General WoD Discussion #4: Rage Against the God-Machine

[Nerd-o-rama]

Are these dates remotely accurate to the real world? Because they're definitely not anywhere near evenly-spaced.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sothic_cycle

It's a real thing, but the dates on it are extremely arguable and the ones listed there have nothing to do with the alleged real-life cycle. Regardless of when you're dating it to, the cycles should be of equal length.

[Almarck]

Several dates were ommited I believe. There were like a few more periods mummies were up and about, unless I am misremembering something.



Also, for the shotgun thing: I think that at those ranges there's a rule that the distances are too far and thus, the shotguns are unable to hit things at range +800. It's either that, or you keep stacking range penalties above long or forcing it to go into chance die territory. Shotguns while they got decent range, they aren't likely to hit things past a certain range without a little bit of luck.

The 8/9-again rules do not neccesarily mean better accuracy either, rather, they mean increased chance to make a "critical hit" if they land. They only come into play if the attack is successful without them in the first place.

Interestingly enough, I think 8/9 again weapons get a little nerfed due to the way the GMC combat rule work. Because dice pools are going to be smaller on average, due to weapons not attacking more attack dice, defense being higher, more chances for some enemies to apply defense versus firearms, how armor works against bullets, it's harder for 9 again to be considered more valuable than a flat +1 damage since if the attack hits. If the 4 damage rifle hits a target, it deal guaranteed and consistent damage, whereas if the 3 9-agian shotgun hits, it's only a small chance for it to equal to the rifle's flat +1, smaller that it can surpass it.

[Kiero]

For the most part, unless you have some special supernatural exception, Defense only applies against melee and thrown attacks. Everyone's Defense against firearms is zero, unless you're Dodging, which means you can't do anything else.

[Sith_Happens]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sothic_cycle

It's a real thing, but the dates on it are extremely arguable and the ones listed there have nothing to do with the alleged real-life cycle. Regardless of when you're dating it to, the cycles should be of equal length.

...Wait, I got it, Gwyn just typo'd and wrote "551 BC" when it should be "551 AD." Then those years are all 1461 apart from each other.

[Gwyn chan 'r Gwyll]

...Wait, I got it, Gwyn just typo'd and wrote "551 BC" when it should be "551 AD." Then those years are all 1461 apart from each other.

Yeah, looks like my fingers fumbled.

The trick behind verifying the cycles in real life is that it's based on when two different calendars, one 365 days and one 365.25 days, count new years on the same day, and both calendars we don't know exactly when to start counting, sooooooo yeah.

[Kiero]

How's this sound as a Merit:

Off-hand Training (●) - While not genuinely ambidextrous, you have trained your non-dominant hand extensively to be almost as good as the dominant. When attacking with your off hand, you only suffer -1, rather than the usual -2 penalty. You are no better with fine motor tasks, such as writing or playing instruments with your off-hand, than someone without this training.

[Blackhawk748]

Whole lot of Mummy stuff

Ok, so Mortal remains had it pretty much spot on, way to go Hunters. So as a Mummy you wake up, do the thing you were woke up for, and go to bed? Then whats with the "shaping cities and cultures" bit? Why do they destroy artifacts from their own time? In short, WHY DO THEY DO ANYTHING!!!....sorry lost it for a bit there, im just having problems figuring out why Mummies make ludicrously long lived plans, i mean whats the point?

[Almarck]

Anything know about the new Influence stuff? I can't find the rules for it.

[SiuiS]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sothic_cycle

It's a real thing, but the dates on it are extremely arguable and the ones listed there have nothing to do with the alleged real-life cycle. Regardless of when you're dating it to, the cycles should be of equal length.

It's a coterminous point between two different cycles, which may be related to another, third point. It's possible to make a cycle that's a pattern when it's long enough but seems stochastic before that.

I don't have names for them, but I'm thinking they'd respectively relate to

1. Your desire to live a normal human life (or not).

2. Your need to band with other changelings and/or do faerie-ish things to ensure your survival.

Hmm. Okay. Problem though; what would they be? I suspect I'll need to do research.

Kiero, can you give me concretes? Virtue and vice are blood and bone, right? What are a few specific Bloods? Specific Bones?

How's this sound as a Merit:

Off-hand Training (●) - While not genuinely ambidextrous, you have trained your non-dominant hand extensively to be almost as good as the dominant. When attacking with your off hand, you only suffer -1, rather than the usual -2 penalty. You are no better with fine motor tasks, such as writing or playing instruments with your off-hand, than someone without this training.

I think "off-hand" is a valid specialty for firearms, weaponry, brawl and athletics as is. Do you want to limit it to -1 is the best you'll get, or would you allow both this merit and the specialty for perfect ambidexterity but at higher cost since it's past chargen?

[Almarck]

I'm, not Keiro, but my current character runs Challenger and Guru for Blood and Bone. Both are somewhat self explainatory.

Challenger is about looking superior, even at the cost of losing victory. You get a willpower for ignoring safety to take a dare.
Or he recovers all willpower for overwhelming and dominating a rival.

Guru lends advice. One willpower if someone follows his advice, but if he convinces the whole pack to take his recommended course of action, he goes to full.

[SiuiS]

I'm, not Keiro, but my current character runs Challenger and Guru for Blood and Bone. Both are somewhat self explainatory.

Challenger is about looking superior, even at the cost of losing victory. You get a willpower for ignoring safety to take a dare.
Or he recovers all willpower for overwhelming and dominating a rival.

Guru lends advice. One willpower if someone follows his advice, but if he convinces the whole pack to take his recommended course of action, he goes to full.

Ah that sounds good. I'll need to see the whole rules but that opens up my mental horizons.

[magic9mushroom]

You keep saying this, but 8-again and 9-again give extra successes and the entire problem in the first place is that successes represent(ed) equal parts accuracy and damage. For example, you could possibly roll three dice with 8-again and get four successes where you'd have only gotten two without the 8-again, which means you're hitting a defense roll of 3 when you normally wouldn't have.

My entire line of argument has been defending the combat system of 1e. Defence rolls do not exist. In 1e, any number of successes is a hit. The number of successes determines damage.

8-again does not modify the chance of a hit, because it can't turn a miss (zero successes) into a hit, and it certainly can't turn a hit into a miss. It modifies the average damage given that you hit. Thus, it gives a second dimension (the first being dice pool, which modifies both accuracy and damage). A less-accurate but more-damaging weapon has less of a dice bonus, but 9-again or 8-again. A more-accurate but less-damaging weapon has more dice, but no 10-again. A more-accurate and more-damaging weapon has more dice. A less-accurate and less-damaging weapon has less dice.

This is why I say that there is mechanical discrimination between accuracy and damage in 1e. It's perhaps not as easy to intuitively sense (as demonstrated by all these people denying it), but it is there, and that's what matters.

[SiuiS]

Why are you defending a combat system? Who from? For what? No one is saying nWoD is some terrible beast which must be hunted or exiled. They said "this one thing was weird".

A sub machine gun has better accuracy than a scoped hunting rifle at long range. Some people find that to be a problem.
9-again on weapons gives them skewed results – an average dice pool generates one success per three dice, a dice pool with 9-again generates more.
A hit from a cannon ball can be a barest scratch, rather than just imploding any human it hits.

These things don't jive with the visceral sense of verisimilitude. That's what matters. Not some technicality which fails to ameliorate this sense of unease.

[magic9mushroom]

Why are you defending a combat system? Who from? For what? No one is saying nWoD is some terrible beast which must be hunted or exiled. They said "this one thing was weird".

Because that one thing didn't have the problem you're all saying it did.

A sub machine gun has better accuracy than a scoped hunting rifle at long range. Some people find that to be a problem.

At all ranges in excess of 160 yards (significantly less than the hunting rifle's short range limit of 200 yards, let alone its medium range limit of 400 yards), the rifle will be vastly more accurate than the submachine gun, as the submachine gun gets a chance die regardless of modifiers due to being beyond its long range limit. Thus, this claim is flatly wrong.

I can only surmise that you are comparing "long range" to "long range" without realising that the "long range" of rifles is a far greater actual distance than the "long range" of shotguns and submachine guns.

9-again on weapons gives them skewed results – an average dice pool generates one success per three dice, a dice pool with 9-again generates more.

Yes? 9-again gives greater damage than no 9-again (but no difference in accuracy). This is how nWoD 1e discriminates between damage and accuracy.

A hit from a cannon ball can be a barest scratch, rather than just imploding any human it hits.

There aren't given stats for mediaeval cannon to my knowledge, but heavy weapons (and a full-size cannon certainly qualifies as that!) typically are given bonus successes on hit in Armory (and extra successes were mentioned as a possibility for immensely-deadly weapons in the 1e core book, I'll add, so it's not actually a rule patch). And I mean if a cannonball hits your hand, it'll break every bone in your hand and probably break your arm too, but that's not necessarily an instakill.

[Almarck]

Anyone have an idea for a exp conversions for Mummy now that GMC came out? I don't seem to have access to a translation list for that.

[SiuiS]

At 801 yards, the odds of a rifle striking are 10%. The odd of a rifle doing more than minimum damage are 11%. The same odds for a shotgun are 10% and 12%.

And you do understand the purpose of an example, right? Not to specify the exact instance of wear but to illustrate a point? The existence or nonexistence of cannon stats is irrelevant. The point that something that can liquify human bodies can "hit" enough to inflict poison or similar, but not actually hit because an actual hit would liquify the body, is still there.

[Almarck]

According to page 161 in the Core rules, the shotgun is considered completely out of range at 801 and thus not even allowed to roll a chance die.

The situations you have described are not even allowed to take place within the rules.

In short, your friends shooting things at long range with shotguns were performing illegal actions. The base shotgun's absolute maximum range (160 for absolute maximum) is smaller than the maximum short range of the rifle
(200 short for a standard rifle). The situation is more, chance die for everything past 80, auto fail at 160. Use rifle for better damage over range because it really is more accurate.

[SiuiS]

Ha! I stopped a sentence before that point. That's hilarious.

I'm going to point again however to the "this has bothered enough people in enough circumstances that an example I make up arbitrarily may be wrong without saying the emergent property is nonexistent" bit. I'm trying for minimum effort to get the idea across rather than an exhaustive and rigorous study.

[magic9mushroom]

Ha! I stopped a sentence before that point. That's hilarious.

Forgiven, although I'd prefer you went back and did your homework on the first or second time you're contradicted in future.

I'm going to point again however to the "this has bothered enough people in enough circumstances that an example I make up arbitrarily may be wrong without saying the emergent property is nonexistent" bit. I'm trying for minimum effort to get the idea across rather than an exhaustive and rigorous study.

The issue is that I'm pretty sure the basic thrust of each of your objections has actually been based on some misunderstanding. There are some weapons and armour that aren't written up too well, certainly - bulletproof vests working as well as mail against a knife, for instance - but I don't think you've demonstrated any big systemic flaws yet. The reasons your examples don't work are, so far, systemic protections against the problems the examples supposedly demonstrate, rather than being specific nitpicking (e.g. other weapons besides rifles being useful at rifle medium/long range; at such range, all the other weapons are autofailures or in some rifle-medium-range cases chance die).

For instance:

The point that something that can liquify human bodies can "hit" enough to inflict poison or similar, but not actually hit because an actual hit would liquify the body, is still there.

Extra Successes: The trick, tool or power used packs
a real wallop. A number of extra successes are added to
any rolled for the effect, automatically improving its results.
A massive weapon might inflict crippling harm, for
example. Its Damage rating (see p. 170) is applied not as
bonus dice to your attack roll but as extra successes to
your roll. If the weapon's Damage rating is 4, it adds four
to any successes achieved. If you roll no successes at all,
the extra successes go to waste. They can only be added to
any that you achieve. Typically, this modification is reserved
for extremely powerful supernatural effects or tools.

This is "typically" because you usually aren't using the sort of mundane things that are this powerful - powerful enough that even a glancing blow will always inflict multiple levels of damage - on man-sized targets. But Armory does use this rule for heavy weapons. Which are the only mundane weapons for which this complaint really applies (and which weren't statted in the core book). So 1e did, in fact, cover this.

[Kiero]

Kiero, can you give me concretes? Virtue and vice are blood and bone, right? What are a few specific Bloods? Specific Bones?

Yes, Blood and Bone replace Virtue and Vice for werewolves. There's a list of them in the book, but you can also make up your own. Our group has the following Bloods: Monster, Soldier and the Rash; and Bones: Organiser, Preserver and Guru. Someone on the OP forum has started a thread on some custom ones, too.

I think "off-hand" is a valid specialty for firearms, weaponry, brawl and athletics as is. Do you want to limit it to -1 is the best you'll get, or would you allow both this merit and the specialty for perfect ambidexterity but at higher cost since it's past chargen?

I don't see an issue, since it's not perfect ambidexterity even with a Speciality as well; it's ambidexterity in that very specific application. And it's a very expensive way to get it with "all combat" if you get a Speciality in Off-Hand for each of the combat skills. Which still wouldn't let you write fluently, or play an instrument, or do surgery with your off-hand, as someone with true Ambidexterity could.

[magic9mushroom]

I don't see an issue, since it's not perfect ambidexterity even with a Speciality as well; it's ambidexterity in that very specific application. And it's a very expensive way to get it with "all combat" if you get a Speciality in Off-Hand for each of the combat skills. Which still wouldn't let you write fluently, or play an instrument, or do surgery with your off-hand, as someone with true Ambidexterity could.

This is a nitpick, but people who are inherently ambidextrous often end up learning particular skills with a particular hand. Writing, for instance, is usually taught one-handed, not balanced between both (and the position for writing left-handed is not the mirror-image of the position for writing right-handed, since English is written from left to right and using the right-handed position left-handed would smudge what you'd already written). When learning to shoot a bow, you typically keep the same hand as the draw hand and the same hand as the bow hand during a session - and most modern bows are built for a particular handedness, making it harder to balance your training. Heck, even the mice on computers take extra effort to switch sides in most cases, or are some cases are actually asymmetrical.

It does actually take more effort to learn a skill with both hands than it does to learn it with one hand, whether you're ambidextrous or not.

[Kiero]

This is a nitpick, but people who are inherently ambidextrous often end up learning particular skills with a particular hand. Writing, for instance, is usually taught one-handed, not balanced between both (and the position for writing left-handed is not the mirror-image of the position for writing right-handed, since English is written from left to right and using the right-handed position left-handed would smudge what you'd already written). When learning to shoot a bow, you typically keep the same hand as the draw hand and the same hand as the bow hand during a session - and most modern bows are built for a particular handedness, making it harder to balance your training. Heck, even the mice on computers take extra effort to switch sides in most cases, or are some cases are actually asymmetrical.

It does actually take more effort to learn a skill with both hands than it does to learn it with one hand, whether you're ambidextrous or not.

You're conflating gross motor functions (mostly full-body co-ordination) with fine motor functions (mostly hand-eye co-ordination), which are very different things.

I'm not ambidextrous, I'm right-handed. But I can kick a football almost as well with my left foot as my right, because I've always played with both feet. I also don't care whether I throw a punch or kick with my left hand/leg because again I've always extensively trained both sides. These are all gross motor functions.

However, I can't write to any degree of ability with my left hand, nor indeed perform any fine motor functions with much facility off-handed.

Essentially, this Merit only covers gross motor functions, which is why it makes specific reference to fine motor functions like writing or playing instruments.

[Gwyn chan 'r Gwyll]

Ok, so Mortal remains had it pretty much spot on, way to go Hunters. So as a Mummy you wake up, do the thing you were woke up for, and go to bed? Then whats with the "shaping cities and cultures" bit? Why do they destroy artifacts from their own time? In short, WHY DO THEY DO ANYTHING!!!....sorry lost it for a bit there, im just having problems figuring out why Mummies make ludicrously long lived plans, i mean whats the point?

They're not totally subservient. They just can't decide WHEN to do their things. Some of them work towards freeing themselves from the Judges (achieving Apotheosis, but they're considered heretics and nobody knows if it even can be done), others act according to their ideologies (some work to free the oppressed, for personal power, curiosity, stuff like that). Mummies are still HUMAN at their hearts; they're just super-powerful humans from millenia ago with severe amnesia. They have similar drives as we do; some even make quasi-mummies called Sadikh out of their servants so that they'll have someone always with them, who understands them, because just like us they get lonely.

Regarding artifacts, generally they don't destroy artifacts, but these are modern times, artifacts get destroyed or damaged by accident or by vandals or by philistines.

[magic9mushroom]

You're conflating gross motor functions (mostly full-body co-ordination) with fine motor functions (mostly hand-eye co-ordination), which are very different things.

I'm not ambidextrous, I'm right-handed. But I can kick a football almost as well with my left foot as my right, because I've always played with both feet. I also don't care whether I throw a punch or kick with my left hand/leg because again I've always extensively trained both sides. These are all gross motor functions.

However, I can't write to any degree of ability with my left hand, nor indeed perform any fine motor functions with much facility off-handed.

Essentially, this Merit only covers gross motor functions, which is why it makes specific reference to fine motor functions like writing or playing instruments.

Yeah, I'm rather griping about the full Ambidextrous Merit - being ambidextrous doesn't mean you can automatically mirror anything to the other hand. You have to practice with both.


EDIT: Interesting fact. Remember that argument we were having a while back about whether taking damage during extended actions invokes a penalty? Guess what I just happened across in the Vampire: the Requiem book.

Note also that each point of damage
incurred in a turn is a penalty to the next casting roll made for
the character, in addition to any wound penalties suffered.

[SiuiS]

Yes, Blood and Bone replace Virtue and Vice for werewolves. There's a list of them in the book, but you can also make up your own. Our group has the following Bloods: Monster, Soldier and the Rash; and Bones: Organiser, Preserver and Guru. Someone on the OP forum has started a thread on some custom ones, too.

Thanks.

I don't see an issue, since it's not perfect ambidexterity even with a Speciality as well; it's ambidexterity in that very specific application. And it's a very expensive way to get it with "all combat" if you get a Speciality in Off-Hand for each of the combat skills. Which still wouldn't let you write fluently, or play an instrument, or do surgery with your off-hand, as someone with true Ambidexterity could.

Okay. Just wanted to make sure you knew the angles covered.

This is a nitpick, but people who are inherently ambidextrous often end up learning particular skills with a particular hand. Writing, for instance, is usually taught one-handed, not balanced between both (and the position for writing left-handed is not the mirror-image of the position for writing right-handed, since English is written from left to right and using the right-handed position left-handed would smudge what you'd already written). When learning to shoot a bow, you typically keep the same hand as the draw hand and the same hand as the bow hand during a session - and most modern bows are built for a particular handedness, making it harder to balance your training. Heck, even the mice on computers take extra effort to switch sides in most cases, or are some cases are actually asymmetrical.

It does actually take more effort to learn a skill with both hands than it does to learn it with one hand, whether you're ambidextrous or not.

This conversation is muddled by Cross dominance, wherein one side is primary for some tasks (naturally, not through training) and other side is primary for others. I've found myself having a hard time writing on a whiteboard for instance, and it took me a few moments to realize I was using my left hand. I had just finished doing a kata demo and I punch left handed, so it mapped over – except I had no proficiency beyond motor skill and mental coordination.

I think much like other things being based off of their narrative forms, like chainsaws (terrible, terrible weapons), ambidexterity is based off the television understanding of it. The merit reflects someone who has trained both sides and also has the proficiency naturally to use both.

[magic9mushroom]

This conversation is muddled by Cross dominance, wherein one side is primary for some tasks (naturally, not through training) and other side is primary for others. I've found myself having a hard time writing on a whiteboard for instance, and it took me a few moments to realize I was using my left hand. I had just finished doing a kata demo and I punch left handed, so it mapped over – except I had no proficiency beyond motor skill and mental coordination.

Agreed.

I think much like other things being based off of their narrative forms, like chainsaws (terrible, terrible weapons), ambidexterity is based off the television understanding of it. The merit reflects someone who has trained both sides and also has the proficiency naturally to use both.

Well, chainsaws in Armory are -2 8-again, so they're not exactly fantastic.

AFAIK the big issues with using a chainsaw as a weapon would be that a) they're not weighted right, b) they take quite a while to build up momentum (and once they do, that will act as a gyroscope, making it even harder to wield), c) flesh and clothing will jam it in very short order, d) contact with bone on a "swing" of a chainsaw will fail to cut and therefore transmit a massive shock back through the chainsaw as the chain's momentum is suddenly halted. Any I've missed?

[SiuiS]

I'm confident enough that Kiero is speaking of second edition that I am not sure armory is the book to go to.

But yes. You can't "swing" a chainsaw. You deliberately move it into a space occupied by a substance you want to saw. I remember something like "heck, though, this is all narrative. If you need a super cool katana, use these stats for a katana. Whatever. This is ne'er supposed to be an exhaustive list".

A chainsaw is a 5 damage 9 again two handed weapon. -6 on initiative, too. Woah. That's a messy weapon.


*


Alright. So Kiero, how readable is the PDF? I ask because I much, much, much prefer solid and corporeal books, but I also like eating this week.

[Almarck]

-6? Man, that's worse than the initiative penalty for most guns. It seems the balancing factor for guns and melee is that melee is much faster now with using built in weapons or flatout brawling doing no penalties. I like this change. Still, that chainsaw though, a minimum of 6L damage against an unarmored foe.

Also, I personally find the quality of the book much better than the original Werewolf NWoD 1e book myself. Better constructed, better bookmarks, and things follow the typical WoD book formats. Another neat thing is that all of the important rules for running a game are in the book itself, so you don't even need to own a copy of anything but Werewolf 2e to run a game. You may still need to find things using a search command, but it's not too bad. My only issue was finding the spirit rules for totems but that only took like 10 minutes.

There might still be some errors or hiccups though.

You will probably immediately just flip out once you see what some of the big changes are. So much stuff is redesigned and revamped, the only thing able to be ported from 1e might be the gifts from Signs of the Moon and the fetishes. Entire sections of old gifts wouldn't work or fit the new system at all without serious redesign to convert for the Facets system.

[magic9mushroom]

I'm confident enough that Kiero is speaking of second edition that I am not sure armory is the book to go to.

But yes. You can't "swing" a chainsaw. You deliberately move it into a space occupied by a substance you want to saw. I remember something like "heck, though, this is all narrative. If you need a super cool katana, use these stats for a katana. Whatever. This is ne'er supposed to be an exhaustive list".

A chainsaw is a 5 damage 9 again two handed weapon. -6 on initiative, too. Woah. That's a messy weapon.

oh jesus wat

Conceded that chainsaws in 2e are nothing like chainsaws in 1e or RL.

[Kiero]

Alright. So Kiero, how readable is the PDF? I ask because I much, much, much prefer solid and corporeal books, but I also like eating this week.

I don't know; I have pre-formatted PDFs of various chapters, rather than the whole finished product. Reads just fine to me, but I don't generally have an issue with using electronic formats, so I'm coming from a different position to you.