forums.cubicle7.co.uk
archive

Glorelendil wrote:How about "two or more enchanted qualities" as a rule for "remarkable" items?

It'd be a good baseline example, yes. And it helps with the issue of not wanting to penalise heroes for cultural rewards or other 'starting items'.

- - -- -- - -

I'm still struggling with the Shadow component... should Permanent Shadow be factored in? Should only Flaws be accounted for?

Or should it be ignored?

Personally I don't think it should. The model so far is that Eye of Mordor comes as a trade-off: you get it for playing a powerful race, for carrying powerful items, for using your skills (fishing for AP), for using magic. Getting shadow is already a bad thing; no need to make it worse.

I wouldn't account too many things. The nice thing about the Eye is that it is a lurking menace, that jumps in when the heroes less expect it. If Revelation Episodes occur too often, it loses all its dramatic effect.
That's exactly the problem (or concern) Glorelendil exposed in the first place: that the base Threshold might be so high under certain circumstances, that Revelations occur too often for them to be interesting.

Very good points. Thanks!

Just wanted to add that I think this is brilliant, zed!

This could be the first large house-rule that I incorporate into my campaign, as I love the concept of Eye Awareness, but have experienced the frustration Glorelendil first brought up. My group's Eye Awareness score has become so high that they nearly start every session experiencing a Revelation Episode. And while they're fun to have, making them too common runs the risk Falenthal mentioned: they lose their impact because of their high frequency.

I think I'd lean towards not counting permanent Shadow against heroes as well.

And I like "remarkable items"; I think each Loremaster can develop their own consistency on what items qualify.

Majestic wrote:And I like "remarkable items"; I think each Loremaster can develop their own consistency on what items qualify.

... An important part to consider then is that such a thing would be widely variable between LMs which could throw out the balance of how regular Revelation Episodes occur and the variance would therefore need to be considered as part of any playtest. If it's a consistent rule (ie, defining within this ruleset as to what makes a Remarkable Item) then this wouldn't be the case, which from a design perspective is better. Or, in other words, we already have Rule Zero in place so no need to bake it into the actual design.

Majestic wrote:Just wanted to add that I think this is brilliant, zed!

This could be the first large house-rule that I incorporate into my campaign, as I love the concept of Eye Awareness, but have experienced the frustration Glorelendil first brought up. My group's Eye Awareness score has become so high that they nearly start every session experiencing a Revelation Episode. And while they're fun to have, making them too common runs the risk Falenthal mentioned: they lose their impact because of their high frequency.

High praise indeed! Thank you. And, remember, it's just swapping one optional rule for another one.

I think I'd lean towards not counting permanent Shadow against heroes as well.

And I like "remarkable items"; I think each Loremaster can develop their own consistency on what items qualify.

Thanks. I'm going to spend a little bit of time doing some figuring on final numbers and then I think I will put out a stand-alone version of the rules and incorporate them into the next version of the magic rules.

Rich H wrote:

Majestic wrote:And I like "remarkable items"; I think each Loremaster can develop their own consistency on what items qualify.

... An important part to consider then is that such a thing would be widely variable between LMs which could throw out the balance of how regular Revelation Episodes occur and the variance would therefore need to be considered as part of any playtest. If it's a consistent rule (ie, defining within this ruleset as to what makes a Remarkable Item) then this wouldn't be the case.

Perhaps. But since it affects the starting value, and not the rate of increases, I can't imagine that even drastically different interpretations would vary more than the natural variation of how many Eyes are rolled by a player in a session.

And there will be guidance, I just don't want to set absolutes.

I take your point that they will likely not effect the baseline much; although that depends on what is defined as an item and how many of these items someone has. Do all items add the same amount or do they vary?

zedturtle wrote:And there will be guidance, I just don't want to set absolutes.

Then don't create any rules! I'm being a little facetious, admittedly, but all rules are absolutes - the numbers that you pick for the thresholds for each culture, for example; those currently aren't variable so they are absolutes. My point is we have Rule Zero as a fall back so best to try and design the system with specifics in mind so it can be tested, then people can alter as they see fit. That's what I was getting at - "where you can, define the levers". Players can always tweak through, I dunno, house rules! But, yeah, a little variance in interpretation may be something you're after.

In case it helps clarify, my mental model is '+1 per item, higher end characters might have two items'.

As for fictional analogues, I'm thinking Frodo is +3 (or more - Sting, Armour?, Ring) and Aragorn is +1 (Anduril).