Regarding the Poor rank, it's their way of balancing ability levels. During character creation, you'll pick up your ranks, and you have to take one at Great, four at Good, and one at Poor. And if you want any abilities that are of a higher rank, you have to take others that are at Poor. For every additional Great, you take one Poor. For every Exceptional, you take two Poor ones. And for every Extraordinary ability, you have to take _three_ at Poor.
Thank you for that, makes sense. I think I'd read that, but hadn't connected it to defaulting. I'll pin this comment for viewers as it'll help explain things better.
One of my favourite games of all time. Easy to play, easy to run as a GM and full of character. In our campaigns we used Victorian adventures from other systems (such as Rippers, Victoriana etc.) as well as a setting based around the book's own Castle Falkenstein. I recommend it. (but home-brew the rules to fit your own style).
Great video, thank you. The heavily narrative-oriented (and super accessible) system was vastly ahead of its time. It still remains definitely underrated these days. Also, more games should have Abraham Lincoln smacking random historical and contemporary persons.
I am not a fan of card mechanics in rpgs but I still enjoyed the video. As for the pronunciation correction, whoever told you it was "steen" instead of "stine" is wrong. In German, "ei" is pronounced like "eye" and is seen in names like Einstein. The long e sound is "ie". It's easy to remember because you just pronounce the second letter; "ei" you pronounce the "i", "ie" you pronounce the "e".
I didn't think I'd like the card mechanics either, but once I got around the idea that they're just like rolling dice, I got used to it. And think I prefer the cards to some of the systems where you have to roll different coloured dice for different things. I'm now wondering if I did just pick up a joke wrong, but can't find the comment. I'm terrible at pronunciation at the best of times, so if I get corrected these days I just own up to it and admit I was wrong :)
@@RPGGamer The mechanic part of cards don't bother me so much, it's more logistics. I played another RPG with cards, and found it very messy and frustrating. Players would accidentally pull a card from the wrong pile, knock over a pile of cards, cards would get scattered or flipped over or two stacks would get mixed up. They would also forget which pile was the draw or discard or some other type of pile that had to be separated. Also someone knocked over a drink and the cards got all wet. It was just so much hassle for a mechanic that didn't even add much to the game lol. Also I like the feeling of dice going clickety clackety on the table.
Playing cards because no respectable lady or gentleman of New Europa would ever play dice! But for those of us living in the uncouth days of the 21st century, there is an official alternative rules supplement as well as a licenced gurps version
Why would anyone try to replace the quick, narrative-driven rules-light system of CF with something as crunchy and unwieldy as GURPS? The latter has lengthy combat and focuses on super-detailed, highly specific skills, quite the exact opposite of CF. If you want some rules-heavy Victorian Age-fantasy, why not go for the same result using GURPS Steampunk?
@@alexandershmaev1392 Personally I never got why there were D20 and Gurps versions of most things. The rules change the tone of the game, so they're not really the same games. The one which gets me most is Deadlands, which uses the Savage Worlds rules, and they also released a D20 Deadlands, and a GURPS Deadlands.
Regarding the Poor rank, it's their way of balancing ability levels. During character creation, you'll pick up your ranks, and you have to take one at Great, four at Good, and one at Poor. And if you want any abilities that are of a higher rank, you have to take others that are at Poor. For every additional Great, you take one Poor. For every Exceptional, you take two Poor ones. And for every Extraordinary ability, you have to take _three_ at Poor.
Thank you for that, makes sense. I think I'd read that, but hadn't connected it to defaulting. I'll pin this comment for viewers as it'll help explain things better.
One of my favourite games of all time. Easy to play, easy to run as a GM and full of character. In our campaigns we used Victorian adventures from other systems (such as Rippers, Victoriana etc.) as well as a setting based around the book's own Castle Falkenstein. I recommend it. (but home-brew the rules to fit your own style).
Sounds very cool, the rules seem light enough that you could bend them to almost any style that you want.
Great video, thank you. The heavily narrative-oriented (and super accessible) system was vastly ahead of its time. It still remains definitely underrated these days.
Also, more games should have Abraham Lincoln smacking random historical and contemporary persons.
I'm still somewhat annoyed I didn't get the Karl Marx, Queen Victoria showdown I really wanted.
A great game, so much to love in it.
I am not a fan of card mechanics in rpgs but I still enjoyed the video. As for the pronunciation correction, whoever told you it was "steen" instead of "stine" is wrong. In German, "ei" is pronounced like "eye" and is seen in names like Einstein. The long e sound is "ie". It's easy to remember because you just pronounce the second letter; "ei" you pronounce the "i", "ie" you pronounce the "e".
It may have been a joke/someone quoting Young Frankenstein. "It's pronounced Fronken-steen."
I didn't think I'd like the card mechanics either, but once I got around the idea that they're just like rolling dice, I got used to it. And think I prefer the cards to some of the systems where you have to roll different coloured dice for different things.
I'm now wondering if I did just pick up a joke wrong, but can't find the comment. I'm terrible at pronunciation at the best of times, so if I get corrected these days I just own up to it and admit I was wrong :)
@@RPGGamer The mechanic part of cards don't bother me so much, it's more logistics. I played another RPG with cards, and found it very messy and frustrating. Players would accidentally pull a card from the wrong pile, knock over a pile of cards, cards would get scattered or flipped over or two stacks would get mixed up. They would also forget which pile was the draw or discard or some other type of pile that had to be separated. Also someone knocked over a drink and the cards got all wet. It was just so much hassle for a mechanic that didn't even add much to the game lol. Also I like the feeling of dice going clickety clackety on the table.
Playing cards because no respectable lady or gentleman of New Europa would ever play dice!
But for those of us living in the uncouth days of the 21st century, there is an official alternative rules supplement as well as a licenced gurps version
I knew about the GURPS version, from the days when there was GURPS everything, cheers for letting me know about the alternate rules.
Why would anyone try to replace the quick, narrative-driven rules-light system of CF with something as crunchy and unwieldy as GURPS? The latter has lengthy combat and focuses on super-detailed, highly specific skills, quite the exact opposite of CF. If you want some rules-heavy Victorian Age-fantasy, why not go for the same result using GURPS Steampunk?
@@alexandershmaev1392 Personally I never got why there were D20 and Gurps versions of most things. The rules change the tone of the game, so they're not really the same games.
The one which gets me most is Deadlands, which uses the Savage Worlds rules, and they also released a D20 Deadlands, and a GURPS Deadlands.
Awwww it's a pretty the Queen Victoria v Karl Marx match didn't come to reality!
Without combat skills, both would have been defaulting, which would have made the fight funnier, but not exactly useful for demonstrating the rules.