Some players like a clear delineation of power in RPGs, Blu.  The Players take care of their characters, and their actions, while the GM handles the world and the NPCs, and that's it.

My current table is like that.  And I suggested trying out other games, like Marvel Heroic Roleplaying with them.

Quote from: Shipyard Locked;910499Just for further data, the tabletop podcast Under Discussion also examined the second edition alongside the 1st edition in this episode:

https://soundcloud.com/underdiscussion/ud223-7th-sea-part-two

QuoteCOOL!  Thanks for the tip.  Will definitely listen.

Ok, I've made it about 2/3rd of the way through.  Hoping to finish it tonight.  But something just feels off about their whole play experience.  Especially the way the describe the GM "setting the scene" and the players "interacting" with it.  When I ran my game, I ran it like any other RPG and it seemed to hold together ok.  They sound like they did something VERY different.  Like maybe the GM just really put it all out there as opposed to running it like you would with any other RPG.  I dunno.  I'm not going to say they did it wrong, but it sounds like they approached play different than I did.  Maybe the last :15 will shed some light on that.

Tom

Quote from: KingCheops;910048It is?  Holy crap my group must be pretty barbaric then.

I think you mean "Historically accurate".

Quote from: Blusponge;910508I'm very comfortable at this stage throwing out target numbers and such.  This game forces me – as the GM – to think in a different way.  After 35+ years of regular RPG play, that makes it an interesting challenge.

I love this. I feel the same way about 2nd edition.

I've decided I'll probably have to run FATE core before I attempt 7th Sea 2nd, if I ever do.

Quote from: Shipyard Locked;911216I've decided I'll probably have to run FATE core before I attempt 7th Sea 2nd, if I ever do.

What about playing it?

I'm going to run it a couple times at GenCon. I've played it but not run it so far. A bit nervous, I admit since there are plenty of things about the setting and new rules that I should know better by now.

Anyways, after Gen Con I might consider running a session online for some of the folks interested in trying it out.

Quote from: Orphan81;910502My problem is I just can't get into 2nd eds rules changes. I like most of the setting changes (most, not all. Making Dranchenesien only for monster hunting was dumb. I don't like the changes to Vesten either)

But the system.. I really wanted to like it, but I can't. Neither can my group, just to storygamey for us.

There's a thread in Other Games right now talking about the definition of StoryGame.  Can you describe here, (in as much detail as you can) what mechanics are turning you off, why you think that is, and what specifically do you mean by "StoryGamey".  Pretty sure I know what you mean, and a lot of others do too, but history's shown us that someone will probably be along shortly to deny that claim vociferously, so specifics would be appreciated.

Quote from: CRKrueger;911220There's a thread in Other Games right now talking about the definition of StoryGame.  Can you describe here, (in as much detail as you can) what mechanics are turning you off, why you think that is, and what specifically do you mean by "StoryGamey".  Pretty sure I know what you mean, and a lot of others do too, but history's shown us that someone will probably be along shortly to deny that claim vociferously, so specifics would be appreciated.

Well, like everything in this sort of vein, the definitions can get a little fuzzy, but I will try to articulate as best I can... This is my experience and the experience of the group I run for..

Now every RPG seems to exist on a scale that runs between board game to 'spinnin yarns round the fire'... The further you go toward 'Spinnin Yarns' the more "Storey gamey' your game is...while the closer to board game, well the more "board gamey" your game is...

Now, in a "Traditional" RPG, the GM has complete control of the world, The NPC's and the interpretation of how a character's actions are carried out. The Players only have control of their characters... Adding more narrative control to the players pushes things closer to more story gaming...but this isn't always bad...Sometimes this can fit certain games well.... Adventure allowed PC's to spend "Inspiration" points to scene edit...and the GM always had final say. The bigger the scene edit, the more inspiration points you had to spend.. Other than that, however, the game was a traditional RPG...powers and PC abilities are defined and have a set result in the game when applied.

Now let's talk about Fate for a moment. Fate also allows the PC's to scene edit to a degree... while also making PC abilities very very wibbly wobbly... This is another aspect of Story Games... PC abilities are more vaguely defined, and are more categorized by their "Narrative" power, than mechanical in game aspects... For example... In a game of Fate Dresden Files... A Vampire Character might have a +2 aspect of "In Darkness" representing their vampiric ability to fight better in the dark..

The problem becomes, it only applies for the first round, then ceases to be anything else...Meanwhile in Vampire a PC can have Auspex and just see in the dark when ever they want, from round to round and keep it's benefits... even use them outside of combat...Fate is less about playing a game, and more about telling a story.. The aspects are related to that, and the flow of the game is about that... It's closer to 'spinning yarns'.

Which brings up another aspect of traditional RPG versus Story Game...Win/Lose and "Game" conditions. In the traditional game, the story doesn't matter..The dice dictate what happens. The party can have a tpk and end a long running campaign, right at the good part.. Spinnin yarns is just about telling the most interesting story you can... What a lot of these Story Games do, is push more and more power toward "Telling an interesting story" at the expense of the game aspects...

Most GM's I know, exercise some control over the dice...fudging here and there in the interest of the story...and yet, they do allow players to fail, they do allow characters to fail...for the story to have a bad ending..This leads to far more excitement when the players are doing well...when they begin to "win", and the dice are hot. It's a very different feeling from playing a Story Game where you fail forward...

It also leads to different kinds of thinking for the players... In story games with "aspects" and other such abilities that are narrative...the players stop thinking in terms of their PC and what they can do, and more in terms of how to bend the story and play to their advantage... they stop being "actors" and more become "writers"....I know for many players it's a jarring experience because it brings them out of immersion...

So bringing this all together toward 7th Sea 2nd ed and why my players and I aren't hot about it. You have wibbly wobbly rules, lots of narrative control for the players, fail forward, and all the other aspects of story gaming we don't like. It doesn't matter at all what weapon you use in the game, as all weapons do the same damage. PC's can say they're using pelvic thrusts as their attack and it does the same damage as a great sword.. The use of Raises on both the PC and GM side allow for ridiculous reality warping.. a specific example in the book involving a burning building describes the GM using a raise to create a secret room for the villain to escape in... Now of course a good GM is going to curtail this kinda stuff...but there's nothing stopping a PC from saying "I use my raises to discover a T-Rex hiding in an alley and ride it to safety!" Or from saying all of their attacks are eye lasers...because again, damage is based on raises, not on weapons..

Throw in the fail forward mechanic where the GM needs to constantly come up with consequences all of the time...when in a lot of RPG's just having the character fail at the task should be enough...It leads to ridiculous things like the lock picking example, "1 raise unlocks it, but you'll uh, need 1 extra to not alert the guards and 1 extra not to get a poison needle in the hand!" It leads to needing to throw poison needles and other ridiculous things everywhere because the GM needs to keep coming up with consequences..Hero Dice flow like water as well, and spending them for a fellow PC gives them 3 extra so you have scene edits going all over the place and PC's never really being in tight spots..

Then, when you get through all of these very simple mechanics, you get hit with the Villain rules...Suddenly we take a game that's very rules lite and throw in this detailed mathematical system for the Villain involving how many henchman, lieutenants and holdings they have, and how to spend points for more..It seems really out of place considering everything else..

Oh god.  Was the setting this bad in 1st edition too?  The writing is atrocious, loses focus, and despite saying it's different than Europe is exactly the same as Europe of the period.

I suspect we always just played fantasy Europe.

Quote from: Nihilistic Mind;911219What about playing it?

I might be up for that. I've never had an opportunity to be a player in 7th Sea or any swashbuckling game. Would this be skype or play by post?

Sameoldji talks about 7th Sea 2nd Edition in https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dGGEKGBQIFo as far as what's involved. Sounds like it can be played just fine without messing with FATE first at all.

Quote from: Shipyard Locked;911536I might be up for that. I've never had an opportunity to be a player in 7th Sea or any swashbuckling game. Would this be skype or play by post?

I'd run it through skype.

My play report for the two sessions I ran at Gen Con:

It went great! Everyone had a good time, so my primary goal was achieved. I had a varying level of experience among players, some being familiar with first, second, and new to 7th Sea, with a good mix in each group. They all took to it rather well, understanding the basics really easily. With the same scenario/adventure set-up, the groups responded to the situation (attempting to get a letter implicating the PCs in a plot against l'Empereur) in very drastically different ways from one group to the other, which kept things interesting for me, since running the same adventure over and over could have gotten boring.

The system played out fluidly, coming up with Consequences on the fly was pretty easy because everything is situational. We got to use Opportunities, Pressure and dealing with Consequences easily. No problem there.
The only issue I encountered was with a group trying to catch the villain as she was escaping. In the system, the person with the most Raises goes first. One of the PCs was actively trying to catch up, while the other 3 PCs were finding ways to hinder the escape of the villain and aid their fellow PC in the pursuit (throwing dishes at her, tugging on the runner rug the villain is standing on, finding the best route for the pursuing PC to take and relaying that info to him).
The Villain had 9 raises, the pursuing PC had 8, the other PCs who were helping had 4, 3 and 2 raises respectively. I don't know if I missed a ruling about working together, but essentially, after the villain spent 8 of her 9 Raises on escaping (I set aside the last Raise for her to use Porté to get out), it would have been the pursuing PC's turn, and he wanted to spend all 8 Raises on keeping up with her. After that the action went to the other PCs actions, helping the pursuing PC or hindering the Villain.
This order of play was weird in that particular moment, so I ended up backtracking and letting the PCs helping spend their actions first, giving the pursuing PC some actions to catch the Villain in the end. It's possible I missed a rule on how PCs work together, if they can pool their raises together or whatnot, but either way, it worked out by making a ruling on the spot.

One group got corruption points too, so that was interesting to see that come up as well.

Everyone had a blast!

So after three punt runs and numerous discussions I've come to the conclusion that...

The game is about informed choices rather than investigation.

Like Dogs in the Vineyard this is a 'fact forward' game where discovery is all but inevitable if not thrown in your face and the possibilities explicitly spelled out. This makes many stories about investigation difficult if not impossible to dramatize. What's important are the decisions you make in light of what you know. So it's not about finding who killed the Count, but bringing them to justice. It's not about finding your lost father, but resolving your differences. It's not about knowing the alchemical formula, but bringing the ingredients together.

The game is about matching wits with the GM.

As a player you should be challenging the GM with your input like you would in Baron Munchhausen. So fail when they expect you to succeed. Create situations which force them to make choices. Accidentally drop those keys in the gutter and trip over a dead rat in the rain. In other words, fuck with them as hard as they're supposed to be fucking with you and see how well they keep up.

And the reason I've come to these conclusions is I entered the mind of John Wick and managed to find my way out (or did I). If there's any failing, it's that the game doesn't clearly explain John's mindset, and you need other books and perhaps an improv class or two to figure it out.

Well that, and the unnecessarily complex dice rolling system which ultimately fails to do what it was designed to.

Quote from: Shipyard Locked;902398For the record, I think adding Sarmatia was a good idea, but it sounds like he's excessively in love with the damn place and it's sucking up a lot of creative oxygen. Someone in the playtest has compared it to a "Mary Sue" nation, which makes me worry.

I agree, but don't care, as I'm 50% Polish/Lithuanian

#OurTimeInNow

Quote from: Shipyard Locked;902398On a purely personal note, I'm one of the few 7th Sea GMs who felt that the New World was not necessary because the game made it clear you were supposed to fill the western sea with mysterious islands of adventure for those ships and pirates to go to, and I did.

I fear this game will explicitly spell everything out like the late White Wolf books did too.

Quote from: Bren;905157RPG politics are so vicious because the stakes are so low.

What stakes?

Quote from: Blusponge;905169I'm not gonna tell someone else how to spend their spare time.  But if that's a thing you do with large game books, I think you might be doing it wrong.

There is such thing as badwrongfun when those actions are driven by fear, the need for validation, and neurosis.

Ultimately I'm sympathetic, but can't discount the harm she's causing in the process.

Quote from: Shipyard Locked;905192Ok, after numerous google searches over the past few days I have to wonder: Is it just me, or is this game getting very little buzz online for what is supposed to be the most successful RPG kickstarter thus far?

I think most people got it simply because the deal was insanely good.

Quote from: James Gillen;905744The book presents a good example how this works: You're in a burning building and you need to get from one end of the room to another.  Consequences of failure are 2 Wounds.  There is also an Opportunity (you recognize an important document on the table).  Simply running across the room is 1 Raise.  Avoiding being burned is 1 Raise per Wound (up to 2) and scoring the document (the Opportunity) requires another raise.  Thus the dice pool you use requires you to get 4 Raises in total to both get through the room unharmed and get the document, and getting less Raises basically requires you (as PC) to determine your priorities.

From what I gather saying you fail doesn't mean you haven't taken action but that you haven't achieved your intent. So what happens if your action is your intent? After all, you can't take fire damage if you never run through that burning room.

Quote from: JesterRaiin;905782The greatest difference between Therah and Europe? Diversity! Gender equality! Not magic, not difference in religions, history and even landmass. It's diversity and gender equality. Precious.

I have to agree. And the nations feel far more similar than they did previously, and not in a good way.

Quote from: JesterRaiin;905782GM is once again addressed as "she", even if - I'm quite sure about that - the number of female GMs is quite low, FAR lower than female players and it produces a glitch in my brain each time I see it. Forced inclusivity, much?

Probably, but this pronouns issue has reached such epic levels of stupidity that I literally don't care which ones are used to refer to anyone (including myself) anymore. Instead of 31 flavors (some of which are cultural appropriation) America just desperately needs a single gender neutral pronoun at this point.

Quote from: Blusponge;905812So now he needs to make a choice.  Is it more important for him to get to the top fast and quiet, knowing that it will give the villain an advantage against him, or does he soak the wounds and take the wall slow and easy?

But what's informing those choices?

Quote from: Blusponge;905815Because I WANT kids to look at an RPG book and imagine themselves in those situations, and I don't want them to imagine themselves as european male knights in shining armor.

I've never felt the need to play a character which was a facsimile of myself, nor have the representations in games ever been a deterrent to play. In fact the whole point was I got to play someone who wasn't me. Different races, genders, and political dispositions were all open to exploration until recently, and now the simple act of playing them has the potential to lose me 'friends' and make a statement I don't intend.

So I get what you're saying and back your sentiment, but I'm not sure we've made progress as a whole.

Quote from: Blusponge;905823Now, here's the part that makes this a lot of FUN.  If one of the other players has enough raises, he might be able to turn misfortune into opportunity.  So if one player slips and alerts the guards, player B might take advantage of the opportunity to get up the wall faster and sneak up behind the distracted guards.

Where in the book does it say suffering a Consequence creates an Opportunity for other players?

Because it should

Quote from: Blusponge;905825Since you can usually expect the player to roll 1 raise for every two dice in the pool, you have a good idea how many consequences its going to take to make things risky.  If the player has a dice pool of 6, you know you want to throw out 3 consequences if an opportunity is going to mean anything.  But all of the players in a group task (like climbing the wall or running through a burning room) face the same consequences.

I suspect most GMs are setting the Consequences based on the skill level of the character taking the Risk, which means the higher that level, the more Consequences that character will face. So high skills ultimately make your character more interesting rather than success more likely (at least outside opposed rolls, which are a whole other can of spaghetti), and that requires a major shift in perspective for most gamers.

But then we get to Sequences involving multiple characters where the GM can't do that. I suspect they'll go for the middle here too, but doing so means working in a group makes things easier for those with higher skills (who will consistently be able to buy off Consequences) while simultaneously making things harder for those with lower skills (who won't).

I wish the game had more to say on this.

Quote from: Shipyard Locked;905868The character advancement system is entirely based around players writing their own multi-step quests, then imposing them on the GM, who has to figure out how to weave all that together with a central narrative while also constantly thinking up roll consequences and other improv the system demands. Just imagine trying to make that work with a group of five PCs or more.

The problem is the book doesn't really provide any practical methods or techniques to do this.

Quote from: Shipyard Locked;905868Bitterly disappointed in Hexenwerk sorcery.

Quote from: Blusponge;905900I really don't want to go for snark here but...how is necromancy revolving around the undead a surprise.

It's not the theme but the limitations which are the problem.

On the one hand sorceries like Sanderis rely on the GM to balance. On the other sorceries like Hexenwerk seem to be heavily balanced by the system. I wish the game would make up its mind.

Quote from: Shipyard Locked;905868The new Sanderis sorcery grants a starting character the ability to destroy a city or do "anything" of a similar level in exchange for a growing risk of turning into a villain NPC and a 'favor' (an evil quest that ensures the sorcerer gets to hog the spotlight even more for a while and almost certainly increases his chances of turning into an NPC).

Quote from: Blusponge;905900But seeing as the GM sets the parameters of the deal, I fail to see how its so game breaking?

The major favors are so much like advancement stories that they should be treated as such and discussed with the whole group before pursued. So I'm not too worried about those. It's the minor favors I find potentially problematic.

Again, this is something I wish the game was more clear on.

Quote from: Shipyard Locked;905930So what if there's a small chance of turning into a villain NPC, thereby throwing yet another huge wrench into any attempt to maintain some semblance of a coherent campaign? Lots of players live for that kind of brush with raw power, that kind of risk, that kind of attention. It's an "everyone look at me!" button. What a great gaming story that will make later, forgetting how the campaign fell apart shortly afterward due to GM burn-out.

Then that's their story, and how the game is designed to work.

#EverybodyGetsOne

Quote from: Shipyard Locked;905999I'm just baffled that Wick fucked this up.

Same here, and I think it's largely due to facing a transition period where he's still getting his bearings.

Quote from: Shipyard Locked;905999Entire villages abandoning their work to trek to some distant parliament and vote their whims?

I'm less concerned with plausibility than the story potential in either keeping them from voting or making sure they can make it to the polls

Quote from: Shipyard Locked;905999Speaking of which, what has stopped not-Polish sorcerer dictators from using Sanderis to take over the world? Nothing in the rules or flavor text holds Sanderis villains back.

Good question.

Quote from: RPGPundit;908442As far as the historical Polish Commonwealth, [*snip*]

Thanks for the history lesson.

I also find it funny how much the 'left' seems infatuated with democracy when they see themselves as a minority and many of the most important rights issues (abortion, Interracial marriage, same-sex marriage) were decided not by popular vote but by nine folks wearing black robes interpreting an ancient document. And even when Women's Suffrage was decided by vote, it was the Republicans for and the Democrats against.

#DoomedToRepeatIt

Quote from: Shipyard Locked;909994I genuinely wonder what percentage of the game's fan base would consciously admit one of their main reasons for playing it is because it allows them to play some ersatz historical swashbuckling without having to engage with the icky values of their ancestors.

All of them?

I think that's kinda the point.

Good post Adderlan.

Quote from: Anon Adderlan;912160What stakes?

There are two answers to this question.

   (1) Exactly.

(2) If you don't know what the stakes are then you just aren't taking all this seriously enough, which means you are part of the problem...plus privilege and SJWs.

QuoteFrom what I gather saying you fail doesn't mean you haven't taken action but that you haven't achieved your intent. So what happens if your action is your intent? After all, you can't take fire damage if you never run through that burning room.

Remember, you started out inside a burning building. So not running through fire isn't a viable option. Unless you succeed in getting out of the building, you will burn to death. I would think that, how much you succeed by, determines if you get out with or without getting burnt (wounded) in the process.