Innocents 2nd Edition

[Tessie]

The lead dev for the original book was blacklisted by OPP, but I'm not sure if he was involved in this book. (Even if he wasn't, his history might still make a 2e version undesireable for Onyx Path, or for Paradox for that matter.)
Regardless, it's removed from both the projects page and the newer brochure so it's definitely put on hold (if not outright quietly cancelled). Whether Onyx Path intends to revisit it, ignore it, or leave that decision open for the future, I could only speculate about.

[tasti man LH]

Oh that was answered already:

http://forum.theonyxpath.com/forum/m...93#post1384493

[Sith_Happens]

Hot take: Innocents 1e already is Innocents 2e because almost all of the mechanics parts of it are better off dropped than updated.

[Penelope]

Hot take: Innocents 1e already is Innocents 2e because almost all of the mechanics parts of it are better off dropped than updated.

Sounds awful

[Heavy Arms]

I'm not sure it's awful as much as Innocents 1e's mechanics are very dated to 1e; and there aren't that many mechanics anyway.

Innocents' altered Morality doesn't really need to be updated. Integrity encompasses what it was trying to do though without a codified set of changes based on emotional development. Basically, all you need to do is let personal Integrity breaking points change over time as characters age and their experience with the world grows into more complex evaluations

Innocents' altered Virtue/Vice system is already what 2e does.

One of the mechanics in Innocents I thought was fairly meh (mostly because it was too simplistic for its function) was how it addressed child characters in conflict with adult characters. I think as was a good idea, child characters still used the 1-5 ratings, but to emphasize that a Strength 3 child was not the same as a Strength 3 adult, the adult would get 8-again to illustrate this. I'll disagree with Sith here because updating this to a series of sequential Conditions would give this a lot more nuance than the 1e approach did (and make it more engaging) and would make a lot of the other questionable mechanics more appropriate for updates instead of dumping.

etc.

[Sith_Happens]

The entire idea of kids’ attribute and skill dots not equaling adults’ dots is a fool’s errand. The only way to remotely approximate it even most of the time would be to say that being a child is a penalty to everything, which is the single most actively unsatisfying piece of game design I can imagine.

Just give them the lowered budgets and caps and be done with it.

[Heavy Arms]

The Storypath system fairly effectively makes the case with the Scale subsystem that it is far from a fools errand, and that the right approach is giving bonuses when Scale is uneven rather than penalties to everything. Exalted 3e also makes it fairly obvious that caps esp. are unsatisfying. The idea that mortals go from 1 to 3, while Exalts go from 1 to 5 pretty much gets tossed out the window if you play a heroic mortals game because PCs default to being exceptional people: even if disadvantaged compared to what else exists in the setting.

The reason do refine the 1e Innocents approach rather than dumping it is simple: it's not fun if Innocents build PCs are all incompetent because they can't get decent dice-pools at anything. Altering the scope instead of the numbers means the PCs are good at what they're supposed to be good at.