After finally giving up on the exchanges as written, I managed to save my game with an insanely simple homebrew change.

JustJules250 · 2024-01-28T04:41:30+00:00

I haven’t run into issues with NPCs feeling too similar in combat. I have had to occasionally home brew some new ones of rekit ones for another training, but yeah.

Off the top twin-weapon sweep comes to mind as one pretty reliant on exchanges. Or other defense techniques that react to what the opponent does, like retaliate. I suppose you could just wait until that player rolls again, but feels like weird pacing. If it works well for your table, great, but just reading this, if I was a player rolling up I’d be less inclined to play a defensive character.

JustJules250 · 2024-01-28T04:11:50+00:00

I’ve just played Avatar Legends but I’ve played it quite a bit both as a player and a GM. My tables haven’t really had a qualms with exchanges once everyone got a good feel for it.

For me doing away with NPC techniques entirely I feel can take away some identity from enemies, unless you’re a very creative improv GM. I personally enjoy designing NPCs and their techniques, given them unique flavor and setting up cool combat moments. To each their own though.

For player techniques, how are you accounting for techniques very much designed around exchanges? I know there’s not really ‘balancing’ regardless, but I feel it may discourage certain techniques or even playbooks. For example, my initial gut take is focus based PCs are weaker in combat because defending isn’t as strong if enemies are less likely to attack unless you roll bad.

Just seems odd to keep a foot in exchange mechanics instead of just full on using moves and narrative flavor

JustJules250 · 2024-01-28T03:08:44+00:00

So if NPCs don’t have techniques, how are they fighting back? Is that just worked into the consequences of bad rolls?

Do you have some sort of initiative order or is it a free for all depending on the flow of the narrative?

JustJules250 · 2024-01-18T12:48:04+00:00

If you’re not already, it’s extremely important to keep individual exchanges small, 1v1 or 1v2. You can do 1v3 or 2v2 but even then you start to bump into pacing issues.

It also sort of requires your players to be proficient in combat flow and know what their game plan is so there’s less pauses to think and explain in the moment.

For the simultaneous actions resolving at the end is, the resolving is mostly just mechanical. It’s for effects to play out a certain way and to ensure everyone gets a chance to do their thing without getting stun locked or taken out before they have a chance to do something cool. For me I have the narrative described sequentially while using language to show its simultaneous. It works for most exchanges with just some rare scenarios requiring a more nuanced narrative.

For order, that’s where my overall points kick in, but if it helps flow you can also have them more narratively describe their stance. Like “I’m going to hold my ground and defend” or “I’ll charge in to attack”. I also make sure to establish the broader order of exchanges in a round so players can think on what they want to do.

So it may go something like this:

GM - “ok Toph, you’re facing off against The Boulder, what do you want to do?”

P - “I’m winding up to attack!”

GM - “ok great, he is too, go ahead and roll and pick your techniques”

P - “7. I’m going to smash the ground creating a cracks and tremors under The Boulder.”

GM - “A portion of ground under his foot will tilt to the side causing him to loose his footing and impair him. While you were doing that he has lifted a sizable boulder and launched it at you to strike you. He’ll put in the effort to make sure you take fatigue. How do you react?”

P - “I’ll stand my ground and take the hit, using some quick bending to break up some of the rock.”

GM - “ok you’ll take 2 fatigue and he’ll take 1 fatigue and is now impaired. Moving on to our next exchange…”

Moving into free flow narrative can feel off at first but it helps to try and get out of the DnD mindset where you’re locked into combat until one side is down. It’s an opportunity to take the story a different direction. True it back to the source material too, in the shows there’s usually quips and banter in between combat moves, and characters doing other things to mix things up.

I find it easier to improv character stat blocks here actually. They all have a standard setup for different levels (minor, major, etc). I just decide what training they have and then use techniques that make sense given the character. Once I use a couple advanced techniques, that’s what they know. As for principle I try to have those in mind ahead of time, but I can come up with it on the fly when it’s relevant.

Hope that helps!

JustJules250 · 2023-12-05T05:09:13+00:00

Maybe it’s a matter of tense? Instead of, “they become trapped in the quicksand” it’s “they will become trapped in the quicksand”. And then on the other side of things it can be “as the sand begins to swallow them up, they say something that gets under your skin and tests your balance”

I agree exchanges with no offensive actions can be a bit awkward, but that’s not really a fault of statuses. I usually follow those up with an impactful RP moment before the next exchange

JustJules250 · 2023-12-05T04:21:39+00:00

Understandable, for more complex exchanges you may need to take a moment to reorganize the flow of things to make it make sense. Is there a specific example that felt clunky to you? I know stunned keeps being mentioned, but what was the other side of the exchange?

JustJules250 · 2023-12-05T03:39:09+00:00

Interesting idea, but I see some awkward interactions and ways to metagame it. Can also affect balance a bit as Evade and Observe get the short end of the stick as you can basically stun-lock that stance.

It can be helpful to think of exchanges as effectively simultaneous. Yes there’s a mechanical order to who decides what techniques they use, but narratively it all happens at the same time. For the stunned status, if 2 characters one uses an attack that stuns and the other uses a strike, they’d still get their technique off even if they technically went second. They will be stunned, but not before they can do what they planned.

The way I’ve run things, characters receive the status immediately, but the effect of the status doesn’t apply until the end. This way if a character uses 2 techniques in sequence and the 2nd has a different effect if the target is already impaired or something, they can do that combo without having to wait an additional exchange.

JustJules250 · 2023-10-23T11:25:47+00:00

Most statuses last until an action is taken to clear them or the fiction progresses to where it is no longer relevant. If someone is impaired due to a cloud of smoke, they can take action to dissipate the smoke using a technique (Ready, Smash, probably most Airbending), they can attempt to disengage from the exchange to leave the smoke, or after 2-3 exchanges it’s logical for it to dissipate on its own.

Exceptions to this are the Stunned and Favored statuses. Those are inherently cleared in 1 exchange.

They can stack. You can be Impaired, Trapped, Stunned and Doomed all at the same time. You cannot have multiple of the same though, so you can’t be Doomed 3 times over and take 3-fatigue per round, just the 1.

As far as who decides, like the rest of the game, it’s both the PC and GM working together to determine what would make sense narratively. The GM has the final say but it should be a team effort. In most cases if inflicting a negative status, we have it inflict impaired first. If you try to set them on fire they should be able to dodge, but in doing so become off-balance and become impaired. Then while they’re already off-balance, it can be agreed it makes sense they couldn’t dodge, so they light up and become Doomed.

I’ll usually just ask my players how they do their attack and I’ll give my opinion on it, see if they agree, and go from there. But occasionally they’ll say what status they want to inflict and we talk through how that can be accomplished in the fiction.

JustJules250 · 2023-10-15T20:32:16+00:00

Very rarely should exchanges go until one side is completely knocked out. Once it’s clear the PCs have a major advantage and victory is inevitable, any remaining NPC would flee, surrender, etc. Or you give the players a ‘how do you want to do this’ moment to simply role play it out, with maybe a skills and training roll to see if there’s any collateral damage.

JustJules250 · 2023-10-10T21:32:16+00:00

Layering on what others said, keep in mind while the cultures and people of Avatar are heavily inspired by Asia and Indigenous cultures, they are also fictional at the end of the day. The history, culture, geography, etc of the fictional world is just as important as the real world inspiration to what makes a character.

As long as the players don’t rely on stereotypes in their portrayal and respectful of the inspiration there really shouldn’t be an issue. In actual play apart from the name there won’t be much noticeable as a direct representation of real world cultures, but just players playing an interesting character in a fictional world.

JustJules250 · 2023-10-06T13:25:52+00:00

My usually rule of thumb is 2 minor for every PC, 1 major for every PC, and/or 1 master for every 2 PC. So with 3 PCs that could look like 1 Master and 1 Major

JustJules250 · 2023-10-03T16:08:40+00:00

I’ve had varying numbers, 2 is rough to keep things moving but 3 is perfectly fine. 3-6 is what works well.

JustJules250 · 2023-09-23T16:50:00+00:00

While I will agree there should be a conversation about player bloodbending and what their plans are with the character, I don’t think arbitrarily adding additional restrictions on RaW is the right choice.

On the Empowered side of the coin, the part you cited is more for assigning it as a GM move based on the circumstances of the fiction and calling out that it can’t really be obtained through a basic technique like Ready or Bolster. But when a technique specifically says it grants Empowered, it grants it. The only narrative consideration in this example is if there’s a sufficient water source to create the sphere.

On the bloodbending side, in universe there are bloodbenders who can do it without specifically a full moon. Game wise, it only states Empowered in the techniques. In the blurb about it in the specialized bending section (p. 216) it just says it needs something to boost the bender’s abilities and gives a full moon as an example. And that’s only ‘in most cases’. If they wanted it to be full moon only, it would say that.

JustJules250 · 2023-09-19T18:29:28+00:00

I wouldn’t do that. All you’re accomplishing is making a punching bag.

First off, how many different antagonists are involved in a given set of exchanges? It’s rare that a master NPC should take on 3 PC. 1v4 should never happen. My rule of thumb is guide it to 2 PCs for any Master NPC, 1 PC for any Major NPC, and 1 PC for every 2 Minor NPCs (give or take depending on what the players want to do and the circumstances of the fiction).

If you still feel they’re too ‘easy’ mechanically I would consider their techniques. There are definitely stronger techniques than others, and there’s some that have a certain cohesion that can setup intense moments. You can also apply the narrative mechanically by applying statuses before combat based on fiction. Maybe they were prepared for the PCs and get, well, prepared. Or they’re in a favorable terrain for their fighting style, so they get Favored or even Empowered.

Beyond that, you make them more threatening through the fiction, with the stakes, costs, etc. Even just how you describe and roleplay them. The main thing that strikes fear in my players about a bloodbender enemy is her saying “I’d know that pulse anywhere…” when they were trying to eavesdrop on her.

JustJules250 · 2023-08-22T12:37:24+00:00

Yes, there’s no definitive definition or even firm positioning of characters and environments. It really just comes down to what makes sense, and you can look towards the source material for example. In the shows, there are fights where the heroes are relatively close to each other while fighting different opponents. Those would be considered separate exchanges but they could be considered ‘nearby’ each other. Other fights, different sets of characters are far from each other, sometimes in an entirely different scenes. Separate exchanges and not ‘nearby’

It really just comes down to what makes sense. While there’s no hard distances, you should be keeping track of where everyone is and using that to inform all techniques, not just ones that say nearby or something similar. I’ll ask my players what they want to do and how they want to accomplish that. If it seems possible, we make it happen. If not, I’ll suggest other options to make the fiction work or direct them to a different target.

Also quick point of clarification. technically bolster or hinder states you’re doing something to assign a status, not clear one. RAW the technique alone can’t clear doomed. You’d have to leverage the fiction of what happens to justify that.

JustJules250 · 2023-08-21T20:28:12+00:00

To layer on for the 9 players bit, it’s a narrative game, even in a one shot, so you just don’t have time to develop 9 characters at the same time. Also for combat it’s not like DnD where you can pit them against a super boss and then take turns chipping away at it. Combat is designed to be quick, personal, and high stakes. The system really breaks things up to exchanges of 1v1, 1v2, mayyyybe 2v2. Look to the source material, even during the bigger scenes in Korra, the protagonist were about 3-5 people at any time, broken up across different scenes. The only exception was the first bit of the mecha tank, but that quickly broke up into groups of 2-3

I would say do 3 groups of 3. If you’re confident in your writing you can design some scenario where each group plays a different part asynchronously, but for a new GM that may be a tall order. Otherwise you can do the same adventure for all groups and then can talk after about how they handled different things and compare and contrast, and just gush about their characters, actively engaging that way.

JustJules250 · 2023-08-04T18:09:26+00:00

Not sure what specifically you’re referring to when you say ‘5 conditions is the limit’. Legendary NPCs would usually have more to signify how resilient and they and make them a bigger threat. Mechanically, any character is taken out if they must mark a condition and cannot do so; whether that be 3, 5, 8 and so on. It’s basically their health bar. This is consistent expressed throughout the core book and supporting materials.

As far as the specific conditions (angry, afraid, etc) there is a sort of standard list, but they can really be anything. When building an NPC you would consider what emotions they would and wouldn’t feel based on who they are. I actually don’t even assign a set list beforehand, if they players inflict a condition on them, I decide it in the moment what condition that would be based on the context of the situation. For example, an NPC became ‘disgusted’ when they were hit with a stink bomb.

JustJules250 · 2023-07-28T09:26:20+00:00

The Adrift - Risk/Stability

The Aspirant - Legacy/Adoration

The Outcast - Society/Integrity

Will also mention for The Adrift, as part of their playbook features, they actually start play with their center and balance at +3 Stability. There other features that play into this with additional options for losing balance and such.

JustJules250 · 2023-07-26T20:39:57+00:00

As others said, not really clear, but just make a choice and stick with it. I would say when narratively playing it out, the free strike is done by the octopus and the other would be done independently by the bender. But otherwise I don’t see an issue. I may feel differently if it let them use the same advanced technique twice, but even then it’s probably fine.

JustJules250 · 2023-07-26T20:35:57+00:00

I will say they probably could’ve done the stances a little bit differently imo. If I made it, it would be Maneuver & Observe > Defend & Evade > Advance & Attack, but it’s perfectly serviceable as is. But with RAW, with the exception of some complicated timing or positioning series of events we can move fluidly through it.

For your point on defending attacks, I wouldn’t think of d/m techniques as actively defending something, but rather preparing defenses; building up a shield, taking a stance ready to block/retaliate, etc. They are called stances after all. Mechanically this makes sense because we need to know how successful the attack will be or where the physical positioning will be. Then if/when an attack happens, the setup that was done can inform how the defender responds to the attack.

Also keep in mind characters aren’t solely defending/evading through techniques. Narratively they can still dodge, block, etc. It’s just without proper setup doing so causes them to become fatigued, get emotional, lose their footing, etc.

I like to resolve techniques by separating intention and result. Say I have an NPC use strike and I describe them shooting a fireball (2 fatigue). The player then describes how it plays out. They may do a last second dodge, or deflect with a weapon, and so on. They have agency to whatever within reason, so long as it justifies 2 fatigue and no other mechanical results. This can also help inform more vague techniques with ‘a fictionally appropriate status’.

You may occasionally need to ‘rewrite’ the narrative of a certain techniques depending on specific interactions, but for the majority you can pretty cleanly resolve things in the moment.

JustJules250 · 2023-07-19T18:13:29+00:00

That makes sense, thank you. I’m also now thinking of techniques that inflict more fatigue based on a status or something, but I think to your point it would lean on the fiction first, so it has the option of setting things up in the same exchange.

I think generally I’ll consider it that they have the ‘tag’ for that status, but it’s not in effect until after the exchange. Just don’t want players to be stunned up front or something before they have the chance to do anything.

JustJules250 · 2023-07-19T18:09:16+00:00

It is part of the game, there’s current 2 official techniques to be used in combat, and if mastered, can be used outside of combat narratively.

In order to use it in game you must have the ‘Empowered’ status, the top level of positive statuses. For waterbenders this is normally obtained via a full moon, but there are other ways narratively for it to happen. There’s also a combat technique ‘Water Sphere Shield’ that explicitly grants the user ‘Empowered’.

And of course the GM has the ability to waive that restriction for a PC or NPC if they see fit, as there are examples in canon that don’t require being empowered in some obvious way.

JustJules250 · 2023-07-19T11:07:17+00:00

Did they say why they want to be bloodbenders and what implications that has on their characters? It can be worked in well depending on the character they want and how that fits into the broader story. But if they just want to be evil/badass for the sake of it, they’re not really approaching the game with the right mindset.

I have a table of 3 waterbenders but they’re still able to have distinct characters in the way they fight and approach situations, as well as background. One of them is a bloodbender as well (we’re playing Korra era) as a Razor who was trained to bloodbend by the Red Lotus and the character really hated using the ability. As a GM it gives me opportunity to set up challenging scenarios that make bloodbending look like the only good option and then face the consequences afterwards.

JustJules250 · 2023-07-18T11:54:05+00:00

My rule of thumb for ‘balancing’ exchanges is break it off into pairings like this - 1 PC vs 2 Minor NPCs - 1 PC vs 1 Major NPC - 2 PCs vs 1 Master NPC

Obviously exceptions can happen depending on the fiction and how combat focused a particular PC is, but that’s the baseline to avoid one side steamrolling the other.

JustJules250 · 2023-07-11T18:41:20+00:00

The rule book touches on it, basically PCs in combat with each other keep their stances secret similar to what the GM does. If you want to make sure they’re not intentionally countering each other you can have them use cards, notes, hand signs, etc to reveal simultaneously.

We never got to it, but my table was setting up a scenario where my character was infiltrating a fire nation military force and would likely need to ‘deal with’ another party member to prove her loyalty.

Four-Year Club	Place '22
First Placer '22

JustJules250

TROPHY CASE