Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Changing What You Don't Like, or Missing the Point

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

  • #16
    Note that this topic is specifically about ChroD games; Masquerade et AL only apply to the extent that people try to hack ChroD games to resemble WoD games.

    wyrdhamster — rather than “if you don't like it, go away”, I prefer “if you don't have anything constructive to say, don't say anything”.

    And… back to work. See you in the morning!


    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by Reighnhell View Post
      CtD - Didn't pay enough attention to Changeling to see what the biggest cracks in the base were, but I have run into people who liked the idea of Changelings who were forced out of Arcadia rather than escaping.
      Small nitpick, it's CtL (Changeling the Lost) not CtD (Changeling the Dreaming) CtD is the CWoD changeling gameline.

      Comment


      • #18
        A trend? Phenomeon? You make it sound like its some passing fad or inexplicable thing. People changing games and houseruling them have happened since pretty much the dawn of time. Sports, board games, card games, video games, you name it. And, given the CofD's subjective nature as a storytelling game instead of a minitures-based war game, this comes off as more lore changes than just mechanics changes. And remember - house rules and hacks are critical to game lines. Hell. I remember, not long before Armory Reloaded came out, there was a thread about what houserules people use. Myself and a few others posted that we turned vampire's bullet-bashing feature to general everything-to-bashing. That ended up as one of the hacks in that book. And now? Its part of 2e core assumptions about vampires.

        These are games. They're written so people have fun with them above all else. Some people don't want to sit down and have deep introspection - they want to blow off steam after a stressful week of work by immersing themselves in a fantasy. And that's cool. And, for the people who say "If you don't like a game, then play something else?" I'm going to paraphrase Anita Sarkeesian for a moment - its okay to like aspects of a game but be criticial of other aspects. You might like one aspect of a game (delving into base emotions ala Vampire) without other aspects (sex metaphor). And that's fine - you can make the game what you will.

        As well? Trying to reduce everything to an "Us versus Them" binary system is problematic. You simply cannot put people into two separate camps and expect it to be anything approaching realistic. Most things in reality operate and a sliding scale instead of nice, neat holes. Its like trying to break all gamers into "roll" players and "role" players. The truth is that most actual players fall between the two extremes. Sure, you have some extremists, but that's the exception, not the rule, and that doesn't touch on players who don't fit neatly into either category, or combination thereof.


        Its a general trend across ALL CofD games that there are people who are less interested in the moral aspects of the games (and, yes, there are asops in every game; they are designed to provoke thought) and want to do "superheroes with fangs." Remove Humanity and Touchstones in vampire, downplay the balance-your-territory aspects in werewolf, the insanity and abuse aspects of Changeling, and more. Some players want to play monsters without the soul searching. Everyone is different, and expecting all these issues to resonate with everyone is an exercise doomed to failure. I honesetly think that the alternative-Dawn crowd are the result of this mindset - they're interested in playing the game for fun without the soul searching, and the New Dawn kind of means their fun must come to an end at some point.

        Take the above mentality to an extreme, and we end up with the "hero splat" crowd. People that want the CofD to include elements of Good versus Evil, much like most fantasy games out there. There's been focus on a lot of different ways to do this, but generally, we end up with flame wars as someone or another ends up insulting things that people like while arguing about the fact we don't have a good definition of Good to use as a basis (usually people end up with some variation on Western / Christian values as the default, which is what sparks the controversy).

        In VtR, there's a common trend to try and recreate the old Masquerade clans in the new setting. Tremere and Tziminscee tend to show up quite commonly.

        In WtF, lots of people hate the overreliance on Spirit, and prefer a stronger focus on being half-wolf, half-man. They want less shamanism built so fundamentally into the game.

        In MtAw, there's a lot of gripes about mechanics. Infinite powers means infinite potential for abuse, with little in the way of drawbacks or penalties, and the antagonism towards crossover. There's also a number of people that dislike the firm establishment of the Seers as permanent evil force (anti-hero splat philosophy). Lastly, your bit about "magic user concepts the game isn't desgined to support?" That is more of a question of cultural magics - MtAw culture is firmly Western, and claiming that they're global means we have issues of cultural imperialism and appropriation to the point of being insensitive about other cultures and their mystical traditions. Its the same complaints about Mummy - one Mediteranian culture to rule them all. 2e has gotten slightly better, but overtones remain, and time will tell if the problem was fixed or remains.

        In Promethean, another issue that comes up is that the game is that, despite inclusion of Galatea, Tammuz, and more, the game is fundamentally based entirely on Frankenstein, to the point that everyone is made from corpses and "Fire Bad!" Why does it make sense for a marble statue with an affinity for the divine wind to be weak to flames? Another issue was how, in 1e, you were actively discouraged from playing two members of the same Lineage in a throng. Why tell a group what they can or can't play?

        CtL has some mechanical concerns, and the Gentry bits that pretty much have canned answers that seem to satisfy people at this point. I tend to see more posts about mechanics questions that changing any part of the game. I think the sheer flexibility of the game prevents most issues.

        HtV? Lots of people see this game as a continuation of a mortal game. Not much else to really say.

        GtSE is another super flexible game. The only real complaints I've heard from people are 1) they wish Synergy actually was more about the balance of human/geist, 2) there were ways to actually kill an antagonistic Bound, and 3) slightly less flexible because they weren't sure what to do in the game (basically, they want more direction).

        Mummy... its either a game you like, or don't. I haven't seen a lot of middle ground here.

        Demon is a rather ironic problem - while many games end up with issues about not being culturally flexible enough, DtD has issues with not being Catholic style God and devils.

        Beast has had issues from before the game was even released. Being natural sadists and harming people, unflattering depicttion of heroes, people having trouble grasping the idea behind a "crossover focused game," the nature of the Horror, and more. Possibly one of the most problematic games to come out. Then, there's complaints of power levels.
        Last edited by MCN; 06-05-2016, 09:28 AM.

        Comment


        • #19
          My issues with games usually revolve around built in restrictions on whether or not you can play certain groups. The most prominent example being Beast having totally unplayable heroes. I do get that there are word limits preventing the groups from being included (like the pure tribes in WtF 2e), but when situations come around like Beast going "no, you don't get to play these people" it ticks me off. Anytime a gameline tries to tell me I can't play an antagonist and it doesn't have incredibly compelling reason (like angels in demon or true fae in changeling) I tend to try and find my way around it with homerules.

          Comment


          • #20
            It's been said before, but one of the proposed hacks I see for almost every game is the removal of the morality/integrity stat, or aspects of it, such as Touchstones. There seem to be various reasons people claim for this. Some folks say they don't like personal horror and feel Integity is too closely tied to that theme. Others say they don't like "punishment mechanics" and feel that Integrity threatens people with character discontinuation if they play the wrong way or engage in wrong behaviors. Some say they don't like the games to take any kind of moral stance and feel that Integrity sets an objective standard of morality that must be followed.

            Another one I've seen a lot is more of a mechanical thing: removing "story game" elements from the rules. Opinions vary on what constitues a story game element, but common candidates include Conditions and/or Beats, Aspirations, opt-in Dramatic Failures, Virtue/Vice and their gameline-specific analogues, Morality/Integrity and their gameline-specific analogues, and generally anything that encourages players to make decisions for their character based on factors external to the character or the narrative.

            Another common one is the removal of various subsystems. Social Maneuvering is a common one. Personally, I don't use the Investigation rules. Some folks don't like extended actions. Integrity, again, is a big one to cut. Some gameline-specific subsystems like feeding rolls in vampire, tracking mechanics in werewolf, focused mage sight in mage (that's one that I would probably remove too if I ran mage) etc.

            RE: Missing the point vs. it's your game, of course it's a complicated issue. It's more than just two opposed camps, (almost) everyone has been on both sides of this argument to some extent depending on the particular element being hacked. My general opinion is, these game elements are designed with intentionality, and one should understand the intent of an element and the effect it has on the theme and mood of a game before hacking it out. I'll argue for or against the removal of different elements based on my own tastes, but ultimately what your group finds fun is more important than the authorial intent, but that intent should be understood before being changed. I also think there does come a point where too many changes or changes too fundamental to the game can put you into square peg, round hole territory. There is value in being able to recognize when what you want from the game and what the game is trying to deliver are just too far removed from each other for you to have a satisfying experience. But it's never as simple as "you're missing the point".


            Going by Willow now, or Wil for short. She/Her/Hers.

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by Fumus View Post
              My issues with games usually revolve around built in restrictions on whether or not you can play certain groups. The most prominent example being Beast having totally unplayable heroes. I do get that there are word limits preventing the groups from being included (like the pure tribes in WtF 2e), but when situations come around like Beast going "no, you don't get to play these people" it ticks me off. Anytime a gameline tries to tell me I can't play an antagonist and it doesn't have incredibly compelling reason (like angels in demon or true fae in changeling) I tend to try and find my way around it with homerules.

              I totally understand that.
              Not being able to play an antagonist is complicated. At least give proper importance to them, as is given to the player characters
              In my case my problem is the fact that the three pure tribes are not available in the first chapter and poorly described in prey chapter. I know probably they didnt have the word count to put them there, but the first thing you ask yourself when you finish reading 1st or 2ed book is: But what kind of stories I do? Ok the characters are done, the pack is done, the territory is ok, Now what?" Its a good thing being a tool kit, but for me a clear direction is what motivates new players to read more and love the game. They want to see the exemples they have read in action, if there are none what they should expect?
              Many people I saw always end up questioning: "But why should we play Werewolf for the sake of being a werewolf? I dont understand the main antagonist, what are we fighting for?

              Forsaken will always be my favorite, but I understand how many players end preferring the apocalypse or masquerade for easy understanding the cosmology and antagonists.

              tl;dr The game should give more examples of how using the antagonists and how they can be as interesting as the player characters.

              Originally posted by ;n907586
              "Ever notice how all the Forsaken art has Uratha running about doing not fighty things in Gauru? As a person who is a strongly visual thinker this bothers me a lot. ".
              My god in the Pack book this bothered me like hell. The art often do not match the mechanics.
              Last edited by magisanctum; 06-05-2016, 12:48 PM.


              With a bit of magic everything can be done.
              All WoD gamelines wallpapers here!

              Choose your favorite or create your own!

              Comment


              • #22
                The thing about Forsaken in Gauru form and artwork vs gameplay is sort of an interesting problem. Gauru form tends to be over represented in art because its an easy shorthand to illustrate that the game is about werewolves and you are looking at a werewolf doing a thing. The restrictions on Gauru form in gameplay comes from Werewolf the Apocalypse in CWoD, not as a holdover though like other weird baggage that has mostly been excised but rather as a reaction against the abuse of Crinos form in that game line.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by Caitiff Primogen View Post
                  The thing about Forsaken in Gauru form and artwork vs gameplay is sort of an interesting problem. Gauru form tends to be over represented in art because its an easy shorthand to illustrate that the game is about werewolves and you are looking at a werewolf doing a thing. The restrictions on Gauru form in gameplay comes from Werewolf the Apocalypse in CWoD, not as a holdover though like other weird baggage that has mostly been excised but rather as a reaction against the abuse of Crinos form in that game line.

                  The artists should know that they are not drawing for apocalypse. Or at least the writers should advise them -Hey the werewolf form you become a killing machine, you cannot make tea


                  With a bit of magic everything can be done.
                  All WoD gamelines wallpapers here!

                  Choose your favorite or create your own!

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by magisanctum View Post


                    I totally understand that.
                    Not being able to play an antagonist is complicated. At least give proper importance to them, as is given to the player characters
                    In my case my problem is the fact that the three pure tribes are not available in the first chapter and poorly described in prey chapter. I know probably they didnt have the word count to put them there, but the first thing you ask yourself when you finish reading 1st or 2ed book is: But what kind of stories I do? Ok the characters are done, the pack is done, the territory is ok, Now what?" Its a good thing being a tool kit, but for me a clear direction is what motivates new players to read more and love the game. They want to see the exemples they have read in action, if there are none what they should expect?
                    Many people I saw always end up questioning: "But why should we play Werewolf for the sake of being a werewolf? I dont understand the main antagonist, what are we fighting for?

                    Forsaken will always be my favorite, but I understand how many players end preferring the apocalypse or masquerade for easy understanding the cosmology and antagonists.

                    tl;dr The game should give more examples of how using the antagonists and how they can be as interesting as the player characters.


                    My god in the Pack book this bothered me like hell. The art often do not match the mechanics.

                    I get that a lot (forsaken is tied with awakening for my favourite gameline), I was actually intending to include the pure tribes and their 2e treatment in my comment (afterall I was very disappointed with how they were represented in the core), but I felt it detracted from my point and for a different reason to what you seem to wish they were given more treatment for. My view is there's a difference between "you can't play these groups / this group" and "we didn't devote the word-count to these groups / this group", I am far far far (would four 'far's be too much here?) more bothered by the attitude of "you shouldn't want to play these so you don't get the rules to do so" which can be implied from the former, compared to "we prefer you play these people so they're the ones we devoted more space to" as is implied from the latter. I am fine with an antagonist being non-playable, if it has a really compelling reason such as being incredibly inhuman, like an angel or strix, otherwise it's going to bother me that the books are trying to prevent me from playing a story focusing on the antagonists with the presented mechanics. I won't go into much more detail on my feelings on that topic here though, as I doubt I'll bring anything new to the table on the topic, I don't want to derail this thread, and knowing me I'll wind up on an unproductive rant about the presentation of heroes in beast.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by Caitiff Primogen View Post
                      The thing about Forsaken in Gauru form and artwork vs gameplay is sort of an interesting problem. Gauru form tends to be over represented in art because its an easy shorthand to illustrate that the game is about werewolves and you are looking at a werewolf doing a thing. The restrictions on Gauru form in gameplay comes from Werewolf the Apocalypse in CWoD, not as a holdover though like other weird baggage that has mostly been excised but rather as a reaction against the abuse of Crinos form in that game line.

                      I find that a bit annoying myself, I would love to see forsaken art give a larger focus on the other 4 forms (especially urshul, I mean, who wouldn't want to see a wolf the size of a horse in artwork?) and give gauru the same sort of reverence the uratha do, that is, rarely using it except when necessary and appropriate for the situation.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by Fumus View Post


                        I find that a bit annoying myself, I would love to see forsaken art give a larger focus on the other 4 forms (especially urshul, I mean, who wouldn't want to see a wolf the size of a horse in artwork?) and give gauru the same sort of reverence the uratha do, that is, rarely using it except when necessary and appropriate for the situation.
                        Yes! until today I find it extremely hard to imagine the actual size of Urshul.
                        The big problem with the art of"Gauru drinking tea" is that makes you think somehow you can remain controlled in this form. The first time I started reading Forsaken long time ago I remember to this day that I searched looking for a way to maintain control in Gauru, ofcourse at the end frustratingly I did not found anything about it.
                        Misleading arts can be a very very bad influence for new players who want to understand the game as a whole, where he will seek visual references for the mechanics except in the book? For our hobbie that is all about imagination this can ruin the life of a player or a GM.

                        Note: There are many arts of werewolves running along with apparently magaths. Until recently i've been understanding wrongly what is a magath and WHY they are bad company. I had to redesign the totem's pack with a game in progress.
                        Last edited by magisanctum; 06-05-2016, 02:54 PM.


                        With a bit of magic everything can be done.
                        All WoD gamelines wallpapers here!

                        Choose your favorite or create your own!

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          It should be noted that in 2e, there IS a way to maintain control in Gauru. Or at least hold the form and do other things other than combat. The Father's Form Gift works fine, and there's plenty of reason to use that Gift if you've invested in merits to boost a specific form.
                          Last edited by MCN; 06-05-2016, 03:01 PM.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by magisanctum View Post
                            My god in the Pack book this bothered me like hell. The art often do not match the mechanics.
                            Father's Form is a thing nowadays.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by MCN View Post
                              A trend? Phenomeon? You make it sound like its some passing fad or inexplicable thing. People changing games and houseruling them have happened since pretty much the dawn of time. Sports, board games, card games, video games, you name it. And, given the CofD's subjective nature as a storytelling game instead of a minitures-based war game, this comes off as more lore changes than just mechanics changes. And remember - house rules and hacks are critical to game lines. Hell. I remember, not long before Armory Reloaded came out, there was a thread about what houserules people use. Myself and a few others posted that we turned vampire's bullet-bashing feature to general everything-to-bashing. That ended up as one of the hacks in that book. And now? Its part of 2e core assumptions about vampires.
                              Not what I'm talking about, though. I'll grant that, technically, every house rule is about “changing something I don't like”; but there's a difference between “not liking” the fact that vampires only converted bullet damage to Bashing and not liking the fact that Werewolf makes heavy use of the Hisil and its denizens. (I choose this example because I'm a fan of hacks that allow you to downplay or even remove spirits from a Werewolf game; it's not about such a hack being inherently bad. But I do understand why most WtF fans think it's missing the point.)

                              Originally posted by MCN View Post
                              These are games. They're written so people have fun with them above all else. Some people don't want to sit down and have deep introspection - they want to blow off steam after a stressful week of work by immersing themselves in a fantasy. And that's cool. And, for the people who say "If you don't like a game, then play something else?" I'm going to paraphrase Anita Sarkeesian for a moment - its okay to like aspects of a game but be criticial of other aspects. You might like one aspect of a game (delving into base emotions ala Vampire) without other aspects (sex metaphor). And that's fine - you can make the game what you will.
                              True. And ironically, most “missing the point” arguments I've seen lately start out with “of course, you're free to do whstever you want; but there's why X is a bad idea/something I'd never do”. EDIT: what Charlaquin said.

                              Originally posted by MCN View Post
                              As well? Trying to reduce everything to an “Us versus Them” binary system is problematic. You simply cannot put people into two separate camps and expect it to be anything approaching realisticthe
                              Yeah. Good thing I wasn't trying to do that. But thanks for clarifying that point.

                              Originally posted by MCN View Post
                              Its a general trend across ALL CofD games that there are people who are less interested in the moral aspects of the games (and, yes, there are aesops in every game; they are designed to provoke thought) and want to do "superheroes with fangs." Remove Humanity and Touchstones in vampire, downplay the balance-your-territory aspects in werewolf, the insanity and abuse aspects of Changeling, and more. Some players want to play monsters without the soul searching. Everyone is different, and expecting all these issues to resonate with everyone is an exercise doomed to failure. I honestly think that the alternative-Dawn crowd are the result of this mindset - they're interested in playing the game for fun without the soul searching, and the New Dawn kind of means their fun must come to an end at some point.
                              I know of a few who would disagree with that characterization.

                              Originally posted by MCN View Post
                              Take the above mentality to an extreme, and we end up with the “hero splat” crowd. People that want the CofD to include elements of Good versus Evil, much like most fantasy games out there. There's been focus on a lot of different ways to do this, but generally, we end up with flame wars as someone or another ends up insulting things that people like while arguing about the fact we don't have a good definition of Good to use as a basis (usually people end up with some variation on Western / Christian values as the default, which is what sparks the controversy).
                              True.

                              Originally posted by MCN View Post
                              In MtAw, there's a lot of gripes about mechanics. Infinite powers means infinite potential for abuse, with little in the way of drawbacks or penalties, and the antagonism towards crossover. There's also a number of people that dislike the firm establishment of the Seers as permanent evil force (anti-hero splat philosophy).
                              “Mages don't have enough downsides” and “the Seers aren't nuanced enough”. Gotcha.

                              Originally posted by MCN View Post
                              Lastly, your bit about “magic user concepts the game isn't desgined to support?” That is more of a question of cultural magics - MtAw culture is firmly Western, and claiming that they're global means we have issues of cultural imperialism and appropriation to the point of being insensitive about other cultures and their mystical traditions. Its the same complaints about Mummy - one Mediteranian culture to rule them all. 2e has gotten slightly better, but overtones remain, and time will tell if the problem was fixed or remains.
                              Actually, I was thinking of some posts lately along the lines of “[insert fantasy setting here] features magic users, so Mage should support that.” Dresden Files and Harry Potter are the most well known, but not the only ones.

                              Originally posted by MCN View Post
                              In Promethean, another issue that comes up is that the game is that, despite inclusion of Galatea, Tammuz, and more, the game is fundamentally based entirely on Frankenstein, to the point that everyone is made from corpses and “Fire Bad!” Why does it make sense for a marble statue with an affinity for the divine wind to be weak to flames? Another issue was how, in 1e, you were actively discouraged from playing two members of the same Lineage in a throng. Why tell a group what they can or can't play?
                              On the former point, I've not only seen such posts; I personally tend to agree with them: during the Open Development of 2e, I argued for incorporating something like 1e's Constructs option into the core. That said, this isn't whether or not I like any given hack; just, which ones tend to give rise to “missing the point” reactions, deservedly or not. On the latter point, I haven't seen what you're talking about. At the risk of derailing the thread, how did 1e actively discourage you from playing two members of the same Lineage in a throng?

                              Originally posted by MCN View Post
                              Beast has had issues from before the game was even released. Being natural sadists and harming people, unflattering depiction of heroes, people having trouble grasping the idea behind a “crossover focused game,” the nature of the Horror, and more. Possibly one of the most problematic games to come out. Then, there's complaints of power levels.
                              OK. I'll grant that what I know of the game comes from its early development; I never stuck around enough to buy the final product. But now tha you mention it, I do recall a number of fans preferring the first draft notions over the revisions that were made, to the point that they intended to house-rule the first draft stuff back in. Yeah, I think that qualifies, in an odd sort of way.
                              Last edited by Dataweaver; 06-05-2016, 05:41 PM.


                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by Fumus View Post


                                I get that a lot (forsaken is tied with awakening for my favourite gameline), I was actually intending to include the pure tribes and their 2e treatment in my comment (afterall I was very disappointed with how they were represented in the core), but I felt it detracted from my point and for a different reason to what you seem to wish they were given more treatment for. My view is there's a difference between “you can't play these groups / this group” and “we didn't devote the word-count to these groups / this group”, I am far far far (would four 'far's be too much here?) more bothered by the attitude of “you shouldn't want to play these so you don't get the rules to do so” which can be implied from the former, compared to “we prefer you play these people so they're the ones we devoted more space to” as is implied from the latter. I am fine with an antagonist being non-playable, if it has a really compelling reason such as being incredibly inhuman, like an angel or strix, otherwise it's going to bother me that the books are trying to prevent me from playing a story focusing on the antagonists with the presented mechanics. I won't go into much more detail on my feelings on that topic here though, as I doubt I'll bring anything new to the table on the topic, I don't want to derail this thread, and knowing me I'll wind up on an unproductive rant about the presentation of heroes in beast.
                                Actually, thanks for bringing it up; it shows up a lot: as you mentioned, Werewolf's Pure; but also Mage's Seers, Promethean's alchemists, and Beast's Heroes. Again, I'm not advocating for or against any of these; but there are factions in each gameline's fanbase that get rankled that these antagonists aren't available to players, and counter-factions who argue that making them playable would run counter to the intent of the game.


                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X