Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Intrinsic incompatibility methodology

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Blaque
    replied
    Originally posted by Lanic View Post
    I admit that the Ebon Dragon and Yozi escape examples wern't particularly well chosen. Having said that let me make a general response to majority of comments in this thread. I claimed that:

    a) The general saturation of setting with high-tech stuff, magic, and the general "power level" of the world dropped between 2 and 3 edition.
    b) In effect, this caused an essential change to the genre.
    c) This makes the left-over elements from 2 ed feel out-of-genre.
    d) It would be better if there were two clearly distinct versions of the setting: sword-and-sorcery official version and gonzo shard.
    So my responses, again to this:

    a) and b) 2e was in itself a shift from 1e. This is not very different in edition changes between Exalted. Notably too in 2e, much of the world was still post-apocalyptic hellscape by the standards of most folks today.

    c) Many of the things you have cited as left-over elements are in themselves, not new. They just were taken different ways in 2e (airships, warstriders, power armor).

    d) I think you are conflating things with gonzoness that don't need to be. And there is not benefit for a gameline purposefully going to define its image as something and then have some optional thing that will never gets upport again that will in possiblity split the player base. Especially since well, 2e is still there if youw ant it.

    Originally posted by Lanic View Post
    IIn particular, it was not my intention to convince anyone whether change in (b) was good or not, because this is entirely a matter of personal preference. I actually like both, bowever I think that 3 ed could benefit from more radical departure frrom the precious one and introducing two alternative subsettings could be actually healthier. I would now try to respond point by point. I am sorry for not quoting everyone properly, but I hope this will make presentation clearer.
    The issue here is as I noted, you are basically asking Exalted to give up things because 2e did them in a way, not becuase they were Exalted. Your entire argument falls a bit flat as you, to some extent, argue with 2e as the definitive version of Exalted a priori. This isn't the case. And the reason some elements are kept is they're cool, some of them were cool before the 2e take on them made them what you believe them to be.

    And again, such a shard is pointless. If you want the 2e setting...just use the 2e setting. There's not a lot mechanically preventing it, just writing and ST assumptions of quantity and how you run the games and writing is done, basically.

    Originally posted by Lanic View Post
    Ia) I am somewhat surprise that some people responded that (a) is not in fact an issue (I take a comment about Achilles as stating essentially this). On this forum, we very frequently see that during discussion, when people bring in their 2ed mindset, they are quickly reminded that in third edition things are not supposed so weird/ high powered/ cosmic. For instance, this happened in the kaiju thread someone asked whether Essence 6+ charms would make you a competent kaiju fighter and we quickly learned that no, rather not, it's not 2 edition. In previous edition, "elder solars" were conceivably a kaiju fighters without resorting to any kind of tricks. Just by punching it solarly. This is a setting change. If Achilles is supposed to fight Ebon Dragon (not the statted one from 2ed, the hypothetical one statted in a reasonable way), then Solars are no more at the power level of Achilles.
    This is because a lot of large, mythical stuff can be done without being Gurren Lagann. There are these very things in the books now, such as Mahicara (a mile-high behemoth volcano monster), the Lunars book talks about a Fair Folk army threatening a section fo the Southwest, and Thorns is still there. The big thing with push-back with cosmic though is mostly existential threat. It's ntoable that these are things which threaten nations or large regions, but rerely is the whole world in danger. This is because, again, the setting is what's itneresting, not masturbatory "big monster fight" stuff in itself. Ultimately, the Daystar doesn't matter for things like the Realm Civil War, Raksi and Ma-Ha-Suchi's conflict, or the Locust Crusade. But these things, nonetheless, still matter. Atalantia did have to kill that damned boar, and Karna and Arjuna did have to have their destined battle.

    I think the reason folks push back at your Achilles thing as it 1) Both sells Achilles short and 2) Seems to be trying to present the kinds of myths Exalted tries for as not well, mythic enough. It also kind of just ignores the bunch of over the top epic myths that Exalted explicilty does use, classical (Illiad, Mahabarata, Book of Judges), literary (Flat Earth, Lord of Light), and visual media (Ninja Scroll, Fate/Zero, Hero). Again, they need not be Gurren Lagann or Superman to be epic nor notable.

    Notably, the competent kaiju fighter is something youc an do Essence 1-5. The setting as a whole is faltter, but this means there's more you can as a PC interact with and be pwoerfult owars, rather than having elders hog up all the important stuff.

    Originally posted by Lanic View Post
    b) I would say that most people objected against this point. The general response seems to be: "warstriders are still there, so what's the matter".

    I claim that scarcity of elements can make a huge setting difference. Take classical DnD setting and say that there are no non-human races and there are exactly seven wizards grouped in a single secret society. You still have wizards, but this is no longer high-fantasy setting. Take accurate medieval setting and put exaclty one magical cave when people made of jade leave and add there three people with psychic powers. This doesn't make it a sword and sorcery setting. In Song of Ice and Fire, you have dragons, sorcerers, undead, non-human races, but the way they are presented actually doesn't make it a generic fantasy setting.
    Warstriders were there from 1e, dude. They are based on things found in inspiration anime like The Legend of Escaflowne. The big thing taht 3e is doing is it's making warstriders not gundams. This is a bit of the pushback too. There was a setting that had warstriders and such and wasn't gonzo anime mecha show. It was Exalted. You're complaining about something changing when the thing that's changed had been changed before.

    Originally posted by Lanic View Post
    Now, take a setting with warstriders and futuristic aircrafts which are not completely common, but still an important element of warfare. Now, say that the most technologically advanced society has only handful of these, tends not to use them. Change their general aesthetic, so they don't look too high-techy (it's not an aircraft, it's kind of a flying chariot, and these warstriders aren't quite Voltron anymore). Emphasise how rare these things are, and how big deal it is to even see one. Now, when I run a game in a smaller kingdom, I most likely won't see any and each one seems like a plot device, not something that you could reasonably expect to see on certain battlefields. This may be good or bad, but it's different.
    Even in 2e they weren't an important element of warfare. The only powers with notable warstriders were the Realm, Lookshy, and the Deathlords. They had fairly limited deployments of them (save some specific things) and Lookhsy guarded it's flying ships like precious gold. And once again, the 2e take was unique to 2e.. Even in 2e, your random podunk country in the middle of nowhere didn't have them either. There's an entire point made in Compass: Blessed Isle that the office which deals with airships is like two people, and the guy in charge hasn't been in his office in years. The setting you are describing in thsi case, never was the setting yout hink is being changed away from either.

    And what was there, was a change. The Realm and Lookshy didn't make warstriders regularly like the US makes airplanes. The first introduction of Lookshy's artifact arsenals was in Exalted: the Outcaste. This included a textbox stating that Lookshy more or less can't build Skywolf again without shutting down a lot of the city's industry, and that theya re developing long term strategies on the idea that these things are limited, and will depleted in the future. Things with a magitech aesthetic were presented not as being a superior kind of artifact, but something jury-rigged to achieve similar effect of First Age stuff with increased mainteannce and a resource drain. Again, the setting shifted to what 2e was, but that doesn't mean 2e has some special privilege to it I'm missing here? Especially again, when what you describe is meme Exalted, not what Exalted actuallyw as in the books.

    Basically, you're complaining that something changed, but it's again, changed before. This isn't bad in itself. You also are making, again, false assumptions. The example we got was a flying chariot. Nothing says there isn't Skywolf. It's just that Skywolf is special, not a formerly dime a dozen.

    Originally posted by Lanic View Post
    The same with Elder powers: they don't have to be available to players to influence setting. If you know that essentially Essence 5 is a capstone, you know that you will never be in the same legue
    as Incarnae or Yozis no matter what.
    The Incarna and Yozis were never meant to be things you were in competitiona nyhow. The Incarna were retired and the Yozis are doomed. Additionally, the Exalted need not work on the same scale ast hose beings. Basically the things most Exalts need to do is in Essence 1-5. Other beings have different Essence scores mostly as 1) Reflection of cosmicness and 2) Mechancial aide. I think 2e got a bit too tied up with Essence as this objective, measurable thing as important, to the point of basically devaluing pre-elder stuff. 3e just basically says you don't need to be an elder to face those things. An Essence 3 Solar can beat the ever-living piss out fo a wargod like Ahlat or demon like Octavian, Essence 8 beings, if she plays her cards right. PC scaling trait isn't some objective thing to say soemthing of the setting and elders need not hav specail "Need to be this high to play" powers that they get to solve problems that PCs are boxed-off from.

    Originally posted by Lanic View Post
    c,d) Ok, people really didn;t discuss this, with the exception of the remark that an official shard could actually undersell a 2 ed setting. However, I could imagine some different solutions. Let me give an example.

    There was a Polish post-apo rpg called Neuroshima. In my opinion, the game itself was rather bad (although very popular), but there was this brilliant design idea: the authors distinguished four designated genres and moods of play: chrome (new mad-max style flashy, over-the-top gangwars), steel (optimistc and heroic military stories about rebuilding the world), rust (intimate stories about the world that has gone and will only fall further into decline), and mercury (horror stories about weird things in the new world). Most setting elements were shared, but they weere explicitly enhanced or downplayed depending on the code. Published adventures were explicitly coded with the mood they fit to. There were optional rule modifications which applied, when you chose to set a particular mood for your campaign.

    I think that this design was brilliant. With this one decision, you can avoid all badwrongfun discussion and resulting frustration. I actually could imagine that something like this could work for Exalted between kung-fu feel, sword and sorcery feel, gonzo magitech cosmic second edition and classical mythology.
    Simply put, Exalted is too big and complicated a world for this. Another game that did that "tiers" thing you note was Paranoia. The big thing with this is twofold:

    1) Folks often latch on to one game style as "default" anyhow. It can also lead to some derision beteen styles. I think Paranoia is best in like the kind of "level up from complete shitshow crazy" stage. But I have seen folks deride that, and folks on the other way not think the game supports the other ata ll. It also forces your authors maintain this accross multiples tyles, often eating-up wordcount and making it so that you are busy saying different ways something is gonzo or not. Alternatively, you present it as an option and then subsequently ignore it. Folks who want that probably split off and are their own player base which well, wont' buy further work. Or they feel isolated or abandoned, which don't feel good.

    As a note, 2e did this to some folks. I note how Wonders of the Lost Age was billed as a one-stop shop for that aesthetic for Exalted (complete with having an aritst who usually does WH40K art for the cover), and if you didn't want that stuff, fine. It was there. It then spent th erest of the gameline more or less assuming that no, artifacts are based on Wonders, and that it became the most important book for th eline's aesthetic. Simply put, trying to split your own bases is not really a good strategy.

    This is especially so with a game like Exalted which is extremely large, complex,a nd deep. Like, what are the different layers to your description of the Realm itself? The Empress? What is important? What can you do to not make it seem childish, miss key points, or in a conceptual reimagining require yout o jump through hoops to actaully integrate into a big, complex setting with a lot of moving parts? This isn't just mechancial, etiher. If folks are fighting wars with gundams like tanks, that's a very different thing you have to write about when you're talkinga bout the Realm Legions or what a Lunar warlord brings to bear.

    It also, again, is not needed. If you really like 2e's lore, 2e is there. It's fairly complete too. There's not a lot gained just saying the same stuff over again. A big thireason to do a new edition is to do soemthing different with it. The 1989 Tim Burton Batman film is different from the Dark Knight Nolan-directed trilogy, but still can be Batman stories. The existance of the Nolan version doesn't invalidate the Burton one, or the animated series, or the Arkhum video games. And they can do so while still using similar elements interpretted and used in different ways, and without having a special textbox somewher saying "Hey, thsi Nolan version is very different from Burton and you should becareful."

    Exalted 3e, again, is ilke those to me. It shoudl be weighed mostly on its own terms. Not even what it's trying to not be, but what it is. And it should be remembered that what you bring from 2e in your assessment isn't necessarily what is important to 2e even. And the time to write acknolwedgements of well, a different edition's take, isn't really worth the time since that other edition is there as long as you want it to be. The shard in thsi cae is well, the 2e line itself.

    Leave a comment:


  • Lanic
    replied
    I admit that the Ebon Dragon and Yozi escape examples wern't particularly well chosen. Having said that let me make a general response to majority of comments in this thread. I claimed that:

    a) The general saturation of setting with high-tech stuff, magic, and the general "power level" of the world dropped between 2 and 3 edition.
    b) In effect, this caused an essential change to the genre.
    c) This makes the left-over elements from 2 ed feel out-of-genre.
    d) It would be better if there were two clearly distinct versions of the setting: sword-and-sorcery official version and gonzo shard.

    In particular, it was not my intention to convince anyone whether change in (b) was good or not, because this is entirely a matter of personal preference. I actually like both, bowever I think that 3 ed could benefit from more radical departure frrom the precious one and introducing two alternative subsettings could be actually healthier. I would now try to respond point by point. I am sorry for not quoting everyone properly, but I hope this will make presentation clearer.

    a) I am somewhat surprise that some people responded that (a) is not in fact an issue (I take a comment about Achilles as stating essentially this). On this forum, we very frequently see that during discussion, when people bring in their 2ed mindset, they are quickly reminded that in third edition things are not supposed so weird/ high powered/ cosmic. For instance, this happened in the kaiju thread someone asked whether Essence 6+ charms would make you a competent kaiju fighter and we quickly learned that no, rather not, it's not 2 edition. In previous edition, "elder solars" were conceivably a kaiju fighters without resorting to any kind of tricks. Just by punching it solarly. This is a setting change. If Achilles is supposed to fight Ebon Dragon (not the statted one from 2ed, the hypothetical one statted in a reasonable way), then Solars are no more at the power level of Achilles.

    b) I would say that most people objected against this point. The general response seems to be: "warstriders are still there, so what's the matter".

    I claim that scarcity of elements can make a huge setting difference. Take classical DnD setting and say that there are no non-human races and there are exactly seven wizards grouped in a single secret society. You still have wizards, but this is no longer high-fantasy setting. Take accurate medieval setting and put exaclty one magical cave when people made of jade leave and add there three people with psychic powers. This doesn't make it a sword and sorcery setting. In Song of Ice and Fire, you have dragons, sorcerers, undead, non-human races, but the way they are presented actually doesn't make it a generic fantasy setting.

    Now, take a setting with warstriders and futuristic aircrafts which are not completely common, but still an important element of warfare. Now, say that the most technologically advanced society has only handful of these, tends not to use them. Change their general aesthetic, so they don't look too high-techy (it's not an aircraft, it's kind of a flying chariot, and these warstriders aren't quite Voltron anymore). Emphasise how rare these things are, and how big deal it is to even see one. Now, when I run a game in a smaller kingdom, I most likely won't see any and each one seems like a plot device, not something that you could reasonably expect to see on certain battlefields. This may be good or bad, but it's different.

    The same with Elder powers: they don't have to be available to players to influence setting. If you know that essentially Essence 5 is a capstone, you know that you will never be in the same legue
    as Incarnae or Yozis no matter what.

    c,d) Ok, people really didn;t discuss this, with the exception of the remark that an official shard could actually undersell a 2 ed setting. However, I could imagine some different solutions. Let me give an example.

    There was a Polish post-apo rpg called Neuroshima. In my opinion, the game itself was rather bad (although very popular), but there was this brilliant design idea: the authors distinguished four designated genres and moods of play: chrome (new mad-max style flashy, over-the-top gangwars), steel (optimistc and heroic military stories about rebuilding the world), rust (intimate stories about the world that has gone and will only fall further into decline), and mercury (horror stories about weird things in the new world). Most setting elements were shared, but they weere explicitly enhanced or downplayed depending on the code. Published adventures were explicitly coded with the mood they fit to. There were optional rule modifications which applied, when you chose to set a particular mood for your campaign.

    I think that this design was brilliant. With this one decision, you can avoid all badwrongfun discussion and resulting frustration. I actually could imagine that something like this could work for Exalted between kung-fu feel, sword and sorcery feel, gonzo magitech cosmic second edition and classical mythology.

    Leave a comment:


  • Morty
    replied
    Sometimes I'm really glad I only got into Exalted with 3E. I knew of it before, largely due to Keychain and some people in a freeform RP community I was in playing Exalted. But it was the very changes to the setting that 3E made that drew me in and made it a game I wanted to play, not just think of as "neat, but not my thing". I can look at the 3E setting as it is and see it make sense. It's world of great heroes, old magic and capricious gods. All those things it used to have and now doesn't don't factor in. And, to be perfectly blunt, when I see people talk about them my thoughts are often "good riddance".

    So to be honest, I really don't see the problem you're trying to paint as existing. Seems to me like you're just disappointed by the disappearance of certain elements and trying to spin it into the setting being somehow incongruous for their absence. The former is your prerogative, the latter is dishonest.
    Last edited by Morty; 06-14-2019, 07:46 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Maseiken
    replied
    This is Nonsense. Shall we Look at Wonders of the Lost Age to see the glorious time of easily useable and obtainable Warstriders? Let's do a comparison, eh?

    Because Maintenance
    in 2e requires Lore 5, Occult 4 and Craft (Magitech) 4. To take craft (Magitech) you need 2 dots in Craft (Fire) and Craft (Air) and another dot in Craft (Whatever. Gossamer. Why not). It also requires either Resources 4 or Artifact 2 tools and must be performed every 10 operating hours. Slightly less expensive, but not significantly so.

    And what's this? Wonders ALSO specifies the requirement of a Hearthstone from at least a level 3 Manse. Which is a dot less in merit terms than a Greater Hearthstone but does require you to have and protect a Manse. Maybe you want a Manse, Idk, but it's undeniably a big limiter on viable character concepts that use Warstriders.

    If you reduce it to pure dots, then the cheapest Warstrider in 2e is 8 merit dots and 18 Ability dots. 3 For a scout, 3 for the Hearthstone, 2 for Artifact tools. Then 9 Craft dots, 4 Occult and 5 Lore.

    3e Is 9 Merit dots and 16 Ability dots Artifact 5 for Any Warstrider, Greater Hearthstone 4, and 16 Ability Dots (Lore and Occult 5, Craft (Artifacts)5, (First Age Artifice) 1)*

    That's 8 vs 13. 18 vs 16

    EDIT: Apologies Of course I neglected to mention the specialised tools for 3e, whoops! But yeah, that's a Resources 4 Purchase(2e Just says Resources 4). Now, I could argue that you don't need Resources 4 to obtain a Resources 4 purchase OR that 3e is pretty clear that crafter characters can and should use tools to make tools pretty much all the time, but I put it on the 2e cost so I'll put it on the 3e cost.

    *To be fair you can also get by with just Craft (Artifacts), especially if you're an Exalt, which presumably the PC is *Shrug*.
    Is this important? Not really, but if we're going to compare Dot Investment let's Actually Compare it and not just say 3e blows it up. It doesn't. If you honestly still think it does, Please Please Please go back to 2e core, read the section on Backgrounds, notice that you get 7. Notice that if you want anything above 3, you are Required to spend BP at a premium. Trust me. It Is Not Easier.

    As to whether there's fewer Warstriders etc in 3e's fluff? Yeah, they’re reduced. I could imagine it's a little disappointing if you were a fan of the imagery of vast Magitech armies and fleets of airships and such. Personally I'm super psyched to see Gunzosha back in the setting ASAP.

    I will say that Lookshy has more than one airship, it's more like 'a few', and there's really nothing in the setting that goes about telling STs to shoot down all the cool stuff your players want. The Scavenger Lands and Blessed Isle are still chock full of First Age Ruins to find cool stuff in. In fact, with Craft Supernal it's actually Way Easier to have a PC make their own Warstriders/etc at Character gen. Creation generally has a few less Warstriders and Airships, but it still has them, and the books are pretty clear that if you want more in your setting you should make it your own (Lookshy specifically has a sidebar on that exact concern in WFHW)

    Now there WAS a specific backlash against Magitech proliferation in games by the original devs during the original Kickstarter. But like, they can't tell you what to do, and the books really aren't doing anything to keep players from having the cool things (or at least, no more so than they did in 2e).
    Personally I don't think the changes to the setting are anywhere close to the level requiring a total rewrite to reflect a greater incidence of Magitech, and absolutely definitely not with the amount of extremely core setting material that still needs doing.
    But I do get it. Magitech was tight. It's not a very big change to just say that Lookshy's Airship fleets are enormous and numerous. All we really have on them now is that they're very small compared to what they used to be, which c
    ould mean a bunch of different things in any case. Generally, it's not that big a change to have more Warstriders and Airships and stuff.
    Last edited by Maseiken; 06-14-2019, 07:29 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Chausse
    replied
    Originally posted by JohnDoe244 View Post
    Whereas, anyone can just take a magic sword, summon demons or be able to convince Ahlat to destroy Harbourhead as a casual part of theor character. But having a mecha is always going to be a massive investment for the group.

    Compared to 2E when you could just conjure one with Sorcery. (And KoC gave us a custom charm for summoning one.) This is to say nothing of how much easier artifact creation was or the bonus dots DBs (and Alchemicals and Mountain Folk) got in order to help bring them up to speck.

    You can prefer the gatekeeping of magitech this edition, but you can't deny that it's there.
    Dude I'm sorry I just never played 2e I discovered Exalted 3 years ago with 3e and I had the time of my life with it ever since. My point was just that these mechs are quite expensive, and the purpose of them in a group is to bring a sense of unity or togetherness through the mech, there even is a little "Blue note" about this on their page.

    I don't really like magitech in general so I'm perfectly fine with it having a gatekeeping, and I wouldn't mind either banishing them all together if my players and I discussed the tone of the setting and decided we don't want any of this stuff. From the few I have read on this forum, 2e seems pretty too much over the top for me and I'm kinda glad 3e is not like this because I don't think I'd like it as much (your reference of the Sorcery and Charms summoning Mechs just gave me chills of never wanting to play that edition ever)

    Leave a comment:


  • JohnDoe244
    replied
    Originally posted by Chausse View Post

    You rather need 13 I believe, because you also need Ressources 4 to maintain it. I think the point of having even 1 Warstrider is : It's not just about your character having a mecha, it's about the group you play with supporting you having a mecha and it being interesting for everyone.
    Whereas, anyone can just take a magic sword, summon demons or be able to convince Ahlat to destroy Harbourhead as a casual part of their character. But having a mecha is always going to be a massive investment for the group.

    Compared to 2E when you could just conjure one with Sorcery. (And KoC gave us a custom charm for summoning one.) This is to say nothing of how much easier artifact creation was or the bonus dots DBs (and Alchemicals and Mountain Folk) got in order to help bring them up to speck.

    You can prefer the gatekeeping of magitech this edition, but you can't deny that it's there.
    Last edited by JohnDoe244; 06-20-2019, 04:49 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Chausse
    replied
    Originally posted by The Wizard of Oz View Post

    9 points; you need a Great Hearthstone. Though I actually found the Craft investment necessary more annoying. And I never got to fight an army or a giant monster, just a single dino.

    Though I guess I only played that character for like 10 sessions or so before he got Death Rayed (when not in his Warstrider).

    But as Blaque said, that's not dramatically different in the old edition, it just cost a bit less (and wasn't as good).
    You rather need 13 I believe, because you also need Ressources 4 to maintain it. I think the point of having even 1 Warstrider is : It's not just about your character having a mecha, it's about the group you play with supporting you having a mecha and it being interesting for everyone.

    Leave a comment:


  • Saur Ops Specialist
    replied
    Originally posted by Epimetheus View Post
    I kind of handwaved those things in the "in that what lore they did add brought down the exalted in question." Dragon blooded also had this issue where it was 1e lore then 2e ways to undermine them.
    "And the Terrestrials? They just got into huge orgies and had as many children as possible for the first few decades."

    "…Look, if you're not going to take this seriously, I'm out."

    Leave a comment:


  • Epimetheus
    replied
    Originally posted by Blaque View Post

    Sidereals 2e did change some lore about. Namely Sidereals were more willing to murder eachother, they did a big Deus Ex Machina that might have caused the Empress, and they apparently tolds oem ghosts what happened, made them mad, and eventaully become Deathlords. Oversight was also a wholey 2e invention. I think generally there was a thing in 2e where stuff working against Solars was often depicted as 1) Incompetent 2) Shortsighted or 3) Working against their anture and being punished for it. Unless it was Lunars, who built a lot of their fluff on "You're not my dad" towards Solars. (Needless to say, I'm not a fan of some fo the 2e fluff on some Exalts. As a whole though, you're pretty right on this with mechanics. Hell, arguably Lunars was one of the more mechanically sound books of 2e too, it just did that through liberal heat-theft and also by being more vanilla than the usual criticsim of Solar Charms somehow.
    .
    I kind of handwaved those things in the "in that what lore they did add brought down the exalted in question." Dragon blooded also had this issue where it was 1e lore then 2e ways to undermine them.

    Leave a comment:


  • The Wizard of Oz
    replied
    Originally posted by JohnDoe244 View Post
    You want a Warstrider? They're 7 merit points and won't be applicable for 90% of the game.
    9 points; you need a Great Hearthstone. Though I actually found the Craft investment necessary more annoying. And I never got to fight an army or a giant monster, just a single dino.

    Though I guess I only played that character for like 10 sessions or so before he got Death Rayed (when not in his Warstrider).

    But as Blaque said, that's not dramatically different in the old edition, it just cost a bit less (and wasn't as good).
    Last edited by The Wizard of Oz; 06-14-2019, 10:16 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Blaque
    replied
    Originally posted by JohnDoe244 View Post
    I think the problem with toning down magitech is that you're picking the pocket of the players.

    Lookshy gets an airship. It's unique. You can't have one.

    You want a Warstrider? They're 7 merit points and won't be applicable for 90% of the game.
    I mean, you can steal or find another airship somewhere. I don't see how them being rare prevents PCs from getting them. It's just that Skywolf isn't a dinky-ass transporter class of a common shitty First Age vessel.

    Warstriders cost at least six Background dots in previouse ditions as well due to the hearthstones. ANd also were a pain. This isn't like, anything unique to the 3e take save the 3e take is that they're also probably singularly more significanta round and unexpected to have.

    Leave a comment:


  • JohnDoe244
    replied
    I think the problem with toning down magitech is that you're picking the pocket of the players.

    Lookshy gets an airship. It's unique. You can't have one.

    You want a Warstrider? They're 7 merit points and won't be applicable for 90% of the game.

    Leave a comment:


  • Blaque
    replied
    Originally posted by Epimetheus View Post
    A lot of 2E was just copy pasted from 1e. I think lunar lore was written wholesale for 2e because it was unusable but I can look in both sidereals 1E and 2E and find verbatim lore and the charms weren't properly retooled for the edition. Which meant that they were really not usable as a PC without a full rewrite. Scroll of the monk just added fuel to the fire with horrendously unbalanced SMA styles. Sidereals weren't alone with this issue as dragon blooded had some verbatim lore issues and a terrible charmset. A lot of 2E was just not usable and the lazy copy paste wouldn't have been so bad if they didn't keep adding stuff that brought down the exalted in question. The problem with lore in 2e tended to just to staple on a the current lore up until dreams which in my opinion managed to detract from things. However, even that in my opinion would have been okay if the charmsets weren't so horribly written.
    Sidereals 2e did change some lore about. Namely Sidereals were more willing to murder eachother, they did a big Deus Ex Machina that might have caused the Empress, and they apparently tolds oem ghosts what happened, made them mad, and eventaully become Deathlords. Oversight was also a wholey 2e invention. I think generally there was a thing in 2e where stuff working against Solars was often depicted as 1) Incompetent 2) Shortsighted or 3) Working against their anture and being punished for it. Unless it was Lunars, who built a lot of their fluff on "You're not my dad" towards Solars. (Needless to say, I'm not a fan of some fo the 2e fluff on some Exalts. As a whole though, you're pretty right on this with mechanics. Hell, arguably Lunars was one of the more mechanically sound books of 2e too, it just did that through liberal heat-theft and also by being more vanilla than the usual criticsim of Solar Charms somehow.

    Originally posted by Epimetheus View Post
    My opinion on lore is that you can always change and edit what you want but mechanics are another issue entirely. Bad mechanics are always much tougher to fix than bad lore. 2E was a whole lot of unbalanced or unusable mechanics. I would stick with 3e mechanics and look to using the setting you want though. You can houserule artifacts much more easier than you can houserule a good system.
    Pretty much this though. 2e books are still there if you wanna use them. It's a fairly complete edition. I think 3e is better served being something new rather than a rehash.

    Leave a comment:


  • Blaque
    replied
    Originally posted by Lanic View Post
    I like the old setting of Exalted, barring some obvious exceptions. I love the unique, absurdely over-the-top gonzo feeling it carried with it. Magitech, Autochtonia, giant robots, space expeditions, Gaia going in a space expedition, every village having its village sorcerer, dragons 80 kilometres long, power armors, plasma guns, Deathlords bulding fleets of ghost airships, Yozis making serious attempt of getting out of Malfeas (Developers stated in Ask the Devs thread that this is no longer a viable plan). Even the Daystar. I find it immensly awesome.
    I should note that not all of these are gone, and not all of them are something that's always been in Exalted's history either.

    Magitech first showed up in Aspect Book: Air, but had a very different tone there than what it became in the course of the line since through late 1e and into 2e.

    Autochthonia was in in one of the very first sourceoboks for Exalted (Time of Tumult) and one of the last for 1e (Exalted: the Autocthonians). I think that if anything, it's something we'll see probably in somehwat recognizable a state, as it's very overtly magitechy/steampunky aesthetics is fine as an optional entire otherw orld (Autochthonia is to some extent an extra Direction).

    Giant robots are in Creatures of the Wyld. Though it's notable, that they are presented as more examples of artifice, just not some super special extra level superior that has a particular aesthetic. The Brass Leviathanw as clockwork, the Five Metal Shrike was an anime crystal ship thing, grate monkeys were clockwork monkeys, and so on. I actually called that book "Monkeys, Robots, and Body-Snatchers" due to those shwoing up a lot in that book back in the day.

    Space exploration was a shard, and is still there. The details might be different though, and that's fine. Most games aren't about that.

    Gaia's still looking in the Faraway on a comet in 3e, as a note. Moreso now.

    Every village having a village sorcerer is something that hasn't always been in the line's history. Even 1e, when thaumaturgy first came up, didn't treat mortal magic as very ubiquious or ntoable. It was often jsut mechanizing "shit you could do anyhow" and it hink that there is a take that a lot of the things folks thinkw ere msignificant of previous editions were really not so much, just given needless mechancial widgetry.

    80km dragons still are there (Ebon Dragon might be that big). There's a literal mountain you can fight in 1e, and there's a giant god-damned behemoth in the monthly material. After a point big monsters become arbitrarily big. I don't think there's like, a lot different from fighting Godzilla or Shenlong after a point.

    There are lightning guns in Arms of the Chosen, and we're getting gunzousha in Heirs to the Shogunate. Power armor is easily doable. It's just not its own special category of Artifact that has special beenies for being power armor. It's just a kind of artifact with a kind of aesthetic.

    Deathlord death fleets were on that "existential threats are bad" thing to me. It reminded me of the Reapers in the Mass Effect franchise a bit, honestly. Big existential threats are generally bad for your setting since well, they make you stop caring about the seting in order to deal with the big existential threat. Also all the Deathlords being nine flavors of Skeletor is probably not very useful use of wordcount IMHO.

    Yozis getting out was as the thread you note, wasn't in the original game. Games of Divinity and reaffirmed in Savant & Sorcerer bascially straight-up said that they were fucked. And it's for reasons others have said there an here. The Yozis as oriignally presented were never meant to be things to be an existential threat to the setting. Because existentail threats to the setting kind of override a lot of the things that make the setting actually interesting. No one gives a fuck about the Realm civil war if at any moment a Yozi will break outa nd just eath the entire world. And again: this wasn't a defining thing of the setting for nearly a decade of its existance. It's tossing out something not there in the first place for a reason.

    Originally posted by Lanic View Post
    The same affects certain mechanical parts of the game: the extreme toning down of Essence 6+ stuff in the game is an understandable move. The developers wanted that the game mechanic caps out at what is actually achievably for player characters and to make sure that Elder tier is no more a separate tier in fact. However, it is not a purely mechanical decision, but a setting change. In the setting, there is no more room for heroes in the setting literally fighting the Ebon Dragon and for beings capable of annihilating the entire world. The heroes are now supposed to be more-or-less around Achilles range.
    As Lioness said, the fightability of the Ebon Dragon is quesitonable in value, as he was a paper tiger. And most PCs couldn't fight it anyhow since Essence 6 wasn't where you got the "real fighting Yozis" stuff. And also as she notes, it kind of just ignores the entire thing that made the Yozis interesting and cosmic (that they are so massive they're comprised of multiple souls which are each powerful and interesting individual spirits) and turns them into a bunch of kaiju fights.

    I mean, the Mahabarata and Ramayana are named sources in some books. So is Lord of Light. Hindu stuff is pretty blatently powerful. And so were Heracles, Cuhulain, and Utena. And as noted, Achilles probably could fight the Ebon Dragon. The Ebon Dragon's power is kind of arbitrary in the end, and shitty in its 2e take.

    I think a big thing to think on is if the Ebon Dragon being a kaiju is something that's really 1) Actually that impressive and 2) Using it as what it was meant to be, rather than the thing every big monster thing in games usually treat htem as?

    Originally posted by Lanic View Post
    ... However, the game setting actually changed so much that it feels like it belongs now to a different genre.
    This isn't like, unique though? Exalted 1e to 2e had a lot of changes as well. This is something with most Storyteller games: Different editions aren't just a coat of paint and rules update. They often are at times in a bit, different games. Exalted 3e is like Ultimate Marvel or the new Star Trek movie series.

    And note, this happened from 1e to 2e for a lot of folks too. And a lot of folks felt chased away from teh game by as I note, the kind of failed premise fo Wonders of the Lost Age. And more with Infernals. The game has shifted a lot in its 18 years of existance. 3e is going back to what was a lot of the defining things o f1e's presentation. But the game is big, and holds a lot it can do I think.

    Originally posted by Lanic View Post
    Third edition while retaining lots of elements individually, works hard to change the general feel of the setting from admittedly cheap anime to pulp fantasy/classic mythology/wuxia. The developers are rather explicit about their preference to tone things down. However, I feel that it creates certain intrinsic inconsistency in the feeling of the setting. I understand what setting 3rd edition tries to create and I like it, but this is simply different from 2 ed setting, not 2 ed setting dialed back.
    2e was a simply different setting from 1e as well. Different editions just are well, different. I don't see the issue hre in itself, honestly.

    Originally posted by Lanic View Post
    Moreover, I think it creates certain tension in the seetting. Take warstriders: in 2ed we had cool giant robots. People liked them, so they have been ported to third edition. However, tthey clearly do not fit with the general tone of third edition, so the writers tried hard to present them as not-giant-robots and something that generally aways was unique and never was a standard part of warfare. Even more so with airships, where the whole aesthetics tries to strongly convey that they are not airships but rather flying chariots. Essentially, what we currently have is a mix of different settings. Each of them is cool, each is very different.
    Warstriders were in 1e, man. In literally the third sourcebook for the line, actually (Book of 3 Circles). I think warstriders actually do fit a particular kind of giant robot. The big thing is that they're not Gundams or Nightmare Frames that are stndard part of warfare, sure. They're Evas or RahXephons: Unique powerful things that each have a legend and which are one-of-a-kind. Super robots fit just fine in the world of Exalted, since super robots are the sort of things that legends get built aroudn (ie, focus individually of a show) and which each is memorable. Note, Lookshy even does still have airships like Skywolf. It's just that Skywolf isn't some "Dozens made, not important" ship. It is important, it is powerful and there's nothing like it in the world and it woudl have been notable in the First Age too. You can have magitech and such, you can have airships too. It's just that they're notable when they're there. Creation can have its skyships and vimanas and such since it's a kitchen sink setting. I think you oversell differences when they're no there, and assume that 2e's take was somehow the "correct" when it was well, the third try at them by that point. 3e just presents another one for another time.

    Originally posted by Lanic View Post
    As a result, it is hard to understand what even is the supposed tone of the setting. Recently, I was introducing new players to the game and they had hard time understanding what the game is about, when skimming third edition corebook without any exposure to the previous edition. I think second edition was way clearer about it. And I think that this is at least partially fault of this intrinsic inconsistency between the expections from previous edition and the tastes of the current developer team.
    I mean, the book gives you a lot on the Exalted, what you want to play them for, and the world they're in. The tone It hink is pretty fine through the corebook, its fiction, and its various soruce material pieces. What do you think in the corebook causes the conflict? I think a big thing in this post here that I get is you oversell how much the devs toned down some things. Again, Heracles, Rama, and Jubei are all Exalted inspiration. That sets a lot of the tone to me right there.

    Originally posted by Lanic View Post
    Accidentally, this tension is a reccurring pattern in the games from Storyteller family. The developers tried to push Mage: the Ascension into the stret-level direction with the Revised edition and Vampire with the Requiem. I wonder, whether it wouldn't be healthier for the game to actually be more explicit about the split:

    - make third edition explicitly sword-and-sorcery. Remove any mention of warstriders, power armors, implosion bows, as they do not seem to fit anymore. Make artifacts even rarer.
    - make an official alternative setting for Exalted which retains gonzo cheap comic book feel of second edition.
    Exalted is notable in this in part since while Mage's cosmology is built on gettinga way from the wrold that we know, Creation originally was sold to many people as the wrold you play in. And I think 3e is mostly focusing on the fact the fact that well, this is a setting that's interesting, big and unique. How about make folks want to paly there and explore it rather than making it another fantasy setting waiting to be saved from the Doom Lords of Doomness.

    And again, I think a bit is you oversell how much is being tossed from the anime and such. Warstriders, pwoer armores and First Age wonders have their place. Exalted note has had Jack Vance's The Dying Earth as inspriation and that has all sorts of technobabble fun sci-fi bits. It just doesn't make those the most important kinds of things. Creation doesn't either. I think a big thing is that Creation is big, and Exalted is a varied, kitchen-sinky world. It can do all of those things. It still can do schlocky anime and comics. It just happenst to not make them the thing. That doesn't mean they aren't still there.

    Originally posted by Lanic View Post
    I personally think that I would enjoy both of the settings. I liked more toned-down stories as well and I really understand the basic intent of the developers.. What is really painful to me, personally, is the discontinuity. Over-the-top setting was something completely unique to Exalted. I really do not understand why so many people seem so actively rejective about it. I would be extremely happy to see it ported to the third edition, retaining just the things which are unctroversially improvements: core mechanics, more open and bigger Creation. In practice, I imagine that it could amount to releasing a supplement with an official second-edition shard and certain mechanical modifications to support it.

    What do you think about it?
    I don't think over-the-topness was as unqiue to Exalted as it seems like anymore. I'd actually even argue when it came out in 2001, it wasn't even that much. Not long after we got WW's Adventure!, which was pulp action with dinosaurs in the Amazon, volcano machines, and the abiltiy to have a flying island fortress or be an MIB level of hard to find. And since, games like Nobilis, Chuubo, Tenra Basho Zero, and Godbound all have come by that have big, epic settings but in different ways than Exalted did. If what made Exalted unique was its being gonzo, it isn't so unique then. I think Exalted is more than an RPG.net motivational poster meme.

    You yourself note, Creation is bigger and more open. A big thing is that some of the things you miss, make it so that that bigger and more open don't matter if brought back. Again: Why does an empire rising in teh Southwest matter if the whole world from corner to corner is doomed if a Yozi gets out and is about to get out? Or that thirteen Deahtlords have to be stopped soon or the world is over? If what's important is the world, then make the world importantw as a vibe going. And if the world is big and open, then it should have more to it to make it feel big and open. This means diverse aesthetics, diverse range of competence, and making the wonderful feel like its notably wonderful instead of mundane. You can do a gonzo schockly game really with anys ystem. It takes more work and is more itneresting to interact with a game that's a world beyond a meme I guess.

    Leave a comment:


  • Blaque
    replied
    Originally posted by JohnDoe244 View Post

    The first book published in 2E (after Core and the ST guide) was a book of First Age Magitech to get it out of the way and set the tone for the gameline. Just because it came last in the previous edition doesn't mean it has to this time (otherwise we'll be waiting a really long time for the Whitewall write-up).

    It's too late now anyway. Warstriders are in. First Age Craft was written into the Core. *shrug* I liked 2E.
    Wonders of the Lost Age was billed originally as a one-stop shop for all the magitech stuff towards the end of 1e so that they could be made optional and not used if one doesn'tw ant them. It instead more or less set the entire tone for artifice in 2e, to the point of the diminishment of sorcery, the expansion of magitech to be its own special extra layer of artifice, and the making magitech various artifacts from previous editions not already that.

    In my view, its pitch was either a failure or a lie. Since the game very much adhered to a world presented in that book, not one where it was optional.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X