@HelloRaptor said:
Two warriors? Agh, what. I don't even...
Is one of them at least spec'd for two handed?
Actually, Blackwall was, but I switched him to the sword-and-shield. Cassandra was always sword-and-shield. I converted Sera to a melee-rogue to take advantage of her Tempest specialization better. And then, I was a Knight-Enchanter.
In short, the usual tactic was to rush up and beat the shit out of people in hand-to-hand. It worked just fine, even against most dragons.
@HelloRaptor said:
My fourth (well, three and a half) playthrough will be as a female elven mage who's going to leave Verric at Skyhold all the time and just travel with Sera (spec'd to daggers), Solas, and Cassandra, and tell everybody else to piss off.
This was my first time around. I like Varric, but I preferred Sera's banter. Went with Cassandra and Blackwall too. It was fun.
I don't know where I'm going, but I sure know where I've been.
Slow cap for one of the best games of all time.
That's actually a very good point. I'll have to think that through a little more.
@Wizz said:
There are fewer places, people, and structure to hide behind; to suggest that the God-Machine could orchestrate this elaborate collapse of society, force populations into small pockets, and then for whatever bumbling reason couldn't tighten the noose just sounds hand-wavey to me.
I'm not sure I'm following your train of thought. You seem to go off the rails at this point. At what point did I say that there wasn't a constant threat? I believe my last post suggested otherwise.
To be a little bluntly honest, I think that with your desire to first play "Zombies AND Changelings" and now "Zombies AND Demons," what comes after the "AND" isn't quite as important as "Zombies" and I'd kind of like to understand why you don't just make a zombie game, or at least include an "AND" that doesn't mean you have to, to me, pretzel the setting and mechanics out of shape. I'd like to see "Demons AND Nazis," "Demons AND Cyberpunk Tokyo," "Demons AND the Renaissance," "Demons AND Noir." I think most anything would be a better fit than Descent and zombies-- but that's extremely personal preference speaking.
The use of the term "zombie" was misleading, in all contexts. The game I was working on with Bobotron and Cobalt was always post-apocalyptic, and the end of civilization as we know it was caused by a virus that turned much of the world's population into mindless, cannibalistic, hyper-aggressive creatures -- which I euphemistically called "zombies." The setting was primarily inspired by The Last of Us, which has its own inspiration. So, if you've played that video game, you'll understand the vision for society.
Yes, I want a "zombie" game like that. Maybe I shouldn't put Demons in there, but I think the game's theme is an interesting backdrop to use. I like it better than the Strix Chronicles, that's for certain.
Briefly, no. Demons are not certain as to what happened. There are too many questions. And although "civilization as we know it" may have been destroyed, that does not mean that the God-Machine has any less control over what is going on. The brilliant part of the theme is that it's impossible for players or their PCs to know for certain what's really going on. And that's where staff come into play, running the game.
I would think most Demons would maintain their Covers. There is enough danger from Mortals, as unwitting pawns of the God-Machine, that it is worthwhile to keep them up. On the surface, it would appear that humanity has wrested control from the monsters that used to think they owned it -- the vampires, the mages, the werewolves. Under the surface, it has merely survived.
But the God-Machine isn't destroyed. Like the Reapers (prior to Mass Effect's end), it is always a threat. And if the destruction of human society was part of the Plan, then the God-Machine is still there, the Angels are still hunting Demons, and Demons should still remain undercover to figure out what the fuck really happened. In short, just because there are fewer information networks and computers doesn't mean there aren't other ways to track and find people. At least, if you're the God-Machine.
To me, Demons are like rogue programs in the Matrix, like the Merovingian. The Architect and the Agents are out to get them, but they are superior to "humanity" because they have their own ways to access and manipulate the Matrix. But they are not human; they are programs that have developed enough self-awareness and free will to break free from the Program.
I think I have it still; it might still be in my DropBox account. I'll message you.
@Wizz said:
I flat-out can't see Demon: The Descent, which is tag-lined as a "techgnostic thriller" and revolves around using the mass of humanity to hide from/war against the God-Machine in a post-apoc zombie setting. You just sacrifice so much of what makes Descent...Descent.
From what I read of D:tD, the "techgnostic thriller" part is over-hyped. Essentially, demons are broken pieces of the code of existence. Their "fall" is "falling away from the Plan." It doesn't mean that the collapse of civilization or technology means that demons have won, or have escaped the God-Machine. To the contrary, the annihilation of civilization by a virus (ha, ha!) may be precisely part of the God-Machine's programming. As an analogy, consider the activation of the Reapers in the Mass Effect trilogy.
The setting will be, as mentioned, like Revolution, Fallout, or The Last of Us: civilization as we know it has been wiped out, but there are still humans, there's still some organization, and there's still technology. Unlike The Last of Us, I envision a cure available for the infected, although that cure must be applied soon after infection.
I will go back over the Cover section, and see if I can't find another "hack" (ha, ha!) that could be employed to simplify the transition to a MU.
@Coin said:
- Cover Experience is a bitch. But you have to have it because if you make them use their normal Experience on Covers they'll rapidly hemorrhage Experience.
You can eliminate Cover Experience by having a matching, point-by-point fixed experience allotment for all covers, including the Demon's initial one. All Covers share the Demon's Attributes, Skills, Embeds, Exploits, etc. The only things that change are the Cover ratings and Merits, with the exception of Physical / Intrinsic Merits. So, here's my "hack" (ha, ha!) to the problem:
Eliminate the exception; Physical / Intrinsic Merits do not carry over between Covers.
If a player devotes X XP on Merits, then each Cover past the initial will also have X XP devoted to Merits, which can be allotted as each Cover demands.
A player must devote X XP to each Cover's rating; however, if a Cover's rating falls, then the player recaptures the XP lost. He can then choose to advance the lost Cover rating (over time), or devote the XP elsewhere.
Under this system, players with multiple Covers will be at a disadvantage over those with fewer, but that disadvantage is only equal to the amount of XP devoted to those Covers' ratings. Further, since everyone in my system would essentially be at the same level, this is the advantage of Mortals and Mortals+ over Demons.
- Instead of having to track Demon-by-Demon how much a Demon goes about reinforcing each one of their individual Covers (which in tabletop would translate into Cover Beats), we'll implement Cover Aspirations that Demons can fulfill while in the respective Cover and that grant Cover Beats and Cover Experience.
See above.
- Speaking of Covers, it's a good idea to establish a questionnaire of sorts to figure out what acts are grossly out of character for each Demon's individual Covers, since every Cover is different and Compromise is subjective and situational.
Agreed. This can be done via +notes.
- Pacts grant Cover Beats, which means you need a way of tracking that; plus remember every Pact is actually a physical piece of documentation, so each Pact needs to be accounted for.
Pacts are mirrors of Changeling Pledges, and can handled that way.
- Pacts give the non-Demon free stuff. I suggest a cap on how much, since there's no limit to how many Pacts a Demon can have (and shouldn't be, since each Pact grants something that they're going to spend).
Pacts may be limited to a Demon's Primum rating. Like Changelings, I think Primum + 3 is a reasonable limitation.
- Soul Pacts should probably not be allowed between a Demon and another PC. The first time two players who did this have a falling out, the amount of drama has the potential to be the hugest of headaches, since Demons can claim Soul Pacts whenever they want and it essentially would give the Demon's player the other person's character as a Cover.
Agreed. Or, simply, not have Soul Pacts.
- Gadgets are not like Fetishes: they don't cost Merit dots. You can either give them a Merit cost, or find a way to regulate their being distributed out into the mortal population, otherwise you might eventually end up with a MU filled with mortals with powerful Gadgets. Maybe you don't care, though!
Merit cost. Done.
- The Cipher is a highly personal thing for each Demon; you'll need a really strong grasp of each PC Demon in your game so that you can provide a good Cipher (which in itself is a lot of work). Assuming you care about providing that intrinsic part of the experience of this game. (A questionnaire might be good for this, too, I suppose.)
Ciphers shall be handled publicly, probably on a Wiki. In a game structured as this one, there's little need for +sheet secrecy.
- Speaking of: Interlocks are essentially unique, custom-made powers, and each character gets 3, which are each made of combining two Embeds, which the Storyteller/Staff technically has to pick, so there's that to consider.
Staff work and discretion here.
- Continuing on that train of thought: decide if you do want to give them a free dot of Primum with each Key unlocked of their Cipher, that makes for a very quick rise along the ranks of power.
And a stupid one. I'd eliminate this entirely.
@Corruption said:
My only super-serious concern is how /very/ staff intensive it will be. That would be less of an issue if Demon's basically the dominant Sphere on a place, but my read-over of it suggests that staff needs to be ready and willing to work hard to keep things moving, to keep up the sense of peril/threat, you really can't just tell the players that the antagonists are lurking 'out there' and being a danger - they have to /be/ threatened.
I didn't mention this before: zombies (kind of).
There is an external force. There will always be one. The game will be action-driven, being a survival game.
But that doesn't mean that there has to be tons of PrPs and staff-run slaughter scenes. As I mentioned, there will be a political/resource-management element. The game will have a Revolution / The Walking Dead / The Last of Us feel to it, and will probably be set in a small settlement that hasn't been "fully tamed" from its surrounds.
The game will require some code innovations to handle Demon, and the XP system. I anticipate, however, that many daily functions will be taken care of via code, leaving larger issues, such as resource discovery and management, to staff.
The game's still in development. But I'm not worried about staff-load at this point.
@Coin said:
Demon is difficult for many reasons, not the least of which is Covers.
I am also going to eat. However, I don't see this being a huge issue, from a non-code vantage.
Also, regarding going loud: simply remove it if it will be problematic.
As you know, I had thought to put together a post-apocalyptic game for Changeling and Geist, GMC-style. Due to the fact that neither game is GMC-compliant, the adaptation process went slow, and then petered out due to my lack of effort.
I have, however, picked up Demon: The Descent, which, if you did not know, is GMC-compliant. Having done a cursory read through, I think that a post-apocalyptic WoD 2.0 game with Mortal, Mortal+, and Demons to start with is something I would like to invest my time into.
That said, this is an open request for questions and concerns, generally along the following topics:
What difficulties do you see with Demons on a MU? I see the game starting with the three races above, and then expanding into Werewolf, and then Geist.
The game should have a strong meta-narrative behind it, but I also think there is plenty of room for PrPs. Plus, there will probably be a "resource gathering and conservation" political mini-game running in the back, but it should overly complicate game-existence.
Yes, there will be alt limits.
I will be implementing a "capped potential" system of advancement, as mentioned in another thread. Essentially, advancement is capped at X XP: you can start fully advanced or partially-advanced, but advancement in game will result in discounts on stats.
@EmmahSue said:
Just in case it's not clear: it's entirely possible to be a self-respecting woman and still like all sorts of stupid shit. The two are not related. Yes, in your own words, very poor word choice.
God, please don't tell me you like that Kardashian show. You may consider yourself a self-respecting whatever, but I will seriously deliver a gonad-kick if you do.
The importance of a large grid depends on the context and setting of the game. Ironically, the larger the scope, the less likely one needs a large grid.
For your average WoD game, I can understand why people want a GRID. Walking around the streets is a somewhat important element to the game that is often forgotten.
For a game like, oh, Mass Effect, you'd probably want modular places. On the Citadel, large areas like "the Zakera Ward" need no Grid; it's probably enough to attach rooms to that one room, and allow people to "Rapid Transit" between areas.
For a game like, oh, Dragon Age, you'd probably want to do the same thing as Mass Effect, but you could also add rooms to represent other "zones" in a region, wherein there may be pitched battles.
And then, if you have a space ship, you'd probably split the rooms into general floors/wings, with rooms sprouting off of them. Space stations, the same.
The game designers have to consider where they want the RPing to occur. If you want a lot of backdoor, small-scene, schemes, like in a Lords-and-Ladies game, having a detailed, large Grid would be helpful. If you expect there to be a lot of pew-pew-pew, with less importance on social scheming, then having rooms representing areas of larger scale is probably best. Take into consideration setting, and you should have an idea of how to lay out the Grid.
Note, though: being too abstract often leads to confusion, as occurred on Victoria Reverie.
I concur, but disagree with what Coin said about what staff and players should run. There's no reason why players cannot run bits and pieces of an overarching plot, and no reason why staff cannot run personal, character plots. As I've said before, the latter is important to foster staff-player rapport; the former is important to take pressure and tedium off of staff of running all-meta, all-the-time.
If a MU may be analogized to a stage, then every room is a set.
Good sets take a long time to build, and should only be built if you intend to use it a lot. Otherwise, you're probably better off using another set from a prior scene.
There doesn't need to be eleventy-billion businesses and clubs on the Grid. Part of the problem has to do with alts.
@Cobaltasaurus
If you haven't already, watch Batman: The Animated Series. It's not anime, but it will give it a serious run for its money.
I do the cooking. I do the grocery shopping. When the other members of my family are old, mature, skilled, and income-producing enough to take over the duties, then they can dictate the menu. Otherwise, they will eat what I serve unless they decide to be sufficient enough in their own devices to cook their own meals.
For my kids, that might happen in 15 years. For my partner, probably never; she rather likes what I make.
That's a fair thing to do. I simply dislike doing so. Villains should not be unconquerable ***but for *** a fatal flaw. For some reason, that sticks in my craw.
I prefer situational-solving, but have found that people would rather resort to dice-rolling than devising solutions for large problems. I suppose that's the nature of the game, but I'd like to think otherwise.
@Arkandel said:
Generally speaking staying fit isn't hard. You watch what you eat a little bit (sweets are bad, cut down on bread/fries, eat more protein and fibers) and you exercise in whatever way makes sense to you (the best workout is the one you can do). It baffles the mind there are so many special programs and diets out there because fundamentally it's not that complicated a matter.
This presumes that one is "fit," and that maintenance is the goal. For many, it's not.
I'm in reasonably good shape, but I don't run well for many reasons. I want to change this. However, over the past 2 years, I've had set-backs (e.g., plantar fasciitis, shin splints, bad weather, etc.) and I can't quite get my constant-running to 40 minutes. On top of that, I want to break 5 miles in 40 minutes, and my pace is nowhere near that.
To get to where I want to be, I will likely need to cut about 20 pounds, and start seriously training. All in the name of "fitness," if that definition means "I fit my internal picture of how I ought to be."
It helps that I loathe sitting on my butt watching television. I need other distractions around, like children or my computer, to do that, to my partner's chagrin.
One time, I had someone text me with that after I was unable to respond to their messages for 30 minutes. This was the resulting text conversation:
She: I guess you just don't care.
Me: I don't anymore, no.
She: Are you breaking up with me?
Me: Not exactly. You forced the issue.
She: I don't fucking understand.
Me: That's the other problem.
Passive-aggressive behavior can be amusing at times!
