There's been a lot of discussion of what this game isn't, but not a lot on what it is.
#AVATAR RPG KICKSTARTER FULL#
That said you would need to treat bending like either an added page or a full second book, would also need stuff for non benders but Sokka had a tactician page and Asami Sato had probably a futurist one, but I find magpie are less experimental in that sense. When you allow the consequences of a complication affect you roll X on a 7+ on 10+ When you directly deal with an issue role X you break through the issue
#AVATAR RPG KICKSTARTER PLUS#
When being held back by complications caused by a connection or connections roll X, on a 7+ plus you temporarily let the connection go freeing yourself from the complication, on a 10+ you truly understand you connection allowing you to redefine it *Other don't get hurt unintentionally while doing so When you try to avoid an issue roll X, you avoid the Issue on a 7+ pick one on a 10+ pick two Like with air benders I would have wanted moves like these which can be used in any context not just physical or combat but also
#AVATAR RPG KICKSTARTER FREE#
My problem with bending is free form is that at the heart of it bending is philosophy and what I was hoping for was a system that prompted and rewarded play to the philosophy of the bending while at the same time testing you characters understanding and belief in that philosophy. This next post is the kind of criticism that has more substance because it takes PtbA on its merits, rather than as something to tolerate. Magpie wasn’t going to do a Strands of Fate–style rewrite of the basic PbtA concept. Those just tolerating PbtA for the sake of seeing any Avatar game at all were likely to dislike any implementation of bending that stayed true to PbtA design principles leaning on the foundation of the GM holding up a large part of implementing bending at the table was inevitable.
There’s obviously room for every rpging Avatar fan to post their thoughts and reactions to the game, and having a place to post about being disappointed is valuable, but I don’t think those who are excited or tentatively approving should try to convert the “vegetarians” to liking PbtA ground chuck. It would be like a vegetarian criticising the cooking techniques of a chef making Shrimp Creole: nearly pointless since there is no change in cooking technique that will result in that critic approving of the final dish.Ĭriticism of Magpie’s design from within the PtbA framework is much more meaningful. But her defining feature is still her moral compass! And a badly designed waterbender playbook that emphasizes flexibility and being in tune with the currents would be bad at emulating her character.Ĭlick to expand.You’re not, no! There are a significant number of posts in the early part of the thread that boil down to “ew, pbta”, and criticism of how magic is implemented from the perspective of objecting to PbtA in the first place doesn’t contribute a meaningful critique. *To be fair Katarra's arc involves becoming less rigid.
But it could very easily turn into "I'm a firebender so I get mad a lot" and that just doesn't match the stories the game is based on. But if you took out all descriptions of their powers, would you assume the strict Katarra is a waterbender?* Or that the cunning Azula and easygoing Iroh are firebenders? And LoK makes this even more complicated - there isn't much about Korra that 'goes with the flow' the way water does.Īgain, I like the idea different bending disciplines being tied to deeper philosophies that affect the whole of roleplaying.
The problem is that the shows this game is based on don't consistently do that! Okay, sure, in AtLA Aang is free but indecisive, Zuko is passionate and fiery, Toph is headstrong, etc. I would definitely play the game Herodarwin Click to expand.These are the best articulations of this criticism so far, and it's a valid point.
0 kommentar(er)
