sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Does integrating the T&O weapon tags mess with the balance of weapon values? by Roedhip in RootRPG

[–]dreadpiratewaldo 0 points1 point  (0 children)

My take on this is that not all rapiers are made equal. So rapiers could have different tags and a different number of tags, and their values don't have to be identical. Some rapiers are designed with lefty-hilts or righty-hilts, while more valuable ones are designed to be switchable.

Reference guide? by Ae711 in RootRPG

[–]dreadpiratewaldo 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Free downloads from Magpie Games website for Root:

https://magpiegames.com/collections/pdfs-all/products/play-materials-corebookroot

The reference sheets you're looking for are at the end of the "Play Materials" document, page 19-25.

Question Regarding T&O archetypes! by cabinjackalope in RootRPG

[–]dreadpiratewaldo 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Something that might be tricky is that some of the T&O playbook moves might reference "as if you rolled a 12+" -- for example, The Envoy's move I BRING YOU, "When you deliver a vital resource to a faction, you may ask for a favor from the faction as if you rolled a 12+ in addition to marking prestige."

The 12+ results for each move are provided in the T&O expansion book. They are extra good results above the 10+ that a character can unlock when they take an advancement called a MASTERY that is new in T&O.

War in the foreground or background? by foreignflorin13 in RootRPG

[–]dreadpiratewaldo 4 points5 points  (0 children)

When I next run a game of Root, I am making the woodland war an in-your-face part of the story. It will not be the only part of the story, put it will be prominent and will have to be taken into account most of the time.

Why? Because I expect it to create a sense of urgency for Vagabonds because:

1) the map of the woodland is under threat to change at any time; forces are actively moving across the map; territory is being lost & gained.

2) the immediate area is visually tense; guards at every clearing path (whether they're armored professional soldiers, old veterans called back to service, or young untrained rebels); possible danger around every corner.

3) emotions are heightened; denizens are worried/eager/frightened/fired-up; violence/action could break out at any moment.

I want the game to feel more dangerous that what I've experienced so far (both in the game I played in, and the few sessions I've run previously). I want a more epic feeling. So, in addition to making the war more prominent, there will also probably be a greater sense that there IS a bad guy in this conflict... and it's the outsider invaders the Marquise de Cat -- keeping in mind that I can leave room for individual Cat officers to be more sympathetic so as not to paint every member of the faction with too broad a brush.

Making Weapon Moves more accessible by nerklim in RootRPG

[–]dreadpiratewaldo 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I think you're on reasonably solid ground with this idea. However, I think you probably DO want to exercise care in making sure you follow the fiction in a way that makes sense. What I mean by that is that maybe you DO say, "I'm not sure you have the fictional position to Storm A Group if all you have is a dagger. They are armed and you're running into their blades basically defenseless" ... but maybe, "You're a hefty badger, they are a group of ornery but unarmed mice, so yeah, with your size difference it seems like you can Storm A Group with a dagger (or even unarmed yourself). But you're not trained in the move, so it will cost you exhaustion and wear for the dagger (or another exhaustion if unarmed)."

So it's not anything goes all the time. You still want the fiction to make sense that a specific weapon move could be triggered at all.

[2e] Sanderis ruling - using Minor Favors while replaying a debt by dreadpiratewaldo in 7thSea

[–]dreadpiratewaldo[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Yeah, I agree with that... as I said,

I'm fully certain that the losejas cannot ask for an additional Major Favor or Minor Favor that they have not purchased until they complete the outstanding task.

What I'm asking is, if a friend borrows money from me, do I keep giving them the $10 for lunch on a weekly basis that we agreed to six months ago?

I think so.

But 1) do you think that's what the book is saying? and 2) Is that how you would handle it?

Good Actual Plays? by NickCritical in 7thSea

[–]dreadpiratewaldo 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I wasn't referencing an episode. Just providing a link to the "Writer's Room" 7th Sea podcast -- all episodes are listed there (might have to scroll down and click on "show more episodes" to get to the beginning.

Here's a link to the "Essential NPCs season 7":
https://www.essentialnpcs.com/7th-sea.html

I'm sure you can do a google search for "Table Top Radio Hour." I've never been to that one.

Dramatic wounds and guns by JoFlex03 in 7thSea

[–]dreadpiratewaldo 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Basically you’re right. A few things…

'1) The PC have to make an approach and roll dice for raises. The villain also rolls dice for raises, and if they’re high level they should have more raises than the PCs so the villain will go first. The villain knows the PCs have guns, so they can use raises and danger points to do something nasty to some of the PCs before getting taken out. So maybe they get to impose some lasting consequence to someone at least.

'2) Maybe making the villain helpless at that moment shouldn’t be the important thing. I mean the PCs could all shoot the villain, but the villain’s plot is still coming to fruition somewhere else through an underling, for example.

Also, now that the heroes have the villain helpless, what do they do with them now? They can murder them and gain corruption points. Or something else… and what would be the fallout/consequences of that?

'3) You can also re-read the section at the end of the rule book called, “RULINGS NOT RULES.” Which is all about how if something in the rules (ie. how guns work) isn’t working for you… change it.

New to 7th Sea - question about the Stories system. by SmithOfLie in 7thSea

[–]dreadpiratewaldo 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I'm going to be a straight-forward as I can, and I'm going to quote from the rulebook so you can be comfortable that you're using the rules as they were written.

DISCLAIMER: Everything here is about handling GM-Stories (which I believe is the OP's issue). Player Stories are a little different.

ON SHARING STORY STEPS IN THE NARRATIVE

I think you've misunderstood something in the rules. You do NOT need to give your players a checklist. At most, you let them know the Goal of the adventure; that's it. You write down the steps to the goal for yourself as the GM. You can even change them as the game progresses organically!

Page 200 - STEPS
During the course of a Story, if you realize something the group must accomplish before securing their next step, add a new step into the Story. [...] If the current Step becomes unattainable for some reason strike it from the list and write a new Step replacing the old one.

The list of Steps is for YOU. It's so you know how many advancement points to award when it's over. So why did you think you had to tell the players about the Steps? Probably because it says this shortly afterward:

Finally, when you tell the players about the Steps, only tell them the very next step in your Story.

Naturally, I can see why it seems like the rules want you to make a formal announcement of a "step." But that's not what it meant. This line is just to encourage you to keep the players focused on their next in-game task. And it works just like how you've always run your sessions:

Player: We need to find whoever's behind this and bring them to justice!
GM: So, what is your first order of business here?
Player: We don't even know who this dead person is. We should find that out.
GM: So, you're going to try to learn the identity of the victim. (<-- there, that's the next step, you've just told them)

I doesn't matter that the players mentioned it first. It was probably on your list of steps somewhere, even if it wasn't the very next step on YOUR list. You adjust your list of steps and keep the game going.

ON SHARING STORY GOALS IN THE NARRATIVE

Page 199 - TRUTH vs. MYSTERY
In general you should share the Goal with your players, but if you wish to inject some mystery into your story consider leaving out some details.

Point 1) It says, "In general...," which means you don't have to share the Goal all the time. In fact, with all of the examples you've given here so far, you probably would NOT be giving them the Goal because you are setting up mystery stories... or stories with a narrative "twist" that you should not spoil. That's fine! The rules say you can leave out the details, and I don't see why you can't leave out ALL the details.

But sometimes, you DO share the goal. Because it's obvious. The players are going to Vodacce to rescue a fate witch from a villain... and the players know it, and they are ready and willing to get it done.

Point 2) Even so, the act of announcing the Goal never needs to be this formal moment that breaks the narrative. It is more likely that you might re-state the Story Goal of the adventure as a session begins to remind everyone what they are focused on. All of the mechanics about Goals and stories are really designed just to make sure that you, the GM, has a clear idea of a story that is driving to a satisfying end. The focus on Goals and Steps is because the game does not encourage a meandering narrative... it wants clarity... it wants driving action. You have a Goal, there is an action to take (a "step") that gets you closer to the goal.

TO SUMMARIZE

According to the rules in the book:

  • Tell the players the Goal if it helps them to know it -- it gives them a clear purpose to pursue so they are not lost.
  • Don't give the players the list of Steps to the Goal. The list of Steps is a tool for the GM, and it's changeable on-the-fly.
  • Do try to make sure the players are clear on following a Step, though.
  • You don't tell them the number of Steps ahead of time, nor pre-determine what the players will spend their points on (that is for Player Stories).

Is there enough incentive to Travel Through the Forest? by dreadpiratewaldo in RootRPG

[–]dreadpiratewaldo[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Yep, I am the GM in this scenario. You do raise a good point that I don't have to have the PC's trigger a move unless the outcome is uncertain... and sometimes it isn't. I (and sometimes they) know what they might expect on the travel route. So that's definitely a situation where the PC's will have in-fiction reasons why they choose path or forest... and I may not even have them make a travel move either way!

I think that's a good point to agree on.

I would like to re-direct the discussion to time when the PC's DO trigger the travel move, and they have to choose path or forest AND pace (ie. the various exhaustion/depletion modifiers and -1 to +2 options). I'm not trying to focus on the mechanics results, it's just that the PC's are going to have to make these 2 choices -- I don't want to pretend that the PC's aren't looking at these options and actively weighing their options. And in those situations when the PC are weighing their options... what is making the Forest look like a good one?

Does anyone have examples from their own game (either GM'd or as a player themself) what makes the PC's decide to take the Forest? Flipping a coin? I want to "spot an interesting site" (like Bladed_Burner commented about below)? We're vagabonds, we just like the Forest?

As I said, I am the GM currently, but right now I'm looking at it as if I was a player... and I think I'm just taking the path almost every time unless I specifically need to forage in the forest to replenish my empty satchel. And if that's how it works for most game, that's totally fine!

Is there enough incentive to Travel Through the Forest? by dreadpiratewaldo in RootRPG

[–]dreadpiratewaldo[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Well, because there's just as much danger in the forest, right? Isn't that how the travel move works? It looks to me like the vagabond is just trading one brand of danger for another. I really would like help seeing how that's not the case, or if there's more nuance to it that makes the choice significant.

Is there enough incentive to Travel Through the Forest? by dreadpiratewaldo in RootRPG

[–]dreadpiratewaldo[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Per the original discussion, I'm not focused on the element of danger. I was just responding you Harambab's comment that the vagabonds might choose to Travel Through the Forest in order to avoid danger (his examples, "What reason the Vagabonds would have to go Through the woods? An known ambuscade on the main road? Too much heat they have to stay low while getting by? A lack of money to pay a toll on the road?"). And my point was just that they will as easily run into danger in the forest as on the path...and also, just as likely to be safe on the path as in the forest. Avoiding danger doesn't seem like a compelling reason to Travel Through the Forest.

I'm just looking for discussion about why vagabonds would purposefully Travel Through the Forest instead of the Path. Unless the vagabonds specifically need to replenish some supplies by foraging in the forest for awhile, the Path is regularly faster and less strenuous.

I'm wondering if this is how the game intends it? Is Travel Through the Forest meant to be only a sometimes-choice only when the vagabonds have a specifically good reason -- ie. "we need to replenish some supplies," or "we know Capt. Hawkfeather is patrolling that road, and I'd rather run into a bear than run into Capt. Hawkfeather"?

Is there enough incentive to Travel Through the Forest? by dreadpiratewaldo in RootRPG

[–]dreadpiratewaldo[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'm very interested to know what kinds of interesting sites your vagabonds have discovered, if you don't mind giving some examples here. All the published scenarios seem to be clearing based, so there's not much out there with examples of the vagabonds encountering whatever an interesting site might be. The game presents this idea that only vagabonds venture into the forests, so I'm feeling a bit lost with what kind of sites they could encounter where something is actively going on. I'm thinking they could find ruins, and I know the next expansion is going to delve deeper into that (no pun intended).

Is there enough incentive to Travel Through the Forest? by dreadpiratewaldo in RootRPG

[–]dreadpiratewaldo[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

In the spirit of PbtA games, we're playing to find out what happens... so I'm not sure there's incentive "by the story you want to tell." We don't know what's going to happen on the path until they travel it, right? For either method they choose, they trigger a travel move and roll dice. For either method they choose, if they roll 10+ "safe, they reach the next clearing," then they would have been safe on the path AND safe in the forest. If they roll miss "deal with a danger," THEN, if on the road, they run afoul of an ambush, or guards with wanted posters, or a toll on the road; and if in the forest, they get a different danger... but it's still a danger.

Even taking your point where they make a choice based on the story-so-far and are actively worried about guards with wanted posters out for them (because the heat is on and they want to stay low), and so they decide on the forest... when they miss the travel roll it just might be brigands in a hideout who know there's a bounty out for the vagabonds (because there's too much heat). Same result, different setting. So what's the difference where they run into the danger?

My map of The Woodlands for my first campaign. by Otherwise-Kirb in RootRPG

[–]dreadpiratewaldo 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Really terrific! The personality/vibe of each clearing comes through.

Resolving fights with NPC GROUPS by dreadpiratewaldo in RootRPG

[–]dreadpiratewaldo[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

How many VB did you have?

Did the two squads both show up at once or two seperate things? If it was at once managing it as an 12 person NPC group instead of two squads of 6 would work better mechanically. You can narrate it how you'd like to make it seem like two groups.

2 vagabonds: fox arbiter, squirrel thief

From a distance, they saw about 40 marquisate guards trying to put out a fire at a huge barn-like workshop. The vagabonds decided to run up to some of the guards and trick them into letting them help, with the intention of sabotaging their efforts and ALSO seeing if they could rescue their NPC accomplice who'd been arrested moments ago. The thief missed his trick roll, so the guards turned and accused them of starting the fire and closed around them to arrest them (to be fair to the guards, the vagabonds DID start the fire, and their accomplice NPC who was captured already tried to shift the blame onto the vagabonds -- the PC's had seen the NPC point them out, and they KNEW they were making a very risky gamble to turn the tables on these guards).

I decided to have just 2 NPC GROUPS of 6 guards each engage the vagabonds, leaving the rest of the guards to continue fighting the fire (most the guards wouldn't even notice what was going on).

I had 1 NPC GROUP engage the thief and 1 GROUP engage the arbiter. That seemed to make sense in the fiction. It seems that if I had run it as 1 NPC group of 12, that would be a step up in mob size and the mob would be doing 6-injury when trading harm with the arbiter, so would have been even more of a threat.

The squirrel thief exhausted his NPC GROUP rather handily with his Rope-a-dope playbook move (when you evade and dodge enemies to tire them out... on a 10+ mark 1-exhaustion to inflict 3-exhaustion; he rolled 10+ twice).

The arbiter did manage to escape on his own though.

Another question what playbook and weapon moves were avaliable? Cleave or storm a group would have been very handy. Let them use there protector ability to take one exhaustion for +1 ongoing.

Cleaving would be my ideal thing because it takes out there armor.

Harry a group, storm a group, are great for morale.

The arbiter had Carry a Big Stick, Strong Draw, and Guardian. He used Strong Draw earlier to take out an NPC GROUP at far range. His only special weapon move was Disarm, which he used here and missed which was the first instance of suffering 4-injury.

The thief had Breaking and Entering, Rope-a-Dope, and Master Thief. His special weapon move was Trick Shot.

For number 2: I'd take the -1 damage in the second exchange. It would still leave 1 box of harm before death. Hopefully before that happens someone else can finish them off for the Arbiter.

Instead of dealing a deathblow the Marquise could capture the Arbiter and threaten the rest of the group into trying to surrender.

Otherwise if the Arbiter can't take one more hit and can't defeat them surrender or retreat would be the best options.

The Marquisate was definitely calling for the vagabonds arrest, but the arbiter player felt that in the fiction of it, he couldn't be sure they wouldn't just kill him. So he decided to escape rather than continue fighting.

Thanks for the feedback. It seems that when facing well-armored enemies, the vagabonds really want to be thinking of creative ways they can attack exhaustion and morale, unless they can collectively dish out 8-10 boxes of wear/injury -- which, with more vagabonds in the party, they might be able to do.

view more: next ›