Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Differences between 1E and 2E setting books

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

  • Mr Miracle
    started a topic Differences between 1E and 2E setting books

    Differences between 1E and 2E setting books

    Helo

    I am curently jolting trough the Terrestrial companion to the West and while looking for some lore online I found various informations about exalted and npcs that weren't found in my sourcebook. How good of a purchase are the older setting books if I use mostly 2E stuff? Are they from a different era?

  • Tikor
    replied
    A note on objectivity:

    I really appreciate the subtle indoctrination in many of the MoEP, as seen in their view of the world and what actions should be taken as a whole (We should rule it! (twice!) We should define rulership rules! We should umake it! We should destroy it! We should reclaim it! We should discover it!). This can be seen in the semi-sympathetic histories in MoEPs, and via characters in the Caste and Aspect books, and even via the virtue definitions (which I will sorely miss - Abyssal Compassion was a great thing. Why are you so discriminatory against ghosts?! Intolerant breather).

    I'd like to still see Lyta as well as Lupo. I'd like to see Cynis Denovah Avaku next to Pheleps Deled. The good with the bad with with the competent with the incompetent with the attractive with the grotesque with the charming and even the detestable (sometimes all of it at once, like Desus!) We are being given a manual for a world, and in a world as big as Exalted there are folks who have stepped over the lines, just as there are folks who color in the lines and others that are the silver lining. If a world chooses one or two, but not the whole spectrum, it is not fully displaying the humanity that the storyteller has to play - her character being the world.

    Which is why I enjoy subjectivity so much in the books, especially the Caste and Aspect books, because of the multifaceted nature of it all. We need all the facets! You may not like this character, but interacting with them and exploring how those feels map out is the essence of roleplay. You may want to emulate this other character, but somehow your actions tend to have unintentional consequences and you find yourself being a murder hobo instead - why?

    Subjectify my Wuxia. Have everyone tell me their kung-fu is best! I know you can do it.

    Leave a comment:


  • Hand-of-Omega
    replied
    Originally posted by Ejtaka View Post
    . I find it interesting to look at how the game has changed between the first Core Book, until the more recent Masters of Jade and Shards books.
    Well, that's because the process of gameline development is an organic one, carried out by people who are learning and changing as they go, to say nothing of the effect of writers leaving and joining up as the line goes on. That's normal, and will continue with 3E. I absolutely guarantee that, although the devs sound solid about where they want their edition to go, after player feedback, new writers joining up, and the inevitable errata, by its end, 3E will be something at least a little bit, a maybe a lot, different than what they're envisioning and telling us about now!

    Leave a comment:


  • Hand-of-Omega
    replied
    I feel pretty much the same about the FF. Two creative teams have had two editions, plus errata, to get them right, and it just keeps not happening. Rather than ask people to put down cash for yet *another* attempt to execute RBS's ideas correctly, I think it's time to just admit it was an interesting, but failed, experiment and move on to something simpler to game, tho still evocative.

    Thankfully, dev comments seem to indicate that they feel the same!

    Leave a comment:


  • Blaque
    replied
    Saur Ops Specialist summarized a bit of what I mean on the 1e-2e presentation on Lookshy and technology. Lookshy feels very much in 2e a modenr force, with world-projecting capabilities in a world that is mostly Iron Age. And it sets Lookshy often up as a foil to the Realm nearly on every internaional level, rather than just the Scavenger Lands. And in doing so, often does it not thinking aobut the deteriorating supply and the amount of items in there that are only known as "Break in case of emergency" items you get from the original Scavenger Sons write-up, instead presenting Lookshy not just as a modern force (in Earth sense) but one also experimenting with new technology and machines for htat.

    Also as a note, even the 1e shiny was built on the idea of what effectively was a shiny political coup (the Gunzota Incident) which as I can gather simply got retgoned out in 2e.

    On the topic of the Fair Folk, I think a lot still failed to mak ethem useful in 2e for a few reasons:
    * Shaping, while interesting a concept, was terrible a system for how Exalted is. It created the Psionics Problem as I gather 3e D&D had: If you didn't have Graces (ie, were psionic) you didn't interact with the subsystem, period. It also created a slew of extra stats to worry about that were a pain until the errata.
    * Raksha were presented as too weird and a tad metagamey I think for most games to work well with them.
    * Raksha as presented in 2e still ran with the "able to replicate infinitely until they overrun Creation at any moment" thing weirdly. Which caused setting issues.

    That said, the 2e thing fucked up in a few other places. As this page notes, a lot of 1e itself was kind of messed up because of the initial ignoring of outlines. The 2e stuff was built on the 1e book but not the outline, so shit like Thief of Words, and the Crusade as presented didn't help. It spend a lot of time on Unshaped which I feel didn't need fleshed out how they did. And especially in the Charms section, while the mechanics are debatable (I think again, Shaping is flawed fundementaly) they at least read a hell of a lot better. Read the paragraph introduction to Dharma between editions, the first to me one of the most memorable bits of writing in RPGs and the latter really....utilitarian didn't do favors. There was also the fact that even in all of this, the Charms section was outright broken since the writer of that section had different ideas of how Assumptions worked than others writing mechanics.

    Fair Folk I feel have been a hot mess since forever. I admit that during 1e, I actually always thought they should of gotten a softcover NPC book ala Games of Divinity did for spirits. I then really liked the Hindu stuff but never could quite put them to work in games in either edition. I hope 3e does a lot to fix these, as I still have yet to feel proven wrong on my initial stance. <_<

    And stuff.

    Leave a comment:


  • Zelbinnean
    replied
    Originally posted by Hand-of-Omega View Post
    It's funny how some people complain about how Exalted is "shitdark" while others complain about having "shiny" people or groups in the setting.
    I think that there are some things that might appear to be shitdark (things like Island Five and the clearly inevitable Yozi escape) and other things that are almost inappropriately shiny considering their context. Independently these things look sort of "off" for the setting as-presented, and together they create a sort of dissonance.

    Leave a comment:


  • TheCountAlucard
    replied
    That, and only being able to take one Shaping action per scene with Creation-born present.

    Leave a comment:


  • Ejtaka
    replied
    Originally posted by Hand-of-Omega View Post

    And they're especially tarnished by the inclusion of what they need to do to maintain the malfunctioning Solar manse beneath the city. It's funny how some people complain about how Exalted is "shitdark" while others complain about having "shiny" people or groups in the setting. Maybe 3E will be able to strike that balance between the two that pleases most everyone...

    Speaking of Edition differences, what do most people think of how the Fair Folk have been presented in their books? I know people tend to find Graceful, Wicked Masks confusing, but I thought it was crystalline compared to Exalted: The Fair Folk, and cleared up a LOT from that book! Although there were some mistakes made in it, it was clearly written with an aim to clarify things like Shaping Combat, similar to how the Forest Witches also had a sidebar saying something like "What the hell IS all this?!"

    But how well did it work?

    The Fair Folk books had brilliant thoughts, but were god-awful to implement. From what I have seen, Shaping combat works in one of three ways: Subject is destroyed by it, subject ignores it, or subject is a Fair Folk who plays to form. It didn't seem to work with other Exalted in the mix. Especially Lunar.

    Fair Folk: "I engage in Shaping combat and attempt to seduce the Lunar!"
    Lunar: "Sorry, I can't be Shaped, so I can play at this."
    Fair Folk: "Oh, I can't use Shaping Combat? Um... why don't we try this the regular way then."
    Lunar: "Ok, let's see how that plays out."
    Fair Folk: "These shaping rules are cool. Pity I can't use them unless as a mini-game with other Fair Folk."

    Leave a comment:


  • Hand-of-Omega
    replied
    Originally posted by Baaldam View Post

    Not to mention the Cold War era american-styled "defenders of freedom in the world" interventionist imperialism discourse overtones, something specific to CoTD:Scavenger Lands afaik, that might be said to be quite ill-fitting with most definitions of "shiny"...
    And they're especially tarnished by the inclusion of what they need to do to maintain the malfunctioning Solar manse beneath the city. It's funny how some people complain about how Exalted is "shitdark" while others complain about having "shiny" people or groups in the setting. Maybe 3E will be able to strike that balance between the two that pleases most everyone...

    Speaking of Edition differences, what do most people think of how the Fair Folk have been presented in their books? I know people tend to find Graceful, Wicked Masks confusing, but I thought it was crystalline compared to Exalted: The Fair Folk, and cleared up a LOT from that book! Although there were some mistakes made in it, it was clearly written with an aim to clarify things like Shaping Combat, similar to how the Forest Witches also had a sidebar saying something like "What the hell IS all this?!"

    But how well did it work?

    Leave a comment:


  • Saur Ops Specialist
    replied
    Originally posted by Baaldam View Post

    The case with Lookshy i would say is debatable, as 2e makes the point of how their reserves of shogunate wonders dwindle with every generation and the state is in a ever more frantic race for replacement parts/forestalling the time all their resources will be essentially mundane, not to mention the "edict of the Maidens" becoming more of a "countdown to the end" than the "immunity from sidereal intervention" it sounded like back in Outcastes. Even Valkhausen fits this theme somewhat, when one stops to think they made an academy because the old system with the soheis wasn't working at all, there's no assurance that they actually got better and it might be already compromised on director level, with maidens know what.

    Not to mention the Cold War era american-styled "defenders of freedom in the world" interventionist imperialism discourse overtones, something specific to CoTD:Scavenger Lands afaik, that might be said to be quite ill-fitting with most definitions of "shiny"...
    Yet, Wonders of the Lost Age came out before Oadenol's Codex, so it will perpetually give the impression of being packed to the gills with even more First Age wonders than it formerly was. Its sidebar on how material is running out also lacked the display of foreknowledge that the "Controlled Devolution of Capability" sidebar from 1e had, so it comes across as being stuffed with powerful magic that people somehow haven't realized is going to run out, rather than an organization that knows that many of the systems which it relies on are failing and is already working to shore up.

    Leave a comment:


  • Baaldam
    replied
    Originally posted by Blaque View Post
    I will say though that in regional stuff things feel more written with an eye towards bieng plot hooks or giving an outline for the ST to describe so to get new nations out of or charcter concepts for. 2e often did things exhaustively, which had some neat tidbits about but also at times either over-thought things (I am not a big fan of Chaya in 2e), with a bit of "missing the point" (Paragon as somewhat pro-totalitarian dictatorship), or trying too hard to fix some previous conceptions (Lookshy becoming even mor emagitech reliant and somehow shinier in 2e over time was
    The case with Lookshy i would say is debatable, as 2e makes the point of how their reserves of shogunate wonders dwindle with every generation and the state is in a ever more frantic race for replacement parts/forestalling the time all their resources will be essentially mundane, not to mention the "edict of the Maidens" becoming more of a "countdown to the end" than the "immunity from sidereal intervention" it sounded like back in Outcastes. Even Valkhausen fits this theme somewhat, when one stops to think they made an academy because the old system with the soheis wasn't working at all, there's no assurance that they actually got better and it might be already compromised on director level, with maidens know what.

    Not to mention the Cold War era american-styled "defenders of freedom in the world" interventionist imperialism discourse overtones, something specific to CoTD:Scavenger Lands afaik, that might be said to be quite ill-fitting with most definitions of "shiny"...

    Leave a comment:


  • TheCountAlucard
    replied
    Originally posted by Tikor View Post
    Blood and Salt and Savage Seas are the ones to get. They have a grittier "mortal-er" view of sailing (flammable, leaky ships full of folks who must be disciplined and also drink lots of water).
    But not salt water - that shit'll kill ya.



    No, seriously, though, both the suggested reads are excellent choices - sometimes I flip open Savage Seas just because.



    Also seriously, don't drink salt water, I wasn't kidding, it'll mess you up.
    Last edited by TheCountAlucard; 07-22-2016, 06:05 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Ejtaka
    replied
    There is one other really interesting thing about the 1E books. If you read them, and then the 2E books, you can see how things change. One of the first things you notice is fewer canon characters like Havish the Vanisher. There are fewer instances where the narrative pre-judges things for you. Characters aren't written with the idea that they are 'evil' or 'good' and the books take a neutral position. You can also see how things evolve, and the theory of the game have evolved. 1st Ed looked at small things. 2nd Ed looked at bigger things, and linked them up... which had its good points and its bad. I find it interesting to look at how the game has changed between the first Core Book, until the more recent Masters of Jade and Shards books.

    Leave a comment:


  • Fata-Ku
    replied
    2e didn't have Castebook Eclipse.
    [/thread]



    (kidding, obviously, though it is one of my favorites.)

    Leave a comment:


  • Blaque
    replied
    A bit on what Hand-of-Omega said on breathing room, it kind of went both ways due to the nature of the Compass books. Countries like An-Teng and Harborhead, which had a lot of depth, got a bit compressed and at times some flavor or themes got lost along the way. At the same time, nations which never had a full write-up beyond a couple pages were expanded into whole chapters, even when the original nation wasn't really suited for such in-depth thinking. THis is especially since a lot of countries followed the "First Age, Usurpation, Shogunate, Contagion, Recent History" line, even with nations that might not of been served well with it.

    In case of bredth, I think 1e did have better books like Scavenger Sons, which along with An-Teng, 2e didn't actually add any nations to save the ones in the North (Saltspire League, Shanarinara, and a couple more). There's also a vibe in 1e when I rerea things of nations being a bit more independent from one-another save a few cases of pre-map-expansion (Halta-Linowa, Gem-Paragon, Varang-Harborhead, and Coral-Wavecrest conflicts being the big ones). So it wasn't perfect.

    I will say though that in regional stuff things feel more written with an eye towards bieng plot hooks or giving an outline for the ST to describe so to get new nations out of or charcter concepts for. 2e often did things exhaustively, which had some neat tidbits about but also at times either over-thought things (I am not a big fan of Chaya in 2e), with a bit of "missing the point" (Paragon as somewhat pro-totalitarian dictatorship), or trying too hard to fix some previous conceptions (Lookshy becoming even mor emagitech reliant and somehow shinier in 2e over time was weird).

    And stuff.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X