The Gaming Den

The "special cases asa basis for the story" trope is relly fucking annoying. When you are making a setting and then base the game/book/movie/whatever on something that isn't really part of it, you are just demonstaring your inability to produce stories using your own goddamn setting.

On the other hand, I think the original proposition was to merely let players decide on details like how their wereform exactly looks like, instead of anything actually vital. Dude A is a werewolf, dude B is a wereboar, but they are actually treated the same both by the rules and the people in the setting.

Exactly - having various different wereforms is no more a shattering of conceptual space than having Pinnochio and the Android from Metropolis both be the same type of Promethean. It may be "build your own bear", but it isn't "build your own anything" - you're still lunar powered, you're still hurt by silver and alchohol, you're still a Were. As for how much choice in abilities that gives you, that's up to the game design - it isn't necessarily any more than what anyone else has.

I also think that while you want the major players to be in a framework, it doesn't matter so much for the monster of the week. When you're dealing politically with someone, you need an idea where they fit into things. When you're just trying to slay/escape/clean up after some shadow guy who's running around eating hearts, it doesn't matter exactly what his taxonomy is.

One idea is to extend the conceptual space. You could for instance have a subset of Ventrue where you introduce Lasombra, Tzmisce and True Ventrue. Daeva and Nosferatu could similarly have three subsets. And that may be a good idea if you want to have the ability to run a vampire focused game for instance.

Really I don't think werewolves need to have three categories as written in aWoD, and those should really be subcategories, and maybe we could have three changing breeds as supercategories instead. werewolves, werebears and probably wererats might be our basic three, with Get of Fenris, and the other two subcategories I can't remember.

Since unlike oWoD, aWoD werewolves aren't innately connected to anything in particular, so unless you're talking about a werewolf only game, getting into detail about what kind of werewolf someone is probably isn't a necessary level of detail.

The idea though is that the level of extensibility should be optional. If people don't want to play with Vampire subcategories and want to play a game of general monsters, they can. But if you wanted to do vampire only, you want more types of vampires to mix things up. Same with werewolf only. On the other hand if werewolves are only a tangental faction, then you can just go with "Seen one werewolf, seen 'em all." and just blanket them under one type.

Ideally I think it'd be best to be some kind of toolkit to expand your world, and that shit only actually exists if your DM tries to use it. So you either choose to use the book of vampires to make your world more vampire centric, or you don't. And if you don't then clan Lasombra doesn't actually exist in your campaign at all. And that means that your WoD can be as complicated or as simple as you want and focus on one or many monster types as you want. The only real drawback is that hurts character transferability, but honestly, I don't think many people care much about that at all.

Prak_Anima wrote:thanks koumei.

I don't follow you Grek. how the hell does replacing one or two types suddenly turn things into MIB vrs. Monster of the Week? How the hell does making every Lycanthrope Steve make everyone Steve?

I was working under the assumption this was for taking all of the cool and interesting supernaturals in all of the WoD settings and trying to make them fit into a single game all at once. If you play that without extra mindwiping, you get a mess like Frank described. If you get the extra mindwiping, you get MIB where you have supernaturals running around trying to stop other supernaturals from blowing their cover and then mindwiping anyone that finds out.

If this is not for that and we are justing stating out and discussing what things we would cut instead of our personal favorites and then writing up stat blocks and fluff so we can run that game later on, than ignore the MIB thing because that isn't going to happen if we are sticking with a set number of supernaturals.

Prak wrote:That's actual argument people have made against gay marriage, and it's patently ridiculous, while also derailing entire discussions.

Right. And you know why it's ridiculous and offensive? Because it equates behavior that is totally normal (dudes having sex with other dudes) with behavior that is totally unacceptable (dudes having sex with wild animals). It is the equivalency being claimed that makes that statement so very fucking offensive and so patently ridiculous. Those acts are not equivalent. One is repulsive and the other is normal. There is no rational discussion to be had on that point.

But the thing is that it's offensive no matter which direction people draw implications across that claimed equivalency. It's wrong when people say that they are both wrong because one is, and it is wrong when people say that they are both acceptable because one is.

Don't accuse me of making dog fucking equivalence arguments. I didn't do that. You did that. And I have not forgotten or forgiven that revolting tirade of yours. We can't have rational discussions about anything as long as you keep bringing up dog fucking every time someone disagrees with you.

Prak, you are on incredibly thin ice. If you so much as mention dog fucking again at any point in the near future, I am going to put you on ignore. There are lines that moral agents should not cross. You have been pissing all over those lines and it is totally not OK.

-Username17

Ice9 wrote: I also think that while you want the major players to be in a framework, it doesn't matter so much for the monster of the week. When you're dealing politically with someone, you need an idea where they fit into things. When you're just trying to slay/escape/clean up after some shadow guy who's running around eating hearts, it doesn't matter exactly what his taxonomy is.

This is wrong. It's actually much better if the monster of the week is a Daeva or a Verbana rather than a Steve. He can have plot decide artifacts and rituals, and maybe even a weird custom discipline if you want to push it. But ultimately it's best if he applies to a category.

See, if it's a Daeva running around eating hearts, then you have places t go with the story besides "track it, kill it, forget it."

-- you discover that a Daeva is behind the masquerade-threatening killings, and find the local daevas, and blackmail them into helping you put him down

-- you buy up anti-daeva stuff, which attracts the scrutiny of the local daeva community

-- having killed it, the daeva community owes you a favor, or, the local daeva boss now has it in for you.

-- you can frame the local daeva community for it to gain an advantage in political talks with the ventrue.

Off the top of my head, a number of ways the monster of the week plot gets more interesting when the monster ISN'T a Steve.

Frank that's totally wrong.

Some people really do find two guys having sex as totally unacceptable as a guy fucking a wolf. And some people are okay with the wolf thing and find it totally acceptable.

We really do have conversations about which is what, though admittedly, I never want to have such a conversation here.

More in line with Prak, it's totally acceptable to compare your opponents argument to a bad one about dog sex. The reason why his statement was bad was because it wasn't applicable. You can't say it is unacceptable for someone to be wrong about the facts present, you can only educate them, and to get all pissed off because he is wrong is silly.

As to the actual issue. Fuck Prak, just suck a nut already. Conceptual space is saying that I can't play a fucking Hacker in D&D. That's not crazy, it's not even something you can argue with, which is why you don't you just whine that you want to include stuff Frank doesn't.

That's great and fine. So you know what you do, you don't try to make Frank do it.

Present a complete idea of what you want to include. Then when you or someone else (Frank) has made the mechanics for the system, build your own freaking creature and present it as a houserule addition to the material.

Look at the Tome pdf, it's got a bunch of shit Frank didn't make. He probably hates at least one of those classes. But please stop whining about how you think that game needs something else in it.

In this case, this thread is sort of useful, in that it could be a compilation of addition that other people wanted to make to aWoD. But unfortunately for us all, you had to start it off by criticizing the idea of conceptual space, and therefore we get to argue about that instead.

Am I the only one who finds it hilarious that Frank has invented a new form of Godwin's Law?

Ice9 wrote:Man, things were going along so nicely, and then boom, flamewar about conceptual space, everyone dies.

Look, conceptual space is like a stew. If you put everything that tastes good in one stew, it will be a mess. But that doesn't mean you have to only keep one stew's worth of ingredients in your kitchen - you can make different stews on different days, each with a reasonable number of ingredients, but not always the same ingredients.

Or to put it in less metaphorical terms, there's plenty of conceptual room for snake leviathans if you kick out the existing bug leviathans, and that's a choice that can be made on a campaign to campaign basis. For that matter, you don't have to maintain parity between types in a given campaign - if you kick out leviathans and prometheans entirely, that gives you more room for alternate were and vampire types. The only reason not to have all the "understudy" monsters in the main thread is that it would make things confusing, so that's why they're here - in a separate thread.

exactly. I understand conceptual space, I suppose I misspoke for effect.

FrankTrollman wrote:Prak, you are on incredibly thin ice. If you so much as mention dog fucking again at any point in the near future, I am going to put you on ignore. There are lines that moral agents should not cross. You have been pissing all over those lines and it is totally not OK.

Alright, fucking stop it Frank. You're the fucker who brought it up this time through a misinterpretation of what I was actually saying. This is seriously getting to the point where all you're doing is displaying how much the subject of dog fucking pisses you off, because I made a comment (incorrectly, albeit) comparing your comment to faulty arguments against gay marriage, and what happened? You went off on dog sex. You brought it up either because you're seriously that damned touchy, or are apparently very fond of poisoning wells when someone's said something you can't argue against. So seriously Frank, when the subject originally came up, I made an argument based on an incorrect interpretation of the game world, but it was fucking perfectly valid for that interpretation. I don't support people fucking animals, on the very fact that animals can't consent. If animals had human intelligence and can communicate, I cease to care, but those are very specifically different cases.

So you know what, frank? Fuck off. You're the one on incredibly thin ice because character assassination pisses me the fuck off.

This thread is starting to anger me. For almost a page, we were having a nice discussion about alternate supernatural types you can use instead of or in addition to the ones in aWoD. It was interesting, I was enjoying it. It was not an argument about how to use those alternate supernaturals, because different people can do different things without having a flameware about it.

Then BOOM! Fucking pointless argumentation begins, and suddenly the thread is all about conceptual space and screwing dogs.
From this point forward, if your post is not about alternate supernatural types for aWoD you can just fuck right off.

Ice9 wrote:This thread is starting to anger me. For almost a page, we were having a nice discussion about alternate supernatural types you can use instead of or in addition to the ones in aWoD. It was interesting, I was enjoying it. It was not an argument about how to use those alternate supernaturals, because different people can do different things without having a flameware about it.

Then BOOM! Fucking pointless argumentation begins, and suddenly the thread is all about conceptual space and screwing dogs.
From this point forward, if your post is not about alternate supernatural types for aWoD you can just fuck right off.

In other words, a repeat of the last thread and Rule 34 getting invoked?

I find it hilariously awful that someone comparing one kind of horrid slippery slope argument (if one person is a Steve, everyone is) to another he didn't believe himself but was quoting (if men can marry men, they can marry dogs) becomes 'supporting dog fucking' (as opposed to 'mocking terrible arguments') and then leads to a bunch of spammed drivel that can essentially be summarized as 'NO YOU' over and over.

Seriously, what the fuck?

You can play whatever the fuck you want in aWoD. You just have to use the rules for one of the established supernaturals.

Boom, problem sort of solved.

Free-form monsters is different.

In that game we have to look at other things, like "Power Source" or.... "Racial Type"

So, you can be a Werewolf, Zombie, Cyborg, but you "count" as a Cyborg, you're a part organic, part mechanical "thing." You might have an infected bite, or that your organic parts no longer matter if they're blow off, but you're still a cyborg. Also, you look like a wolf...man, thing.

You can't have a creature that is were-wolf, and zombie, and cyborg all at the same time, a Lunar Powersource, a Death Powersource, and a Tech Powersource is two Powersources too many.

This can't be Rifts where PCs just keep throwing OOCs at a character until they have whatever powers they want, b/c at that point you need to assume that everyone has the same option as the PCs.

Manbearpig is obviously a Lunar Powered creature. Since he's a Were-something.

He's got speed boosts (hooves, recumbant knees); he's armoured (thick fur); he's muscular and strong (muscles, slabs of muscles); he's got weapons (claws, hooves), but no bite (manling head); but smart (manling head); also, good hearing (extra sensors:(ears) ).

Does that work for everyone?

Judging__Eagle wrote:Manbearpig is obviously a Lunar Powered creature. Since he's a Were-something.

He's got speed boosts (hooves, recumbant knees); he's armoured (thick fur); he's muscular and strong (muscles, slabs of muscles); he's got weapons (claws, hooves), but no bite (manling head); but smart (manling head); also, good hearing (extra sensors:(ears) ).

Does that work for everyone?

No, he's more of a half-bear, half-pig man. He's not a lycanthrope because he doesn't transform into anything. He's almost certainly Wilds-associated, though (he's from Imagination). I think you're probably right on everything else.

If he doesn't transform and he is some sort of half-human half-animal, it's actually a levathian.

CatharzGodfoot wrote:Am I the only one who finds it hilarious that Frank has invented a new form of Godwin's Law?

No, because it reminds me of the things we saw in the police academy's sex crimes class... "That is NOT how you marinate a chicken, Naked European Farmer!" Do not want.

Well, I usually am right on everything else. [/puffs out chest]

Lol.

I really hate bringing this up, but I think that dhampirs need mentioning. On the one hand, you have a good bit of folklore to support this, as well as Blade. On the other hand, you have... I don't think I need to bring up the negatives of having half-vampires.

However, if a player wants to play one, and the character description doesn't revolt the Storyteller, I would treat them as member of the Fallen Transhumans.

IB90 wrote:I really hate bringing this up, but I think that dhampirs need mentioning. On the one hand, you have a good bit of folklore to support this, as well as Blade. On the other hand, you have... I don't think I need to bring up the negatives of having half-vampires.

However, if a player wants to play one, and the character description doesn't revolt the Storyteller, I would treat them as member of the Fallen Transhumans.

I think that works, they are immortal due to a "magical event" and could easily grab some of the main vamp powers as their choices.