Posts made by ShelBeast

I wouldn't take the merits away entirely. Instead they would have to be earned ICly, like status. It makes sense. Feeding Grounds implies that you have a place you can go that is your hunting ground alone. In a setting where there's just a few small scattered camps of survivors, and the like... you're not really going to have easy access to a place to call your own. Not until you carve something out of nothing for yourself, at least. Herd, even more so, because there aren't millions of people living in a city anymore. There's small clusters of 10-30. Maybe a few hundred at the upper end of things.

Central to this premise is the idea that resources, of all kinds, are scarce and valuable. Blood is as rare as gold. Bullets are as valuable as diamonds. Essence that isn't tainted or something is something elusive as the shadow itself.

@Coin Werewolves and Vampires can and SHOULD mesh together more than most games allow them to. This has always been my standpoint. There is no stigma between the two. That is a holdover from cWoD that the playerbase has never let go of, and perpetuates with new people coming into the games from the POV of MU*s. I want to see Pack/Coterie hybrids, and see cooperation among playerbits on all sides of the spectrum.

The hiccup is... really what can vampires offer wolves? Vampires are woefully inadequate when it comes to matters of the Shadow, and without Blood Tenebrous (not going to be a thing here, unless/until it's officially redone for CoD rules), or certain bloodlines (Also not a thing here until they're being published in official books, or more are released on the OP blog), it makes vampires of limited function. I'll end that with a disclaimer that I am very much a newb to Wolf. I'm primarily a vamp player.

@HorrorHound

You nailed it on the head. That is EXACTLY the kind of scenario that I'm looking to emulate. But my experience with MU*s is that I, as a staffer/storyteller/TL/whatever title you wanna put on it, can write that all day long and the vast majority of the players of the sphere will not emulate it, without some sort of framework to back it up. I think that the backbone of that would need to be a political system that includes territory, and with that, blood. Like I had stated in a previous post.... Mechanics should reflect intent. Sadly, this is one of those situations where I fear that mechanics need to be used to enforce the intent in some manner.

I do have the idea of stripping Feeding Grounds and Herd right out of the game from the standpoint of "purchased" merits. Rather, make them like Status is on some (most?) games, where you have to earn it through IC actions. It will make having that territory, or being Billy Badass who works for Duke Dollar who has said territory, all the more important.

In truth, I'm still looking at options and searching for ways to prevent the whole idea of nothing but combat oriented characters. Like I said, this kind of setting DOES lend itself towards that aspect easily. So, I'm looking at ways to provide incentive for diversity, rather than looking at ways to restrict undesired behavior. As Taika has pointed out, there's a lot of different things that need to be done. Playing a combat heavy vamp might have it's place, but the reality of the situation is that it will only take you so far in a world like this.

I only have to point to the Governor and Neagan from TWD to prove my point in this. The guys who want to rule through violence wind up not being as secure as they thought they were going to be and also even they couldn't do it on the backs of just other combat oriented characters. They're just not self-sustaining.

@Tempest

The question is.... How would YOU prevent the game from being 90% Rahu and 90% Ordo Gangrel? I said that I was inviting feedback for a reason. Not just to present problems, but to work together to present solutions.

@Coin

I can see your point, in some regards. But there are other ways to look at it, too.

What thicker line is there to draw between me and them than "I am not like that"?

I a setting such as this, there are a number of reasons for people, human or not, to operate at night. For example, Jim, the Night Watchman. Jim is only seen at night, because he works at night. Jim says that he doesn't come out during the day because the sunlight creates a biochemical reaction in the human body that makes them want to stay awake, so to maintain his sleep schedule, he avoids daylight at all cost, so he's well rested for his night shift.

Scavengers for the camp might make excursions out at night, when they have the cover of darkness. Or maybe they're crews of people meant to go out into the night to fight the monsters so they don't storm the camp? Hell, maybe those crews have a tendency to go out at night, and not return until the next night to turn in their finds and then set back out again?

There are a number of reasons for people to only be seen at night, even in a post apocalyptic setting such as this. Hell, honestly, there might even be more, or at least, more realistic ones, other than just "Oh, I work all day" or something to that effect. There's also the fact that young, weaker Kindred with high Humanity and low BP only take limited damage from sunlight. Like 1 lethal every ten minutes, at Humanity 7, BP1, I think. So, in a pinch, they can make appearances in the day. Or answer their door if someone comes knocking. So... there's incentive to play characters that aren't pumping BP like crazy!

But I won't say that I'm totally against discarding the Masquerade altogether. I had initially thought about it, until I realized that there's just really no scenario in which a vampire can actually survive that long under the circumstances of people knowing. The vulnerability to sunlight and needing a haven to protect oneself from it is just too great of a weakness to be exploited. Eventually mistrust WILL set in. Humans WILL start to fear the monsters in their wake and if they know about them? They'll come. In a world full of fear and lawlessness, this is even more of a sure thing.

That being said, if a character WANTS to go that route? I won't stop them, either. I'm certainly not looking to call wrongfun on anyone, and I'm not taking that stance with a thinly veiled clause of "Oh, well, I'll just have NPC mortals kick in their door after a few months" or anything stupid like that, either. I'm all for player choice in as many things as can be given, while maintaining theme. And the idea of a vampire trying to strike a deal of "protection for blood" is totally valid. I just don't think that it works as a default, so to speak.

As for werewolves, I don't handle them, so I couldn't say.

@DnvnQuinn

The vamps won't outright rule anything. The most logical conclusion I can come to, thus far, has been that the "General" Masquerade is toast. There will be too many Draugr around to deny the existence of the supernatural. Think of all the vampires who were trapped under rubble, in tunnels, etc. when the world ended, and then going crazy until they were able to free themselves in a frenzy. Stuff like that.

On the other hand, those remaining "sane" Kindred would feel even more pressure to maintain a "Personal" Masquerade, because they're more vulnerable than ever before. So there won't be any "Let's cover up the existence of vampires", but a lot of "Let's make sure that no one suspects me, Jim The Night Watchman of the Camp, of being a vampire", so that they don't get drug into the sunlight by the frightened and enraged populace.

This also provides a bit of a boon for Kindred, in a way, though. Misdirection. The Draugr (and the subsequent Revenants made in their wake) will mostly serve to present a picture of Vampires as horrifying, near mindless beasts. Savage monsters that are relatively easy to identify. So, the Kindred who maintain their Humanity are able to exist among the herd all the more easily, because no one expects that their neighbor could be anything like the vampires that they know.

As far as Vampires and politics go, I'm still working on how I want to handle them. The part of me that thinks like a psychologist almost wants to take politics off the table at the start, due to thinking of Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs. Most people are just trying to sturggle to survive. This includes Kindred. It's only when they've satisfied those most basic of needs (food and shelter) that they can really consider getting into things like politics to work towards the upper rungs of the Hierarchy. Between this line of thinking, and the unifying factor of a common enemy (the draugr and revenants that inhabit the city that hasn't been "reclaimed" yet), I have thought about letting politics go until later in the game.

That being said, vampire is supposed to be a game about politics, traditionally. And I LOVE the political game, when it can be done right. Another thing that I'm concerning myself with, at the moment, is how to best try to present that in a setting such as this. It's too easy, in general, for Vampire spheres on games to fall into a trap of Might Equals Right, and a setting like this lends itself well to that. Well, honestly? I've seen it enough times to know that it sucks when it becomes that. So, I want to find a way to try to ensure that people aren't going to "politic" their ways into positions just because they've got Protean claws, Ride The Wave and Claws of The Unholy. I think all of us want the focus of this game to be one of "Cooperative Storytelling" over "Dick over everyone because lol my char's a dick bro! Sorry!" and so, it follows that mechanics should represent intent.

Note: This is not to say that there isn't a place for combat oriented characters to advance, or to just have a place in the game. There are a lot of things out there that need killing. I just don't want to see nothing but combat based characters cropping up since everyone feels the need to defend themselves from X character, or the need to have combat stats to "take a position" among the local courts.

Courts, you ask? Why yes, I tell you. In a setting such as this, there's actually a high potential for multiple Praxes to form as the population expands and reclaims territory. It's something I've been thinking about, at least.

Also, still working out how to really incorporate the Covenants into the setting. My current thinking is that The Invictus would be hurt pretty badly. All their infrastructure and influence is kaput. Dragons are likely sent into a tailspin, but now have lots of mad science opportunities with research subjects caught in the field. Carthians would likely have a lot of pull, due to their ability to utilize sort of "grass roots" movements and politics and make structure out of chaos. The Lance would likely enjoy quite a bit of power, as well, as people turn to God in the wake of the end of the world, so to speak. The Crones would have a pretty decent base of power just based on the people who start becoming more open to the idea of the occult and supernatural.

And I've rambled long enough. But feel free to toss ideas my way if anyone has them, or contact me directly through messages or on the game when I'm around.

Word. Seeing a game that was based around The Witcher would be rad. Maybe take some inspirations from elsewhere, too. Dragon's Dogma. Berserk. Just not the typical "high fantasy" stuff, like D&D or like Dragon Age. I could totally get behind that.

My point still stands. Just because there were "expansions" that allowed it, the baseline game has a very clear and definite limit. That limit is level 20. I think in 4th it was level 30, but I don't think they ever did the whole "Epic level" bit. I didn't play it much. Oh. And in organized play, that level limit is.... 12, I think? And in 5th Edition, you can't have a stat above 20, if I recall correctly. It's been a bit since I've looked at the book.

@ThatGuyThere

To use D&D as a an example, the game is actually built with a cap with no advancement. 20th level, bro. Can't go past it. But you're free to keep playing past hitting it.

Coming in at the tail end of this thread here, and haven't, by any stretch, read the entire thing... but....

Fallout. For the love of Christ, I want a Fallout game so bad it makes my teeth hurt.

Ideally made using a variation of the actual games systems (the first couple), or maybe the tabletop adaptation that J.E. Sawyer (a dude who worked for Black Isle, and was a developer of Van Buren, which was later cannibalized for Fallout: New Vegas) made. Or Savage Worlds, maybe.

Either way, a Fallout game would seriously be the thing that gets me most excited about gaming again.

I've gotten my hands on the pdf, now but I haven't had a chance to really dig into it. I did take a quick glance at the combat system.

Likes: Withering and Decisive attacks are a neat concept.

Dislikes: It's more oWoD than nWoD in mechanics, it seems like. Damage soak and all of that... Give me less rolls and less stages to roll resolution, please. nWoD/CoD is a flawed system, but man, it's light years beyond oWoD systems.

But literally that's all I've even looked at, and didn't even read the full system yet. So, we'll see. I haven't even peeked at charms or character generation. I just wanted to see how they might have updated the core systems first.

I'm not sure if this is the right place to put this, but...

Exalted Third Edition is finally out! After like 7 years of waiting or some ridiculous nonsense!

So, has anyone gotten the book yet? Are there any plans on maybe setting up a game with it? I know I'm really excited to see the new edition. It's so much power gamey fun.

@ThatOneDude The "current" Scion isn't released in any form yet. The new system is still being developed, and I think we'll be seeing the Trinity Continuum stuff first, if I recall correctly.

@Roz said:

I mean, ask most women the youngest they can remember being harassed by an adult man, and a lot of them will say younger than 14. The first time I can remember getting catcalled I was probably 12. I've heard from women who developed early who got it as young as like 10. This isn't the exception; it's the rule.

I get that this young girls get hit on/harassed/cat called, etc. all the time. My issue with the example that I was referring to was very specific in the cartoonish nature of a person running a shop, with a professional reputation and financial stability on the line, openly being so overly crude and then not only is that accepted, but joined in like some cult mantra of a bunch of guys chanting it over and over again at the girl. That /very specific/ example seems very, very far fetched to me, due to what I see as a very common aversion in the general populace towards the sexual predation of children. I mean, even in prison, child molesters are the anathema and in the most danger from other inmates. I don't doubt, for a minute, that a shopkeeper could/would say something gross and inappropriate to a young girl, but I'd be more apt to believe that they'd say it in private, for the sake of being able to deny having said it.

@Ganymede

I'll be completely honest, though I am a little ashamed to admit it, if I ever saw something that constituted outright sexual harassment or assault (like slapping on the ass, or inappropriate groping, etc) there is a possibility that I'd resort to violence. I have a temper, and a lot of that temper is focused on defending other people. I was the kid that bullied/beat up bullies in school, and I have this very... seething rage over things I deem unjust or unfair.

Point being, that's a flaw of mine, and it never really has done anyone any good. Not even in the one case where it really mattered to me (which is a very personal story that I'm not gonna go into here). I think that talking about these things openly, honestly and realistically is the only real way to ever get anywhere with it. I also do hold hope for the future, since I see the general attitudes of younger players (to me younger equates to 20's and below) shifting away from this kind of mentality and becoming more, generally socially progressive.

I am really curious, though, like Arkandel, about the experience of females (or perceived females) and other minorities or traditionally marginalized groups in the online community. Has this kind of behavior been the norm for you on MU*s? Is it something you experience more RL when gaming and less online or more?

Trust me, when/if I see poor behavior directed at anyone at a gaming event, I call it out and/or ask the person to leave, depending on the severity of the scenario. I have a reputation around the gaming stores I worked at in STL for coming down hard on players or whole groups (in a handful of instances) just for being dismissive and cliquish. Because of that, I turned our Wednesday gaming nights from a collection of a few small, isolated groups into a night that hosts full tables, that include women, children, and families, and even got one notoriously cliquey "elite" group to wind up running said tables.

The point of my posting was never that "I don't see it, therefore it's not happening", nor was it "It's not as bad as this person is making it out, so whatever". It was "These are problems, sure, but it does no one any good to inflate things to extremes, in order to bring about resolution". In the end, there can never be any peace or understanding as long as one side continues to commit problematic behavior and thinks it's alright or even "cool", and the other side agitates/inflates/exaggerates to make it out like it's an all consuming, ever present threat that ALL members of the group are guilty of or compliant with.

There are parts that, admittedly, seem completely the result of over-exaggeration and/or pure fabrication... I don't want to marginalize the message, because it's a valid one, but yeah... Too much scare tactic. Personally, I find it very, very difficult to believe that a 13 year old girl not only gets openly told by a shopkeeper "old enough to bleed, old enough to breed", but then that a whole cadre of cronies would start chanting it like a mantra. Not unless the store just openly says "Pedophile Comics and Games" on the window. There's simply too many people, of all genders, who are very sensitive/hostile to the very thought of sexually abusing minors. Plus, it just reeks of caricature, not character, if that makes sense.

The other thing is the example of "It's 2007, 2008, 2009" etc. etc. If this happened even two years in a row, why would you ever, ever go back to that convention? I understand that this question is very close to "Well, you shouldn't do this, unless you expect that" or something, but it's not. This is a question of "What person in their right mind continues to go back into a situation that repeatedly proves to be traumatic, knowing what will happen?" because... I can't think of a one. Not without going into the patterns of psychological behavior that surrounds chronic victims, at least. This person doesn't read as that type, though, since they truly seem to hold the viewpoint that they're worth more than the abuse they suffer. The type of people who continue to go back to abusive relationships do not think that way.

But, even if the article is poorly written and exaggerated or even fabricated, in part or in entirety, there is a lot of truth to it, too. Gaming has traditionally been a boys' club, in the tabletop world, and it hasn't progressed to be inclusive gracefully by any stretch of the word. I have worked in one of the largest and most established comic/games/hobby retail chains in the US, and I've tabletop gamed all over this country with a number of folks and at a number of stores, conventions, and etc. I have never actually witnessed any example of the extreme actions presented in this editorial. I'm not saying that they don't happen. Not by a long shot. I have, however, seen female gamers being dismissed and otherwise made to feel inferior. Mostly just through snarky, holier than thou attitudes and comments. I've seen girls be ignored. I've seen girls being given undue amounts of attention (which is equally problematic), and all, but I've never seen an ass slap and then forced isolation when standing up about it. I think that we male gamers (or us male, white, hetero gamers) need to grow the fuck up, most of the time with these attitudes. Though, admittedly, I will say I have never once seen any bias against race or sexuality at a gaming table. Of any sort. I'm certain that it happens. There's the bigots in every culture, but I think that this sort of prejudice might be more rare than sexism.

What are your thoughts? Is my experience an altogether uniquely better one, or does it seem fairly standard?

@Lithium Yeah, finding companionship and finding someone to bite can be similar, but not exactly the same. But moreover, in an MU* environment, especially, blood being a limited resource is the only real, proven means to lend impetus for political play the drives the game forward. If you're looking only to sandbox/social, then yeah, things are different. But in sandbox games where Blood isn't a resource, it seems that the political game falls to the wayside because there is no benefit to advancing, other than bragging rights. This has led to stagnation and inactivity in literally every single case that I've witnessed firsthand.

Edit: Also, not my game, nor my code. I have nothing to do with it, at all!

@Lithium Yes there are a lot of people. Living in a world of security and constant surveillance, with an addiction to Vines, Snapchat, Facebook, Instagram and Youtube. Even before this, feeding was never exactly the most easy task. It requires isolating a prey that is accustomed to sticking with the herd, and then being sure that privacy is in tact throughout the process. There's a lot of reasons why blood is limited, despite the fact that it is a resource that is in abundance, physically. The same could be said for diamonds in the real world.