Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Mummy: the Curse 2E Conversion

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

  • Octavo
    replied
    Here's how I'm planning to handle Affinities and Utterances that reference rules from the original nWoD core book.

    Mummy Powers

    To avoid creating a giant list of errata, I recommend that anytime an Affinity or Utterance references granting a Mummy a merit, reference the nWoD 1.0 rulebook even if it has a superior version in the GMC or 2E core. Ditto for derangements. If your player cultists are using the God Machine Chronicle or 2E core to build their characters, first look through that book to see if it has a merit available. If a derangement is inflicted on a player character, use the beat and resolution mechanics from the Madness Persistent condition to model the derangement’s effects on them.

    Does this seem like a clunky fix? Does anyone have any suggestions?

    Leave a comment:


  • Octavo
    replied
    Originally posted by Kirby Jerusalem View Post
    I'm working on a lot of stuff for my own 2e patch rules, so I'm keeping an eye on this thing. I already have stuff in the works for Virtue/Vice replacements and some Sealing the Flesh buffs that border on broken.

    I'm also one that would probably remove some amount of morality from Memory when I get around to it. I acknowledge the devs basing their version around compassion being the root of Memory, but that never really did much for me. I'd rather a system where you could struggle to reclaim who you were or redefine yourself as a person, even if that person is an utter bastard.
    I'm definitely curious about the buffs and changes you're planning for your hack. One thing I'd like to see addressed in an official update is how the Judges' own moral purviews relate to the Arisen. So far, our group has had the Mummies internalize the Judge's morals. If a Judge hates blasphemy, the Arisen who serves that judge purges the heretics.
    Last edited by Octavo; 04-10-2015, 04:47 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Kirby Jerusalem
    replied
    I'm working on a lot of stuff for my own 2e patch rules, so I'm keeping an eye on this thing. I already have stuff in the works for Virtue/Vice replacements and some Sealing the Flesh buffs that border on broken.

    I'm also one that would probably remove some amount of morality from Memory when I get around to it. I acknowledge the devs basing their version around compassion being the root of Memory, but that never really did much for me. I'd rather a system where you could struggle to reclaim who you were or redefine yourself as a person, even if that person is an utter bastard.

    Leave a comment:


  • Octavo
    replied
    Note: I have added the Flashback condition, a rule about damage from mundane sources, and a very brief Sybaris section.

    Leave a comment:


  • Octavo
    replied
    Originally posted by Possessed View Post
    Considering the 2nd editions rather welcome departure from a moral trait, Humanity/Integrity/Harmony/Cover have been somewhat separated from moral issues with Humanity and Cover being traits that count how connected to humanity you are instead of how morally good human you are and Integrity more tied with sanity and ability to endure mental trauma rather than moral actions and Harmony being a scale of how much closer you are to spirit/flesh, why do you still see it necessary to tie Memory to morality stat? Especially since Mummy already has immoral antagonists whose memories are not impaired for being immoral, which makes little to no sense at all in general.

    Just asking cause that tie to morality is the greatest failing of MtC, one that is easy to House-rule but non-the-less it is there.

    Still considering how much I love MtC I find it rather sad that it is forced to dredge in the awfulness that is 1st edition nWoD rules while the rest of the lines are moving on. Why is it we couldn't get an official update to second edition? Especially since such an update requires more work the more we get new books with the old system.
    While I think morality is important to reclaiming one's identity in defiance of the cruel alien Judges, I do think tying MtC to the 1st ed rules was unfortunate timing. I think Mummies should risk degeneration for murder, torture, and screwing people up with Utterances, but it is weird to see petty theft on a list of sins for a Mummy.

    Leave a comment:


  • Octavo
    replied
    Originally posted by Ben Quo View Post
    I like this a lot. I've got my own hacks I'm using, but this definitely helped my (somewhat lacking) Memory update; I was having trouble with Conditions, especially.
    I will note that the Mummy core book recommends "Depression" as a useful Derangement for Mummies who lose Memory, so "Broken" is also appropriate as a Condition for them to take.
    Also, you didn't actually post what the "Flashback" Condition is, and I'd be hesitant to provide "Inspired" for a success since it's positive.
    I'm toying around with some kind of version of "Obsessed" for a success, even though it's Persistent.
    I'm glad you like it! I meant to convert the "Informed" condition for Flashback. Thanks for the reminder!

    I also agree that compassion and morality is key to Memory in the setting. I wanted to uncouple it from the Morality system since I like sample breaking points better than threshold sins, and I wanted to tweak morality breaking points to be more specific to mummies - specifically I wanted them to deal with how they relate to their cultists.

    Leave a comment:


  • Ben Quo
    replied
    I'm super against removing the moral component from Memory.
    The Devs are on record saying that "Compassion is the root of all identity;" Memory isn't a big storage bank, it's your sense of self. If you want to be a monster, you're fine at low Memory - if you want to raise it, then you have to remember how to be a person.
    This means you have to remember how to not be a monster.

    This, from the other thread about 2e Mummy.
    Also, a few posts down.

    I mean, you could remove it, but what would you replace it with?
    Arguing that a high Memory Arisen should be able to act monstrous with no repercussions sort of, misses the point (not to be blunt or rude), while arguing "they should be able to be bronze age monster-gods" - well, they can be, at low Memory. Raising it is about realizing how much that sucks and moving away from it.

    Did you ever bully anyone when you were 6?
    Why did you stop doing that?
    Didn't you learn better, and doesn't that memory of how shitty it felt - to bully or be bullied - stop you from doing it again, sometimes?
    Last edited by Ben Quo; 04-10-2015, 03:24 PM. Reason: Added the second link.

    Leave a comment:


  • Possessed
    replied
    Considering the 2nd editions rather welcome departure from a moral trait, Humanity/Integrity/Harmony/Cover have been somewhat separated from moral issues with Humanity and Cover being traits that count how connected to humanity you are instead of how morally good human you are and Integrity more tied with sanity and ability to endure mental trauma rather than moral actions and Harmony being a scale of how much closer you are to spirit/flesh, why do you still see it necessary to tie Memory to morality stat? Especially since Mummy already has immoral antagonists whose memories are not impaired for being immoral, which makes little to no sense at all in general.

    Just asking cause that tie to morality is the greatest failing of MtC, one that is easy to House-rule but non-the-less it is there.

    Still considering how much I love MtC I find it rather sad that it is forced to dredge in the awfulness that is 1st edition nWoD rules while the rest of the lines are moving on. Why is it we couldn't get an official update to second edition? Especially since such an update requires more work the more we get new books with the old system.

    Leave a comment:


  • Ben Quo
    replied
    I like this a lot. I've got my own hacks I'm using, but this definitely helped my (somewhat lacking) Memory update; I was having trouble with Conditions, especially.
    I will note that the Mummy core book recommends "Depression" as a useful Derangement for Mummies who lose Memory, so "Broken" is also appropriate as a Condition for them to take.
    Also, you didn't actually post what the "Flashback" Condition is, and I'd be hesitant to provide "Inspired" for a success since it's positive.
    I'm toying around with some kind of version of "Obsessed" for a success, even though it's Persistent.

    Leave a comment:


  • Azahul
    replied
    Originally posted by Octavo View Post

    Oh, I missed the rule about bullets being treated as bashing for Mummies. I'll look that up and modify the original post if the rule doesn't step on any key affinities. Thanks!
    The only crazy interaction I can think of is actually with Tier 2 Ancestry of Forgotten Stars, with its "Downgrade all damage taken" step now rendering the Mummy immune to all mundane forms of attack.

    But that's probably ok, since you need to be on 2 Aggravated Damage just to cast it in the first place and it only lasts a number of turns equal to your Sekhem.

    Leave a comment:


  • Octavo
    replied
    Originally posted by Aiden View Post
    It certainly makes sense given that Mummies are as biologically dead as vampires are. They already took damage in exactly the same way vampires did in 1e, treating bullets as Bashing.
    Oh, I missed the rule about bullets being treated as bashing for Mummies. I'll look that up and modify the original post if the rule doesn't step on any key affinities. Thanks!

    Leave a comment:


  • Azahul
    replied
    That said, it's somewhat notable that Sadikh took damage like second edition Vampires...

    But then, my general impression running Mummy is that something presenting a physical danger should be the rare (probably magical) exception, so being near-impervious to damage from mortal sources is pretty much in keeping with the mechanics as they stand.

    Leave a comment:


  • Octavo
    replied
    Originally posted by atamajakki View Post
    I'm really digging this. Needs a little polish, but I love it so far. Might play around with Sebayt Beats next game.
    Thank you, I'm glad you like how Sebayt was converted.

    Leave a comment:


  • Octavo
    replied
    Originally posted by Aiden View Post
    I just figured the damage taking was something universal to the undead in Second Edition and was worth a mention, but okay.
    That might be true, especially because of the way all weapons deal lethal damage now.

    Leave a comment:


  • Aiden
    replied
    It certainly makes sense given that Mummies are as biologically dead as vampires are. They already took damage in exactly the same way vampires did in 1e, treating bullets as Bashing.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X