General WoD Discussion #2: Its time to Celebrate!

[SiuiS]

Actually, that sort of works!

Seeing weird supernatural stuff constitutes a breaking point under the new system, which means that demonstrating your ability to set things on fire with your mind to someone has an unpleasantly high chance of causing them to freak out and hate or fear you, and then try to block out the memory entirely.


Anyway, my own two cents:

I'm of mixed feelings about this rules system. I'm trying to think of it as a new edition entirely, rather than a "rules update", because that makes it a little less raw, but:

*) I dislike the new reliance on Specialties without toning down base die pools, as I feel like they are going to encourage a lot of trying to game the narrative for an extra 2-4 dice, especially given the low cost of each specialty and ability to push them to two dice for the cost of a Skill dot. I like cross-applicable Specialties, though.
*) I like that combat is more lethal, but I dislike that guns are even more absurdly powerful compared to melee. Guns were already strong compared to melee, and the new changes make them death-throwers. Also I dislike that two roughly-equal characters are going to whiff at each other all day without hitting, while a slight advantage lets one guy pretty much win with impunity.
*) I like the new Virtues and Vices
*) I hate the new Social resolution mechanics
*) I dislike the goal system for combat, as I understand it, but I may have to re-read it to be sure.
*) I hate that all weapons always do lethal damage. I would instead suggest that an exceptional success always deals half its damage as lethal or something.
*) I like that the new Integrity system has aspects for "being driven mad"
*) I absolutely, utterly hate the new breaking point system, because it brutally penalizes people for playing innocent, sheltered or just normal characters by having them go totally insane early on in the game while the police officers and occultists waltz through the setting untouched.
*) I think that I like Aspirations
*) I like the group XP system and hate the personal XP system, as the personal system rewards players for trying to dominate the spotlight.
*) I have mixed feelings about the new XP costs. I like flat costs, but based on average costs in the old game, Merits and Willpower cost less than they used to, and specialties cost quite a lot more. Also Integrity costs a ton, which is horrible in conjunction with the fact that it can be reduced against your will and playing a more normal person makes it drop faster.

EDIT: Oh yeah, I forgot one! I feel as though most players are going to gain a heck of a lot more experience in this system, especially after a few sessions have passed. In nWoD, you're usually getting 3-4 XP per session, which is enough for a single specialty or the first dot of an Skill. Getting a fifth dot in a Skill, for example, takes about four sessions of work.

In GMC, you could conceivably get three experience points at the end of a five-scene session, and each of those is worth anywhere from 2-9 XP depending on what you spend it on.

... What? No, silly. You get 1/5th an experience point at a time. At the end of a five scene session, most players are getting two beats; 2/5ths of one experience point. Coupled with early entry costing more compared to regular nWoD, and you're actually getting experience slower.

The game is designed around beats. For quick and dirty math, assume one beat is an XP and multiply all costs by five for the actual parameters.


Guns really are that lethal compared to melee. It's genre appropriate.


The integrity system only punishes an innocent until they are not. They will break a few times and get cynical. Once they are jaded twir breaking points change; there is no difference between a cop with a body list and a school teacher with a body list, except the school teacher racked hers up during play instead of in backstory. You don't "lock yourself in" to being screwed forever with an innocent character in a long campaign, and in a short one, why play an innocent character if not to explore that they will slowly erode under the stress?

Regular nWoD assumed you woul slowly degrade too, it just punished you for it. Here, you get XP. Playing an innocent is an XP factory for a while. The entire point of Vice, Virtue, and beats as implemented is to get you to enjoy soon bad things to your character. To write a story more than to 'win'. It achieves that goal admirably.


I like the new social mechanic because its not new; it's a codified method of what we did anyway. Having the formula now just means I can relax in conveying my intentions.

[Leliel]

Ugh, these criticisms again.

Point-by-point.

*) I like that combat is more lethal, but I dislike that guns are even more absurdly powerful compared to melee. Guns were already strong compared to melee, and the new changes make them death-throwers. Also I dislike that two roughly-equal characters are going to whiff at each other all day without hitting, while a slight advantage lets one guy pretty much win with impunity.

It's called realism, class. Guns were invented for a reason. What's more, you're supposed to spend Willpower or use dirty tactics in a fight: Nobody in the nWoD fights in a white room unless it's a duel, which aren't generally meant to kill people.

*) I hate that all weapons always do lethal damage. I would instead suggest that an exceptional success always deals half its damage as lethal or something.

Yeah, sure. Bludgeoning weapons will screw you up bad, there's a reason using them in an assault charge makes the charge worse. You wear armor for these things.

*) I absolutely, utterly hate the new breaking point system, because it brutally penalizes people for playing innocent, sheltered or just normal characters by having them go totally insane early on in the game while the police officers and occultists waltz through the setting untouched.

Meanwhile, in the real world, that's kinda what we expect police officers to do. And doctors. And soldiers. And firefighters. And....

Also, breaking points are generally those things that would actually be traumatizing-learning ghosts exist isn't one of them, learning they can and do eat souls is cause. That's why there's an "argue with ST" option.

[SiuiS]

I was referring to the breaking point system with '2', actually.

However, that raises new questions - does spending Willpower to deal bashing damage apply to all weapons? I find the concept of someone concentrating really hard to make bullets not go through the person they're shooting at amusing...

The focus and concentration to launch a bullet into the brick by twir ear, stunning them with debris, sonic shock and concussive force.

Remember, in documented deaths (from police officers) with small arms, most of the deaths are from brain hemorrhage. From bein shot in the torso. Hydrostatic shock is nasty, why wouldn't close air bursts be similarly disruptive?

I guess the Initiative thing is meant to reflect having to pull out your weapon? If it doesn't include some kind of caveat about having it out already, though, that does seem rather foolish...

No, strictly balance. Remember, the ant a simulation game. At all. Not only are chainsaws +5 because movie chainsaws are awesome despite IRL chainsaws being lackluster weapons, but that category applies to katanas as well, because the weapons are more archetypal and less dead on specific.

Not a simulation.

3. So assassinating someone as they're driving is now... heavily difficult, to say the least?

4. How does that interact with the rules for 'Specified Targets' (Core, p165 )? It sounds like it makes them almost entirely useless for the main thing they'd be used for...

The core rules remain the same unless explicitly changed.

As for glass, I dunno. That looks easily breakable with a gunshot, moving into what's behind it. If the ST bothers to consider glass as armor at all. I mean, it's glass.

[Mewtarthio]

Apparently supernaturals may be interacting with the Integrity system differently, but we don't know how yet.

We've already seen the Vampire system, haven't we? It's pretty similar to the original Humanity system, where lower Humanity scores mean you suffer fewer breaking points, with a bit of the Hunter Code thrown in (you can become permanently "immune" to a given breaking point in exchange for getting a new vampiric weakness).

Likewise, we've heard a bit about the Demon system, which is called Cover. Apparently, it's at least partially based on how well you play along with your cover identity, but the only concrete things I've heard is that you always get a breaking point for revealing your true form and using its associated powers and that you can opt to take "glitches" (minor "tells" that hint to your supernatural nature, such as a persistent scent of grave dirt or red eyes) instead of Conditions.

[Lady Serpentine]

... What? No, silly. You get 1/5th an experience point at a time. At the end of a five scene session, most players are getting two beats; 2/5ths of one experience point. Coupled with early entry costing more compared to regular nWoD, and you're actually getting experience slower.

That said... Beats can be exploited.

If your character takes damage in one of her last (rightmost) Health boxes, take a Beat.

Note it says nothing about what kind of damage, or that it can only take effect once a scene, nor that you have to be in actual danger. So if the group has their characters beat the hell out of each other with their bare hands, they can get several beats in a single scene, take a few hours, and be just fine.

Also, has anyone else noticed that Direction Sense means that if one is kidnapped, knocked out, and taken to a building they know nothing about, they can, nonetheless, make their way to the front door without penalty?

[WitchSlayer]

I actually like that now all weapons deal lethal damage because having a GIANT MAUL dealing BASHING was stupid.

[Turalisj]

That said... Beats can be exploited.



Note it says nothing about what kind of damage, or that it can only take effect once a scene, nor that you have to be in actual danger. So if the group has their characters beat the hell out of each other with their bare hands, they can get several beats in a single scene, take a few hours, and be just fine.

And when everyone is busy beating on each other, a vampire arrives and finishes off the fools....

[Mewtarthio]

That said... Beats can be exploited.

Which is why I like the Party Beats sidebar. You get much less personal benefit out of repeatedly bashing your head against the wall while voluntarily accepting one dramatic failure per scene and using the Sympathetic merit to fall in love with everyone so you've always got a Condition to resolve.

That said, there really should have been a disclaimer about the ST vetoing obviously exploitative means of gaining Beats (such as taking critical damage in a safe environment).

[Friv]

... What? No, silly. You get 1/5th an experience point at a time. At the end of a five scene session, most players are getting two beats; 2/5ths of one experience point. Coupled with early entry costing more compared to regular nWoD, and you're actually getting experience slower.

Huh?

As I read it, you are capable of getting multiple beats per scene. One beat per scene if you have a Condition. One beat per scene that you want a dramatic failure. One beat per scene if you Surrender or give in socially or get beaten half to death.

And then another beat automatically at the end of the session, plus a second beat automatically if the ST was impressed by your roleplaying, plus another beat for every Aspiration you managed to manipulate the narrative into completing, which means that you can end the session with a full experience point without using any of the per-scene triggers.

So unless you're expecting that most of those per-scene triggers are actually happening less than once per session, you're almost guaranteed to get at least five beats per session, and possibly far, far more.

(As I noted, though, a lot of those problems vanish if you're using the Group Beats system, since players can be rewarded for anyone's involvement in the story. This is why I hate the personal Beats system, and like the Group Beats system.)

Guns really are that lethal compared to melee. It's genre appropriate.

(a) no they aren't, and
(b) If it's genre-appropriate, you shouldn't be giving people so many merits based around combat.

It is literally impossible for an only-moderately skilled shooter to miss a moving target at a range of several dozen yards. That's not the way actual life works. It is literally impossible for anyone to survive more than two hits from most guns; actual guns are way more swingy than that, able to deal massive or minute damage depending on where a guy gets hit.

More importantly, if it is impossible to survive three rounds in a gunfight, any player entering a gunfight is going to die, in which case it is bad game design to give out all of that gunfight-based character creation options.

At the same time, it's almost impossible to land a blow at all in close combat against an equal opponent, unless you leave yourself totally open to getting murdered on the return blow, and you can usually take more hits because anything that does hit you is almost always going to do so with only one success.

The integrity system only punishes an innocent until they are not. They will break a few times and get cynical. Once they are jaded twir breaking points change; there is no difference between a cop with a body list and a school teacher with a body list, except the school teacher racked hers up during play instead of in backstory. You don't "lock yourself in" to being screwed forever with an innocent character in a long campaign, and in a short one, why play an innocent character if not to explore that they will slowly erode under the stress?

There's one difference. When the two of them run into something that does cause a potential breaking point, say a random super-scary supernatural event, the cop now has a much better chance to resist because your permanent Integrity modifies all of your breaking point rolls forever, and every break reduces your permanent Integrity and it costs a crapton of experience to raise. In the time it takes the normal person to become hardened, he also becomes more likely to snap at a moment's notice, whereas the guy who starts hardened is not more likely to snap. This is a problem that did not exist previously.

There's a very good chance that all of that extra experience you get and then some has to go towards making it so that your character doesn't wind up in the fetal position every time anything happens.

I like the new social mechanic because its not new; it's a codified method of what we did anyway. Having the formula now just means I can relax in conveying my intentions.

Fair enough. I dislike the way that the codifications generally work, and I dislike having a social resolution mechanic that I'm encouraged not to use on players.

Lelial: Because you buried your responses inside my responses I am unable to quote you, and thus unable to deliver a point-by-point response. So let me use a short one:

a) There's a difference between "more lethal" and "impossibly more lethal in every situation". And lots of people try to kill each other every day, it doesn't require a white room duel.
b) I find it hard to believe that a police nightstick does such a significant amount more damage than a bone-covered fist that it halves how much damage someone can do.
c) In the real world we don't expect everyone to have an equivalent narrative ability to interact with the world. We also expect soldiers to be generally stronger and more fit than other people, but you don't decide your starting Attributes by picking whatever numbers seem appropriate.
d) Tone back the sarcasm, please. I understand that you don't agree with my opinion, but if your next post is as rude as your last one was I'm not going to bother responding to it.

[Leliel]

Lelial: Because you buried your responses inside my responses I am unable to quote you, and thus unable to deliver a point-by-point response. So let me use a short one:

a) There's a difference between "more lethal" and "impossibly more lethal in every situation". And lots of people try to kill each other every day, it doesn't require a white room duel.
b) I find it hard to believe that a police nightstick does such a significant amount more damage than a bone-covered fist that it halves how much damage someone can do.
c) In the real world we don't expect everyone to have an equivalent narrative ability to interact with the world. We also expect soldiers to be generally stronger and more fit than other people, but you don't decide your starting Attributes by picking whatever numbers seem appropriate.
d) Tone back the sarcasm, please. I understand that you don't agree with my opinion, but if your next post is as rude as your last one was I'm not going to bother responding to it.

First: It's spelled with an E. Frankly, I'm a little surprised-whenever I misspell it, it's a palindrome. Leiliel. It's just refreshing.

a) Um, yes they actually are, with a good shot at the other end. Lots of people are really bad shots, and most gun owners do not actually have a dot in Firearms. You can survive a gunshot, but multiple gunshot wounds is probably going to land you in the hospital, at least.
b) True. That's why the bony fist is probably lethal damage. Nightsticks are clubs, and clubs, as mentioned, screw people up.
c) Perhaps. But it's thematically appropriate to a horror story for the people who are completely unprepared to be...completely unprepared. Besides, as mentioned, I don't think mere gruesome scenes cause Integrity loss, it has to be rather traumatic as is. That's why we have a Breaking Point quiz and why people can argue about whether something is actually a Breaking Point.
d) Okay. Sorry, I had just come back from reading an argument with one of those page-long post screaming grognard fellows, who think minor flaws Ruins Everything Forever And If You Don't Agree I Hope Your Mother Dies For Bringing You Into The World You [CENSORED] [CENSORED]." I was a little peevish.

[Friv]

First: It's spelled with an E. Frankly, I'm a little surprised-whenever I misspell it, it's a palindrome. Leiliel. It's just refreshing.

Oops, sorry about that!

a) Um, yes they actually are, with a good shot at the other end. Lots of people are really bad shots, and most gun owners do not actually have a dot in Firearms. You can survive a gunshot, but multiple gunshot wounds is probably going to land you in the hospital, at least.

The primary problem with guns in the current system is that being a really bad shot is barely possible. It's less the automatic damage, and more that with Dexterity 2, Firearms 1 (the most basic level of training, representing an average person who's spent a few weeks on the range) you're going to hit a moving target a dozen yards away two times out of three. A from-the-book police officer (Dexterity 3, Firearms 3) is able to hit his target nine times out of ten (more if he also has the Professional Training Merit to give him a Firearms specialty) - nine times out of ten is, to put it mildly, significantly higher than actual police hit rates.

If you upgrade guns so that they just about always kill people in a couple of hits, you have to reduce how often people are liable to hit each other with guns.

EDIT: Note that, in nWoD, the "accuracy much too high" problem was balanced out by making damage much too low, so that you'd spend several rounds plinking away at someone's health rather than relying on chance to either kill them or not. It can be argued whether this was a good idea or not, but it certainly meant that everyone could contribute in a fight.

b) True. That's why the bony fist is probably lethal damage. Nightsticks are clubs, and clubs, as mentioned, screw people up.

Well, at that point you should probably drop Bashing damage altogether. It's mostly the uneven distribution of it that bothers me.

c) Perhaps. But it's thematically appropriate to a horror story for the people who are completely unprepared to be...completely unprepared. Besides, as mentioned, I don't think mere gruesome scenes cause Integrity loss, it has to be rather traumatic as is. That's why we have a Breaking Point quiz and why people can argue about whether something is actually a Breaking Point.

Granted, but I would prefer starting the game prepared to be represented by some kind of Merit that immunizes you to certain kinds of breaking points, rather than just being left to each player's discretion. Combining freeform mechanics with rigid mechanics, in my experience, does not generally end well.

d) Okay. Sorry, I had just come back from reading an argument with one of those page-long post screaming grognard fellows, who think minor flaws Ruins Everything Forever And If You Don't Agree I Hope Your Mother Dies For Bringing You Into The World You [CENSORED] [CENSORED]." I was a little peevish.

Understandable, and thanks for the apology. :)

[SiuiS]

That said... Beats can be exploited.

Note it says nothing about what kind of damage, or that it can only take effect once a scene, nor that you have to be in actual danger. So if the group has their characters beat the hell out of each other with their bare hands, they can get several beats in a single scene, take a few hours, and be just fine.

That's not a rules problem. That's a people problem. Beats are units of dramatic fulfillment. If you are handing players beats for non dramatic, unfulfilling game mongering that's an entirely different issue. Plus, tere are ways to fix that. No White Rooms.

And when everyone is busy beating on each other, a vampire arrives and finishes off the fools....

My thoughts exactly, yes.

Which is why I like the Party Beats sidebar. You get much less personal benefit out of repeatedly bashing your head against the wall while voluntarily accepting one dramatic failure per scene and using the Sympathetic merit to fall in love with everyone so you've always got a Condition to resolve.

That said, there really should have been a disclaimer about the ST vetoing obviously exploitative means of gaining Beats (such as taking critical damage in a safe environment).

There is. It's the storytelling system. The rules are explicitly in your hands if you think there's abuse.

Huh?

As I read it, you are capable of getting multiple beats per scene. One beat per scene if you have a Condition. One beat per scene that you want a dramatic failure. One beat per scene if you Surrender or give in socially or get beaten half to death.

And then another beat automatically at the end of the session, plus a second beat automatically if the ST was impressed by your roleplaying, plus another beat for every Aspiration you managed to manipulate the narrative into completing, which means that you can end the session with a full experience point without using any of the per-scene triggers.

One per session is fine. It was the 2-4 I scoffed at. If you can resolve an aspiration in a scene, and another in the next, and so on, I think maybe you aren't picking long enough aspirations. These are like mini virtues/vices, they are character arcs. An arc shouldn't be a scene long.

(a) no they aren't, and
(b) If it's genre-appropriate, you shouldn't be giving people so many merits based around combat.

It is literally impossible for an only-moderately skilled shooter to miss a moving target at a range of several dozen yards. That's not the way actual life works. It is literally impossible for anyone to survive more than two hits from most guns; actual guns are way more swingy than that, able to deal massive or minute damage depending on where a guy gets hit.

Quibbles.
Guns are very lethal, but not worth arguing I suppose.
The combat merits are revamps because without them people would still use the frankly worse original set.
Abstraction systems. If you get hit by a gun for minimum damage, you're not getting grazed, you're getting shot in the "I'm dying now" sense. If you're grazed, winged or nicked that's a miss.

More importantly, if it is impossible to survive three rounds in a gunfight, any player entering a gunfight is going to die, in which case it is bad game design to give out all of that gunfight-based character creation options.

Yes. The source material tends to work that way too, with "gunfight" being "running through a cluttered obstacle field while zigzagging to avoid getting killed".

At the same time, it's almost impossible to land a blow at all in close combat against an equal opponent, unless you leave yourself totally open to getting murdered on the return blow, and you can usually take more hits because anything that does hit you is almost always going to do so with only one success.

This isn't exactly accurate. No White Rooms.

Two guys with knives, equal dots in weaponry, dex, STR, wits, resolve, composure and athletics will have trouble hitting if they play unimaginatively. This is perfect, because this means two guys who went to the same dojang and know the same moves will be about even, as both guys circle, neither willing to give up his turtled position for a solid swing because it leaves him open.

Unless one guy bothers to feint, or throws crates at him as a distraction, or dashes over a trash can for terrain advantage, or dashes around a corner by really lurks for the ambush, or needs to end this now so blows willpower, all out attack and maybe some intimidation on top for a pool bonus for high-risk/high-reward (you know, like a fight to the death should be), and then as soon as that single success comes through, well, that's first blood and the tide turns. The other guy is Beaten Down, and the winner grins and closes in, unless the loser runs because why the hell are you sucking it out with knives?

No. White. Rooms.

There's one difference. When the two of them run into something that does cause a potential breaking point, say a random super-scary supernatural event, the cop now has a much better chance to resist because your permanent Integrity modifies all of your breaking point rolls forever, and every break reduces your permanent Integrity and it costs a crapton of experience to raise. In the time it takes the normal person to become hardened, he also becomes more likely to snap at a moment's notice, whereas the guy who starts hardened is not more likely to snap. This is a problem that did not exist previously.

I wouldn't call that a problem. I would call that a feature. It is in line with what we would expect. What would be a problem is a seventy year old saintly woman who trucks on through things that give modern soldiers PTSD.

There's a very good chance that all of that extra experience you get and then some has to go towards making it so that your character doesn't wind up in the fetal position every time anything happens.

You play a pretty antagonistic game, it seems. C'est la vie.

Fair enough. I dislike the way that the codifications generally work, and I dislike having a social resolution mechanic that I'm encouraged not to use on players.

How would you handle something like a high level court mantle (+1 social dice against anyone else in the same court)? Do you tell your players OOC "this person is persuasive"? Do you try and play it up and hope it comes across? The player is supposed to work with you as much as you work with the player.

b) I find it hard to believe that a police nightstick does such a significant amount more damage than a bone-covered fist that it halves how much damage someone can do.

Police in some places a long while ago were prohibited from carrying clubs. The human instinct is to go for the head, and the billy club version of a slap ends up with concussions and deaths. Clubs are brutal.

c) In the real world we don't expect everyone to have an equivalent narrative ability to interact with the world. We also expect soldiers to be generally stronger and more fit than other people, but you don't decide your starting Attributes by picking whatever numbers seem appropriate.

We kinda do, actually, with an accounted for artificial balance.

Oops, sorry about that!



The primary problem with guns in the current system is that being a really bad shot is barely possible. It's less the automatic damage, and more that with Dexterity 2, Firearms 1 (the most basic level of training, representing an average person who's spent a few weeks on the range) you're going to hit a moving target a dozen yards away two times out of three. A from-the-book police officer (Dexterity 3, Firearms 3) is able to hit his target nine times out of ten (more if he also has the Professional Training Merit to give him a Firearms specialty) - nine times out of ten is, to put it mildly, significantly higher than actual police hit rates.

That does seem discongruous. However, most people in a shoot out are shaken pretty bad by it, even professionals at first. Accounting for that adrenal fear should drop it down to one die.

EDIT: Note that, in nWoD, the "accuracy much too high" problem was balanced out by making damage much too low, so that you'd spend several rounds plinking away at someone's health rather than relying on chance to either kill them or not. It can be argued whether this was a good idea or not, but it certainly meant that everyone could contribute in a fight.

This sounds like you're expecting hit points and stuff. That's not right. WoD doesn't have a combat mechanic, it has a murder engine. This lethality is intentional. It's enough rope to hang yourself with. Worst case scenario, you blow through a couple characters and then think "maybe I should stop getting shot at".

Granted, but I would prefer starting the game prepared to be represented by some kind of Merit that immunizes you to certain kinds of breaking points, rather than just being left to each player's discretion. Combining freeform mechanics with rigid mechanics, in my experience, does not generally end well.

There's a thought.

I think the allowance is so you can choose if you want to. If you want to play a one-shot game with hardened detectives you don't need to hand out a free merit or anything. In general though, I don't think a rule that allows you to shoot yourself in the foot is a problem. The problem is having a metaphorical tiger on the trigger while holding the rule-gun.

[MugaSofer]

b) I find it hard to believe that a police nightstick does such a significant amount more damage than a bone-covered fist that it halves how much damage someone can do.

This. There should really be at least a few types of weapon that deal Bashing, although certainly not the old "it's not cutting you, it must be bashing" nonsense. A bloody mace should not be dealing the same damage as fistcuffs, obviously.

c) Perhaps. But it's thematically appropriate to a horror story for the people who are completely unprepared to be...completely unprepared.

If you give players the option to be thematic, but penalize them heavily, you're actually discouraging them from playing an interesting character. If D&D had given players a choice between a murderhobo and a level one commoner, would that have been any less focused on adventuring?

There is. It's the storytelling system. The rules are explicitly in your hands if you think there's abuse.

Oberoni Fallacy, mate. The ST can override anything; the point of rules is that you shouldn't need to ignore them in order to play.

Abstraction systems. If you get hit by a gun for minimum damage, you're not getting grazed, you're getting shot in the "I'm dying now" sense. If you're grazed, winged or nicked that's a miss.

Wasn't this better modeled by the old system, where you could, you know, actually get grazed or nicked?

Yes. The source material tends to work that way too, with "gunfight" being "running through a cluttered obstacle field while zigzagging to avoid getting killed".

True, but in the source material, the hero is generally either shot in the shoulder and keeps going or shot in the stomach and has a five minute conversation with his friends while wheezing dramatically.

That's not a rules problem. That's a people problem. Beats are units of dramatic fulfillment. If you are handing players beats for non dramatic, unfulfilling game mongering that's an entirely different issue.

Quoted for truth.

Unless one guy bothers to feint, or throws crates at him as a distraction, or dashes over a trash can for terrain advantage, or dashes around a corner by really lurks for the ambush,

Some nitpicks:

• Feinting is a Merit now.
• Throwing crates at somebody is a regular action, so you sacrifice your attack, and will probably do far less damage than just hitting the guy.
• You're practically invulnerable if you're fully behind cover, but you can't sodding fight, and you get a net bonus of one whole die if you're partially concealed.

I wouldn't call that a problem. I would call that a feature. It is in line with what we would expect. What would be a problem is a seventy year old saintly woman who trucks on through things that give modern soldiers PTSD.

We expect life to be unbalanced because it is. If you want to play someone who can cope, that's fine, but you should be paying for it in Merit dots or something, and if you want to play someone who can't you should be rewarded in some other way. And no, the Beats you get are not rewarding the player, because they're worth less than the Integrity loss in the first place.

You play a pretty antagonistic game, it seems. C'est la vie.

It doesn't have to be all that antagonistic. This is a horror game, horrifying stuff is everywhere.

How would you handle something like a high level court mantle (+1 social dice against anyone else in the same court)? Do you tell your players OOC "this person is persuasive"? Do you try and play it up and hope it comes across? The player is supposed to work with you as much as you work with the player.

Personally, I'd play it up in my description and hope it comes across, yeah. Same way you deal with ... everything?

That does seem discongruous. However, most people in a shoot out are shaken pretty bad by it, even professionals at first. Accounting for that adrenal fear should drop it down to one die.

Are you saying anyone taking part in a fight - even an experienced cop - should be having a Breaking Point? I didn't get that impression from the rules, but I guess that would balance it out.

This sounds like you're expecting hit points and stuff. That's not right. WoD doesn't have a combat mechanic, it has a murder engine. This lethality is intentional. It's enough rope to hang yourself with. Worst case scenario, you blow through a couple characters and then think "maybe I should stop getting shot at".

You ... have seen the Merit list, right?

Still, there's something in this. Getting shot at is dangerous. Fighting monsters is even more dangerous. Of course, it's not so dangerous for the monsters, but that's a different story.

I think the allowance is so you can choose if you want to. If you want to play a one-shot game with hardened detectives you don't need to hand out a free merit or anything.

I don't understand this. On the one hand, if it was a Merit, people could choose without unbalancing things. On the other hand, is there some sort of problem with handing out (or requiring) certain Merits?

Also, and this is just a little thing, having a weapon lowers your Initiative, because it's a well known fact that if I have a knife and you have your fists, you're generally going to be able to hit me before I can hit you.

I think this is a cinematic thing. Never see a hero kick the gun out of someone's hand before they could shoot?

The men in black drug you off to their labs for dissection.

Welcome to the world of darkness.

Hmm. I guess the ST could sic some angry conspiracy on you if you try to break the masquerade, yeah. But ... who exactly is working to keep these psychic powers under wraps? What do they get out of it? Where do these powers even come from? A creative ST could invent answers to these questions, but I would really prefer if there was some sort of explanation in the book.

Of course, maybe the answers are in the actual book...

Also, anyone have the full book? I'm sure it's good, but I am completely broke, and I'm wondering what's in it.

Did anything come of this?

Actually, that sort of works!

Seeing weird supernatural stuff constitutes a breaking point under the new system, which means that demonstrating your ability to set things on fire with your mind to someone has an unpleasantly high chance of causing them to freak out and hate or fear you, and then try to block out the memory entirely.

One of the questions decides what kind of supernatural event it would take to cause one, so no, not all supernatural stuff is a Breaking Point. Just the ones that push your bottons.

EDIT: I'm also a little wary that Athletics might become the One True Stat, but I'll wait to see how that goes in actual play.

It does seem to have been the go-to for any roll that doesn't fit anywhere else, doesn't it? Breaking out of handcuffs is Athletics. Dodging is Athletics! I don't know ... maybe it's because Athletics doesn't see much use in normal situations?

1) Hitting someone with the butt of your uzi does the same amount of damage as shooting them point-blank, although it is far less accurate.
2) There is no accuracy penalty to shooting someone in close combat, as the rule that you get your defense against guns in close combat has been replaced by a rule that applies a penalty of (Gun Size -1) to the attack roll. This matters a lot since equivalent opponents will generally be throwing 0-1 dice in close combat, but equivalent opponents with guns are always playing rocket tag. So never take a knife anywhere; a hold-out pistol in its holster is a better choice than a knife in your hand, since you can dodge the knife easily, draw your gun, and blow the other guy to kingdom come with one shot.
3) There's no advantage to getting behind cover, unless you get completely behind cover, at which point you're essentially invincible if the cover is tough enough. This means that if two people are in a gunfight, they're pretty much reduced to hiding behind things forever because the first guy to try and move at all is just going to die.
4) Human shields magically cover your entire body and cannot be avoided with good shots, and always take a lot of damage before you do.

Are you sure about these? Except for #2, I don't recall seeing any of these explicitly stated. I mean, it may not say you can use a called shot to avoid a human shield, but does it say you CAN'T?

[SiuiS]

If you give players the option to be thematic, but penalize them heavily, you're actually discouraging them from playing an interesting character. If D&D had given players a choice between a murderhobo and a level one commoner, would that have been any less focused on adventuring?

Not exactly accurate. There's a plateu effect in place.

Mechanically, the only penalty for breaking is that breaking is easier (on the dice) but also harder (to cause at all), so your innocent character will hit 'jaded' and then stop breaking almost entirely.

Oberoni Fallacy, mate. The ST can override anything; the point of rules is that you shouldn't need to in order to play.

No, it's an actual, written, rule in the book. I'm not saying "wing it" I'm saying the story telling system specifically, explicitly works this way as a feature and not a bug.

The ST system does not compile. It's like left 4 dead. There are the game rules, an there is the director. The ST is the director who wields the game rules and decides on their application at any point. The rules are designed to fail outright without interpretation somewhere along the line. The game needs a story teller.

Wasn't this better modeled by the old system, where you could, you know, actually get grazed or nicked?

No, because it's inevitably bull flop when you get knocked by a weapon and develop sepsis and die, or get poisoned, even though the wound wasn't enough to transfer any material.

And yes, this happened. Caused an argument too, about how abstract damage is.

True, but in the source material, the hero is generally either shot in the shoulder and keeps going or shot in the stomach and has a five minute conversation with his friends while wheezing dramatically.

Nah. White Collar, guns come out its serious. One guy got shot, is still in the hospital bed a few episodes later.

Haven't seen Supernatural though, so not sure if I'm actually correct; my sample size is small enough that it may be insufficient.

Some nitpicks:

• Feinting is a Merit now.

• Yes it is. Your character isn't just oddly symmetrical knife skill, right?
  
  

• Throwing crates at somebody is a regular attack, and will probably do FAR less damage than just shooting the guy.

[MugaSofer]

Sorry, SiuiS, I double-posted there; the first one has a bit missing off the end and some typos left uncorrected.

Not exactly accurate. There's a plateu effect in place.

Mechanically, the only penalty for breaking is that breaking is easier (on the dice) but also harder (to cause at all), so your innocent character will hit 'jaded' and then stop breaking almost entirely.

Except all the other players are ALREADY jaded, so they get the same result only without losing half their Integrity in the process.

No, it's an actual, written, rule in the book. I'm not saying "wing it" I'm saying the story telling system specifically, explicitly works this way as a feature and not a bug.

The ST system does not compile. It's like left 4 dead. There are the game rules, an there is the director. The ST is the director who wields the game rules and decides on their application at any point. The rules are designed to fail outright without interpretation somewhere along the line. The game needs a story teller.

Every game on the market that isn't GM-less has Rule Zero noted somewhere - the only exception I know of is FATAL, which explicitly says you should keep going even if it's stupid in order to stay impartial. Because it's FATAL.

This doesn't change the fact that rules should strive not to be broken. A good enough ST could "run" anything by homebrewing an entirely new system if necessary; that doesn't change the fact that some rules work without, ost of the time, requiring the ST to houserule replacements.

No, because it's inevitably bull flop when you get knocked by a weapon and develop sepsis and die, or get poisoned, even though the wound wasn't enough to transfer any material.

And yes, this happened. Caused an argument too, about how abstract damage is.

I'm ... not sure what the issue is here. People have been known to die from untreated scratches. The amount of injury tracked by a single point of damage is more than enough to "transfer material".

In any case, if a gunshot deals, say, a single point of damage, how is that less important than the single point of Bashing he's got from being punched in the face earlier?

Nah. White Collar, guns come out its serious. One guy got shot, is still in the hospital bed a few episodes later.

Haven't seen Supernatural though, so not sure if I'm actually correct; my sample size is small enough that it may be insufficient.

Thinking about it, it probably varies a bit depending on the sub-genre. I tend to prefer action-horror, so my sample is probably a tad skewed.

And really, the only hard rule is that a bullet does as much damage as is appropriate to the plot.

Yes it is. Your character isn't just oddly symmetrical knife skill, right?

No idea, wasn't my thought experiment. Just noting that's not a tactic that's available by default.

Yes and no. It's not an attack, it's probably just a skill roll. But success inflicts a tilt on the other guy. Who do you wanna fight, Joey McKnifey, or Joey McKnifey with a debuff?

But yes, guns are the way to go. Guns solve the knife fight dilemma real fast.

Sorry, typos - I meant that pushing over crates was a regular action, and you'd be better off with a normal attack - not that you should have brought a gun, which is pretty terrible advice in the moment.

I don't think you normally get to inflict a Tilt on a regular success, though - unless it was a targeted attack (with a crate?) or an Exceptional Success, it would just, y'know, hurt. Probably only Bashing, unless it was a crate full of knives or something.

You're also dodging, presumably, by running behind cover and such. Not that it helps necessarily, but doesn't the blue book say some situations would warrant defense applying versus firearms?

I don't have my books right now, but yeah, I guess running away would help. That's not a great strategy in some situations, though, depending on whyyou were fighting someone in the first place.

Okay. I don't remember exactly where I was goin with that, so I think it may have been rhetorical. Mostly a reframing so you could look at the problem fresh.

I guessed it might be rhetorical, but I figured it was worth pointing out anyway. Still, fair enough.

No, I'm saying that anyone with their life on the line is probably stressed the flick out.

Actually, I quite like the idea of inflicting a Tilt on somebody because they never expected to do this for real. Shame it's not in the book, really.

However, yes, going in and killing someone unintentionally is a breaking point.

That doesn't affect their ability in combat, though.

Yes. And I've been talking idly with the writers ever since DaveB first hinted that he was play testing the GMC rules in his Mage chronicle. This is intentional. WoD is nasty, Brutish and only Short if you are lucky. There is a design flow hitch trends towards lethal combats being good, because maybe it will shake you out of your murderhobo habits into bluffing, surrendering, or running.

That's why defense went up and weapons got more damage. Because every miss brings you closer to that hit, and it's a doozy...

I can get behind more lethal combat. Watching people whittle away each other's health tracks with bullets was always a little immersion-breaking, anyway.

Still, I don't think that came across very well. What with the sheer number of combat-focused Merits, and the practical difficulty trying to play a naive character, it reads a lot more like a combat-focused game. Especially with the annoying Doors mechanic, but I guess that's just a personal preference.

I quite like the one-roll combat system, though - it emphasizes that shooting people isn't really the point, here. I'm tempted to expand that out with homebrewed stuff rather than use the default system, actually.

Of course, the first thing I'd do is go back to weapons giving an Equipment Bonus to the Skill Roll, so whatever.

I think handing out merits fr free is bad, yes. Personal choice.

Huh. Care to share your reasoning on this? If you're playing a Chronicle tightly focused on one concept - be it Hard-Boiled Detectives or medical drama, or even something vaguer like Lots Of Fighting - there are going to be some things your players will need, whether you state it explicitly or not. Ah well. Each to his own, I suppose. Your players could buy it if they wanted it, regardless.

Ambiguity is built into the system, because any notion of Canon can only detract from your personal chronicle if you worry about fidelity.

There are Entities which resemble the men in black from Summoners, there are agencies in Hunter and Mage, vampires would try to exploit you, the fearful would try to kill you, etc.

Oh, sure, I was just curious about the implication that there was some organization acting to suppress knowledge of these Supernatural Merits.

I mean, OK, there are mysteries in other WoD stuff, but they tend to be labelled as "up to the ST" or "something everybody wonders about" rather than just ... forgotten.

And yet still I cannot find a skill to put my shibari specialty in...

That's knots, right?

The section on rope suggests Crafts as default, as I recall, but notes that it can be learned as as part of a lot of things - scouting and bondage enthusiasts being the ones mentioned.

Glancing at Wikipedia ... might I suggest Expression? There seems to be a lot of emphasis on looking nice and general aesthetic stuff.

[SiuiS]

Sorry, SiuiS, I double-posted there; the first one has a bit missing off the end and some typos left uncorrected.

Sorry. A quick scan had only one more quote, that I wasn't goin to answer anyway. Didn't notice the typos and such.

Except all the other players are ALREADY jaded, so they get the same result only without losing half their Integrity in the process.

And behind about four beats. It's a compromise.

Every game on the market that isn't GM-less has Rule Zero noted somewhere - the only exception I know of is FATAL, which explicitly says you should keep going even if it's stupid in order to stay impartial. Because it's FATAL.

This doesn't change the fact that rules should strive not to be broken. A good enough ST could "run" anything by homebrewing an entirely new system if necessary; that doesn't change the fact that some rules work without, ost of the time, requiring the ST to houserule replacements.

I you insist. I believe designing a ruleset that consistent is less good game design and more mathematical exercise. It's fun, but it's not mandatory.

I'm ... not sure what the issue is here. People have been known to die from untreated scratches. The amount of injury tracked by a single point of damage is more than enough to "transfer material".

In any case, if a gunshot deals, say, a single point of damage, how is that less important than the single point of Bashing he's got from being punched in the face earlier?

If you want incidental sepsis to be a threat on par with werewolves and the illuminati, that's your thing. But in general it's not.

And a 1L gunshot is getting shot, not getting nicked, just like a 1B fist to the face isn't a monkeybump on your arm, it's a punch to the face. As for less important, it's not. It's more important, because now you're actually on the track to dying – down a bar and have guys looking to end you instead of rough you up.

No idea, wasn't my thought experiment. Just noting that's not a tactic that's available by default.

Sorry, typos - I meant that pushing over crates was a regular action, and you'd be better off with a normal attack - not that you should have brought a gun, which is pretty terrible advice in the moment.

I don't think you normally get to inflict a Tilt on a regular success, though - unless it was a targeted attack (with a crate?) or an Exceptional Success, it would just, y'know, hurt. Probably only Bashing, unless it was a crate full of knives or something.

Actually, I quite like the idea of inflicting a Tilt on somebody because they never expected to do this for real. Shame it's not in the book, really.

These are all related.

The conditions system codifies the Fast and Lose play style. When you intimidate someone, an they back off, that's not just "I intimidate them and they back off", it is literally, actually, for real, "I intimidate them an inflict the Scared Condition. They resolve their condition immediately by backing off."

Conditions are the key to those times where the player doesn't want to do something the story would have them do. If an NPC does something the character would be afraid of but the player would press on through, they get a condition. They can fight it and continue, or they can give in and ran juicy XP for role playing their character properly.

The 'throw crates on the ground' thing? That's what one of the writers of the GMC rules suggested. Because this isn't a numbers sim, this is two people in a room with motives and hang ups. No White Rooms. Tossing crates isn't even a Tilt; it's rough terrain now, the guy has to try and bypass. It's breathing room.

As for whether inflicting conditions is possible; why only on a dramatic success? Remember a dramatic success gives you your primary roll, and a condition; "I punch him for 5B, and knock him crosseyed." Is a condition any worse than straight damage? Why not "I shoot the found all around his feet to scare him into mobility" and that inflicts Immobile, or Coward for a bit? Damage could be the dramatic success bonus, then.

It's a game mechanic. Don't feel bad about trying to use it. Don't feel like it is special. It's always been there, just now explicitly instead of implicitly.

And as for 'not on the list/in the rules', the condition list isn't exhaustive. It's a list of examples. The GMc rules are quite literally "come up with idea, figure out a dice pool, make **** up from there". You can make any new condition or tilt you want, good or bad, within bounds. Is your guy Raging Pissed because the BBEG shot a little girl? Sure, +2 brawl against him! But only brawl, you gotta bypass your gun, and his. Get a beat!

I don't have my books right now, but yeah, I guess running away would help. That's not a great strategy in some situations, though, depending on whyyou were fighting someone in the first place.

Run around the corner, and when he chases you, you're there with an ambush. Because its not a theoretical set up that ends, it's part of a whole story. No white rooms.

I can get behind more lethal combat. Watching people whittle away each other's health tracks with bullets was always a little immersion-breaking, anyway.

Still, I don't think that came across very well. What with the sheer number of combat-focused Merits, and the practical difficulty trying to play a naive character, it reads a lot more like a combat-focused game. Especially with the annoying Doors mechanic, but I guess that's just a personal preference.

I quite like the one-roll combat system, though - it emphasizes that shooting people isn't really the point, here. I'm tempted to expand that out with homebrewed stuff rather than use the default system, actually.

Of course, the first thing I'd do is go back to weapons giving an Equipment Bonus to the Skill Roll, so whatever.

The one round combat is for situations where it's not play-by-play important. The boss? He's a gunfight. The guards on the way? When they catch up its one round combat. The mechanical weight for combat is high, admittedly; once you get into it it's about half the system almost, it feels like. I think that's why the 1RC is there, to let you know you can bypass that entirely. Combat is now an appendix.

The practical difficulty of playing a naive character is also the reason why you would ply a naive character though. Unless you just want kicks out of Mary having a little lamb, which gets killed by werewolves before her eyes.

Huh. Care to share your reasoning on this? If you're playing a Chronicle tightly focused on one concept - be it Hard-Boiled Detectives or medical drama, or even something vaguer like Lots Of Fighting - there are going to be some things your players will need, whether you state it explicitly or not. Ah well. Each to his own, I suppose. Your players could buy it if they wanted it, regardless.

It strikes me as sloppy.

Say you want a game where everyone is a kungfu badass. But you don't tell the players that, you just tell them they get a free two dots of Kung fu and one for brawl.

Your characters are Pete, the hard boiled detective who was a boxer in his youth and still built like a brick though he's past his prime... Who is a Kung fu badass. Suzy, the innocent girl who's never been in an argument in her life, let alone a fight to the death... Who is a Kung fu badass. Veronica, the government trained psychic who eschews physical combat for telepathic manipulation and gunplay... Who is a Kung fu badass. Christopher, the former marine corps sergeant who devoted his life to being a lethal weapon, Who is a Kung fu badass.

That's stupid, and it happens because the holistic process of developing characters to fit the scenario was forsaken in lieu of stapling on an arbitrary requirement. More useful would be saying "this city has gone to the dogs. All sane people have fled. Those who are left are bad asses. If your character isn't a bad ass, save them and roll up a new one."

Additionally, if you want someone acclimated to a certain game form, that's what veteran XP is for. "You've got 10 XP, make sure you've got a military background." "You guys start with 5 XP, and you all need to know your way around a gun." That works. Picking that XP expenditure for your players isn't. It's entirely inorganic and shuts down stuff. Sure, the one guy who doesn't have any dots in firearms could be a problem. But he could also be a pretty damn cool character with a unique take on the setting tropes and concepts.

It's an interwoven issue. Part of it goes to D&D; I would hate for players to get free feats, too. But it's not just that.

That's knots, right?

The section on rope suggests Crafts as default, as I recall, but notes that it can be learned as as part of a lot of things - scouting and bondage enthusiasts being the ones mentioned.

Glancing at Wikipedia ... might I suggest Expression? There seems to be a lot of emphasis on looking nice and general aesthetic stuff.

Maybe. I'll see if my ST will accept that, now that its come from someone who isn't intentionally saying i should use my biggest pools XD

But yes. It's a specific form of knot work focused on art as well as function. It's a security blanket thing for a changeling. She's borderline Antagonist, almost wants to go back but not quite. Misses the control.

[Selrahc]

But yes. It's a specific form of knot work focused on art as well as function.

Well then it could be a specialty for both. Expression roll to make it look artful, craft roll to make it functional. Since it's doing two different things, it gets two different rolls.

[SiuiS]

Wouldn't work. Expression is singing, craft is composing. Making artwork is crafts through and through. Covers just about all nonephemeral objects really.

[MugaSofer]

For those who aren't quite grasping the level of brokenness in the new combat system, here's a guy over on WW forums:

So attack dice pools have gone down... and Defense is now lower of your Dexterity or Wits plus your Athletics. That's potentially doubled your Defense, in the face of a reduced attack pool. That's not (Dex or Wits + Athletics) ÷ 2, I should clarify. That's just straight up increasing Defense by Athletics.

Speaking as, again, a non-maths guy, my revelations might be slow and obvious. I thought this might slow down combat just a tad, more than could be accounted for by the increased damage from weapons on successful hits. To check this for myself, I ran a fight between two gangbangers, from the core. They're tripping acid, so they’re doing this to the death, and wielding stolen police batons.

It took 9 rounds for one of them to take a wound, and 47 rounds for one to go down. He died, immediately, after suffering four hits from this stolen police baton.

Well! I said to myself. That was so excruciatingly boring and slow that I was almost moved to self-harm just to incite some brief flicker of emotion. Let’s see what the nWoD version looks like! So I ran the fight again, this time keeping a razor blade and some band-aids within easy reach.

Round 5, one of them falls unconscious, and the other is free to clobber him to death or just wander off. I had four times as many dice to roll, and was getting 3 times as many successes with each die, even if I was doing half as much damage with each successful round.

Well, at least now we can get onto the meat of the new combat system, the Tilts! Surely these will be clever penalties and bonuses, cunningly pilfered from FATE, to justify and mitigate the vastly reduced likelihood of hitting anything! ...oh. They're all applied with Called Shots, which are basically attack rolls with a further penalty. How lovely, more Chance Die.

The new system is slow.

EDIT: Yes, I am aware that this is technically a White Room. Maybe we should run an actual fight?

[JMobius]

EDIT: Yes, I am aware that this is technically a White Room. Maybe we should run an actual fight?

Given that developers have stated repeatedly that they don't care one bit about white room tests, and have been very pleased with how it works out in practice, yes, probably.

[Morty]

Also, the claim that all tilts are induced by called shots is factually incorrect.

[SiuiS]

For those who aren't quite grasping the level of brokenness in the new combat system, here's a guy over on WW forums:

The new system is slow.

EDIT: Yes, I am aware that this is technically a White Room. Maybe we should run an actual fight?

Eh. "Let's take two guys with identical attributes for no reason, ignore that lethal damage breaks your spirit, ignore any supplementary rules and then declare the rules broken" is something that comes up a lot. These gangsters, let us say they are in a bar. Wow, look! Roll pool balls at them, splash beer in their eyes, kick a bar stool in their way! It's almost like a reality made of matter!

I would like to try the system out though, yes. I wish I were confident enough with the rules to run a game...

[Turalisj]

Again. CIS: Occult.

Any takers for an ST? Anyone?

[Morty]

Unfortunately, my efforts at STing an nWoD game on these boards haven't been very successful in the past.

[SiuiS]

Play by post requires a certain dedication, and a certain willingness to be part of a unit, that table play doesn't require. The only games I've seen not fall apart are those where A) the storyteller says "post once every 24 hours, even if just to say 'I'm here, keep moving'" and B) the players comply. Otherwise, the boards are full of dead games.

Unfortunately... This means that unless its an idea the ST is already excited about and already has most of the prep work done for, there's no way to get one without potentially losing them to attrition.

Quite a pickle.

[Morty]

I once took part in a long-running, successful Vampire: the Requiem game, run by Ichneumon. It lasted for months and kept going strong until our ST sadly had to cancel it. Unfortunately, such games are ultimately an exception.

[Lady Serpentine]

EDIT: Yes, I am aware that this is technically a White Room. Maybe we should run an actual fight?

I'd be up for that as well. I've been wanting to test out some things anyway...

Again. CIS: Occult.

Any takers for an ST? Anyone?

I'd play, but I'm not up for STing. I might know someone who is, though, once the laptop that has all their nWoD stuff on it is fixed?

[TimeWizard]

Quickie question from a WoD newb: I read on TvTropes that a nameless cabbie was involved in some heavy stuff, with the implication that

Spoiler

Show

He's actually Cain, the first vampire

. What book or comic is this from? I was trying to explain it to a skeptical friend.

[The Glyphstone]

Quickie question from a WoD newb: I read on TvTropes that a nameless cabbie was involved in some heavy stuff, with the implication that

Spoiler

Show

He's actually Cain, the first vampire

. What book or comic is this from? I was trying to explain it to a skeptical friend.

It's from the Vampire the Masquerade: Bloodlines PC game. There's a cabbie who drives you around, and

Spoiler

Show

If you're a Malkavian, or if you open up the game files and look at the name of the cabbie's sound clips for dialogue, it's more or less stated that he's Caine.

[MugaSofer]

On the white room test:

I hear the new combat is either one side brutally cubstomping the other, or roughly evenly-matched combatants dragging on for ages. So that would fit.

It's interesting that the nWoD rules worked fine in a white room. Maybe this goes to show combat is more realistic now?

I might be up to ST a GMC PBP. I'm not very experienced, mind, but as long as we can avoid people wandering off I'm all for it.

Finally, a writer has confirmed that the little fiction bits are, indeed, depicting the creation of a Promethian. So that's nice to know.