New Family: Irkalla, Nightmare of the End

[Cleverest of Things]

At first, I was hesitant. Like.."aren't all families about to fear of death?" And "isn't death covered by the Bound?"

The answer to the second came quickly. Yes, duh. Kinship. The Primordial are related to other monsters, overlap is meant to be there. Plus,this covers a different angle.

As for the first bit, other families aren't afraid of Death, they're a fear of DYING, and even then not all of the Children play with dying. The legitimate fear of death itself, regardless of means, is just as valid as the Telassi. If they don't become Canon, I still think I'll use them!

[ArcaneArts]

It's not so much any reason or idea, so much as sheer curiosity as to what the result(s) would be. And besides, this sort of thing has got me thinking of maybe, maybe, trying to generate my own homebrew Family eventually, so I might as well see what would come of all this for if I decide to apply it to this hypothetical 'Family' of mine.

Okay. Thank you for your answer!

[TerrorCooper]

It's not so much any reason or idea, so much as sheer curiosity as to what the result(s) would be. And besides, this sort of thing has got me thinking of maybe, maybe, trying to generate my own homebrew Family eventually, so I might as well see what would come of all this for if I decide to apply it to this hypothetical 'Family' of mine.

[ArcaneArts]

I'm perfectly willing to wait.

Can I ask why this matters so much to you? Cause the persistence of seeking has gotten me curious about it now.

[TerrorCooper]

They might be busy being a developer over in the They Came From! side of things, as a heads up.

I'm perfectly willing to wait.

[ArcaneArts]

Mostly just wondering, but will you be applying what ArcaneArts is doing to the 'canon' Families to the Irkalla?

They might be busy being a developer over in the They Came From! side of things, as a heads up.

[TerrorCooper]

Mostly just wondering, but will you be applying what ArcaneArts is doing to the 'canon' Families to the Irkalla?

[wyrdhamster]

Cinder, I think you should read at least Preview 3 of Geist 2E from Kickstarter. Just see what it's there...

Irkalla’s Gates
Rare but well attested are Irkalla’s Gates, so named for their resemblance to the one-way passage to the Sumerian afterlife. These gates often serve as the entrance to a Dominion; though some lie defunct and seemingly grant passage to nowhere. More than one River City has sprung up around such Irkalla Gates, relying on them for a measure of security and isolation. The dead dread these gates, for when they enter them, they often cannot pass back through them. Each gate exacts a unique toll on those who pass —one’s left arm, one’s voice, and so on. Some demand seemingly innocuous things, like a particular item of clothing, but when paid, the true cost becomes clear, as any replacement rots away in moments. Those without appropriate payment to offer cannot pass — and thus, one who has paid the toll generally cannot pay it again without some form of trickery. Some, of course, will be unable to pass at all to begin with.
Each Irkalla Gate has a guardian, armored and armed in varying styles, who demands payment from all who pass. Like Ferrymen, guardians of Irkalla’s Gates have little in the way of personality, and while they can be tricked, they are unmoved by pleas, bribery, or other forms of
influence. The guardian is always the one who takes the payment. One guardian simply devours a newly acquired severed hand, while another takes the hand and nails it to the gate (its surface already likely hidden beneath successive layers of previous tolls paid in full). Once the toll is paid, the guardian opens the gate. If it is possible to force an Irkalla Gate open, no one has ever been known to do so.
Two exceptions stand to the toll: geists and Reapers. Touched by the Underworld’s Rivers, geists have already given up so much of themselves that Irkalla’s Gates know them not, and so demand nothing of them — indeed, many guardians will not even acknowledge their presence — a trait that carries over to their Bound companions. Reapers, of course, pass without payment by dint of their service to the Underworld, and some have grown rich by acting as coyotes, passing through Irkalla’s Gates with a belly full of passengers to be vomited up on the other side.

Now I need to prepare Irkalla Beast that is bound to become Gates Guardian as NPCs - connecting her Lair with Underworld by the Gate...

[ArchonAres]

My problem is that I've had players who try to turn ci ematic feel good stuff into a mechanical advantage well above what they actually have. "I got to melt that other thing without clash, why not this one?" It's an unfortunate mentality to play with, and as a result I tend to have a different approach.

[Cinder]

I only brought it up because wouldn't give the resistance roll a bonus based on satiety. And why wouldn't you treat all magical objects, hedge tokens, etc the same? It's less cinematic, sure, but it also gives you a solid boundary for your power level vs what's around you, even if it's just the question of if you can destroy a hedge bush as easily as a regular one.

Merely for comfort. Most of the time, you'll roll for anything, no matter how "little", but there are occasions where there's no need as long as the player rolled his successes to begin with. It's way less relevant than I'm making it look like, but it's the sort of things that in my experience can be avoid nuisances. And some free cinematics are not bad thing if it limited to to minor elements, make the player feel good and the game less unnecessarily slow. But really, it's a "roll almost always for a Clash of Wills, unless it does not matter" situation, nothing more than that. Nothing too unusual, tt's just that years of playing taught me some people need that to be clear. It might be only something related to players and game masters I played with, but that's from where it comes from

And no worries for the bad edit, I've seen and done myself worse

[ArchonAres]

Perhaps I've spent too long with dnd, but if I fail at something like that after a big expenditure, I'll probably change tactics intead of trying g to keep going with the same one. The scene long immunity would encourage the beast to try another trick, or escape to either try again later or or try something else later instead of staying a one trick pony.

I only brought it up because wouldn't give the resistance roll a bonus based on satiety. And why wouldn't you treat all magical objects, hedge tokens, etc the same? It's less cinematic, sure, but it also gives you a solid boundary for your power level vs what's around you, even if it's just the question of if you can destroy a hedge bush as easily as a regular one.

Also, I apologise for the bad editing on my last post.

[Cinder]

I feel like the clash of Will's for supernatural gear (such as enchanted mage equipment, hedge gear for a changeling, etc) should all take a CoW. Banes included. A passed save renders it immune for a scene maybe?

The first bit is already how the currently take on the Atavism works. I just added "at Storyteller's discretion" because there's no need to roll for, say, Hedge trees that matter little, supernatural or not.

Winning that roll also makes items completely immune to normal and low Satiety effect for the scene, though another Satiety expenditure calls for another roll. Beast have not an easy time to refill their fuel stat pools and using Satiety has consequences: if one tries again to break a thing, she at least deserves a chance

[ArchonAres]

I feel like the clash of Will's for supernatural gear (such as enchanted mage equipment, hedge gear for a changeling, etc) should be baseline. Banes included. A passed save renders it immune for a scene maybe?

[Cinder]

I agree that low Satiety Beasts should be allowed to challenge their Anathema and have an upper-hand against Heroes counting on these weaknesses to be constantly potent, but Atavisms shouldn't let you just punt Anathema aside either.

Hmm, this is probably something that I won't ever 100% agree with, but I do get your view and concerns as well.

Still, the idea that a Beast, no matter Lair, Satiety or dice pools, is not able to wreck the tools of even a weak or reckless Hero, is just something I can't agree with, so total immunity is still a no for me. Sorry, I know I'm being stubborn here, but It just rubs me the wrong way for several reasons

That said, I'm gonna add that Anathema items (like those pesky Banes and Weaponbound) are completely immune to the Atavism if the Beast tagged with those Anathema is at high Satiety and that the Beast gets a -2 in the Clash of Wills if she's at normal Satiety.

[Heavy Arms]

I get your view on this, it's just that very few Atavisms allow for a direct attack on possible Anathema (esp. Bane and Weaponbound). Like, Unbreakable doesn't need a clause that says it's weak against your Bane... it's a natural consequence of how both are written that Unbreakable isn't going to help because the Bane will always be armor piercing. At best, at Low Satiety and spending more, you can push the Bane from lethal to bashing.

Using something like Titanic Blow to destroy an Anathema item takes some work (you need to get close enough to be in hand-to-hand with the person using it, and you need disarm it or trying to target it in their hand).

My issue with All is Dust is that if you have, say, From the Shadows... you can just stealth along next to the Hero and their band, and melt all their weapons away, even Anathema ones, and still be at high Satiety.

I agree that low Satiety Beasts should be allowed to challenge their Anathema and have an upper-hand against Heroes counting on these weaknesses to be constantly potent, but Atavisms shouldn't let you just punt Anathema aside either.