Player types in T9A

This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site, you are agreeing to our Cookie Policy.

  • trulyelse wrote:

    Another point of detail for understanding Vorthos is that it's not just a love for flavourful ideas on how to build your list, but also a sense of satisfaction from (may the powers that be forgive me for uttering these words) ludonarrative resonance.

    As an example, there's the Vermin Swarm relic "Sceptre of Vermin Valour" which gives its wielder Stand Behind.
    Just seeing a relic with that name and that ability tells you everything you need to know about the faction leaders, and keeps you from seeing the Safety in Numbers rule as a symbol of their ability to cooperate.
    Good point, that is definitely something that is important to Vorthos.

    In general, I think the LABs of T9A handle this very well. They have a background driven design now and it shows. For example, the Favours of the WDG all capture the feel of the god pretty well. A warrior of Nukuja plays pretty much how you expect it to. One example can think of where we don't have this though are the Eidolons in the DL army. Their Dark Fire has a unique mechanic in how it interacts with armour, something that is really appealing to Melvin. However, in the fluff, the Dark Fire is described as something that tests the willpower of the target, causing some dissonance that annoys Vorthos. So some mechanic related to Discipline would feel like a better fit for him.

    T9A Oddjob


    Empire of Sonnstahl Blog, including links to my other blogs
    The 9th Wiki, a community wiki for the official 9th Age background
    T9A: Skirmish Campaigns
  • Mad 'At wrote:

    or example, the Favours of the WDG all capture the feel of the god pretty well. A warrior of Nukuja plays pretty much how you expect it to.
    I would very strongly object to that. I can accept the "Dark God Favour" part, but naming it after the seven sins is a huge failure for me, as the associated demons (most of the time) express virtues not sins.

    Tool Support Battle Scribe

    DE Community Support


    My blog with battle reports and painting gallery: bleaklegion.wordpress.com/
  • DarkSky wrote:

    Mad 'At wrote:

    or example, the Favours of the WDG all capture the feel of the god pretty well. A warrior of Nukuja plays pretty much how you expect it to.
    I would very strongly object to that. I can accept the "Dark God Favour" part, but naming it after the seven sins is a huge failure for me, as the associated demons (most of the time) express virtues not sins.

    ?

    I do not follow.

    Background Team

  • WhammeWhamme wrote:

    I do not follow.
    Let's take "Greed".

    What is "Greed"? Greed is usually taking more than you need or being blinded by greed to overlook other important things. Typical examples could be bank robbers loading so much gold into their car, it can't drive away anymore or Scrooge McDuck.

    It's implemented as getting a lot of weapons, weapon master, and more special allowance.

    Where is this greedy? The Warriors have a lot of stuff, true. But not more than they can actually use! Where is the negative part of the greed? Are the weighed down by their equipment? No. Do you have to pay more for each type of enchantment or always have to max out every greed character? No. So where is the greed? It's not there. What is there is basically "preparedness" or "flexbility".

    PS: I am aware that greed is sometimes used as a positively coined term. I hope we agree that 1) this is a change in the meaning of the seven sins related "greed" and mainly uses greed as a synonym for ambition/drive/etc. and 2) WDG/DL refer to the original sin variant

    ----

    To emphasize: Every sin is a sin, because it has a detrimental downside. Often a sin has a virtue at its core, but is taken to an extreme. Reigned in, they aren't sins at all, e.g. ambition is okay, envy is a sin.

    The only implementation of an actual sin I can see is in Wrath. Wrath is the basic emotion "anger" taken to an extreme. The wrath overtakes the warriors, so they do not only have the anger upsides (more damage) but also suffer the wrath downside (easier to hit).

    ----

    Other sins

    I could make the absolute same reasoning on Pride (which is actually bravery) and Sloth (which is resilience) and Gluttony. Both have absolutely no aspect of suffering the downsides of their sin. If taking your time to get stronger (Gluttony rules) is a sin, then old KoE praying would also have been a sin.

    Lust and Envy just give out mobility bonuses, I can't see how they would represent those specific sins.

    Most importantly though: There is no downside. Sloth and Gluttony may lose their bonus, if they act "out of line", but don't suffer a downside. If Sloth would be unable to move more than X'' ever, you'd have it. If Gluttony could never pursue or overrun you'd have it. As it is right now, a unit which can just "ignore my slothness and march 15" just doesn't capture the concept of the sin at all (for me)
    ----
    Does this mean the rules are bad? Absolutely not. Implementing every Sin with an appropriate downside would probably make the book much, much worse. Which is why my feedback right from the start towards DL and WDG reworks was to stay as far away from the seven sins as possible. Obviously the teams went into a different direction. The books are really great overall, just not on this aspect.

    Tool Support Battle Scribe

    DE Community Support


    My blog with battle reports and painting gallery: bleaklegion.wordpress.com/
  • OK, gotcha. It's not that they're not tied well to the Sins, it's that they're not expressed as a bad thing (mechanically), a "Lack of downside to their sins".

    Welp.

    That's not an accident. The Seven Dark Gods are labelled Sins by their enemies. To their worshippers yes - Sugalug can be the God of Preparedness, the Patron who blesses you to always have the material possessions you will need to face the world. Savar can be the God of Self Respect, who strengthens your will when you need it, allowing you to stand firm.

    (Kuulima [Envy] can = Goddess of Raiders, taking that which you need more than they do.
    Cibaresh [Lust] can = God of the Revel, guiding their worshippers in a dance of war)

    etcetera.


    So if you see ambiguity - good. It exists in-universe. It is why the Dark Gods have followers - they can and do put forth a fair face and make a convincing argument that they're the real force for good here, omelets need eggs, join us.

    Background Team

  • Eldan wrote:

    I don't know... as per the Eightfold Testament, they seem to be quite aware of the negative aspects of at least some of the gods, especially Kuulima and Akaan.

    Sure?

    Not saying the worshippers of the Dark Gods are ignorant of what others focus on about their deities.

    Kuulima does want what others have. Akaan does seek to devour all.

    But... if you're poor and hungry, you too want what others have and would like to get started on that "devour all" plan.


    I mean, the rite for honouring Akaan? Feasts. Om nom nom. People IRL have worshipped worse gods...

    Background Team

  • @WhammeWhamme Thank you for the reply. That way of looking at it makes the whole thing a lot better for me, while at the same time further positions me in the group of people who really dislike the "the names are just the names how a human observer would call them"-approach.

    I don't want to derail the thread anymore, so I'll refrain myself from posting on that topic.

    Tool Support Battle Scribe

    DE Community Support


    My blog with battle reports and painting gallery: bleaklegion.wordpress.com/
  • @DarkSky I'd add that sins are judged bad because if everyone would be behaving this or that way, society would be unsustainable.
    Imagine if everyone was so greedy, or so proud, or constantly angry, or constantly looking for sex.
    So that's why society guards against those sins, as a way of keeping civilization coherent and people productive and nice to each other.
    But there is a reason why people do sin anyway – it's because it brings you good ! But often at the expense of others.

    Warriors of the Dark Gods have decided to shun the restrictions of civilized life and to embrace their sin instead. But they are very individualistic and as such are most of the time unable to gather for a long time in big numbers, unless under the command of a particularly charismatic leader and because of the promise of achieving personal glory.

    Also, if you read the fluff, you will notice that embracing a particular sin mostly shields you from the downside of that sin. Like, Akaan allows you to eat all the time and whatever you like and never getting satiated nor sick.

    And in general, someone who is too proud or always vengeful or too envious tends to be stoned or lynched or put in prison when others get too pissed at him/her, but the god grants you power to be stronger and thus avoid those social punishment.


    So, yes, sins bring positive things to the Warriors.


    Who called me a Vorthos ?

    I'm actually a Ghiznuk ^^

    Russian Translation Coordinator

    Translation-Team FR

    Public Relations

    Linguistic Team

    GHAÂAÂAÂARN ! — The Black Goat of the Woods with a Thousand Young
    First T9A player in West Africa
  • @Ghiznuk
    Thanks for your answer, but it appears to me you missed my point. This is not surprising, because the seven sins, motivations, emotions, etc. is actually a very complex topic. Which is also a reason why I think it should not have been used.

    1. A "Deadly Sin" is not the same as sinning. Especially not in our modern day life, where even eating something enjoyable but unhealthy is sometimes labelled as sinning. You are however correct, that the seven sins are socially unsustainable to a degree.
    2. "Eat and never getting satiated" → How on earth is that positive? That's horrible. Isn't that exactly one of the stages of hell in Dante's Divine Comedy? Here we touch again on the core of the topic: Eating for sustenance or enjoyment is "good", eating for eating's sake, because you can never get enough, that is "the road to hell". Your example, I think, proves my point: The followers of Akaan hunger for something, Akaan promises them "more than you can get of it", but at the same time takes away the gratification, which was original cause of the hunger: Being satiated.
    3. The power deal of the deity is something I never critisized. It's the haphazard implementation of implementing sloth as resilient, proud as brave, etc. It's true, that in our society somebody controlled by their wrath rarely gets by unpunished, as wrath often directly leads to violence. That doesn't stop football hooligans to brawl in the hundreds or demagogues from utilizing their "foot soldiers"via propaganda. Proudness on the other hand is usually not socially punished. If you are too proud to accept help, you just have to do everything on your own. You'll probably lose a lot of friends or connections, but the consequences are mainly for yourself. This might of course change if you are in a leading position and ignore facts out of proudness.
    So again: My point is not, that Dark Gods may not grant gifts to their followers. My point is that naming them after the seven sins and implementing rules, which do not reflect the sin itself is kind of pointless.

    E.g. Pride: Having better discipline and morale → there is no pride in that. You can easily verify this, by looking at other mechanics which do the same (Divination attribute, etc.). Have you ever thought "this spell infuses units with pride?" I'd rather say "this spells infuses units with bravery".

    Now look at another potential set of rules, which I think would have captured pride (both upsides and downsides):

    Pride:
    1. The unit ignores all modifiers from augments and hexes and gains Magic Resistance (2).
    2. The unit ignores Inspiring Presence and Rally Around the Flag. It is fearless, treats all other units as insignificant. Break tests are subject to minimised roll.

    Now you'd have a significant portion of the thing that makes Pride a sin in it. The unit just treats everybody else as beneath their station. But it also suffers the consequences for it, that it doesn't accept help from other troops, it also can't flee even when it would be good to do so. An even more extreme rule than #2 could be unbreakable and some kind of unstable. Rule #1 could be more of the dark gods divine blessing. It shields you from the lesser beings magic. But of course this includes the own army's casters, because they are obviously not worth it either.

    Tool Support Battle Scribe

    DE Community Support


    My blog with battle reports and painting gallery: bleaklegion.wordpress.com/
  • The project gets a lot of flak about negative clauses, particularly at points in the warriors development.
    This was one of the main arguments against them, and it was discussed a lot for both WotDG and DL.

    There were so many ideas I thought were interesting for the sins in either book, that were ditched in part because we felt it just wouldn't be fun for players/would feel negative, no matter how "fluffy" or "immersive" it was felt the designs were.

    The player types thing is really relevant here: different people want different things from the game.
    And in my experience, the more one pushes a particular specific thing (e.g. making sins super immersive and philosophically accurate), the more one starts to generate problems for other players.

    The recent terrain discussion in the other thread is the same: historically more realistic terrain typically results in much more negative effects, and much more "no your troops" can't do that, which just isn't what some players want. Of course, it is what other players want.

    *shrug* I have no point. Other than the overlapping demands on t9a are not always simultaneously solvable.
    I have long said I think individuals need to be more aware and accepting of this.

    I would prefer victory conditions to be VPs only for example, but the majority seem to prefer missions, so I have mostly accepted that missions are part of t9a.
    List repository and links HERE
    Basic beginners tactics HERE
    Empire of Dannstahl HERE
  • dragonravioli wrote:

    You're absolutely right, @DarkSky. The decision to not have negative (side)effects for Sins was made because of complexity and balance issues, not because the background demanded positive effects.

    You are making a completely valid point regarding what is experienced as desirable gameplay for some players.

    The opinion of dragonravioli may not reflect that of others.

    DarkSky wrote:

    @Ghiznuk
    Thanks for your answer, but it appears to me you missed my point. This is not surprising, because the seven sins, motivations, emotions, etc. is actually a very complex topic. Which is also a reason why I think it should not have been used.

    1. A "Deadly Sin" is not the same as sinning. Especially not in our modern day life, where even eating something enjoyable but unhealthy is sometimes labelled as sinning. You are however correct, that the seven sins are socially unsustainable to a degree.
    2. "Eat and never getting satiated" → How on earth is that positive? That's horrible. Isn't that exactly one of the stages of hell in Dante's Divine Comedy? Here we touch again on the core of the topic: Eating for sustenance or enjoyment is "good", eating for eating's sake, because you can never get enough, that is "the road to hell". Your example, I think, proves my point: The followers of Akaan hunger for something, Akaan promises them "more than you can get of it", but at the same time takes away the gratification, which was original cause of the hunger: Being satiated.
    3. The power deal of the deity is something I never critisized. It's the haphazard implementation of implementing sloth as resilient, proud as brave, etc. It's true, that in our society somebody controlled by their wrath rarely gets by unpunished, as wrath often directly leads to violence. That doesn't stop football hooligans to brawl in the hundreds or demagogues from utilizing their "foot soldiers"via propaganda. Proudness on the other hand is usually not socially punished. If you are too proud to accept help, you just have to do everything on your own. You'll probably lose a lot of friends or connections, but the consequences are mainly for yourself. This might of course change if you are in a leading position and ignore facts out of proudness.
    So again: My point is not, that Dark Gods may not grant gifts to their followers. My point is that naming them after the seven sins and implementing rules, which do not reflect the sin itself is kind of pointless.

    E.g. Pride: Having better discipline and morale → there is no pride in that. You can easily verify this, by looking at other mechanics which do the same (Divination attribute, etc.). Have you ever thought "this spell infuses units with pride?" I'd rather say "this spells infuses units with bravery".

    Now look at another potential set of rules, which I think would have captured pride (both upsides and downsides):

    Pride:
    1. The unit ignores all modifiers from augments and hexes and gains Magic Resistance (2).
    2. The unit ignores Inspiring Presence and Rally Around the Flag. It is fearless, treats all other units as insignificant. Break tests are subject to minimised roll.

    Now you'd have a significant portion of the thing that makes Pride a sin in it. The unit just treats everybody else as beneath their station. But it also suffers the consequences for it, that it doesn't accept help from other troops, it also can't flee even when it would be good to do so. An even more extreme rule than #2 could be unbreakable and some kind of unstable. Rule #1 could be more of the dark gods divine blessing. It shields you from the lesser beings magic. But of course this includes the own army's casters, because they are obviously not worth it either.

    "Proudness on the other hand is usually not socially punished. If you are too proud to accept help, you just have to do everything on your own. You'll probably lose a lot of friends or connections, but the consequences are mainly for yourself. "


    Dude - what do you think a social punishment is? Pride isn't a crime, but neither is Wrath; specific actions are crimes, but nobody goes "oh you smashed that dude's face in with a claw hammer completely calmly, that wasn't Wrathful, you're free to go". Pride drives a fair few people to crime - stealing to avoid revealing that you've lost a lot of money, sometimes murder to do the same, and more.

    Conversely, some people are wrathful legally - there are legal ways to cause people harm, it's not just about assault.



    And flippy side, not all cultures rate the 7 the same way as the culture that called them "The Seven Deadly Sins!" does.



    Yes, we could have done the WDG as a morality play on why the Seven Sins are terrible and you shouldn't indulge in them. But that's a flipping terrible idea and it's NOT the only way to do it; instead, it's from the perspective of "here are the upsides of the seven sins".

    Why not pick something else, other than the Seven Sins? Because

    1) We didn't. We build upon things, so "at the point the book was being written" was too late to change it

    2)It's hard to top the name recognition of the Sins. They're famous, man. IIRC the only major competitor was the Horsemen of the Apocalypse, and that had serious issues of it's own.

    3) They're supposed to be the DARK Gods, something the reader can quickly recognize as being negative, while still being awesome and metal enough that people want to play - that means embodying negative concepts, yet in such a way as to be fun to play and promote a positive play experience. "I don't like these warriors of death - they don't die easily enough!" is a bad complaint.


    And from a BG perspective, the ones who get the blessings of the Seven aren't notable for being horrible, useless sinners, they're notable for being effective and drawing the backing of a God. A warrior Chosen of Pride isn't just proud - they're proud, and they're useful to the god of pride. The Seven don't reward people because they like rewarding people who commit the Seven Sins - they have specific motivations and objectives and they use the temptations of the sins to draw people in ("You're right, you're better than them. Let me help you prove it.").

    Someone crippled in their usefulness by overindulgence of a sin is useless to the Seven. Mortals are useful as they fall, not once they've fallen. Nukuja doesn't want everyone to be lazy - she recruits the lazy and then nonetheless points them in the direction of getting stuff done that she wants done.

    (Nukuja is Slothful, because the Seven are Sinners, but that doesn't mean she thinks people need pushing to be Slothful; it means she thinks everyone is Slothful and offering to reward them for it is a good way to capture their hearts, minds and souls.)

    Background Team

  • I think being socially ostracised for being too proud and arrogant is a social punishment.
    It doesn't need to be a law.
    Just like someone envious.
    If among my colleagues there's a guy or a chick who's too proud well no-one wants to help them and they don't get invited to have a drink with the team on Friday night.
    And that social ostracisation usually reinforces their pride or envy.
    Like, hmm, they must be jealous of me that's why they re avoiding me.

    On the other hand, I really like Darksky your proposals.
    But too bad,it's too late now ;)

    Russian Translation Coordinator

    Translation-Team FR

    Public Relations

    Linguistic Team

    GHAÂAÂAÂARN ! — The Black Goat of the Woods with a Thousand Young
    First T9A player in West Africa
  • DanT wrote:

    WastelandWarrior wrote:

    DanT wrote:

    I would prefer victory conditions to be VPs only for example
    next time we play, kill points only :)
    Yaas! So up for this :)
    Good Ole Carnage System! :thumbsup:
    B. "MF’ing" Jones - CGL Member

    D.L.- ADT - TT

    Campaign Design-Broken Isles

    Adv. Magic & Giants Design

    PlaytestTeam-Mid Atlantic USA

    Vermin Swarms LAB TT

  • WhammeWhamme wrote:

    Dude - what do you think a social punishment is? Pride isn't a crime, but neither is Wrath;
    That was bad wording on my part. The point I tried to make, is that a prideful person can much more realistically walk through life without social or lawful punishment, than a wrathful person. Remember, wrath is not anger, wrath is anger taken to an extreme and forgetting the usual cause of said anger. Persons who succumb to wrath are very very often physical violent. That was my point. Not that pride is never socially punished or that there are absolutely no ways to be wrathful and not getting punished.

    WhammeWhamme wrote:

    , that wasn't Wrathful, you're free to go
    "Dude" (← see how that word is quite annoying?) I never wrote that people are punished for their mindset. So stop making strawman arguments please.

    WhammeWhamme wrote:

    Pride drives a fair few people to crime
    I never wrote the opposite. So stop making strawman arguments please.

    WhammeWhamme wrote:

    Conversely, some people are wrathful legally
    While I don't object to this theoretically, I doubt there are many cases. See my reasoning above.

    WhammeWhamme wrote:

    But that's a flipping terrible idea and it's NOT the only way to do it; instead, it's from the perspective of "here are the upsides of the seven sins".
    My entire point is: "there is no upside", because if you talk about the upside, you are not talking about a sin, but a virtue. I agree, that implementing the sins as what they actually mean is a terrible idea, which I mentioned several times now.

    WhammeWhamme wrote:

    2)It's hard to top the name recognition of the Sins. They're famous, man. IIRC the only major competitor was the Horsemen of the Apocalypse, and that had serious issues of it's own.
    So what? Since when is "famous" the equivalent of the best idea? What prevented you from creating an original idea?

    Before somebody misinterprets me (again): I think the actual rules for WDG are quite good. My main point is, that the seven dark gods should not be named after the sins, because the understanding of what makes them a sin is not in the book and implementing them would actually be bad. Additionally it leads to such nonsense statements as "the upsides of the sin".

    WhammeWhamme wrote:

    Someone crippled in their usefulness by overindulgence of a sin is useless to the Seven
    Well d'uh, that's exactly the way the seven sins worked. The forces of evil tempt people to succumb to the seven sins until their souls belong to them and they go to hell. The whole concept never intended the sinners to be useful for anything except undermining the virtuous and making the normal world more hellish.

    Tool Support Battle Scribe

    DE Community Support


    My blog with battle reports and painting gallery: bleaklegion.wordpress.com/
  • Mad 'At wrote:

    Timmy or Tammy, who plays the game to experience something

    Johnny or Jenny, who players the game to express something

    Spike, who player the game to win
    And the Aesthetic Profiles are :


    Mel, who enjoy the game through its mechanics

    Vorthos, who enjoy the game through its story
    To recast nicknames into descriptors, you could have:
    - The passionate
    - The explorer
    - The competitor

    As you pointed out, there doesn't seem to be much sense in having a pure competitor that enjoys the game primarily through its story, which makes me suspect that the other axis is not actually independent from the first anyway.

    It's interesting to note that the first 3 types match quite well 3 of the 5 factors of the Big Five model, Timmy with high extraversion, Johnny with high Openness to experience, Spike with low Agreeableness. I don't know that the other two would provide much motivation for other potential player types that you haven't explored, but I bet that there is at least one more reason why people might play the game that you have not mentioned (as far as I can tell) and it has to do with the social aspect. People that have a gaming group they'd like to cater to, looking to share a good time and socialize with their nerdy friends.
    I think its easy to overlook that aspect, either because we think that's everyone or that they will be some other type in addition, but I do notice that some people go out of their way to organize game nights (and other community-oriented time like paint together sessions or sharing world building stories on facebook ;) ), or are simply happy to tag along for the shared experience, for the community, before any other consideration. And I think that type will care about another set of properties of the game than the others, like how practical the game is (material-wise), how long it is, or how prone it is to spark debate - and potentially conflict - (about rules of mechanics especially) during a game.