You can just say that you don't like the way I run things without implying I'm inexperienced or unimaginative, Jesus fucking Christ.
And in turn, you can just say you don't like our playstyle or the things we like about the game without this constant incomprehension of why we might want complicated Dynasts, the implications we're joyless, or jumping to Confederate/Nazi comparisons.You can just say that you don't like the way I run things without implying I'm inexperienced or unimaginative, Jesus fucking Christ.
But what is more joyous than emulating Avatar 2 and using your whale familiar to rout the horrid Dynasts and their invading vessels? I honestly scratch my head at Exalted discussion because so much of it seems to be focused on making people play the way that suits their individual desires, when that seems futile to me and a little disrespectful of other people. But I just can't really envision any conversation with any Dynast that isn't already primed to defect to someone that's even mildly better as playing out as anything other than this.
@TenfoldShields
So, with that bureaucrat idea I briefly mentioned earlier, it just makes me reflect on how a really fun section of The Realm that I don't think gets talked about that much is the bit that details some of the ministries of the Thousand Scales, and they've all got their own over the top names and internal cultures and built in plot hooks. Just a few:
Like, you can just imagine a character fastidiously adjusting their spectacles and saying she works for one of these places, using its full name, while in the process of getting thrust into adventure.
- The Honorable and Humble Caretakers of the Common Folk
- The Infallible Conveyors of Official Messages and Heartfelt Expressions
- The Righteous and Accountable Ministry of Weights and Measures
I think that the idea was supposed to be that the basic combat system would work in a way that would ensure that ordinary mortals with high skills would matter. Enlightened mortals, this thinking went, were removed because they were a stopgap measure that would make only those mortals matter.One of the weird things about 3e to me is the power level was lowered, but then it seemed to double down on the Exalted being the only thing that matter by removing enlightened mortals and introducing new Exalted. I think a lot of this can be laid at the feet of Holden since most of the new Exalted he came up with were literally designed to be borderline unplayable antagonists.
Ehhhh.Don't like this; prefer the potential for rulership of various styles for every Exalted. None of them exactly kings mind you, but it should be an option. The 3e Lunar Territory Charms are a really good example of what I want.
So I've backed all the splatvooks like.lunars,.Exigents, Sidereal's,.etc, but I hear that there are two different books of monstera for 3e, so could someone tell me a few of their favorite antags from each one so I know which one to buy first?
Sorry if this is the wrong.place to ask stuff like this, but I heard the questions thread was deprecated.
It doesn't come off as advice to me, I've been into Exalted since 2014, I've played in and ran several long-running campaigns since then, and I think Gazeteer knows that but is, well, trying to be insulting. If she isn't, my apologies, but it's very frustrating to hear that. Honestly I feel weird about this whole situation since I've been trying to post positively, I've been making a conscious effort to be nicer to people because I feel really fucking bad about being seen as a prick by people, but it gets so much less traction than me being stubborn about something that's, ultimately, not really consequential in any case. I've *been* posting about how much fun I've had with Sidereals, my ideas for my campaign, and asking about mechanics, but it's upsetting to me that this is the most interaction I've gotten out of this thread in a while, and its mostly people getting irritated over something that I wasn't even trying to be mean about.... or you can take the advice as it was meant and not as a personal attack?
Thanks for the explanation. Does adversaries have any Infernals or getimians in it, or is it mostly wierd heroic mortals and examples of splats we already have rules for?I don't have examples to share but you are broadly correct about two antagonist books.
Adversaries of the righteous covers 'human/exalted' antagonists, while hundred devil night parade covers more monstrous things to fight
One thing What Fire Has Wrought leans into is that while any given Realm Dragon-Blooded will never officially have a less than immaculate record, it's entirely normal for any young DBs who show less-than-excellent talent to be press-ganged into "voluntary" "study sessions" and "social clubs" until they've been drilled into being good enough at something to be useful to their House.It'd be fun to add in some stuff from the old Chinese bureaucracy to the Thousands Scales. =0 Stuff like having an exam where you're stuck in a cramped stone room for days while taking the exam and having a lot of it ve based on immaculate philosophy instead of confucianism. I'm not sure how it'd work with the inherent nepotism of the Dragonbloods though. Maybe have the test be for mortal aides to the Thousand Scales and have someone exalt as a Solar during it or something.
Dragon-Blooded can still succeed at formal exams and things like that just by merit of quite possibly having had access to better education, and having magic that can make them better at bureaucratic and academic pursuits.It'd be fun to add in some stuff from the old Chinese bureaucracy to the Thousands Scales. =0 Stuff like having an exam where you're stuck in a cramped stone room for days while taking the exam and having a lot of it ve based on immaculate philosophy instead of confucianism. I'm not sure how it'd work with the inherent nepotism of the Dragonbloods though. Maybe have the test be for mortal aides to the Thousand Scales and have someone exalt as a Solar during it or something.
So I've backed all the splatvooks like.lunars,.Exigents, Sidereal's,.etc, but I hear that there are two different books of monstera for 3e, so could someone tell me a few of their favorite antags from each one so I know which one to buy first?
Sorry if this is the wrong.place to ask stuff like this, but I heard the questions thread was deprecated.
Did this with one of my Dawn castes, now my players all have a big dusk to fight (although the dawn player was flabbergasted when he found out how many health levels he had). My Deeb showed up with his wife in a cameo in one of the games I was running. In fact a lot of characters I use started out as character sheets from other Exalted games I played or theorycrafted for.Anyways since it got brought up a little bit in the discussion about villains. Something that's really helped me with building good villains over time. Is that every time you make a character for a tabletop game. Sit down and think 'What events could lead this same person to be the antagonist? What kind of situation would they easily become an antagonist in?'. It helped me a lot with making effective villains I guess.
Occasionally when I'm in situations where I need to fly by the seat of my pants real damn quick. I'll lean into one of my many older characters and start acting them out. Of course twisting things so it fits the situation and isn't blatant. My group actually occasionally notices when I do this and teases me lol
Yeah, I do that a lot to. Beryl was supposed to be a antag for that first Deeb game I ran IRL but they never ran into him! I got art of how I was kind of planning to introduce him.Did this with one of my Dawn castes, now my players all have a big dusk to fight (although the dawn player was flabbergasted when he found out how many health levels he had). My Deeb showed up with his wife in a cameo in one of the games I was running. In fact a lot of characters I use started out as character sheets from other Exalted games I played or theorycrafted for.
I dunno. In the context of Exalted as a predominately action-focused game, I design quite a few people whose ultimate purpose is to challenge the players via trying to murder them so, if the player kills them, they feel cool. I take my cues from action cinema, in which you could probably ask these same questions of any mook in a Quentin Tarantino film. While I don't want to imply that any of his protagonists are paragons of morality, we can generally put the ideas of "oh this dude probably has a family" or "what if this woman was nice to waiters" away when Django or the Bride absolutely gore these hired goons because it sure is a wonderful spectacle to witness and is, ultimately, what you're here to see. My players crave fights, and boy can you do a lot of fights with Dynasts because they have neat little kung-fu powers like they do and they're generally the ones to start shit first. If Mr. Verhoeven doesn't have to worry about portraying a fair and even-handed view of Clarence Boddicker and his gang in RoboCop, do I have to stress that much that Cynis Jakam, the leader of a Wyld Hunt, gets ripped apart by one of my players going Deadly Beastman mode on him? Is James Cameron being a bad person when he doesn't spend much time on humanizing the RDA mercenary forces before they go up against the Na'vi because they really need space minerals and the Na'vi are living over a big vein of it?I always get very concerned about any "always acceptable target for violence" that's more human than, say, a mindless zombie.
I like action stories as much as anyone, and probably more than most, but the fundamental humanity of both sides is important. It's not a sign of moral purity to be unable to envision these fictional imperialists as also complex people with their own inner lives and understanding of what it means to be good.
They can be wrong, but if they're not presented as people, then the setting loses something important. And... I have to question this: they're an always acceptable target for violence unless they're currently immediately and unquestionably ready to betray their families, their honor, their faith, and their promises? That's the bare minimum to not be an acceptable target for violence?
I'm trying to be fair to you, but you seem to be stating that violence against them is something to take joy in, not a sad necessity or a tragic fact given that we have incompatible worldviews and needs.
I severely doubt techniques really would have done much. The big thing is like...Exalts could get them too. So it kind of was back to square one, it's just your prelude characters had more widgets to buy before Charms overrode them....
I suspect that the removal of techniques during development also wrecked havoc on this original design, because it meant that there was almost nothing you could use to mechanically distinguish a non-thaumatergical, non-Sorcerous mortal (and both of those routes were largely cut off as well.)
So without going into the details of what's all of them, the presentaiton of characters and things in the two books is different too.Thanks for the explanation. Does adversaries have any Infernals or getimians in it, or is it mostly wierd heroic mortals and examples of splats we already have rules for?
I dunno, it's weird, this could be an interesting conversation but it feels kind of disappointing that people are getting so hostile with me over this. I mean, I don't think I ever directly insulted anyone or intended anything to be hostile, but some people really escalated things or just went very passive-aggressive with it when none of this shit matters in the end.
And in turn, you can just say you don't like our playstyle or the things we like about the game without this constant incomprehension of why we might want complicated Dynasts, the implications we're joyless, or jumping to Confederate/Nazi comparisons.
Like we had most of a page of genuinely happy and analytic discussion about people's favourite material from What Fire Has Wrought/Charting Fate's Course and the glow-up 3e has done on the Realm, the Bronze Faction, etc, and we're now three pages hence from that, having spent most of it on This Shit. So, y'know, right back atcha.
I dunno, it's weird, this could be an interesting conversation but it feels kind of disappointing that people are getting so hostile with me over this. I mean, I don't think I ever directly insulted anyone or intended anything to be hostile, but some people really escalated things or just went very passive-aggressive with it when none of this shit matters in the end.
Fair enough. I assumed that the Caul was right off the coast of the Blessed Isle, making an invasion much easier. This is doubly embarrassing, because this is the second time I have made that mistake, although it was a while ago. However, in that hypothetical, it basically turns it into the Realms equivalent of Cuba. Everyone from bureaucrats, Dynast houses, the militiary, the Immaculates, and peasantry, would all seethe and feel fear thanks to the knowledge a powerful host of Anathema were right on their doorstep. A simultaneous benefit is being close to the Blessed Isle is they could not risk using the Sword of Creation without damaging the Blessed Isle, and even if they did, a very important holy sight would be lost forever. Complete victory being achieved while Big Red is still in charge would make it extra impressive. It would show that even if on the whole, the Scarlet Empire has the advantage, but they can still lose hard on occasion that do not involve a Solar like the Bull of the North. Besides from that, I still do not think it would be ignored as a background element, mostly because it provides opportunities for Lunar plot hooks since it would be the most concentrated center of Lunar power in the setting.Retaking it feels beyond the scale of most Dragon-Blooded games. Liberating Thorns and Kill Bull Volume 2 feel like much more modest undertakings.
I get your point, and looking back on it, a lot of my complaints are me ragging on Holden's ideas that never got implemented. I think I am frustrated because I like a lot of his work, but he never should have been made a developer because he needs someone to reign in his more boneheaded ideas. He wanted the Lunars to have destroyed the bond completley. Still, I find it hard to disagree with my friend who said it felt like the bond only exists because they were too reluctant to remove it entirely, even if I am not convinced Of course that is just speculation, so it is not worth much.I'm just going to single this part out, because the rest of this I think has been addressed pretty well. The problem here is that if you mandate that the bond exists, you've stuck it to the rest of the Lunar concept. "I want to play a cunning shapeshifting trickster, or a warrior who transforms into a gargantuan warform and has her magic sword grow with her, or a forest witch who levels curses and prophecies on the local potentate and then turns into a bird to fly away from the throneroom while shrieking horrible laughter" is already enough on its own; all of these have a lot of support and fun mechanics to back them up. Lunars in this edition have a strong and interesting set of story hooks and powers all on their own. Lunars are the champions of Lunar stories. There is no need for the bond to make a Lunar matter, because it's not just Solars and their mirrors who matter.
Every single thing about the bond that was in 2e can still be there in 3e, if desired. You want to have a bond? Sure, it's there. You want to have it so the bond is the thing that can make an Abyssal or Infernal give up the path of evil and come back to protecting Creation? Well, Abyssals and Infernals are less automatically villainous, but there's certainly redeemable villains among them, and the bond is an easy in for caring about each other and doing something with it. Interested in playing a Lunar dominated by his bond, so he's acting specifically at the whim of the Solar because of reasons beyond his control or understanding? Sure, Solars can be incredibly good at being convincing.
It doesn't matter what parts you do or don't like; that's not the point. The point is that all potential plot hooks and basic relationship templates are still available. 3e only expands the options. Interested in playing a friendly rival, with the two of you always striving to outdo the other in any field from cooking to footraces to martial arts? We can do that. Interested in playing a vicious enmity where the two of you hate each other's guts at first sight and it turns out that she's a monster so your destined foe is truly as despicable as you think and you just have to convince everyone else of that fact? Go wild. Interested in that but inverting the end so you realize that your gut feeling of hatred is meaningless echoes of your previous lives when you were other people, and this feeling should be abandoned? Still works. This isn't right for your character? Then it's not even a possibility; you have no bondmate. There's no upside and some potential downside to keeping the bond as mandatory; if it's kept as something like "you just haven't met the right one yet", that's a dangling plot hook that can color a character concept.
Lunars can stand on their own without the bond. They don't need it. If a specific character benefits from it, all previous options and some additional ones are on the table.
Yeah, I thought the same thing about a lot of this.I think that the idea was supposed to be that the basic combat system would work in a way that would ensure that ordinary mortals with high skills would matter. Enlightened mortals, this thinking went, were removed because they were a stopgap measure that would make only those mortals matter.
I suspect that the removal of techniques during development also wrecked havoc on this original design, because it meant that there was almost nothing you could use to mechanically distinguish a non-thaumatergical, non-Sorcerous mortal (and both of those routes were largely cut off as well.)
Though this come back to a more basic issue, I think, which is that many decisions feel like they were made more in response to forum arguments, theoretical issues, or problems that came up in one specific game rather than things that were actually an issue. People on the forums liked to theorycraft weird things you could do by giving mortals every possible power that was available to them in 2e, which led to weird places.
But completely removing all mechanically-distinct / "exception-based" powers that mortals could access, in a system that was still fundamentally entirely about exception-based interactions, had the thematic effect of making it feel like mortals were just mooks. You can make a mortal matter in a fight, certainly, but the system heavily discourages you from giving a mortal any sort of mechanically distinct identity.