|
Transient People posted:Nah, I think you should be able to choose what you lose instead, and how. If two guys are fighting and both say 'I win the fight', they then sacrifice something and either up the ante or decide how to satisfy both parties. This is a better way to do things than 'BUT MY BIGGER DICEPOOLS' or 'BUT MY LOCKED TIER EFFECTS', I feel. Solars will be 'better' than Lunars or whoever in this setup because they are primed to have more to lose, thus living lives of great and heroic tragedy.
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2014 07:30
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 06:32 |
|
|
I'm against winning a fight because I'm willing to sacrifice more rather than because my secret Crane's Real Pissed Off Now Technique perfectly counters the fiendishly powerful fighting style that my opponent's bested me with in our last three encounters. No doubt I had to make some sacrifices to learn that technique or whatever but I'd rather that live in narration and scene-setting rather than some sort of explicit metagame mana cost.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2014 07:32
|
|
|
Chernobyl Peace Prize posted:So you want Nobilis or *World, instead of anything ever produced with the Storyteller system, then. No, I want neither of those. I'd actually want a completely diceless game for this. Exalted doesn't really need any dice mechanics to work. Ferrinus posted:I'm against winning a fight because I'm willing to sacrifice more rather than because my secret Crane's Real Pissed Off Now Technique perfectly counters the fiendishly powerful fighting style that my opponent's bested me with in our last three encounters. No doubt I had to make some sacrifices to learn that technique or whatever but I'd rather that live in narration and scene-setting rather than some sort of explicit metagame mana cost. Are you dense? ...Actually, no, why do I ask, you are. You're really dense. What you're sacrificing is bits of your character. The costs you pay are increasingly larger portions of your character's existence. Maybe you lose face for a minor cost. For a greater cost, you lose your best friend. For the greatest cost, you get to play through the Last End of Nier in a tabletop and rip up your character's concept and sheet in front of everybody else. That's a better way to do exalted than bits and bobs of crunch. You wanna succeed? You will, tiger. Just be ready to exit stage left afterward if nobody was willing to drop the game of chicken until it was too late.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2014 08:03
|
|
|
Transient People posted:No, I want neither of those. I'd actually want a completely diceless game for this.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2014 08:06
|
|
|
Transient People posted:Are you dense? Sounds lame as hell, mate. I think I'll stick with winning by having better stats, or being better prepared, or having out-thought the other guy, or being luckier.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2014 08:24
|
|
|
Ferrinus posted:But that's not true. The lovely fighter takes as many turns as the great fighter. We turn to the great fighter, and see him dispatch a mook. Then we turn to the lovely fighter, and see him miss a mook. We turn to the great fighter, and see him headlock a dragon. We turn to the lovely fighter, and see him run from a dragon. quote:This is just wrong. 1e Lunars don't structurally resemble Solars or, really, much of anything. 1e Sidereals aren't stronger than Solars, and you can look up explanations by the writer of 1e Sidereal Charms as to why. 2e Lunars don't have any power level problems - in fact, their balance problems were those that pushed them too high, not too low, because of weird interactions with "natural" spirit shape Str scores or multi-limbed war forms or whatever. quote:In general, your hypothesis that designing something to be much weaker than Solars works great but designing something to be slightly weaker than Solars works poorly does not bear out, because Sidereals, designed to be slightly weaker than Solars, are really good, and Alchemicals designed to be slightly weaker than Solars (it's a little more nuanced than that - they're broadly weaker but capable of coming close by specializing themselves with their modular charms), work great. It's only Lunars who are bad, and you've thus far failed to demonstrate that Lunars who were intended to be as strong as Solars would be any less boring or one-note than Lunars intended to be weaker than Solars. quote:I don't think you read what I wrote at all. Go back and read it again. quote:Is the Mask of Winter a problem if he shows up every session and casts all the spells we know? Do you seriously have trouble seeing why an exceptionally strong and exceptionally active NPC is a detriment to player centrality (protagonistness) in the shared narrative? The stigma about GM PCs exists for a reason. And can you not see why having elements of the setting that say "you suck and all of your poo poo sucks" is a detriment to enjoyment of other parts of the game line? Because that's the direct corollary to the Solar power source trumping anything Fate Weaving and Shapeshifting can do. Just take all the impotent rage you feel when someone suggests your Dawn might not always be the most special boy at the dance and then imagine someone was insisting that that same lack of distinction be applied to everything your character might conceivably do. This isn't about devaluing the Solars, it's about giving the Lunars and Sidereals some actual loving niches. LGD fucked around with this message at 08:38 on Oct 10, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2014 08:33
|
|
|
LGD posted:Do you seriously have trouble seeing why an exceptionally strong and exceptionally active NPC is a detriment to player centrality (protagonistness) in the shared narrative? Yes, and I'm calling you out. Go read the Dresden Files New Orleans thread, in full, then come back to me to talk about how active NPCs suck poo poo. Tired old canards do not bear repeating, and, in point of fact, neither does this obnoxious discussion.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2014 08:42
|
|
|
LGD posted:I really haven't been. I've been offered examples from literature, which are irrelevant because it has a completely different dynamic than a roleplaying game. You're accusing me of being unable to separate in-character power from story centrality and narrative weight while directly equating combat actions taken to story focus. Task-completion likelihood (and breadth of attemptable tasks) gives a player the power to set agendas, and past a certain point it encourages additional focus on the sorts of tasks you can complete. This is a big part of the reason Wizard supremacy in D&D is a problem. The fighter may take as many actions, but he's doing a lot less with his turn and the story naturally comes to center around what the Wizard does and what the Wizard wants to do. D&D has a slightly greater bias towards combat than Exalted does, but the problem is very real and it exists in other realms outside of combat. No, I equated story focus to story focus - literally being the object of attention. As an even more extreme example, imagine a four hour game session. Two hours are spent on my character striding across mountaintops and slaying armies, then the scene shifts and two hours are spent on your character fighting to save the last of his scavenged food from rats. We've received equal spotlight. Protagonism isn't power, being the main character isn't being the most powerful character, and being the focus of the audience isn't succeeding at tasks rather than failing at them. quote:You should read those quotes again. She designed the charms to be immediately stronger than Solar charms but the overall charmset to be more limited and weaker. "I gave Sidereals some advantages in exchange for [not having] custom Charms and having to deal with an entrenched bureaucracy." And 1E Lunars charms resemble Solars more than anything else, just with some tacked-on "you're a werewolf" stuff. That's cute, you did that thing that people do where they'll agree with you but do so in a standoffish tone in hopes that you won't notice. Sidereals are weaker than Solars - by design - and yet are a great 1e splat. Check! quote:But again, Sidereals weren't designed to be weaker than Solars in the way that you mean. They have effects that are individually stronger and were intended to be so, they're just weaker as an aggregate. I'm not sure how I would possibly demonstrate that stronger Lunars would be inherently more interesting to your satisfaction, I can really only share the impressions I've gotten from reading the material (which is full of a lot of "Solar charm except worse" material). I don't see how boring or one-note Lunars are improved by being made weak either- being strong in their area of focus at least makes Shapeshifting an attractive option for some players even if the implementation ends up being uninspired. Uninspired execution combined with low power level really doesn't leave people much to work with. Lunars are also weaker than Solars... but with uninspired charm design, poor differentiation between characters, and lack of importance in the setting. Well, we've already seen a 1e splat which, while correctly weaker than Solars, is actually really great and well-received. Here we see another 1e splat which, while correctly weaker than Solars, is boring and stupid. I guess the problem is the editorial mandate to make Lunars weaker than Solars, and not the lack of good design and writing. Haha, just kidding, it's the opposite! quote:I did read it it. It's poo poo. Who is better between an Immortal Philosopher God King cum Warrior God Who Can Summon Angels and the mortal who is halfway decent at lockpicking? It's all situational! But one of those options is clearly better than the other, and it's not like the God King couldn't pick up lock picking if he really wanted to (and he couldn't just blast the door apart with a blow from his fist). The Lunar is less powerful than the Solar and doesn't actually gain any increased flexibility by not having access to Solar level magic. He's only a better option than not having anyone else there at all- another Solar sorcerer would clearly be better. He's just picking up the crumbs left by the other character's opportunity costs. He's also likely to wind up less central to the story as the campaign progresses because he's not actually bringing anything unique to the table. Haha you totally didn't read it, dude. What were the terms of the example? Can you describe them in your own words? I bet you can't. Take two Solars. Each is the only ally the other has, and each has one power exactly: one can cast Flight of the Brilliant Raptor, and one can cast Total Annihilation. Which is more powerful? Which is more useful to the Starcraft player described above? I'm thinking now that you actually don't have the chops to analyze this. quote:Is he taking the spotlight away from the PCs and devaluing their niche in the party because he solves every problem with his infinitely better magic? Then yes that's a problem. If he just exists somewhere in the setting it clearly isn't because it isn't taking the spotlight away from the PCs. It would only be a problem if, say, the setting went out of its way to constantly talk about what a big deal Mask of Winters is, how much you suck and don't matter compared to him, and how your accomplishments will inevitably pale in comparison to what he does. Okay so let's say we've got a group about a bunch of exalted sorcerers. They're even all Solars. They never meet the Mask of Winters, but at the beginning of each session the ST spends a couple minutes describing some amazing sorcerous feat the Mask of Winters performs in the underworld that no one who isn't an Essence 10 ancient can hope to match. This never has any bearing on what the PCs are doing. Who's the protagonist now? quote:Do you seriously have trouble seeing why an exceptionally strong and exceptionally active NPC is a detriment to player centrality (protagonistness) in the shared narrative? The stigma about GM PCs exists for a reason. And can you not see why having elements of the setting that say "you suck and all of your poo poo sucks" is a detriment to enjoyment of other parts of the game line? Because that's the direct corollary to the Solar power source trumping anything Fate Weaving and Shapeshifting can do. Just take all the impotent rage you feel when someone suggests your Dawn might not always be the most special boy at the dance and then imagine someone was insisting that that same lack of distinction be applied to everything your character might conceivably do. This isn't about devaluing the Solars, it's about giving the Lunars and Sidereals some actual loving niches. This is cool because of how insane it sounds. Seriously, look at it. They're out there... the Solars... insulting my precious character with their very presence. I can hear Ferrinus whispering...
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2014 08:52
|
|
|
Chernobyl Peace Prize posted:Good news! Nobilis is completely diceless. Yeah. Nobilis is a pretty straightforward ante system - if a stat or power says you can do X, then you can do X forever and automatically beat anything that's X-1... unless your opponent starts tossing in personal resources (magic points, health levels, mystical bonds with other characters, etc), at which point you can do the same. There's no dice rolls or randomness involved anywhere.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2014 08:53
|
|
|
Ferrinus posted:I don't actually think they all were or should be frothing maniacs, but I feel like it is not controversial to claim that the usurping DBs and Sidereals had a point, and were responding to actually-existing tyranny and injustice, and that the super-powerful, already-beaten-everything-that-once-opposed-them Solars actually and really did prove to be monstrous in a way that only humans magnified a hundredfold could be. It's not controversial, no, but I find as time goes on I prefer some level of mystery regarding the exact details of the First Age. That is, details on how bad the Solars were, how early did the Sidereals try and stave off their prophecy, etc. In the first edition, a lot of that information tended to be purposefully apocryphal. I'm just calling out statements about all Solars being ravening monsters. Having the Sidereals be objectively right strikes me as a dull answer. They made a decision that may or may not be correct, and the elder Sidereals will swear up and down that it was the only viable choice, but it's not a certainty. Transient People posted:You wanna succeed? You will, tiger. Just be ready to exit stage left afterward if nobody was willing to drop the game of chicken until it was too late. A game where you start at the top of the hill and become disempowered to achieve your goals is an interesting idea, but it flies in the face of Exalted, which is generally all about increasing empowerment. That's not to say you couldn't do that (in fact, it seems like a neat idea for a Sidereal or First Age game), but it'd be an inversion of Exalted's normal progression curve. Ferrinus posted:They're out there... the Solars... insulting my precious character with their very presence. I can hear Ferrinus whispering... The thing about having Solars be the strongest splat was that it was a reaction to the power creep of the World of Darkness (and 90s games in general), where later splats or powers often outclassed earlier material. By making Solars a baseline others can't overcome, they successfully did counter power creep - for the most part, anyway. However, the thing is that removes the cause... but not the symptom. Just like power creep, it results in gross imbalance between splats, only deliberately so. And yes, it is backed up by the setting as presented, much like the wizard dominance in most D&D settings (Elminster, Raistlin, Vecna, etc.). But we've started to get over the idea of wizard dominance, and pretty fiercely, too. So why not Solars? Granted, this isn't a thing that's going to to change in Exalted 3e. Though there may be some evening out of power levels, Solars are likely going to still be on top. But I think if you're doing mixed games, or games where Solars aren't the protagonists, it's worth considering. A quick hotfix is just to fiddle with dice caps and mote pools (make Solars lower, or raise those of other splats). I think a more interesting fix would be to make Solars more focused around their core themes and give them a more focused charmset, but that would require rebuilding their charmset from the ground up, so it's an interesting but not realistic idea. Still, "good at everything" is a dull theme, just like it's a dull concept for wizards, and so I think it'd be possible to do better than the creaky concepts left to us by Grabowski and Hatch 13 years ago. We've learned a lot about gaming since then and it'd be nice to see those principles put into place, but it'd be up to the fans to do so; I'm not convinced the present design team is particularly interested in such.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2014 14:11
|
|
|
Alien Rope Burn posted:It's not controversial, no, but I find as time goes on I prefer some level of mystery regarding the exact details of the First Age. That is, details on how bad the Solars were, how early did the Sidereals try and stave off their prophecy, etc. In the first edition, a lot of that information tended to be purposefully apocryphal. I think it's best to assume that the Sidereals were objectively right that the then-current state of affairs was unsustainable and that the Solars' subjects had to act. Whether the prophecy of bronze was the right choice as opposed to the prophecy of gold, though... quote:The thing about having Solars be the strongest splat was that it was a reaction to the power creep of the World of Darkness (and 90s games in general), where later splats or powers often outclassed earlier material. By making Solars a baseline others can't overcome, they successfully did counter power creep - for the most part, anyway. Gross imbalance between splats is good. quote:Granted, this isn't a thing that's going to to change in Exalted 3e. Though there may be some evening out of power levels, Solars are likely going to still be on top. But I think if you're doing mixed games, or games where Solars aren't the protagonists, it's worth considering. A quick hotfix is just to fiddle with dice caps and mote pools (make Solars lower, or raise those of other splats). I think a more interesting fix would be to make Solars more focused around their core themes and give them a more focused charmset, but that would require rebuilding their charmset from the ground up, so it's an interesting but not realistic idea. Still, "good at everything" is a dull theme, just like it's a dull concept for wizards, and so I think it'd be possible to do better than the creaky concepts left to us by Grabowski and Hatch 13 years ago. We've learned a lot about gaming since then and it'd be nice to see those principles put into place, but it'd be up to the fans to do so; I'm not convinced the present design team is particularly interested in such. The enormous irony here is that you keep bringing up the fighter vs. wizard dichotomy up because you want to nerf fighters. One of the first things that drew me to Exalted was that it was a game I could play a fighter in without playing second fiddle to any wizards that were around, but oops, Solar fighters have to be lovely and non-threatening compared to Solar wizards for some reason. "Epic heroes" (epic here meaning, like, from heroic epics, not 'good') is not a dull theme. A splat that makes for amazing fighters, clerics, wizards, rogues, or bards is better than a splat that makes for amazing clerics, wizards, and bards but middling fighters and rogues. There is already a recently-released, big-name roleplaying game I can turn to if I want mediocre fighters adventuring alongside powerful wizards, in fact.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2014 15:08
|
|
|
shame on any Sidereal player who thinks Solars being explicitly more powerful is a detriment to the game rather than a challenge to be met
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2014 15:28
|
|
|
I think I mentioned it earlier, but I'm pretty sure it's going to be a fact now that more classes of beings such as primordials, 3rd circle demons, really big elemental dragons, etc. will be understood to be individually more powerful than any exalts at all, Solars included. Which is cool...? It's not even that new, since of course that was already true of at least some members of that list.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2014 15:36
|
|
|
Ferrinus posted:In a game with Angel Summoner and the BMX Bandit, its not much fun to play the BMX Bandit. Being completely outshined in everything is a problem.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2014 16:24
|
|
hangedman1984 posted:In a game with Angel Summoner and the BMX Bandit, its not much fun to play the BMX Bandit. Being completely outshined in everything is a problem. Whoa, I completely failed to notice where Ferrinus argued that Solar characters should all be omnicompetent. Thank you for pointing out its existence. Now I just have to find it.
|
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2014 16:27
|
|
|
Ferrinus posted:The enormous irony here is that you keep bringing up the fighter vs. wizard dichotomy up because you want to nerf fighters. Solars = Fighters is hilarious because Solars are also the best wizards. It doesn't follow as an analogy, so I'm going to discount it. "Epic Heroes" is a theme that really works better divided amongst the splats. Both Gilgamesh (a pretty archetypical Solar) and Enkidu (Lunar) is a good example of what I'm talking about; Gilgamesh embodies civilization and nobility, while Enkidu gets to embody the wilderness and nature. But having a splat that's "anything any character in epic literature could do, ever" is so broad as to be meaningless, a fact that really shows through the Solar charmsets, which encompass everything from laser swords to remotely combusting evildoers to tentacled transhumanism.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2014 16:29
|
|
|
Alien Rope Burn posted:Solars = Fighters is hilarious because Solars are also the best wizards. It doesn't follow as an analogy, so I'm going to discount it. The reason it doesn't appear as an analogy, to you, is because you didn't actually read my post. If you did, you didn't understand it. Solars come in five classes: fighter, cleric, wizard, rogue, and bard. For some reason, everyone here wants solar fighters and rogues to be mediocre in comparison to solar clerics, wizards, and bards. Then they turn around and pretend that they're bravely rebelling against the legacy of Dungeons and Dragons rather than perpetuating it. hangedman1984 posted:In a game with Angel Summoner and the BMX Bandit, its not much fun to play the BMX Bandit. Being completely outshined in everything is a problem. See, in Exalted, Solar BMX Bandit is balanced with Solar Angel Summoner. Apparently though everyone would prefer for Angel Summoner to be vastly stronger...? Ferrinus fucked around with this message at 16:43 on Oct 10, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2014 16:39
|
|
|
Ferrinus posted:The reason it doesn't appear as an analogy, to you, is because you didn't actually read my post. If you did, you didn't understand it. I somehow quote posts without reading them...  Never stop elevating the discussion, Ferrinus. Ferrinus posted:For some reason, everyone here wants solar fighters and rogues to be mediocre in comparison to solar clerics, wizards, and bards. Then they turn around and pretend that they're bravely rebelling against the legacy of Dungeons and Dragons rather than perpetuating it. Well, I didn't say that. I can see how you may have read that into my posting, but I just meant "equal" or "not insurmountable" as opposed to "mediocre".
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2014 17:06
|
|
|
I'm not really sure if you can arrange for equality even if you wanted to, just because of the way a splat's Charms are arranged, without taking away the points that make the splats unique. Solars get "Charms for superlative competence with Abilities". Sidereals get "Charms for Abilities that reflect their role as seers, agents of fate, and mysterious NPC PCs." Alchemicals get "Charms for Attributes that are based on bits of equipment installed into their body and continuously upgraded." Lunars get god knows what, probably involving a swarm of bees or something. Unless you completely gut this structure, I'm pretty sure Solars area always going to be the winners at white-room tests of "who is most skilled at this Ability" because that's their thing. Their Charms are always going to be better at that because that's what they're focused on. An equivalent Sidereal or Lunar Charm is going to be approaching the issue from the side and will be better at some function while also missing or bypassing some part of the Ability.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2014 17:15
|
|
|
Alien Rope Burn posted:I somehow quote posts without reading them... It's a very common gambit. quote:Well, I didn't say that. I can see how you may have read that into my posting, but I just meant "equal" or "not insurmountable" as opposed to "mediocre". Yeah you did. We all know what "make Solars more focused around their core themes" means 'round these parts.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2014 17:25
|
|
|
Ferrinus posted:The reason it doesn't appear as an analogy, to you, is because you didn't actually read my post. If you did, you didn't understand it. Your position (if I am understanding you correctly) is that Solar supremacy is a fundamental part of the setting, and therefore, cross-splat play is equivalent to differently leveled play, in that players want for their non-Solar character to be inferior to an equivalently focused Solar. I don't agree. I don't think players are interested in playing non-Solar character to explore different power levels (well, maybe, for DBs or whatever), but instead because they like the themes and ideas better (shapeshifting monster, agent of fate, bondmate, whatever). If players are legitimately interested in exploring different power levels, you can just take away XP and motes from the non-Solars; if you intentionally disrupt the balance, though, there's not going to be any easy way of un-loving it because Exalted 3E is looking to be stupidly complex and fiddly.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2014 17:38
|
|
|
Ferrinus posted:Yeah you did. We all know what "make Solars more focused around their core themes" means 'round these parts. Hahaha, why did I respond to your posts? Why did I even bother? It's like wrestling with a pig.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2014 17:42
|
|
|
Yes, that Solar Exalted (and their corrupted derivatives) represent the apex of Exalted power is a fundamental part of the setting. If players are legitimately interested in playing a game in a Creation in which exaltations differ in color scheme but not in hierarchy (I doubt, however, that such interest can truly be called "legitimate"), they can just add XP and motes to non-Solars.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2014 17:43
|
|
|
Alien Rope Burn posted:Hahaha, why did I respond to your posts? Why did I even bother? It's like wrestling with a pig. Its been amusing to read however many pages this has been of people trying to engage him.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2014 17:48
|
|
|
Strength of Many posted:Its been amusing to read however many pages this has been of people trying to engage him.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2014 17:50
|
|
|
Strength of Many posted:Its been amusing to read however many pages this has been of people trying to engage him. Now I know so much more about what I really think and the one true way to play Exalted.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2014 17:52
|
|
|
Strength of Many posted:Its been amusing to read however many pages this has been of people trying to engage him. This has been great, you know how long it's been since someone's demanded an extra-fresh apology from Onyx Path in here?
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2014 17:53
|
|
|
Nessus posted:It has been kind of a novelty to hear about how wrong I've gotten my greco-chinese gonzo elfgame and how much I must seethe with resentment against Solars. I, too, find it illuminating (heh) that anyone could have such misconceptions about the game! Clearly this was how it was intended rather than an exacerbated and badly drawn out logical end-point of their unfocused generalist 1e origins and powerset in a brand new game where the writers were still soul searching with and the initial intention of Solars being the only real playable, dare I say 'protagonist', splat. As I recall, things like Abyssals or Lunars-as-player-characters were not even on the table initially. theironjef posted:This has been great, you know how long it's been since someone's demanded an extra-fresh apology from Onyx Path in here? I feel bad for you guys because I saw the stink on the current writers well into 2e. For me its been like watching the slowest slow motion car crash in the history of car crashes. Strength of Many fucked around with this message at 18:00 on Oct 10, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2014 17:56
|
|
|
Ferrinus posted:Yes, that Solar Exalted (and their corrupted derivatives) represent the apex of Exalted power is a fundamental part of the setting. If players are legitimately interested in playing a game in a Creation in which exaltations differ in color scheme but not in hierarchy (I doubt, however, that such interest can truly be called "legitimate"), they can just add XP and motes to non-Solars.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2014 18:01
|
|
|
Cycloneman posted:How many XP and motes should they add? I'm probably using this term wrong, but its a false equivalence? XP and motes won't make up the difference. At their root charms are, and always have been, the problem with Exalted. Oh, and different XP tables for splats. gently caress that poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2014 18:04
|
|
|
Alien Rope Burn posted:Hahaha, why did I respond to your posts? Why did I even bother? It's like wrestling with a pig. Probably because you thought you could sneak that one by. The problem, though, is that Solars are already focused around their core themes. People who don't actually like the Exalted setting mostly want to remove existing themes from Solars because they haven't realized that being an underdog or former servant is part of their pet splat's appeal and identity. Cycloneman posted:How many XP and motes should they add? Sixteen.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2014 18:06
|
|
|
Strength of Many posted:I, too, find it illuminating (heh) that anyone could have such misconceptions about the game! Clearly this was how it was intended rather than an exacerbated and badly drawn out logical end-point of their unfocused generalist 1e origins and powerset in a brand new game where the writers were still soul searching with and the initial intention of Solars being the only real playable, dare I say 'protagonist', splat. As I recall, things like Abyssals or Lunars-as-player-characters were not even on the table initially. I guess another of the minor annoyances here is, like, if Solars can be "just about any mythic trope or character archetype" while Lunar, Sidereal, etc. concepts kinda get "no no, you can't do THAT, that's a SOLAR concept, do that as a Solar," it kind of sucks. It comes off a bit like how every new prestige-class concept or whatever in 3e had to specifically involve arcane spellcasting, whether out of dev stupidity or fan stupidity, because anything else couldn't possibly do X Y or Z. (Though, like that impression, this may be an artifact of discourse rather than literally true.)
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2014 18:10
|
|
|
Strength of Many posted:I feel bad for you guys because I saw the stink on the current writers well into 2e. For me its been like watching the slowest slow motion car crash in the history of car crashes. Not for me! I love watching this poo poo. I literally run a podcast discussing the insane failings of old RPGs. This is extremely my jam. Nessus posted:(Though, like that impression, this may be an artifact of discourse rather than literally true.) Some books were better than others. Oriental Adventures 3e was largely a garbage book (too much L5R spoiled the broth), but if you wanted a fighter that turned into a bear, not through magic, but just because turning in a bear made sense to him, then it had you covered.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2014 18:13
|
|
|
Nessus posted:That's interesting, I would have thought at least DBs would be on the table. Though, I mean, it could've totally flopped, of course. Well, you'll always have some amount of discourse when books and a game line changes hands as often as TTRPGs do, especially Exalted -- and White Wolf products in general. But its .. pretty obvious if you actually got into the game with early 1e or went back and read all their material and anything by the writers regarding the subject. Even if that wasn't the case, they were still 'in addition to' Solars and the core book rather than designed along side one another with a coherent goal. Imagine if the other Exalts had been planned out from the start to share narrative space within a player party! We might not as many hotly contended issues as we do now. The greatest tragedy though is perhaps that, when Exalted 2e rolled around (and now Exalted 3e, they didn't take any cues from nwod, and in our case GMC. theironjef posted:Not for me! I love watching this poo poo. I literally run a podcast discussing the insane failings of old RPGs. This is extremely my jam. Oh believe me, I yuck it up all the time but its still cringe humor. Strength of Many fucked around with this message at 18:20 on Oct 10, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2014 18:17
|
|
|
I feel that, in light of the past however many pages of back-and-forth, this is necessary: https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2014 18:20
|
|
|
Strength of Many posted:I'm probably using this term wrong, but its a false equivalence? XP and motes won't make up the difference. At their root charms are, and always have been, the problem with Exalted. For Solars, high dice caps and Infinite (Ability) Mastery are the main issue, since the latter breaks the mote economy. Subissues are problematic and terrible charms like Panoptic Fusion Discipline or Final Sunset Stance.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2014 18:20
|
|
|
Strength of Many posted:Well, you'll always have some amount of discourse when books and a game line changes hands as often as TTRPGs do, especially Exalted -- and White Wolf products in general. But its .. pretty obvious if you actually got into the game with early 1e or went back and read all their material and anything by the writers regarding the subject. I am actually fairly hopeful I will get what I want out of this stuff if it does not collapse and if Morke, Holden et al. do not just go barking mad or die of Ebola and get replaced by John Chambers or something. It's just gonna take years which suuuucks
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2014 18:20
|
|
|
Ferrinus posted:Sixteen.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2014 18:20
|
|
|
Alien Rope Burn posted:For Solars, high dice caps and Infinite (Ability) Mastery are the main issue, since the latter breaks the mote economy. Subissues are problematic and terrible charms like Panoptic Fusion Discipline or Final Sunset Stance. I'd argue Perfect effects, especially defenses, in general and extra actions/flurries/dice pool splitting are an issue that no one wanted to actually tackle. Not that I've had any trouble with them but then I play in a very different circle with very different methods, so my experiences are utterly pointless when talking about the game line. Nessus posted:Well we are now, allegedly anyway, getting some pre-planning from the start for both the established splats and the new stuff like Exigents and Gefiltians or whatever. This is at least being cited as a thing they are doing. I also suspect that this is where some of the massive playtest charm bloat will go, so that's good. My initial and secondary impressions of 3e from what was leaked are that 'gently caress all these charms' and 'gently caress that Initiative system and its varying states'. But then Exalted has a legacy of awful systems for in-combat turns. 1e's initial and then power combat, 2e's battle wheel tick system, and now this. I guess if you guys enjoy micromanaging that on top of the existing resources the game already has you using. Strength of Many fucked around with this message at 18:25 on Oct 10, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2014 18:22
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 06:32 |
|
|
Nessus posted:Gefiltians or whatever. Significantly more powerful than Solars in the arena of tasting like catfood.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2014 18:23
|
|