Hunter Playtest!

[Michael Brazier]

I'm about to start diving down a slide made of alcohol and hot sauce, so a proper rebuttal will have to wait

No, no, you're doing it all wrong - you're supposed to baste the barbeque meat, not your own skin!

[ArcaneArts]

No, no, you're doing it all wrong - you're supposed to baste the barbeque meat, not your own skin!

Self-consumption is transcendence.

I am deeper than I was. That's not a "enlightenment" statement.

[The Kings Raven]

First off, the obvious question: what then is the difference between a mortal investigator and hunter? What is even the point of using the word Hunter to describe this particular part of humanity, as regards that?

It varies depending on the individual Hunter. But at the lower extreme the only difference is that the Hunter admits the existence of, and proactively chooses to interact with the supernatural.

In 1E the Code is optional. You could have a VASCU Hunter who has and needs no Code and acts like any other FBI agent except for the fact they have Teleinformatics. They could even exclusively hunt mortal serial killers if blind chance or Fate pointed them that way.

(Attending Teleinformatics training courses fulfils the proactively engages with the supernatural criterion).


So here's a question you need to answer. Directly, not with a page long essay about general themes. Why should a member of The Union consider an psychic FBI agent who hunts serial killers regardless of whether they're supernatural or not to be equally creepy and suspicious to someone who surgically implants monster parts into their body?

How are hunters monsters, then?

Some are because they're immoral. Other's are completely non monstrous.

but they still believe that they have a mandate to counteract monster's action with no appreciation or regard for why their victims were chosen in the first place(because, you know, sometimes there's a good reason a werewolf took down that guy)

Wait a second. You think I'm funny because I said the FBI are not monsters; but you think the sisterhood are monsters because they might provide healing to someone who "had it coming"? Seriously?

You're also putting a lot of assumptions onto the Sisterhood that are not there in the text. You assume that they just bindly provide support to anyone who's a monster's victim, but there's nothing in the text to imply that they won't notice if their paitent is a serial killer (or something) and take appropriate actions to prevent them from killing again.

You said they might still be willing to kill a changeling because god willed it. No, the text says they take the vigil on an "entirely merciful" path. The only they could get into a fight with a Changeling is if that Changeling attacked their hospital.

I'm sure a Sister of St Wisdom could have a long successful career without getting into a single fight.

Harm exists in several forms

Harm significant enough to justify calling someone a monster is a tiny subset of harm. If you want to be technical you could say that providing medical support to more combative Hunters causes harm when that Hunter goes of and shoots a vampire. But that's not remotely enough harm to qualify them as a monster.

In your previous post you said "killers, torturers, fighters, harmers." But you can't just lump people who's vigil is only about preserving lore along side tortuerers as though the concept of harm makes them equivilant.

I am human and you are not. I am a person who belongs, and you...don't. Not really.

Nonsense. The first edition is full of Hunters who have nuanced views that don't depend on a simple human/other binary. And there's no justification for scrapping all of that in the second edition.

[Raistlin]

I agree putting all Hunters under the same Code, regarding ethnic, social, economic, etc..backgrounds or the Compact/Conspiracy they belong is stupid.

Hunters are humans, they don't belong to a supernatural splat which justifies having a diferent moral set.

[Elfive]

Integrity is not a moral set. It's a sanity meter. Hunters have justification for an altered sanity meter pouring out of their ears.

[Vent0]

Integrity is not a moral set. It's a sanity meter. Hunters have justification for an altered sanity meter pouring out of their ears.

Altered? Probably. Altered to match in the exact same way? Highly unlikely without shared supernatural influence.

[Darinas]

Tonight is loaded with jokes ruined by sincerity.

I'm about to start diving down a slide made of alcohol and hot sauce, so a proper rebuttal will have to wait, but in the main time, if that's your hangup, I would argue you're not paying close enough attention to the way the thematics of this entire franchise work. You're also probably too hung up on the word "monster", though, for once, that would be a more understandable problem.

There is no need to be all smug and sarcastic. That's getting you nowhere.

But yeah, if you're under the impression that I am saying they are not monsters because in term of game systems they are the only template who can be turned into another type, then no, that's not what I mean. I am just saying it's one of the clues suggesting them being monsters isn't the intention. And no, I don't think you're arguing they are literal monsters either. Please hear me out on this one rather than deriding me:

To me, Hunters always was a book about playing humans who found out about the Supernatural and actively try to do something about it (in contrast with regular humans, who just live in this setting). It's a book about giving humans a true fighting chance against the other supernaturals. I distinctly remember an old review on the Internet comparing it to the Hunter the Reckoning, and pointing out that the problem in Hunter the Reckoning was that, since you were playing as a lunatic hearing voices with superpowers, you were in the end just as monstrous as the other gamelines and it missed the point of the game -- a pitfall Vigil avoided.

Now admittedly, you are not going as far giving them superpowers and visions from a higher being, so it's not as bad, but my point is, for me, a major point of Hunter the Vigil was that it was always meant to be about playing humans. This is why they excluded them from the "no change of template" rule mentioned above, this is why they still have Integrity instead of a special morality trait, this is why they have no supernatural trait or "mana" pool, using Willpower and Practical Experience instead; in other words, the lack of distinction with mundane humans you are criticizing so much is intentional to reinforce this idea, not a flaw that needs to be fixed.

The way I get it, the game is less about them being monsters (metaphorically or literally) and more about them being at risk of becoming monsters, which is why they had the Code in 1E allowing them to modify their Integrity system (to represent how the Hunter gradually warps their moral with time) or could potentially become Slashers. They do not become monstrous the moment they enter the Vigil (unless, again, you consider being outsider because of their knowledge monstrous, which is already covered), it's a slow, gradual descent as they fight.And it sure as hell doesn't result in them all seeing the hunt the exact same way, especially when they all have completely different motivations for what they do.

[nofather]

To be honest, none of this arguing is getting anyone anywhere. Especially with the lack of playtesters/playtest examples and people clearly coming into it with an already negative attitude.

Darinas, your argument has jumped back and forth a lot but it should be obvious that the game isn't turning you into a '40k' character, you can kill slashers and human serial killers, you can even be sympathetic to monsters and try to 'redeem' them. You're just going to risk getting hurt when it goes wrong. Which is how things should be. Chronicles, and World of Darkness before it are all based on the idea that what you do matters to you. But I will point out that the 'redemption' thing? It's a lie. These groups aren't asking vampires to become good, they're asking vampires to pretend to be more human. The Talbot Group? Not trying to help werewolves maintain Harmony, they're trying to get werewolves to deny their nature and be more human. The Lucifuge? They have nothing to atone for, they're just trying to cling onto humanity and deny the forces lined against it. Even in first edition, this line was already made.

King's Raven, there's no game in Chronicles that asks you to make choices and negate the effect those choices have on you. The Code is now what separates an ordinary human from a Hunter. It's not knowledge of the supernatural, that's something almost everyone is implied to have. It's making a choice to put humans above monsters, and do something about it. And it allows for a change of the tenet so said code can be customized further. You can still be an ordinary human and make pacts with spirits and kill on their behalf, that doesn't make you a Hunter. You can still preach to vampires asking them to change their ways every night, that doesn't necessarily make you a Hunter. You can even hunt down vampires and live without a code, that doesn't mean you're a Hunter.

Ruger, I think you have a point, it is out of the norm and would take some time to adjust, but I don't think it's insurmountable.

[Darinas]

To be honest, none of this arguing is getting anyone anywhere. Especially with the lack of playtesters/playtest examples and people clearly coming into it with an already negative attitude.

Fair enough. But please understand I am not saying the entire playlist sucks. I am just pointing out what I think are problems in the hope the people working on it will see this and try to improve. It's called constructive criticism. Heck, I even suggested an alternative mechanic to it!

Darinas, your argument has jumped back and forth a lot but it should be obvious that the game isn't turning you into a '40k' character, you can kill slashers and human serial killers, you can even be sympathetic to monsters and try to 'redeem' them. You're just going to risk getting hurt when it goes wrong. Which is how things should be. Chronicles, and World of Darkness before it are all based on the idea that what you do matters to you.

I don't know for my argument, but I think I have been pretty clear overall about what my problem is: that this universal code is incompatible story-wise with around half the groups. When the game system punishes you for doing what might be the very goal of the organization you are a part of, there is a problem. But if what you are saying is correct, then you should suffer a Breaking point when you helping supernaturals or harming humans has bad consequences, NOT when you are doing the act itself.

But I will point out that the 'redemption' thing? It's a lie. These groups aren't asking vampires to become good, they're asking vampires to pretend to be more human. The Talbot Group? Not trying to help werewolves maintain Harmony, they're trying to get werewolves to deny their nature and be more human. The Lucifuge? They have nothing to atone for, they're just trying to cling onto humanity and deny the forces lined against it. Even in first edition, this line was already made.

Okay, two problem here:

1) Part of the thing that makes tabletop rpg games interesting is that this kind of thing is NOT an absolute and the Storyteller and his players are free to decide if it's the case or not.

2) How is that exactly relevant to what I am arguing ? Did you see me mention anything about redemption since I joined this conversation? Did you even see me use that word? I talked about my players wanting to try peaceful solutions with supernatural beings, yes, but I said nothing about redeeming them. Overall, my point has been pretty simple: that it makes no sense for the system to inflict you a Breaking point whenever you are helping a supernatural, murdering humans or acquiring abilities from a supernatural source, when half of the hunter groups do this,not only on a regular basis, but explicitly because they think it's the right thing to do. So why are you suddenly talking about redemption?

[Ruger]

Fair enough. But please understand I am not saying the entire playlist sucks. I am just pointing out what I think are problems in the hope the people working on it will see this and try to improve. It's called constructive criticism. Heck, I even suggested an alternative mechanic to it!



I don't know for my argument, but I think I have been pretty clear overall about what my problem is: that this universal code is incompatible story-wise with around half the groups. When the game system punishes you for doing what might be the very goal of the organization you are a part of, there is a problem. But if what you are saying is correct, then you should suffer a Breaking point when you helping supernaturals or harming humans has bad consequences, NOT when you are doing the act itself.



Okay, two problem here:

1) Part of the thing that makes tabletop rpg games interesting is that this kind of thing is NOT an absolute and the Storyteller and his players are free to decide if it's the case or not.

2) How is that exactly relevant to what I am arguing ? Did you see me mention anything about redemption since I joined this conversation? Did you even see me use that word? I talked about my players wanting to try peaceful solutions with supernatural beings, yes, but I said nothing about redeeming them. Overall, my point has been pretty simple: that it makes no sense for the system to inflict you a Breaking point whenever you are helping a supernatural, murdering humans or acquiring abilities from a supernatural source, when half of the hunter groups do this,not only on a regular basis, but explicitly because they think it's the right thing to do. So why are you suddenly talking about redemption?

The Code doesn't prevent or punish you for helping monsters (unless you were helping them kill humans). Murdering Humans has always been a sin for hunters, even back in the first edition. The last point is certainly valid, though a lot of it rides on what counts as a "Monstrous source". Does MM count, seeing as they get it from God by their belief? Supernatural maybe, but Monstrous? Then what about all the others that believe they are serving a god/gods, when they are actually serving Spirits/Angels/possibly Abyssal? Or the Aegis Kai Doru-would artifacts count?

It does fit thematically with groups like the Lucifuge and Cheiron, along with several others, and could certainly be used appropriately depending on who it applies to.

[Satchel]

Overall, my point has been pretty simple: that it makes no sense for the system to inflict you a Breaking point whenever you are helping a supernatural, murdering humans or acquiring abilities from a supernatural source, when half of the hunter groups do this,not only on a regular basis, but explicitly because they think it's the right thing to do.

The breaking points a Hunter rolls to retain Integrity use the same dicepool as an ordinary mortal uses to retain Integrity.

Barring further detail, this pool may or may not also cut out mundane Integrity's scaling modifier based on rating — one way or another, the inclusion of Touchstones as a mechanic for Hunters means a starting Hunter is often better-equipped to succeed on those rolls than an ordinary mortal with the same Integrity rating.

Werewolf has roughly the same rating and can point to the increasing difficulty of failing breaking point rolls as one of the hazards of getting stronger as it relates to maintaining a balanced Harmony rating, and further only removes breaking points from consideration in the range where the difficulty of rebalancing is more extreme; unlike other Touchstone-having templates, they don't suffer a penalty from not having a Touchstone, likely because the mounting penalty in one direction or another serves a similar roll already. (They also don't get Beats directly for encountering breaking points, likely due in no small part to different parts of the scale being notionally useful for different things.)

Vampire has a closer system to the Code re: removing breaking points from consideration as your rating drops, a dramatically lower range of dice pool size, and several breaking points that are time-based. Immunizing yourself to a breaking point without lowering your Humanity below its threshold can be done more than once, but requires picking up weird folkloric weaknesses that don't go away and make every subsequent breaking point harder to succeed at, which means the best a vampire can do on breaking point rolls is aggressively socialize with humanity, maintain multiple touchstones, eschew most of their powers, and act in defense of the right part of themselves as frequently as possible to hold off the entropy of their occult condition.

Mage likewise operates on a "you have this stat so that you can lose it" system, but without Touchstones or a more granular division of dice pools for Acts of Hubris they have an even lower chance of rolling well. They can get a greater number of potentially more flexible exceptions built into their altered magical psychology, partially because their state is less distant from mortal humanity and partially because most of their occult weirdness is technically opt-in. They also notably don't have breaking points based entirely on personal confrontation with the supernatural, because that's the most basic and commonplace description of what the splat does and its impact on other characters is funneled into things like maintaining a Shadow Name to contain the Nimbus or casting in front of Sleepers.

Prometheans have no Touchstones, earn Vitriol for rolling to resist stepping backwards whether they succeed or fail, and use a flat set of breaking points that get harder to succeed at the higher their Pilgrimage rating is. The nearest they ever get to an exemption is becoming a Centimanus, which outright freezes their bar and prevents them from spending one type of Experience outside of a very particular channel. Their frenzy-equivalent gets harder to resist the more powerful they are and gives them Vitriol on an exceptional success but gives them a way to keep generating Vitriol on a dramatic failure.

Compared to all of this, "Take a Beat and roll Resolve + Composure + 2 with a base penalty between zero and two dice, stop worrying about this entire category of breaking point if your Integrity is low enough (6 is low enough for the first one), stop worrying about this breaking point for this kind of monster after the first time (which can go on to be the only time you ever worry about it if you're a specialist), and if you're part of a Hunter Organization you can replace one breaking point with a breaking point relating to your organization's tenets in the course of risking Integrity in pursuit of the Vigil, which will make dealing with hunters who aren't part of your organization substantially harder" is tame.

"Half the hunter groups kill people/use supernatural resources/put the autonomy of Monster A over Human B because they think it's the right thing to do" is part of why those groups are fucked up and interact poorly with each other.

[Darinas]

The Code doesn't prevent or punish you for helping monsters (unless you were helping them kill humans). Murdering Humans has always been a sin for hunters, even back in the first edition. The last point is certainly valid, though a lot of it rides on what counts as a "Monstrous source".

It does punish you for helping monsters in the current playlist; Breaking point with a -3 penalty if I remember correct. Though I admit I might have misread. As for murdering humans....... well, okay, you got me on that. Sorry.

Barring further detail, this pool may or may not also cut out mundane Integrity's scaling modifier based on rating — one way or another, the inclusion of Touchstones as a mechanic for Hunters means a starting Hunter is often better-equipped to succeed on those rolls than an ordinary mortal with the same Integrity rating.[...]

Compared to all of this, "Take a beat and roll Resolve + Composure + 2 with a base penalty between zero and two dice, stop worrying about this entire category of breaking point if your Integrity is low enough (6 is low enough for the first one), stop worrying about this breaking point for this kind of monster after the first time (which can go on to be the only time you ever worry about it if you're a specialist), and if you're part of a Hunter Organization you can replace one breaking point with a breaking point relating to your organization's tenets in the course of risking Integrity in pursuit of the Vigil, which will make dealing with hunters who aren't part of your organization substantially harder" is tame.

Fair enough. I am not that bothered by the frequency of the rolls, though; I thought it would be a problem with vampires until I found out about the Touchstone. I am only concerned about how much sense they make story-wise.

"Half the hunter groups kill people/use supernatural resources/put the autonomy of Monster A over Human B because they think it's the right thing to do" is part of why those groups are fucked up and interact poorly with each other.

True, and that's why I am okay with keeping the modifying Tenets and getting social penalties for them, as long as you can change multiple Tenets instead of just one. But the Code itself still causes problem story-wise, because why would all hunters start out with it in the first place? Unlike most monsters, hunters don't suffer some kind of supernatural influence that gives them a common moral basis.

[LostLight]

IMO, the problem with the Code as it is presented in the system is that it falls to the same pit as the former Morality system in the old one- it tried to establish an objective "right" vs "wrong". It says that, objectively, the lives of a monster means less than that of a human in the eyes of every hunter in the face of earth. It says that there is, essential, only one right way to uphold the Vigil, and that any hunter who disagree with it is, objectively, hunts "wrong"- and that while, in the same breath, saying that hunters argue about the right interpretation of the Code. Instead of treating it as a way to measure the mental health of the hunter, it becomes a way to measure if the hunter is a "real hunter". What that makes it even weirder is the fact that the original, 1e Code was all about adjusting a uniformed "karma state" into a personal way of life, which showed how the hunter's mentality evolve under the pressure of the Vigil. The way that the Code is presented instead takes away that personal view and replace it with a uniform change which all hunters go through no matter the details of their hunt. From one side, the Code is described as something the hunter swears to herself following her meeting with the monsters in the dark- but it feels like something which someone, or something, force upon her.

Now, I'm not saying that the Breaking Points themselves are out of place- putting the lives of a monster above a person is a sign that the boundaries between a human and a monster becomes blurry, and the hunter can't anymore understand the difference. After all, if a monster becomes a person, people can become monsters- and from there the way for Slasherhood is open. However, the original Code was flexible- that was what made it special. It meant that the hunters controlled their own minds to that extant that they could shrug off things which would have made others go mad. The new Code, however, seems to be described as flexible, while in fact turning the hunter's Integrity into even more rigid and objective. The way I see it, the Code needs either to change to truly become as flexible as it claims to be, putting emphasis around personal interpretations and experiences of the hunter, or it needs to be refluffed into actually measuring the sanity of the hunter under the pressure of the Vigil- but then, it won't be the Code anymore.

Just my two cents about the subject.

[Satchel]

Unlike most monsters, hunters don't suffer some kind of supernatural influence that gives them a common moral basis.

They're stewing in it.

Baseline Integrity dissolves over time with prolonged exposure to the supernatural. A substantial chunk of the basis of Beast being crossover-friendly is that monsters have needs that are incompatible with universal human autonomy to the point that the best you can hope for is a widespread network of unquestioning assistants two degrees removed from traumatizing magical accidents. Feral states are endemic to monsters, as are pretensions of consciousness from hungers made flesh — to say nothing of incurable pathogens and implacable curses.

Hunters become hunters from encounters with the supernatural and have the easiest time keeping their Integrity high and stable when the monsters are thin on the ground and their circle of vulnerabilities has gone unthreatened long enough to reconnect with the mortal sphere. They're not made for hunting monsters, but they are made from people who inhabit a world where monstrosity is willfully ignored and supernatural predation is a fact of life. You don't start hunting bears with live shot because you want to help bears, particularly when nobody wants to acknowledge the bears and the bears regularly twist your town toward their own agenda.

The supernatural is contagious and taboo. "I want to keep me and mine safe from them and theirs" is not a moral basis unique to hunters.

[Ruger]

It does punish you for helping monsters in the current playlist; Breaking point with a -3 penalty if I remember correct. Though I admit I might have misread. As for murdering humans....... well, okay, you got me on that. Sorry.

It does give them -3 to breaking points, though you have to actually have a breaking point for that to take effect. I guess I misunderstood you there (Your wording was "Inflict a breaking point", which it does not do), it looks like you have to take the action with the monster rather than "If you are helping a monster at all then you get the penalty." For example, a Yuri's group cell who is currently providing therapy to a Vampire would not get the penalty if they kill an unrelated vampire without the first vampire's input.