|
Setting aside the funny reference, Red Arcadia sounds like it would be a pretty scary place in the nWoD. Where even the Fae fear to thread.
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2017 08:07
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 15:44 |
|
|
Mendrian posted:I would be tempted to actually give the Senex something resembling Carthian Law (since it mostly involves the supernatural binding of their collective authority) and give the Legio something like Invictus Oaths and also access to other fighting styles. That is of course the lazy option because gently caress rewriting two whole wings for a game, but you may be more ambitious than me. You'd still have to adjust all the Merits to fit better with the setting. I Am Just a Box posted:You could reappropriate the Contract with the Uncanny Merit from Dark Eras's Elizabethan England period, emphasizing the Wing of Strangers' role as opportunistic rabble not bound to conventional alliances. I ended up doing exactly this, as well as a couple of other random merits I found that seemed to apply to the Peregrines. Giving the Senex Carthian law is actually fascinating to me, and I'm going to think about putting some lore behind that, too. (Maybe it could fail as the Camarilla weakens? The campaign is gonna start in 192 AD, when things are still looking pretty good. For Vampires, anyway. Mortal Romans were already encountering some, uh, problems.)
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2017 08:23
|
|
|
MonsieurChoc posted:Setting aside the funny reference, Red Arcadia sounds like it would be a pretty scary place in the nWoD. Where even the Fae fear to thread. What is it? Double Hell?
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2017 15:59
|
|
|
crime fighting hog posted:What is it? Double Hell?
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2017 16:01
|
|
|
Yawgmoth posted:Scarytown. ♫the Outer Limits theme begins to play♫
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2017 16:21
|
|
|
For anyone interested, there's a Changeling: the Lost Bundle of Holding up.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2017 03:12
|
|
|
Thanks for the suggestion to look for PbPs at the Onyx Path forums. Got invited to a CtL game right away. Apparently they're going to make it as 2e as possible. Edit: Guess I'll get that bundle and the 2e core. It's cool that CtL just happens to be on sale now. Getsuya fucked around with this message at 17:49 on Mar 14, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2017 17:47
|
|
|
I'll just leave this here.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2017 19:13
|
|
|
I that a blood butt? Like a butt made out of blood?
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2017 19:29
|
|
|
Nah, it's a foam-rubber costuming butt put through the weird filter they put on the images.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2017 19:44
|
|
|
Kurieg posted:I'll just leave this here. Why must you hurt me so? Whyyy?
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2017 21:12
|
|
|
So hey, guys. Remember how people keep saying that they want a CK2 style Vampire or World of Darkness game instead of things like that cellphone game?...     Some recent change logs from the mod posted:Version 0.2.1 quote:Revenants/Ghoul Families: Added all named revenant families from OWOD and NWOD. They exist as hireable mercenaries, dynasties, an as well as often claiming single counties for their ancesteral homelands. quote:Werewolf: Are you confused as to what's going on with those pictures and change logs? Then here's an explanation: There is an old VTM mod for Crusader Kings 2 that has lain dormant for quite a long time. Ever since the latest CK2 DLC came out the mod makers have resurrected it and patched it to CK2's most modern version. More impressively, they've added almost every major game line in both the OWoD and NWoD as playable races. They've also made it so that you can play in either the OWoD or NWoD in multiple different eras of time as well. In addition to that you can choose the primary game line that is evident on the map. IE: If you choose a VTR era that is listed as vampire-centric then you'll see the world full of vampiric territories you can play as with some extras from other settings present in the world where it's appropriate to the setting. To elaborate on that last bit, you can see what I mean in one of those screenshots. The Storm Lords of Werewolf: The Forsaken rallied the other roided out furries of the region and pretty much took over a large chunk of eastern Europe in that VTR game. The end result being that they usurped control of many cities and drove out, controlled, or killed most vampires and other rival supernaturals in that part of the world. Currently the game has a bunch of different eras from different game lines. Mage: Awakening has at least one playable era from what I recall. Both VTR and VTM have eras specifically designed for playing in them. The VTR one is focused around the fall of the Invictus's attempt at an empire. The VTM one is specifically focused around the Dark Ages setting, from what I can tell. Even with those eras though you can design your own character to be any currently implemented supernatural or hunter via the ruler designer. Then you can insert it into any era and game line at your discretion. Ever wanted to actually play out a "which setting would win" nerd slap fight? Now you can! There's a catch to all this good news though. It's a huge amount of work to update the mod to the latest version. Never mind constructing both game worlds in CK2 so you can dick around in them in such a way that you can switch between game lines and entire worlds. The current version is very much a WIP and they need help on both the coding and filling out the "history" end of things. Incidentally, after discovering the mod's existence I posted in the thread discussing development of the mod. I also asked if they needed any help trying to figure out what vampires existed in the selectable eras for VTM. I mentioned Loomer's project offhandedly in my post and this was the reply: quote:We are open to accepting help with this Mod! So Loomer's research actually has a practical use! They just need to get their hands on it and maybe find some poor lost soul to input it into the database they've set up. Archonex fucked around with this message at 06:03 on Mar 15, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2017 01:36
|
|
|
Archonex posted:So Loomer's research actually has a practical use. They just need to get their hands on it and maybe find some poor lost soul to input it into the database they've set up. I think doing that to a soul is a wisdom sin.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2017 02:08
|
|
|
cptn_dr posted:I think doing that to a soul is a wisdom sin. Having spent some time looking at how CK2 handles dynasties and character data it probably isn't that bad. All of the back end work like traits for the supernaturals are already designed or in progress. It'd just be tedious database work interspersed with browsing through the books to fill out the blanks. You'd just need to input a character's birth date, find out where it'd be suitable to put them in the world at, what traits they ought to have, and if necessary where they died at. Depending on how detailed Loomer's data is though it'd probably be pretty easy given that all you'd have to do is track down what the character's stats and accomplishments were in the books. Either way, I thought i'd mention the project here. Especially since this is as close to a decent WoD game as we're ever likely to get. I know some goons are jonesing for decent game in the setting and are pretty aggravated at Paradox and White Wolf's choice of new games. So I figured that project might be up some folk's alley. Also, I forgot to post the thread link in the last post, so here it is: https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/index.php?threads/mod-princes-of-darkness-vampires-werewolves-etc.808621/ You'll need to log in to see it due to how Paradox's forums work. Archonex fucked around with this message at 05:51 on Mar 15, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2017 02:18
|
|
|
So is there any noticable play difference between this and CK2 other than changing FRANCE in giant letters with TREMERE in giant letters?
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2017 02:27
|
|
|
Mendrian posted:So is there any noticable play difference between this and CK2 other than changing FRANCE in giant letters with TREMERE in giant letters? The TREMERE screenshot is a screenshot from an old version. I yanked it off the OP of the thread, which is about two years old at this point. Also, it helps if you understand what some of those screenshots are showing. The screenshots aren't showing a generic "the Tremere won here" sort of thing but instead show you what bloodline, covenant, religion, and clan has notable influence in a region when setting aside direct princely control of the area. Basically it's another political layer to the whole thing beyond the "Park your army here and assume control." thing that most strategy games do. To answer your other question, yeah, it's pretty different so far. Disciplines and blood sorcery from VTR is in from what time i've had to play it. Mechanics like generation, blood potency, and frenzy are also in. As are titles like Keeper of Elyisum. Heck, Keeper of Elysium actually has hidden mod unique mechanics from what I can tell from checking the files for it. Likewise, there's mod unique buildings too. Paging through the game's files i've also noticed a fair number of unique decisions that can pop up related to the WoD game lines. That being said it's definitely an alpha. There's a lot of holdovers from vanilla that they haven't patched out yet. And an underlying event system to really separate the mod from CK2 is only partially there so far. They're also still using CK2's vassal/lord system for politics, which means that politics only really starts at the "owns a city" level or higher. Which means that the local politics that VTR and VTM are so reliant on are not there. So if you pick it up at this point you shouldn't expect a finished experience. What they have finished working on though shows that the mod is certainly promising. Archonex fucked around with this message at 05:57 on Mar 15, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2017 02:41
|
|
|
Oligopsony posted:For anyone interested, there's a Changeling: the Lost Bundle of Holding up. Wow, that's great news! Thanks for posting it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2017 03:16
|
|
|
At times I forget that WoD is supposed to be Role Playing and as such, player characters are supposed to be susceptible to social manipulation as any other character would be. I don't think I've played another system that even pretends that it's something that could happen, beyond purely mechanical stuff like penalties to rolls for being taunted or the like. There are ways it could work I suppose - handing out unreliable info as definite when someone fails a secret subterfuge roll, etc. But that seems pretty risky to me. Basic Chunnel fucked around with this message at 21:49 on Mar 15, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2017 21:47
|
|
|
I'm a Prince of Clan Generic, in the Pyrenees.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2017 22:05
|
|
|
Basic Chunnel posted:At times I forget that WoD is supposed to be Role Playing and as such, player characters are supposed to be susceptible to social manipulation as any other character would be. I don't think I've played another system that even pretends that it's something that could happen, beyond purely mechanical stuff like penalties to rolls for being taunted or the like. There is no faster way to piss off players and make them drop a game than to compel their PCs via a social manipulation roll to do something.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2017 22:29
|
|
|
Basic Chunnel posted:At times I forget that WoD is supposed to be Role Playing and as such, player characters are supposed to be susceptible to social manipulation as any other character would be.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2017 22:40
|
|
|
I've decided what I'm gonna do when I finally get my Wraith 20th Anniversary book: run a Dark Souls inspired game with it. I mean, souls are a resources, you're dead and can respawn, it's possible for people to become horrible monsters, there's a labyrinth full of horrors and treasures, etc.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2017 22:53
|
|
|
Night10194 posted:There is no faster way to piss off players and make them drop a game than to compel their PCs via a social manipulation roll to do something. This is a true phenomenon I just never understood. People accept Dominate and Majesty and Nightmare - but social mechanics? You mean to say my character could be seduced or intimidated despite what my player wants? I quit.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2017 22:58
|
|
|
Yawgmoth posted:This way lies madness and dissolved groups. Let the players make sense motive checks (or whatever) when they feel it prudent, otherwise just RP the NPCs as you would normally. The PCs are PCs and are treated differently for a reason, and that reason is that you are not playing them, the players are. Treating them like NPCs will only lead to them becoming NPCs. 100%. There's absolutely no reason to subject player-characters to Persuasion checks. Lies, sure, though even then I prefer to let the players choose who to believe. LARPs make this whole thing considerably more complicated since the primary target for all those skills are other PCs. Barbed Tongues posted:This is a true phenomenon I just never understood. People accept Dominate and Majesty and Nightmare - but social mechanics? You mean to say my character could be seduced or intimidated despite what my player wants? I think it is a somewhat contentious expectation for the ST to just kind of assume players will be okay with that; it might be interesting to do this, as an experiment, and let players know their characters are subject to changes of heart they themselves did not orchestrate, but it makes for a very different kind of game.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2017 23:00
|
|
|
Yawgmoth posted:This way lies madness and dissolved groups. Let the players make sense motive checks (or whatever) when they feel it prudent, otherwise just RP the NPCs as you would normally. The PCs are PCs and are treated differently for a reason, and that reason is that you are not playing them, the players are. Treating them like NPCs will only lead to them becoming NPCs.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2017 23:04
|
|
|
Mendrian posted:I think it is a somewhat contentious expectation for the ST to just kind of assume players will be okay with that; it might be interesting to do this, as an experiment, and let players know their characters are subject to changes of heart they themselves did not orchestrate, but it makes for a very different kind of game. No it doesn't. It slightly moves the bar on options the ST has on influencing those changes of heart, unless PCs get to be immune to majesty, conditions. But yes, all this should be covered in social contract / table expectations, etc. I am just consistently surprised by the vehemence some players maintain that social rules are somehow different than real rules. 2E helps this, at least, with conditions. Cards with text-rules placed on your duder are easier to swallow for people than social stuff.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2017 23:06
|
|
|
Basic Chunnel posted:It sucks, sure. But I mean it's only distinguished from the concept of integrity / derangements / conditions by degrees. You can't be persuaded to change your mind about something in a moment but over the course of the game, you are obliged, presumably, to play out inexorable changes in your character. Even if you put absolutely no effort into roleplaying your Integrity-rating and loss, it'll still be a feature of the game because it has a mechanical effect in the game that serves to create the narrative of slowly being driven to the brink of madness. Though on the topic of Conditions, their 0.2-XP-for-doing-what-it-says could serve as a kind of FATE-like motivator where having social skills used against you never forces you do do anything... but you do get 0.2 XP if agree/obey/whatever.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2017 23:10
|
|
|
Barbed Tongues posted:This is a true phenomenon I just never understood. People accept Dominate and Majesty and Nightmare - but social mechanics? You mean to say my character could be seduced or intimidated despite what my player wants? It's almost like the primary appeal of roleplaying games for many people is getting to write and play a single character's role in a larger story, reacting to things as they think their character would. And like they get kinda pissed when they get stage direction on that from above.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2017 23:18
|
|
|
Barbed Tongues posted:No it doesn't. It slightly moves the bar on options the ST has on influencing those changes of heart, unless PCs get to be immune to majesty, conditions. But yes, all this should be covered in social contract / table expectations, etc. I am just consistently surprised by the vehemence some players maintain that social rules are somehow different than real rules. 2E helps this, at least, with conditions. Cards with text-rules placed on your duder are easier to swallow for people than social stuff. Conditions are nice because they're nonbinary and they're also concrete. Here's a 1e scenario that illustrates what I'm talking about : You have a player character Gangrel in a conversation with an NPC Daeva socialite. The ST has the Daeva perform a Persuasion check against the PC; the Daeva is attempting to convince the Gangrel that the Carthians are the best choice for neonates. She is a Carthian and actually believes this, but the Gangrel has had a bad experience with a Carthian and is skeptical. The ST decides this warrants a bonus for the Gangrel on the contesteded check, but the Gangrel fails anyway. Does this mean that the Gangrel now believes the statement? Is he somewhat inclined to believe the statement? Does he merely trust the Daeva more? It's very floaty. The essential problem with social checks versus Disciplines or Humanity rules are: 1.) They are always at-will. (Meaning there is no cost or condition required to use them) 2.) They are of potentially infinite scope. (Meaning, trying to convince someone to trust me versus trying to get them to trust my Covenant versus convincing them that my Covenant is literally the best thing ever and they should devote themselves to it immediately are all covered under the same rules) 3.) Supernatural influence doesn't care about starting motivation, but mundane influence should. (Meaning it should be harder to convince a deeply skeptical scientist about aliens than it is to convince a fervent believer) Roleplaying is about choice and Vampire, specifically, often deals with narrowed or eliminated choices. Giving the ST an at-will method of altering a player-character's perspective is a recipe for resentment. Conditions are very nice because now instead of saying, "You believe this guy lol" I can give you a bonus for choosing to believe this guy, or you can ignore the bonus and continue to ignore the social check. I'm not at all convinced that social influence needs to be treated in the same concrete way that combat is because the scope of combat is very narrow while social checks aren't boxed in by things like health levels or obvious outcomes (death, incapacitation, surrender, flight).
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2017 23:19
|
|
|
Yeah, I use actual temptation to lure my players. "Hey, you can ignore this or I'll give you xBeats and/or xWillpower for playing along." I also look at their aspirations and think of conditions to put on them. Making it the player's choice instead of being forced through a roll is a huge difference in the how much fun social manipulation is.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2017 23:19
|
|
|
Barbed Tongues posted:This is a true phenomenon I just never understood. People accept Dominate and Majesty and Nightmare - but social mechanics? You mean to say my character could be seduced or intimidated despite what my player wants? Basic Chunnel posted:over the course of the game, you are obliged, presumably, to play out inexorable changes in your character.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2017 23:21
|
|
|
Yawgmoth posted:If you want all the characters to act the way you want them to all the time, write a book. I feel there may be some middle ground you are overlooking while playing collaborative storytelling games. But Mendrian's comment about floatiness makes sense to me. Barbed Tongues fucked around with this message at 23:37 on Mar 15, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2017 23:32
|
|
|
WoD is this weird magpie of a system because to get the most oomph out of the system as designed, you're supposed to hold the character you play at a distance, the better to withstand all the abuse they're going to take. But character creation is usually pretty deep and complicated, which does not incentivize that perspective. Letting poo poo happen to your character has to be done if you're going to mine any of the game's horror themes with any efficacy (you can easily get superhero / standard adventure / action thriller vibes out of it without that aspect, and I typically do, mainly because I'm not a good roleplayer). Basically, a good horror game has to make good on its threats to kill / dismember / drive insane its characters every now again. None of those are fun for their players. Yawgmoth posted:Because I, as the player of that character, decide what this character (that is mine because I play it, not you) wants and thinks and feels as a basic state of being. Just like no matter how well you argue the case that vaccines are good some people just refuse to grasp it or believe it, I can decide that no matter how many successes are rolled I will not be persuaded by this rear end in a top hat because I don't like his tie. Dominate et al. are different because they are magical coercion. They forcibly cause a change in thought that may or may not be resisted and if not then that change comes to be for the stated duration. It's the difference between asking someone for money and pulling a gun & giving the command to give me the money in the register. One has the option to say no and one doesn't. That said, if you're not into roleplaying the slow erasure of normal life and happiness from memory, or entropic decay of perspective leading to madness and death, you probably shouldn't be playing WoD / CoD. You should be playing a game more conducive to heroism, grim or otherwise. Basic Chunnel fucked around with this message at 23:47 on Mar 15, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2017 23:45
|
|
|
This isn't a wargame, you don't need to assume players will act on strict game theory-esque party interest. If you dominate a player, you're basically just inviting them to play for the bad guys for a while. You don't need to take control of the character yourself! At least, that's how I'd handle it. Basic Chunnel posted:That said, if you're not into roleplaying the slow erasure of normal life and happiness from memory, or entropic decay of perspective leading to madness and death, you probably shouldn't be playing WoD / CoD. You should be playing a game more conducive to heroism, grim or otherwise. Ehh... The feeling of dread and vulnerability inherent in horror stories enhances heroism, it doesn't negate it. Most splats have an element of hope, it's just distant and narratively improbable, which (hands over your ears, players) doesn't require it to be mechanically unachievable. Tuxedo Catfish fucked around with this message at 00:14 on Mar 16, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2017 00:11
|
|
|
In the old Ventrue clanbook, they have a tip that I've never forgotten in my years of playing vampire. "Once you use Dominate on someone, he's not your friend."
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2017 00:14
|
|
|
Mendrian posted:Conditions are nice because they're nonbinary and they're also concrete. I feel I should point out that Dominate 1, Majesty 1 and Nightmare 1 are all free and at will.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2017 00:23
|
|
|
Lore of the Bloodlines is out, and is a stellar example of why I hate purely in-universe write-ups. It's because of things like this. "Sometime after the fall of Rome, there was a plan to create a small cadre of Toreador who might infiltrate the Camarilla." re the origins of the Daughters of Cacophany. I mean, I guess one can accurately call anything at all to do with the Camarilla in the oWoD as 'post-Roman', but it's not exactly the most recent event to reference. Unreliable narrators are fun in stories, but bad in write-ups.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2017 00:24
|
|
|
LatwPIAT posted:Though on the topic of Conditions, their 0.2-XP-for-doing-what-it-says could serve as a kind of FATE-like motivator where having social skills used against you never forces you do do anything... but you do get 0.2 XP if agree/obey/whatever. Isn't that exactly what the game already describes? At least in the Chronicles of Darkness rulebook, it says that if you allow Social Maneuvering to target PCs, success either offers a beat if the PC complies, or the PC offers a compromise and the maneuvering character imposes a Condition (meaning you get a beat either way in the long run, but either you comply or you deal with circumstances).
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2017 00:25
|
|
|
Loomer posted:Lore of the Bloodlines is out, and is a stellar example of why I hate purely in-universe write-ups. It's because of things like this. ...aren't the Toreador one of the core Cam clans?
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2017 00:28
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 15:44 |
|
|
Mors Rattus posted:I feel I should point out that Dominate 1, Majesty 1 and Nightmare 1 are all free and at will. Yes but they're all supernatural, meaning that starting motivations are irrelevant. Mundane social checks attack the very root of a character's beliefs because nothing is forcing you to change your mind - you just heard some guy talk and hey, he rolled a 7, so you're into leather play now. When it's Dominate or Majesty doing the talking there is still a fundamental part of your character who is resisting these things, even if the functional difference is the same.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2017 00:29
|
|