Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Character Transitions

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

  • #31
    Originally posted by nothing View Post
    I keep hitting the "like" button, but the number won't go up any more - because exactly this.
    did I stutter?

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by 11twiggins View Post
      See where you're coming from, but sorcerer, ghoul, vampire is using material entirely held within V20. V20 has Sorcerers, Ghouls and Vampires, all in one line. And so such a transition isn't inherently ridiculous.
      Why is something existing using material just in the V20 line inherently less ridiculous? Sam Haight aside, just being something possible in the rules doesn't inherently make it more realistic, imo.

      That said, the implication I always got from V20 is that True Mages are more common than sorcerers. Considering V20 core doesn't really mention sorcerers at all and more often clans embracing/forming off them seem to talk about True Mages. Though, the definitions are hardly hard and fast in books outside the core at times. Now Sorcerer Revised might say otherwise. But I'll continue to cringe at the writers for making the choice to reference a book nearly two decades old that I still isn't very good. Core just gives Mages comparable disciplines, so it seems even sillier in that context that typical play should/would be using that other book.

      Comment


      • #33
        Sorcerer: Revised makes it seem like Sorcerers are the backbone of Mage society, where Mages are the management and Sorcerers are the skilled labor (with Mundanes being the unskilled labor). I would think that Sorcerers would be much more common than Mages because literally any human can develop Numina from practically any source of inspiration, as you do not need any special trait to develop Numina. Anyway, Hunter's Hunted II pretty much suggests that Kindred are going to be facing Sorcerers at a much higher frequency than Mages, so I am not sure where the sense that Mages are more common than Sorcerers comes from (the difference between a Mage and a Sorcerer is academic to most Kindred anyway).

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by Aya Tari View Post
          Sorcerer: Revised makes it seem like Sorcerers are the backbone of Mage society, where Mages are the management and Sorcerers are the skilled labor (with Mundanes being the unskilled labor). I would think that Sorcerers would be much more common than Mages because literally any human can develop Numina from practically any source of inspiration, as you do not need any special trait to develop Numina. Anyway, Hunter's Hunted II pretty much suggests that Kindred are going to be facing Sorcerers at a much higher frequency than Mages, so I am not sure where the sense that Mages are more common than Sorcerers comes from.
          Hunters Hunted ll has random hunters having Numina at high rates, along with the Arcanum and the Society of Leopold. The Arcanum arguably care more about Sorcery than Hunting. Hunters Hunted ll presents Sorcery as being more like Thaumaturgy for simplicity, but again if you want to use real Sorcery Sorcerer Revised is there.

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by Monalfie View Post
            Why is something existing using material just in the V20 line inherently less ridiculous? Sam Haight aside, just being something possible in the rules doesn't inherently make it more realistic, imo.

            That said, the implication I always got from V20 is that True Mages are more common than sorcerers. Considering V20 core doesn't really mention sorcerers at all and more often clans embracing/forming off them seem to talk about True Mages. Though, the definitions are hardly hard and fast in books outside the core at times. Now Sorcerer Revised might say otherwise. But I'll continue to cringe at the writers for making the choice to reference a book nearly two decades old that I still isn't very good. Core just gives Mages comparable disciplines, so it seems even sillier in that context that typical play should/would be using that other book.
            Sam Haight jumped between lines in a way which is far more ridiculous. Within the Sphere of VTM we have plenty of mortals with magic (tonnes of Revenants, tonnes of Hunters, tonnes of random Sorcerers who discover Cainites because hey oddly enough people with magic are attracted to Supernaturals and have the tools/information to find them) and we have plenty of, well, Vampires who make plenty of Ghouls. Within the scope of a small town we can have a highschool kid who learns Hermetic Sorcery from a book he finds in the library, we can have the local Tremere wannabe Primogen (or Setite Priest or Assamite Sorcerer or Anarch Blood Mage or Koldun or Necromancer) find him through like 1000 different methods, and then ghoul him. And once he's a ghoul, there's a decent possibility of the embrace.

            Can you see why that is far less ridiculous than a Kinfolk becoming a Skin Dancer (same line, sure), Ghoul (wait), Thaumaturge (hang on), Awakened Mage (wait, I thought we were doing Vampire now?) and then an Ashtray (well... okay)? It's a different beast altogether. Haight makes people laugh because he was comedy. Sorcerer -> Ghoul -> Kindred is something that not only is very likely in the given setting, it's also part of the canon. The Giovanni started off as Sorcerers. The Assamite Mages actively seek to ghoul and embrace Sorcerers (people with experience in the occult), and that's why they're smaller than the warriors, they're selective. The first Setite Sorcery was derived from Heka, ah well, not Sorcery OH WAIT IT IS that's just the Egyptian word for Sorcery. See where I'm coming from?

            You hate Sorcerer Revised, that's fine, and you can Rule Zero the world to not have Sorcery being a small part of the VTM-verse (and according to the setting, it's kind of important to both the history and the current state of things with hunters and ghouls), but you should acknowledge that that isn't the default in V20.
            Last edited by 11twiggins; 02-22-2017, 11:35 AM.

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by 11twiggins View Post

              Sam Haight jumped between lines in a way which is far more ridiculous. Within the Sphere of VTM we have plenty of mortals with magic (tonnes of Revenants, tonnes of Hunters, tonnes of random Sorcerers who discover Cainites because hey oddly enough people with magic are attracted to Supernaturals and have the tools/information to find them) and we have plenty of, well, Vampires who make plenty of Ghouls. Within the scope of a small town we can have a highschool kid who learns Hermetic Sorcery from a book he finds in the library, we can have the local Tremere wannabe Primogen (or Setite Priest or Assamite Sorcerer or Anarch Blood Mage or Koldun or Necromancer) find him through like 1000 different methods, and then ghoul him. And once he's a ghoul, there's a decent possibility of the embrace.

              Can you see why that is far less ridiculous than a Kinfolk becoming a Skin Dancer (same line, sure), Ghoul (wait), Thaumaturge (hang on), Awakened Mage (wait, I thought we were doing Vampire now?) and then an Ashtray (well... okay)? It's a different beast altogether. Haight makes people laugh because he was comedy. Sorcerer -> Ghoul -> Kindred is something that not only is very likely in the given setting, it's also part of the canon. The Giovanni started off as Sorcerers. The Assamite Mages actively seek to ghoul and embrace Sorcerers (people with experience in the occult), and that's why they're smaller than the warriors, they're selective. The first Setite Sorcery was derived from Heka, ah well, not Sorcery OH WAIT IT IS that's just the Egyptian word for Sorcery. See where I'm coming from?
              I think you missed my point. Which is why I said 'Sam Haight aside.' I'm not here saying that Sorcerer to Ghoul to Cainite is the equivalent of Sam Haight. I don't even think that progression is absurd. Just that the logic, 'because they are all options in the same line', doesn't inherently remove a concept from being ridiculous. Seemed a flawed line of thinking. Because there are plenty of things in a line that can still be rather absurd.

              You hate Sorcerer Revised, that's fine, and you can Rule Zero the world to not have Sorcery being a small part of the VTM-verse (and according to the setting, it's kind of important to both the history and the current state of things with hunters and ghouls), but you should acknowledge that that isn't the default in V20.
              If I'm someone just getting into V20, I buy V20 core, I'm probably not even aware of what sorcerers or numina are compared to a True Mage. This is not me saying they don't exist in V20 or that they don't exist in the setting. Both True Magic and Sorcery (I'd say True Magic more-so) are important to the history, but I'd disagree the stressed importance on it being very important to the current situation or them being common as important. If somebody isn't bothering to buy/include Hunters Hunted II (mostly about playing a Hunter, far as I'm aware) or Red List, they might never be aware of the distinction. Seems quite negligible.

              Comment

              Working...
              X