Modern AGE.   Posted by The Ageless One.Group: 0
The Ageless One
 GM, 37 posts
 The name is ironic
 Don't get many games
Sat 3 Aug 2019
at 01:18
Re: Modern AGE
ionathas:
In reply to The Ageless One (msg # 12):

Hm. It looks like a sentence or two got deleted. Too bad I can't remember what I was saying. :-J
At any rate, Kits or Archetypes or Templates or Flavors or whatever you want to call them sound like a cool idea to me; although, they tend to be geared toward a particular genre, which Modern Age (at least ostensibly) is not.

Well, that one system does all sorts of templates for a variety of different genres and that's its whole schtick. I think if I were to do something along those lines it contain several templates for several genres.
ionathas
 player, 4 posts
Mon 5 Aug 2019
at 17:55
Re: Modern AGE
In reply to The Ageless One (msg # 14):

Yep. I agree with you, I don't see any reason they shouldn't be included in the book. Green Ronin doesn't seem to share our opinion. In their defense, though, they seem to be consistent: I couldn't find any archetypes in their True20 book, either, and they had much more extensive genre writeups in that one (albeit for fewer separate genres).
The Ageless One
 GM, 38 posts
 The name is ironic
 Don't get many games
Tue 6 Aug 2019
at 05:21
Re: Modern AGE
ionathas:
In reply to The Ageless One (msg # 14):

Yep. I agree with you, I don't see any reason they shouldn't be included in the book.

That's not really the opinion I conveyed, and not really the one I intended to either. I just randomly looked over at the Freeform Character Creation in Companion and then back at how hard it seems sometimes to get a modern AGE game going and though it would be cool to just sort of go at it with a bunch of specific ideas in mind regardless of what should or shouldn't happen with existing documents...

Unless you meant that they should be in a book, not some book that already exists. That actually makes more sense re: what you were agreeing to.

It actually probably has more to do with the fact that I never did get an opinion one way or the other whether I should make a thread so people could write up specific character ideas, and how possibly taking the initiative to write a bunch of concepts/archetypes could serve as a distraction to stave off boredom or whatever.
ionathas
 player, 5 posts
Wed 7 Aug 2019
at 18:08
Re: Modern AGE
In reply to The Ageless One (msg # 16):

Fair enough.
ITC: personally, I find archetypes annoying, dislike them on principle, and always have. I don't even like character classes, so what could I possibly find beneficial about somebody else presuming to make my character for me? I find the whole thing ridiculous and an unconscionable waste of space. However, every player I've ever had loved them, so I allow they're a sensible thing to put in the core book as they effectively convey the feel of character you're trying to express in your system, illuminate ways that you intend for your players to use game mechanics to create common character concepts, and exemplify how math works in your system better than you could in ten solid pages of text.
As far as making them into a standalone supplement apart from the main book, though?
I don't see any point. Making archetypes for a campaign makes sense because they tell players the kinds of PC you want to see. Making archetypes for a campaign setting or a genre supplement makes sense because they convey the kinds of characters to expect inside the setting or genre. Making an archetype to illustrate a particular trick in the character creation system would be useful in the scope of an argument or blog post. Divorced from context, though, all a bunch of character archetypes accomplishes is showing off how you'd make particular character concepts.
On the other hand, I don't like archetypes, personally, and pretty much all the players I've ever had did like them. Conclusion: Sure! Why not? Sounds like something people would like.

As to the other question, I don't currently suffer from boredom and don't have all that much spare time, so I probably wouldn't contribute.
The Ageless One
 GM, 39 posts
 The name is ironic
 Don't get many games
Thu 8 Aug 2019
at 16:26
Re: Modern AGE
ionathas:
I allow they're a sensible thing to put in the core book as they effectively convey the feel of character you're trying to express in your system, illuminate ways that you intend for your players to use game mechanics to create common character concepts, and exemplify how math works in your system better than you could in ten solid pages of text.

I mean backgrounds, professions, and drives do that for Core Modern AGE, I'm just looking for a way that offers a similar number of choices that look easier to make so for example:

  1. Concept is already chosen for you by picking one of these archetypes
  2. Abilities are chosen as the game dictates they be chosen
  3. Companion says you get 3 Ability Focuses. I would give 5-6 options per Archetype and you'd still pick 3
  4. Probably the same for Talents (pick 3 from 5-6)
  5. I'd offer the default two choices for improvements, but a few of the concepts would specifically allow -Health or -Resources explicitly for another improvement.
  6. as is in Companion
  7. as is in Companion
  8. as is in Companion
  9. as is in Companion


quote:
Making an archetype to illustrate a particular trick in the character creation system would be useful in the scope of an argument or blog post.

An archetype, sure. I'm talking about making more like a dozen, +/- up to 3

quote:
Divorced from context, though, all a bunch of character archetypes accomplishes is showing off how you'd make particular character concepts.

The ideal--which I may fail to hit--is that it doesn't show one way to make a bunch of character archetypes. Ideally it shows at least two ways to make each archetype. I haven't started work on it though, and I honestly don't know if or when that could happen.

quote:
As to the other question, I don't currently suffer from boredom and don't have all that much spare time, so I probably wouldn't contribute.

Yeah, probably everyone else is similar which is why nobody decided they wanted to put their characters here.
ionathas
 player, 6 posts
Mon 12 Aug 2019
at 18:10
Re: Modern AGE
Sorry. Been too busy to check RPoL at all the past week.

The Ageless One:
  1. Concept is already chosen for you by picking one of these archetypes
  2. Abilities are chosen as the game dictates they be chosen
  3. Companion says you get 3 Ability Focuses. I would give 5-6 options per Archetype and you'd still pick 3
  4. Probably the same for Talents (pick 3 from 5-6)
  5. I'd offer the default two choices for improvements, but a few of the concepts would specifically allow -Health or -Resources explicitly for another improvement.
  6. as is in Companion
  7. as is in Companion
  8. as is in Companion
  9. as is in Companion


If you're creating archetypes, this seems to me like a reasonable way to do it.

The Ageless One:
quote:
Making an archetype to illustrate a particular trick in the character creation system would be useful in the scope of an argument or blog post.

An archetype, sure. I'm talking about making more like a dozen, +/- up to 3


Making nine archetypes to illustrate one trick in the character creation system would typically be overkill, even for an exceptionally obscure trick. Making fifteen archetypes to illustrate fifteen different tricks would be... pretty much exactly what I already said if it were in the stated context.

The Ageless One:
quote:
Divorced from context, though, all a bunch of character archetypes accomplishes is showing off how you'd make particular character concepts.

The ideal--which I may fail to hit--is that it doesn't show one way to make a bunch of character archetypes. Ideally it shows at least two ways to make each archetype. I haven't started work on it though, and I honestly don't know if or when that could happen.


Then you'd be showing off two ways you'd make particular concepts. The point of contention is that if you made a Glitter Boy and I made a Glitter Boy, they'd be extremely different characters, and there's more than a passing chance that I'd find your character build pointless and boring. Characters I build tend to seem stupid to other players, too, though, so it goes both ways. Unless you're illustrating your own game or campaign, the usefulness of the endeavor seems suspect to me. Personally.
Now, I'm willing to concede the point that I'm anal-retentive about building campaign characters. If I'm planning on caring whether the character lives or dies, I want the character to be optimized my way, not anybody else's. That's for campaign characters, though. If it's a one-shot game, of course, I play whatever and it doesn't matter how the character gets built. Archetypes work okay for those.
But as I said, most people don't share my stubborn obsessiveness. Archetypes seem to work perfectly well for them, so I arrive at the same conclusion as before.
The Ageless One
 GM, 40 posts
 The name is ironic
 Don't get many games
Tue 13 Aug 2019
at 04:12
Re: Modern AGE
ionathas:
The Ageless One:
The ideal--which I may fail to hit--is that it doesn't show one way to make a bunch of character archetypes. Ideally it shows at least two ways to make each archetype. I haven't started work on it though, and I honestly don't know if or when that could happen.


Then you'd be showing off two ways you'd make particular concepts.

The intention is to actually go find a bunch of books for a bunch of different types of games, and point Modern AGE players to the ways Modern AGE deals with the statistics in the other game, so strictly speaking it would be "source+liberties where exact duplication is impossible" with the liberties hopefully being slight. But as you say,

quote:
The point of contention is that if you made a Glitter Boy and I made a Glitter Boy, they'd be extremely different characters, and there's more than a passing chance that I'd find your character build pointless and boring.

You probably find the archetypes or whatever they're called in the respective source materials boring too, so I'm not sure how that helps either way.

The fact that I haven't heard from
  • Someone who might like archetypes but doesn't like what Modern AGE has to work with in that regard
  • Someone who likes how some other game does them and might have insight.
  • Someone who simply has a better idea

isn't really an indicator of whether archetypes are a good or bad idea, or an indicator of whether this suggestion does or doesn't need work for reasons other than your personal bias. Credit to you that it's self admitted though.

And this is not me telling you to shut up by the way, I know sometimes I can come off like that's what I want and it isn't. I was sort of hoping for a variety.

quote:
Characters I build tend to seem stupid to other players, too, though, so it goes both ways. Unless you're illustrating your own game or campaign, the usefulness of the endeavor seems suspect to me. Personally.

That's not really something I understand, but then again I come from a system that does nothing but create archetypes for campaigns that don't exist, and their entire purpose is to provide a baseline off of which to springboard player's unique twist.

quote:
Now, I'm willing to concede the point that I'm anal-retentive about building campaign characters. If I'm planning on caring whether the character lives or dies, I want the character to be optimized my way, not anybody else's. That's for campaign characters, though.

There are markedly fewer ways to skin a cat with the Background/Profession/Drive system tan Companion's Freeform way it seems like. Sounds like the Freeform way ought to be your wheelhouse. Personally I created a scientist with it that would have otherwise been completely impossible to create without it, but who nonetheless existed by virtue of how the story progressed. As a player of that other game, it's a cool thing. You and I from what I can tell, we don't get Choice Paralysis. We walk into every single game we play knowing exactly what we want to play in it. But you're one of 5 people I've ever met who does in the last 19 years... goddamn it's been almost 20 years.

quote:
If it's a one-shot game, of course, I play whatever and it doesn't matter how the character gets built. Archetypes work okay for those.
But as I said, most people don't share my stubborn obsessiveness. Archetypes seem to work perfectly well for them, so I arrive at the same conclusion as before.

which is that you tolerate them I suppose.
ionathas
 player, 7 posts
Tue 20 Aug 2019
at 14:22
Re: Modern AGE
In reply to The Ageless One (msg # 20):

lol guilty on all counts. Sorry, I was prepping for a con last weekend that ate up about 25 hours of my days.
Like you said, point buy is my favorite character creation system by far.

Now, I'll allow that if you're drawing from multiple books to make archetypes that somebody might not have access to otherwise or that show off the options available in the different books, that could be useful. Kinda like a preview of what different options you can get. I do like the sound of that.

At any rate, I've had good and bad experiences making pregens or archetypes for my players, so my experiences are mixed. At the con this past weekend, I was running BESM and one of the players said, "This Esper seems underpowered compared to the other characters. What's up with that?" Now, I'd designed the character to have more raw power than pretty much any of the other pregens, as far as the stats went, but it was also a high schooler so a little lower on the to-hit numbers, so I just kinda scratched my head and said, "Um. Well. It is a point-buy system, so there are a million different ways to make a combat esper. The way you make one might look completely different than the way I made that one." I mean, the esper could fly, for crying out loud. The character had 1000 kg of Telekinesis. It made Jean Grey look like damned amateur hour. What, exactly, did the guy want?
I mean, he was new to the system so it wasn't really his fault, but this is pretty typical in my experience. You make an awesome, generic character that can function well in twelve different ways, and then the player immediately picks it up and runs in the opposite direction with it and then says, "This character sucks. What in the world were you thinking?"
[eye roll]
The Ageless One
 GM, 41 posts
 The name is ironic
 Don't get many games
Tue 20 Aug 2019
at 15:24
Re: Modern AGE
ionathas:
In reply to The Ageless One (msg # 20):

lol guilty on all counts. Sorry, I was prepping for a con last weekend that ate up about 25 hours of my days.
Like you said, point buy is my favorite character creation system by far.

Now, I'll allow that if you're drawing from multiple books to make archetypes that somebody might not have access to otherwise or that show off the options available in the different books, that could be useful. Kinda like a preview of what different options you can get. I do like the sound of that.

Ideally not just multiple books, but hopefully multiple books from multiple sources.

quote:
At any rate, I've had good and bad experiences making pregens or archetypes for my players, so my experiences are mixed. At the con this past weekend, I was running BESM and one of the players said, "This Esper seems underpowered compared to the other characters. What's up with that?" Now, I'd designed the character to have more raw power than pretty much any of the other pregens, as far as the stats went, but it was also a high schooler so a little lower on the to-hit numbers, so I just kinda scratched my head and said, "Um. Well. It is a point-buy system, so there are a million different ways to make a combat esper. The way you make one might look completely different than the way I made that one."

I'd probably have said something like "it's like how a fighter has slightly higher hit probability because of reliable techniques and a barbarian has slightly higher damage because of angst"

quote:
I mean, the esper could fly, for crying out loud. The character had 1000 kg of Telekinesis. It made Jean Grey look like damned amateur hour. What, exactly, did the guy want?
I mean, he was new to the system so it wasn't really his fault, but this is pretty typical in my experience.

I can't answer that in a way that bears exactitude of correctness, but he probably just didn't really know what 2/3 your average car correlated to in damage points? Also the lower hit probability kinda fucks with the knowledge of what's powerful.

quote:
You make an awesome, generic character that can function well in twelve different ways, and then the player immediately picks it up and runs in the opposite direction with it and then says, "This character sucks. What in the world were you thinking?"
[eye roll]

Newbs gonna be newbs no matter what anyone does. I generally don't design for one offs outside my adult material which follows the 80 20 rule. I make generally applicable things actually apply in generalities.
jamat
 player, 26 posts
Fri 13 Sep 2019
at 17:01
Re: Modern AGE
I got threefold very nice looking book now just have to find the time to read it
ionathas
 player, 8 posts
Fri 13 Sep 2019
at 19:10
Re: Modern AGE
In reply to jamat (msg # 23):

Whoa! I hadn't heard about it before, but that does look cool. Let us know how it reads!
jamat
 player, 27 posts
Fri 13 Sep 2019
at 19:56
Re: Modern AGE
It reads well though only flicked through looks great though wife doesn't know it yet but I'll be mostly reading threefold this weekend lol
The Ageless One
 GM, 43 posts
 The name is ironic
 Don't get many games
Fri 13 Sep 2019
at 20:34
Re: Modern AGE
That moment when you wish you had money.
The Ageless One
 GM, 44 posts
 The name is ironic
 Don't get many games
Tue 29 Oct 2019
at 05:35
Re: Modern AGE
I've been working to a point of actually having enough money for Threefold. Should have it next month. If I get it, I might do a game of it. I've also been trying to get some play time done with a few specific character ideas. So far, fruitless. My name in this Discussion Group is literal truth.
jamat
 player, 28 posts
Tue 29 Oct 2019
at 17:17
Re: Modern AGE
If you do set up a threefold game count me in it's a great setting :)

This message was last edited by the player at 17:17, Tue 29 Oct 2019.

The Ageless One
 GM, 45 posts
 The name is ironic
 Don't get many games
Wed 30 Oct 2019
at 23:35
Re: Modern AGE
The last bill I was expecting this month went out and I got out of walmart about 50 bucks cheaper than I expected, so I"ll be reading on it for a little bit. Of those possibly interested in Threefold, are there specific opinions on what type of game to play? I know I'll most likely create a Huldra just to toy with the system.
jamat
 player, 29 posts
Fri 1 Nov 2019
at 10:14
Re: Modern AGE
I see from your GM wanted post you have a copy of threefold :)
The Ageless One
 GM, 46 posts
 The name is ironic
 Don't get many games
Fri 1 Nov 2019
at 14:59
Re: Modern AGE
Also, my last post here

quote:
The last bill I was expecting this month went out and I got out of walmart about 50 bucks cheaper than I expected, so <ui>I"ll be reading on it</u> for a little bit.


Just... I dunno, let me know some stuff I guess :D. My immediate gut reaction toward running one is a Aethon campaign because
1. Lucifer is one of the Machinors rather than an Inimical or Alastor.
2. I like the idea of a grand conspiracy earth where all the conspiracies people think about the real earth are either dead wrong, or came about for a different reason (occult significance behind JFK's death because he was going to reveal the secret or whatever)

But I'm not about to shy away from a game other players are interested in. 2 days reading and I've only read to the Huldra (I initially looked over the ancestries without actually reading heavily into them) so far, and I gotta say I really like that (unlike the People of Companions) the Ancestries actually replace background features to the extent that the player likes (i.e. more player freedom). I super want to play a Huldra.
jamat
 player, 30 posts
Fri 1 Nov 2019
at 18:36
Re: Modern AGE
I quite like the Dreygur with armoured hide and natural weapons basically a demon :)
The Ageless One
 GM, 47 posts
 The name is ironic
 Don't get many games
Fri 1 Nov 2019
at 18:59
Re: Modern AGE
I had similar thoughts when I looked it over, except making a succubus with fearful symmetry instead of armored hide... possibly modified where the communication specialization is Seduction...

But of course, me being who I am, ya know... Huldra :D
The Ageless One
 GM, 48 posts
 The name is ironic
 Don't get many games
Mon 4 Nov 2019
at 03:52
Re: Modern AGE
Current Threefold ideas:
Sodality "Academy Days"- Players are students of the Sodality. I don't have anything specific, but totally considering just letting missions that occur build up to a cohesive storyline. The "Chalk Branch" and other rumors of strife within Vitane are of particular interest.

Worldline Deleted- The game starts off in an apocalyptic scenario. Some scientists discover there's about to be an asteroid impact, or solar mass ejection or something. They're trying to get humanity to massive Arks being constructed in the hopes of seeding mars. Lo and behold, they're actually headed toward primeline, because the whole thing is being orchestrated by the Primeline Machinors. Players would effectively be VIPs. We have two options with this one. Either make the Apocalypse and race to the Arks a major part of the game, or have the intro comprise the apocalypse and start off on Primeline with the players having just crossed into it.

Alternately, the deletion can be more directly attempted with Aethon posing as aliens. The players win, but will only discover Aethon involvement if they investigate crashed ships or somehow go aboard the mothership.

Otherworld Heterarchy: Western Arcana- This worldline doesn't know anything about Aethon or the Sodality but they are aware of interplanar travel because magic is more readily apparent in this world. This was brought on by the use of the Gutenberg Press to print spellbooks for given arcana, and sometimes all the arcana mages knew. Talents, backgrounds, and Specializations might need reskinning to scrape off the threefold specific references. (I originally wrote the setting for GURPS)


thoughts?

Also, has Threefold discussion progressed to the point I should start a thread for it?

This message was last edited by the GM at 17:12, Mon 04 Nov 2019.

The Ageless One
 GM, 49 posts
 The name is ironic
 Don't get many games
Sun 16 Feb 2020
at 06:47
Re: Modern AGE
Don't know how well this would work out, but...

Spend Every Resource Point
  • Instead of purchase TNs, you lower resource for every purchase you make.
  • The amount of Resource Spending an item costs is (Old TN/2 rounded up)-3. So TN 7 items cost 1 Resource 9 costs you 2, and so on up to... Well, I feel like 17 is the highest in the book, that'd be 8.5 or 9 minus 3 or 6.
  • The amount of Spendy Resources players start with is 3 more than usual

The Ageless One
 GM, 53 posts
 The name is ironic
 Don't get many games
Mon 30 Mar 2020
at 03:03
Re: Modern AGE
So I wrote that post apocalypse thing if anyone cares. Ended up with Freeform Character Creation as the go to method, instead of those archetypes I considered. What can I say? Modern AGE Threefold distracted me and I ran with it.
jamat
 player, 36 posts
Sun 14 Jun 2020
at 20:46
Re: Modern AGE
Hi guys

Just thought I'd drop in and check everyone is safe and well.

Still in lockdown here and working from homr.

Reading modern age in my spare time and enjoying it :)
The Ageless One
 GM, 54 posts
 The name is ironic
 Don't get many games
Tue 16 Jun 2020
at 02:30
Re: Modern AGE
I'm semi-safe, but my state is hitting a second wave. Haven't been doing as much with AGE lately since BESM 4 came out, but I haven't completely abandoned it and don't plan to. I owe the GRP folks an updated version of the post apocalyptic thing that doesn't contain any exact text from an existing AGE document.