General WoD Discussion #2: Its time to Celebrate!

[Longes]

at the end of day, I'm just saying: vampires shouldn't be glorified into something they are not. their default mode is parasitic monster, and while there is probably some out there who are more controlled about it, that doesn't really justify allowing this threat

To further drive the point home: it is not a Wisdom sin for a mage to kill a vampire, unless the vampire is proven to have a humanity of 7+.

[Lady Serpentine]

To further drive the point home: it is not a Wisdom sin for a mage to kill a vampire, unless the vampire is proven to have a humanity of 7+.

I... Don't particularly consider that 'evidence', honestly. All the morality analogues are ****ed up in one way or another, with Integrity, as an actual, y'know, measure of mental stability, working best.

...and that Changelings could slip deeper into insanity.

So could the girl who works at the coffee shop downtown who's got controlled DID. She need to die too? Remember, as far as you're aware, she's currently worked it out so this doesn't cause too many problems for her, and she's not currently hurting anyone, just doing her job - in fact, she has a girlfriend who will be very hurt if she dies.

That's what this 'well, maybe they'll do something eventually so we should kill them now!' thing means, you know.

...and that is assuming that such a vampire is even possible. remember, these are inhuman parasites we are talking about, their very nature changed to be predators of humanity, their very nature and perception altered to look at humanity as food. farmers after all, are friendly to their livestock but they still slaughter them at the end. I would not be surprised if the closest equivalent to the vampire you talked about would be a human farmer. convince everyone your a friendly vampire, go do whatever you want then blame it on other vampires if they ask questions. its not as if there is any shortage of vampires to blame, as long your careful, you could have your human acceptance cake and eat it too. I would not be surprised if the human farmer strategy is one of the more successful ways to stay on top of the game amongst vampires, cause all the normal humans would be focused on being hunters of other vampires and think of you as merely a friendly informant. of course the deception helps when you are a legitimate source of info at first and really do help them take down vampires who did something wrong….

It would be appreciated if you didn't come up with flimsy veils for why you're completely ignoring the actual parameters set out in the hypothetical to twist things around so that you're still justified in killing them.

Likewise, it would be nice if you didn't assume that your narrow little view of what a vampire can be is The One True Way to run them and force other people's conceptions into that box when presented with counterexamples.

[comicshorse]

look, I'd rather err on the side of caution with these kinds of things. you know full well that the Vampire could go into a frenzy, and that Changelings could slip deeper into insanity. that their nature is struggle, a conflict within themselves, and its always possible to lose. even if I'm wrong for doing so, I'd rather have done this wrong than allow another greater wrong to be perpetrated out of neglect.

Seriously ? They might go bad so we ought to kill them.

I doubt the world will miss its parasitic potentially-frenzied beast supernatural manipulators all that much. and if you leave a vampire walking?

But would still probably prefer it to a serial killer who murders on the grounds of what if ?

[Water_Bear]

Vampires are predators who hunt humans (and those who don't are rare exceptions) and that is more than enough for any human to reasonably decide that they are evil creatures. "What is bad for me is bad in itself" to paraphrase a wiser man.

But the vampire is not under any obligation to live up to any person's perceptions of them or accept their moral judgement. A vamp could easily become a mindless Draugr and have the morality of a hungry animal, where it is good to feed and bad to not assert dominance over other predators. Or they might be a typical Kindred and have the morality of the Masquerade, where it is good to amass power while managing your livestock responsibly and bad to act without subtlety. Or they might try to keep to a human moral code where it is good to be kind to humans and evil to be a predator against them.

Either way, defining them as good or evil from a human perspective has much less descriptive value than looking at them on their own terms. Especially since Vampire is a game where you are expected to play as one yourself.

[Lord Raziere]

It would be appreciated if you didn't come up with flimsy veils for why you're completely ignoring the actual parameters set out in the hypothetical to twist things around so that you're still justified in killing them.

Likewise, it would be nice if you didn't assume that your narrow little view of what a vampire can be is The One True Way to run them and force other people's conceptions into that box when presented with counterexamples.

and you didn't twist things around to justify letting a vampire live? or ignore the parameters I set? don't pretend that your not twisting logic to suit your own position as well, we all do it. logic isn't a part of morality, its just a tool we use.

as far as I see it, you might be just as narrow-minded as me. after all you gone and brought up that example of a "good" vampire after I said that I doubt that one would even exist. and why would I want one of them to exist? it is very possible that a "good" vampire is actually more dangerous, you can't be vigilant about this forever, and as a vampires ages they become more and more obsessed with blood, until they can only feed from other vampires, which while actually good, only means that when an elder vampire finally gets rid of all the other vampires, they quickly start losing willpower and become the Beast from hunger and start hunting people anyway. or y'know, enter torpor, but by then its just a better mercy to get rid of them anyways cause they will be the last vampire in existence if they wake up, they will either make more vampires or become a raging beast.

so even if there one last vampire in the world, only one, and that good vampire was an elder who could only feed off other vampires….it'd still be preferable to kill the vampire. your either going to have a dangerous beast, a sleeping corpse, more vampires or a true death of the last vampire ever. might as well go for the option that makes absolutely freaking sure no vampire exists ever again. and of course, if this good vampire is young, that just means they will eventually become an elder anyways since they would be the last vampire, well that means they would still become the beast, assuming all else is controlled, because all the other vampires would be dead, or would be about to be killed by the elder vampire, or would get killed by all the other vampires anyway.

so any way you slice it, there is no reason not to kill the vampire. I'm arguably being merciful to the good vampire, as I'm saving from eventually becoming a Beast that will only hunt. releasing him from his curse.

so yes, even if the vampire in question was the goodliest, most saintly vampire ever who controlled himself long enough to reach elder vampire so that he could purge the entire world of all the other vampires, I'd still kill him, because now he has run out of his own food supply and will be about to become a frenzied beast regardless. sure, I'd let him do all that first and allow him to be the last to die, assuming he is successful, but in the end I would still be killing him with fire.

and if you say I'm wrong for doing so? I don't care, I eliminated the last of a dangerous threat, and can take solace in that at least no one will be caught unawares and sucked dry of their blood because of some exploitive parasite, that no one will fall victim to such a danger even if they don't know it. the safety of the people is more important than feeding some monsters incurable blood addiction.

[JAnderson789]

So basically the system from Hunter the Vigil, where every antagonist is constructed from the same set of generic "Dark Powers"?

Bluh, no. The various supernatural types have intrinsic differences right down to their souls, and I think having everyone use the same mechanics would take away from that.

That sort of thinking leads to vampires having super strength that lasts for a scene, werewolves having super strength lasting for a turn, and geists having super strength that lets them telekineticly throw around all the cars on a street at the same time. At character creation.

I'm not saying to remove the way powers are learned/organized or specific subsystems like catches, but they should be balanced with regard to one another (e.g. super strength should always work the same way, not twenty different ways). Game balance exists so that one player doesn't outshine the others, and telling the GM to tell problematic players "no you can't do that" in mixed sessions defeats the point of making the splats compatible in the first place.

Spirits, ghosts, angels, demons, etc all use the same basic system to represent them despite having different souls. Does their universal system take away from their uniqueness? It makes them easier to adjudicate.

Exalted seems to work pretty well using a universal charm system, where splats are differentiated by their souls. D&D/Pathfinder uses a universal set of basic powers without taking away from the uniqueness of monsters. Mutants & Masterminds uses a standardized set of powers that has lots of room for uniqueness.

[Longes]

I'm not saying to remove the way powers are learned/organized or specific subsystems like catches, but they should be balanced with regard to one another (e.g. super strength should always work the same way, not twenty different ways). Game balance exists so that one player doesn't outshine the others, and telling the GM to tell problematic players "no you can't do that" in mixed sessions defeats the point of making the splats compatible in the first place.

No. No, they ****ing shouldn't. The game should not be balanced between the splats. Crossover is a nice little cherry on top of a single splat game. It should not dictate the way a game is build. The mechanics are compatible, the splats aren't.

[SiuiS]

Make a token that does Wyrd+Mantle ([Court]) Aggravated damage. Burn Clarity by two points. Spend four Merit dots on Mantle, three on the token, plus the XP to buy a fourth dot of Token. GMC makes it so that the fifth dots no longer take two

GMC also makes it so you cannot gain XP by burnin morality. You cannot lower your clarity for bonus XP and also benefit from anything in the GMC set, unless the storyteller specifically makes that exception.

At which point the storyteller could just hand out free XP instead.

No. No, they ****ing shouldn't. The game should not be balanced between the splats. Crossover is a nice little cherry on top of a single splat game. It should not dictate the way a game is build. The mechanics are compatible, the splats aren't.

Word. Crossover games are nice, but ultimately dumb. It ignores the purpose of any actual splat in lieu of wanting cool powers and doing cool things with them. Mage is about Hubris, Changeling about dealin with identity and finding your way home. A Mage and a changeling walk into a bar? That's about dots and builds and optimization. You've removed the inherent limits and then complain about how unlimited they are? Pro tip: don't remove the limits.

[Longes]

To expand on my anti-balance point.
Let's talk about Mages. What makes them the strongest splat? Their versatility. Each dot in the Arcana gives Mage much more then a discipline gives to a vampire. Freeform magic is what makes mages the most powerful and freeform magic is the fun part of mage. So, if you want to balance mage with everyone else, you have to kill the magic system. Which essentialy kills the whole mage game in favor of balancing the mages for the minority that plays crossover games.

[Morty]

And of course, Mages don't get some of the inherent abilities and traits other supernaturals have - they don't ignore wounds like vampires, can't heal as fast as werewolves and so on. Now, I'm not saying they 'balance out' the versatility their Arcana give them, but they're there. 'Balancing' the splats would mean homogenizing such quirks and qualities they have.

[SiuiS]

And of course, Mages don't get some of the inherent abilities and traits other supernaturals have - they don't ignore wounds like vampires, can't heal as fast as werewolves and so on. Now, I'm not saying they 'balance out' the versatility their Arcana give them, but they're there. 'Balancing' the splats would mean homogenizing such quirks and qualities they have.

To expand on my anti-balance point.
Let's talk about Mages. What makes them the strongest splat? Their versatility. Each dot in the Arcana gives Mage much more then a discipline gives to a vampire. Freeform magic is what makes mages the most powerful and freeform magic is the fun part of mage. So, if you want to balance mage with everyone else, you have to kill the magic system. Which essentialy kills the whole mage game in favor of balancing the mages for the minority that plays crossover games.

Alternately, mages /are/ the balanced splat. Think about it.

I want to be a werewolf. I use Life 4 for beat form and honing, regeneration (at cost of mana), downgrading damage to bashing, and use Spirit 4 for most werewolf powers.

I want to be a vampire. Death and prime, same thing. Life for those neat-o shifting powers or mind for vampiric ensorcelment.

I want to be a changeling; same as above. In fact, it's easy to build other splats in Mage. Just assume that instead of buying the whole arcana you have to buy specific rotes and you're golden.

[JAnderson789]

Since you've clearly got the wrong impression, go to DriveThruRPG and look at The Everlasting. It's an urban fantasy RPG written by some of the White Wolf freelancers who were dissatisfied with the design of Classic World of Darkness (and it was later partly copied by New World of Darkness, but whatever).

No, the splats in The Everlasting aren't strictly balanced against one another. You have vampires and wizards and demigods working alongside one another, and each have unique powers that others don't have. However, the fourth sourcebook, Codex of the Immortals, provides a universal list of powers that the different splats can draw from, rather than several different books with different versions of the same effect, as well as guidelines for creating new effects.

Take a good look at The Everlasting, and tell that system of adjudicating powers is inherently bad compared to World of Darkness' approach. Even take a look at Nightlife and tell me it's not as good as World of Darkness.

Alternately, mages /are/ the balanced splat. Think about it.

I want to be a werewolf. I use Life 4 for beat form and honing, regeneration (at cost of mana), downgrading damage to bashing, and use Spirit 4 for most werewolf powers.

I want to be a vampire. Death and prime, same thing. Life for those neat-o shifting powers or mind for vampiric ensorcelment.

I want to be a changeling; same as above. In fact, it's easy to build other splats in Mage. Just assume that instead of buying the whole arcana you have to buy specific rotes and you're golden.

This is pretty much what almost all other RPGs use. Characters aren't strictly balanced (fighters versus wizards versus clerics), but they use the same rules to achieve the same effect.

[Lady Serpentine]

GMC also makes it so you cannot gain XP by burnin morality. You cannot lower your clarity for bonus XP and also benefit from anything in the GMC set, unless the storyteller specifically makes that exception.

At which point the storyteller could just hand out free XP instead.

Hm. Had forgotten that... We're basically stealing the bits we like and then dumping the rest, but yes. A point there.

On the other hand, in a non-GMC game, you can still get 14 to 15 dice of Agg at chargen, so the point stands; I doubt that it's 16 Agg exactly he's worried about.

(On another note, this is going to be a fairly high-op game, and a crossover with Geist; normally I probably wouldn't break the game that hard.)

[Longes]

Since you've clearly got the wrong impression, go to DriveThruRPG and look at The Everlasting. It's an urban fantasy RPG written by some of the White Wolf freelancers who were dissatisfied with the design of Classic World of Darkness (and it was later partly copied by New World of Darkness, but whatever).

No, the splats in The Everlasting aren't strictly balanced against one another. You have vampires and wizards and demigods working alongside one another, and each have unique powers that others don't have. However, the fourth sourcebook, Codex of the Immortals, provides a universal list of powers that the different splats can draw from, rather than several different books with different versions of the same effect, as well as guidelines for creating new effects.

Take a good look at The Everlasting, and tell that system of adjudicating powers is inherently bad compared to World of Darkness' approach. Even take a look at Nightlife and tell me it's not as good as World of Darkness.

This is pretty much what almost all other RPGs use. Characters aren't strictly balanced (fighters versus wizards versus clerics), but they use the same rules to achieve the same effect.

Ok. I'll try it again. Splats in the World of Darkness are designed in the whitebox that contains that splat, and nothing else. The only thing that is important is the playability and interestingness of the splat in a monosplat game. Balancing splats is harmful for everyone, because it limits the possibilities of each splat. It limits mages, because mages are the strongest with their freeform magic. It harms vampires, because it creates the Elder problem. It creates the possibility of game breaking intersplat combos (as is, nobody cares). It also increases the difficulty of creating new books - you have to be mindful of every book that has ever came out for every splat, as opposed to only your splatbooks. It also forces the writers to read those books, when they might not want to.

New World of Darkness was not designed with crosssplat balance in mind, and whining "Vampires are weaker than Sin-Eaters" is pointless and stupid. "Mind magic is overpowered compared to Forces" is a valid complaint. "Mind magic is overpowered compared to Dominate" is not.

Splat splat splat splat.

[Aron Times]

Hm... The Invictus are no longer technologically-challenged post B&S:

http://whitewolfblogs.com/blog/2013/...-first-estate/

Let's see... Here are the major changes to the covenants in B&S:

1. Lancea et Sanctum - Name is now grammatically correct, Theban Sorcery requires Humanity >= Theban Sorcery dots to use. Basically, you can only cast Theban Sorcery 5 rituals if you have at least Humanity 5.

2. Ordo Dracul - Now have a theme of "defiance," in that they defy God's curse of vampirism. In addition to Coils of the Dragon, there are Scales of the Dragon, of which we know little.

3. Circle of the Crone - Seem to be the least changed. Cruac is now the moral opposite of Theban Sorcery thanks to the changes to the latter.

4. Invictus - No longer technophobic. Still hierarchical, but now adapts to changing science, technology, and society.

5. Carthians - ?

[Morty]

Looks like there's a big White Wolf sale on Drive Thru RPG. Since I managed to earn some money recently, I'm considering snagging something. Any recommendations?

[SiuiS]

Mummy? Uh... I got nothin' :(

[MugaSofer]

To expand on my anti-balance point.
Let's talk about Mages. What makes them the strongest splat? Their versatility. Each dot in the Arcana gives Mage much more then a discipline gives to a vampire. Freeform magic is what makes mages the most powerful and freeform magic is the fun part of mage. So, if you want to balance mage with everyone else, you have to kill the magic system. Which essentialy kills the whole mage game in favor of balancing the mages for the minority that plays crossover games.

Or - wait for it - you could make Arcana cost more XP, because they are more powerful.

Alternately, mages /are/ the balanced splat. Think about it.

I want to be a werewolf. I use Life 4 for beat form and honing, regeneration (at cost of mana), downgrading damage to bashing, and use Spirit 4 for most werewolf powers.

I want to be a vampire. Death and prime, same thing. Life for those neat-o shifting powers or mind for vampiric ensorcelment.

I want to be a changeling; same as above. In fact, it's easy to build other splats in Mage. Just assume that instead of buying the whole arcana you have to buy specific rotes and you're golden.

This also goes for Changeling and Genius. But, of course, you aren't going to get the same themes in mage!vampire, genius!vampire, changeling!vampire, and requiem!vampire games.

(I think it might be possible to play a vampire!werewolf, too, which makes sense since they were basically the same thing in the original legends.)

[Lady Serpentine]

But, of course, you aren't going to get the same themes in mage!vampire, genius!vampire, changeling!vampire, and requiem!vampire games.

And why not, exactly?

Just because it's using different mechanics does not mean the world is necessarily any different. Aside from Wisdom replacing Clarity, and a couple of min things like that, I see no reason Mage wouldn't work fine for Changelings.

[Grytorm]

This also goes for Changeling and Genius. But, of course, you aren't going to get the same themes in mage!vampire, genius!vampire, changeling!vampire, and requiem!vampire games.

You can work the same theme with all of those. "Explosions are Awesome" fits everywhere.

[Lord Raziere]

And why not, exactly?

Just because it's using different mechanics does not mean the world is necessarily any different. Aside from Wisdom replacing Clarity, and a couple of min things like that, I see no reason Mage wouldn't work fine for Changelings.

well there might be the problem that all of Changeling powers have some sort of string attached, because they are contracts, not spells and therefore work on the basis that your not enforcing your will on reality but making a deal with or exploiting a loophole in reality instead, so….yeah…how would you model the Mage-changling paying the price? and how would you model the fact that all Changelings have natural on-at-all-times mutations from their stay in Arcadia, that y'know aren't spells at all, and can't all just be fluffed….

I mean you can model pretty much anything else with mages, except maybe some of the Prometheans abilities, but really, how do you model Changelings?

[MugaSofer]

And why not, exactly?

Just because it's using different mechanics does not mean the world is necessarily any different. Aside from Wisdom replacing Clarity, and a couple of min things like that, I see no reason Mage wouldn't work fine for Changelings.

Mage's cosmology and mechanics are designed to reinforce and encourage it's themes - Gnosticism and Hubris. I'm not saying you couldn't tell a good story - you could - but it would have to at least feature those themes, unless you were willing to rewrite the entire game, in which case how is this about Mage?

Don't get me wrong, I would love playing such a Mage, assuming I got over my irritation at the Arcana system. But it wouldn't naturally encourage Changeling's themes as well as the Lost's own mechanics do (whatever those are ... I need to brush up on my changeling.)

[Longes]

Or - wait for it - you could make Arcana cost more XP, because they are more powerful.

Which would hurt the people who don't play crossovers - the target audience.

[Morty]

Mind you, raising the XP cost of Arcana in a crossover is absolutely trivial. Which brings us to another reason why talking about inter-splat balance in nWoD is a little pointless - the system is designed to be modular.

[Lady Serpentine]

Which would hurt the people who don't play crossovers - the target audience.

And sort of breaks the point of making them more powerful in the first place.

[JAnderson789]

Ok. I'll try it again. Splats in the World of Darkness are designed in the whitebox that contains that splat, and nothing else. The only thing that is important is the playability and interestingness of the splat in a monosplat game. Balancing splats is harmful for everyone, because it limits the possibilities of each splat.

Again, you're not listening to me. I'm not asking for splats to be equal in power. I'm saying that it would make more sense if similar powers used the same basic rules. Coming from a D&D background, monsters generally use a standard spell as the basis for a supernatural ability, sometimes with slight modifications. This has absolutely nothing to do with how powerful a splat is, which is a function of how many powers they have compared to other splats assuming individual powers use the same systems.

Geists are thematically problematic. There is pretty much no reason for having 90% of the powers the book gives them. Most of their powers are just some variation of "blow stuff up." Yes, someone claimed it was to get rid of anchors, but that's silly. If you want to destroy a ghost's anchor, then why not destroy it with guns, explosives, or pretty much all the hardware normal people would use? There's no reason to be a combat twink monkey right out of the box (compared to normal humans that have been min-maxed). It's quite boring and uninspired.

[Longes]

Again, you're not listening to me. I'm not asking for splats to be equal in power. I'm saying that it would make more sense if similar powers used the same basic rules. Coming from a D&D background, monsters generally use a standard spell as the basis for a supernatural ability, sometimes with slight modifications. This has absolutely nothing to do with how powerful a splat is, which is a function of how many powers they have compared to other splats assuming individual powers use the same systems.

Why? That would be very boring. If every splat's fireball has different color, that doesn't mean they have five different fireballs. Having all splats use slightly modified baseline abilities would just make them boring.

Geists are thematically problematic. There is pretty much no reason for having 90% of the powers the book gives them. Most of their powers are just some variation of "blow stuff up." Yes, someone claimed it was to get rid of anchors, but that's silly. If you want to destroy a ghost's anchor, then why not destroy it with guns, explosives, or pretty much all the hardware normal people would use? There's no reason to be a combat twink monkey right out of the box (compared to normal humans that have been min-maxed). It's quite boring and uninspired.

They are fine thematically. Each Sin-Eater power represents a stereotipical ghostly power - haunting, weird metamorphosis, etc. Sin-Eater's powers are also expensieve, and Plasm is hard to replenish. And don't forget, Geists are essentially death-gods - being good at killing things is perfectly thematic for them.

[Lord Raziere]

Why? That would be very boring. If every splat's fireball has different color, that doesn't mean they have five different fireballs. Having all splats use slightly modified baseline abilities would just make them boring.

how? does the ease of memory not challenge your mind enough? when you roll the dice, does it somehow feel that your not rolling different enough dice, oh the tedium! do the mechanics somehow restrain and limit your thoughts so that the only possible way you can describe in character them is to say "I blast a fireball thats almost exactly like another guys fireball but with certain modifications!"

whats the problem here? especially when all of roleplaying is essentially a bunch of differently colored fireballs. its all window dressing over the mechanics anyways. so what if you assign a different mechanic to a different fireball? that just means you have decided to make the skeleton unnecessarily complicated, when really nothing is different, your still rolling dice and probably paying a cost for your fireball.

what waste time focusing on what kind of mechanical cost you make and what dice you roll and whatnot, and instead focus on the roleplaying aspect? its the important after all and to say its all "differently colored fireballs" is really missing the point of roleplaying in general. the mechanics are just there to uphold the story. you don't make a difference in fireballs by changing mechanics, you make them different by roleplaying out the fireballs. a great big fiery snake that coils around its enemies and crushes them in its flames is different enough from a fiery phoenix that cuts everyone to cinders with its wings without need to make different unnecessary ways to roll dice and shuffle around points about it- mostly because they still do the same thing: kill lots of people with fire.

they are still different though. not because of some lame mechanic, but because you roleplay it out, because you make it different with your imagination- and isn't that all what roleplaying is about? to dismiss it all as "differently colored fireballs" and focus on the mechanics is to seriously devalue the actual roleplaying experience and to focus entirely on what is honestly not supposed to be an important part of the process at all, just a way to make sure this all happens fairly without any bias.

so no, I protest against this notion that they would be boring just because they would not be using different rules or rolling different dice or whatever. they are boring only if you make it boring- by not roleplaying it out, by ignoring how the character feels, what they do when they do this and so on. and thats not really roleplaying at all.

[SiuiS]

how? does the ease of memory not challenge your mind enough? when you roll the dice, does it somehow feel that your not rolling different enough dice, oh the tedium! do the mechanics somehow restrain and limit your thoughts so that the only possible way you can describe in character them is to say "I blast a fireball thats almost exactly like another guys fireball but with certain modifications!"

whats the problem here? especially when all of roleplaying is essentially a bunch of differently colored fireballs. its all window dressing over the mechanics anyways. so what if you assign a different mechanic to a different fireball? that just means you have decided to make the skeleton unnecessarily complicated, when really nothing is different, your still rolling dice and probably paying a cost for your fireball.

what waste time focusing on what kind of mechanical cost you make and what dice you roll and whatnot, and instead focus on the roleplaying aspect? its the important after all and to say its all "differently colored fireballs" is really missing the point of roleplaying in general. the mechanics are just there to uphold the story. you don't make a difference in fireballs by changing mechanics, you make them different by roleplaying out the fireballs. a great big fiery snake that coils around its enemies and crushes them in its flames is different enough from a fiery phoenix that cuts everyone to cinders with its wings without need to make different unnecessary ways to roll dice and shuffle around points about it- mostly because they still do the same thing: kill lots of people with fire.

they are still different though. not because of some lame mechanic, but because you roleplay it out, because you make it different with your imagination- and isn't that all what roleplaying is about? to dismiss it all as "differently colored fireballs" and focus on the mechanics is to seriously devalue the actual roleplaying experience and to focus entirely on what is honestly not supposed to be an important part of the process at all, just a way to make sure this all happens fairly without any bias.

so no, I protest against this notion that they would be boring just because they would not be using different rules or rolling different dice or whatever. they are boring only if you make it boring- by not roleplaying it out, by ignoring how the character feels, what they do when they do this and so on. and thats not really roleplaying at all.

Presentation goes both ways, sweetie. In the same way that presentation can change the feel of the same rule for the better (see how GmC feels different than just multiplying XP costs by 5), using the same overly transparent too-generic system can ruin the feel of a game. It requires more effort – substantially more, a large enough difference to be worth brig even for those with great metal fortitude – to purposefully learn details, forget 99% of design and presentation, and substitute their own instead of just finding a system that does what they want.

Especially when A) you would end up with so many special-case and specific abilities that you may as well write them all out anyway, and B) in the current system we already have this and there's literally nothing stopping your Geist from buying a rote from some obscure ghost and renaming it to work with whatever power stat an arcana geists use. Rewriting a system to do something it already does is pretty wasteful; GMC barely pulled it off.

[MugaSofer]

Which would hurt the people who don't play crossovers - the target audience.

... how exactly would giving things an XP cost commiserate with their usefulness *hurt* the players?

whats the problem here? especially when all of roleplaying is essentially a bunch of differently colored fireballs. its all window dressing over the mechanics anyways. so what if you assign a different mechanic to a different fireball? that just means you have decided to make the skeleton unnecessarily complicated, when really nothing is different, your still rolling dice and probably paying a cost for your fireball.

what waste time focusing on what kind of mechanical cost you make and what dice you roll and whatnot, and instead focus on the roleplaying aspect? its the important after all and to say its all "differently colored fireballs" is really missing the point of roleplaying in general. the mechanics are just there to uphold the story. you don't make a difference in fireballs by changing mechanics, you make them different by roleplaying out the fireballs. a great big fiery snake that coils around its enemies and crushes them in its flames is different enough from a fiery phoenix that cuts everyone to cinders with its wings without need to make different unnecessary ways to roll dice and shuffle around points about it- mostly because they still do the same thing: kill lots of people with fire.

Different mechanics affect how people use said powers, and how their use effects them.

Let's look at different "fireball" powers. Disclaimer: I am more familiar with some lines than others, so not all of these may be strictly accurate.

Spoiler

Show

Vampire:

Spoiler

Show

Vampires usually can't throw fireballs, because that isn't a thing vampires do - but blood sorcery, maybe? Hitting that guy with a fireball isn't something you do casually - it's a dark, unholy ritual, involving spilling your stolen lifeblood to harness a power anathema to you kind, because fire is freaking dangerous to vampires.

Mage:

Spoiler

Show

Your command over Forces means that, should you wish, you can create some fire and throw it at people - or some electricity or a beam of searing light, or you could just fly away. (But you can't increase the heat/charge/light in someone's *brain* and fry them, because that's alive and Atlantean metaphysics says that matters even if physics doesn't.)

Werewolf:

Spoiler

Show

Aou tracked down an alien personification of Fire, and you beat it into telling you how it throws fireballs. Or maybe it was so scared of you you didn't even have to beat it. OR maybe you just tied it to a stick, carry it around, and have it shoot fireballs for you.

Changeling:

Spoiler

Show

As a Fae creature, now, you can choose to use the age-old pact between Fae and Flame, paying the price in order to have it leap at your foes. If the Fire is amenable, heck, it might even waive the usual payment. (Also, it's weaker than everyone else's fireball, but costs less XP. Not sure what that's supposed to achieve, exactly.)

Promethean:

Spoiler

Show

Part of your body is a flamethrower. If you use it around people, naturally, everyone will see your a hideous monster with a flamethrower for an arm, and probably lynch you. Also, other, even more hideous monsters might sense the power and come to drain you dry.

Geist:

Spoiler

Show

You ... ah ... the Deathgod squatting in your brain agreed to use some of it's power to kill people with fire? Or maybe it's part of your Krewe's cultish beliefs about the nature of death and Geists and stuff? Or maybe you died in a fire so you can use that tie to inflict that on others?Something like that? I'm not overly familiar with Geist.

Hunter:

Spoiler

Show

You noticed plenty of monsters are scared of fire. So you built a firebomb to throw at 'em. Maybe fine-tuned it when you had more practice throwing 'em at monsters.

Genius:

Spoiler

Show

You *say* that your study of charged volatiles let you create vortex effect, channelling the self-replenishing nanoparticles into a burning "smoke-ring" of fuel. But actually, you're just good at building guns, and that "explanation" determines little but the shape. Also, you have to be careful, because you're not sure you built this right and it might turn out to explode or eat you.

Princess:

Spoiler

Show

You transform into a colourful costume and, drawing on the encouragement of your friends, shoot a colourful ball of fire at the Bad Guy. Why? Nonsense the writers threw together!

Leviathan:

Spoiler

Show

Because of your inhuman heritage, you can breathe fire. Don't let anyone see that; they'll probably start worshiping you as a god.