Hunter Playtest!

[Sonofalich]

Responses are only tabulated through tomorrow! Get your Playtested feedback in! I hope the creators are getting some good responses.

https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSdsYQBvi_0akwIL3ELzq3jNDUsmGJjgPmxwON_clAl3IuVLAw/viewform

[Darinas]

Kinda wish I had tested it, if just to see how well the new rules work and answer the poll. If only I didn't already have too many Chronicles to run...

[wyrdhamster]

We have a poll about Playtest is now live here - https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1F...uVLAw/viewform

It's answers be read on November 10th.

[Mad_Maudlin]

Generally speaking, when the system references a "Physical/Mental/Social roll" without further specification, it's talking about rolls based on a Physical/Mental/Social Attribute.

Ahhh, that's something to keep in mind then. Thanks, Satchel.

[Satchel]

MC's Endowment, Gaze of the Penitent, causes a Backlash of -2 to Social rolls for the scene. But the Effect roll is Wits + Empathy. It seems super dumb for the Endowment to penalize its own activation roll, right? I ruled that the -2 didn't apply to the Endowment itself, but that's not specified in the playtest document, so I'm wondering if other people are handling that differently.

Generally speaking, when the system references a "Physical/Mental/Social roll" without further specification, it's talking about rolls based on a Physical/Mental/Social Attribute.

[Sonofalich]

I ran the Playtest for a group of 5 over the weekend. None of us have been playing Chronicles of Darkness long, and no one has ever played Vigil before. Having enjoyed the other Onyx games I've played, I was excited to try out the playtest. My group consists of veteran D&D players who have recently been trying out Werewolf the Forsaken, and Mage the Awakening. Everyone had a good time. I wish the playtest window had been longer. Quite a few of my players commented on the notice being short, and I'd have loved to have had more time to prepare. It went well, all things considered. I'm looking forward to the official poll. Hopefully my notes on the game can help out.

[Mad_Maudlin]

I managed to run a playtest with some friends, including a couple who had never played CofD before. Saving most of my notes for the official poll, but one question of interpretation that came up:

MC's Endowment, Gaze of the Penitent, causes a Backlash of -2 to Social rolls for the scene. But the Effect roll is Wits + Empathy. It seems super dumb for the Endowment to penalize its own activation roll, right? I ruled that the -2 didn't apply to the Endowment itself, but that's not specified in the playtest document, so I'm wondering if other people are handling that differently.

[nofather]

I'm finding the timeline a little tight, too, and unforeseen real life intrusions have delayed things a bit. Should be able to get results in by the tenth, though, and it's given me some more time to pad out things.

One thought I had was for Stephanie. Her endowments revolve mostly around controlling demons, so it would be nice if the end result had some sample demons that weren't necessarily the Greater or Elder kind of demons Hunters encounter mostly as enemies. Attributes for a disembodied familiar, a black cat familiar, maybe some dogs to round things out in case someone wants to have their hunter have a pack of dogs for some reason (there's dogs in the Requiem forum but presumably not everyone who gets the book would know).

[Second Chances]

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).

To be fair, I am trying to keep us moving like Satan himself is chasing us, since we are on a tight timeline, and play-by-post gets bogged down really easily. If it weren't PbP or if we had a month to playtest, I'd take thing slower and let it play out a bit more. This is a lot of fun though. I like that it's short and punchy. It makes it super easy to run, while still putting my own twist on things by setting it during Doubting Souls and dragging the King in Yellow into things.

[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).

[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

[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!

[Darinas]

Sorry, message received.

[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]

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.