SFT's page

@ShadeRaven - Thinking on it more, I think I would agree to straight up remove GM bribery.

The thing that stuck out for me, is that it messes with the power dynamic of the *group*, not just the game. Sure, a lot of groups will have no issue with this, but we've all seen or heard about that GM that is going on a power trip. Even in a group of good friends, it can mess with the social stress of the group. Bleed is a real issue, even if it's more prevalent in LARP than TTRP, and shouldn't be recommended blindly. Even veteran LARPers who 'know better' can struggle with bleed, and they know what they're looking for. A player that doesn't know what to watch out for, in a group that doesn't, and you're risking some really bad times.

Zorae: It's best not to assume everyone is on the same page without saying anything. Not everyone uses the same point buy, uses a point buy at all and/or plays PFS. If you don't SAY what you're talking about how do you expect people to guess it?

If someone is discussing what the default for an option should be, there are four possible courses of action:

1) Assume they are talking about a default from a prior version/other system, and respond accordingly.

2) Assume they are talking about a house rule that you use, and respond accordingly.

3) Assume they are talking about a house rule that you don't use, take a wild guess at what they mean, and respond accordingly.

4) Ask for clarification on the subject you're unsure of.

Option 1 is a reasonable assumption. Option 2 is silly, as they can't possibly know your personal house rule. Option 3 is equally silly.

This leaves us with option 4. If you aren't going to assume the more logical 'default' approach, as it doesn't make sense to you, then it would be best to approach a basis of understanding first. You made an assumption, then found out that your assumption was incorrect. In this situation, I would suggest you accept that your assumption was incorrect, and move on from there. *Don't* blame others for your assumptions.

I think the odd bit for me, is how the system is described as the default.

Yes, the GM-discretion caveat is always applicable, but 'reward for out of game stuff' seems like it should be an explicitly optional (non-default) rule.

While I understand the group is made of players who exist outside of their characters, it's definitely odd that your *character* will perform better based on how you as a player behave (and not how how you pilot the PC). Rather than one from each source, I'd suggest 'max of 2 Hero Points, 1 of which may be from an out-of-game source.'

This allows you to still reward players who focus on RP without making them feel like they have to stop playing the character in order to make sure they're doing their arbitrary out of game 'duty'. There will often be a player who enjoys handling party loot, notes, etc — and I am all for rewarding these players — but it shouldn't limit the other players. An example, many times when I play a PC with less complexity, I'll run more of the party loot/mapping/etc to allow those with cumbersome spellbooks to focus on that aspect of their character. I do this to support the game, including those other players — players who, under this rule, would not have access to the additional Hero Point to use in a suitably dramatic fashion.

The encounter layouts in RSR seem to be missing quite a bit. I don't know if it's things not added or version changes.

In "Snippets", there's no indication of which building they intend to be the barber shop. Sure you can just pick one, but then you end up with a possibly arbitrary balance as you choose how many alley entrances you want.

In "Haven": D, the vines refer you to a nonexistent "S" on the map. D4 refers to a nonexistent D5.

I recall the other two having similar consistency issues with their maps as well.

Secret rolls are useful. I'm still mulling over how 2E handles them, but my thoughts in a nutshell: A roll should be made in secret if the players won't have any way of knowing the effects of that roll.

It can be for any type of check. If the risk of failing stealth is an alarm, there's no reason for a secret check. If the risk is the guards making preparations while you look about, a secret check is in order. If you're making a new cart, you probably have a pretty good idea how it turned out. If you're trying for a quick patch job to fix the cart while the rest of your party is running from the guards, maybe this calls for a secret roll.

Catering to one style at the expense of the others will displace customers.

That is not how game design works at all. Trying to appease everyone means you appease no one. It is far better to have feelings on both extremes than to have everyone ambivalent.

You can have something for everyone, everything for someone. You can't have everything for everyone.

Will this game turn out to be one that you like? Who knows. Will it turn out to be one I like? Same answer. That is quite alright, no game can be for everyone.