|
Gilok posted:From a page back, but I wanted to point out that this doesn't actually explain a goddamn thing. Basically, they're live-action roleplaying "games" where there's as little elements of game-mechanics as possible. People just spend the LARP acting in character and maybe getting into foam-sword battles (If you're playing an expert swordsman, be good at foam-sword fighting!). Or something like that - the last time I participated in one I was eight years old and found the entire experience rather dull because I was the only child my age there. The most fun event I can remember was a Scottish-themed medieval LARP which was set up around a tournament between different clans. There were duels (usually to the first strike that hit, or the first time someone "drew blood") with foam weapons, caber toss where the players tossed real poles, a brewing contest, and a cake-baking contest where the entrants were judged on their real-world cake-baking ability (and size of bribes given in-character to the judges) through actually baking a cake at the LARP.
|
#
¿
Apr 12, 2015 01:54
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 7, 2024 02:04 |
|
|
Dave Brookshaw posted:Yes. Also my thrown gauntlet to white room combat "analysis", as Beats are never in a white room; they drag their environmental tilts around with them. If the environmental Tilts are present by default because the Beast is there, it sounds like it would be rather easy to account for them in a "white room" combat situation.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 14, 2015 12:13
|
|
|
Having seen the character art for the various splats in M20, it fills me with a certain perverse joy to see that the Traditions are a rather homogenous lot. Ethnically, they're diverse, but almost every single one of them are young people in trendy (and/or capital-A Alternative) clothes with tattoos and the alike. Diversity in age and style exists only outside the Traditions, which is amusing given how the book claims they're all about inclusion. :V
|
|
#
¿
May 20, 2015 15:30
|
|
|
Mexcillent posted:lol I can't believe that while complaining about the slights against the foucaldian panopticon you guys have overlooked the incredibly boneheaded mechanics of Mage20, namely that 1s eat successes holy poo poo I believe the single most White Wolf-y thing in Mage 20 is the fact that: a) there are rules for dying if you fill up your Health Track with Aggravated damage b) the ST is explicitly told to not actually kill off player characters if they fill their Health Track with Aggravated damage; it should only happen in special situations. Notably, this is not presented as an optional thing. As an ST, you're simply not supposed to kill of player characters. And it's so... that's not what mechanics are for! You're adding all these adjustable dials and making explicit how the magic system is supposed to work and saying that examples from previous books were badly written... but exchanging the "Dead" Health Level for "NPCs: Dead, PCs: Incapacitated" is apparently too much? Instead an entirely different part of the book says you shouldn't use the rules? (But then, the ST advice is full of hillarious gems with Brucato-or-whoever telling you, authoritatively, how to ST Mage 20. You're not supposed to eat during the game, for example.) LatwPIAT fucked around with this message at 15:02 on May 21, 2015 |
|
#
¿
May 21, 2015 14:51
|
|
|
Speaking of fun Brucato: "The so-called Holy Land burns with insane zeal – and with three religions literally hell-bent on bringing about their Apocalypse, we might still see the visions of that demented scripture played out on the global stage. " "The Middle East, for example, continues to be a flashpoint for humanity because large numbers of people from three different religions believe their God gave it to them… and they’re willing to end life on Earth to prove that point." Here's one of my favourites; "And between the old associations of mystic power and the new freedom to transcend gender roles without getting burnt at the stake for it, the idea of gender identity is more fluid – and more magickal – than ever before. Especially in queer, polyamorous, transhumanist, neotribal, and psychedelic cultures, it’s often more unusual to be conventionally “straight” than it is to hold, embrace, and enjoy the hell out of an identity outside the traditional polarities."
|
|
#
¿
May 21, 2015 16:03
|
|
|
Pope Guilty posted:After WoD: Mafia, they might be understandably cautious. I want to know more about WoD: Mafia now. 
|
|
#
¿
May 24, 2015 14:40
|
|
|
It's the game of revenge fanfic, so oWoD 90's it drips grunge. You're the bullied outsider everyone hates just because you're different, but you have the magical power to kill all your bullies brutally, and it's OK because they're all evil at heart.Basically the tagline posted:You don’t suffer nightmares. quote:It always felt like you stood apart from the rest of the herd; no matter how much you tried to be good, no one could argue that you had a cruel streak that ran bone deep. quote:It wasn’t cruelty in your nature: it was Hunger. Now you knew just how to feed it. Maybe it’s not pretty, sating these drives, but you don’t have a choice. It’s not your fault you’re what you are; since you can’t go back, you might as well make the best of it. Beasts are sadistic by their very nature, and embrace the fact they're sadistic. Maybe the Heroes are evil, but at least their cause isn't justified by "I should get to be left alone to harm people, because it's in my nature to be a sadistic jerk".
|
|
#
¿
Jun 2, 2015 22:30
|
|
|
Daeren posted:Like I said, they aimed for a metaphor about family dynamics and out-groups and misfits creating their own working families, and hosed it up so badly they more or less wrote fascist propaganda that can actually operate on two readings at once. Either it's a game about playing the unfettered exploitative supermen dealing with the Enemy who are incompetent, stupid, easily tricked, and yet a pervasive and immanent threat to all good folk, or it's a game about playing the diabolical manipulative Other who eat babies and seed nightmares, evading legitimate attempts to punish them, and painting the people trying to enact some form of justice against them as horrible monsters persecuting down-on-their-luck misbegotten schlubs to anyone who is foolish enough to listen. And just writing that made me feel a little dirty. It was most amusing when they tried to equate Heroes with MRAs and Gamergate, because that naturally carried the implication that feminists were, in fact, sadistic cannibals. A friend of mine who enjoys superhero comics commented, paraphrased, that "The X-men are a better metaphor for xenophobia than this, because when someone claims that mutants are all genetically psychopaths, at least they're wrong." Loomer posted:I think some of Matt's personal hangups from being involved in the fetish scene might be coming through. I don't normally leap to ascribe that sort of thing but what I'm reading so far is really quite strongly suggesting it to me. Could you elaborate?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 3, 2015 06:31
|
|
|
Heroes are also basically just contractually fanatical Hunters, meaning they lack a unique conceptual space. (Also, lawls, that line about Beasts asking Hunters what gives them the right to kill pulling the rug out from under the Hunter's moral worldview, as if "do we really have the right to kill something for what it is?" hasn't been pretty core to Hunters since boody Reckoning.)
|
|
#
¿
Jun 3, 2015 07:03
|
|
|
Being a miserable and hateful person, I'd say that the writing's been on the wall for a while. Rather a lot of OPP's output lately has been heavily influenced by the oWoD thematically, with all that entails.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 3, 2015 13:02
|
|
|
unseenlibrarian posted:I find myself trying to re-evaluate Beast more favorably because gently caress if I want to be on the same side as "Lord Raziere" in anything ever. Lord Raziere is the kind of person who thinks FATAL is bad. 
|
|
#
¿
Jun 3, 2015 16:31
|
|
|
Kavak posted:Who the heck is Lord Raziere? A poster on various roleplaying forums. Their two defining characteristics are an unwillingness to play anything but shining paragons of good and justice and a complete disregard for capital letters. Amusingly, Raziere also seems to really like playing White Wolf/OPP games.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 3, 2015 16:47
|
|
|
Gerund posted:You should create a better system to make dramatic failures happen more often than tying their rate of occurrence to the number of dice you are rolling, because your current method makes the fear of a increasing the chances of a dramatic failure completely orthogonal to the inherent appeal of more dice being equivalent to a larger success. What are you trying to say here? The chance of rolling a majority 1's on a roll with no other successes decreases, I believe, as the number of dice goes up. It's not an orthogonal property.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 5, 2015 00:22
|
|
|
Mormon Star Wars posted:I'm still chuckling at the idea of a Beast taking the book's recommended path of trying to make hunters question themselves by turning the question of who the real monster is on them. Actually, the book says that Beasts are special, because instead of going "maybe it's you who's the real monster?" like all those other square supernaturals, they go "what gives you the right to kill me?". Which is really dumb. Hunter Alice: "I'm here to kill you, Beast." Beast Bob: "What gives you the right?" Alice: "The right to what?" Bob: "What gives you the right to kill me?" Alice: "You killed three people!" Bob: "But you're going to kill me now." Alice: "You killed three people for not tipping. You tortured five others because you felt like it. You've kidnapped children and abandoned them in the woods." Bob: "But does that give you the right to kill me?" Alice: "Yes!" Bob: "And where does that right come from?" Alice: "Well, strictly speaking, rights are deontological, and the reason I'm killing you is to reduce your capacity for harm, which is more of a utilitarian argument. I guess you could say that my right to kill you comes from the premise that actions that increase the amount of goodness in the world are inherently moral, and therefore allowable and 'right' in a society." Bob: "Uh... but... uh... um..." Abigail, Alice's player: "See, I told you Academics 4 (Moral Philosophy) would come in handy when fighting monsters."
|
|
#
¿
Jun 7, 2015 21:01
|
|
|
Kurieg posted:At one point in the RPG.net thread I think he called everyone who didn't like beasts "heroes in training". I would not be surprised if he's banking on people internalizing the narrative. "Hey, mages like beasts, werewolves like beasts, they're cool people. You want to be a cool person too, right? Well then sounds like you better like beasts." Got a link to that?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 7, 2015 23:42
|
|
|
Xelkelvos posted:So I take it literally autistic (or close to it) people are the ones missing the entire problem with Beast then? Or at least taking part in the Beast defense force? Sure, autistic people are among the people who like Beast, but autistic people also include, (by their own admission) Lord Raziere, who thinks Beasts are unpalatable, and myself, who thinks BtP was conceptually weak to start with and has found the execution to be bad for basically all the reasons mentioned in this thread. I don't really think Beast has much of an inherent appeal to autistics. That game, if any, would be Promethean, the game about playing someone who is trying to fit into a society that has arcane and arbitrary rules and find you somewhat unsettling to talk to. Beast is more of a generic outsider revenge power-fantasy, about being an outsider and being righteous when you beat up your bullies precisely because of your outsider-ness. To some degree, autistic people may see an appeal in that - revenge on people who bullied them, but not particularly moreso than goths or other demographics WW/OPP has targeted before.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 8, 2015 06:16
|
|
|
MonsieurChoc posted:On 4chan, DaveB said some of his fellow developers believe balance is a myth. I've been very disappointed in the mechanical attitudes of the World of Darkness development team, lately. They seem to hold that their rules can be vague, because it's the duty of the ST and the table to interpret the rules as they please. It manifests in big and small ways; one of the more egregious cases I've seen was the dev guidelines they released for nChangeling 2e, which said to not focus on the edge cases of powers, because that can be handled by ST fiat. To which a friend of mine noted: "But edge cases are when I need to check the book to see what happens!". One particular developer statement that really made me roll my eyes was in one of the OPP AMA threads on Reddit, where a player came with a mechanical question: Let's call him Bob posted:This is a bit of a technical rules question. To which a developer responded with: quote:Generally, the setting of a fight won't allow people to back up indefinitely — this is one of the reasons white-room is not a useful combat environment. Use the environment against them, describe how you're getting in the shooter's face with a knife and his back's against the chain-link fence, the dumpster's to one side and he's pretty much cornered. Which I feel misses the point - this is a good way to avoid the problem if you're fighting in an enclosed space (such as, ironically, a featureless white room), but doesn't actually solve the problem that Bob had with melee fighters being kited. If the fight had been in an abandoned parking lot, or the New Mexico desert, or any number of large locations that do allow back up for long enough to kill the melee fighter, the OPP developer's advice would be useless. Mechanical problems like that are best solved with mechanical solutions, in my opinion, etc. CommissarMega posted:Maybe they meant that it's so hard to attain (especially with lines as divergent as the WoD's) it might as well be mythical? I can certainly see that, but only because each line has its own thing. Matthew McFarland's own words on the matter, so you can judge for yourself what he means. LatwPIAT fucked around with this message at 16:59 on Jun 8, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Jun 8, 2015 16:55
|
|
|
Roland Jones posted:As people have said, it's basically "we're sorry you were offended". They have no intention of admitting actual fault or even pretending to consider that they may have done something wrong. McFarland posted:So people know: I'm planning on starting a new thread sometime this week and addressing some of the common points of criticism that have been brought up (the ones that are being made in good faith, obviously; not everything is). I want to do it in a new thread because this one is long and pretty hostile in places, and hostility makes me stressed and grouchy and that isn't fun. I haven't read every single critique of Beast on RPG.net, but given his overall attitude to people who don't like Beast, it's hard to read this as something other than giving himself a carte blanche to dismiss out of hand any criticism he doesn't like.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 9, 2015 06:25
|
|
|
CommissarMega posted:Seriously? Talk about your conflict of interest. It's usually unavoidable that a moderator will have some personal involvement in a thread on a forum they moderate. If they don't participate in the forum, they're distanced from it, which leads to passionless moderation and a lack of connection with the community. To avoid the conflicts of interests, a large moderation staff can share work between them such that nobody moderates a thread where there's a conflict of interest. Matthew McFarland being a moderator on a forum where games being made by the company he works for are discussed means there's a conflict of interest between McFarland and those discussions, not the moderation staff as a whole.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 9, 2015 15:02
|
|
|
Jonas Albrecht posted:Melanie is awesome, and the attempts on RPG.net to justify her situation and status as a Hero with "She followed the thing that was trying to harm her to its lair and slew it, how reckless!" is loving dumb. On a general scale, you could make something out of how the common narrative of a hero who slays a beast is that the hero is heroic for having slain the beast. That just because Melanie has slain a Beast, she's not necessarily heroic, because the Beast wasn't necessarily a bad person. Twisting the narrative on its head, like Foucault and Chomsky playing D&D and concluding that the humans are monsters in the eyes of the goblins, and the human tendency to go kill them is just a form of imperialism. But the game has spent a long of text telling us all the myriad ways in which Beasts victimize humans, abusing, hurting, and murdering them. It's natural to assume that when a Beast breaks into a teenage girl's house, it was in fact not up to anything good. Even if all it wanted was to steal one of her dolls to feed off her loss, it would still be intentionally hurting a teenage girl to satisfy its lusts, which is not a position that elicits sympathy for the Beast. Perhaps following it and killing it wasn't a measured response - but Melanie is a teenage girl and cannot be expected to know what the measured response to being terrorized by a monster is. When she then ends up comatose, trapped in the strange and presumably scary/dangerous Primordial Dream, it's difficult not to feel sorry for her; for how long has this teenage girl been alone and missing the safety of her parents? It seems like they wanted to do a twist on the story of the hero who enters the magical realm, like Narnia or something - but how do you make someone trapped in a confusing and scary world the villain-of-another-story? Even children's cartoons ultimately portray the monster that is just lost and accidentally rampages around as a victim of circumstance; not one to be punched, but one to be returned home. The most horrible reading I can come up with for what kind of metaphor this is is that Melanie is a child molestation victim who has latched onto some trivial feature of her molestor and how hates everyone with that feature; maybe she was molested by a black man and is now a White Supremacist... but that's still an incredibly tragic narrative, and Melanie is ultimately the victim or the tragic villain. She's latched onto the "Beast" part of "abusive Beast", rather than the "abusive" part, but this fails for two reasons; the first is that someone so obviously traumatized (a teenage girl with Integrity 4) is not someone you can hate, and the second is that "abusive" and "Beast" seem far too much like synonyms for latching onto "Beast" as the important part to be a sign of psychological hatred. The funny thing is, I could see playing a game that makes you, metaphorically, play someone with a socially transgressive urge; a game of playing pedophiles and serial killers, or at best exhibitionistic fetishists. It would be an incredibly dark game, but a workable one nonetheless - because you'd be playing someone desperately trying to balance the fact that they have a psychological urge that cannot be satisfied without harming others - but it would be a game about avoiding harming others, and finding escape through questionable means. It would be a game about confronting the shame of what you are, the fact that you are incompatible with society, and the issues a liberal culture faces when it comes to how to include members who through no fault of their own cannot play well with others. Beast: the Primordial has a lot of the elements of this, but the message it seems to communicate is that you should be socially transgressive, even when it hurts others. spectralent posted:Oh wow I bailed out of the RPGnet thread when it became obvious that I was headbutting a brick wall with increasing force, but in response to "Melanie is only a teenage girl" someone posted: The wikipedia article for that case doesn't go into depth on the perpetrator's family backgrounds, so instead I'll look at a similar case. If you have the stomach for it, look at the kind of families the murders had; in the end, they're also the victims; every single one of them so broken by abuse that they are capable of planned torture and murder. I can't hate someone who is so obviously suffering. LatwPIAT fucked around with this message at 17:23 on Jun 9, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Jun 9, 2015 16:53
|
|
|
Mormon Star Wars posted:Let's just be honest, moths. People like you and me just keep suggesting this because it is a rad mechanic and we want to herald it's glorious return in any game we can squeeze it in. I've considered using it for a Fate/Stay Night-esque game about wizards summoning mystical warriors for fighting; everyone plays a wizard... and the Servant of another player. Mors Rattus posted:We also accept that most vampires are assholes - not because they start that way, but because hurting people wears them down. The game makes a pretty big deal out of this, out of how it's so easy to lose touch with humanity and accept being the monster you don't want to be. I'm under the impression that OPP doesn't really want to use the Humanity/Morality mechanic as a downwards spiral of losing yourself to being a horrible person except for in Vampire, so they've been getting creative with what to use instead. It's not so much that Beasts have a Morality-stat that they also use as power points - it's that Beasts don't have a Morality-stat. Which is a shame - I rather liked what Morality/Humanity/Wisdom did to the game; it doesn't matter that you're a powerful mage; being a dick to people still reflects on you.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 10, 2015 20:17
|
|
|
spectralent posted:"Winning" as originally presented could also mean "Was successfully tricked into watching a 72 hour teletubbies marathon while you slipped out the back door", though, in addition to the fact gentry usually don't stay dead. Shrinking the conceptual space down from any defeat to strictly slaying them, and that's a death that is assumed to stick, really weakens the potential play space. I wouldn't like that for the simple reason that it weakens the abuse metaphor; you've escaped your abuser, but they may still find you again and continue the abuse.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 14, 2015 10:36
|
|
|
CommissarMega posted:Yeah, in most cases you have protagonists that run the gamut from kinda-on-the-good-side (e.g. The Union, Obrimos and Thyrsus mages, maybe the Carthians) to the definitely-grey-area sorts (Guardians of the Veil, Changelings, Crones), but Beast's problem was that you could only play assholes, the game style only rewarded assholes, and your enemies were all strawmen- incompetently done strawmen at that. Very maybe. As Rose Bailey once noted, there's a difference between revolutionary vampires who see humans as the proletariat, and revolutionary vampires who see humans as the means of production
|
|
#
¿
Jun 16, 2015 19:29
|
|
|
pospysyl posted:Well, more mean Indians that don't take kindly to Brucato's particular brand of leftist liberalism. The Traditions advocate a more permissive liberalism, where they can uphold their religious or cultural practices in peace and perpetuity, while Brucato wants full Marxist communism for everyone, whether they like it or not. Even if they reject this kind of revolution, they still need it. They're just held back by false consciousness. Holding on to individual cultural practices as valuable is, to Brucato, misguided at best, actively supporting capitalist hegemony at worst. I do agree, though, that his use of cultural aesthetics for this kind of satire is very ironic and uncomfortable. He enjoys them as aesthetics, but not as fully fledged ways of life, which is troubling. I did not like the way he appropriated trans identities as something "magickal" in M20. Or the fact that, for all he talks about queer, non-binary, and trans identities, he still writes, black on off-white, "male, female, or transgender".
|
|
#
¿
Jun 23, 2015 19:23
|
|
|
Kurieg posted:Was he like this during his 90's era tenure on the Mage line? My only real experience with him were his brief forays into Werewolf and (shudder) changing breeds, where you can tell he's really getting off about talking about how great these animal people are and how wonderful it must be to be in tune with nature, when he's not just obliquely talking about sexy rabbit people and rules that force you to poo poo on someone's carpet for smoking. There was that time he wrote the Abrahamic god as "the Patriarch", an evil woman-hater created by the Weaver. I believe he also, at one point, cut a spell from being described in an oMage supplement because he was afraid that someone might do actual, real-world magick with it.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 23, 2015 21:01
|
|
|
Ferrinus posted:If I recall correctly, it wasn't a particular spell so much as the broad trappings and practices of all the various Traditions in 2E. Some writer, I guess Brucato, was worried that too-accurate descriptions of magical rituals and paraphernalia might lead to unintentional spellcasting at the game table, and that's why the Traditions were extremely light on real-world historical detail and tended to come off as kind of generic, mythologized versions of themselves. It was Revised that started working to tie the Traditions more closely to actual historical traditions. Now that you mention it, I found the description of
|
|
#
¿
Jun 24, 2015 16:33
|
|
|
Mors Rattus posted:People have never really been good at handling or recognizing oWoD's love of the unreliable narrator in pretty much all setting text. Unreliable narrators are a pretty lovely way of trying to convey setting information; I can understand taking things literally because the alternative is to second-guess the only authority one has on what was actually intended. The GURPS Vampire, Werewolf, and Mage books may not be the best way to play the old World of Darkness, but I find them very convenient because they're straightforward and clear in their descriptions (with Mage, as straightforward and clear as they can be. Even the traditionally factual tone of GURPS throws up its hands when it comes to explaining oMage).
|
|
#
¿
Jun 24, 2015 18:35
|
|
|
SunAndSpring posted:You know, they really could have just solved many of their problems with Heroes in literally one sentence: "Good Heroes hunt Bad Beasts, while Bad Heroes hunt Good Beasts." Since the intent appears to be for people to play Bad Beasts, this wouldn't stroke their egos by making them the unjust victims of baseless hate.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 29, 2015 18:34
|
|
|
Chernobyl Peace Prize posted:It'd be cool if the World of Darkness was entirely set in a Scandinavian country, yes. The only canonical Norwegian vampire community that made it into V20 was set in "Vesterøy", and is described as a tiny community of insular vampires and their servants on a remote island, living in the cold and dark. The actual Vesterøy is a large island in the mouth of Norway's busiest fjord, and looks like this.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 10, 2015 14:39
|
|
|
Roaper posted:I'm having trouble understanding damage in nWoD. I have the book here in front of me but I'm having problems registering it in my head. Could anyone give me a baby rundown? You have a health track. It's 5+Stamina boxes long. For most people this is 7 boxes long. You have three types of damage: Bashing, Lethal, and Aggravated. Bashing is 1 line. Lethal is 2 lines. Aggravated is 3 lines. When you take X Bashing damage, you fill X boxes with a single line. When you take X Lethal damage, you fill X boxes with 2 lines each. When you take X Aggravated damage, you fill X boxes with 3 lines each. If you have filled all your boxes with (at least) 1 line, and take Y Lethal damage, the Lethal overwrites the Bashing. If you had 7 Bashing and took 3 Lethal, you end up with 3 Lethal and 4 Bashing. If all your boxes are filled with at least 1 line and you take Aggravated damage, it also overwrites; first it overwrites any available boxes with 1 line in them, and then ones with 2 lines in them. If you have 4 Lethal and 3 Bashing, and take 2 Aggravated, you end up with 2 Aggravated, 4 Lethal, and 1 Bashing. If you take 2 more Aggravated, the first point overwrites the Bashing, and the second point, since there's no more bashing to overwrite, starts overwriting the Lethal. If you take Bashing or Lethal damage, but all your boxes are filled with Bashing or Lethal, you upgrade the damage one step. For example, if you have 7 Bashing, and you take 3 more Bashing you add the 3 new lines on top of the old lines. This gives you 3 Lethal and 4 Bashing. If you have 7 Lethal and take 3 more Bashing and/or Lethal, you write the 3 new lines on top of the old lines. This gives you 3 Aggravated and 4 Lethal. Both Lethal and Bashing upgrade Lethal to Aggravated; i.e. even though Lethal is drawn with 2 lines, it just adds one extra line to Lethal. Damage is always sorted left-to-right, with the most severe damage in the leftmost boxes, and the least severe in the rightmost boxes. If you have at least one line in the third-to-last health box, you take a -1 dice penalty to all actions. If you have at least one line in the second-to-last health box, you take a -2 penalty instead. If you have at least one line in the last health box, you take a -3 dice penalty instead. When you have 1 line in the rightmost box, you have to roll Stamina every turn of combat to stay unconscious (not subject to the -3 penalty). When you have 2 lines in the rightmost box, you immediately fall comatose until it's healed. When you have 3 lines in the rightmost box, you're dead.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 24, 2015 13:00
|
|
|
Mendrian posted:Huh. I'm curious what a 4th Ed V:tM might look like. I think there's room for a mechanically less... old White Wolf version of Masquerade that doesn't have to blindly copy Requiem. One of the design choices made with Requiem was to narrow down the Clans and make them less important, but Masquerade-style vampire-family-feuds and grand conflicts can still be an element of a Revised Revised Masquerade, as can having a central conflict of the setting be the Sabbat/Camarilla war, and such elements. I believe a lot of the flaws Requiem fixed don't necessarily have to be fixed in the way Requiem did it. The excuse for why a Ventrue, a Gangrel, and a Nosferatu are all hanging together despite being from different Clans doesn't have to be "Clans aren't as important anymore", and fixing The Elder Problem doesn't have to be done through "there are no Elders". Luminous Obscurity posted:Looks like I just remembered why I stay out of the OWOD side of the OP Forums. I'm not a huge fan of some of the decisions and systems made in nWoD 2.0 over nWoD, but it would be really loving great to play oWoD games with easily comprehensible dice mechanics, a crossover-compatible base system, and editors who understand that writing up the exact effects of every single dice roll and ability in a consistent "Cost/Pool/Dramatic Failure/Failure/Success/Exceptional Success"-pattern with clear headings is a good thing.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 31, 2015 20:10
|
|
|
Gerund posted:You're asking a lot from a 1099 company. It's like asking an Uber driver to fix your car. The features I've described are already in the nWoD 1e line. They were just strangely absent from books like V20; it was rather noticeable when trying to figure out the effects of some Discipline or another, and having to dig through a dense column of text to figure out how it actually worked.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 1, 2015 21:27
|
|
|
gtrmp posted:I expect that "post-Gehenna" is going to mean "Gehenna is no longer the sword of Damocles hanging over the immediate future of the setting," not "the dumbest possible version of the apocalypse happened off-screen and forever changed the world, again." Yeah, but out of the four Gehennas presented in Time of Judgement: Gehenna, one ends with all the vampires gone or turned back to humans, one ends with the Antediluvians rising up and spending several months destroying the world, and one ends with the Masquerade completely gone. Post-Gehenna has this implication that something very major and apocalyptic happened, so maintaining the setting in a way that resembles Revised will be difficult. It's like writing this major game about politics in the Interbellum period, ending with four potential WWII's as a major meta-plot event, and then saying 4th edition will be about the 1950's and 1960's.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 4, 2015 01:39
|
|
|
Daeren posted:Probably the abruptest change between 1e and 2e's rules for vampires are that 1e's sunlight damage rules will make any vampire detonate like a firecracker in a few seconds of sunlight, while 2e makes it less far less deadly on average. If I remember how it worked correctly, you take a number of dice in damage equal to your Blood Potence every Humanity turns or something. If you wear heavy clothing, you can reduce your effective Blood Potence by 1. So a BP 1 Vampire wearing heavy clothing can walk around in broad daylight without issue.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 4, 2015 23:28
|
|
|
Kaza42 posted:The base damage is based on your Humanity, with anything 7+ dealing one lethal per "tick", and it going up from there. Funnily enough, if you can't spend vitae to heal for whatever reason, you die FASTER at Humanity 5 (3 lethal) than Humanity 4 (1 aggravated). The book isn't all that clear on whether "heavy clothing" means "HazMat suit" or "gloves, trenchcoat, sunglasses, and wide-brimmed hat" though, IIRC. It would probably have been clearer if they'd specified whether all the skin actually needs to be covered or not.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 5, 2015 16:04
|
|
|
I don't expect Beast: Post Civil War to be glorifying racism. It'll just be a somewhat tasteless take on the whole issue, reducing complex social issues down to evil people and good people, where the good people are also mass-murdering, child-kidnapping, psychological abusers.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 9, 2015 22:14
|
|
|
I suspect that PBP is more suited to collaborative storytelling-efforts than traditional tabletople roleplaying.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 25, 2015 16:12
|
|
|
Mendrian posted:I know you're joking but this is at once what I like and what I hate about the God Machine. It generates conspiracy as an afterthought and more often than not the short term reason why it engages in incredibly convoluted plots is "because magic", which feels unsatisfying as a player. Demon straight-out says that the convoluted plots should have no discernible reason, and that stopping a GM plot should have no apparent consequences to the GM, because gently caress having anything you do ever matter, I guess?
|
|
#
¿
Aug 30, 2015 18:11
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:Demon takes as its main inspiration Le Carré novels and Cold War spy fiction more generally, so this is entirely appropriate. One spy could never have ended the Cold War singlehandedly. The most you can do is make a moral stand and either succeed (and usually die) or fail (and usually live). There's a huge excluded middle between "one spy ending the Cold War singlehandedly" and "nothing you do can ever have meaning or apparent consequences". Like Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy, which starts off with 'there's a spy in MI6, Smiley, please find the bastard', and then Smiley finds the bastard and Karla no longer has a spy in MI6 and his plot to spy on the US is foiled. The motivations and consequences of that plot are readily apparent, and it ends in a bittersweet victory, but still a clear victory for British Intelligence (as does Smiley's People, which ends in a resounding victory). The Spy Who Came In From The Cold is an emotionally draining tale, but that doesn't mean that the character's actions are without discernible reason or consequence.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 31, 2015 14:49
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 7, 2024 02:04 |
|
|
I suggest either providing them with a reason to stay together, or asking them to design characters that have a reason to stay together.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 9, 2015 17:59
|
|