New to Victorious

[azcromntic]

I recently purchased the Victorious hard cover book. I'm familiar with C & C plus AA. I've noted down the errata mentioned on this thread so I can put some sticky notes in my book. My question though is if the pdf version of the rule book has the errata items fixed in it? I really like what I've read so far and the skills and powers remind me of Fate Core. Switching genre is basically putting out a different list of skills, powers and equipment.

I'm looking forward to what I read next in the rule book and forming some adventures from the ideas I already have. Great artwork by the way!

[azcromntic]

So 11 people looked at my post and none of you could say 'yes' or 'no'. Perfect. Great forum!

[Go0gleplex]

I'll pick "I have no idea" for $500 Alex.

[Lurker]

So 11 people looked at my post and none of you could say 'yes' or 'no'. Perfect. Great forum!

I didn't notice this one earlier

I will say the forum has slowed down over the last 6 months or so ... sadly so.

For your original question, I do not believe the PDF has the correction. At least mine does not, but I have not seen if TLG has updated it since I got it a few years ago.

[azcromntic]

Thank you for taking the time to reply. My son and I were really excited about Victorious and initially our eyes were focused on the headings and major titles but once we started making characters things started down the disappointing path. AA is a lot like this as well: misspelled words, words without spacing, page references missing or marked with page XX, rules that don't make sense like the Victorious 'roll 3d4 .... a result of a 1 means ....'; there's no way to get a 1 when rolling three dice unless it means 'if any of the dice roll a 1', and on and on.

I have home rules for most of the games I play but it's hard to home rule something that you can't even find the 'baseline' rule in the book such as the Damaging Things reference in the Armor superpower in Victorious. As far as I can tell it just didn't get put in the book.

I think I've elected to just use AA and the book of powers and possibly add some home ruled powers to it rather than spend another $25 on a book that doesn't really give me much.

I had high hopes. Went from excited to disappointed in one day.

[azcromntic]

Thank you for taking the time to reply. My son and I were really excited about Victorious and initially our eyes were focused on the headings and major titles but once we started making characters things started down the disappointing path. AA is a lot like this as well: misspelled words, words without spacing, page references missing or marked with page XX, rules that don't make sense like the Victorious 'roll 3d4 .... a result of a 1 means ....'; there's no way to get a 1 when rolling three dice unless it means 'if any of the dice roll a 1', and on and on.

I have home rules for most of the games I play but it's hard to home rule something that you can't even find the 'baseline' rule in the book such as the Damaging Things reference in the Armor superpower in Victorious. As far as I can tell it just didn't get put in the book.

I think I've elected to just use AA and the book of powers and possibly add some home ruled powers to it rather than spend another $25 on a book that doesn't really give me much.

I had high hopes. Went from excited to disappointed in one day.

[maximus]

Haven't been on the forum of much late, but keep in mind sometimes folks just don't have anything to contribute. That being said, maybe DMMike can be of some help. He still comes around from time to time.

[Lurker]

Haven't been on the forum of much late, but keep in mind sometimes folks just don't have anything to contribute. That being said, maybe DMMike can be of some help. He still comes around from time to time.

Rgr that

Some of us here had the pleasure in being in a game that he was a player in and had the chance to hear from the horse's mouth on haw the game works etc. With that I will say he is always more than helpful and willing to answer questions give advice (but he likes to cheat and say that is up to how the GM wants to interoperate the rule a lot

He is a professor so at times he gets swamped and may not notice a post here, but he was always good at answering any PMs etc I sent him.

Also rgr on the frustration of the errors etc. I wasn't part of the guys that looked at it prior to it for publishing, but I know some that were. Not sure on the specifics, but the general issue is that errors were found but the corrections were lost in translation before the printing.

It isn't a huge issue to me, I'm not that focused on type os etc (annoyed at times, but I can work around them) plus I'm horrid about jotting notes etc into margins of books so in those issues I just write in the page number etc.

Type Os or not, I would say that I love the game. It is VERY versatile game. We played it in a modified American Victorian setting, I ran it in a modern US setting, we are playing it in a fantasy setting, and I've kicked around ideas for a Star Wars version. The rules have been very forgiving and easy to modify or adapt to any of those settings . However, I've still not bent my mind around a good Victorious version of the C&C/D&D cleric. To many different elements that don't exactly fir victorious rules. However, I am a linear thinker and I'm sure someone that thinks around corners better than I could make it work.

One thing I learned the hard way ... character creation ... there are 100 ways to skin a cat and 100 tools to use to do so. At first it can be overwhelming and confusing. However, after you have done it a few times it gets a lot easier. Learning the art of limiting powers at creation and taking appropriate negatives is critical. Also, start out the creation process with the root idea of the character you want to play and build toward it. Plus, realize a 1st level Victorious character may be a lot more powerful than a standard 1st level C&C character, so you don't have to build the uber powerful character right out of the gate. Start with a good foundation and then grow into the full potential of the hero as you go.

I will advise (and take the advice with a grain of salt, because others will disagree with me on this) focus nearly as much on skills as you do powers. It does little good to be William Wallace that can shoot lightning out of his eyes and fire balls out of his bum if you can sneak up on the bad guy, notice the bag guy, properly interact with locals etc. That is just me though. I know others that focused on their powers and took few skills and they still had a viable character that they enjoyed playing.

[DMMike]

Hello azcromntic,

Sorry for the delay, we had thunderstorms come through this weekend and the internet went out...

As for the pdf, Lurker is right I'm afraid. I'd just point out that we gave many of the typo corrections to TLG prior to publication but apparently the Trolls inadvertently sent the non-corrected file to the printer rather than the corrected one. I know that's not great to hear but its all I got.

As for the 3d4 comment you made, that was a bit of sentence structure iffiness. The "1" being referred to is the original Charisma check on the Prior Engagement shortcoming (D20). A fail means the character cannot join combat for 3d4 rounds. A "1" on that Charisma check (ie a critical fail) means the character in question cannot assist in that combat at all and must wait until afterwards to rejoin their allies.

It will be duly noted in the errata, and when the rules get republished I will do my darndest to get it fixed. That's all I can promise.

If you'd rather go to AA or whatever, that's fine too. Its your table, and whatever you play and have fun at is all good!

Mike Stewart

[azcromntic]

Hello azcromntic,

Sorry for the delay, we had thunderstorms come through this weekend and the internet went out...

As for the pdf, Lurker is right I'm afraid. I'd just point out that we gave many of the typo corrections to TLG prior to publication but apparently the Trolls inadvertently sent the non-corrected file to the printer rather than the corrected one. I know that's not great to hear but its all I got.

As for the 3d4 comment you made, that was a bit of sentence structure iffiness. The "1" being referred to is the original Charisma check on the Prior Engagement shortcoming (D20). A fail means the character cannot join combat for 3d4 rounds. A "1" on that Charisma check (ie a critical fail) means the character in question cannot assist in that combat at all and must wait until afterwards to rejoin their allies.

It will be duly noted in the errata, and when the rules get republished I will do my darndest to get it fixed. That's all I can promise.

If you'd rather go to AA or whatever, that's fine too. Its your table, and whatever you play and have fun at is all good!

Mike Stewart

Thanks Mike. I hope the Trolls take a read here and maybe make a little more effort to get the right product to the customer.