Quote from: Seanchai;361141People say that about a host of games.

Seanchai

There are degrees, though.  Exalted is on the very cusp.  RIFTS is salvageable but almost in the deep end.  Stuff like 4e and Savage Worlds are a safe distance from the edge -- you have to actively try to break those games, and even then the results aren't going to be nearly as devastating.

Quote from: Peregrin;361148There are degrees, though.

Yes, but, again, everyone think their prejudices and problems are more important, pervasive, etc., than those of the next guy.

Seanchai

Quote from: Seanchai;361208Yes, but, again, everyone think their prejudices and problems are more important, pervasive, etc., than those of the next guy.

Seanchai

But there are some things you can judge objectively, especially when it comes to intent of design vs. what the design actually causes to happen at the table.  Otherwise there wouldn't be any reason for them to do complete revisions of entire charmsets, or release any errata at all.  There are mechanics that are just poorly written or devised.  A lot of the problems that exist with Exalted didn't become issues in my campaign, or not to the extent people make them out to be, but I understand the rules and I can see why those things are important issues to address and how they can affect even the most non-powergamey campaign.

A guy named FatR wrote six rants about Exalted here, all of which I agree with. If any design that goes into Exalted 3rd edition is influenced by what FatR says, Exalted 3E would be a better game because of it.

Quote from: Peregrin;361214But there are some things you can judge objectively, especially when it comes to intent of design vs. what the design actually causes to happen at the table.

Again, they all say that. "It's not my opinion - it's objective reality." I'm sure some of it is, but only some.

Seanchai

Quote from: Seanchai;361357Again, they all say that. "It's not my opinion - it's objective reality." I'm sure some of it is, but only some.

Seanchai

Yes.  It's that "some" I'm talking about.  If there wasn't that "some", you wouldn't need to playtest anything.  Perfect example: D&D didn't do high-action heroic fantasy well since it was still deeply seated in its gritty pulp roots, so they changed that and made 4e better suit that style of play.  That's not the style of play everyone wants, especially since it ends up being combat-focused, but I can say for a fact D&D 4e does that better than 3e.

The problem with Exalted is that it's so schizo in what it wants to be it doesn't do anything remarkably well.  It's a Storyteller game, so it's supposed to be all about the story and the characters.  But then along the way, someone decided it would be a good idea to make the game pursue an almost ludicrous amount of sim design.  And social combat was added to facilitate non-combat encounters, but as long as there is a combat-focused character present the game will always default to might-makes-right because a character focused on combat will always lose to a social focused character in a social encounter -- there's no reason not to declare that you're going to Join Battle if you know for a fact the guy across the room with the silver tongue is going to fuck with your mind.  Not to mention that Social Combat also drains your essence, so doing it before a fight is risky since you'll be less effective -- you're not going to engage in an act of diplomacy if the guy you're talking to may assault you and you'll need that extra bit of power just to survive with your body intact.

It's not a horrible system by any means, especially if you pursue specific styles of play and are wary of what's broken.  But the problem is it doesn't do what it says it does (epic character-focused fast-paced wuxia action stories), which is where a lot of the dissatisfaction from fans/ex-fans comes from.