[2E Hack] Archetypes as Y-Splats, not Krewe

[wyrdhamster]

So I like variety in my players groups and I do not see need to dedicate them all to only one theme in Archetypes - I have idea of really small hack for Geist 2E. Instead of idea for whole players groups - Archetypes are more like other Y-Splats of other gamelines, like Covenants in VtR ( Circle of Crone, Invictus, Lancea Sanctum, etc. ), Tribes in WtF( Iron Masters, Hunters in Darkness, Predators Kings, etc. ) or Refinements in Promethean ( Aurum, Coprum, Argentum, etc. ). Probably mostly like mix of Tribes and Refinements as Archetypes of Geist are all about 'what should I make with Underworld and Dead' for particular character, in general.

Would change like this make really big repercussions in 2E ( at least previewed now )? Cause for now I see official Archetypes as 'you must all play the same story in Krewe'.

[Satchel]

As-written, this effectively necessitates that your PCs belong to different krewes — these are not global organizations with the numbers to allow their focus to be split between wildly varying long-term goals, they are a couple dozen people, some of whom are dead, and that means the shared character of "your Sin-Eaters' krewe" is a coherent entity with beliefs and aspirations.

[wyrdhamster]

As-written, this effectively necessitates that your PCs belong to different krewes — these are not global organizations with the numbers to allow their focus to be split between wildly varying long-term goals, they are a couple dozen people, some of whom are dead, and that means the shared character of "your Sin-Eaters' krewe" is a coherent entity with beliefs and aspirations.

I'm only starting to read previews ( being in Chapter 1 ), but I'm still not getting this. Archetypes - as written - are all 'we make those things with the Dead, on general'. You do not need some one global organisation for having characters with common interests. Like Refinements in Promethean - they are much more philosophical ways of seeing life than common groups 'made in this and that year, by this and that NPC', like Covenants in Vampire are. Still, I really do not see reasons why 'people wanting Justice for Dead' or 'people wanting Knowledge from Dead' should not self create all over the world.

[Satchel]

I'm only starting to read previews ( being in Chapter 1 ), but I'm still not getting this.

I would recommend at least getting current with the previews before you start brainstorming houserules that don't actually offer a meaningful change.

Archetypes - as written - are all 'we make those things with the Dead, on general'. You do not need some one global organisation for having characters with common interests. Like Refinemnts in Promethean - they are much more philosophical ways of seeing life than common groups 'made in this and that year, by this and that NPC', like Covenants in Vampire are. Still, I really do not see reasons why 'people wanting Justice for Dead' or 'people wanting Knowledge from Dead' should not self create all over the world.

Your krewe's Archetype is one of three different steps of the krewe creation process that defines it narratively as an organization. They literally don't exist except as umbrella categories for types of krewe. These are not abstract entities.

[Jacob]

I don't see a problem per se but you'll be asking your storyteller ( or doing if you're the storyteller) a lot of overhead since most characters will be part of different krewes for the burden will mainly fall on the storyteller. Your chroncles will end up being demi-crossovers (between/among) krewes.

This works for other CoD games though, so it should work here too.

Also, as Satchel says, you might want to wait until the rules are fully released before making alterations for your local play environment.

[Wormwood]

Burdens and Remembrance Give Each Character Their Own Personal goal. By having a krewe archetype, you essentially guarantee the Player Characters share common goals. Which is why I am surprised you of all people Want to do away with it, recalling some discussions where you complained about e.g. lack of unity and focus.
You could do away with it, but you would have to change the whole krewe system, would gain pretty much nothing (Burdens and Geister provide enough diversity) but lose something special.
Btw, seconding Satchel : you should try to reaf through the material and make sure you understand everything, and maybe wait for it to at least be semi-complete, before trying to change stuff without any idea how those parts are supposed to come together.

[ArcaneArts]

A better course of action might be to develop sub-archetypes for each of the Krewe types, clarifying seperate roles within a Krewe Archetype that a unified Kewe might have.

By the way, that's a big point on the group-universal Krewe Archetype-instead of having to fuck around with why each character is teamed up that is the problem of a lot of the other splats, Krewe Archetype incentives players to come up with a "same page" to start off with and then gives them space to get nitty gritty and internally aligned/at-odds with in just exactly how they are going to get it done.

Still, like, yeah, you wanna come up with five sub-archetypes for each Krewe-type instead of going back to an ill-fitting standard, that'd be cool to see.

[wyrdhamster]

Which is why I am surprised you of all people Want to do away with it, recalling some discussions where you complained about e.g. lack of unity and focus.

There is difference between more unity and focus in particular chronicle - and forcing each game group to focus on only one aspect of game world and themes by Archetypes as written. But yes, I will read more on the Krewes and their Archetypes before saying anything more in this topic.

[ArcaneArts]

There is difference between more unity and focus in particular chronicle - and forcing each game group to focus on only one aspect of game world and themes by Archetypes as written. But yes, I will read more on the Krewes and their Archetypes before saying anything more in this topic.

No one is forcing shit, please stop reading problems into the text where none exist, please, thank you. We can't keep doing this song and dance.

[milo v3]

The rules even mention how not all Sin-Eaters are even in krewes, so you can play a group of sin-eaters who don't even have a Y-Splat. And I'm surprised people would view "having the same y-splat" as being identical.

[Vent0]

Even within one (broad) category, people can go about it different ways - not every Adamantine Arrow is a steely-eyed close-combat warrior, for example.

Best bet would be to do something pantheistic-like - come up with a mystery cult/religion where each if the Sin-Eaters fill a particular role/niche. Even if the overall Krewe Focus is Undertaker, you might have a role that establishes itself for punishing transgressions against the code (a more Fury disposition) or one that teaches the enjoyment of life/death (a more Necropolitan disposition).

[Shadowdragon]

It does seem a bit odd that Archetypes apply to the entire crew, rather than the individual (as it does in pretty much every other splat book). It's like saying all the members of a werewolf pack have to have the same Tribe, or all the members of a vampire Coterie has to have the same Covenant. If you can have a werewolf pack where the members have wildly different goals and methods of operation, why can't you do the same for a Sin-Eater Krewe?

[Mad_Maudlin]

It does seem a bit odd that Archetypes apply to the entire crew, rather than the individual (as it does in pretty much every other splat book). It's like saying all the members of a werewolf pack have to have the same Tribe, or all the members of a vampire Coterie has to have the same Covenant. If you can have a werewolf pack where the members have wildly different goals and methods of operation, why can't you do the same for a Sin-Eater Krewe?

I mean, werewolf packs are united by their totem and territory, and coteries by the politics of whatever court they're active in. Travis Stout has said that he went with Krewe-level archetypes because he was afraid the Bound were too atomistic, and it provided more built-in structure to keep people from focusing exclusively on their own/their Geist's goals. Which, incidentally, is something the OP of this thread has liberally complained about when he runs other CofD games, so it's not a vacuous concern.

Personally I can see both sides of the argument, and I'd welcome a rules hack that allowed for composite krewes and individual archetypes. It just puts more burden on the table to a) come up with narrative incentives to cooperate and b) balance pursuit of individual goals with group goals or helping others.

[Satchel]

It's like saying all the members of a werewolf pack have to have the same Tribe,

…if your Tribe was formed by your pack and had any direct impact on your mission statement, sure.

or all the members of a vampire Coterie has to have the same Covenant.

…if coteries were anything more involved than a completely mundane alliance that happened to be between vampires and covenants had institutional histories measured in decades at most, sure.

If you can have a werewolf pack where the members have wildly different goals and methods of operation, why can't you do the same for a Sin-Eater Krewe?

Because a Sin-Eater krewe is defined by its goals and methods of operation. You don't start a charity and then start asking why it doesn't offer more direct support for its constituents acting as a vigilante death-squad. They're Mystery Cults whose founding membership includes Sin-Eaters who are on the same page about what's important in the grand scheme of things re: ghosts and the Underworld.

The Werewolf analogue there is "we hunted Red-Horned Stag to be our totem because we wanted to create a pack that keeps off-season hunters from spoiling the resonance of the woods," not "we all follow Black Wolf." The Vampire analogue is "we all get together twice a month to figure out what we're telling the rest of the city we want for the Rack because we happen to hold assets that make that a viable course of and we can play nice with each other for long enough to get our respective cuts of the pie," not "we're all Carthians and collective bargaining is awesome." The Changeling analogue is "we all swore an oath to bind our fates because we weren't going to let our Keepers take us back without a fight," not "we all belong to Summer." I could go on.

[21C Hermit]

I feel like this is where I share my recent observations; 2E templates’ elements rarely have direct equivalences between each other. X-splats? Y-splats? Z-splats? Player group units? Aura powers? “Simple” powers and “advanced” or “sorcerous” powers? Anchors? Integrity replacements? Fuel? Supernatural Tolerance? The lines are getting increasingly blurry, making them less useful as standards of cross-template comparison.

Thus Archetypes don’t function as “Tribe/Covenant/Order/Court membership, but for Sin-Eaters,” because they aren’t each other’s equivalents anymore, and thus is not beholden to the same story/game functions.