Alternate Core Documents

[Viewing_Glass]

I did spot one minor note. On gaining new connections, you note that:

Any time a character has empty connection slots and has developed some significant character attribute or personal desire or outlook which feels significant the player may immediately record a new connection on the sheet.

I would suggest replacing 'immediately' with 'suggest a new connection to the GM. Should the GM be in agreement with the player about the connection, then the player may'. It should prevent any surprises for the GM.

[Mathwyn]

I like the look of this too I'll pass it by my players, and see what they think of it. I think they'll like it. If we end up using it, I'll post some feedback.

Giving virtues some mechanical effect seems like a good system, though a few more connection examples would be appreciated.

[Thanqol]

I like the look of this too I'll pass it by my players, and see what they think of it. I think they'll like it. If we end up using it, I'll post some feedback.

Giving virtues some mechanical effect seems like a good system, though a few more connection examples would be appreciated.

If we do that don't 40% of our party members become unplayable on the grounds of them being unrepentant murderous shitbags?

(Though a system to force them to be less terrible would make a certain moral choice a little more complicated)

[Night Light]

Got a first draft of virtue rules. The virtue list is incomplete, but the mechanics are complete I think. Hopefully I didn't forget something really stupidly. Probably flawed, but hopefully useful.

I can definitely see the value in some alternate rules for a hero points/morale-like system, might be useful to a GM having to deal with problematic players (but lacking the desire to simply remove them from their group for whatever reason). What I don't totally understand is why characters would be getting bonuses, especially, as Silverlight points out, as substantial as those. Being a virtuous hero of the wasteland is supposed to be significantly harder than being an "unrepentant murderous shitbag," as Thanqol quite eloquently puts it, hence why the virtuous heroes are so rare. These bonuses for being virtuous kind of fly in the face of that as a concept. Not saying it's a bad idea or that I'm against some sort of hero points/morale alternate rules system, just food for thought.

Also, worth noting, there really aren't any minor or major virtues, the six tied to the elements of harmony are only important because those were the spirits used in their creation.

[Dance_Explosion]

the type of player that plays a super murder all the faces get all the powers, character would just be playing the "saint" to get all the powers. the important thing to remember is that all systems, mechanics, and rules are there to be exploited by any player who is clever enough to figure it out and get that shit past their DM.

now on a more practical side:
Integrity: problem 1: your virtue, and player interpretation: my mane character is a Ghoul [now ghost] Zebra spy from the war. Her virtue was Duty, her duty during the war was to follow her orders and defend the zebra nation, that included seeing to planting a mega spell that would level a city. now i would lose karma for mass murder in nuking a populated city, but gain integrity at the same time. following your virtue is VERY open to interpretation, and more then that, debate between the DM and the player on what that should mean to the character in the worst way. There is nothing worse then having some one else tell you that you are playing your own character wrong for the campaign, this is just fights waiting to happen.

problem 2: No bad choices: so as long as the choice is between two things the character would not want to do choices i have nothing to worry about in losing integrity,

problem 3: Not allowed to play a bad pony: how about no.... in Dark herasy and rouge trader, both have this same system of being "to evil to play" has much much much more wiggle room, complexity, and frankly depth, to make them not horrible systems. But telling players they can not play characters that are evil, or even morel grey ponies takes the all the fun out of playing anything other then literal living saints of characters.

problem 4: be good and gain super powers: Ya, if you want to encourage your players to play good ponies, then do roleplay for it, having NPC's acting friendly and helpful, being nice, polite, and making the player WANT to protect them is the good way to do this, "hey you don't want to loose your bonus!" seems like a really shitty way to play a good pony character.

problem 5: Being good offers crappy rewards: other then the regeneration of a huge ass pile of hit points for free, these are pretty crappy bonus's to get, skill bonus's that don't break the cap are less then useful at high levels, the amount of strain regeneration is embarrassing, what the hell are focus points?, and if that up to +5 to a SPECIAL breaks the 10 cap, assassins with high integrity, sneaking up and pile driving peoples heads in for the highest bidder, great thing a virtue of "profit" can be.

problem 6: Major and minor: this should not even be a thing, first off how about you don't tell me my virtue is not as important since the mane six didn't have it, their virtues didn't seem to do a whole damn lot to stop the world from ending last time anyway. And how about not having the 11 aligments to kill the creativity of the players.

Problem 7: stupid good for fun and profit: I hate X so ill kill all the X. awesome my virtue can be genocide!

Honestly the best way for me to say this is, take a look at how the Dark Heresy system dose its system for this, hell it has a system of corruption along with evilness that can render your PC unplayable due to excess mutations even! i bring that system up a lot, i know, but it is a 1d100 based system, with guns, in a dark/grimdark setting so it makes for very good comparisons to FOE.

[SilverlightPony]

problem 3: Not allowed to play a bad pony: how about no.... in Dark herasy and rouge trader, both have this same system of being "to evil to play" has much much much more wiggle room, complexity, and frankly depth, to make them not horrible systems. But telling players they can not play characters that are evil, or even morel grey ponies takes the all the fun out of playing anything other then literal living saints of characters.

Fallout: Equestria is about heroes and how hard it is to stay a hero in the Wasteland. These rules are meant to reflect that. However, no group is obligated to use these rules. All members of a group, both the players and the GM, should agree on what general type of game they want to play and what rules should be in effect. If you don't want to play hero-type characters, then you shouldn't use these rules. Even if you choose to use most of these rules, the GM has final say on everything, and is perfectly within their rights to overrule, modify, or omit any portion of them, including the "PC becomes NPC" clause.

[AffeTrollkarl]

Pretty much what Dance Explosion said. Thank you^^

Also, since it seems to be a lot about "you don't have to use these rules", wouldn't it be better to make these rules entirely optional? Like a module, of some sorts. Getting to choose to use a set of rules instead of choosing not to use them would make things simpler for any group, I think.

Or was that perhaps what was meant from the beginning?

[TyrannisUmbra]

One thing I would like to point out that a lot of people are missing is: This does not stop you from playing an evil or morally ambiguous character.

A character who is downright evil can still follow their virtue. I play a unicorn whose virtue is determination, and she is a downright bastard of a pony, willing to do pretty much anything to advance her own goals, and is very reluctant to do anything that doesn't benefit herself directly, and she would be absolutely fine to play. In fact, she would very likely be one of the characters in the group with the highest integrity!

What these rules do prevent you from playing is a character who has lost their will to be themselves. Generally, the way I see it, a character who hits 0 integrity is roughly the same as a character who hits 0 charisma. They have lost their sense of self, and are unable to act for themselves and in a way that shows who they really are. Because a virtue is essentially the character's personality and essence shown in the best possible light, the only way to not stay true to your virtue is to stop being yourself.

[AffeTrollkarl]

Yes, I understand that, but what about playing a character who is lacking conviction, integrity, and a reliable true self? Must they be punished for this?

For example, in the Revenge group, I play an earth pony named Faith. After living a long time as a slave suffering brutally at the hooves of her masters, she is a broken mare who has lost most of her faith in ponykind and the world in general, and has started using Mint-Als to keep herself from breaking down. She would most certainly not be a pony with a high integrity score.

I realize that this would still be possible using the virtue system, but should I really be mechanically punished for choosing this particular roleplaying path?

I believe that nothing should ever in terms of game mechanics aid or hinder the way one roleplay one's character. I think that that way would easily lead to people choosing certain roleplaying styles over others because they benefit more from the mechanics of the game, how little that may be.

To put it simply, I believe that game mechanics should be completely separate from the roleplaying of a character.

[SilverlightPony]

Pretty much what Dance Explosion said. Thank you^^

Also, since it seems to be a lot about "you don't have to use these rules", wouldn't it be better to make these rules entirely optional? Like a module, of some sorts. Getting to choose to use a set of rules instead of choosing not to use them would make things simpler for any group, I think.

Or was that perhaps what was meant from the beginning?

Pretty sure that was meant from the beginning.

To put it simply, I believe that game mechanics should be completely separate from the roleplaying of a character.

Which is a perfectly valid opinion. That said, there are others who like having game mechanics that respond to and/or affect the way the players play their characters, which is also a valid opinion.

Which is why having an optional rules expansion like this is a good idea.

[EDIT]
This expansion and its discussion really should have its own thread.