Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Hunter 2ED: The Code

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

  • Originally posted by wyrdhamster View Post
    Let's return to exercise - and focus on Null Mysteriis and playtest's Code:
    * Causing significant harm to a person - They do not seems to experiment on humans like Cherion is doing - So I think it's 'No'
    * Allowing harm to come to a person in pursuit of your Vigil - MAYBE to test some hypothesis to save few hundred others. But do not seem thing on day to day business.
    * Refusing aid to a fellow hunter in need - Totally 'No' as they are most friendly of hunters groups.
    * Killing a person - Totally 'No', if they can miss it.
    * Learning that a monster harmed a person when you could have done something to stop it but didn’t - MAYBE, as seeing once again 'my theory did not work'.
    * Putting the well-being or autonomy of a monster over that of a person - MAYBE when they are really fascinated by supernatural phenomena at hand..
    * Gaining or bestowing power from an obviously monstrous source - Not likely to me.
    * Betraying a fellow hunter - Does not seems to be a case.
    The latter two sound like they could be possible. They could try to find a way to use supernatural energies for something, and they might thwart attempts to destroy a supernatural phenomenon that's interesting but seemingly harmless. On the other hand, both of those sound like they should be big deals that change a lot for the compact if they come to pass - which makes them good to keep as breaking points.


    The Long Night:

    * Causing significant harm to a person - In relevant ways, definitely not.
    * Allowing harm to come to a person in pursuit of your Vigil - Again, no.
    * Refusing aid to a fellow hunter in need - I could see this being possible. First, they may see themsleves as uniquely sanctioned. Second, I could see them regarding many hunters as too close to being monsters to count.
    * Killing a person - No.
    * Learning that a monster harmed a person when you could have done something to stop it but didn’t - No.
    * Putting the well-being or autonomy of a monster over that of a person - The closest I can see is shielding a repentent monster from vengeance.
    * Gaining or bestowing power from an obviously monstrous source - Hell, no.
    * Betraying a fellow hunter - Unlikely.


    Ashwood Abbey:

    * Causing significant harm to a person - Maybe.
    * Allowing harm to come to a person in pursuit of your Vigil - Absolutely. Hunting is an extreme sport to them, and they'll take this risk constantly in their fun and games.
    * Refusing aid to a fellow hunter in need - Probably not. Again, extreme sport, and they wouldn't pass up the chance to take part.
    * Killing a person - Maybe.
    * Learning that a monster harmed a person when you could have done something to stop it but didn’t - Again, extreme sport, and a risk they take constantly.
    * Putting the well-being or autonomy of a monster over that of a person - Unlikely. They draw their hunts out, but that's hardly championing a monster's autonomy.
    * Gaining or bestowing power from an obviously monstrous source - Sure if it looks like fun.
    * Betraying a fellow hunter - This is more likely to happen to them.


    Task Force VALKYRIE:

    * Causing significant harm to a person - The personnel of VALKYRIE would comprise people who are hardened to this if it's needful for the mission.
    * Allowing harm to come to a person in pursuit of your Vigil - Likewise.
    * Refusing aid to a fellow hunter in need - Similarly to the Long Night, they might regard themselves as having a unique sanction that others might not have.
    * Killing a person - Again, they would likely be hardened to this.
    * Learning that a monster harmed a person when you could have done something to stop it but didn’t - No.
    * Putting the well-being or autonomy of a monster over that of a person - No.
    * Gaining or bestowing power from an obviously monstrous source - No.
    * Betraying a fellow hunter - Refusing I can see, but if they've not done that, I don't think they'd do this later.


    Aegis kai Doru:

    * Causing significant harm to a person - Robbing them probably doesn't count, so no.
    * Allowing harm to come to a person in pursuit of your Vigil - Likewise.
    * Refusing aid to a fellow hunter in need - No.
    * Killing a person - No.
    * Learning that a monster harmed a person when you could have done something to stop it but didn’t - No.
    * Putting the well-being or autonomy of a monster over that of a person - No.
    * Gaining or bestowing power from an obviously monstrous source - Some of their relics count, though they lock the worst ones away rather than using them.
    * Betraying a fellow hunter - In this case, robbing them probably does count.

    Comment


    • Thanks, Wyrdhamster and Sunless Nick^^ Gotta point out though: Slashers aren't considered "persons" according to the new rules; they are classified as monsters. I know, that's stupid, but eh, let's not digress.

      Anyway, I'll try doing a brief recap of all the groups we did so far:

      * Malleus Maleficarum: One certainly, three maybe
      * Cheiron Group: Four certainly, one maybe
      * Lucifuge: Two certainly, two maybe
      * VALKYRIE: Three certainly
      * Ascending Ones: Two certainly, four maybe
      * Loyalists of Thule: Seven maybe yes
      * Null Mysterii: Three maybe
      * Ashwood Abbey: Three certainly, two maybe
      * Long Night: One maybe
      * Aegis Kai Doru: One maybe.

      Sooo, that's more than half the Core compacts and conspiracies, and already we can see many of them need more than 1 freebie.

      Now let's see what's remaining... I think that'd be the Union and Network Zero?
      Last edited by Darinas; 11-06-2017, 11:42 AM.

      Comment


      • I did Net0 a while back. I give them two certainlys and no maybe's

        * exposing the supernatural is replaced.
        * refusing to help other Hunters is modified to exclude VALKARIE or better yet: all government/big corporate spooks.

        As for The Union. I think they're just one maybe: Putting a monster above a human. I could see them doing that if said monster is part of their community and the human is an outsider. But that requires a monster whose in good standing in their community so most Union Hunters won't do it.

        All in all though it looks like one code modification simply isn't enough to accurately model the ideologies of the core groups

        Originally posted by SunlessNick View Post

        Aegis kai Doru:

        * Causing significant harm to a person - Robbing them probably doesn't count, so no.
        * Allowing harm to come to a person in pursuit of your Vigil - Likewise.
        Robbing doesn't require harm, but if they fight back it could happen... normally I would say if they fight back and get hurt that should be a breaking point but the AKD always struck me as real fanatics about Relics. Add in that a lot of people Relics belong to Hunters who will fight back, and I'd say this is at least a maybe.
        Last edited by The Kings Raven; 11-06-2017, 12:09 PM.


        “There are no rules. Only Principles and natural laws.” - Promethius
        My Homebrew no longer fits in a signature, you can find an index of it here.
        Full length fan-books I contributed too: Princess: the Hopeful, Leviathan: the Tempest, Dream Catchers

        Comment


        • I did Net0 a while back. I give them two certainlys and no maybe's
          Ah, sorry then. I must have missed them when I scrolled back.

          s for The Union. I think they're just one maybe: Putting a monster above a human. I could see them doing that if said monster is part of their community and the human is an outsider. But that requires a monster whose in good standing in their community so most Union Hunters won't do it.
          So no Yes for killing a person? They are known to also hunt drug dealers and gangsters. I also remember Spirit Slayer had a story about how an Union Cell once made a deal with a Werewolf pack to leave them alone as long as they would focus their hunts only on criminals. It was one of my favourite parts in the book.

          Comment


          • Doh, your right. My understanding of the Union is kinda frozen in the core book. The supplements had a different author who changed direction a little and I stuck with the original for the most part.

            I suspect though we'd see more kneecapping and less killing in 2E if they keep the criminal hunting at all.


            “There are no rules. Only Principles and natural laws.” - Promethius
            My Homebrew no longer fits in a signature, you can find an index of it here.
            Full length fan-books I contributed too: Princess: the Hopeful, Leviathan: the Tempest, Dream Catchers

            Comment


            • Ah. I didn't realize this had been added in later books. My bad.

              Comment


              • No worries, later books count of course. You were right on this point.


                “There are no rules. Only Principles and natural laws.” - Promethius
                My Homebrew no longer fits in a signature, you can find an index of it here.
                Full length fan-books I contributed too: Princess: the Hopeful, Leviathan: the Tempest, Dream Catchers

                Comment


                • It seems to be oriented so that you are supposed to get breaking points acting as a normal hunter, assuming you arn't completely jaded/absurdly careful. It isn't so much that they "need freebies", its that "you will get breaking points by being a normal member of this group". Being a member of the group means that you can ignore a few of them, but the system isn't designed so that you can get away with whatever because your group thinks it is OK. They are not meant to keep you at Integrity 7. They arn't even meant to slow your fall. They are meant to "hunt" monsters, each in their own way that may or may not involve literally hunting.

                  Edit:
                  KR is still putting way more weight to Breaking Points then the book does. The book's breaking points are basically "incredibly stressful situations". Seeing a bloody corpse is a breaking point, but it probably isn't a significant point in your character's development (especially if this is the hundredth bloody corpse he has seen).
                  Last edited by Ruger; 11-06-2017, 02:51 PM.

                  Comment


                  • I think seeing a bloody corpse would be a significant point in your characters development. Remember that Breaking Points in the corebook are customised to your characters' psychology, at least to an extent.

                    Seeing your 100th corpse wouldn't be a Breaking Point. Seeing your first would be the moment you realise you're not in Kansas anymore, that the situation you're in is more dangerous than anything you've been in before and you have to make a decision: Press on or run away from this situation with your tail between your legs.

                    That is a significant moment in your character development.

                    Originally posted by Ruger View Post
                    They are not meant to keep you at Integrity 7.
                    I don't think anyone is saying they should keep you at 7. It's not about keeping Integrity high, it's about creating a Code that's consistent with your character. Take Network Zero the changes I would make is:

                    * Replace the BP for exposing people to the supernatural with a BP for hiding the truth. This is probably going to trigger more Breaking Points than the original because the character will face situations where they're forced to hide the truth or alienate people in their mundane life by telling the truth - which is a breaking point in of itself.

                    * Modify the BP that requires helping other Hunters to exclude VALKARIE and other spooks. Not really much of a difference in of itself, but it has drawbacks such as counting at lower integrity. (And I'm in favour of adding a Bane like mechanics that gives disadvantages for each modification)

                    So it's not about keeping Integrity high, it's about the mechanics accurately modeling the character.
                    Last edited by The Kings Raven; 11-06-2017, 04:19 PM.


                    “There are no rules. Only Principles and natural laws.” - Promethius
                    My Homebrew no longer fits in a signature, you can find an index of it here.
                    Full length fan-books I contributed too: Princess: the Hopeful, Leviathan: the Tempest, Dream Catchers

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by The Kings Raven View Post
                      I think seeing a bloody corpse would be a significant point in your characters development. Remember that Breaking Points in the corebook are customised to your characters' psychology, at least to an extent.

                      Seeing your 100th corpse wouldn't be a Breaking Point. Seeing your first would be the moment you realise you're not in Kansas anymore, that the situation you're in is more dangerous than anything you've been in before and you have to make a decision: Press on or run away from this situation with your tail between your legs.

                      That is a significant moment in your character development.
                      That was hyperbole. For an actual example, lets look at the breaking points that are the same for everyone to remove as much subjectivity as possible. A normal mortal investigator gets a breaking point for: killing something, witnessing the supernatural, and getting hit by a supernatural attack. Thus, a normal mortal investigator would suffer from three breaking points over the course of a normal fight with any type of supernatural creature. Would you seriously consider that each of these three things constitutes "major character development", every single time they happen? Now lets say that you say "witnessing the supernatural" is something they do long enough to no longer constitute a breaking point, I'll point out this can't be the case for Awakened magic or Lunacy. Is it really a major changing point in your character's lives every time they see a careless Mage shoot a fireball out of their hands?

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Ruger View Post
                        Would you seriously consider that each of these three things constitutes "major character development",
                        As a matter of fact I would (but if all three happened at once it's only a single BP). A mortal investigator will be expecting his case to involve mortals, if he discovered it's actually pointing to the supernatural he'd have to choose between pressing on or quitting: a significant character development moment.

                        Even if that's the last scene of the case and the game you could still have an epilogue about how he was affected by the discovery.

                        Originally posted by Ruger View Post
                        every single time they happen?
                        yes. In my opinion a character who does something that they know is likely to put them into conflict with the supernatural, like take a detective case after the last two led to the supernatural should either become a Hunter or see their integrity plummet. They clearly have a problem and are refusing to address it constructively.

                        It would take good role playing to make each attack a significant milestone on the spiral of self-destruction but it's within the reach of any competent player.

                        Originally posted by Ruger View Post
                        Is it really a major changing point in your character's lives every time they see a careless Mage shoot a fireball out of their hands?
                        Ah, now we're getting into crossover and I've always maintained that crossover usually requires tweaks here and there. If all the PCs are mortals I would adjust the rules that make careless fireballs no more and no less likely to trigger a breaking point as non supernal supernatural effects. If all the PCs are Awakened it doesn't matter if NPCs breaking points are significant character development moments or not.

                        If there are mortal and awakened players... tough one, but I'd probably adjust the rule to inflict Conditions rather than Breaking Points
                        Last edited by The Kings Raven; 11-06-2017, 05:30 PM.


                        “There are no rules. Only Principles and natural laws.” - Promethius
                        My Homebrew no longer fits in a signature, you can find an index of it here.
                        Full length fan-books I contributed too: Princess: the Hopeful, Leviathan: the Tempest, Dream Catchers

                        Comment


                        • I was using "Mortal Investigator" as the term for "Blue book PC", not as an actual profession. I could see were that could be confusing. Maybe I should have capitalized it.

                          As a matter of fact I would (but if all three happened at once it's only a single BP). A mortal investigator will be expecting his case to involve mortals, if he discovered it's actually pointing to the supernatural he'd have to choose between pressing on or quitting: a significant character development moment.

                          Even if that's the last scene of the case and the game you could still have an epilogue about how he was affected by the discovery.
                          Lets say it isn't someone with a choice. Someone is targeted by the supernatural constantly and fights it off, but would much rather live a quite life away from it all. Someone without the resolve to become a hunter, but who still ends up with a high supernatural body count anyways. Is it still a major character change after his fifth/six/fiftieth kill?
                          yes. In my opinion a character who does something that they know is likely to put them into conflict with the supernatural, like take a detective case after the last two led to the supernatural should either become a Hunter or see their integrity plummet.

                          It would take good role playing to make each attack a significant milestone on the spiral of self-destruction but it's within the reach of any competent player.
                          But that isn't the question. The question is "Does it lead to major character development every single time."

                          Heck, lets remove the supernatural entirely from the example to sidestep the issue. Lets say that the character is a completely normal human hitman "Johnny the Saint". Johnny is a stereotypical "Hitman with a heart". No women, no children, 25% of all proceeds go to worthy charities. In game terms, he tries to keep his Integrity at 7+ despite his profession.

                          Johnny is experienced. Before the game's start, he killed 10 men. In the course of the game, he kills another. Killing someone is always a breaking point, even for someone like Johnny. Kill 11 was a horrible person any vigilante would be happy to take out free of charge, and gives Johnny no reason to question his path. Then it goes on, is kill 12, 13, 14, ...30 etc all significant points of character development?


                          Ah, now we're getting into crossover and I've always maintained that crossover usually requires tweaks here and there. If all the PCs are mortals I would adjust the rules that make careless fireballs auto-trigger breaking points. If all the PCs are Awakened it doesn't matter if NPCs breaking points are significant character development moments or not.

                          If there are mortal and awakened players... tough one, but I'd probably adjust the rule to inflict Conditions rather than Breaking Points
                          I was using it as an example to point out that breaking points often don't have the weight you give them in the books. It was more "this shows the authors' intent" than "what if this absurdly specific event just happens to happen".

                          In my understanding, Integrity is basically "Hit points of the soul". Breaking points can be-but by no means must be- major events in your character's lives. Johnny in the last example probably won't change much with each of his kills, but they will get to his head if he keeps it up without any attempts to stop himself from falling. He most likely won't change much if he randomly witnesses (then forgets) a Mage casting a spell, but the event isn't good for his mental health anyway.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Ruger View Post
                            Lets say it isn't someone with a choice. Someone is targeted by the supernatural constantly and fights it off, but would much rather live a quite life away from it all. Someone without the resolve to become a hunter, but who still ends up with a high supernatural body count anyways. Is it still a major character change after his fifth/six/fiftieth kill?
                            Well, I would say any character who's got the sheer grit to survive 6+ combats with the supernatural would have to have the resolve to become a hunter. But rather than critiquing the example, lets work with it.

                            I would say that yes, they should all be a significant point in his charachter development. You could play it as a gradual build up of the lack of sleep, the paranoia, just wearing him down day by day and treat the actual attacks as a convinient point to roll the dice on Integrity or you could just treat each attack as a signular Breaking Point. If I were playing that charachter I'd probably do both at once and have the charachter develop phobias based around each attack as an aid to roleplaying the more gradual day to day decline. I'd also ask the storyteller if we could work togeather to ensure there's unique and interesting traits in each attack.

                            Originally posted by Ruger View Post
                            But that isn't the question. The question is "Does it lead to major character development every single time."
                            I think "lead to" is only part of the picture. If my charachter experiences a Breaking Point then I, as a player, will go out of my way to figure out how to create charachter development from that Breaking Point.

                            It doesn't have to redirect the plot. If I'm playing a mortal private eye and discover evidence of supernatural involvement in my case I probably wont let the results decide if I drop the case there and then; especially not if the case is supposed to be the game. But if I roll badly I might have the PI start drinking (as is sterotypical) to gain the courage to go on. And if I roll well I might bring up a supernatural encounter he's forgotten/repressed/ignored from his backstory and ask the Storyteller if he could work in thematic parallels that could give my charachter a chance to find closure.

                            But while I think that as a player I should be thinking up ways to create character development, I think the rules should meet me half way. Put Breaking Points in situations where it's easy(ier) to create character development and avoid throwing them around left right and center. I'm not asking for perfection, in a freeform system there's always going to be cases where a Breaking Point occurs at a time where it's hard to develop your character. But the blue book gives me a lot of flexibilty in saying what sort of things cause Breaking Points for my character which helps. I want Hunter to offer that same flexibility, mechanically I think you could get sufficient flexibility without a big change from the current playtest document. Just increase the number of modifications you're aloud from 1 to 3 or 5 and allow modifications at Tier 1.

                            Originally posted by Ruger View Post
                            Johnny is experienced. Before the game's start, he killed 10 men. In the course of the game, he kills another. Killing someone is always a breaking point, even for someone like Johnny. Kill 11 was a horrible person any vigilante would be happy to take out free of charge, and gives Johnny no reason to question his path. Then it goes on, is kill 12, 13, 14, ...30 etc all significant points of character development?
                            I agree that Johnny killing target 31 is unlikely to cause charachter development. Sure you can squeeze something out: This time it's personal, or this time the target's kid was watching. But that's a bit artifical.

                            But I don't think this implies that the author's intent was that Breaking Points aren't supposed to be points of charachter development (distinct from "major events in your charachter's lives"). Rather I think that the authors had two conflicting intents: The first was that a Breaking Point is a moment of charachter development, that's why the blue book has you customise Breaking Points to your charachter. The second intent was that violence in the World of Darkness (at least for blue book mortals) is always a serious affair with reprocussions.

                            I think both intents were good ideas. But there's a bit of weirdness when they collide.

                            Mage incidentally introduced a third intent: Create a gnostic setting where the Lie is embedded into Sleeper's souls. This too can have a bit of weirdness when intents conflict, but if it's a typical mage game with no PC sleepers it won't come up.


                            “There are no rules. Only Principles and natural laws.” - Promethius
                            My Homebrew no longer fits in a signature, you can find an index of it here.
                            Full length fan-books I contributed too: Princess: the Hopeful, Leviathan: the Tempest, Dream Catchers

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Ruger View Post
                              It seems to be oriented so that you are supposed to get breaking points acting as a normal hunter, assuming you arn't completely jaded/absurdly careful. It isn't so much that they "need freebies", its that "you will get breaking points by being a normal member of this group". Being a member of the group means that you can ignore a few of them, but the system isn't designed so that you can get away with whatever because your group thinks it is OK.
                              I get that, and I don't even disagree with it - except to the extent that the more uniform and/or rigid the Code is, the more one-tone-fits-all the game becomes. And the diversity of tones was one of the strongest elements of the first edition. I don't want to see it imperilled. But then I guess part of the point of this exercise is to test that.

                              (Also I liked how the way the first edition Code functioned as a kind of z-splat for individual hunters).


                              More generally: I think we've done all the core twelve now. Is it worth extending the exercise to the supplemental ones?

                              Comment


                              • I get that, and I don't even disagree with it - except to the extent that the more uniform and/or rigid the Code is, the more one-tone-fits-all the game becomes. And the diversity of tones was one of the strongest elements of the first edition. I don't want to see it imperilled. But then I guess part of the point of this exercise is to test that.
                                I feel the same way.

                                More generally: I think we've done all the core twelve now. Is it worth extending the exercise to the supplemental ones?
                                Don't think it is. As established sooner, the 12 core Conspiracies and Compacts will be the only ones listed in the 2E corebooks, so it's a bit early too start the supplemental ones.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X