The State of the Chronicles of Darkness
-
@HelloRaptor said:
So no expendable henchmen as a Fairest. I agree that that's a bit odd, especially since the curse is about regretting failure and sometimes plans might succeed because underlings get hurt.
I wrote that bit.
You can absolutely have expendable henchmen as a Fairest. Fairest have problems with unintended harm. You can still be a fucking tyrant as a Fairest, you can still throw underlings at a problem with the expectation that they'll suffer even grievous harm in the process, if it's necessary to succeed.
This is where I side with Thenomain, in that the writeup doesn't say that to me. The writeup says, "if your people get hurt, you failed them". This is reinforced by the name of the curse: "Weight of the Righteous". The control freak example works mechanically, but thematically? It looks like Fairest are going to heavily involve the concept of ethical leadership. They are often the rulers, but they are also servants. Heavy lies the head that wears the crown. With great power comes great responsibility.
Where I disagree with Theno is that he thinks that isn't nuanced. I think that's hella nuanced. It cuts out some of the "pretty folk" and focuses more on the organizers, the orators, and the commanders.
-
@Sammi said:
Where I disagree with Theno is that he thinks that isn't nuanced. I think that's hella nuanced. It cuts out some of the "pretty folk" and focuses more on the organizers, the orators, and the commanders.
I've talked with Theno about this and we're of one mind on it. My big issue is that those organizers, orators and commanders were Wizened in 1E, and the Fairest were something entirely different. They were the fairest in the sense of 'most fae', the most prone to the madness of Arcadia as much as they were the most pure incarnations of its beauty. Beautiful and terrible, like the queen gazing into the magic mirror.
Their cruelty, or at least propensity towards it, was their defining quality. Their coldness, their distance from human emotion -- whereas this writeup makes it so that they feel compassion and morality more keenly than other Changelings.
These 2E Fairest as written could be perfectly interesting characters, but they're the most enormous divergence from 1E so far and as they were my favorite 1E Seeming, I'm pretty disappointed. I'm hoping a second draft will present a broader spectrum of character options.
Generally speaking, I like the idea of uncoupling Seeming and Kith but I hate the highly restrictive way the new Seemings have thus far been written. If they were just designations that'd be fine, but it's implied they still affect your physical appearance the way they did in 1E, so at the moment it really limits character concepts.
-
@Mnemosyne said:
I've talked with Theno about this and we're of one mind on it. My big issue is that those organizers, orators and commanders were Wizened in 1E
The natural leaders have always been clumped more towards the Fairest. The concept of charisma as a divine gift appears in multiple traditions, and the Divine Right of Kings bit has been important from the Sidhe through the nWoD Fairest. The new conception of the Fairest is focusing heavily on this leader trope.
Their cruelty, or at least propensity towards it, was their defining quality. Their coldness, their distance from human emotion
Then where did Elementals sit? No, the Fairest were fine with emotion. They were just prone to assuming that everybody else mattered less than they did.
whereas this writeup makes it so that they feel compassion and morality more keenly than other Changelings.
Another way of putting it: this writeup makes those changelings who feel compassion and ethics more keenly than others into the Fairest.
These 2E Fairest as written could be perfectly interesting characters, but they're the most enormous divergence from 1E so far and as they were my favorite 1E Seeming, I'm pretty disappointed. I'm hoping a second draft will present a broader spectrum of character options.
You're disappointed that the game is getting reworked and, in the process, is becoming something different from what the first edition was.
Generally speaking, I like the idea of uncoupling Seeming and Kith but I hate the highly restrictive way the new Seemings have thus far been written. If they were just designations that'd be fine, but it's implied they still affect your physical appearance the way they did in 1E
Affect, not determine. A character's appearance is still going to be influenced more by their kith than their seeming. You could play a gorgeous, haughty Ogre.
so at the moment it really limits character concepts.
Every splat limits character concepts. It's part of the point of having a game with rules and theme in the first place, instead of a free-for-all. Like @HelloRaptor, I've been milling potential concepts with the released Seemings and have found no shortage of possibilities.
-
@Sammi said:
@Thenomain said:
And this is where I roll my eyes and sigh. With the decision now out of my hands once I choose a Seeming, it limits exactly the kinds of things I like to RP.
Your Seeming is supposed to be a representation of your character's personality. If you make morally grey choices, you're a Darkling. If you hide your weakness, you're an Ogre. If you lead by example, you might be Fairest.
Why is that a good thing though? Why is that an improvement?
The enormous freedom of creativity in character creation was one of the big draws to me for 1st Ed Lost. It was the main thing that compensated for the constant drumming on trauma-drama theme stuff, actually.
And it looks a lot like they're reducing creative freedom and intensifying the trauma drama, which is the exact opposite of the way I was hoping the new edition would go.
-
@Sammi said:
Another way of putting it: this writeup makes those changelings who feel compassion and ethics more keenly than others into the Fairest.
The problem is that that's not all that it makes them. And there are seemings where this problem is more apparent still.
Like, let's take Beasts. The idea is that Beasts now I guess flip out at being caged and confined and love flaunting social norms. Okay. But lots of animal-based concepts might not be about that at all. Lots of communal creatures- wolves, rabbits, ants, whatever- might love the idea of finding people they can trust and pledge with, except that mechanically they're not allowed to do that. Maybe I want to play, for instance, a spider ling as a genteel, refined housekeeper inviting people into her parlor, a woman who's nothing but civilized and refined, except that mechanically is a punished concept basically. Or an actual karma chameleon who blends in everywhere he goes and tries to be exactly what people want him to be but nope not that either apparently.
Like this is actually a pretty big leap backwards, it's basically the Pooka problem all over again. After the always-the-most-popular Sidhe, Pooka were usually the most popular splat on oWoD Changeling games, due to all the variety of animals you could build. Except... whatever animal type you made, you were pretty strong corralled by the mechanics and flavor to make a silly shit-stirring trickster type. "Animal type changeling" wasn't a theme you were free to play around with however you wanted; if you were a trickster type you were supposed to be Pooka, and if you were Pooka you were certainly supposed to be a trickster type, no matter what the actual associations with your animal type were or what themes you wanted to explore.
-
Okay no one point out I'm dumb, I already remembered that now kiths work entirely differently so I guess you can be a fairest or darkling animal-person or whatever.
So I guess that makes seeming just like... a vague outline of a character archetype? Leader, Rebel, Tough Guy etc.. Like TVTropes when it didn't suck or something.
Hm. But then seeming still affects how that kith manifests so... like I guess it's not the idea of a slot for "character archetype" that I mind, it's just that that seems different than what seeming was about and the connection between the two feels both stifling and kinda arbitrary.
-
@Sammi said:
The natural leaders have always been clumped more towards the Fairest. The concept of charisma as a divine gift appears in multiple traditions, and the Divine Right of Kings bit has been important from the Sidhe through the nWoD Fairest. The new conception of the Fairest is focusing heavily on this leader trope.
The Fairest weren't the Sidhe, that's sort of exactly my issue with this. This writeup is a writeup of the Sidhe.
Another way of putting it: this writeup makes those changelings who feel compassion and ethics more keenly than others into the Fairest.
But why? That's the exact opposite of the 1E Fairest. That's my quibble here.
You're disappointed that the game is getting reworked and, in the process, is becoming something different from what the first edition was.
Yes, as I said, I'm specifically disappointed that my favorite 1E splat has been given a complete 180 into something else. I'm perfectly fine with the game being reworked. I think this specific reworking is dumb.
Affect, not determine. A character's appearance is still going to be influenced more by their kith than their seeming. You could play a gorgeous, haughty Ogre.
That is really not what is suggested by the Kith document, at all. The Kith document basically has the Kith as a texture that's overlaid on top of a Seeming's physical archetype.
Every splat limits character concepts. It's part of the point of having a game with rules and theme in the first place, instead of a free-for-all. Like @HelloRaptor, I've been milling potential concepts with the released Seemings and have found no shortage of possibilities.
I'm sure there's no shortage of possibilities! But there are still fewer than there were in 1E, and to me that's a strange revision to make.
-
I'm sure there's no shortage of possibilities! But there are still fewer than there were in 1E, and to me that's a strange revision to make.
Absent the Dual Kith merit or super high power stat, I found the exact opposite to be true about 1e.
Lots of communal creatures- wolves, rabbits, ants, whatever- might love the idea of finding people they can trust and pledge with, except that mechanically they're not allowed to do that.
What? From the Beast reference document: "A Beast can, of her own free will, enter into a Contract or Pledge or other more intimate acts of binding, but it chuffs her more than the average Lost."
There is mechanically nothing preventing a Beast from trusting or Pleding with folks. They don't even suffer a penalty. At worst there's flavor text suggesting you're 'more chuffed than the average Lost', which is meaningless since there's no set value for how 'chuffed' the 'average Lost' is.
The only mechanical imposition is "Forced confinement, especially the physical kind, is too much for her. Escaping bonds requires three Glamour instead of one. Once per story, if a Beast is confined or imprisoned, she suffers a Clarity breaking point.", which is not at all what you described.
While I find your objection to the Fairest changes much more reasonable, and understandable, than most others (in that they are quite different than 1e Fairest, not that they're now Sidhe, which is not at all the case), your Beast example doesn't really make any sense.
Maybe I want to play, for instance, a spider ling as a genteel, refined housekeeper inviting people into her parlor, a woman who's nothing but civilized and refined, except that mechanically is a punished concept basically.
How is this punished? Are you somehow equating having a house with confinement? One of the example blurbs is a stock broker, isn't it?
The character creation specifically calls out that not all beasts are pulse pounding brutes, and that more cerebral beasts exist as well. I see nothing to suggest that your spider example doesn't work. It's just not called out specifically as a concept, but jesus, there was so much ground to cover that not EVERY kind of Beast was going to get its honorable mention in a first draft. If your beast's particular passion involves the trappings of civility and social refinement than that is what they'll focus on to exactly the extreme the Beast writeup suggests.
It's like you're deliberately choosing to interpret this shit in the worst possible way so that it affirms your fears. "It doesn't say I can, so I can't." is a terrible way to read the basics of a character archetype.
Pooka were usually the most popular splat on oWoD Changeling games, due to all the variety of animals you could build. Except... whatever animal type you made, you were pretty strong corralled by the mechanics and flavor to make a silly shit-stirring trickster type.
To be fair, they fixed that officially when the Pooka book came out and what constituted 'lying'. It'd been unofficially clarified almost after the Changeling book come out, but the fact was that the majority of folkes seemed to want to play a silly, shit-stirring trickster.
-
@Trundlebot said:
And it looks a lot like they're reducing creative freedom and intensifying the trauma drama, which is the exact opposite of the way I was hoping the new edition would go.
Reducing creative freedom, maybe. We'll see how the Elemental and Wizened writeups look, and then how the published documentation turns out. Tentatively, yes, but if they are it's a mostly neutral change. You can still hypothetically make anything you want with the 300 kiths, and then your character's personality shepherds them into one of six categories.
As for trauma drama, I'll point out that each Seeming has a mechanic that allows them to regain a point of Clarity. That's something that first edition never had.
Edit: Since changelings determine their own Seeming, there's also less trauma drama of the "I'm cursed with a mien that doesn't fit me" kind. Kith has to have some connection to your personality, and Seeming is a result of your own actions (even if you come to regret them later).
@Trundlebot said:
Okay no one point out I'm dumb, I already remembered that now kiths work entirely differently so I guess you can be a fairest or darkling animal-person or whatever.
I was going to point that out, yes. The genteel housekeeping spider would probably be Wizened, or maybe Darkling.
So I guess that makes seeming just like... a vague outline of a character archetype? Leader, Rebel, Tough Guy etc.. Like TVTropes when it didn't suck or something.
Yes-ish. Seeming is an archetype based on the choice the character made that allowed them to escape Arcadia.
Hm. But then seeming still affects how that kith manifests so... like I guess it's not the idea of a slot for "character archetype" that I mind, it's just that that seems different than what seeming was about and the connection between the two feels both stifling and kinda arbitrary.
It's definitely different from what Seeming was about, and every relationship between things in a game system is arbitrary by definition. Maybe it feels more arbitrary than usual because you're so used to them having something to do with one another, and now they have no relationship.
@Mnemosyne said:
The Fairest weren't the Sidhe, that's sort of exactly my issue with this. This writeup is a writeup of the Sidhe.
The Fairest design space included most of the Sidhe design space. Almost every concept that fit into the Sidhe would have translated to the Fairest, and both Sidhe and Fairest shared a sense of callous superiority and divinely granted privilege.
But why? That's the exact opposite of the 1E Fairest. That's my quibble here.
Because a designer wanted to do something new when reworking the game. Vampire and Werewolf have both been substantially changed, and Demon bears no resemblance except for a name. Did you expect Changeling to be any different?
A lot of formerly Fairest concepts are going to fit into other Seemings. A lot of concepts from other Seemings are going to fit the Fairest. It's a brand new landscape to explore, and that's exciting. That's why I'm supportive of the changes, even the ones I'm not sure I like at first (a lot of my Darkling ideas are now Beasts, which could cause awkwardness for the Contracts I want; and I have no idea how Elemental is going to fit into this paradigm where you make a choice that defines yourself). It's new, it's interesting, and so far all of the GMC games have turned out pretty cool.
Yes, as I said, I'm specifically disappointed that my favorite 1E splat has been given a complete 180 into something else. I'm perfectly fine with the game being reworked. I think this specific reworking is dumb.
You're saying that Elrond and King Arthur didn't fit into the Fairest paradigm before? I think they did. I wouldn't call this a 180. It's more like a 20-degree shift.
That is really not what is suggested by the Kith document, at all. The Kith document basically has the Kith as a texture that's overlaid on top of a Seeming's physical archetype.
A better way to think of it: kith is the fabric, and the changeling's choice of Seeming cuts a pattern out of it. What you are in Arcadia is the raw material, and you forge yourself via your choice to escape (this falls in to one of six archetypes).
I'm sure there's no shortage of possibilities! But there are still fewer than there were in 1E, and to me that's a strange revision to make.
The major change is that you have to make the choice to escape (no randomly being let go) and that this choice defines you as much as the whims of your Keeper. So changelings who don't fit their Seeming are out. I don't see any limitations other than that.
-
A better way to think of it: kith is the fabric, and the changeling's choice of Seeming cuts a pattern out of it. What you are in Arcadia is the raw material, and you forge yourself via your choice to escape (this falls in to one of six archetypes).
Quoting that for explanation elsewhere, because that's a good way of putting it.
So changelings who don't fit their Seeming are out.
I don't know that this is necessarily the case, really. I've yet to see anything that doesn't suggest you can't be a poor fit for your Seeming, only that your choices during your escape define your Seeming. Is there anything to restrict an Ogre from regretting replacing his heart with stone, or a Fairest who stood up to lead during her escape just wishing she wasn't giving off Champion vibes? As far as I can tell, aside from the indication that the average Lost, even most of them, are a pretty good match for their Seeming, there's nothing really restricting you from playing it as if it's a poor fit.
You'll have a tough time of it, sure, but I'd assume that's sort of the point of deciding to play a character whose nature (or what they want their nature to be) runs counter to what they're supernaturally supposed to be.
-
@HelloRaptor said:
While I find your objection to the Fairest changes much more reasonable, and understandable, than most others (in that they are quite different than 1e Fairest, not that they're now Sidhe, which is not at all the case), your Beast example doesn't really make any sense.
You're addressing a different person's post! I only made the ones about the Fairest.
@Sammi said:
Because a designer wanted to do something new when reworking the game. Vampire and Werewolf have both been substantially changed, and Demon bears no resemblance except for a name. Did you expect Changeling to be any different?
Again, I'm just saying this is a change I personally don't like. I'm not saying HOW DARE THEY!!! or anything.
A better way to think of it: kith is the fabric, and the changeling's choice of Seeming cuts a pattern out of it. What you are in Arcadia is the raw material, and you forge yourself via your choice to escape (this falls in to one of six archetypes).
Okay, but my point is that if you want to play -- visually! -- a big hulking Ogre, or a terrible-beautiful Fairest, or a skulking Darkling, you now have to have a specific personality type. This was not the case before. If you can only cut out those 'patterns' if you're a specific type of person, it limits character choices. This just seems obvious to me.
The major change is that you have to make the choice to escape (no randomly being let go) and that this choice defines you as much as the whims of your Keeper. So changelings who don't fit their Seeming are out. I don't see any limitations other than that.
I like giving them some more agency. I don't like that -- and this is based on the Kith document, where Wizened are always patchwork people and Beasts are always animalistic and Fairest are always beautiful and Ogres are always big hulking brutes, et cetera, no matter which Kith you choose -- these very specific types of agency now define how your character looks.
-
@HelloRaptor said:
I don't know that this is necessarily the case, really. I've yet to see anything that doesn't suggest you can't be a poor fit for your Seeming, only that your choices during your escape define your Seeming. Is there anything to restrict an Ogre from regretting replacing his heart with stone, or a Fairest who stood up to lead during her escape just wishing she wasn't giving off Champion vibes?
I did say that regret was an option, but I believe that the fact that you need to make the choice yourself, at a time when you don't have much in the way of free will, indicates that Seeming is supposed to reflect a part of the changeling's personality. They might despise that side of themselves, but it's there and it's what they do when the chips are down and they need to survive. An Ogre could regret replacing his heart, but unless he has a death wish, he would do it again if he were in the same situation. If something comes and threatens his survival, he's going to wall himself off from his natural weakness and he's going to fight.
@Mnemosyne said:
Okay, but my point is that if you want to play -- visually! -- a big hulking Ogre, or a terrible-beautiful Fairest, or a skulking Darkling, you now have to have a specific personality type. This was not the case before. If you can only cut out those 'patterns' if you're a specific type of person, it limits character choices. This just seems obvious to me.
Except that it's not obvious. Ogres don't corner the market on being big and hulking. Fairest aren't the only ones who can be beautiful and terrible. You can skulk without being a Darkling (as I said, a lot of my Darkling ideas are more Beast with these changes). You just want to translate everything that would have been in each Seeming in the first version to this one.
these very specific types of agency now define how your character looks.
Yes. That seems to be an important component of the theme, but we don't have all of the information yet.
-
@Sammi said:
Except that it's not obvious. Ogres don't corner the market on being big and hulking. Fairest aren't the only ones who can be beautiful and terrible. You can skulk without being a Darkling (as I said, a lot of my Darkling ideas are more Beast with these changes). You just want to translate everything that would have been in each Seeming in the first version to this one.
In the first draft of the Kith document, they absolutely do. The physical description of each Kith by seeming is 100% in alignment with 1E Seemings.
-
You're addressing a different person's post! I only made the ones about the Fairest.
Yeah, I do that a lot. Sorry. >_>
I like giving them some more agency. I don't like that -- and this is based on the Kith document, where Wizened are always patchwork people and Beasts are always animalistic and Fairest are always beautiful and Ogres are always big hulking brutes, et cetera, no matter which Kith you choose -- these very specific types of agency now define how your character looks.
This time I got the right quote with the right person. I think. Right? It was you? Pretty sure.
You're wrong, though. Or rather, you're reading specific examples in the Kith document too much as if they're the only way to fly. The kith document even calls out the fact that the examples are just a tiny sampling, and any given Keeper will have its own twist on things. The examples used were the most stereotypical for the Kith/Seeming combination, not meant to imply the limitations you're reading into it.
The physical description of each Kith by seeming is 100% in alignment with 1E Seemings.
So maybe they're lazy, and only working with stereotypes they already had on the shelf?
The only actual limitations of appearance are specifically noted as such: All palewraiths have transparent skin, all razorhands always have some sort of natural or artificial weapon attached to their hands, etc. But even then they flat out say that:
Also, players are free to change the listed appearance of a kith belonging to a particular seeming as long as their Storytellers agree that the new description fits with the meaning and feel of the kith and the changeling's seeming.
So unless your Storyteller is actually a full on asshole, your particular manifestation of a given Kith can look like whatever the fuck you want within the scope of your Seeming and your ST's discretion regarding your Keeper. Obviously if your Keeper was some super high tech space alien fucker you probably don't look like a fantasy troll, but beyond that even the Kith document makes it clear: Here are a bunch of suggestions, but make up your own wherever you want.
As to Seeming appearance, from the Seeming documents:
Ogres may seem to take up more space than they should, but they are not always big, nor hulking, nor brutes. The appearance section even mentions that an ogre may be small, or conduct their violence through verbal or emotionally and without any physical thuggery involved. In fact, outside of impressions other Changelings get of the space you occupy, the only physical characteristic specific to ogre is that they don't show off any skin as they're covered in 'something harder'. You could be a slender as fuck runway model to regular humans, gorgeous as anybody could be, and to Changelings be covered head to toe in diamonds and platinum or whatever. Sparkle on, you emotionally vicious mean girl.
The Fairest 'appearance' writeup is almost laughably vague, with the only specific indication of actual appearance being that there'll be some symbol of leadership to Changeling eyes, and some kind of glow, sparkle, reflection, or light about them. There is actually nothing at all in the Fairest description about even being physically attractive, which is kind of lulz.
Darklings also mention virtually nothng about your actual appearance under appearance. Posture, disguises and masks worn, sure. But nothing about what you actually look like (or can't look like).
An Ogre could regret replacing his heart, but unless he has a death wish, he would do it again if he were in the same situation.
And... so? You're unlikely to ever be in the same situation. Changelings taken by a Keeper aren't just fighting for survival, they're fighting to not be completely obliterated and overwritten by something Other.
Your Seeming represents who you were in a transformative, supernaturally charged moment that represents the most extreme of extremes. In most cases that is likely very reflective of who a person is, but people are not wholly defined by a single moment or even a single choice in their lives. They are not represented by a story, and that story is who they are and who they must be, because they are Changelings and not truly Fae.
There's a lot of reading of the Seemings like they must absolutely represent True And Immutable Facts about how your character will act or think or be, but there are virtually no True And Immutable Facts about how people will act, or think, or be.
Perhaps that's some emphasis that needs to be placed there in Changeling, because the alternative that seems to be how people are reading it makes no goddamn sense to me. Your Seeming is what it is because at a time when the very essence of your existence was being made malleable and shaped to the liking of something Other, you (the character, obviously) made a choice, took agency and acted. That choice, those actions, acted as a supernatural mold to finish you off and your Seeming is the shape you hold because of that choice.
Maybe, back in the world of humans, where the very fundamental essence of your being isn't in immediate danger with every breath you take, that mold doesn't fit very well. Maybe it doesn't fit because absent that extreme of extremes that's not how you believe you will or would act. Maybe it doesn't fit because it's not what you want for yourself, and you try and deny it.
Is that going to be the case for the vast majority of Changelings? Probably not. But to say that you can't be at odds/in conflict with the shape of the supernatural mold you cooked yourself into when the alternative was worse than death if that's the kind of character you want to play, seems utterly unreasonable to me.
-
I mean, you can say that people will be reasonable unless they're assholes, but I've gotten a lot of shit on a lot of games for deviating from what people expected certain splats to act like before. "Just avoid assholes, everything will be alright!" is pretty useless advice in this hobby honestly. Or it's pretty hard to implement in any meaningful and reliable way at least, especially when the game writers are encouraging said asshole behavior by writing, "X are supposed to be Y!" even if they add a small text disclaimer later.
Also way to not be familiar with the new chuffing damage rules, noob.
-
@Trundlebot said:
I mean, you can say that people will be reasonable unless they're assholes, but I've gotten a lot of shit on a lot of games for deviating from what people expected certain splats to act like before. "Just avoid assholes, everything will be alright!" is pretty useless advice in this hobby honestly.
How far would you go to avoid assholes?
The issue isn't avoiding them, it's realizing they are the ones being assholes and not you. If it's the former, ignore them thoroughly and do your thing. If it's the latter, I dunno. Ask @HelloRaptor .
-
I dunno, I can think of plenty of times I've been the asshole and I bet people that aren't me could think of more.
I mean there are some hardcore psychopaths in this hobby but a lot of people are just like, normal people that are sometimes assholes and sometimes not. Good game-writing should encourage the not.
Like, a good example with WoD stuff is the whole masque-between-super-spheres thing. Like it makes about infinite sense from both OOC and IC perspectives for the local werewolves and vamps and mages and shit to work together where their interests align, also creating a bunch of extra RP in the process.
But the people who pitch a fit about this and scream "superfriends!" and want to keep spheres separate aren't just being assholes, they're following the precedent laid down in the books. These groups aren't supposed to trust each other or get along, and hell, some of them want to kill each other. That flavor, while it kind of makes sense in a single sphere tabletop game, is dumb as hell in a multisphere game with dozens of players, but people cling to it anyway because it's embedded in the flavor of the world.
At the end of the day, "Don't worry about this flavor and theme-setting stuff, good players can just ignore it" isn't very reassuring. Why is it in there at all then?
-
It would be nice if there were actual reasons to distrust one another. Vampires are pretty nasty obviously, but the threat of everyone else seems ... eh. They don't NEED to cross swords at all. So instead you have a bunch of people who are eyeballing other people who actually have personal, palpable power to oppose them, whether its for the cultural fate of humanity, or for being served a latte first.
-
I mean I think it would be a lot nicer if people just accepted that there are really, really, really, really good reasons both IC and OOC to just talk to each other and ignore those parts of the books.
But they don't. Instead they fight really hard to preserve that incredibly detrimental bit of flavor.
If they're willing to die on that hill I completely expect at some point to be playing my character and someone to tell me, "Hey, your Beast isn't allowed to be this social, take three chuffing damage."
-
I mean, you can say that people will be reasonable unless they're assholes, but I've gotten a lot of shit on a lot of games for deviating from what people expected certain splats to act like before.
I didn't go back and read my whole stupid post, but I'm pretty sure the only problem with assholes I mentioned was if your ST was an asshole, in terms of setting up your appearance by Kith. If your start point at a game is somebody in charge being an asshole to you, you should probably play somewhere else.
If you're talking about people being assholes to you because you deviate from what they expect to be the norm for your type, get over it or get out, because that's going to happen anyway for one reason or another.
even if they add a small text disclaimer later.
Except it's not a small text disclaimer, nor is it 'later', it prefaces the entire section on Kith examples by saying "THESE ARE JUST A FEW EXAMPLES.", and don't even have examples for each Kith with each Seeming.
But the people who pitch a fit about this and scream "superfriends!" and want to keep spheres separate aren't just being assholes, they're following the precedent laid down in the books.
No, they really aren't. Not in nWoD anyway. Right down to the core books there's flat out examples of and indications of reasons why people can and do work together/exchange information and favors/etc.
You're right though, people are assholes about it. But I haven't once even considered not playing that way just because people might be dicks, so I'm hardly going to encourage that in others.
