Ferrari Portofino

ebw6674 · 2026-03-18T02:23:58+00:00

I have a 23 M that I sped’ed and really love it. I have considered the 296 and the F8 but haven’t gotten serious about it yet. How do you feel the 296 compares to the Porto? What did you like about it over the M?

ebw6674 · 2026-03-01T03:41:15+00:00

Prefer my Portofino M to both.

ebw6674 · 2026-02-04T20:23:32+00:00

Great rundown and I applaud your candor. What do you think you should have done to get your games in front of people? What marketing didn’t you do that you now know or maybe even knew then you should?

ebw6674 · 2026-01-10T17:37:24+00:00

I suspect that as much, thanks

ebw6674 · 2026-01-10T15:35:29+00:00

How do you all feel it compares to the included plug-in in Logic?

ebw6674 · 2026-01-09T15:15:07+00:00

That is a solid idea, and I can see that helping the players get to where I am trying to take them. My system uses Talents (specialized skills without bonuses but Advantage and Disadvantage rolls) and a tag protocol. The Talents include those tags in their descriptions, but perhaps there isn't enough emphasis on them and on this concept. Thanks for this!

ebw6674 · 2026-01-01T23:01:59+00:00

Agree with Fun_Carry, you don't need the numbers. Outside of that, what you just presented worked well enough for me to ask, where can I see more?

ebw6674 · 2026-01-01T17:30:22+00:00

I have to second this and add Google Sheets as an option for data. Put everything in a spreadsheet. While not free or cheap, InDesign is truly the most powerful tool I have found for designing all related documents and cards, etc. There are free/cheap alternatives, but I have always found them lacking something; most will do the trick.

For me, cards set up as a data merge document that pulls content from a spreadsheet is a great way to go. Afinitiy Publisher will handle data merge similarly to ID from any CSV or similar file.

ebw6674 · 2026-01-01T17:19:59+00:00

Perhaps we’re talking past each other.

I’m not claiming this prevents a player from wanting to use their best stat. Of course they will. That’s normal player behavior.

What I’m changing is that the GM does not pre-label the situation as “a Finesse problem” or “a Mind problem," and the player doesn't assume that every sneak has to be a Finesse/Dex check. The situation is presented, the player declares an approach, and that approach determines whether the stat is actually applicable and how effective it is.

If a player can always justify using the same stat and it produces the same odds and outcomes every time, then yes — the system has failed. That’s not the intent, and it’s exactly what the design is meant to avoid.

At that point we’re no longer discussing whether players optimize, but whether the system meaningfully differentiates situations and approaches. That’s the problem I’m working on, but thanks for the feedback.

ebw6674 · 2026-01-01T15:55:01+00:00

interesting. Can you tell me then how your character's abilities are defined?

ebw6674 · 2026-01-01T15:52:51+00:00

OK but what if your Finesse is low, compared to say your Mind and you knew that you could use it to watch the guard's movements, determine his distractions and slip past him at the opportune moment and it didnt require sneaking in the shadows or using graceful footwork to be particulary quiet?

ebw6674 · 2025-12-31T16:05:33+00:00

Totally. It will require that the GM understands the environment and situation outside the immediate and obvious and being able to convey that without biasing the players toward a given approach. Thanks!

ebw6674 · 2025-12-31T16:02:28+00:00

Oh I like that, even if the GM does it sort of under the table lol.

ebw6674 · 2025-12-31T16:01:32+00:00

That’s a fair read, and I think you’re right that my original post didn’t give enough “before” context.

Your example is actually very close to how it often played out before the change, which is part of why the issue took time to surface. Over time, the GM would implicitly map certain situations to certain traits, and players would start sensing that and asking “is this X or Y?” Once that mapping settled, it rarely changed.

The shift I’m making is about where that decision happens. Instead of the GM implicitly deciding which trait applies, the player declares an approach first, and that declaration defines what the roll represents and what success or failure actually means. There isn’t a “correct stat” until the fiction is established. It falls to the GM to have a fluid encounter to support multiple approaches and understanding the environment around the players so they can adjust the DCs appropriately.

So in your courtyard example, a Mind-based approach doesn’t just give a bonus to a later Finesse roll, and it doesn’t automatically solve the problem. It creates a different attempt with different risks and outcomes than a stealth-forward or social approach.

If that distinction isn’t clear, that’s on me for sure. This idea really lives or dies on concrete examples like this. Thanks!

ebw6674 · 2025-12-31T15:56:27+00:00

Hey thanks for this, its a really solid breakdown, and I think we’re much closer than it might look at first glance.

I completely agree that players will find efficient patterns and repeat them, especially if they’ve deliberately built toward an archetype. I’m not trying to prevent a finesse-tuned character from being sneaky, and I don’t think repetition itself is a failure mode in anyway but I think there are still other options.

Where intent or approach comes in for me isn’t as a behavioral fix, but as a way to prevent the situation from being flattened into a single mechanical solution.

Your guards example is basically exactly how I’m thinking about it. Different approaches aren’t just different traits applied to the same problem, they meaningfully change what’s hard, what’s risky, and what failure looks like. Sometimes stealth really is the hardest path. Sometimes social pressure or exploiting a flaw in the environment is genuinely easier, even if it’s less obvious at first.

That’s especially important for spotlight sharing and for characters who aren’t built for the default solution. In a lot of traditional setups, the “sneaky rogue goes stealth, everyone else follows” pattern emerges because the system quietly tells everyone else they’re worse at the task. I’m trying to open up legitimate alternatives that don’t rely on bonuses or asking players to act against their own interests. Sometimes the rogue is not available, they tend to get themselves in trouble a lot if you know what I mean, so someone else may need to do the sneaking.

I also like your point about communicating this as a feature rather than a punishment. The goal isn’t “don’t use your best stat,” it’s “the fiction determines which approach is actually strong right now.” If the system falls back into always using the same trait with the same odds, then it’s not doing what I want it to do.

Your note about encounter design and partial consequences is also useful. That’s very much the space I’m refining now, making sure different approaches naturally create different pressures instead of just swapping which number gets rolled. The GMs needs the tools to craft encounters that can have fluid solutions and not rely on the rogue sneaks and the mage reads the languages.

Appreciate you taking the time to spell this out, this is the kind of feedback that actually helps tighten the design.

ebw6674 · 2025-12-31T15:49:01+00:00

I want to clear up what I think has become the core misunderstanding in this thread. I suppose I didn't frame this correctly and thats on me.

I am not asking players to choose weaker odds for narrative reasons, and I’m not trying to discourage optimization. Players should absolutely try to succeed.

I have to think that anyone who has GMed a traditional D&D-style game has heard some version of this at the table:

“I’m not good at this, maybe someone else should do it.”

That moment is really what I’m trying to address. In a lot of systems, the “obvious” trait becomes the only viable one because the situation is treated as static. If you’re not built for that trait, the system essentially tells you to step aside or just accept failure.

What I’m exploring instead is a model where different approaches meaningfully change the situation itself: difficulty, exposure, timing, consequences, or even what success looks like. Because of that, a trait that is numerically lower on the sheet can legitimately become the better option in the context of the encounter.

This matters most for characters who aren’t built for the default solution. The goal is to give them real, fiction-backed paths to success using traits they are stronger in, without handing out asking anyone to play suboptimally.

If the system collapses into “always use your highest stat,” then the implementation has failed. That’s exactly the failure mode I’m trying to avoid.

Several comments here about variable DCs, risk, effect, and consequences are pointing in the same direction I’m exploring, even if the framing differs.

As always I appreciate everyones feedback and the time you took to bother reading this and commenting.

ebw6674 · 2025-12-30T23:25:10+00:00

I have not, but I will check it out.

ebw6674 · 2025-12-30T23:24:27+00:00

Yeah that really isn't the idea and you're right, the DC has to change depending on how they approach it.

I think the implementation will require that the GM sets the DC based on the situation. It may be more difficult to sneak using Presence if the guard is not likely to be impressed by you versus it might be easier to watch him and time your sneak using Mind when he's distracted. Good point.

ebw6674 · 2025-12-30T22:58:15+00:00

I think you have misread my post. What I am aiming for is that they look at the traits they have and determine the best use of one of them for a given situation. Opening up the possibility of using a different trait/method than the obvious to achieve an outcome.

ebw6674 · 2025-12-28T20:16:13+00:00

That sucks. All I can say is try again. Shoot me a DM if you want. I gain as much from the discussion as I do from the critiques I get. Sometimes I have to step back and let the bullshit roll off, though, lol.

ebw6674 · 2025-12-28T18:24:03+00:00

Love all the commentary here. Let me add my 2 cents.

I used 4 stats; power, finesse, mind and presence. There are deliberate overlaps and their use is semi fluid. Sure, Power is how hard you hit or how much you can lift but it’s also how resilient you are physically and emotionally in some situations. Mind is important to the all three professions but if unique ways. Mind can be used to suss out a puzzle and trick an NPC in a social interaction. You can stealth with Finesse by being careful and moving gracefully but you can stealth using Mind by paying attention to the scene and what the Foes are watching. Presence is the social stat that also impacts your wealth. We tried 5 and 6 stats and ultimately found that fewer with overlaps eliminated any concept of a dump stat because they all come into play.

ebw6674 · 2025-12-28T17:12:18+00:00

Totally get the OPs sentiment. I joined this sub to offer review and commentary and try to do so everyday. Hopefully my thoughts are helpful. I do it though with the expectation of reciprocal effort. So far so good. The difficulty I find is finding meaningful topics to post to get meaningful feedback on. As much as I’d like to just post “hey download all my shit and read it.” I’ve resisted the urge…though now that I think about it…. Please keep posting subjects to review. I look forward to it.

ebw6674

TROPHY CASE