Hunter Playtest!

[Satchel]

Sooo, basically you are arguing the shift of Integrity provoked by the trauma of discovering the supernatural and deciding to do something about it has roughly the same impact than the full-blown metamorphosis supernaturals go through?

I am arguing that the process of developing conscious or unconscious awareness of the Code as described in the playtest documents is a gradual process much like the descriptions of how an Awakening works or how one of the Created finds themselves upon the Pilgrimage. Nothing about this is wholly instantaneous — the games are generally written under the fairly clear assumption that your character has been what they are for long enough to understand the basic rules of being a human/humanlike monster.

"[E]xcessive violence and exposure to the dark supernatural underbelly of the world cause trauma [to] hunters when they start out, too, but at some point […t]hey draw a line in the sand." "No mystical force makes these tenets true; it's just that the mindset necessary to take up this torch — whether to light the darkness or burn it down — affects the human psyche in these ways. Anyone who lasts more than a few weeks in this gig learns to follow these instincts."

All of the universal Code tenets and innate breaking points are derived from regular Integrity with a side of "you're hunting monsters and other monster-hunters help you do that." I'd be a fool to claim that was the same impact as shifting your measure of psychic stability to be based on how well you can still relate to living humans as an undead blood-drinking predator, but it does have an impact that resembles that type of change in some ways and it engages with 2e's generally more flexible approach to Integrity ratings as a whole.

1e's Trait costs and dice pools presented a different paradigm for losing and gaining Morality than 2e does for losing and gaining Integrity, which means shifting the breaking point list from a flat set divided up by roll modifier to a loose ladder with attached Persistent Conditions and a potential exception at the more organized and abnormal end of the splat's constituency does some of the work of Tells and social penalties while still allowing for a degree of reversal in the process. 2e's base Hunter Template as presented establishes characters as slightly more experienced at what they do at character creation and enables them to deal with the fact that Integrity has faults in its maintenance that Morality didn't.

Just to make sure. Because if so, I strongly disagree, but I would like to make sure that really is what you mean, before going on a rant.

I can guess at the contents and will say up-front that appeals to flexibility without accounting for the practical limitations the presented system actually applies will not be entertained without an extremely compelling argument.

[Darinas]

I can guess at the contents and will say up-front that appeals to flexibility without accounting for the practical limitations the presented system actually applies will not be entertained without an extremely compelling argument.

I think I made my argument pretty clear until now, and several people have shown they agreed with me in this very thread, so clearly I would say it's compelling. And what do you mean by "the practical limitations the presented system actually supplies"?

Honestly I kinda get the impression you don't get what the problem is...

[Satchel]

I think I made my argument pretty clear until now, and several people have shown they agreed with me in this very thread, so clearly I would say it's compelling.

If the contents of your argument that I've been arguing against are the entirety of your argument for your position? No, preaching to the choir does not constitute a compelling argument.

And what do you mean by "the practical limitations the presented system actually supplies"?

When you keep hammering on about how restrictive the system is, it generally behooves you to bother explaining what constitutes an unacceptable degree of restriction.

Coded Integrity can go up and down with a fairly solid level of security and the particulars of its shifts from mundane Integrity are largely compatible with being part of a group that regularly acquires and uses supernatural resources — there's no breaking point for using supernatural powers against monsters, and breaking points are easier for hunters to succeed at than they are for some varieties of monster, so even without cashing in the single trade-out for gaining a power from a supernatural source a conspiracy-level character can still retain or recover their Integrity after every new acquisition of inhuman abilities.

So far there's just been a lot of talk about how the Promethean Brotherhood and the Knights of Saint Adrian and similar groups would have trouble with the system or how less violence-oriented compacts and conspiracies would be hindered by the default state of the Code putting monstrous autonomy below human autonomy in matters of direct prioritization, none of which has really made a solid case for why this actually stops those characters from working as people who struggle with their regular contact with the supernatural. Even the Merciless Condition doesn't compel violence against monsters.

It's not that I don't get what the problem is, it's that you've consistently failed to offer solid evidence that this is a real problem.

[Darinas]

If the contents of your argument that I've been arguing against are the entirety of your argument for your position? No, preaching to the choir does not constitute a compelling argument.

Now you're just being needlessly aggressive. You might think my argument isn't compelling, but clearly multiple people agree with me.

So far there's just been a lot of talk about how the Promethean Brotherhood and the Knights of Saint Adrian and similar groups would have trouble with the system or how less violence-oriented compacts and conspiracies would be hindered by the default state of the Code putting monstrous autonomy below human autonomy in matters of direct prioritization, none of which has really made a solid case for why this actually stops those characters from working as people who struggle with their regular contact with the supernatural. Even the Merciless Condition doesn't compel violence against monsters.

It's not that I don't get what the problem is, it's that you've consistently failed to offer solid evidence that this is a real problem.

OR you personally fail to understand the problem. Again, plenty of people agree with me and see how that poses a problem; just because you disagree doesn't mean my argument isn't solid. If you honestly don't see as "a real problem" the fact half of the groups in the game will have to suffer Breaking Point whenever they do exactly what their faction is stated to do as its primary goal, then I don't know what to tell you.

The Lucifuge, the Promethean Conspiracy and the Cheiron Group will have to either make a Breaking point each time they buy new Endowments, or waste their single chance to modify a Tenet so they won't have to.

Yuri's Group might have to do the same whenever they use the Going to Group tactic (admittedly I am not sure about that one; still not sure if helping a supernatural actively causes a Breaking Point or just cause a penalty).

The Union will have the same problem whenever they decide to focus on human gangs over harmless supernatural who are harming no one - even though that kind of action is completely in-character (admittedly, that one is slightly less of a problem, but you still have to waste your one chance to change a Tenet).

Just saying, in some cases, that's kind of a big problem. NONE of the vampire clans or covenants require you to waste a Bane. Except Mekhet, who have this as their explicit clan bane.

[Satchel]

Now you're just being needlessly aggressive. You might think my argument isn't compelling, but clearly multiple people agree with me.

I am not one of those people and you proposed to give a self-described "rant" to me about How I Am Wrong. If your argument is not sufficient to change my mind — as it has clearly not been sufficient to change the mind of anyone who has not professed to already share your position — then it is not a compelling argument.

If you honestly don't see as "a real problem" the fact half of the groups in the game will have to suffer Breaking Point whenever they do exactly what their faction is stated to do as its primary goal, then I don't know what to tell you.

This is what I'm talking about: how? In this same discussion you've already demonstrated that you can confuse "thing that applies a substantial negative modifier to a breaking point roll" with "thing that causes a breaking point roll with a substantial modifier," so it is entirely germane to the discussion that you be able to explain what about making an occasional breaking point roll is too restrictive in this game where breaking point rolls are one of the primary mechanics for charting your character's state within the narrative.

[Darinas]

I am not one of those people and you proposed to give a self-described "rant" to me about How I Am Wrong. If your argument is not sufficient to change my mind — as it has clearly not been sufficient to change the mind of anyone who has not professed to already share your position — then it is not a compelling argument.

Correction: an rant about how I disagree. I never said "you are wrong" so far. How compelling my argument is, that point is subjective.

This is what I'm talking about: how? In this same discussion you've already demonstrated that you can confuse "thing that applies a substantial negative modifier to a breaking point roll" with "thing that causes a breaking point roll with a substantial modifier," so it is entirely germane to the discussion that you be able to explain what about making an occasional breaking point roll is too restrictive.

... Really? I gave multiple examples above. And yes, I was confused about the "actively helping a monster" part, but that doesn't mean I didn't understand anything about this code. Making occasional Breaking points is indeed not a problem. Making Breaking points each time you do things that should be trivial, like buying Endowment or accomplishing actions that your group focuses on doing? A bit more problematic.

[LostLight]

so, considering that this thread is meant to be about Playtest in general, and the Code argument kinda takes over it, if there are people who still wish to argue about the subject maybe it should take place in a new thread? (especially since Monica has asked to return and focus around the Playtest itself)

[Darinas]

... Fair enough. I'd hate to cause problem by making this argument too long.

[Satchel]

Correction: an rant about how I disagree.

Which serves little to no persuasive purpose if it is not geared in some way toward changing minds and so is something I am even less interested in hearing in this discussion about whether there are problems with the content as presented. You have a full playtest scenario and twelve days until the feedback deadline; have you considered getting a small group together and running the thing to see if the problems actually surface?

Making Breaking points each time you do things that should be trivial, like buying Endowment

A laissez-faire attitude toward getting supernatural powers to fight supernatural beings is represented by making the tradeoff for a group-based tenet. The principal tension between staying a human and gaining powers from a monstrous source is never going to be "trivial" without driving a wedge between you and people who haven't come to that decision about the supernatural.

or accomplishing actions that your group focuses on doing?

Again, be specific, because the particulars of your previous confusion makes it difficult to take you at your word when you make a claim whose basis I cannot actually see in the mechanics as presented. Putting a monster's autonomy and well-being over that of humans is not done frequently by any hunter group I can recall and it's definitely not done trivially — it's not "helping the monster means you have to roll," it's "helping the monster at the cost or risk of human safety means you have to roll."

[Darinas]

Which serves little to no persuasive purpose if it is not geared in some way toward changing minds and so is something I am even less interested in hearing in this discussion about whether there are problems with the content as presented.

Oh, for Christ's sake, the rant part was a snark! It's called self-depreciation! Could you please be less aggressive here?

You have a full playtest scenario and twelve days until the feedback deadline; have you considered getting a small group together and running the thing to see if the problems actually surface?

No, because 1) I already have my hands full with around 3 campaigns I am currently storytelling (not even counting what I do in real life), and 2) Just by trying to see how the update would apply to my current campaigns is enough to see it would cause one of my hunter players' entire character concept to fall apart. Trust me, I don't need to put that to test.

A laissez-faire attitude toward getting supernatural powers to fight supernatural beings is represented by making the tradeoff for a group-based tenet. The principal tension between staying a human and gaining powers from a monstrous source is never going to be "trivial" without driving a wedge between you and people who haven't come to that decision about the supernatural.

Yeah, and that's kinda the problem here. Many of the groups are forced to lose the option to modify a Tenet right away because using supernatural powers is a very part of their concept. Leaving them disadvantaged in the Code area compared to other groups, because they lose an option other hunters still have. Again, could easily be solved by removing the only once option.

Again, be specific, because the particulars of your previous confusion makes it difficult to take you at your word when you make a claim whose basis I cannot actually see in the mechanics as presented. Putting a monster's autonomy and well-being over that of humans is not done frequently by any hunter group I can recall and it's definitely not done trivially — it's not "helping the monster means you have to roll," it's "helping the monster at the cost or risk of human safety means you have to roll."

I already was specific.and so was Raven. He gave his "Les Mystères member opposing a greedy industrialist human to help spirit" example, and while it does sound more reasonable when you put it like that, the Calling a Spades a Spades suggest just helping a vampire who did nothing does qualify on the basis just sparing him means he might hurt someone later. Admittedly, you might have read it differently, but if you go with that interpretation, then since most supernatural beings are dangerous to humans, helping or sparing them does qualify as breaking points even if they are doing nothing to harm humans at the moment-- meaning the Lucifuge for example can no longer apply their policy of sparing the monsters who aren't malevolent without suffering a Breaking point.

Now, I will admit that part is a bit up to interpretation. So I suggest we wait for the creators themselves to tell us what it means. If it turns out that is indeed NOT what that sidebar meant, then I will wirthdraw my complain.

[mlvalentine]

I would like to politely ask that the argument over what the Code is and isn't with respect to anything but this playtest be moved to a different thread. Thank you.

[Darinas]

Sorry, message received.

[Robert D]

I like the backlashes and Tolls of the castigations in the playtest. I did the Temptation trait suggested in the first playtest material, but each castigation having its own unique backlash or toll is fascinating! Makes me want to see more!

[Second Chances]

If anyone is interested in following along with how one of the playtests gets played out, the PbP games is now up and running! You can read along here: http://forum.theonyxpath.com/forum/g...doubting-souls

[LostLight]

So how many people out there have been playing/toying with the Playtest? While I must say I was a bit concerned about it (as it felt too limited from the brief preview), I find it quit fun up until now, even though we are just at the end of the first scene so not a lot has happened (kudos from Second Chances, of course).