[2E] Doubling Auspice & Tribe

[wyrdhamster]

To start topic, let's describe what it's 'doubling' from title mean. In 1E WtF fandom there were 'theory' that Auspices and Tribes double their roles and basiclly Tribes are 'second Auspice' for character only. And that many players choose those combination that seem 'the same' within single archetype of Auspice-like character. So we got five pairings:

Cahalith - Iron Masters
Elodoth - Storm Lords
Irraka - Hunter in Darkness
Ithaeur - Bone Shadows
Rahu - Blood Talons

I start to run new Werewolf 2E game, and we are in character creation process. Of 3 characters ideas my players send me, 2 are 'doubling' of Auspice & Tribe for character. Even more, our Wolf-Blooded player ALSO wanted to base his character basically on doubling. Even when I describe the Tribes shift in 2E to hunt particular Sacred Prey or that they have other attitudes and Bans. Still new players choose to do it. What's with this idea of 'doubling' being so prelevant in players?

Side note: I also see many players choose to have at least longer period of 'lone wolf' in their character history phase. Like they did not need Tribe as social network.

[TriCitiesLodge]

Efficient investment as a power player. Whether or not it works, I think that's the reasoning.

Side note: My wife ended up doubling without intention, simply from reading the descriptive archetypes of the auspices and tribes. In the next chronicle, I am going to have the auspice and tribe happen as game play occurs and without specific input from their mortal/wolf-blooded creation, aside from how I notice how they handle problems and the types of activities their character gravitates toward. It might actually end up with the same result however, if I make these decisions on a small sample of their play and will likely introduce tribes to choose from well into showing that they can depend on their auspice without needing to double too much and feel comfortable taking a tribe that they gravitate to socially instead of mechanically.

[Tessie]

I think some of the Auspices and Tribes simply compliment each other too nicely. The Auspices makes characters good at certain roles. The Tribes are in large based around the same set of roles. That makes the Auspices and Tribes line up in a way that Clans and Covenants, or Paths and Orders don't.
I wanted to make a mystic so I chose Ithaeur since they are good mystics. And then I chose Bone Shadows because that's the Tribe of mystics. And it had nothing to do with power play since I ended up with one less Affinity Gift due to Auspice/Tribe Gift overlap, and no free Wolf Gift Facet due to Renown overlap.

[Charlaquin]

I get it with Ithaeur Bone Shadows. Both have a heavy focus on Spirit interaction, and they share a favored Renown, so they compliment each other really strongly, in either edition. In 1e, I always thought Cahalith/Storm Lord and Elodoth/Iron Master were better fits than the other way around. Rahu/Blood Talon and and Irraka/Hunter in Darkness made a lot of sense in 1e, but they didn't double up on the favored Renown that way. In 2e though, Tribes don't really double up on Auspice concepts. If anything, it's Ithaeur that are like double Bone Shadows, but otherwise any combination makes for a strong concept. Hell, I've wanted to make an Irraka Blood Talon ever since my first read through of 2e. Their whole thing about constantly assessing how to kill their own packmates? They're a more perfect fit for the "hunts other werewolves" Tribe than Rahu ever were!

[Malus]

I get it with Ithaeur Bone Shadows. Both have a heavy focus on Spirit interaction, and they share a favored Renown, so they compliment each other really strongly, in either edition. In 1e, I always thought Cahalith/Storm Lord and Elodoth/Iron Master were better fits than the other way around. Rahu/Blood Talon and and Irraka/Hunter in Darkness made a lot of sense in 1e, but they didn't double up on the favored Renown that way. In 2e though, Tribes don't really double up on Auspice concepts. If anything, it's Ithaeur that are like double Bone Shadows, but otherwise any combination makes for a strong concept. Hell, I've wanted to make an Irraka Blood Talon ever since my first read through of 2e. Their whole thing about constantly assessing how to kill their own packmates? They're a more perfect fit for the "hunts other werewolves" Tribe than Rahu ever were!

Whole reason my Beta (Irraka/BT) respects me as Alpha (Ithaeur/SL) is because she has a real hard time with that thought exercise (nevermind I pay the power bill).

[nofather]

Even when I describe the Tribes shift in 2E to hunt particular Sacred Prey or that they have other attitudes and Bans. Still new players choose to do it. What's with this idea of 'doubling' being so prelevant in players?

Did you describe the tribes to them or did they read it in the book?

I also see many players choose to have at least longer period of 'lone wolf' in their character history phase. Like they did not need Tribe as social network.

Likely more of a starting group kind of thing. If you don't have a good grasp of the setting you hardly want to throw yourself into the deep end. How many of the PCs are orphans, or otherwise disassociated from their family?

[LokiRavenSpeak]

Side note: I also see many players choose to have at least longer period of 'lone wolf' in their character history phase. Like they did not need Tribe as social network.

Personally i dont see nothing wrong with this and even force PCs to start without tribe and get one in character. Mainly because the tribes are descriptive at best, at the end of the day the only thing a tribe defines is "which prey you will get a bonus hunting" and a ban. Everything else depends on the interpretation of the DM.

You can read all the 1st ed books on the Storm lords and come to a table expecting them to be just like that and then the DM can either interpret them differently in accidental way or purposely making "this" local storm lords do things differently and if someone chose a storm lord thinking to play "typical stormlord" then they are trapped in a character surrounded by a society that is not what they wanna play.

Even when I describe the Tribes shift in 2E to hunt particular Sacred Prey or that they have other attitudes and Bans. Still new players choose to do it. What's with this idea of 'doubling' being so prelevant in players?

Uhm, the ban havent change for the tribes from 1st to 2nd. The only difference is prey now. As for why many people choose doubling, frankly i dont know. For experienced players it makes little sense as you only get 1 more point in Auspice gift at the cost of all the facet you could get with a different renown point. However your gifts using that renown would be stronger.

Another issue i see is how vague getting renown is. Do something risky and awesome and the next one you do has to be bigger and better that the one before that. So i could see a player doubling on renown just to be able to farm renown for easier task. For example: I start the game with 2 in cunning so i only have to make a fetish to gain first dot in wisdom.

[Red 9]

This is a bit of an interplay between how people naturally approach a tabletop game and how the setting is mechanically arranged as far as I can tell. Generally speaking I see two kinds of characters when a player generates them: a concept they have that they use the setting as a filter to manifest and concepts derived directly from the setting. New players have little to no hope of doing the latter as they naturally know very little about the setting and probably, if we're being honest with ourselves, haven't sat down and really read through the material. Some players do and I commend them, but many just get enough to work out an idea and go from there. Through play they hope to get a better understanding and over time absorb the setting material. Or they just don't care, that happens sometimes.

So if you're not intimately familiar with the setting you'll usually start with a simple concept and try to cobble it together using what's at hand - namely tribe and auspice since those are two of the first things you put down on your sheet. Fighty guys tend towards rahu and bloodtalon, mystic dudes tend towards ithaeur and bone shadow. The other tribes/auspices are pretty good at being diverse enough to muddle the process, but it still happens. Lots of irraka iron masters run around because a sneaky urban wolf is kind of appealing even if iron master doesn't actually do much sneaking, for instance. When I try to pitch the Hunters in Darkness as a sneaky choice I usually get a weird look - understandable given the best shorthand description I've come up with for the tribe is "What if Batman lived in the woods?"

Ultimately there's not much you can do about that, it's just the way people approach these kinds of games.

You see this even in games like Requiem. It's a bit harder to spot, but the Ventrue Invictus is a tried and true expression of the archetypal rich aristocrat and I've seen a surprisingly consistent trend of Nosferatu Lances as first time characters, but that might just be the groups I traffic. The big difference and the thing I adore most about Requiem is that the covenants themselves behave mechanically different, something the tribes don't do. The benefits of Carthian Law aren't just conceptually different from those of Cruac, they operate differently.

Conversely choosing between tribes amounts to different affinities, some merits, and sacred prey. If each tribe offered radically unique benefits you'd probably see a lot more rahu bone shadows and ithaeur blood talons and cahalith hunters in darkness and so on. Further refining the character of each tribe will help veteran players create more nuanced characters, but will do very little otherwise.