To put this into perspective I feel like I'm an Elderly person being forced into a nursing home so my family doesn't have to deal with me any more and I'm not in their way any more.
And that is just how threads like this make me feel. Other feel more like I'm going to be taken as some political prisoner for disagreeing with the government.
I have never felt so alienated as this community makes me feel right now. This has stopped being a community where we have arguments where we say "You are wrong and this is why." The arguments have become "You are wrong and you are a terrible person for feeling the way you do."
I get it, the arguments are never so blunt and cruel as that, but it is how they read to me and to others. Telling us our game is some how harmful to your game is telling us that our feelings are harmful to you. It is especially painful when we feel that our game can't exist without your game, as ours uses yours not only as a foundation but to provide meaning to ours.
Holy cats, it's a let's-play-make-believe game, man. Go outside, watch the clouds, tell someone you care about how much they mean to you. Take a break if the forums are stressing you out so much.
In short, while a new edition might be something that not everyone can get into, I think that it beats having the game die flatout. Which was pretty much assured.
2e wasn't anywhere close to dead when we pulled the plug on it-- quite the opposite, it was selling like hotcakes. And we could have certainly run at least another couple of years of supplements out of it without straining for ideas. We ended it and moved to 3e because we wanted to actually enjoy producing material again, without having to constantly errata other people's work or retcon dumb stuff or reach around our elbows to make the combat engine kinda sorta work.
Honestly, I'm not even entirely sure that it's going to be "It's own game," at least not anymore than 2e was its own game compared to 3e. Yes, a lot of things are changing, but I haven't seen anything that makes me think that the end-result isn't going to be Exalted.
If it is, I'll judge it on its own merits, but I'm quite well-disposed toward it as I'm quite fond of the game that would have inspired it (Exalted 1st edition, and to some extent 2e as well), and have found the Developers thoughts and insights on where they're going more than interesting.
But, only time will tell.
Oh, no, it's still going to be Exalted. I'm not disputing that. But the differences are starting to look staggering to the point that we're looking at nearly oWoD/nWoD levels of differentiation.
Consider for a moment all the things that are changing. The focus is shifting to be more about kingdoms and personalities instead of powers. The most powerful beings are fading into the background of the setting. Charms in general are being reined in.There will be at least two more kinds of Exalts.There is no Thousand Streams River. Sidereals are getting dedicated antagonists. Abyssals no longer draw thematic inspiration from the Void. And so on.
There are so many differences. It is still going to be recognizably Exalted for sure, but it's going to be a vastly different critter as compared to 2E.
(points to underlined sections) You're describing 1e, there.
2e was the point of radical departure from the core tenets of Exalted. 3e is a reinforcement of them
I made a topic a while back about how the changes to Taboo Inflicting Diatribe in 3E could be potentially back-converted and improve use of it in 2E.
Similarly, for those people that do want to have their players go up against a Yozi or Incarna, whilst the conversion is likely to take a reasonable bit of work, the writeups for those from 2E are likely to be a reasonable starting point.
Heh, "a reasonable bit of work" in this case would be "starting over from scratch," pretty much. Those are not going to convert cleanly at all-- the system framework is not designed for the kind of tactics those things were built around.
Well I mean, not if you want them to work properly. Doing a quick and dirty conversion that results in poor-quality material is, as always, pretty easy.
My speculation on Minor vs. Major Intimacies is that the distinction exists to create a divide between a woman's fondness for cats (minor) and her love for her baby (major). In 2nd edition social combat the two intimacies have equal value* which is kind of silly and the only way you can get her to love her kids more than cats without magic is to work them into her Motivation but that's pretty damn clumsy, especially if she was an established NPC with goals before she had a child.
*before willpower expenditure at least, but that should be an executive veto rather than a fallback from the system not making as much sense as it should.
I can't say for sure without seeing the system, but comparing it to the charm presented yesterday, I was surprised at how high the mote cost was. Is treating someone as having a minor Intimacy they don't have really going to be that big a swing in the system that it's worth 6 motes, when Taboo Inflicting Diatribe only costs 3 motes and 1 willpower?
What does mote regain look like in 3e?
What about Willpower regain?
How often do you use social influence actions to get what you want? Recall that 2e social combat magic was metered around the idea of two guys beating eachother over the head with repeated social rolls. What might this visibly different pricing indicate?
And what if the Taliban member have a major Intimacy (hate) about your kind of people?
I'm an Eclipse. Socialize Charms 101 says I am a part of his culture.
And what if he's properly paranoid and enjoys benefits of Major Intimacy (distrust - strangers)? It's not really a culture.
I think that if it is a conditional effect - it needs to be pretty powerful and bypassing simple means to make it fail.
Not a "minor" and not "may fail if someone just hate your hair color or the way you are dressing".
It might still work. People can have contradictory feelings. Maybe if you roll well enough, you can still get them to not kill you, as long as you have a foot-in-the-door intimacy.
When I use a heavily conditional Solar Charm I expect it not just "probably work".
I expect it to crush the opposition.
I expect it to work greatly and without ant "ifs".
We discovered that a set that was full of nothing but this? It was boring, as it simply bypassed most conflict and storytelling.
To the degree that people are calibrating this against 2e social combat, I would say that your basic social combat attack in 2e is about on par with some of the stronger social magic in 3e. Your basic, meat-and-potatoes 2e social attack could make a complete stranger murder and eat his wife, then sell his children into slavery, based on a single dice roll.
Social influence actions don't really work that way.
This feels like something a skilled mortal should be able to do. If someone shows up on my doorstep unannounced and asks to be let in, I'll shut the door. If they bring up the fact that it is Passover and I'm supposed to let them in, even though I'm an Atheist I still will. My culture is a strong part of me, even though all of its traditions are not.
You don't follow all your cultural traditions, I'm willing to bet. The fact that you can point to one that you would honor even though it doesn't make sense doesn't change that.
Take me, for example. I live in the ass end of the boonies in Eastern Kentucky. It goes without saying that we have some less then savory traditions that are appalling to anyone who isn't a racist ass hole. If a random person walks up to me on the street and tried to get me to do something based on those traditions, I would probably deck them. But this charm would give me an intimacy towards those traditions that I don't normally have.
I privately think of this Charm as "the one that lets me get away with all kinds of shit anywhere I go in Halta, as long as I can relate what I want to hating the Linowan."
I'm definitely liking what I see of the way these new Charms are designed to encourage interesting play, rather than bypassing it entirely.
A minor Intimacy doesn't exactly sound like a big deal, especially for a Solar Charm, but I'm curious what it means in the new social influence system. I imagine a free Intimacy can be pretty handy, even if it's only minor.
Put it this way: When you get to the "I make a roll to make him do what I want him to do" part of the social system, if you have no Intimacies to play with, you can't do much more than bum bus money off of someone.*
Well okay, it can be Adventure Time too. BEHOLD THE ADVENTURES OF A SOLAR, ABYSSAL, AND LUNAR!
But no, rather, it's CHARM PREVIEW TIME!
Let the Charm preview commence:
Skillful Imposition Method
Cost: 6m; Mins: Socialize 3, Essence 2; Type: Supplemental Keywords: None Duration: Instant Prerequisite Charms: Mastery of Small Manners
People are products of their environment. The Solar can bend an individual to his will by exploiting the mores, beliefs, and customs that color that personâ€™s background. This Charm may supplement any social action that plays on a belief, law, custom, or social taboo held by a group to which the target belongs. The social action treats the individual as having a minor Intimacy dedicated to that social element, even if he doesnâ€™t.
For example, a Solar attempts to convince a barbarian living in a cave high in the mountains to give him shelter from a coming storm. Knowing that the barbarianâ€™s people have a strong custom of hospitality in the face of danger, the Solar uses this Charm while citing the custom; even if the barbarian doesnâ€™t care about his peopleâ€™s customs, he treats the Solarâ€™s request as though it is exploiting a minor Principle of â€œhospitality must be offered in the face of danger.â€ Attempting to use the Charm in the same way on a Guild merchant from Nexus would be fruitless, however, as neither Nexus nor the Guild practices any hospitality customs.
In truth, obviously beneficial policies are fairly rare. Even in our own modern state, we argue ceaselessly about various policies that have multiple levels of complicated nuance.
Alice:"So I can ask them to do that, and after a few weeks they'll realize it's beneficial and I can leave them, right?" Bob:"Beneficial? Seriously? Okay listen-" Steve:"No Bob shut the fuck up we're not having a debate on welfare state at my gaming table." Bob:"What? But-" Steve:"Nope, not euthanasia either." Bob:"But she can't-" Steve:"Swords control is also out limits." Bob:"...you're taking all the fun out of this, you know." Steve:"For once I would like to have a goddamn rpg session and not a political debate."
Entirely, deadpan serious - yes, this is the dillema I am describing. :P
Maybe it'd work well to have it based purely upon perception. IE; even a actively detrimental policy could be thought by a plurality of the group to be positive, or vice versa.
This neatly sidesteps the issue of objective appraisal by placing the merit of the policy in the eye of the beholder.
It also raises some intriguing possibilities when paired with other charms, or when considered in the context of propaganda.
A viable play strategy might literally be to tell a lie big enough, long enough, so that eventually everybody believes it.
The 'subsidies' thing of the 2e High First Age Usurpation might be taken as an example of this...
As time goes on, you'll notice that 3e trends toward two ideas: "Words mean what they say they mean" and "we believe your Storyteller not only has a brain, but also knows how to use it."
Any system that requires an organization to have a codified leader is going to fly in the face of social models where actions arise spontaneously out of larger social trends, or where leadership arises out of difficult-to-quantify interactions between a small-to-medium-sized group.
Such as the Guild's Directorate, or the Council of Entities. Yes.
I think John is talking about the difference between 'High Powered' as in "Redraw the map with enough effort, luck, planning and skill" and 'High Powered' as in "Split the planet in half with a karate chop".
Fist of the North Star, not Dragon Ball Z.
I could, of course, be wrong.
I'm not throwing any qualia out there. I am asking for specific examples. If you say you want it to be high level and I say "it will be high level," you might never get what you want because our ideas are different. If you don't abandon silly words that mean nothing because they are subjective values with no consensus, I can't understand what you are talking about. Not you personally, but just posters in general.
Or, instead of complaining about people not giving specific examples- because we don't have specific examples at this point and can only talk in generalities- why not try to answer the question as though we were all reasonable individuals capable of some degree of syntactical interpretation?
For example: someone asks if the game will be high-powered. Instead of saying "I can't answer that question because the term 'high-powered' is vague," like you're a computer getting messed up by a missing bracket in the code somewhere, you can say: "well, I'm not sure if I get what you mean by 'high-powered,' but if you're asking about what sorts of things you'll be able to accomplish at Essence X, you can generally expect..."
Or you could just say "I can't really answer that question right now, sorry," and ignore us. But telling us to refine our wording just makes me feel like I'm in philosophy class again... or like I'm playing an old text adventure game and can't remember the right command to examine a rock (it's LOOK you idiot, LOOK!).
Uh, or you could just specify whether you consider "high-powered" to mean "able to whip the ass of 20 men barehanded," (any character capable of this in WoD would be very stompy indeed) or "able to single-handedly fight armies," (pretty much nobody in WoD is capable of that, or most games for that matter-- and it is certainly something you can do in Exalted!) or "able to smash mountains in half with a single punch" (which is pretty freaking out there even for Exalted... but not, notably, for Aberrant, or Nobilis).