Remove ads

General Exalted Thread

Reader mode
vicky_molokh said:
Note that I'm mostly working in a 2e/2½e framework. I only brought up 3e at all as a proof that charm cross-training is meant to be a fluffy in-setting concept that is in search of a balanced rules mechanisation, not an abstract rule in search of a setting justification.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
My point is just that, judging from the most recent update, that fluffy in-setting concept is not supposed to work the way you described.
 
Imrix said:
No, it runs into "the setting isn't actually written that way," as people have repeatedly pointed out. The mote as the smallest unit of essence is a thing in-setting (as a piece of arcane lore studied and talked about by First Age savants akin to modern physicists talking about the Higgs-Boson particle, and maybe some Second Age sorcerers still discuss bastardised versions of this lore that have survived and mutated in the intervening centuries and apocalypses), and it is also a system term, but these are not necessarily the same quantities.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Is there actually written evidence anywhere that this term, that is very explicitly defined in one place of the core book, in the Lexicon, actually has a totally different definition for use in discussions of game mechanics?
Because that would be like saying that a setting uses the kilogram as a unit of mass, and then provide game-mechanics with kilograms that are totally not equal to 1000 grams (not even by an order of magnitude near), and then keep writing game mechanics with the new assumption and never ever write that the kilogram as a term has two very different values.
rikalous said:
My point is just that, judging from the most recent update, that fluffy in-setting concept is not supposed to work the way you described.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
3e seems to bring many changes, including fluffy ones. Yes, I'm aware that it shifted from 'Eclipses can learn anything' to 'Eclipses can learn some foreign Charms'. My point was that they retained 'Eclipses can cross-train in Charms' even despite cutting down on the list of acceptable charms, even despite changing the way Castes are split, despite changing how sorcery is attained fluff-wise, despite changing geography and so on.
 
Last edited:
Imrix said:
No, it runs into "the setting isn't actually written that way," as people have repeatedly pointed out. The mote as the smallest unit of essence is a thing in-setting (as a piece of arcane lore studied and talked about by First Age savants akin to modern physicists talking about the Higgs-Boson particle, and maybe some Second Age sorcerers still discuss bastardised versions of this lore that have survived and mutated in the intervening centuries and apocalypses), and it is also a system term, but these are not necessarily the same quantities.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

To put it another way, Second Age Creation may well have Atomism, but it won't have atomic theory. And atomism is not atomic theory.
 
vicky_molokh said:
Is there actually written evidence anywhere that this term, that is very explicitly defined in one place of the core book, in the Lexicon, actually has a totally different definition for use in discussions of game mechanics?

Because that would be like saying that a setting uses the kilogram as a unit of mass, and then provide game-mechanics with kilograms that are totally not equal to 1000 grams (not even by an order of magnitude near), and then keep writing game mechanics with the new assumption and never ever write that the kilogram as a term has two very different values.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
That is the only way to reconcile that segment in the core with literally the whole rest of the gameline.

You are arguing that because motes in the mechanics are a real thing in-setting (lolwut), this leads to obvious effects on the setting as a whole.

However, these effects are simply not present. Therefore, your interpretation of that segment in the core is clearly false. Now, maybe mine is not correct, but at least it actually meshes with, you know, the setting as presented.

This amuses me, actually greatly amuses as you are the one who keeps arguing 'well the setting says this, why are you ignoring the setting,' and yet here you are... flagrantly ignoring the setting.
 
Last edited:
notthepenguins said:
That is the only way to reconcile that segment in the core with literally the whole rest of the gameline.

You are arguing that because motes in the mechanics are a real thing in-setting (lolwut), this leads to obvious effects on the setting as a whole.

However, these effects are simply not present. Therefore, your interpretation of that segment in the core is clearly false. Now, maybe mine is not correct, but at least it actually meshes with, you know, the setting as presented.

This amuses me, actually greatly amuses as you are the one who keeps arguing 'well the setting says this, why are you ignoring the setting,' and yet here you are... flagrantly ignoring the setting.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
At this point, I find our differences of perspectives more amusing and interesting than the outcome of the specific issue which showed this difference of perspectives. (I suppose I might return to the issue, but anyway . . . )

My perspective is as follows: I see direct evidence of X == 1, in the very definition X. It is not an interpretation of indirect evidence, it is very explicit. Furthermore, nowhere does it say that X has alternate values of 2, 3 or anything other than 1. There are no examples of in-setting-describing fiction (fluff) that uses this X in a different way or otherwise present in-setting effects that could indicate a different value of X. There is no out-of-setting sidebar/box that says that 'but for OOC purposes, X != 1'. And yet you say that my point is an interpretation.
(I'd really like to repeat my kilogram-that-is-not-a-kilogram analogy.)
 
vicky_molokh said:
At this point, I find our differences of perspectives more amusing and interesting than the outcome of the specific issue which showed this difference of perspectives. (I suppose I might return to the issue, but anyway . . . )

My perspective is as follows: I see direct evidence of X == 1, in the very definition X. It is not an interpretation of indirect evidence, it is very explicit. Furthermore, nowhere does it say that X has alternate values of 2, 3 or anything other than 1. There are no examples of in-setting-describing fiction (fluff) that uses this X in a different way or otherwise present in-setting effects that could indicate a different value of X. There is no out-of-setting sidebar/box that says that 'but for OOC purposes, X != 1'. And yet you say that my point is an interpretation.
(I'd really like to repeat my kilogram-that-is-not-a-kilogram analogy.)
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
And yet, nowhere in the setting does anyone ever actually indicate that X == 1. Despite the fact that if X really did == 1, per your own argument, then that should populate dialogue and affect action, all over the place.

If you read a book that said that temperatures are all measured in Celsius, but all the characters within it only spoke about them in ways that would make sense if they were in Fahrenheit, would you assume that all of the action in the book really took place at just-shy-of-boiling temperatures, despite no indication that it ever does?

Or would you assume that someone just fucked up when they wrote Celsius, in a series where it is well-known that the author fucks up like that?
 
Hmm, would (Ritual Components) be a valid specialty for craft you reckon? Or should I just take alchemy and use one of those craft charms that let me do a 'related' field.
 
notthepenguins said:
And yet, nowhere in the setting does anyone ever actually indicate that X == 1. Despite the fact that if X really did == 1, per your own argument, then that should populate dialogue and affect action, all over the place.

If you read a book that said that temperatures are all measured in Celsius, but all the characters within it only spoke about them in ways that would make sense if they were in Fahrenheit, would you assume that all of the action in the book really took place at just-shy-of-boiling temperatures, despite no indication that it ever does?

Or would you assume that someone just fucked up when they wrote Celsius, in a series where it is well-known that the author fucks up like that?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Unless I'm extremely prejudiced against the book, I would start looking for a way to reconcile the two facts.
For instance, Hermit and the Six-Fingered One seems to be described slightly weirdly from an anatomical PoV, even though both are clearly sapient persons capable of critical thinking.
Turns out that the book is about two broilers in a checken factory, in a setting where broilers can communicate amongst themselves with a clarity comparable to young humans.
Or take the non-book example of SOMA, where you're told to go for a brain scan and warned that you still only have some months or years to live. Then you wake up many years later, with partial amnesia. You can also turn on a flashlight even though you woke up without one. And when a window breaks, you easily survive a pressure increase of many tens to hundreds of atmospheres. Surely those two facts are contradictory?
Nope, it's just a setting where an AI core can be used to run a brain-scan image as an emulation of a human, and you're running as such an emulation. You also have a robot body with a built-in flashlight, but your method of coping was denial. And yes, the game does occur in an enviornment of huge pressures.
The latter example is actually very close to your just-shy-of-boiling temperatures example (pressure instead of termperature).
Oh, and there's of course a myriad books where speeds are mentioned in familiar units . . . and surely we're not supposed to dismiss them if they happen to exceed c.

So yes, I would be looking for ways to reconcile the two and try to understand what kind of setting it is that reconciles the two.
 
vicky_molokh said:
Unless I'm extremely prejudiced against the book, I would start looking for a way to reconcile the two facts.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
You mean, as you might be when reading Exalted 2nd Edition, with a near-complete lack of editorial oversight and books that completely contradict the rest of the line and themselves?

vicky_molokh said:
So yes, I would be looking for ways to reconcile the two and try to understand what kind of setting it is that reconciles the two.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Tip: You do this by going 'oh, clearly 'mote' the mechanics term and 'mote' the setting term are different.'

That is the reconciliation.
 
vicky_molokh said:
Unless I'm extremely prejudiced against the book, I would start looking for a way to reconcile the two facts.
For instance, Hermit and the Six-Fingered One seems to be described slightly weirdly from an anatomical PoV, even though both are clearly sapient persons capable of critical thinking.
Turns out that the book is about two broilers in a checken factory, in a setting where broilers can communicate amongst themselves with a clarity comparable to young humans.
Or take the non-book example of SOMA, where you're told to go for a brain scan and warned that you still only have some months or years to live. Then you wake up many years later, with partial amnesia. You can also turn on a flashlight even though you woke up without one. And when a window breaks, you easily survive a pressure increase of many tens to hundreds of atmospheres. Surely those two facts are contradictory?
Nope, it's just a setting where an AI core can be used to run a brain-scan image as an emulation of a human, and you're running as such an emulation. You also have a robot body with a built-in flashlight, but your method of coping was denial. And yes, the game does occur in an enviornment of huge pressures.
The latter example is actually very close to your just-shy-of-boiling temperatures example (pressure instead of termperature).
Oh, and there's of course a myriad books where speeds are mentioned in familiar units . . . and surely we're not supposed to dismiss them if they happen to exceed c.

So yes, I would be looking for ways to reconcile the two and try to understand what kind of setting it is that reconciles the two.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

That's very nice.

It's also totally irrelevant, because settings and works which are designed to have a twist or a plot revelation in them are orthogonal to the issue of inconsistently written settings. And twisting things like a pretzel to try to justify badly written things just ends up ignoring other parts of the setting, so you might as well just ignore the bad thing with is a) easier, b) more productive and c) gets the bad thing out.

Please stop trying to drag in irrelevancies.
 
I don't know that I'd call it the best anything out there, and the more I read the more certain I am that Exalted is going to remain one of the most heavily homebrewed games around, but it's still a marked improvement over 2e. Fewer problems, and the problems it does have are smaller and more easily fixable without rewriting the whole thing.

Better than I'd feared, worse than I'd hoped. C'est la vie.
 
Last edited:
Imrix said:
I don't know that I'd call it the best anything out there, and the more I read the more certain I am that Exalted is going to remain one of the most heavily homebrewed games around, but it's still a marked improvement over 2e. Fewer problems, and the problems it does have are smaller and more easily fixable without rewriting the whole thing.

Better than I'd feared, worse than I'd hoped. C'est la vie.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
My problem is that it's more dense and difficult to get through than 2e, (for all its faults, reading through the corebook was fun and interesting, especially the charms chapter. Not so much in 3e) so I'm worried about the community getting new blood.
 
Alright, yeah, the one widespread systemic complaint I do have is that the book is really newbie-unfriendly.
 
Imrix said:
I don't know that I'd call it the best anything out there, and the more I read the more certain I am that Exalted is going to remain one of the most heavily homebrewed games around, but it's still a marked improvement over 2e. Fewer problems, and the problems it does have are smaller and more easily fixable without rewriting the whole thing.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I think a lot of what I like about Ex3 and a lot of why some people dislike it is that in many places it operated a lateral shift in problems. Where it fails or stumbles, it is in different areas from where it previously did, areas where I don't care that it stumbles, or where I consider the stumbling an acceptable drawback for what is gained in exchange.

"Natural language" is one such example. I do acknowledge that natural language in Charms can be bothersome, obscuring the immediate mechanical meaning and creating needless ambiguity as well as making it harder to immediately grasp the meaning of the Charm. However, while any one Charm is easier for me to grasp when written, say, like a D&D spell (line of fluff separated from a clear mechanistic description of effct), it is much easier for me to browse Charms and read full lists when they are written in the style of Ex3 Charms, whereas my eyes glaze over as I pour through too many entries of clearly mechanistic writing - again, like a D&D spell, or @Roadie's proposed rewrite of Exalted Charms. This is why I have a much better grasp of the Solar Charmset than the 5e spell list, despite the former being much bigger in volume. This makes Solar Charm vastly more convenient to me than if they were written otherwise, and thus ultimately more useful.

Obviously this is not the case for everyone, but it's one of many ways in which I read the core and feel like it was written for me.
 
notthepenguins said:
You mean, as you might be when reading Exalted 2nd Edition, with a near-complete lack of editorial oversight and books that completely contradict the rest of the line and themselves?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I thought the definition of the mote dates back to 1e, word for word. Ditto the Ecliptic Charm-cross-trainability.

notthepenguins said:
Tip: You do this by going 'oh, clearly 'mote' the mechanics term and 'mote' the setting term are different.'

That is the reconciliation.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Well, if facts seem contradictory, then, barring measurement error, one is to take a second look at the theory that says that (and/or says why) the two or more facts are contradictory. I.e. if the reconcillation requires a fix, then its best to seek said fix somewhere outside the areas of the two (or more) facts that require reconcillation.

I guess my stance is also influenced by other factors:
  • I find it jarring when players get to make their characters decide to spend or not spend a very precisely quantified resource without the character being aware of the thinking that goes into said resource's management. (No, hit points are not the same thing, because normally hit point losses are nowhere near as predictable as mote expenditures.)
  • I'm currently reluctant to accept changes to fluff that involve overriding explicitly-written bits. Both as an actual player and as a hypothetical GM. I like it when published-setting information can be taken at face value without second-guessing, second-asking the GM for confirmation or the like. (Now, fully homebrew settings are another matter, but I still prefer them to have a reference text that can be taken at face value as written.)

Omicron said:
I think this is one of the best RPGs out there right now.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
What's it like, as a setting? Is it markedly better / more detailed / more interesting than the 2e setting? Will people stop complaining about certain states and organisations and religions and periods of history and so on?
 
Last edited:
vicky_molokh said:
I'm currently reluctant to accept changes to fluff that involve overriding explicitly-written bits. Both as an actual player and as a hypothetical GM. I like it when published-setting information can be taken at face value without second-guessing, second-asking the GM for confirmation or the like. (Now, fully homebrew settings are another matter, but I still prefer them to have a reference text that can be taken at face value as written.)
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Well you kinda have to, since plenty of books Scroll of the Monk and Scroll of Heroes have background in them that's hella dumb, like 'Places of Sin' and Demonbloods, to say nothing of outright contradictions.

You can play Exalted by just following the sourcebooks, but it's not really a good idea. For best results, you kind of have to interpret them instead.
 
vicky_molokh said:
What's it like, as a setting? Is it markedly better / more detailed / more interesting than the 2e setting? Will people stop complaining about certain states and organisations and religions and periods of history and so on?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
In one criminally undersized Setting chapter it makes me more invested in the world than half a dozen Compass books did for the previous editions, and most of that chapter is a retread of places I already know. It just knows how to cast the right light on these places, and where to introduce new things. The entire Dreaming Sea is straight-up amazing, and I wish there were more people discussing how the Yennin function or what great powers and awful mutations the rulers of Ysyr have mastered; but the Dreaming Sea isn't all that's new. The North has a prison-fortress converted into a ruthless city where might makes right and each men hopes to live a hero and die an immortal death, and a city whose alchemist have created an elixir of 'immortality' and is now ruled by pale umbrella-wearing undead. The East has an empire of fine warriors and weaponsmiths ruled by the Sword Prince wielding the Imperial Daiklave, and its forests are home to the Empire of the Winged Serpent, a coalition of serpentfolk and raitonfolk intermingled in a caste system. The South has a mining boom-town ruled by slaver-priests, whose tunnels are home to countless monsters and diseases - and that was before they dug too deep, and roused the anger of the Gemlords. And those aren't even the best.

It's good! It's evocative and rich and opens up new horizons for the game. Every place is a plot hook.
 
Last edited:
vicky_molokh said:
I'm currently reluctant to accept changes to fluff that involve overriding explicitly-written bits. Both as an actual player and as a hypothetical GM. I like it when published-setting information can be taken at face value without second-guessing, second-asking the GM for confirmation or the like. (Now, fully homebrew settings are another matter, but I still prefer them to have a reference text that can be taken at face value as written.)
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Again, the problem with this is that the writers were largely incompetent. There are giant swathes of material that was written by people who did not give a shit about consistency, thematic appropriateness or whether or not what they were throwing out on paper made any sense whatsoever. People are telling you to ignore the shit because it's shit.

It is, of course, an ideal for anyone to be able to pick up any given sourcebook, read the information and sit down to play immediately - this is the primary advantage of published settings, the ability to grab players and go without needing to laboriously explain the setting from scratch. However, that only works when the books in question were a) put through a proper editing process which ensured all products are fit for use and b) not written by people who didn't read the setting before they started writing and/or produced material for the wrong edition, which was published anyway. Which we didn't get.

Given these known facts, "I will twist myself in knots trying to reconcile the shit with the bits that aren't shit, thereby getting feces all over everything", from where I'm standing, looks like an case of absolute futility and profound masochism. Exalted is completely incoherent and practically unplayable without throwing out shit, the only question most of the time is "what is the ban list for this game?".
 
Last edited:
Omicron said:
Obviously this is not the case for everyone, but it's one of many ways in which I read the core and feel like it was written for me.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I can see that. I don't really share that view - I find that too much of the flavour text is obfuscatively written, obsessed with describing things in terms of Essence manipulation, or just plain bizarre for me to easily get an at-a-glance grip of the Charmset as a whole, but I can appreciate what you're describing.
Omicron said:
It's good! It's evocative and rich and opens up new horizons for the game. Every place is a plot hook.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
This much I can wholeheartedly agree with, though. The setting chapter was a treat to go through. It's actually longer than the 2e section, and still feels undersized, which I can only take as a good sign. Granted I have some quibbles, like the mention of Realm triremes patrolling the west, but they're only quibbles. If I have any substantive complaints, it's a sense of an apparent lack of Solar presence throughout kind of undercutting the sense of Solars as returning heroes making the world tremble at their footsteps, but I think that's just because it's hard not to compare the 3e corebook to all of 2e, rather than just the 2e corebook.
 
Omicron said:
In one criminally undersized Setting chapter it makes me more invested in the world than half a dozen Compass books did for the previous editions, and most of that chapter is a retread of places I already know. It just knows how to cast the right light on these places, and where to introduce new things. The entire Dreaming Sea is straight-up amazing, and I wish there were more people discussing how the Yennin function or what great powers and awful mutations the rulers of Ysyr have mastered; b
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Hey I played a sorcerer from Ysyr in a game based off the 3e leak. Unfortunately the game never really went anywhere (and I made a few mistakes with my character being split too many ways)
 
Reader mode
You must login or register to reply here.
Remove ads
Back
Top