Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

User Profile

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

  • With hopefully some further mechanics. 1e had you recover your true name and you became "invisible to the occult world." but no actual mechanic for what that meant.
    See more | Go to post

    Leave a comment:


  • Yep. You could potentially have numerous agents around the globe all holding a Pillar point. It's a nice compromise.
    See more | Go to post

    Leave a comment:


  • Permission is mentioned nowhere in it, only a limitation of one per scene. Even if it was that wouldn't really make me feel any better about it as it still amounts to an advantage you practically hope never gets used due to pillar point size....
    See more | Go to post

    Leave a comment:


  • Assuming Pillar points remain the same in the final version I am going to try out a Pillar x 2 house rule.

    Azahul Whilst that is nice there are other important uses of Pillars that means doing that doesn't really change the predicament....
    See more | Go to post

    Leave a comment:


  • My other concern with this preview is the use of Affinities and Utterances by Sadikh. Affinities are not an issue as Willpower is generally the resource there and Deathless seem to many many ways to regain Willpower. However, Pillar pools are tiny, unnecessarily so in my opinion, and now we have ANOTHER thing tugging on that string.
    See more | Go to post

    Leave a comment:


  • I am right there with you. I understand that things will change thematically between editions in general. And I think that the changes to their relationship to time, the addition up front of Sekhem sorcerers and immortals as cultist options are good, and even some mechanical changes like less stringent requirements for Utterances. But right now with certain changes and a number of things I feel are either early draft hiccups, or repeating the mistakes of 1e leaves me a little worried....
    See more | Go to post

    Leave a comment:


  • The last thing I heard when Dawkins discussed it seemed to put it in the "I use them as Idigam but it's entirely a use what works for your game." sort of thing. I like Werewolf but no, I'm definitely not making them Idigam.
    See more | Go to post

    Leave a comment:


  • Decieved already set a precedent for things along those lines like Rebuke the Vizier and less directly Blessed is the God King having increased power and a proper Decieved book should have a system for true names....
    See more | Go to post
    Last edited by TyrannicalRabbit; 11-16-2019, 04:52 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Book of the Deceived in particularly had both a number of Affinities both Arisen and Deceived could take that were thematic, high utility to the point of feeling like they were cut for space from the core and a number of thematic, fun and exciting Utterances. While slightly less so on the Affinities front, Guildhalls had a number of atmospheric and potent Utterances.

    In the ongoing TN adjusting discussion front. It really comes down to application. Mummy's ineffable and inexorable Fate was all over 1e. From it's mythos to it's powers, xp cost, story driven narratives etc. So in that...
    See more | Go to post
    Last edited by TyrannicalRabbit; 11-16-2019, 05:12 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Being more of a flavour person my interest/concern is that 1e had more than a bit to say about the ties of the Deathless were tied to cosmic ineffable Fate and was for me at least part of the mystic of Mummy. So I hope this still rings in 2e with this mechanic as part of that.


    Sconce It was used in Exalted for the Sidereal exalted to also emulate some of their abilities to manipulate Fate. Though generally to lower target numbers. Mummy 1e had it all throughout it's powers and it's limited introduction here seems to have born out of wanting to keep it at least somewhat. At...
    See more | Go to post
    Last edited by TyrannicalRabbit; 11-16-2019, 04:27 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Not being a maths and crunch fella my curiosity is mostly along the lines of how drastic of a difference it makes on success or failure. Beyond that I share in not getting it....
    See more | Go to post

    Leave a comment:


  • I wonder if that will end up meaning we'll see those crop up more then. Wasn't something I hated but if expands a mechanic from 2e that will be fun.

    I remain skeptical but we'll see how it all turns out.
    See more | Go to post

    Leave a comment:


  • What do you think is the most compelling aspect of Mummy for crossover?
    See more | Go to post

    Leave a comment:


  • Earlier notes on that aspect seemed to point in the direction of the consciousness or whatever you want to call it, having a separation from the body but that the body is still there and there is a connection there. Which was part of 1e's Rite of Return. That it's ultimately accomplishment was tying the soul,etc to the ritually prepared corpse so powerfully that it, through Sekhem, allowed the Deathless to rise time and time again from death. So yeah it would be more than little odd if the body just wasn't there.
    See more | Go to post

    Leave a comment:


  • It solves the starting character conundrum brilliantly....
    See more | Go to post

    Leave a comment:


  • Yes, my thought exactly. Personally I don't mind the mechanic because there is a drastic difference between a die system having variable target numbers and active powers having them as part of their effect. But there is an argument to be made that it should either be a mechanic front and center of a bold expression of a power set or not done at all. The current look probably doesn't satisfy the enthusiasts and well the detractors have certainly been vocal.

    I say be daring. None of this silly you can't do X because of tomb robbers existing or because mummies have cults stuff.(tone...
    See more | Go to post
    Last edited by TyrannicalRabbit; 11-14-2019, 08:57 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • If you look at the entirety of 1e(or even just the difference between things like 1e BITGK) that doesn't really bear out and I don't think that sort of reasoning holds water.
    See more | Go to post

    Leave a comment:


  • That's a non sequitur. Ultimately the game is called Mummy, not Sekhem sorcerers, or Blue Book Template immortals. For that matter it's also besides the point because multiple people, myself included have praised that part and talked about why it's an important addition(sekhem sorcerers in particularly) because it was something that was lacking for a very long time in 1e. That however is not any argument about why multiple people have been iffy about the preview.

    See the above, that has nothing to do with people's misgivings, and it's not even clear what that actually means.
    ...
    See more | Go to post

    Leave a comment:


  • There is a problem there of overshoot, not so much undershoot. The number of 1st edition games were products of the latter. And it's a sort of results based analysis flaw that doesn't make for a good premise for a game.

    IE It's the Wolf Must Hunt. Not The Wolf Always Catches It's Prey....
    See more | Go to post

    Leave a comment:


  • It would just be terrible if a certain ren based totally mythological guild of artists who have a niche of body horror had ways and means to absorb or rip hunks of flesh from people to assimilate into their own bodies, Just dreadful ...
    See more | Go to post

    Leave a comment:

No activity results to display
Show More

Profile Sidebar

Collapse
TyrannicalRabbit
TyrannicalRabbit
Member
Joined: 05-12-2014
Location:
Working...
X