Game Mechanics - Open Discussion

305 posts / 0 new
Last post
o11o1 o11o1's picture
eaton wrote:So, one question

eaton wrote:
So, one question that came up in the playtest was the "Negate a social gaffe" Moxie Point ability. IT feels like an odd ability, as it's the only one of ALL the point actions that is basically about reversing a bad out-of-character decision using an in-character stat/ability.

A couple of the players suggested it would be more interesting if the ability allowed a player to spend Moxie negating a different character's social gaffe, rather than just their own. Haven't thought too much about it, but agreed that that ability seemed not to fit as well as the others.

To me that seems not unlike Insights ability to generate a useful Clue even after your regular Investigation checks have turned up squat

A slight smell of ions....

eaton eaton's picture
Quote:To me that seems not

Quote:
To me that seems not unlike Insights ability to generate a useful Clue even after your regular Investigation checks have turned up squat

Well... the system as it currently stands is different because it isn't bypassing or reversing the effects of a bad *roll* but a bad Player *decision.* for example, is it about ignroing consequences of, say, insulting an Uplift with an ignorant joke about calamari? "rewinding" a a Persuade check if you fail? Retconning an ill-advised attempt at blackmail? Is it a "get out of jail free card", or a "get out of insufficient OOC knowledge" card?

I suppose I'd like some additional clarity, or something that brings it in line with most of the other Point abilities.

RobBoyle RobBoyle's picture
The negate a gaffe rule is in

The negate a gaffe rule is in there for two distinct reasons. The first has to do with differing play styles when it comes to social interactions. Some GMs prefer the let the dice to do the talking. Other GMs expect their players to do the requisite chatting. The latter sort of forces players to roleplay, but the reality is that not all players possess the social skills their characters are supposed to. Personally I prefer the middle ground -- if players want to chat it up, great, I may modify the roll based on how they do. But I'm also fine with doing rolls. I don't believe in penalizing players for being introverts or less social, though. So if someone does try, but they aren't as suave as their character should be, I think they should have a chance to fix that in case they mess up.

The second reason is because EP is a complex setting. There's a lot for new players to absorb. A player less familiar with the setting is more likely to make a social gaffe than someone more familiar. So in that sense, it's a guiding tool, in the same way that GMs can call for Know skills tests to fill players in on things their PCs would know about the setting. Same goes for Insight for clues and Flex for narrative control -- we are not all secret agents and won't always be able to anticipate things we might need on a mission that our trained PCs probably would have thought of.

Rob Boyle :: Posthuman Studios

RobBoyle RobBoyle's picture
Just a quick note that I'll

Just a quick note that I'll be locking this thread shortly, as it's getting long, and we'll have a new iteration of the playtest rules up soon.

Rob Boyle :: Posthuman Studios

Pages

Topic locked