General Exalted Thread

[Deations]

This is called Rule 0 and is not an actual defense of... basically any part of any game.
You're literally saying "it's not broken because you can fix it".

Click to shrink...

P. much but I do agree that they're not really bothering to appeal towards hardcore simulationists in 3E either. Or at least, nowhere near to the level that 2E did.

 

[Fortuna]

The Orichalcum Rule: This is a big game with lots of rules, set in an even bigger and more
complex world, and players are endlessly inventive. If you ever find that by following the letter
of the rules, you get a result that doesn't make sense in the course of the story, the rules are
wrong, the story is right. If the rules suggest something dumb or nonsensical or just plain not
fun, ignore them or change them. Story comes before adherence to the rules."

Page 213 of the PDF. If it doesn't make sense, change it, add more prereqs, whatever! This is one of the most important parts of the book, right here. As for the in-theme thing, I concede it's a valid concern. I don't necessarily agree, but I can't really argue it beyond "I don't agree." Different Strokes and all that. If you really dislike it, though?

"The Golden Rule: If you don't like one of these rules, change it. If a rule is getting in the way of
having fun, throw it out. If you have an idea that would work better for your group than one of
the rules here, go with that. Nobody knows better than you what you'll find fun."

Same page as the above.

For everyone else in the thread, I'd like to give the following, from the same page as the above two quotes:
"The Storyteller's Rule: A lot of the rules in Exalted, especially the combat engine, are heavy
abstractions rather than faithful simulations. Storyteller, if it seems to you like a player is using
the letter of the rules to muck up the spirit of the game and the fun of the story, then that
particular rules loophole doesn't work. You are explicitly empowered to call shenanigans
whenever it seems necessary—the rules can't account for everything, and any interpretation of a
Charm or other mechanic away from its intended function isn't legal unless you say it is."

The game is not simulationist. It is not trying to be simulationist.

Click to shrink...

This is a terrible argument. It basically amounts to a concession, in fact. You're saying "Well, if the rules are so bad, ignore them!" - which is not a defence against a critique of the rules in question. But the reason we're upset is not that the rules will prevent us from ever having fun playing Exalted ever - it's that we now have to put effort into fixing them, into arguing with other people over whether fixes should be included, and over which fixes to use (since we can't fall back on canon anymore). There is value to having canon be good, because it makes it easy to play in games where the rules are good in the community, and saying "but you can ignore it!" does not change the fact that the rule that's on the page in the first place is bad.

There's also the facts that we paid money for this rule, and that the rule represents an underlying stance which suggests a larger game which some of us may not want to play. Either of those can be developed into arguments for why those rules there are not useful defences, just as valid as the one I give above. I just can't be bothered making all three arguments.

 

[Kaiya]

This is called Rule 0 and is not an actual defense of... basically any part of any game.
You're literally saying "it's not broken because you can fix it".

Click to shrink...

This is a terrible argument. It basically amounts to a concession, in fact. You're saying "Well, if the rules are so bad, ignore them!" - which is not a defence against a critique of the rules in question. But the reason we're upset is not that the rules will prevent us from ever having fun playing Exalted ever - it's that we now have to put effort into fixing them, into arguing with other people over whether fixes should be included, and over which fixes to use (since we can't fall back on canon anymore). There is value to having canon be good, because it makes it easy to play in games where the rules are good in the community, and saying "but you can ignore it!" does not change the fact that the rule that's on the page in the first place is bad.

There's also the facts that we paid money for this rule, and that the rule represents an underlying stance which suggests a larger game which some of us may not want to play. Either of those can be developed into arguments for why those rules there are not useful defences, just as valid as the one I give above. I just can't be bothered making all three arguments.

Click to shrink...

Actually, what I'm saying is 'if you don't like it, remove it.' I like it, quite a lot! So do other people I know who've backed 3E. I'm sorry you're disappointed. I'm sorry you hate some of the Charms. But you not liking them doesn't make them bad. Them being exploitable doesn't even make them bad. You keep talking about the canon being 'good'. Well guess what? Your good isn't my good. You don't get to define what is objectively good. If you disagree with some things, well, I guess you're gonna have to put in the effort to change it to be more to your tastes.

 

[Deations]

This is a terrible argument. It basically amounts to a concession, in fact. You're saying "Well, if the rules are so bad, ignore them!" - which is not a defence against a critique of the rules in question. But the reason we're upset is not that the rules will prevent us from ever having fun playing Exalted ever - it's that we now have to put effort into fixing them, into arguing with other people over whether fixes should be included, and over which fixes to use (since we can't fall back on canon anymore). There is value to having canon be good, because it makes it easy to play in games where the rules are good in the community, and saying "but you can ignore it!" does not change the fact that the rule that's on the page in the first place is bad.

There's also the facts that we paid money for this rule, and that the rule represents an underlying stance which suggests a larger game which some of us may not want to play. Either of those can be developed into arguments for why those rules there are not useful defences, just as valid as the one I give above. I just can't be bothered making all three arguments.

Click to shrink...

It's not even 'this rule is objectively bad' so much as 'this rule doesn't appeal to me because it doesn't give me the right simulationist-feels.' I mean, unless MJ12 Commando's arguments have changed since his earlier post, the issue is not that Dual Magnus Prana lets you cheat death so much as the method by which cheating death was framed, because Exalted is a simulationist game and FATE isn't, because ???

I don't like this hardcore simulationist approach that so many posters take. And, I don't much care for the idea posited earlier in the thread that it's better to just spoil future events to brilliant PCs instead of, well, just letting them apply a retcon if they so liked to make up whatever counter they already prepared. Something like that was already a stunt in FATE, and I have no idea why Exalted has to be 100% simulationist in its approach. There's lots of things in this game that take a big step back from Simulationism.

 

[Fortuna]

Actually, what I'm saying is 'if you don't like it, remove it.' I like it, quite a lot! So do other people I know who've backed 3E. I'm sorry you're disappointed. I'm sorry you hate some of the Charms. But you not liking them doesn't make them bad. Them being exploitable doesn't even make them bad. You keep talking about the canon being 'good'. Well guess what? Your good isn't my good. You don't get to define what is objectively good. If you disagree with some things, well, I guess you're gonna have to put in the effort to change it to be more to your tastes.

Click to shrink...

...yes, and then we'll complain about the product not meeting our needs. This changes nothing about my argument, except the language in which it's couched. Which, fair point, my language was sloppy, and I apologize for that. The point nevertheless stands. In fact, I'm not even sure the language in which it's couched needs to change, because there have been a number of arguments made in this thread that the Charms in question are not merely unpalatable, but bad design for one reason or another - and yes, bad design is subjective, but that means the definition is flexible between people, not that it's all just opinion. People can like things that are bad design, or dislike things that are good design.

 

[Kaiya]

...yes, and then we'll complain about the product not meeting our needs. This changes nothing about my argument, except the language in which it's couched. Which, fair point, my language was sloppy, and I apologize for that. The point nevertheless stands. In fact, I'm not even sure the language in which it's couched needs to change, because there have been a number of arguments made in this thread that the Charms in question are not merely unpalatable, but bad design for one reason or another - and yes, bad design is subjective, but that means the definition is flexible between people, not that it's all just opinion. People can like things that are bad design, or dislike things that are good design.

Click to shrink...

I suppose that's fair.

It's not even 'this rule is objectively bad' so much as 'this rule doesn't appeal to me because it doesn't give me the right simulationist-feels.' I mean, unless MJ12 Commando's arguments have changed since his earlier post, the issue is not that Dual Magnus Prana lets you cheat death so much as the method by which cheating death was framed, because Exalted is a simulationist game and FATE isn't, because ???

I don't like this hardcore simulationist approach that so many posters take. And, I don't much care for the idea posited earlier in the thread that it's better to just spoil future events to brilliant PCs instead of, well, just letting them apply a retcon if they so liked to explain the counter they already prepared. Something like that was already a stunt in FATE, and I have no idea why Exalted has to be 100% simulationist in its approach. There's lots of things in this game that take a big step back from Simulationism.

Click to shrink...

Also, ditto on this, so hard.

 

[notanautomaton]

"The Orichalcum Rule: This is a big game with lots of rules, set in an even bigger and more
complex world, and players are endlessly inventive. If you ever find that by following the letter
of the rules, you get a result that doesn't make sense in the course of the story, the rules are
wrong, the story is right. If the rules suggest something dumb or nonsensical or just plain not
fun, ignore them or change them. Story comes before adherence to the rules."

Page 213 of the PDF. If it doesn't make sense, change it, add more prereqs, whatever! This is one of the most important parts of the book, right here. As for the in-theme thing, I concede it's a valid concern. I don't necessarily agree, but I can't really argue it beyond "I don't agree." Different Strokes and all that. If you really dislike it, though?

"The Golden Rule: If you don't like one of these rules, change it. If a rule is getting in the way of
having fun, throw it out. If you have an idea that would work better for your group than one of
the rules here, go with that. Nobody knows better than you what you'll find fun."

Same page as the above.

For everyone else in the thread, I'd like to give the following, from the same page as the above two quotes:
"The Storyteller's Rule: A lot of the rules in Exalted, especially the combat engine, are heavy
abstractions rather than faithful simulations. Storyteller, if it seems to you like a player is using
the letter of the rules to muck up the spirit of the game and the fun of the story, then that
particular rules loophole doesn't work. You are explicitly empowered to call shenanigans
whenever it seems necessary—the rules can't account for everything, and any interpretation of a
Charm or other mechanic away from its intended function isn't legal unless you say it is."

The game is not simulationist. It is not trying to be simulationist.

Click to shrink...

This isn't some weird interaction between two rules that lets you turn a spell for finding cities into a nuke (Hi D&D 3.5) this is the Supernal rules allowing characters to drop nukes on any part of creation out of chargen. Secondly, saying that you can just fix the dumb things is dumb and insulting. Why not just sell an empty book and then ask say that it's not empty because you can write in it. The Orichalum and Golden rules have been a part of tabletop gaming for as long as I can remember, and I don't understand why he needed to put three different versions of it unless your rules are actually terrible.

And how is this related to simulationism at all? We were talking about lore and crafting charms for Sol's sake.

First off: I misread your post, I thought you were saying something else, sorry. I've been really off my game today. Here's the source:
"Solar Charms aren't necessarily a known commodity in the world of Exalted. It may be that they
don't exist. Each is a pretty package, depicting a magical feat which some Solar has been or will
be capable of. But it is a feat belonging to that Solar—the very Solar you create."

It'll differ game to game, but yeah. The intent is absolutely not to be a grab-bag for every Solar. Obviously more common powers, such as superjumps, will likely be seen over and over. City-destroying super stuff? That's more under the 'will be' not necessarily 'is' capable of.

Click to shrink...

Now this is just moronic. If they wanted to say that some charms are pc only, they should have put that in the charm description. Leaving it up to the storyteller to decide that a doombot or nuke dropping npc falls under that passage is just bad writing. It also doesn't say anything about what specific charms are bad news in the hands of antagonists.

Actually, what I'm saying is 'if you don't like it, remove it.' I like it, quite a lot! So do other people I know who've backed 3E. I'm sorry you're disappointed. I'm sorry you hate some of the Charms. But you not liking them doesn't make them bad. Them being exploitable doesn't even make them bad. You keep talking about the canon being 'good'. Well guess what? Your good isn't my good. You don't get to define what is objectively good. If you disagree with some things, well, I guess you're gonna have to put in the effort to change it to be more to your tastes.

Click to shrink...

Having your party member bomb four cities a year out of chargen is objectively not fun. Having your craft based party member become functionally immortal because they broke the crafting system over their knee is not fun. Having to have 50 house-rules before you can play a game is not fun. They are not fun for me, and I despite your protests, I doubt they would be fun for you.

 

[Swordomatic]

This is a terrible argument. It basically amounts to a concession, in fact. You're saying "Well, if the rules are so bad, ignore them!" - which is not a defence against a critique of the rules in question. But the reason we're upset is not that the rules will prevent us from ever having fun playing Exalted ever - it's that we now have to put effort into fixing them, into arguing with other people over whether fixes should be included, and over which fixes to use (since we can't fall back on canon anymore). There is value to having canon be good, because it makes it easy to play in games where the rules are good in the community, and saying "but you can ignore it!" does not change the fact that the rule that's on the page in the first place is bad.

There's also the facts that we paid money for this rule, and that the rule represents an underlying stance which suggests a larger game which some of us may not want to play. Either of those can be developed into arguments for why those rules there are not useful defences, just as valid as the one I give above. I just can't be bothered making all three arguments.

Click to shrink...

You know, people buy an RPG game with the assumption that it works first, without demanding homebrew (and thus effort) to fix.

'But you can fix it' is literally irrelevant to the discussion at hand.

 

[Deations]

You know, people buy an RPG game with the assumption that it works first, without demanding homebrew (and thus effort) to fix.

'But you can fix it' is literally irrelevant to the discussion at hand.

Click to shrink...

Let's be clear here: fix in this case means 'meets my standards for Simulationism' not 'this mechanic is objectively broken.'

 

[Kaiya]

You know, people buy an RPG game with the assumption that it works first, without demanding homebrew (and thus effort) to fix.

'But you can fix it' is literally irrelevant to the discussion at hand.

Click to shrink...

I'm not SAYING 'but you can fix it'! I don't even think it needs fixing! I'm saying 'if you hate it so much, just fucking houserule it away!'

 

[Fortuna]

Put another way - rules which say "But ignore the rules if they're bad/problematic/just not your cup of tea" are good to have, but they're not a cure-all, in the same way that having a warranty that your product will be repaired/replaced if it's faulty is good, but not a substitute for the product working right and meeting your needs in the first place.

 

[Kaiya]

Now this is just moronic. If they wanted to say that some charms are pc only, they should have put that in the charm description. Leaving it up to the storyteller to decide that a doombot or nuke dropping npc falls under that passage is just bad writing. It also doesn't say anything about what specific charms are bad news in the hands of antagonists.


Having your party member bomb four cities a year out of chargen is objectively not fun. Having your craft based party member become functionally immortal because they broke the crafting system over their knee is not fun. Having to have 50 house-rules before you can play a game is not fun. They are not fun for me, and I despite your protests, I doubt they would be fun for you.

Click to shrink...

'Objectively'. No, it's not fucking objectively unfun. It's something you don't like. And something that is easily solved with 'You can't take it at chargen because it'd cause issues for the group.' Problem. Fucking. Solved. Other groups might be fine with it, and no ruling will be needed.

Put another way - rules which say "But ignore the rules if they're bad/problematic/just not your cup of tea" are good to have, but they're not a cure-all, in the same way that having a warranty that your product will be repaired/replaced if it's faulty is good, but not a substitute for the product working right and meeting your needs in the first place.

Click to shrink...

Your needs aren't the only needs. Plenty of people like the new directions 3E is going in. If you don't, guess what? That means you want the game to be something other than it is. Which means, yes, you will need to houserule stuff to make it fit.

 

[Fortuna]

Also, a lot of people - myself included - backed 3e on the assumption that it would be "2e, but not broken, with cooler lore and Lunars that don't suck and numbers that work". Finding these dissociated mechanics in the core book leaves a bad taste in our mouths, because they really don't have a parallel in 2e, and I don't think it's unreasonable for us to complain about them.

...also? If you don't like our complaints, just don't read them. Because that's exactly as reasonable a position as "If you don't like the rules, don't play with them".

 

[Cosar]

You know, people buy an RPG game with the assumption that it works first, without demanding homebrew (and thus effort) to fix.

'But you can fix it' is literally irrelevant to the discussion at hand.

Click to shrink...

While this is true, I'm not sure 2 high end charms equals a place that doesn't work. I mean, if that's the metric, is their any rules heavy system that 'works'?

I'm not SAYING 'but you can fix it'! I don't even think it needs fixing! I'm saying 'if you hate it so much, just fucking houserule it away!'

Click to shrink...

While it is true that you can simply remove what you don't like, surely it's better to not have to do so in the first place, yes? Not to mention that charms like these can be seen as the developers going in directions that the people don't particularly like.

 

[Deations]

Having your party member bomb four cities a year out of chargen is objectively not fun.

Click to shrink...

It's 'sending out a disaster to people you dislike as determined by your GM' not an Infallible Nuke. Fuck's sake.

Having your craft based party member become functionally immortal because they broke the crafting system over their knee is not fun.

Click to shrink...

Was that even proven? It's still a massive investment to get to that point, but in regular and crafting xp. But thus far, what everyone's been arguing about is not so much the immortality, but the fact that it involved a retcon and wasn't suited for a supposedly simulationist game like Exalted.

Having to have 50 house-rules before you can play a game is not fun. They are not fun for me, and I despite your protests, I doubt they would be fun for you.

Click to shrink...

Cool hyperbole bro.

 

[Anasurimbor]

And that's, what, your only option? "Countermagic or GTFO"? Because I think it worked better, both in the sense of game balance and as a tool to tell a story with, when it was a day-long ritual that gave room for the players to interact with from either side.

Click to shrink...

Rain of Doom was never a day-long ritual. It was at most hour-long. The average city could be circumnavigated in only a minute or two if one was actually in a hurry. At that point adamant countermagic was the only respite, and even that would still unleash a horrible catastrophe.

Let's not even talk about the shit you could get up to if you combined RoD with athletics charms. Destroying an area a hundred miles across was not exceptionally hard. On the whole, Rain of Doom has been nerfed so that it can't be used to trivially wipe nations off the map. This is largely a good thing, though I do miss that Jericho feeling.

 

[Deations]

Also, a lot of people - myself included - backed 3e on the assumption that it would be "2e, but not broken, with cooler lore and Lunars that don't suck and numbers that work". Finding these dissociated mechanics in the core book leaves a bad taste in our mouths, because they really don't have a parallel in 2e, and I don't think it's unreasonable for us to complain about them.

Click to shrink...

I think it's fine to have your preferences, really, I do. But to say it's objectively bad because it's less like Exalted 2E's simulationist approach and a bit more like FATE's approach in some aspects is nonsense.

...also? If you don't like our complaints, just don't read them. Because that's exactly as reasonable a position as "If you don't like the rules, don't play with them".

Click to shrink...

Can't speak for him, but I'm getting to that point. That's kind of a reason why a lot of other people have given up engaging.

 

[Fortuna]

Your needs aren't the only needs. Plenty of people like the new directions 3E is going in. If you don't, guess what? That means you want the game to be something other than it is. Which means, yes, you will need to houserule stuff to make it fit.

Click to shrink...

...yes. That's exactly right. And we're complaining about that. Because we don't want to houserule stuff. Because we want the game we want.

 

[Roadie]

Was that even proven? It's still a massive investment to get to that point, but in regular and crafting xp. But thus far, what everyone's been arguing about is not so much the immortality, but the fact that it involved a retcon and wasn't suited for a supposedly simulationist game like Exalted.

Click to shrink...

It takes a whole pile of Charms, but you get enough free gold points once you're at that point to use Doombat Prana every two months while still making plenty of other stuff.

 

[Cosar]

For the charm that sends a disaster at a nation, if it was limited to more counterable disasters(floods, behemoths, locust, diseases, etc), would people have such a problem with it? It seems to me that the star fall thing is what most people are complaining about.

 

[Kaiya]

While this is true, I'm not sure 2 high end charms equals a place that doesn't work. I mean, if that's the metric, is their any rules heavy system that 'works'?

While it is true that you can simply remove what you don't like, surely it's better to not have to do so in the first place, yes? Not to mention that charms like these can be seen as the developers going in directions that the people don't particularly like.

Click to shrink...

Oh my FUCKING GOD. YES! THE CHARMS ARE GOING IN DIRECTIONS YOU DON'T LIKE! TOUGH. FUCKING. SHIT. Clearly, it's not the game you were hoping for! Some of us feel like 3rd Edition delievered on everything it promised and more. Plenty of us love the new directions! You are not fucking everybody! Not everybody wants something different! If you don't like the new directions, too bad. Sucks for you. You're gonna need to do some homebrewing.

...yes. That's exactly right. And we're complaining about that. Because we don't want to houserule stuff. Because we want the game we want.

Click to shrink...

And that won't happen. Because it's obviously not the game you want. And it isn't gonna change now.

 

[Fortuna]

I think it's fine to have your preferences, really, I do. But to say it's objectively bad because it's less like Exalted 2E's simulationist approach and a bit more like FATE's approach in some aspects is nonsense.

Click to shrink...

So there's actually two arguments here, and you're intertwining them and using the one to dismiss the other. (In fairness, I think a few people have been sloppy about intertwining them on the other side as well, but they are noticeably distinct). There are people arguing that these Charms are objectively bad because they do bad things to the game. These people have made arguments based on what these Charms allow you to do in the game. You do not get to dismiss them because separately some people, including myself, are complaining that we don't like the game, would rather it did something else, and in a couple of places have put together reasonable points about how we would actually like the game to look. And, frankly, I'm not sure why you seem to be so upset about those of us complaining that we don't like the game, saying that we preferred the more simulationist stance of 2e, and considering what a 3e that we would like would be instead.

 

[Kaiya]

And, frankly, I'm not sure why you seem to be so upset about those of us complaining that we don't like the game, saying that we preferred the more simulationist stance of 2e, and considering what a 3e that we would like would be instead.

Click to shrink...

Because this is the community that first got me into Exalted. It hurts me to see all the constant negativity, particularly the times where people didn't actually read the book first. But you're right. I need to take my own advice. 3E isn't for you. This Exalted community isn't for me anymore. I'll just stop coming to this thread.

 

[Deations]

...yes. That's exactly right. And we're complaining about that. Because we don't want to houserule stuff. Because we want the game we want.

Click to shrink...

Yes, and other people want a less simulationist game than you. Hence the impasse.

It takes a whole pile of Charms, but you get enough free gold points once you're at that point to use Doombat Prana every two months while still making plenty of other stuff.

Click to shrink...

Yes, though from the look of things it's not so much 'I build a fleet of reserve doombots' but 'have you retained enough White XP during your crafting projects to retroactively declare that you built this doombot.' Which puts a considerable crimp on dedicated Crafters.

For the charm that sends a disaster at a nation, if it was limited to more counterable disasters(floods, behemoths, locust, diseases, etc), would people have such a problem with it? It seems to me that the star fall thing is what most people are complaining about.

Click to shrink...

It's certainly helped to get it treated as a nuke when almost all the other example challenges this charm can cause are surmountable by a group of PCs.

So there's actually two arguments here, and you're intertwining them and using the one to dismiss the other. (In fairness, I think a few people have been sloppy about intertwining them on the other side as well, but they are noticeably distinct). There are people arguing that these Charms are objectively bad because they do bad things to the game. These people have made arguments based on what these Charms allow you to do in the game. You do not get to dismiss them because separately some people, including myself, are complaining that we don't like the game, would rather it did something else, and in a couple of places have put together reasonable points about how we would actually like the game to look. And, frankly, I'm not sure why you seem to be so upset about those of us complaining that we don't like the game, saying that we preferred the more simulationist stance of 2e, and considering what a 3e that we would like would be instead.

Click to shrink...

It's not so much that I'm complaining about your preferences for a type of game, so much as I'm stating my own preferences in a way that I think is every bit as strident.

 

[Cosar]

Oh my FUCKING GOD. YES! THE CHARMS ARE GOING IN DIRECTIONS YOU DON'T LIKE! TOUGH. FUCKING. SHIT. Clearly, it's not the game you were hoping for! Some of us feel like 3rd Edition delievered on everything it promised and more. Plenty of us love the new directions! You are not fucking everybody! Not everybody wants something different! If you don't like the new directions, too bad. Sucks for you. You're gonna need to do some homebrewing.

Click to shrink...

First off, that's not what I was saying. You should try reading a post before replying to it.

Secondly, I'm not sure of your point. Yes, the game might not be for them. That doesn't mean they can't complain about that fact, nor does it address their disappointment if that is in fact the case.