Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Justice and Rule" data-source="post: 9405869" data-attributes="member: 6778210">It already does, it just doesn't give a set out scale. You can temper things to the situation as you like. Remember that we're already talking about a system where it doesn't ask you to add modifiers together, it simply says &quot;You take the worst modifier of these three aspects and go&quot; so creating a bunch of modifiers to add together isn't exactly what the system is about. If you want to create a more complex VP subsystem, okay, but that's just the influence subsystem from the GMG. It's good to have that, but I don't think the system should necessarily be built around that.But maybe they don't want specific rules because they want the GM to have some level of flexibility in what is an exploration action? This is a roleplay skill, not a combat skill, and thus I'm guessing they want to give GMs more leeway in how that stuff functions.I mean, you say under &quot;a very specific circumstances&quot; but the three big Coercion feats eliminate1) The Language/Spoken Penalty you're talking about2) The Group Penalty3) The Time Penaltyall three of which you talk about as modifiers, so I feel like your description of the feats is at odds with how you are actually trying to pitch your solution. I also like the style of those feats way more than &quot;Here's a generic bonus&quot;, not only for flavor but also because giving out generalized bonuses in a game where that clashes with the general design.Edit: Technically Intimidating Glare is for Demoralize rather than Coerce, but my point largely stands.You're complaining about them giving a starting &quot;scope&quot; and &quot;duration&quot;. That's not granularity as much as a basic framework.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Justice and Rule, post: 9405869, member: 6778210"] It already does, it just doesn't give a set out scale. You can temper things to the situation as you like. Remember that we're already talking about a system where it doesn't ask you to add modifiers together, it simply says "You take the worst modifier of these three aspects and go" so creating a bunch of modifiers to add together isn't exactly what the system is about. If you want to create a more complex VP subsystem, okay, but that's just the influence subsystem from the GMG. It's good to have that, but I don't think the system should necessarily be [I]built [/I]around that. But maybe they don't want specific rules because they want the GM to have some level of flexibility in what is an [I]exploration[/I] action? This is a roleplay skill, not a combat skill, and thus I'm guessing they want to give GMs more leeway in how that stuff functions. I mean, you say under "a very specific circumstances" but the three big Coercion feats eliminate 1) The Language/Spoken Penalty you're talking about 2) The Group Penalty 3) The Time Penalty all three of which you talk about as modifiers, so I feel like your description of the feats is at odds with how you are actually trying to pitch your solution. I also like the style of those feats way more than "Here's a generic bonus", not only for flavor but also because giving out generalized bonuses in a game where that clashes with the general design. Edit: Technically [I]Intimidating Glare [/I]is for Demoralize rather than Coerce, but my point largely stands. You're complaining about them giving a starting "scope" and "duration". That's not granularity as much as a basic framework. [/QUOTE]

Verification