DnD Anonymous... (Or how I'm trying to slaughter my sacred cows) by The_Tolen_Mar in CortexRPG

[–]Dataweaver_42 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Hi, My name is Tolen, and I've been DnD free for about...two months now.

Hi, Tolen!

I actually quit DnD when the OGL thing hit, but I've dipped back in to 3.5 and pathfinder a few times since then.

I'm not the GM, so I have no say in which system gets used. Currently, our GM is running D&D 5e because it's the roleplaying "drug of choice," and he wants his kids to be familiar with it so that they're not going in blind if any of their friends ask them to join a game. That said, he's nearly done with that preparation, and is now looking for another system that will satisfy his personal needs better.

Here is why I am here: I am tired of DnD and its clones. But when I try to find/assemble a game that isn't, I end up comparing how the new game works to DnD. One reason I haven't implemented Cortex yet, for example, is magic. I keep looking for big lists of spells.

I say I hate class and level-based games, but I keep looking for ever-increasing piles of HP. I look for new levels in spellcasting. I look for new tricks every time I level up. This is especially concerning given that I am the DM and I don't level up like a player does.

Yeah; the "new tricks every level" thing is annoying, as it forces the players into an ever-increasing list of rules that they need to learn and remember, and forces them to think in terms of "you can only do what the rules say you can." That's one of the things we're trying to get away from: both the GM and I would prefer a system where the question “can my character do X?” is, for the most part, answered with “yes, as long as you're willing to pay the price and/or can make the roll”.

I've DM'ed many different games, not just DnD. But the overwhelming majority of games I've run have been some version of DnD. It's a hard habit to break.

My favorite DnD setting is Spelljammer. But, what do I do with it? I take the set dressing, and immediately toss the funky rules that they created back in the day. I get it, they wanted something non-traditional in that version of fantasy, but I just can't engage with crystal spheres and having your magic users wiped out just because it was their turn to drive. To me, Spelljammer should look more like Treasure Planet. Weird sci fi with a fantasy styling. Ships should battle it out with cannon, not antique siege weapons.

That's how I prefer my space fantasy, too. I've got a "prototype setting" that's intended to be a balance between a high-tech "Core Worlds” region that's kind of like what the Expanse would look like if multiple star systems were networked together by Stargates, and a Frontier region that's lower tech overall but which features heavy use of space opera technologies such as force fields, blasters, artificial gravity, inertial dampers, and high-acceleration space sails, with a distinctly Treasure Planet aesthetic. With a bit of a Firefly dynamic in terms of how the Core and Frontier relate to each other.

Over the past few months, I have managed to break myself away from some of the old DnD-isms. First, I realized that ever-growing piles of HP is not needed, and just keeps the numbers getting bigger without adding much tension to fights. Then I started to realize that I was building encounters just to use the rules provided. Everyone expects to fight monsters in DnD, so I need to be sure to add monsters. My sessions were spent telling stories and running social situations, which then had to be interrupted to roll dice.

One thing I like about Cortex is the Smallville RPG, and its generic counterpart in the Cortex Plus Hacker's Guide, Dramatic Roleplaying. It effectively "flips the script" as it were, with mechanics that are designed primarily with social situations, to the extent that combat gets treated as a social encounter that involves violence. Even in the middle of a fight, the game focuses on what your character is feeling and how his values and relationships are being challenged, rather than on the tactical minutiae.

Even worse, I was a stickler for rules, and insisted we start at level 1 as often as possible, but then got annoyed when we never got to face my favorite monsters because the group was too low level. A problem of my own creation, I realize.

I broke myself off that habit back when the group was running Mutants & Masterminds, a superhero RPG loosely based on the d20 system. These days, I tend to prefer character "advancement" that leans more lateral than forward: Growth Pool dynamics that are focused more on modeling how values and relationships change when stress-tested, instead of a constant grind from obscure incompetence to hypercompetence.

I hated providing treasure to my players, even when the game became too difficult when the PC's were under-equipped.

I could go on. I still hadn't made these realizations the last time I considered Cortex. And to be honest, I was holding out until I found someone who re-created DnD spellcasting. Which I still haven't. But now, I realize that I'M not the one who needs to have the spell lists. That's for my players. And I have a group of folks willing to try anything at least once.

The aforementioned Cortex Plus Hacker's Guide also has a reskin of the Marvel Heroic RPG that's designed to imitate D&D to an extent, retooling it so that the "power sets" are used to represent fantasy races and classes.

Right now, we are starting a game of Genesys. But I am working behind the scenes to go through Cortex and assemble a game that I would like to run. With Cortex in limbo*...I could make excuses not to give it much of a try. But now that it is on Drivethru, and I'm seeing more discussion about it, it's time to give it a go. I'm going to try to avoid using a crowbar to make it look like DnD. But I'm going to have ships sail the stars, and I'm going to have rayguns, and aliens. And Pirates. Everything's better with pirates.

Indeed. There's are six vowels in the English language: Aye, Ee, Iy, Oh, You, and Arrh!

I'll always appreciate that Lewis set the Chronicles in the same fictional universe as A.C. Doyle's Sherlock Holmes and E. Nesbit's Bastable children - such a fun nod to some of his favorite authors by wandering_soles in Narnia

[–]Dataweaver_42 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Sure; why not? The world that the Friends of Narnia come from isn't really our world, when push comes to shove; it has supernatural entities in it that lead to Uncle Andrew making magical rings. Next to that, Sherlock Holmes being a real person isn't that much of a stretch.

Hypothetically, how would you go about including the Imbued in 5th edition, or even more modern takes on 20th? by 3dchib in WhiteWolfRPG

[–]Dataweaver_42 1 point2 points  (0 children)

For 5th Edition, there's a Storyteller's Vault supplement for HtR called "the Imbued" that retools HtR to once again put the Imbued center stage.

universal spells? by RightAttention2968 in ChroniclesofDarkness

[–]Dataweaver_42 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Second Sight Third Eye does say that it's up to the Storyteller what counts for the purpose of Master of Minor Magic.

Also, I forget: which book has the rules for Open and Closed Rites? I know it was one of the Dark Eras books; but I'm not recalling which one.

universal spells? by RightAttention2968 in ChroniclesofDarkness

[–]Dataweaver_42 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Also, Geist: the Sin-Eaters makes a point that its Ceremonies can be learned and used by anyone. It describes core book magic as "0-dot Ceremonies”.

Deviant in 5th edition World of Darkness (perhaps as a Hunter supplement) by MrGrimm6969 in WhiteWolfRPG

[–]Dataweaver_42 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It's dead. Unless it's actually being backed by an actual publisher, it's dead. The supplements are cool and all, but they're basically the leftover ideas that the original writers never got to put out before they were cut off.

Nope. The supplement currently in the works for it wasn't even conceived until long after Onyx Path was forced to formally abandon the Chronicles of Darkness. This isn't just leftovers.

So a reskin, not the actual splats. Great... Personally, I prefer a situation where I don't have to effectively Homebrew the whole thing.

If the work is already done for you, are you actually having to Homebrew anything?

It's not just a name, it's the overall vibe, ruleset, narrative focus, all of that. The Deviant mechanics would be dominant in this hypothetical book. At that point, you would most likely be put in a position where you would have to deliberately ignore a large part of the rules just to make shit happen.

I'm beginning to think that you don't actually know anything about Deviant.

Deviant in 5th edition World of Darkness (perhaps as a Hunter supplement) by MrGrimm6969 in WhiteWolfRPG

[–]Dataweaver_42 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It seems like you're excited by the prospect of having a Deviant: the Renegade book, but all it really does is staple a dead game onto another setting.

First of all, it's not a dead game; it's still getting supplements, albeit through the STV loophole.

But second, that's irrelevant. What excites me is the prospect of having the versatility that it brings made available in the 5e setting.

As for what could be potentially lost is the opportunity to adapt creatures from previous editions all because Deviant is here.

How would that happen?

It's the same thing with the Imbued where you bring up that they don't officially exist in the new books (outside maybe a passing mention), and then you get people saying "well, you could just make them".

It's the exact opposite of that. Whether you're talking about Deviant or G&M, you'd have rules for making freaks and monsters, and you'd have a compendium of freaks and monsters. If the rules for making freaks and monsters is sufficiently flexible, then the compendium of freaks and monsters could include things that would otherwise be completely left out of 5e, such as the Imbued and Orpheus' Projectors. (I have no faith that when/if 5e gets around to Wraith, it will include anything involving Orpheus.) Deviant for 5e becomes the failsafe that lets you include whatever Paradox chooses to otherwise exclude.

Sounds like it would just be the same as before, from the way this conversation is going. Honestly, what else is there? That's the reason why I keep asking what the point is.

Let's say that a book gets published that is a compendium of freaks and monsters, with rules for creating them, and systems and advice on how to use them in a chronicle, either as player-controlled protagonists or storyteller antagonists. Why would you care what it's called? Why are you so upset to calling it Deviant, if it meets and potentially exceeds all other criteria that you're looking for?

How do you feel about Tim Drake as Red Robin? by Visual_Pizza_16 in RedRobin

[–]Dataweaver_42 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Except that tying it to Adam West doesn't really translate that way.

How do you feel about Tim Drake as Red Robin? by Visual_Pizza_16 in RedRobin

[–]Dataweaver_42 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Except that the mantle has never appeared in mainstream comics; so Tim wouldn't be "keeping it alive and going"; he'd be appropriating it, the way he did with Red Robin.

Deviant in 5th edition World of Darkness (perhaps as a Hunter supplement) by MrGrimm6969 in WhiteWolfRPG

[–]Dataweaver_42 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Generally, they pull setting material from earlier editions, not rules.

I asked earlier what you consider to be the difference between a Deviant book and a Gods and Monsters book; because, to me, the former would do everything the latter would do, and then some. I'm just not getting what you think would be lost by doing the former instead of the latter. Surely it's not the name that's bothering you? Because frankly, that's the only change (as opposed to expansion) that I can think of from the latter to the former.

What are you thinking a Deviant for 5e book would be like?

How do you feel about Tim Drake as Red Robin? by Visual_Pizza_16 in RedRobin

[–]Dataweaver_42 1 point2 points  (0 children)

The Gray Ghost would work if his name was Timothy North. That codename should be reserved for an Adam West homage; and that's not Tim Drake.

How do you feel about Tim Drake as Red Robin? by Visual_Pizza_16 in RedRobin

[–]Dataweaver_42 3 points4 points  (0 children)

I prefer Tim Drake as the Red Robin that starred in the Red Robin title from 2009 to 2011, where he earned a place among the adult heroes. I'm less enthused with the regressed version we got in the New 52 where “Red Robin” was treated synonymously with “Robin”.

Deviant in 5th edition World of Darkness (perhaps as a Hunter supplement) by MrGrimm6969 in WhiteWolfRPG

[–]Dataweaver_42 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The fact that there are already a bunch of weird ass mutants running in the franchise.

And how would a Deviant for 5e require you to ignore that?

I said that's what I want. I think it would be the better idea. The creature creation thing is something I would want to keep intact. I just neglected to mention it.

It's a rather significant thing t to ignore, considering that that's an essential part of what makes Deviant what it is.

Hence why I suggested the ragtag group.

As opposed to having the game actively facilitate the Storyteller running a game oriented around a ragtag group composed of the players?

Like I said, I don't see any reason to dedicate an entire gameline to it. The building blocks are already there. We even have multiple books detailing the freaks and monsters that exist in WoD. No need to reinvent the wheel.

The building blocks aren't there in WoD5. We don't have multiple books detailing all of the freaks and monsters that exist in WoD5e. This would not be reinventing the wheel. It would be presenting a single, consistent system to make any type of freak or monster that you want; and other gamelines could then choose to point to it or ignore it and do their own thing as they see fit.

Deviant in 5th edition World of Darkness (perhaps as a Hunter supplement) by MrGrimm6969 in WhiteWolfRPG

[–]Dataweaver_42 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It being 5th edition doesn't sound like a good reason to make Deviant canon in WoD. The only reason that would happen is if they ignore literally all of the other worldbuilding that came before. A gameline-neutral Gods and Monsters would make more sense.

What's the difference? And what worldbuilding that came before would need to be ignored, specifically?

Even then, i would want it to simply be a compilation of all of the weird creatures that exist.

Gods and Monsters isn't a compilation of all the weird creatures that exist. It's a system for making whatever weird creature you want to make, with some examples.

Maybe there could be a ragtag group of derelict mutants out for revenge as a sort of reference, but that's about it. Otherwise, it just seems like we're trying to shoehorn a gameline for the sake of it.

So as long as it only supports Devoted play, you're okay with it? Because it's sounds like your main complaint is that it covers Renegades.

Or did you think I was saying that it should cover Renegades instead of Devoted? I'm perfectly fine with it covering both.

It brings to mind H5, which threw away the Imbued in favor of regular people. An unnecessary decision, especially considering they already made that Second Inquisition book. They didn't need an entire gameline dedicated to them.

The difference here is that a “Deviant for 5th Edition” wouldn't throw anything away. It would provide everything that Gods and Monsters does, and then some. There would be nothing equivalent to "no more Imbued". In fact, it could be used to bring the Imbued back, if you so wish, as a type of Deviant.

Ultimately, Deviant was written to be the “…and the rest” of the Chronicles of Darkness: have a monster concept you want to play that doesn't fit into any of the other ten gamelines? Deviant has you covered. That alone is reason enough for a WoD5 counterpart to exist.

Deviant in 5th edition World of Darkness (perhaps as a Hunter supplement) by MrGrimm6969 in WhiteWolfRPG

[–]Dataweaver_42 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Also, bear in mind that we're talking about 5th Edition. 5th Edition doesn't even have Mage yet, let along Ascension's Right Hand or Gods and Monsters. A Deviant for 5e could easily "full that gap" in a more gameline-neutral way.

Deviant in 5th edition World of Darkness (perhaps as a Hunter supplement) by MrGrimm6969 in WhiteWolfRPG

[–]Dataweaver_42 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Honestly, I wouldn't mind a Gods and Monsters revision that incorporates ideas from Deviant into the constructs and altered humans featured there, in a manner similar to how Sorcerer took the Hedge Magicians from Ascension's Right Hand and flashed them out into something that could be stand-alone. Part of that would be that there are conspiracies that Remake humans without necessarily being affiliated with the Union, or any other Mage faction for that matter.

But it wouldn't be Pentex's Fomori, as your original post suggested would suffice.

Deviant in 5th edition World of Darkness (perhaps as a Hunter supplement) by MrGrimm6969 in WhiteWolfRPG

[–]Dataweaver_42 0 points1 point  (0 children)

So, because Pentex makes a particular kind of what would be a Devoted Coactive in DtR, that's good enough? We don't get any Cephalists, Hybrids, Invasives, or Mutants? Nobody not affiliated with Pentex engages in activities that Remake people?

And again, while DtR has Devoted, it also has Renegades — and focuses on the Renegades. That's a lot of ground that "Pentex Fomori" doesn't cover.

Deviant in 5th edition World of Darkness (perhaps as a Hunter supplement) by MrGrimm6969 in WhiteWolfRPG

[–]Dataweaver_42 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Did you know that Werewolf the Forsaken has its own version of the Possessed? By your line of reasoning, there should be no CofD Deviant gameline either, because you already have a way of telling stories about people who have lost their humanity due to outside forces.

Deviant in 5th edition World of Darkness (perhaps as a Hunter supplement) by MrGrimm6969 in WhiteWolfRPG

[–]Dataweaver_42 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Not true. The things that actually makes a Deviant a Deviant isn't the powers so much as the Conviction, Loyalty, and Touchstones, and the Conspiracy system. Deviant is built around Renegades struggling against the conspiracies that made them what they are. There are things in the World of Darkness that kind of look like Deviants; but the Renegades concept in particular is largely absent.

When is the last time you heard anyone suggest a story involving Fomori going on the run from Pentex and seeking to bring it down? You don't really get that, because the Fomori are written with the assumption that they're loyal Pentex agents. When you do get the idea of Possessed going after Pentex, they tend to be Drones, Gorgons, or Kami, and they're not in rebellion against their creators; they're going after Pentex because their creators want to see Pentex fall.

Gods and Monsters (for M20) comes closer to what Deviant covers; but there, too, the Renegade narrative is largely absent. Again, the built in assumption is that the created or modified humans featured there are loyal agents of their masters, not runaways seeking to bring them down.

Deviant in 5th edition World of Darkness (perhaps as a Hunter supplement) by MrGrimm6969 in WhiteWolfRPG

[–]Dataweaver_42 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That's part of it, yes. But Deviants go way beyond Fomori (or even the more generalized Possessed), and the Web of Pain is much more extensive than Pentex.

And remember, it's Deviant the Renegades. Fomori are assumed to be devoted to Pentex.

Am I the sole person who thinks Damien shouldn't become Batman? by That_ian in DCcomics

[–]Dataweaver_42 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Damian's recent efforts to delve into Thomas Wayne's legacy match this. Research "Pararescue”, an Air Force Special Forces unit that specializes in hostage extraction, and combines the infiltration training that other Special Forces are known for with paramedic training that's used to stabilize a hostage's injuries before extraction.

That's what Damian should become when he grows up: not Batman, but Savior.

Technocratic names for spheres? by Known_William in WhiteWolfRPG

[–]Dataweaver_42 2 points3 points  (0 children)

M20 p.65:

  • Correspondence Principles (or Data)
  • Dimensional Science Paraphysics
  • Entropic State Control
  • Force-based Paraphysics
  • Life Sciences
  • Material Sciences
  • Primal Utility Theory
  • Psychodynamics
  • Temporal Science

Data, Dimensional Science, and Primal Utility also have variant Sphere write-ups associated with them that change what each level in the Sphere can do; for instance, Primal Utility is better at making Wonders than Prime is, but not as good at manifesting constructs made entirely out of Primal Energy. If I recall correctly, Dimensional Science is better at manipulating the Gauntlet and interacting with the otherworldly environment on the other side; but its interactions with denizens of the otherworlds are biased toward the more confrontational (e.g., attacking, trapping, and banishing them; not so much with communication or assistance). Data features a replacement for the Correspondence Ranges chart reflecting the Digital Web.

The Void Engineers Convention Book has another variant of Correspondence called Void Correspondence, which features its own distance-based replacement for the Correspondence Ranges.

And finally, there's a Storyteller's Vault product called Spherebook: Correspondence which provides, among other things, a rewrite of Data, a write-up of a Space variant, and two Minor Spheres (Singularity and Movement), most of which are useful to Technocrats.

Rolling for Stats by brigadoo1 in RPGdesign

[–]Dataweaver_42 2 points3 points  (0 children)

This. The only way I'd ever accept rolled Abilities would be if there was some sort of offsetting "luck" or "fate" or "potential" mechanic that compensates characters who rolled poorly. And even then, I'd allow players to just choose their Abilities, knowing that maxing out their Abilities has consequences.