|
Ferrinus posted:Since the supernatural is real in the World of Darkness, there is such a thing as magic, which like, actually works, and can be learned and practiced by humans, and such. It's just really obscure, really hard to do, and and pretty low-key in its effects unless it actually amounts to a way to beg favors out of more powerful supernatural entities like spirits or demons. But, in principle, you can and do get alchemists, diviners, potion brewers, telepaths, psychokinetics, etc. who are otherwise totally regular humans and not wrapped up in all the high weirdness Awakened mages are. People like that sometimes serve as acolytes or cat's paws for the Awakened, in fact. Ah okay, I was under the impression aside from their magic mages were pretty much just people, but then I've never played Mage.
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2016 00:16
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 23:32 |
|
|
nopantsjack posted:Ah okay, I was under the impression aside from their magic mages were pretty much just people, but then I've never played Mage. They are, in the sense that they age and bleed and so on, but their powers are way beyond what humans "should" be able to do with magic even in a setting in which magic and the supernatural are real. A regular Joe can learn to read tea leaves to predict the weather, or something (hypothetically, I mean; actually finding the correct instructions or training isn't easy and it might still take weird sacrifices or something), but not to teleport to the other side of the world by just wanting to really hard.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2016 00:18
|
|
|
nopantsjack posted:Ah okay, I was under the impression aside from their magic mages were pretty much just people, but then I've never played Mage. The short oversimplification is, the Awakened, the capital-M Mages, are people whose metaphorical third eye has blasted open, and with that rarified inner light, they learn sorcery that draws parts of the symbolic world into a crash-course with the literal, physical world. Their spells are often instinctive and improvised, though they still perform best when they have time to set up the right ritual trappings. But their power progression isn't really Discipline trees. It's more like each dot they amass in a sphere of influence collects a few verbs they can apply to that noun. Meanwhile, regular ol' sorcerers who aren't from the Mage book are ordinary humans with ordinary souls, maybe a little crazy, who've gotten their hands on some individual spell rituals that'll work for most anybody with the right expertise. But where innovating a new spell where none of the old ones fit might take the Awakened some hours of concentration and creativity as long as they've studied the right verbs, for "just a dude with a cursed tome" to achieve the same thing is going to take anywhere from "years of unethical experimentation and human sacrifice" to "ha ha, gently caress you."
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2016 01:17
|
|
|
...why do we not like Beast, exactly? I've looked into it a bit and it seems like, even if the game itself isn't super fun to play, it adds a lot of things that interact with the other gamelines in neat ways. Heroes sound like a pretty good way to piss in a Hunter group's cheerios, for example.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2016 01:45
|
|
|
LORD OF BUTT posted:...why do we not like Beast, exactly? I've looked into it a bit and it seems like, even if the game itself isn't super fun to play, it adds a lot of things that interact with the other gamelines in neat ways. Heroes sound like a pretty good way to piss in a Hunter group's cheerios, for example. Thanks, LORD OF BUTT.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2016 01:56
|
|
|
LORD OF BUTT posted:...why do we not like Beast, exactly? I've looked into it a bit and it seems like, even if the game itself isn't super fun to play, it adds a lot of things that interact with the other gamelines in neat ways. Heroes sound like a pretty good way to piss in a Hunter group's cheerios, for example. why in the world would I buy a product just to troll players of another product, something I'm fully capable doing already without gross and pervasive abuse metaphors and encouraged in-play abuse
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2016 01:56
|
|
|
LORD OF BUTT posted:...why do we not like Beast, exactly? I've looked into it a bit and it seems like, even if the game itself isn't super fun to play, it adds a lot of things that interact with the other gamelines in neat ways. Heroes sound like a pretty good way to piss in a Hunter group's cheerios, for example. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2016 01:58
|
|
|
LORD OF BUTT posted:...why do we not like Beast, exactly? I've looked into it a bit and it seems like, even if the game itself isn't super fun to play, it adds a lot of things that interact with the other gamelines in neat ways. Heroes sound like a pretty good way to piss in a Hunter group's cheerios, for example. If you look into it a bit more you'll answer your own question
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2016 01:59
|
|
|
LORD OF BUTT posted:...why do we not like Beast, exactly? I've looked into it a bit and it seems like, even if the game itself isn't super fun to play, it adds a lot of things that interact with the other gamelines in neat ways. Heroes sound like a pretty good way to piss in a Hunter group's cheerios, for example. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lKfupO4ZzPs
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2016 02:02
|
|
|
LORD OF BUTT posted:...why do we not like Beast, exactly? I've looked into it a bit and it seems like, even if the game itself isn't super fun to play, it adds a lot of things that interact with the other gamelines in neat ways. Heroes sound like a pretty good way to piss in a Hunter group's cheerios, for example. http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3712435&userid=30245 Most specifically, http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3712435&userid=30245#post446251764
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2016 02:09
|
|
|
Dammit Who? posted:What queer person imagines themselves in their secret heart to be a horrible assistant principal? Andrew Sullivan.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2016 02:11
|
|
|
Attorney at Funk posted:Andrew Sullivan. drat
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2016 02:13
|
|
|
Im bringing a new player into my campaign on friday. I'm planning to run Bad Night at Blackmoon Farm. Would it be a problem if I swapped out Brigham for the new players character?
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2016 04:35
|
|
|
DJ Dizzy posted:Im bringing a new player into my campaign on friday. I'm planning to run Bad Night at Blackmoon Farm. Would it be a problem if I swapped out Brigham for the new players character? I'm not familiar with that SAS off the top of my head, but one piece of advice you should have is that you need to be ready to improvise when the players go way, way off the rails. Because they will, and that's fine. So, yeah, considering you should use SASes more as suggestions or skeletons, replacing people should be fine.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2016 06:10
|
|
|
Hey another noob question here, what the gently caress are skill specialities? I have a vague idea that they give dice bonuses to skills under specific situation the player chooses like Firearms(rifles) is it a +2 bonus? I don't know where I found this info and can't find it again. Me no read rulebook good, I miss my cthulhu (haven't checked out the new edition of that though) e: I think I have trouble with this rulebook because it often hides rules at the end of long chains of paragraphs or splits them up like page x will have "use a feeding roll to feed" and then you have to go to page y to find the hidden bit that tells you what a feeding roll is. I like my rules clearly indicated in little boxes thank you very much. Instead of quote:In order to shoot your gun: It'll be quote:Vampires are children of the night, among many things they can fight, gently caress and look winsomely out windows. Spend your blood points to get a boner or get wet. Also use dexterity plus firearms to shoot guns, check page 138 to see how to do that. Also vampires are often very fashionable. e2: the Strix actually sound pretty cool, despite being goofy owls. I like the idea of vampires running into a more hosed up version of a vampire that doesn't drain people right. Might make the vamp crack in my campaign come from them ultimately or at least have been let slip by them just to gently caress with Vamps out of a sense of cold amusement. Communist Thoughts fucked around with this message at 14:40 on Feb 24, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2016 14:32
|
|
|
Yeah, specialities are just a flat +1 dice bonus. They don't stack - if you have the 'rifle' and 'full auto' specialities you still only get +1 to spraying down a mob with an AK. Plus the Strix are wonderful, and a perfect source of anything that tricks vampires into being more bestial by manipulating their greed, cowardice, and sentimentality - that's kinda the Strix's entire deal!
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2016 15:25
|
|
|
nopantsjack posted:Hey another noob question here, what the gently caress are skill specialities? Completely agreed on unclear layout of rules. The nuances of Death Rage and triggers and such took a while for me to get a handle on in Werewolf 2e. Speaking of, does anyone know if there are any mechanics to establish a pack territory or is it just RP stuff (finding out if other packs hunt the same territory, mainly)? As far as specialties go, they give a +1 dice bonus when the skill pool is used in a specific situation. This means you get the bonus when you use the skill directly and when an ability uses the skill as part of its dice pool. Kibner fucked around with this message at 15:30 on Feb 24, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2016 15:28
|
|
|
Flavivirus posted:Yeah, specialities are just a flat +1 dice bonus. They don't stack - if you have the 'rifle' and 'full auto' specialities you still only get +1 to spraying down a mob with an AK. As of God-Machine Chronicles, skill specialties do stack I believe.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2016 16:56
|
|
|
Doodmons posted:As of God-Machine Chronicles, skill specialties do stack I believe. You are correct, multiple Specialties do stack. You can't, however, have multiple instances of the same Specialty: if you buy a Firearms Specialty in High-Powered Rifles, that's only ever going to give you a +1, you can't "re-purchase" it to get a +2 or +3 or whatever with high-powered rifles.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2016 17:06
|
|
|
GimpInBlack posted:You are correct, multiple Specialties do stack. You can't, however, have multiple instances of the same Specialty: if you buy a Firearms Specialty in High-Powered Rifles, that's only ever going to give you a +1, you can't "re-purchase" it to get a +2 or +3 or whatever with high-powered rifles. But you could take a Specialty in Headshots and attack that?
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2016 17:35
|
|
|
Haha, I forgot multiple specialties stacking as of 2E. What a stupid idea.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2016 18:17
|
|
|
Ferrinus posted:Haha, I forgot multiple specialties stacking as of 2E. What a stupid idea. Why's that? If someone is good with handguns and with ambushes, it stands to reason that he should especially be in his element using an handgun in an ambush, right? Or is there a math problem with that?
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2016 18:21
|
|
|
paradoxGentleman posted:Why's that? If someone is good with handguns and with ambushes, it stands to reason that he should especially be in his element using an handgun in an ambush, right? Or is there a math problem with that? Since they stack limitlessly, there's a sudden incentive to assemble as many overlapping specialties as you can. Firearms (pistols, ambushes, urban environments, dual wielding, in the dark, against humans...) It'd be cool if there was some rule about applying a certain maximum amount of cross-skill specialties to that effect, especially if specialties needn't be attached to specific skills in the first place, but as is it sets up a tension between caring about success and caring about believability. And what's the reward? Why, it's a decreased ability to predict the size of, or calibrate the game around, the dicepools of even completely normal characters!
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2016 18:26
|
|
|
Ferrinus posted:Since they stack limitlessly, there's a sudden incentive to assemble as many overlapping specialties as you can. Firearms (pistols, ambushes, urban environments, dual wielding, in the dark, against humans...) In that case, I would limit it to +3 specialties for any given dice pool since that is what Willpower gives and what the max of most bonuses applied to dice rolls are.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2016 18:37
|
|
|
In theory, you could build a bunch of limitlessly stacking specialties, but to do so would require prohibitive XP costs. Having three specialties and three interdisiplinary merits is six XP, just to get a situational boost. For that price, you can buy three skill dots. In theory, you can become the best in the world in a very narrow set of circumstances, but you do so at the cost of being better generally.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2016 19:00
|
|
|
Kibner posted:In that case, I would limit it to +3 specialties for any given dice pool since that is what Willpower gives and what the max of most bonuses applied to dice rolls are. Specialties already count as circumstantial bonuses, which means they, along with any other circumstantial bonuses, can never contribute more than +5 dice to your pool. Also, the ST is always the final arbiter of whether a particular Specialty is valid: I for one wouldn't allow something as broad as "vs. humans" or "in urban environments" as Firearms specialties.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2016 19:03
|
|
|
GimpInBlack posted:Specialties already count as circumstantial bonuses, which means they, along with any other circumstantial bonuses, can never contribute more than +5 dice to your pool. Also, the ST is always the final arbiter of whether a particular Specialty is valid: I for one wouldn't allow something as broad as "vs. humans" or "in urban environments" as Firearms specialties. Since when are skill specialties potentially redundant with prep time or high ground advantage or whatever? Did they make that change in the new CoD corebook? God Machine Chronicles doesn't say anything like that that I can find. Either way, "vs. humans" (in something like a vampire game) or "in urban environments" are clearly legitimate specialties and it's the potential of huge if not limitless stacking that's causing you to be really strict and finnicky about their legitimacy. In WoD 1E, there'd be no reason at all to disallow "urban environments" when "pistols" was already allowed, but, oops, now we have to police specialties more closely because taking advantage of them looks much more like playing in bad faith.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2016 19:13
|
|
|
GimpInBlack posted:Specialties already count as circumstantial bonuses, which means they, along with any other circumstantial bonuses, can never contribute more than +5 dice to your pool. Ohhhhh, that makes a bunch more sense! Thanks!
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2016 19:15
|
|
|
Hey, new guy, do you have any more questions? That is way more fun the Ferrinus Hates 2e, Episode 48.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2016 19:29
|
|
|
Mors Rattus posted:Hey, new guy, do you have any more questions? That is way more fun the Ferrinus Hates 2e, Episode 48. I still have that question about if there are any mechanics to Werewolves establishing a pack territory or if it is just all RP. Also, in the case of a mixed splat group, can a Werewolf pull a group member into the Hisil with him? I might post my interpretation the Hard Rage rules later to make sure I haven't been misunderstanding anything because it has been a real pain point.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2016 19:34
|
|
|
Oh, a generic question! Since circumstantial bonuses are limited to a +5, what other features (like skill specialties) count as a circumstantial bonus? Does the bonus dice from a Teamwork action count as a circumstantial bonus?
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2016 19:36
|
|
|
Kibner posted:I still have that question about if there are any mechanics to Werewolves establishing a pack territory or if it is just all RP. In the 2e core, there's the Pack Rite "Hunting Grounds" which sanctifies a patch of land as your territory, and certain Gift Facets and Rites work off of that, but in terms of how big the territory is or what useful stuff it has in it, that's mostly down to RP--but you could pretty easily adapt the rules in the Territories supplement for 1e if you wanted a little more crunch. Kibner posted:Also, in the case of a mixed splat group, can a Werewolf pull a group member into the Hisil with him? By default, no--but it would be very easy to whip up a Pack Rite that lets you bring pack members across with you. Alternately, if you're starting up a mixed-splat game, give serious thought to putting a Verge in the pack's territory (Verges are, I think, first introduced in Mage, but basically they're a place where the Gauntlet is effectively 0 and anyone can cross over. Kibner posted:I might post my interpretation the Hard Rage rules later to make sure I haven't been misunderstanding anything because it has been a real pain point. Go for it! I'd be happy to help. Kibner posted:Oh, a generic question! Since circumstantial bonuses are limited to a +5, what other features (like skill specialties) count as a circumstantial bonus? Does the bonus dice from a Teamwork action count as a circumstantial bonus? I'd say so, yes. Generally speaking you probably want to keep the total modifier to any roll capped at +/-5, barring Willpower expenditure, magic, or other weird stuff. GimpInBlack fucked around with this message at 19:58 on Feb 24, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2016 19:55
|
|
|
GimpInBlack posted:I'd say so, yes. Generally speaking you probably want to keep the total modifier to any roll capped at +/-5, barring Willpower expenditure, magic, or other weird stuff. Seriously, though, where is the rule that specialties count as capped-at-five circumstantial modifiers in the same way that actual circumstances do?
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2016 19:59
|
|
|
Ferrinus posted:Seriously, though, where is the rule that specialties count as capped-at-five circumstantial modifiers in the same way that actual circumstances do? ...Okay, I have to eat my words here. I misread "stacks with" as "counts as" on p. 73 of CofD and conflated that with the general rule that bonuses shouldn't go above +5. My mistake.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2016 20:08
|
|
|
GimpInBlack posted:...Okay, I have to eat my words here. I misread "stacks with" as "counts as" on p. 73 of CofD and conflated that with the general rule that bonuses shouldn't go above +5. My mistake. That's what I thought. It didn't really scan that your specialties might actually be obviated by having good equipment or whatever. Anyway, if there's one good thing about specialties stacking, it's that it creates some incentive for players to look for actual circumstantial specialties once they've already claimed the bonus for their... I don't know, 'procedural' specialties? Like, there's a difference between (Pistols) and (Alleyways), or (Appeals to Logic) and (Lobbyists). The way I would solve this is by setting up two or three categories specialties can fall into and allowing you to apply one out of each category to a given roll. So, you might be using your preferred strategy, and be doing so in your preferred setting, and dealing with your preferred mark, or just the first two, or maybe the first two and some kind of freebie/off-the-wall category, but it doesn't pile up endlessly.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2016 20:19
|
|
|
Ferrinus posted:That's what I thought. It didn't really scan that your specialties might actually be obviated by having good equipment or whatever. I think it would be far simpler to just rule that you can apply no more than <x> specialties to a dice roll where <x> is either 3 or 5 (not sure what would work best) and have it apply separately from circumstantial bonuses (this part is rules-as-written, if I'm following the discussion correctly). That way, you can still have a bunch of specialties to cover many, many different situations but still not have the dice bonus get so crazy to throw off all math or encourage as much odd player behavior to get all their bonuses.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2016 20:59
|
|
|
At some point everyone at the table should admit to themselves that specialties based on circumstances (and circumstantial bonuses in general) are to allow the players to get through rote actions the ST & rest of the players have already seen them role-play a million times before. "I sneak up and hit the mook over the head, pulling his body into the shadows" is a package of specialties trying to replace a two seconds of button pushing in Metal Gear Solid. edit: I question the number of times I've seen a full 15 or 20 dice rolled instead of handwaving for any non-extended action. Gerund fucked around with this message at 21:11 on Feb 24, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2016 21:09
|
|
|
Ferrinus posted:That's what I thought. It didn't really scan that your specialties might actually be obviated by having good equipment or whatever. I suppose you could broadly classify specialties into "Tool", "Method", "Target", and possibly "Circumstance", if you were going to try to categorize them.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2016 22:03
|
|
|
One thing you could do is just dispense offhand with any specialty that would, in a crunchier or more tightly-focused game, be its own skill. Like, if you think about it, you could just split "Firearms" into "Pistols" and "Rifles" (or whatever) without materially changing its function, but "Ambushes" and "Duels" wouldn't really work that way.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2016 22:18
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 23:32 |
|
|
Has anyone ever actually done this thing we're now worrying about? I mean I know we should have consistent and thorough systems but I kind of accepted that we were only going to get so much of that from WoD a long time ago. If a guy shows up to your game with "Firearms(Pistol, Against Humans, Against Right Handed People, Against Brown Haired People, Adequate Lighting, Breathing Air) just tell him no like any sane GM. There are plenty of systems in CoD that need a closer look but this is just pedantry.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2016 22:28
|
|
