Jump to content
[[Template core/front/profile/profileHeader is throwing an error. This theme may be out of date. Run the support tool in the AdminCP to restore the default theme.]]

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About HorizonTheTransient

  • Rank
    NPC

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Some of you might remember how, a few years ago, Sprocket posted this thread. To summarize, he was working on and recruiting writers for an Aberrant fanbook centering around sex in the Nova Age. However, his free time has since run out, and the project lies fallow. However, I've talked to him about the project quite recently, and while he probably won't be returning to it anytime soon, he was okay with the prospect of passing the project to me to finish. So! Now that we're giving this thing another shot, I'd like to invite you all to contribute your own perspectives to the project. Some things to keep in mind, however: This book will be about sex, but it will not be a guide to writing pornography. This book is not going to be an extended dirty joke, like some other sex-related sourcebooks published for RPGs. This book will contain exactly zero sexualization of children. Yes, teenagers count as children for this purpose. The rest of the rules are flexible and amenable to some exceptions. This one absolutely is not. Now, some of you may be thinking, "It's all well and good to say you'd like our perspectives on the project, but how are we supposed to give those in a forum without seeing what's already written?" That's a fair question, and it's one I've been thinking about, too. Then it occurred to me to solicit character writeups. See, pretty much every Aberrant fanbook, and a few official books, have sample characters inside, along with a few paragraphs of bio. Obviously, this tradition would continue with Aberrant: The Sex Book(working title), and it occurred to me that pretty much everyone who plays Aberrant is able to write up a character sheet with a short bio. So, if you want to contribute, just PM me a character sheet and a writeup, with the understanding that I will edit your submission, and it probably will go into a freely-distributed fanbook. Some rough guidelines for character writeup submissions: Your writeup should feature a long Background section, talking about the character's backstory and history, a shorter but still substantial Roleplaying Tips section, describing the character's outward mannerisms, motivations, and other details necessary for understanding how they actually behave, and a short physical description. Also, obviously, a complete character sheet, with all of their stats filled out. Try to go for longer rather than shorter. If it's too long, I can just trim it; if it's too short, then I'll have to add to it, and that'll take longer, as well as risking me missing the point of your writeup and introducing something wildly inappropriate to the concept. The character described should be a person, first and foremost, not just a vehicle for your fetish. I don't want a writeup of your imaginary girlfriend. Write up a character who just so happens to have an interesting sex life, not a sex toy that happens to look like a person. Aaaaand that's about it. Any questions, comments, or concerns you'd like to share should probably go in this thread, or even if you've got a suggestion for a finished name that's better than Aberrant: The Sex Book. Currently, my only ideas are Aberrant: From The Streets To The Sheets and Aberrant: Behind Closed Doors, and I'm certain that someone here can do better.
  2. Really? Because as far as I can tell, on page 199 of the Adventure core rulebook, it says the following: "Attacks are the meat of the combat turn. An action's success or failure and potential impact on the target are determined at this stage. You use a certain ability depending on the type of combat in which your character is engaged. "-list of combat types and associated abilities- "Like any other action, if your character doesn't have points in the necessary Ability, simply default to the Attribute on which it's based." It doesn't say anything about Attributes in there, although I suppose I might be missing something from early on that'll make me feel like an idiot when I realize it.
  3. It is inaccurate, though- sure, if you roll 5 dice, then on average you roll two successes every time, but rolling no successes happens nearly 8% of the time, and therefore, no matter how high your Dexterity + Firearms is, any time you try to shoot someone in combat, the Storyteller is still going to make you roll for it, and there's still the possibility that you miss. On a tangential note, by the rules as written, if you have dots in Firearms, then you don't roll Dexterity when shooting at someone.
  4. I don't really agree with the notion that the blurbs alongside each dot in the Attribute rules is "Rules As Written." They are, in my opinion, flavor text- useful for giving you a quick general understanding, but aren't strictly necessary, and thus would be left out of most quick reference documents or cheat sheets. For them to qualify as Rules As Written, then they'd need to be, well, Rules. A statement that tells you how to play the game, in some small way. "To punch someone, roll either Strength or Brawl against their Defense, and if you hit, do Strength + 2 points of bashing damage" is a rule. "You cannot have more dots in a Mega-Attribute than one plus your Quantum score" is a rule. "••••• Superb: Olympic Gymnast" isn't. It's a simile made for the sake of explaining the rules, not a rule itself. Dexterity works the same way in Aberrant as it does in Adventure!, and- I just went to check and found out that in Adventure!, the blurb for Dexterity 5 is "Superb: You never miss" and I think that's a stark illustration of why you shouldn't take those blurbs completely seriously.
  5. But I'm not ignoring or changing the Rules As Written. The Rules As Written, on Page 154 of the Aberrant Core Rulebook, are very clear that you don't need a maxed-out Attribute to get dots in the corresponding Mega-Attribute. "Mega-Attributes supplement, not replace, normal Attributes, and a nova's normal Attribute level must match his Mega-Attribute level. For example, if a nova wants to buy Mega-Strength 3, he must have Strength 3 first; if his Strength is only 2, his Mega-Strength cannot exceed 2, either. Of course, the normal Attribute can exceed the Mega-Attribute if the player desires." The rules are pretty clear on that part: you can have Mega-Strength 3 without having more than Strength 3. You don't need Strength 5 to get Mega-Strength 3. That's the RAW. What I outlined above is a perspective that's coherent and explains the apparent disconnect between the RAW and what some people's intuitions tell them. Incidentally, the perspective outlined above dictates exactly zero changes to the Rules As Written. In fact, to an extent, it advocates in favor of the Rules As Written: the numbers aren't real measurements, they're mechanical abstractions that dictate outcomes, so if the mechanics lead you to a seemingly illogical conclusion, then you stick with that conclusion and spin up a narrative explanation for why it happened that way. Give the dice the opportunity to surprise you and lead you to strange outcomes; it generally produces very dramatic(or very funny) moments.
  6. I'm sure everyone reading this has come across this sentiment before, the sentiment that a Mega-Attribute placed on a normal Attribute that isn't already at 5 dots makes no sense. It has some merit, but personally, I think it's wrongheaded, and if you'll indulge me, I'd like to tell you why. First and foremost, we need to accept that the rules of this game, of every game, are abstractions. How many dots you have in Strength isn't an objective, scientific measure of your musculature. Nor does your Intelligence rating actually indicate how smart you are. When you toss aside the glib descriptors for the dot ratings that comes with each Attribute(and you should, they're altogether not very useful), you'll find that what dots really indicate is how successful you are when leveraging a particular attribute or skill. Yes, in general your Strength rating is a good indicator of how physically strong your character is, but it might not indicate raw strength- someone who is a walking slab of beef who nonetheless chokes up when push comes to shove could have a low number of Strength dots, whereas someone with a very good working knowledge of leverage and only moderate physical strength could have a high number of Strength dots. All those dots really, truly mean is how many dice you get to roll, and therefore how likely the thing you're trying is to succeed. The disconnect I'm proposing is a slight one, that doesn't matter in most situations, but it is a useful one to keep in mind, I feel- dots have no "objective" real-world grounding. They're just a measure of how likely you are to succeed at certain tasks. Viewed through this lens, you'll see that Mega-Attributes don't necessitate maxed dots- someone can be Mega-Strong without necessarily being good at using their strength, which can describe more than a few character concepts. So, what's my point with all this? Well, basically, that yes, it does make sense for a character to have Strength 3 and Mega-Strength 3. You just need to be willing to ignore some of the flavor text to draw your own conclusions in its place.
×
×
  • Create New...