Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us money per month for bills, and since we don't believe in showing ads to our users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
 
Stephenls
Feb 21, 2013
[REDACTED]

Ithle01 posted:

He was well aware of what he was doing. Not all libertarians are caricatures that are incapable of self-criticism or blindly adhere to the extremes of doctrine.

1e-era Grabowski always struck me as someone who thought libertarian thought was fundamentally accurate without being fundamentally just, yeah. Like, “The libertarians are right about how the world works and everyone else is varying degrees of naive, but that’s not necessarily a good thing, just true.”

(The corollary being “And if you think this not being a good thing is at all relevant to anything, you, too, are varying degrees of naive.”)

Stephenls fucked around with this message at 05:55 on May 24, 2019

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Stephenls
Feb 21, 2013
[REDACTED]

Joe Slowboat posted:

The point of the Realm's misandry, as I understand it, is to have a sexist society PCs can play in without it recapitulating precisely that real sexism. It's for playing out Austen, with daiklaves, and without the constant creeptastic possibilities of a player saying sexist poo poo about women then going 'but it's the setting! That's what the Realm thinks!'

This was the goal, yeah.

Also more than half the writers on The Realm are women, and we had long discussions about exactly how to write bigotry into Realm society during development of the book. Admittedly I don’t recall who wrote the section on Realm sexism specifically but it came out of days and days of conversation and wasn’t a matter of lovely male writers spewing gross mansplaining nonsense.

Stephenls fucked around with this message at 02:41 on Jun 1, 2019

Stephenls
Feb 21, 2013
[REDACTED]
Enh.

For context, there was an additional paragraph in that post I deleted for reasons I don’t want to go into.

Stephenls
Feb 21, 2013
[REDACTED]
But anyway, The Realm and bigotry.

There’s a problem with writing the Realm which is particularly difficult to navigate. The problem is as follows: by all rights, Dynastic culture ought to be toxic. The reason why it ought to be toxic is that it’s an oppressive elitist slaveowning oligarchy, and oppressive elitist slaveowning oligarchies must cultivate the callousness necessary to keep their oppressed classes in enough terror that those oppressed classes don’t effectively revolt, but, having sufficiently cultivated that level of callousness, such societies are unable to direct it exclusively at those they oppress.

You can’t have a society that’s kind to “its own” but terrorizes those it considers lesser. Doesn’t happen. The status-consciousness and willingness to inflict cruelty and terror necessary to keep the underclasses in line always becomes habitual enough that it gets applied between fine graduations of status within the oligarchy—abuse by parents towards children, bullying between siblings seeking to establish hierachy of parental favor, same for rulers toward subordinates and subordinates jockeying for position between each other, etc. And, as always, people will rationalize their cruelty with various bigotries. Kindness and humanity can be found in such societies as anywhere but it always exists amidst a background of normative cruelty.

Not acknowledging this feels like apologia for slaveowning oligarchy. Acknowledging it too readily risks traumatizing the reader—in the real sense, because the cruelties exercised by the society will echo real cruelties many of the readers will have really suffered.

Previous editions, especially first edition in the Aspect Books, leaned pretty heavily on the child abuse to get this across. For various reasons we didn’t want to do that again, as e.g. graphic descriptions of that one Dynast whose mom fed her favourite nannies live and screaming to sharks to toughen her up bother our readers, and also our writers, many of whom don’t like being asked to write that sort of thing.

Previous editions also tried to establish the Realm as a matriarchy and fell down pretty hard—Eric Minton did statistical analysis of named Dynastic NPCs and their status and position in society throughout first and second edition and determined that, while the text often claimed women were equal or favored for wielding power, most named powerful figures were men and an uncomfortable number of powerful women were described as having achieved their power illegitimately through e.g. sexual favors (ugh Tepet Lisara), or were portrayed as stereotypically “crazy” in ways typical of real modern stereotypes of powerful women (see: that shark thing).

We made the decision for third edition to reverse course hard on this—if the Realm is a matriarchy, most powerful figures ought to be women, and they ought to have seized or been granted their power through means the Dynasty considered normative. But there has to be a societal rationalization for why Dynastic women consider themselves more fit to rule than men and why social norms back them. Hence Dynastic sexism, among other things—House founders and some leadership being changed from men to women, an attention to ensuring most new powerful Dynasts are women, etc.

We can’t write the Dynasty as psychologically healthy and inclusive, and there’s a limit to the number of times we can invent a reason for why a specific bigotry you’d expect in a heavily nativist class-conscious society is actually absent (trans Immaculate Dragon, Precedent of Rawar). We can’t establish that they’re hosed up without having them be hosed up in ways that echo real societal hosed-up-edness, and we can’t write them as not hosed up. All we can do is try not to be chuds about it.

Stephenls fucked around with this message at 04:26 on Jun 1, 2019

Stephenls
Feb 21, 2013
[REDACTED]
I can see the argument for that, but historically attempts to write The Good Guy Society rarely go well.

Stephenls
Feb 21, 2013
[REDACTED]

SunAndSpring posted:

Well, there’s just as many Dragon-blooded outside the Realm as those in it. Not all get to be a part of a vast dynasty stretching back to the First Age. A lot are just people lucky enough to get the Exaltation due to a distant ancestor having it.

Play venues, then.

A play venue is an area of the setting designed to be played in; it can be geographical or conceptual or both. The term is broad and they can be nested in each other; more on that in a bit.

The most obvious instance of play venues in the way the setting is designed is how the Directions naturally divide the setting up into areas that suggest play genre and make it obvious to new groups that Exalted is meant to support a wide variety of different fantasy games. The West supports swashbuckling piracy adventures, the South supports something like the Arabian Nights or maybe “swords and sandals” pulp fantasy, the East supports something close to generic D&D wandering heroes fantasy, and the North is Vikings (which is to say pop perception of Vikings, which is very little actual Vikings and a lot of Skyrim). These are not perfectly accurate once you get into the details (The North is more than Skyrim, the East is more than D&D) but they’re accurate in broad strokes, and this is super useful for getting new players invested in the setting in the same way that Vampire having clans, with each clan representing a different genre of vampire stories, is useful in getting people invested in that game. “No matter what type of [fantasy story / vampire] you like, [Exalted / Vampire: The (Masquerade/Requiem)] is the game for you.”

Within Directions, individual city-states or geographical areas are also play venues. The Hundred Kingdoms is the ideal play venue for nation-building and also for a game modeled after a show like Xena or Lodoss where the protagonists are traveling around on foot and every episode they’re in a different nation... or wold be, if it had ever been developed. Nexus tries really hard to be Lankhmar and falls flat because Chiaroscuro is a more interesting version of Pulp Adventure City.

“Solars” are a play venue. You put Solars together with a Direction and you get a more focused play venue.

“Dragon-Blooded” are a broad play venue, and so’s “The Dynasty.”

To the extent that setting elements and playable splats go over well with the fandom, I have argued for years that the degree to which they offer a clear play venue, novel within the context of the larger Exalted oeuvre, is super-important. The reason why everybody loves the Dreaming Sea is that it’s a truly novel play venue that fits well within the genre conceits of the setting but offers aesthetics and political specifics not found elsewhere—the same was true of An-Teng when it was introduced in 1e, and the same was true of a lot of the individual settings introduced in Scavenger Sons. I’d argue that things like 2nd Edition’s Compass: Blessed Isle and indeed 2nd Edition’s treatment of the setting in general fall flat because they were not written with “How will this be a functional play venue?” in mind. Compass: Autochthonia was written and developed with “must be a distinct genre-venue” in mind and it really shows and it really worked. Wu-Juan is clearly a novel play venue; everyone loves Wu-Juan, because Kowloon Walled City is a great place for a pulp fantasy game and a meaningfully different Pulp Fantasy Adventure City than Chiaroscuro. The Underworld is potentially a very strong play venue; I’ve always wanted to see it developed in the direction of a pulp fantasy setting in the vein of Creation but with Gothic and Romantic stylings to contrast Creation’s anime/wuxia aesthetics.

(I have seen it argued that that would be bad because it doesn’t really make sense for an anime/wuxia setting to have a gothic afterlife, to which I reply doesn’t matter, the play venue needs to be differentiated in order to appeal, and gothic romance is something Exalted has room for but Creation doesn’t deliver well, so that’s the niche the Underworld play venue ought to be written to serve. Underworld gets gothic knights and gloomy castles because that’s where they fit.)

The Dynasty is a play venue. It has its own genre and its own conflicts internal and external. Lookshy is its own play venue, likewise with its own conflicts. The Forest Witches are their own play venue; as are Houses Burano, Ophris, and Akatha (the clan invisible!) in the Empire of Prasad. Wandering outcastes are their own play venue. All five of these play venues are potentially very strong and very well-differentiated and memorable, which is why they got the prestige spreads in What Fire Has Wrought whereas the Grass Spiders didn’t.

One thing that marks Dragon-Blooded play venues is they’re the social politics niche. To overly simplify things (to the same degree that it’s oversimplifying to say the North is Skyrim, which is a lot): You play Solars for traditional heroics and you play Dragon-Blooded for backstabbing at salons. All of the really strong Dragon-Blooded play venues support a degree of salon backstabbing play, with the exception of outcastes who exist to be the none-of-the-above option.

In order to be worth doing, a hypothetical setting-venue-play-option for Dragon-Blooded games that serves the role of “Like the Dynasty, but not hosed up” would have to be developed into its own full play venue. It would need to be as strongly differentiated from the Realm, Lookshy, the Forest Witches, and Prasad as they are from each other, and as strongly differentiated from all the Solar, Lunar, and as-yet-hypothetical-in-3e Abyssal, Sidereal, Infernal, Alchemical et al play venues that serve similar roles. It would need its own fully developed conflicts both internal and external, and its own conceptual hook as intriguing and compelling as those of the Dynasty, Lookshy, the Forest Witches, Prasad, and outcastes.

“The Dynasty, but with their defining internal conflict removed” is a really bad place to start development of a new Dragon-Blooded play venue, and for evidence of this I will point at Lunars 2e. I’m not saying what you’re suggesting is impossible, but this is legitimately not a trivial design problem.

EDIT: You have gotten me thinking, though. I love identifying and helping develop the sort of new play venues that, once you see them, feel like they’ve been a natural part of the game all along, and this doesn’t feel like one yet but it does feel like a space where one ought to exist.

Stephenls fucked around with this message at 09:12 on Jun 1, 2019

Stephenls
Feb 21, 2013
[REDACTED]

Alien Rope Burn posted:

I think the words you're looking for are "campaign" or "campaign type", unless you're bugged by the old-school militaristic overtones of such.

Yes and no. To be worth a drat a play venue needs to be able to support a wide variety of campaigns. For example you can have Dynastic campaigns that range from secondary school dramedy hiijinx to Game of Thrones generational cuththroat politics to The Office to the equivalent of a White House drama to spy games ranging in tone from James Bond to John le Carré to Get Smart, "Wandering (very rich) 'Heroes' of the Threshold" to actual war campaigns about life in the Legions, etc. I'm pretty happy with the way the signature hearth fiction in What Fire Has Wrought turned out; it showcases how looking at the same characters at different points in their lives produce stories of different genres. All these games occupy the general venue of "Dynastic Dragon-Blooded game" and all share recognizable traits, but the variety ensures there's room for the game you want to play within that venue if you like the venue itself.

When designing a play venue, if you output something that can only accommodate one campaign, it's probably not going to be a big hit with the audience.

(EDIT: It occurs to me that the play venue approach to setting and game design is basically the result of looking at The Forge's ideas on coherency and going "Wait. All the most popular, best-selling games are the ones you're labeling as incoherent. What do those so-called incoherent games give people that makes them so popular; why do people loving love incoherent games and get so enthusiastic about them? And how can I write and develop game/setting to ensure that my output has the sort of incoherency people go crazy for?")

Stephenls fucked around with this message at 18:01 on Jun 1, 2019

Stephenls
Feb 21, 2013
[REDACTED]

SunAndSpring posted:

Also I feel like you guys maybe sweat it too much that you HAD to have big reasons for why gay and trans people are accepted in the Realm? China was perfectly fine with gay people so long as they did their duty and produced heirs in between loving around with their consorts, and many Asian and Native American ethnic groups had the concept of there being more than two genders. It's not that much of a stretch in a society where sorcery is common enough among the nobility that reproduction between people who are normally incompatible in that way is possible, being gay or trans is fine, especially now that the phobia against sorcery has been toned down to where everyone is fine using their services but no one is fine with inviting them to parties.

We tried both those first two solutions during various phases of development; the feedback we got from potential LGBT players was, roughly, “I am deeply uncomfortable with the prospect of only being able to play a gay character if that character is expected to engage in straight intercourse to pump out kids; I want a venue where my character’s relationship is recognized as not just valid but legitimate,” and “I want to be able to play a character whose understanding of their gender and orientation reflects my understanding of my own, not some made-up alternative conception of gender or orientation inspired by historical cultures.”

You’re right that we probably wouldn’t have needed the Precedent of Rawar, now that I think about it; I don’t think we’d noticed that we’d toned down the sorcery phobia as much as we did until after we’d implemented it, and it didn’t occur to us to go back and take it out again.

We can show through example that other cultures are fine with LGBT relationships; it was just the Dynasty’s unique position as heavily nativist and prioritizing children’s adherence to cultural norms and expectations over their happiness that made it feel like there needed to be an explanation there.

Stephenls fucked around with this message at 01:02 on Jun 3, 2019

Stephenls
Feb 21, 2013
[REDACTED]
My impression of Monte Cook game design is he's all about giving a traditional game experience that gives enough of the impression of being novel that people who believe they want a novel experience but actually just want what they already like will be pleased with it.

My understanding of Invisible Sun in specific is that it's all about applying that principle to a game that discourages piracy by requiring "feelies" to the play experience -- physical props you need to play. Or "need," because it's a Monte Cook game, so the point is giving the impression of novelty while delivering something traditional.

He's consistently made money at what he does while other designers struggle, so apparently this is what people want.

Stephenls
Feb 21, 2013
[REDACTED]

Rand Brittain posted:

If I were going to compare knowledge of "the true facts" by Immaculates in Exalted to anything, it would probably be to the Book of Revelation. There is a huge number of people, including educated clerics, who believe that the Book of Revelation is a literal and prophetic guide to our future, in spite of the fact that even a base-level knowledge of the facts behind it will tell you that it's a political allegory from two thousand years ago.

Yeah, that. Having an understanding of one’s faith at odds with the history of one’s religion’s development seems pretty normal, even in situations where entire branches of the clergy are responsible for being familiar with said religion’s historical development. It doesn’t make intuitive sense but I’ve definitely seen stuff about e.g. the Jesuits where they’re described as commonly not being of the opinion that historical Biblical Jesus was real, but also not thinking that’s relevant because they still believe rhetorical Biblical Jesus is right about how things out to be.

Thesaurasaurus posted:

Also the whole tiered education where only the initiated are given the whole truth (heavily-slanted to favor the teller but still more factually-accurate than what the laity are told) is pretty well in-keeping with historical practices of organized religion, especially when coupled with the Calvinist/Dharmic notions of the elect. Obviously, you wouldn't want peasants to learn the finer details, because they aren't already indoctrinated and heavily-invested enlightened enough to process this information without hurting themselves!

This, too. This is why I liked the story of the very first Assassin’s Creed so much. It’s the best expression of cultic “What I told you before isn’t the whole truth; now you’re ready for the whole truth!” *repeat six more times* indoctrination I can think of in media.

(In the case of Assassin’s Creed, they even have the bit where the final level of initiation is “I’m just in it for the power” and then a reformation where that element is rejected after Top Guy dies, although this is more illustrative of things like Scientology than large-scale religions; I don’t actually believe that every religion began with a cult where the top guy was just in it for power, but a lot of cults sure seem to.)

Clarifying Edit:

Night10194 posted:

I think you might be mistaking a more common thing where scholars/believers often don't believe the Gospels are intended as historical documents (but rather rhetorical/theological ones) because Gospel as a genre was about evangelizing and spreading the story, and because they have discrepancies between them (and with things known of history from other sources), for people not believing there was a historical Jesus of Nazareth.

Sorry, I should have said "not real as such," rather than "not real."

(High level Immaculate doctrine doesn't say the Immaculate Dragons never existed, it says the current stories about each Immaculate Dragon are conflations of the deeds of many Shogunate-era Immaculate saints and war heroes -- but one of the guys who's deeds were conflated into the current version of Sextes Jylis was a dude named Sextes Jylis. That guy was real.)

Stephenls fucked around with this message at 18:36 on Jun 9, 2019

Stephenls
Feb 21, 2013
[REDACTED]

Night10194 posted:

I think you might be mistaking a more common thing where scholars/believers often don't believe the Gospels are intended as historical documents (but rather rhetorical/theological ones) because Gospel as a genre was about evangelizing and spreading the story, and because they have discrepancies between them (and with things known of history from other sources), for people not believing there was a historical Jesus of Nazareth.

Sorry, I should have said "not real as such," rather than "not real."

(High level Immaculate doctrine doesn't say the Immaculate Dragons never existed, it says the current stories about each Immaculate Dragon are conflations of the deeds of many Shogunate-era Immaculate saints and war heroes -- but one of the guys who's deeds were conflated into the current version of Sextes Jylis was a dude named Sextes Jylis. That guy was real.)

Stephenls fucked around with this message at 18:26 on Jun 9, 2019

Stephenls
Feb 21, 2013
[REDACTED]

Night10194 posted:

I suspected as much but wanted to be clear. The whole 'no evidence for Jesus a person' existing thing always gets me a bit, because we actually have quite a bit of evidence that there was a guy named Jesus who was probably a preacher in early-mid-century Judea who was probably killed by the Roman state. The part with no historical evidence is 'was actually the son of God and the Messiah'.

Yeah, that's fair. Apologies for my sloppy word choice on a delicate topic. Gonna edit my reply to you into the original post just to forestall further misunderstanding.

Stephenls
Feb 21, 2013
[REDACTED]

PurpleXVI posted:

It feels like the "correct" way to run Feng Shui, i.e. where it would be fun to the most people, would be a combination of Bill & Ted and Big Trouble in Little China.

Those two plus Hard Boiled, maybe.

Stephenls
Feb 21, 2013
[REDACTED]

PurpleXVI posted:

When I played a Lunar in a 2e game, turning into an animal really only mattered if it was something flying that could scout or move fast as a result. Anything that was a combat advantage was rare as gently caress(maybe they've fixed that), but unless you're in a full party of Lunars, turning into animals for stealth or whatever has the same lame weakness that being the One Stealth Guy does in any other RPG: Either you're the only one playing the game while the others are waiting for it to be their turn again, or everyone else needs to be equally good at stealth of some variety for it to matter. Usually they're not, so usually it doesn't matter.

Though at the same time I don't really feel like most animals need statting. Either they explode the instant an Exalt wants them to explode, or they're a Lunar's transformed form and thus should have stats appropriate to the Lunar rather than any of their own.

In a lot of ways the shapeshifting rules in 3e are a reaction to the shapeshifting rules in 1e and 2e—in a game where the rules for your Charms matter and you probably have, like, twenty of them at least, having shapeshifting amount to “Whatever, the ST can give you a circumstantial bonus to your action based on her judgment of how the form you’re in might help you,” is unsatisfying—so much of the system is built around this or that minor mechanical doodad mattering that players are conditioned to think of things mattering in terms of their mechanics, and building a whole character type around shapeshifting into a bunch of different forms and then having the shapeshifting mechanics be vague and fiat-y leads to players not valuing what is supposed to be the primary gimmick of that character type. You can see this in e.g. Terrifying Argent Witches being built around “What things can Lunars do that are Lunar-y, aside from shapeshifting?”

You can certainly argue that this is a trap, and the correct solution to this problem was not to build a mechanics-heavy exception-based game that conditions players to value things based on their mechanics, but we are where we are.

So shapeshifting in 3e is fairly fine-grained, with rules for which traits of your own you use when shapeshifted and which traits of your form you can use, with specific animals having physical merits you might want to have access to that can most easily be accessed by shifting into that animal’s form, etc.

All of which is to say, if you look at that animal list and go “This seems like a waste because this level of detail never mattered when we were playing Lunars in 2e,” yes, that level of detail not mattering in 2e is why it’s here and matters in 3e. We don’t want a shapeshifting character type that people look at and go “That’d be cool if not for the focus on shapeshifting.”

Stephenls fucked around with this message at 21:02 on Jun 20, 2019

Stephenls
Feb 21, 2013
[REDACTED]
My only guess here is that the bit about therapy being referred to as torture is a reference to the occasionally real practice of people undergoing physiotherapy referring to it as torture, almost always as a joke. "See? We know this topic! We're making the same jokes people who undergo it in real life do!"

Stephenls
Feb 21, 2013
[REDACTED]

Joe Slowboat posted:

Personally I really like the idea that Toreadors are fundamentally uncreative, that biting a fantastic new artist young actually freezes their development as an artist. But then I'm coming from Chronicles games where vampires are pretty much guaranteed to be a net negative in the world; player characters who buy into the idea that actually vampires are preserving artistic genius forever would have a really interesting hook there, and the clan would have a deep well of bitterness hidden by the glitz. But also you'd need some way to actually make that hook gameable, which I imagine Masquerade wasn't hugely prepared to do.

Halloween Jack posted:

Honestly, I'm not a fan of that bit of Requiem. Unlife already makes it virtually impossible to be a good person, without them flat out saying "Your soul is dead, your mind is frozen in time along with your body when you die, you can never grow or experience everything real." Like, first, how do you play that and do you really want to play a campaign where it's The Sopranos, but Everyone is Tony.

Second, it just felt like they only said it to hammer home that they don't want you to play Superheroes With Fangs like you did in late-era original World of Darkness. I get it, White Wolf, I promise to be good, I will not play a guy who carries a sword around in his coat.

I just want to point out here that Requiem Second Edition removes the whole "Your soul is dead and your emotional maturity is frozen" thing, and also very carefully avoids stating that a blood point is a pint of blood, but is merely "The amount of blood that would result in an injury that could heal in the amount of time it would take to heal one lethal health level of whatever severity you inflict during feeding." In Requiem 2e it's entirely possible to live as a vampire with two people to feed from voluntarily, take a blood point from each of them on alternating days, basically be the equivalent of a light cold on both of them, and otherwise do no harm.

...

Also, unrelated to that and on the Hunter art thing, my understanding is that some of the team wanted an action game and some of the team wanted a psychological thriller underdogs game where violence is the refuge of the desperate and doomed, and it was decided to split the difference and make the art the action game and the text the desperate psychological doomed thriller game. My suspicion is that it was split that way because, back when Hunter: The Requiem was being published and FLGSs were a thing and people bought books because they flipped through them at the game store and thought they looked cool, a game book's art was basically its attract mode.

Stephenls
Feb 21, 2013
[REDACTED]

RocknRollaAyatollah posted:

In the Revised book Time of Thinblood, a Malkavian scientist brings the game mechanics into the universe and essentially quantifies blood points as a unit of potency in terms of vampire use, not physical amount. They call them Vitae Efficacy Units. https://whitewolf.fandom.com/wiki/Vitae_Efficacy_Unit

Elders are basically hybird cars to a neonate's pickup truck.

Dr. Netchurch was a Masquerade NPC. I was talking about Requiem. Different setting, different assumptions about vampire nature.

Stephenls
Feb 21, 2013
[REDACTED]
And don't forget the occasional Difficulty 10 roll, which in ones-subtract-successes land always had a precisely equal chance of succeeding or botching no matter your dice pool.

Stephenls
Feb 21, 2013
[REDACTED]
I'm not sure one should put much stock in that documentary.

Stephenls
Feb 21, 2013
[REDACTED]
I believe Grabowski also had concerns about how starting off with the DBs and introducing the Solars later would result in cries of power creep and people complaining about the game is supposed to be about DBs, so why do they suck so much and why have you made all the character types introduced in supplements so much more powerful than the characters the game is ostensibly supposed to be about? Doing the Solars first did an end-run around that.

Stephenls fucked around with this message at 22:37 on Jul 11, 2019

Stephenls
Feb 21, 2013
[REDACTED]

Nessus posted:

On the other hand, Solars' shockingly generic tool kits would have probably shined a lot better if there was a more strongly established setting.

Scavenger Sons came out literally one month after the 1e corebook.

Stephenls
Feb 21, 2013
[REDACTED]

PurpleXVI posted:

There was the weird fiat currency aside in the core book

You mean the one that was cut from the manuscript before publication?

(Also I'm kind of legit curious what you mean by "magical realm garbage," since you seem to deploy the phrase "magical realm" like it's referring to a specific problem fiction trope or something whoever's reading your posts is supposed to be familiar with the meaning of, and I've never heard it before. Like is that a thing?)

Stephenls fucked around with this message at 19:58 on Jul 13, 2019

Stephenls
Feb 21, 2013
[REDACTED]
Oh, yeah. That makes sense. Geoff Grabowski's formal education is in economics, and a lot of Exalted is "An economist tries to show up fantasy writers."

Stephenls
Feb 21, 2013
[REDACTED]

SunAndSpring posted:

It's really bizarre how, for the last stretch of 2e, the devs thought Infernals were the most popular splat of that edition, and then they did some actual polling and it turns out it was just a bunch of really vocal weirdos who liked the weirdly codified and rigid structure of the charms and demons in general drowning out the majority, and most people didn't really like them at all because of those first chapters to their book being insanely bad.

also hmm do I even care to do more of the stupid Realm book, I think reading through the rest of the provinces gives me the impression that none get very good. None of the cities are giving any really defining traits beyond "this is the city of weaving! this is the city where people gently caress a lot once a year!" The one I liked the most, Chanos, was good because it actually had poo poo that made it feel like a city; districts, multiple businesses, and so on. I honestly feel like I don't exactly like the extremely pared down approach of Exalted 3e to back-story stuff, as while it's an improvement over 2e's meticulous and boring prose, it mostly just hints at poo poo without ever giving any possibility as to what that poo poo is and that feels very dull. I'm not going to be wowed by all these references to "the ghost-faced warriors of Ithen" if they're never going to get a write-up because writing my own poo poo up and explaining it to the players is hard.

I've been waiting for someone to get to reviewing the satrapies, myself, but everyone seems to burn out before getting there.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Stephenls
Feb 21, 2013
[REDACTED]
There's also the slight complication that Requiem was released as:

Vampire: The Requiem (1st Edition)
The Stryx Chronicles (written as an intended 2nd edition by OPP, and then CCP didn't give them clearance to release it as a 2nd edition so they just released it as one anyway with a title that didn't have "2nd edition" in it)
Vampire: The Requiem 2nd Edition (The Stryx Chronicles with like one new appendix because CCP changed their mind about new editions of the nWoD games)

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5