm gonna put it down now" (especially if such a thing was never said throughout the session). In the end, it's up to the talespinner to determine if a character has been practicing enough to earn the ability or not, but the player/character has to be trying, too.

Heavy heavy emphasis on the roleplaying aspect on my part...>.> ...

[Perilaxis]

okay those work for gaining a skill but what about when we have a character who already knows the skill and is getting pointers from a master of said skill to make their own better. example Rathamel has a lvl 4 in let's say digging ditches and his friend Fortisque has a lvl 6 in digging ditches.... Fortisque teaches Rathamel to dig a deeper, wider, cooler looking ditch would (After roleplaying it out) Fortisque give up some of his experience to Rathamel? Would Rathamel get a few extra exp to spend just on digging without cost to Fortisque? how exactly would that particular scenario work, because really Rathamel isn't learning an entirly new skill he is just learning an old one more completely.

[Child of Flame]

I don't understand. Why would the 'teacher' in this case have to sacrifice experience? Why would any teacher be able to freely give experience to their students? You can't give experience away. You learn it. That's the point.

Let's say, in real life, you're really good at being acrobatic and you're a fairly good gymnast and all, and one day when you're about 40 years old or something you start up a gymnast school and share what you have learned and try to teach your students what you have learned throughout your career. There is no sacrificing your own ability for this. A teacher cannot sever his or her limb to make those kids learn how to become more flexible and acrobatic. The children must learn this on their own.

The only sacrifice the teacher is making is setting some time aside for the student every so often. If the teacher has some sort of disadvantage such as selfishness, then perhaps he would take some sort of penalty for having to do such a thing; otherwise, there is no sacrifice.

Sorry if that comes off harsh, but really, the sacrifice is mainly on the Student's head rather than the teacher in most cases. The student must push themselves to learn something new if they so choose it. If they find that it is too hard, then they drop it (this is why so many kids dislike high school so much, you see). No one is going to 'give' them the experience necessary to learn what they need to learn. To me, the idea of the teacher giving experience to the student is like giving them a 'freebie', which just isn't right.

As far as continuing to learn abilities, I don't see why it wouldn't work the same (alas, the book itself makes no real distinction on this, either). If the talespinner thinks you've been using the skill enough, he or she will give you the okay to raise the skill up a little.

Also, there wouldn't be any extra exp to spend on the skill, either. At the end of a session, let's say everyone gets about 15 exp, more or less. It is up to the player of Rathamel in this case to spend 10 of that experience to get another point in digging, or spend it elsewhere. If anybody gets any extra exp, it's probably Fortisque, who might get an extra point or two (really, the amount depends again on the TS at hand) for helping out.

[Zain Winters]

eh well i could see why the teacher doesn't have to sacrifice anything but time, but maybe the teacher wouldn't get as much xp because he isn't doing much other then teaching, but then again he would prolly be demonstrating................then again if the teacher does teach at the end of the session the player has the opportunity to learn the new skill at the cost of his own xp, why not just throw that in as if it becomes available at the end of the session to learn that skill. then nothing is sacrficed at all from either one. although if he doesn't learn the level 1 of that skill at the end then he has to receive training again to be able to learn again?

i do know during that 2 hour convo with lurid in pa, we mentioned skills above level 3 should be taught by a trainer, and at level 4 a bonus\skill\something is added or given as a bonus to being that high. but you need to be trained\side quested by a trainer to get that high.

[Lurid Sorcerer]

Jan 12, 2010 21:12:39 GMT -5 Zain Winters said:

i do know during that 2 hour convo with lurid in pa, we mentioned skills above level 3 should be taught by a trainer, and at level 4 a bonus\skill\something is added or given as a bonus to being that high. but you need to be trained\side quested by a trainer to get that high.

I completely forgot about that rule, actually. Most likely you'd need an instructor to first gain the ability, then getting anything above 3 you'd need to be trained by a master. The training itself would do nothing but allow the player to spend the EXP to buy the skill point.

I don't see why the instructor would have to sacrifice EXP, and besides, it makes things more complicated than they need to be.

[DC_Desperado]

I understand why you dont see why the teacher needs to make a sacrifice of exp to teach. I see the sacrifice as the teacher passing on his/her knowledge to his/her pupil. Its more symbolic. However i dont understand why lvl3 and above have to be taught... I mean that would be saying that your teacher at one time had a teacher ( makes sense) ... but how did the master at the beginning of the chain learn his skills... if there was no master to teach him since he was the start of chain... how would he have past lvl 3? I think that a player can continue to spend exp in all lvls however past lvl 3 would cost more ... and if you went to a teacher... paid some kind of fee, ...past your INT roll to comprehend what was taught... then the Talespinner decides how many point are spent for how much into the level.... but I do agree that a character needs to practice for a while before actually taking lvl 1 in a skill.