The Fight Isn't Over

[Ragged Robin]

This is just a theory, but I'm guessing they want to avoid big orgs because to join them is to join with The Man and so selling out. If your idea of 'punk is about struggling day in day out with few resources while The Man gets everything and controls everything, then joining them is betraying your beliefs and friends and selling your soul for the corporate.

What this has to do with Garou Nation, which is naturally geared much MUCH younger than most human organizations, I have no idea.

Possibly, it's a pretty juvenile/nihilistic outlook and reminds me of what I don't like about punk culture and modern cynicism in general. The garou nation is probably the worst choice for this outlook as its brutally meritocratic (actual meritocracy not thd pretend corporate capitalist one) you can literally fight your way into a position of power and implement change. I recall another player effectively pushed back the apocalypse by instituting military reforms in how the garou were waging war (tldr they implemented feudalism in how they garou rally their forces). This sort of stuff is half the fun of playing werewolf not some nihilistic circle jerk.

[Ana Mizuki]

Possibly, it's a pretty juvenile/nihilistic outlook and reminds me of what I don't like about punk culture and modern cynicism in general. The garou nation is probably the worst choice for this outlook as its brutally meritocratic (actual meritocracy not thd pretend corporate capitalist one) you can literally fight your way into a position of power and implement change. I recall another player effectively pushed back the apocalypse by instituting military reforms in how the garou were waging war (tldr they implemented feudalism in how they garou rally their forces). This sort of stuff is half the fun of playing werewolf not some nihilistic circle jerk.

I feel that is what they mean when they say 'return to 1e.' This sort of sense of "you are on your own and the system is against you." Of course, I got that sense not from 1e itself, but from When Will You Rage 1 and Drums Around the Fire. These literature books often were a bit iffy on the canon accuracy.

It also mimicks the start of NWoD where every PC started as a human and THEN the supernatural template was added.

Both of these which never suited WtA.

[Toby Weingarten]

This could also be a consideration towards 'think globally, act locally.' Sure, saving Gaia as a whole is too big for even every shape changer working together to do, but by saving one little part at a time, maybe they could save the world. There could also be other things going on, but there is just not enough information to go on, and what is out there feels disjoined/confusing.

[Knightingale]

This could also be a consideration towards 'think globally, act locally.' Sure, saving Gaia as a whole is too big for even every shape changer working together to do, but by saving one little part at a time, maybe they could save the world. There could also be other things going on, but there is just not enough information to go on, and what is out there feels disjoined/confusing.

I mean, Justin Achilli has been very explicit in saying that W5 is not about saving the world. At least in this regard, the statements have been pretty clear actually. The questionmarks that remain are mostly a product of W5 being largely unfinished at this point (according to Twitter, Justin & co are working on the Gifts-chapter right now as in "the first draft of the manuscript is being produced").

[TwoDSix]

I mean, Justin Achilli has been very explicit in saying that W5 is not about saving the world. At least in this regard, the statements have been pretty clear actually. The questionmarks that remain are mostly a product of W5 being largely unfinished at this point (according to Twitter, Justin & co are working on the Gifts-chapter right now as in "the first draft of the manuscript is being produced").

And this is supposed to be finished next year? I'm guessing he's planning to just skip the playtesting or something.


But yeah, W5 is going back to 1e by removing the goal of the Garou have had since 1e. While also doing a hard reboot so we can't see how the characters and groups of previous editions might react to the final battle being over. And then throws in an implied punishment for growing in power that's far less manageable than any of the ones in CofD. So we're meant to play sad angry failures who can't get anything done?

Insert 'but I play games to escape real life' gag here.

Then we have the 'protecting your turf' stuff. So the gameplay loop I can see is that a threat comes to your area, you kill it, and then a new and bigger threat comes, repeat until the Wyrm comes down and kills you personally. Which feels to me like 'I don't get Werewolf, so let's just do Hunter with added fur'. Suffice to say it's not something that overly grips me.

[Jachra]

I'm also not really pleased with Hunter right now. I actually don't mind that there are many kinds of hunter now, but they don't really provide rules for the street-level magicians and witches and psychics you see in VtM's Second Inquisition book. I also would have liked it if the angelic hunters still existed for the people who liked that aspect of the game - right now, it feels like a less developed version of nWoD's Hunter: the Vigil.

[Damian May]

And this is supposed to be finished next year? I'm guessing he's planning to just skip the playtesting or something.

The weird thing to me is they have apparently already done playtesting but only in piecemeal ways with vast swathes of the book unwritten as yet.

Last I heard the Rage mechanic has been reworked almost half a dozen times so it seems that unlike H5/V5 at least they are actually listening to some of the playtest feedback.......fragmented though it is.

[Damian May]

Dupe Post.

[heinrich]

Having seen some Last Week Tonight with John Oliver and knowing that today the Midterms happen in the US, there might be a reason to fear that the doom is nigh.


Still, I think the WtA should be about fighting what is bad. The game wasn't about saving the world before, I feel, but always about the world not ending. There is now winning in WtA. Just like the price of freedom, the price of an Apocalypse not happening is eternal vigilance. A perspective where all fight is pointless doesn't make a good game setting, I think. But from what I hear, W5 has a "The Apocalypse is happening right now." approach, rather an "it has happened, we are beyond the point of no return".

I mean, there are scientists that say, we might hit milestones that will lead to a changed climate irreversibly or that we can't manage to avoid these milestones any more. And that is frightening. But it shouldn't be the premise of a game. If you want to do things right, with political correctness and minority consultants and all that, but set the premise that we are all doomed, then why bother?

[Knightingale]

I think it's less about the game saying that stopping the apocalypse is impossible and more about saying "The apocalypse is happening and this isn't a game about you doing anything about it. You're supposed to play this game as a personal horror street-level game. This is the only option for play given.". And like H5 there will probably be some arbitrary-seeming limitations that will express that. Like the H5 idea that there are no good hunters in hunter-organizations and all hunter-organizations are compromised. I assume with W5 it will be the Get as a symbol for the idea that really springing into action and wanting to do something about the apocalypse is a bad thing. Instead, you're supposed to stay in your street-level-setting, look for Kin, protect your Caern, agonize over your Rage and manage your Touchstones. And deviating from that is portrayed as a bad thing.

[Ana Mizuki]

Instead, you're supposed to stay in your street-level-setting, look for Kin, protect your Caern, agonize over your Rage and manage your Touchstones. And deviating from that is portrayed as a bad thing.

If the reason the Fenrir are 'gone' is due to them dropping all human connections and ONLY focusing on the War, I will laugh my arse off.

Especially as lupus are still available, so you could EASILY play a character with zero human connections.

[Knightingale]

If the reason the Fenrir are 'gone' is due to them dropping all human connections and ONLY focusing on the War, I will laugh my arse off.

Especially as lupus are still available, so you could EASILY play a character with zero human connections.

Seems likely. In H5, they had the Vigilante-organizations to portray that. Those weren't big hunter-organizations like the others but actually hunter-cells just like the kind the player-characters are portraying but their sin was to only care about dealing with the supernatural and do whatever was the most efficient while not managing their Touchstones properly. And without proper Touchstone-management, they can't be the good kind of hunters anymore. It's a whole "Yeah, but you're doing it wrong."-signpost to diegetically demonstrate how you're not supposed to play the game.

[AnubisXy]

Having seen some Last Week Tonight with John Oliver and knowing that today the Midterms happen in the US, there might be a reason to fear that the doom is nigh.


Still, I think the WtA should be about fighting what is bad. The game wasn't about saving the world before, I feel, but always about the world not ending. There is now winning in WtA. Just like the price of freedom, the price of an Apocalypse not happening is eternal vigilance. A perspective where all fight is pointless doesn't make a good game setting, I think. But from what I hear, W5 has a "The Apocalypse is happening right now." approach, rather an "it has happened, we are beyond the point of no return".

I mean, there are scientists that say, we might hit milestones that will lead to a changed climate irreversibly or that we can't manage to avoid these milestones any more. And that is frightening. But it shouldn't be the premise of a game. If you want to do things right, with political correctness and minority consultants and all that, but set the premise that we are all doomed, then why bother?

I am reminded a bit of Cyberpunk and other "punk" settings. One of the ideas is that you can't "win" - by "win" that means that (for example in Cyberpunk) you're not going to overthrow the corporations, end capitalism, stop human suffering and turn the world into a utopia. Even if you drop a nuke on the headquarters of some corporation, they'll just eventually rebuild or another corporation will step in and the cycle will continue.

But, just because characters can't change the whole world, that doesn't mean that they aren't capable of achieving their own personal victories. Sure when you fight against the Man, the Man will eventually win. But that doesn't mean that the fight was pointless and it doesn't mean that you weren't able to help people or change parts of the world for the better on the way.

I get the feeling that this is sort of the direction W5 is going in. You can't beat the Wyrm, you can't save the world, any victory you have will be short lived. But the fight still has meaning and characters can still take pride in their accomplishments.

[Ana Mizuki]

Seems likely. In H5, they had the Vigilante-organizations to portray that. Those weren't big hunter-organizations like the others but actually hunter-cells just like the kind the player-characters are portraying but their sin was to only care about dealing with the supernatural and do whatever was the most efficient while not managing their Touchstones properly. And without proper Touchstone-management, they can't be the good kind of hunters anymore. It's a whole "Yeah, but you're doing it wrong."-signpost to diegetically demonstrate how you're not supposed to play the game.

It is interesting how self-sacrifice is treated as a bad thing. Mind, it can be in a lot of cases, but when things truly are bigger than you and your life and touchstones a mere speck in the grand scheme of things? Is it bad to sacrifice your own joy for the good you can do?

I get the personal scale, but the apocalypse is not personal.

I get the feeling that this is sort of the direction W5 is going in. You can't beat the Wyrm, you can't save the world, any victory you have will be short lived. But the fight still has meaning and characters can still take pride in their accomplishments.

The difference here with Cyberpunk and such is that the corporations in the end are just companies. They might be all-powerful, but they are still mortal. The victories in Cyberpunk are about finding personal joy.

The environment and the existence of the world is not that. It is not something that you can just shrug and say you tried your best about. If the message is 'you can't save the environment, but you can do this tiny good thing' it is not really a message suited for a game about protecting it. There is no 'good enough' in this.

[Knightingale]

It is interesting how self-sacrifice is treated as a bad thing. Mind, it can be in a lot of cases, but when things truly are bigger than you and your life and touchstones a mere speck in the grand scheme of things? Is it bad to sacrifice your own joy for the good you can do?

I get the personal scale, but the apocalypse is not personal.

It makes the Get very relatable actually, I think, as it's an understandable reaction to the apocalypse. To respond to it with "Let's redouble our efforts! Let's fight like there's no tomorrow!" seems like a believable reaction for the so-called "protectors of Gaia". But with the Get symbolizing Haugslosk (extreme urgency), the two poles of extremes seem to be that and Harano. So you have Harano on one side that is the extreme of "Let's give up. It's all pointless." and you have Haugslosk on the other side with "No matter the cost, we have to do something!". And that means the balanced position the player-characters are supposed to strive for is something like "We should do something - but let's not rush into things here.", I guess. Like it's a bad thing to get too emotionally invested when something like the apocalypse is on the line. I mean, it's the apocalypse and what the game seems to suggest the players should strive for is an attitude of moderation and setting themselves small goals.

And this attitude is especially aggravating in the context of climate change. Portraying "extreme urgency" as a bad thing just seems like a really poor choice. Climate change has been a known problem for a long time now and yet how often over the years have climate-goals been set by countries that have been both too low and then the countries often also missed their targets? And one of the reasons why that happened was a lack of urgency (of course there are many other reasons as well why climate change hasn't been solved thus far).