World of Darkness and Folly

[RandomCasualty]

1166743218[/unixtime]]Is there a path that lets you run around with a flaming chainsaw? Because I wouldn't mind playing a character that runs around with a flaming chainsaw.

Yeah, pretty much, though prior to vampire: dark ages and the Sabbat Guide, paths were never meant for PCs. Taking a path other than humanity would generally get you an odd look as if you asked your second edition AD&D DM if you could play a beholder.

[Catharz]

1166743218[/unixtime]]Is there a path that lets you run around with a flaming chainsaw? Because I wouldn't mind playing a character that runs around with a flaming chainsaw.

Just play Shadowrun. Then you can run around with a flaming monofil chainsaw, and it isn't even restricted.

[Lago_AM3P]

Just play Shadowrun. Then you can run around with a flaming monofil chainsaw, and it isn't even restricted.

No, then you either:

A) Go into hiding after the heat comes down.

B) Get arrested.

C) Engage with the police a GTA3-style escalating pursuit of violence and hatred that you will eventually lose.

[Count Arioch the 28th]

One day, I will have my flaming chainsaw. I will do this even if I have to make one myself.

[Username17]

1166754646[/unixtime]]

Just play Shadowrun. Then you can run around with a flaming monofil chainsaw, and it isn't even restricted.

No, then you either:

A) Go into hiding after the heat comes down.

B) Get arrested.

C) Engage with the police a GTA3-style escalating pursuit of violence and hatred that you will eventually lose.

The correct answer of course is "A". And that's fine. In fact, flaming chainsaw attack can be quite valuable. It does two things:

1. It kills people.
   
2. It sends the law level up fast.

So if you want to kill people and you want to bring up the law level, that's a good tactic. That means that if you have an opponent who is stronger than you overall, and of dubious legality, you can jump in with a flaming chainsaw and then go to ground - limitting the enemy organization's ability to hit back.

So if you are hitting anything from a cabal of evil blood mages to an organized rime syndicate - that flaming chainsaw is going to come in handy. Whack one guy or a small group in a flurry of violence and then have the entire area locked down by police inside of ten minutes - your enemies suffer a loss and lose the ability to make reprisals against you.

It's dangerous, but in Shadowrun you can present a plan to your team mates that hinges on you running into the building with a flaming chainsaw and jacking shit up. This can even be a reasonable plan.

-Username17

[Modesitt]

Ok, well maybe not a baby. But any adolescent child. The fact is that your dice pool is only going to land a success 1/3rd of the time for each dice. So if you want to reliably do 3 damage, you need 9 dice (which is a pretty big pool). And 3 damage isn't even a lot in that system.

I'm quite ok with that. Contrary to what Hollywood or Shadowrun 3E may have led you to believe, a shotgun is not a weapon of mass destruction that obliterates all life that stands between it and the event horizon, nor do they usually drop someone in a single climatic torso-destroying explosion. The only time a single gunshot drops someone in seconds is if it hits something very important such as the heart or brain. Overall, shotgun wounds have a mortality rate of somewhere around 50% but that varies wildly depending on where you're shot and with what. Head wounds are about 80% lethal, non-torso wounds about 6%.

The only setting I know that can not only be summed up in two or three sentences but also has no further depth than that (and still consistently attracts players) is Mutants and Masterminds.

I know you're just agreeing with RC, but your particular phrasing is easier to deal with.

I have no objections to very deep settings. Shadowrun's setting has tons of depth. But you don't NEED to understand a lot to realistically play a character. I can explain to someone the important parts of Shadowrun's setting in under 10 minutes. Magic, technology, wireless, game, set, match. Nanosecond buyout? Dunkie? Backstory. It doesn't matter unless the Storyteller goes out of his way to make it matter.

To get someone playing Ascension, you usually have to explain the Ascension war. That's...not easy. You have to explain paradigms, belief, and all of the associated questions. In Revised, you have to explain the Avatar storm. The other posters have already explained that White Wolf was also deliberately contradictory about the setting. It isn't black and white and easy to explain unless you explain it from a God-like perspective. It's all nice and flavorful and everything, but getting people to play anything besides D&D is hard enough without requiring they take Intro to Philosophy first.

It's all laid out in Sabbat, Dirty Secrets of the Black Hand, and the Brujah clan book! That was too fvcking much. People could not seriously run with that, it had to be cleaned up.

They did clear it up in a few later 3e books. In a nutshell, they said that Dirty Secrets of the Black Hand was nothing more than the rantings of a delusional Tzimisce. Yes, they actually retconned an entire book.

Hells no! They introduced a bunch of non-sensical Christian bullshit at the same time.

For this reason and others, I just ditched the Morality system. I feel comfortable calling that current Morality system evil. It says that stealing a candybar is worse than stabbing someone in the face. Uh. No.

---

What WILL break the game is if the zombies and villagers don't have stats on the good chance the characters want to fight them.

I excerpted this because White Wolf has pissed me the fuck off with this very specific behavior.

On pages 60-62 of New Orleans, they talk about Sam. Sam's an uber-vampire, the most powerful vampire in New Orleans who dates back to the time of the Choctaw indians. THEY DON'T GIVE HIM ANY STATS AT ALL. No clan, no covenant, just 'He's, like, SO DAMN STRONG'.

But the real pisser is in Chicago. Chicago makes multiple references to an entity known as The Unholy.

Page 77: A rumor that “one of the Unholy’s childer dwells there and all cower before his prowess!" in Cicero.

Page 97: "She even survived a two-hour conversation with the Unholy about “the Gangrel way,” a feat that still comes up in stories told by Gangrel when they gather."

Page 135: The Unholy's childe is statted out. We learn that she's powerful and in some way deformed but we don't know how. She was in St. Louis in 1954.

Page 139: "There was a time, long ago, when Jedediah Holyoak was a powerful elder vampire in the Cleveland area, easily the superior of Chicago’s current Prince and possibly on par with the Unholy."

There are also two references to her in Ordo Dracul.

Page 111: "So if the locals want to pass a law saying The Unholy is anathema and should be destroyed if she shows her face, that’s binding and local Dragons are expected to observe it."

Page 144: "Specifically, they speculate that Anoushka became The Unholy." and some hypothesizing about that. We learn that The Unholy has bestial hands and crow characteristics, she's a short, dark, slight woman, has a rapport with animals, and has avoided torpor for a very long time.

That's it. You know what's missing? HER STATS. We're not even given a reference for where to go to find them. They're on page 109 of Nomads, a book released far before either of those two books. Shadows of Mexico also discusses the Unholy, but actually cites Nomads.

[RandomCasualty]

1166765934[/unixtime]]
I have no objections to very deep settings. Shadowrun's setting has tons of depth. But you don't NEED to understand a lot to realistically play a character. I can explain to someone the important parts of Shadowrun's setting in under 10 minutes. Magic, technology, wireless, game, set, match. Nanosecond buyout? Dunkie? Backstory. It doesn't matter unless the Storyteller goes out of his way to make it matter.

I dunno there's a lot people need to know in shadowrun. Knwoing how the wireless matrix works is almost essential, because you're expected to do all kinds of things with your PAN and stuff, swithcing to hidden and active mode at different times. And you have to know when to switch.

And you better know how a lot of the gear works. It'd kinda suck to be breaking into a place and not know how to bypass the security. If anything Shadowrun is probably one of the most complicated RPGs out there right now. There's lots of crap you need to know, because it's modeling a fully blown futuristic society.

There granted isn't as much of a story behind Shadowrun but as far as learning technologies, gadgets and spells, you've got a lot ahead of you.

To get someone playing Ascension, you usually have to explain the Ascension war. That's...not easy. You have to explain paradigms, belief, and all of the associated questions. In Revised, you have to explain the Avatar storm. The other posters have already explained that White Wolf was also deliberately contradictory about the setting. It isn't black and white and easy to explain unless you explain it from a God-like perspective. It's all nice and flavorful and everything, but getting people to play anything besides D&D is hard enough without requiring they take Intro to Philosophy first.

The whole mage thing isnt' terribly hard to explain. It's a bit esoteric, but not particularly difficult. I explained most of it to my players in about 10 minutes. Sure they didn't know the small details, but they got the basics of who the technocracy was, who the traditions were and how things worked.

As far as it being more complex than D&D, I always saw that as sort of the point. D&D is the quintessential "beer and pretzels" RPG, and the white wolf games were generally meant to attract a slightly different crowd who want deeper settings.

White wolf storyline wise is super complex. It's got several games that are capable of being played alone and are all rather complex standalone, when you mix them, it gets super crazy.

That's it. You know what's missing? HER STATS. We're not even given a reference for where to go to find them. They're on page 109 of Nomads, a book released far before either of those two books. Shadows of Mexico also discusses the Unholy, but actually cites Nomads.

Yeah, white wolf was horrible for that shit. They wouldn't reprint anything, ever. They always expected you to already own every book they made. You never got the feeling white wolf books were ever complete, because they leftout so many details and simply made vague references to stuff.

[Desdan_Mervolam]

I'm sure they do this on purpouse. Part of it is the "DMs don't need stats" mentality that White Wolf has always had (This is patently untrue. GOOD DMs don't need stats, but even then it's nice to have them. If you're even an average one, you probably need them). The other part is the idea that really nasty powerful creatures aren't just encountered on a random streetcorner. This is true enough in any setting, and if you ever hear the DM say "You wake up to find The Unholy/Sacha Vykos/Elminster/insert-any-other-big-name-badass-here looming over your bedside" you really need to find another table. And it is arguably true that this is MORESO in WoD, where the Unholy probably has an elaborate buffer between itself and the rest of the world to keep pesky kids away. BUT, that does not mean that it isn't a perfectly viable, and even awesome campaign idea to track down and kill Insert-Franchise-Badass, and the very possiblity of that means that you need to be able to get stats for said badasses.

-Desdan

[bitnine]

1166737113[/unixtime]]The way you guys are describing WoD makes the protagonists sound downright twisted, even if they do their best to emphasize the 'good' aspects of whatever the fvck they're fighting for. What gives, gentle reader?

Just to be clear, I wasn't trying to assert that all those traits existed simultaneously. There was large variance in the portrayal of each and every group that invariably included (usually isolated depictions of) ridiculously heinous practices. Which simply didn't jive with the routine portrayal of the groups and other established characters. Some things weren't a real question - burnout and corruption among mages was obviously high, and the loose organizations, many of which were simple self-proclaimed labels, housed many secrets and rogue elements.

If you wanted to be formal about it, you'd go through the books with a highlighter and take these outliers and write 'Technocracy as villains' or 'Traditions as villains' in the margin. Because if you ran with a game where the worst in print was true for each group, you either were a monster, shared office space with fiends in a way that defied feasibility, or looked all around you and realized how utterly screwed you were and curled up in your basement and cried. That was pretty unheard of, though. Most people took a stance similar to RandomCasualty, while a few others used these mentions to paint the opponents or simply factions they didn't like. Players of other games - Hunter in particular - would site these as reasons to kill every mage that they saw*, sometimes in wonderful cross-forum flamefests.

Now, some people would say that's because the game is meant to be grey and it allows each given take or theme to be supported. And that's largely how it played out. But realistically? It's because the basic thematics of the game were grey, but different writers had very clear notions of who the heroes and villains in this setting were. Some of this was a decided shift between versions. But some of the material was retconned, some still applied, and some didn't apply as written but in some moderated unwritten sense. And since things like organizational books were released across versions, there wasn't a clear update for many things. Sometimes you'd just get quotes from the developer - then the developer would change.

In the end, Mages were just people. Some of them consciously knew that their will and beliefs could shape reality, others didn't. A child could wake up and have his toys genuinely come to life, or a scientist could have experiments that shouldn't work function as he believes they could. It was a power that people - usually bright and strongwilled - just awoke to. *Which made some of the 'murder everyone who shows up to the Sight' bit a little disturbing, especially with the heartfelt OOC justifications. And the failings of the organizations - to whatever extent you took them - were largely human failings coupled with the sheer power to remake reality. That and toss in some supernatural forces, but not everyone and their mother was remade in the Cauls.

One thing that is clear and supportable is that mages ran the gamut, some being as close to genuinely good people as anyone in the WoD got. Many books had campaign ideas for and presented characters that were humans who woke up and were thrust into a supernatural world and wanted to survive and live their lives. Individuals could be corrupted and organizations were capable of some sketchy stuff, but none of this was mandated onto the player. And even the organizations somehow contained reasonable folk (For example, one written mage's belief was in preventing the loss of knowledge and updating the old ways so that they could survive in the modern age. Technomage chick with a keyboard with glyphs and the like, if I remember correctly.)

Most people probably didn't even notice much of the stuff I mentioned because they were singular outliers. They didn't impact many games, let alone player characters. You know when you'd really see them? Folk combing through books for a justification to "kill 'em all" whether that 'all' be a particular group or mages as a whole, with that child example above included.

Now, wracking my brain, I would have to say that some of the opponents that Werewolves probably beat them out in reprehensibility. Anyone remember the Fomori ability 'Savage Genitalia'? Just the thing for the player who wants to be able to routinely enact the 'lust' murder from Seven! Though that always failed to be as impactful to me, since they were fairly clearly hideously corrupted monsters and you didn't see people asserting that they were the 'good guys'. I can't really recall or picture a group that had Freak Legion as one of its standard character creation books.

About the factions themselves:

Reality is mutable, and paradigms equivalent. That means it is possible to see a world where spiritualistic practices cure modern diseases and accomplishes incredible feats of progress.

However, we didn't see that because of the mages of the mythic age were jackasses. Yeah, their old ways could have been shared with the common man and better their lives. But they didn't. Instead they largely ignored most people and treated them as insignificant. There was a mix, as they were very human and more than a few exceptions abounded, but the mages who taught and helped the everyman were eclipsed by those who trampled them underfoot. The particulars of their beliefs and practices didn't mandate this or provide any excuse - by and large it was pure hubris. (You might say that it's even worse than using antiquated methods that couldn't benefit mankind as modern methods do - they just didn't bother.)

Somewhere along the line, mankind got real tired of being shat upon and a number of mages decided that they couldn't tolerate it. Now, a large portion of this was focused on other supernaturals - being uncaring or egotistical rarely competes with the other beings that slaughtered or fed upon mankind. Long story short, they formed the Order of Reason. They wanted to put a measure of power and control in the hands of normal people and eliminate the horrible things that fed on them from the shadows. Reason and technology were the vehicle by which they would define these elements out of existence and provide a power that even the common (unEnlightened) masses could share in.

Some of the Order of Reason were noble, some of them were jerks, most were a mix of both. They got rid of horrors and provided great benefits to people. They cornered 'deviant' elements and made them reform or die, with the sometimes without the availability of an option. Some of them were merely trying to ride their way to the top as puppetmasters and eliminate competition. And as their success and power progressed, they became the Technocracy. They have a vision for humanity (several, actually, some of which conflict and will later become an increasing issue) and make choices for this best interest.

Meanwhile, the shattered mystics formed the Council of Nine, trying to preserve their Traditions. An ad-hoc clusterfvck, they're an 'organization' in a very loose sense with a number of them simple self-titles and others actual rigid societies. For added fun, some of these Traditions were previously blood enemies. Their goals? Hah, that would assume they have goals. Some of them want to bring back the old ways and live in their days of glory. They are douchebags, and beset by the futility that the mythic age is never coming back.

Others are trying to find a way to keep their way of life alive. Some get angry or cry because unicorns and the like are all dying because of the Technocracy. A few are beset by the problem of how Technocrats bust into monasteries and gun down/brainwash monks who trying to focus on self-enlightenment. Most are struggling to find a purpose and way to survive. This includes folk who want to reform and show people that their ways can indeed be beneficial as well, and others who want to adapt to exist in this brave new world. A number of them realize - real fvcking late - that there's a spark of human potential that's in danger of dying out and maybe they should sort of get on that.

With some increased stifling, the traditions are joined by technomancers who break off of the Technocracy. Some believe in the wonder, creativity, and possibilities that science can provide, weird science style. But the Technocracy won't abide allowing Professor Hubert Farnsworth to exist, no matter how benign any particular individual seems. Others are hackers and information brokers who believe in disseminating truth and large amounts of freedoms to the everyman, making their break after the Technocracy considers backing the Nazis as a means to consolidating power, Star Trek style.

So most cases a person Awakens, finds reality mutable and marvels the wonderment of the depth of things that are possible for about five minutes. After that time, the Technocracy shows up saying, "Not for fvcking long. Now join up and settle down, or we'll reformat your brain or kill you." And the Traditions may be there too, saying, "We're largely irrelevant to the world but can help you explore your potential." Depending on your particular Mentor or the Tradition in question, they'll probably add in something else that varies wildly.

I'd say that's about the basic history. Combine that with the different elements I mentioned above about each group existing on a sliding scale, usually set in the middle. There are a few other things, like actual evil forces out there that no one likes and even the Traditions and Technocracy have briefly worked together to stop from invading our reality.

You have a "Humanity" score.

Oddly, despite mages being the most human supernaturals (arguably until the release of Hunter) MtA didn't have a humanity score. There was paradox, quiet, and jhor, and revised brought in formalized resonance scores, but no humanity. Which I always figured to be a step up, because its more honest than presenting a humanity mechanic and pretending that it'll help regulate or represent something when it clearly doesn't.

In Revised, you have to explain the Avatar storm.

You could always say, "Um, the spirit world is sort of closed off now in order to make the game more streamlined and accessable. There a big metaplot thing that's published across like 50 books they sorta used to justify it, which your character couldn't possibly know anyway - just keep in mind the spirit world is closed for business." Though in general I would personally recommend against the inclusion of the metaplot and ramifications thereof.

Sure they didn't know the small details, but they got the basics of who the technocracy was, who the traditions were and how things worked.

Well, that's part of the reason its handy to run a player's first game pre-Awakening, because their character doesn't start with all this knowledge but instead picks it up through play. 'Course, a chunk of my players had taken philosophy classes or done some reading along those lines, so I don't doubt that may have aided in the communication.

[Crissa]

I don't think Mage and Changling or even WoD needed to talk about the big meta-plot to play. The idea was 'hey, you can do magic, let's see where this takes you...' and then you play. The whole meta-plot stuff was for later, and for the bigger games that wanted to be able to host Joe's friend from out of town. As you play, then you get to learn secrets, but mostly it's a whispering game, not a rolling game.

The concept of clan over coterie never made sense anyhow, and I don't know anyone who played that way.

And honestly, for both Shadowrun and WoD, I've had characters that made only a handful of rolls in the entire campaign. The whole idea in Shadowrun is not that rolls are bad, but that they come up when there's danger. And it's usually best to put someone else (NPCs, other PCs) in danger. Same for WoD - it's all posing and posturing. Of course, only one of the two games would malfunction when rolls had to happen...

Not everyone wants to roll dice and count figures on a board - some want to play pretend and be able to measure things in fingers. (Unfortunately, many of those writersonly can measure thing with fingers, which is why systems that have little math seem to suck so much when you do have to roll.)

Learning the setting backstory was a part of the campaign. You didn't expect players to have even read the books or know manuevers when they bellyed up to the table.

...I could do that in prior editions of D&D, but I can't even find a list of basic actions in 3.5. So there's really no scalable complexity system out there, despite people trying.

-Crissa

[RandomCasualty]

1166837310[/unixtime]]

The concept of clan over coterie never made sense anyhow, and I don't know anyone who played that way.

Actually that was a fundamental principle of vampire for the most part. Vampire was a political game, and in turn it was about making deals with people. Now, most of the people in power tended to be NPCs, so sometimes if you wanted a favor from them, you may need to do something that the other coterie members wouldn't approve of.

Part of vampire was that each character as an individual had separate goals and agendas. Each character sort of vied for acceptance and status in their own clans and possibly in vampire society as a whole. This led to a lot of backstabbing between PCs sometimes, especially if your PCs were opposed. But it wasn't a bad thing. In my opinion, the internal backstabbing actually made the game more interesting and more fun to play.

Vampire was actually made to be an evil game, but it was a controlled evil society that didn't let you just get away with randomly murdering your fellow PCs when they pissed you off. Most of your battles were on the poltiical arena, meaning you could work together for some things and also be opposed to each other on other topics, and the political warfare never resulted in PC death, so the game went on. It allowed competition between PCs that wasn't going to end in PC vs PC fight to the death, as is the case with Shadowrun or D&D.

A good vampire game was so PC driven that you almost didn't even need a plot. The manueverings and goal seeking of the PCs would drive the game forward alone.

All in all the game was damn boring if the PCs played it like D&D and worked together. I mean, if I wanted to do that, I'd just play D&D.

[themodernpromethean]

A good vampire game was so PC driven that you almost didn't even need a plot. The manueverings and goal seeking of the PCs would drive the game forward alone.

All in all the game was damn boring if the PCs played it like D&D and worked together. I mean, if I wanted to do that, I'd just play D&D.

Thank you. Someone here who gets the point. Vampire was (and is) all about politicking and furthering yourself. This is what makes Vampire a fun game to play in. It also means that to run a proper game, you really needed to be right on top as a Storyteller, or otherwise things wouldn't work.

I have read Masquerade, and Requiem. Not having played Masquerade, I won't comment, other than saying I am trying to get a copy.

However, I have all the new Core books for WoD. The WoD basic book, the Vamp, Werewolf, Mage and Promethean books.

Most of the mechanical stuff is pretty much the same. The real difference as far as I am concerned in the new setting is a lack of direction.

Whereas in old WoD there was a clear storyline, these days its lost. There is no overriding objective, or plot. It really is a rule system with some flavoured fluff, but the actual plotting and so on is left up to the Storyteller.

That is, I feel, the main difference.

[Prak]

1166729191[/unixtime]]anti-furry, anti-japanophile, etc. stuff

what's wrong with furries and japanophiles? anyway... emo vampires are completely player/st-caused... I know one person who larped vampire and played baby football... anyway...

Changeling= "Pedophile: the Fantasy"? wtf? please, someone explain that joke to a person who read the old changeling book once and never played it...

anyway, as to the chance of playing with hot gamer chicks... I've actually never had any trouble gaming with such without having to stoop to playing nwod... and in fact... will soon be bringing one such hot chick into a D&D game... and actually, since someone brought up fatal... I actually used to date a chick who, um, would find FATAL rather fvcking hilarious...

I play in a weekly werewolf(owod) game and have never really had a problem with it, other than the fact that there's no difference between types of weapons in a given category(ie, a shortsword and a katana have the same stats, and two different sniper rifles will have the same stats, more or less, despite one being engineered for greater peformance than the other...)

nwod has an ...interesting... setting, but the redux, and some of the things I now know about through this thread make it a very much less than desirable game... I think I'll stick to owod and it's system, cause I've never had a problem with it, and that's the next thing I'll introduce the afformentioned hot chick, who happens to be a fan of Ann Rice's older works, to after my D&D game...

[Count Arioch the 28th]

1167872726[/unixtime]]

1166729191[/unixtime]]anti-furry, anti-japanophile, etc. stuff

what's wrong with furries and japanophiles?

Nothing specifically. If you are into japanese culture, or identify with theriomorphs, that's cool as far as I'm concerned, that's just what makes you different.

HOWEVER

(the following is my opinions on things. If they offend you, remember opinions are like assholes, everyone's got one, and most of them stink.)

Japanophiles in general (Not all of them, but a good amount of them) loudly proclaim that if it ain't japanese, it's shit. Samurai were like knights, but BETTER! Katanas were like swords, but BETTER! Daimyos were like feudal lords, but BETTER!

And so forth.
And if you don't immediately agree and make katanas deal 2d8 damage and can be finessed, you're an ignorant racist.

And furries in general (Again, not all of them, and maybe not a majority, but a large enough number to make you notice) tend to be really sensitive.

To give an example, I could call my best friend the god-damnedest, dirtiest son of a bitch I know (And have on several occasions), and he'll laugh about it.

While on the WotC boards, I said that I didn't think being a furry made you better or more creative than anyone else automatically, and I was flamed for being "a hateful little xenophobe." I thought assuming one group was superior than another was also bigoted? (Like assuming all mexicans can fix cars, or all black can play basketball.)

In short, I'm concerned that if there was a real life furry at my table, I'd accidentally piss him/her off and be called names.

[Draco_Argentum]

Yah, even as a furry I say the drama reputation is pretty well deserved. To be fair I don't hang out with furries IRL and the net is drama central so I'm working from skewed evidence.

Japanophiles are tarred with the "exotic is better" image. That tends to lose you points with people who like western stuff. Funnily enough western stuff like vampires and Christian mythology seems to be quite popular in Japanese pop culture.

[PhoneLobster]

Having hung out with every second wierd sub culture imaginable I've spent time among furry communities.

They ain't so bad, or notably different.

I really don't quite get their whole scene though.

But then I don't really grasp the local pub scene either.

[User3]

I really think that the furry thing is because of a very few furries who can't help but mention it all the time, in everything they do, where "it" is something more inherently disturbing than "my online avatar is an attractive anthropomorphic horse".

I think it's a result of a willingness to provide too much information, wherein the people I've dealt with that had that problem couldn't disassociate "my personal avatar is a catboy", which isn't really offensive to anyone, from "and I regularly writes erotic fiction involving anthropomorphic animals", which not everyone you meet wants to know.

Meanwhile, Katanas: The Ultimate Weapons of War is just plain silly... but is there really anything else, at least as RPGs go, where Japanophilia even comes up? Samurai and knights, while they're similar positions, seem to be sufficiently different in the expectations people have of them that they're not directly competing with each other.

[dbb]

1167916952[/unixtime]]
Meanwhile, Katanas: The Ultimate Weapons of War is just plain silly... but is there really anything else, at least as RPGs go, where Japanophilia even comes up?

Let's not forget ninjas.

(Even WoD has its own issues with this -- remember "Land of Eight Million Dreams" and "Kindred of the East" and "Demon Hunter X" and ... aw, skip it.)

--d.

[User3]

D'oh, how could I forget ninjas? Argh, yeah, ninjas being like European thieves / rogues / assassins only better was common.

...and well, the Kindred of the East were "like vampires but weird" rather than "like vampires but better", from what I remember. Were Land of Eight Million Dreams and Demon Hunter X really offensive in the Japanophilia department?

[Prak]

ah, yes, I forgot to assume that the glance is always turned upon the extremists...

though I personnally think katana damage should be looked at, but that's more because I know that every sword was designed for a certain thing and as such they could easily have very different stats...

I'm not saying it should be greater, mind you, merely that it should be looked at, as it's not the same as a bastard sword... mw or not...

the only time I've ever asked for a katana in WoD is when playing a character with a concept of samurai(just for fun) or when the ST's rolls for equipment of another character of mine seemed to be 'ye olde stereotype and hyperbole shop'

[Catharz]

Ohayo Gozaimasu!!!! ^_^ ^_^ ^_^
Katana wa totemo suigoi desu!!!!!
(that means Samurai swords are really great!! In Nihongo)

But vampiric werewolf ninjas don't use katana. Lycanthrovampiric shinobi (Shinobi is another reading of "ninja" in Nihongo, SUGOI, NE??!?!) use Ninja-To, which means "ninja sword" in Nihongo.

\'|'/ YAAAAAY \'|'/

: lol fireworks if you didnt know \'|'/

Anyway, SAYONARA!!!! (that means goodby in Nihongo!)

:):)

[Draco_Argentum]

The fact that I've seen posts like Catharz's that aren't intended as a joke is another thing that causes Japanophile hate.

[User3]

I'm not sure being a goddamn ninja really makes an Abomination any worse.

[Judging__Eagle]

1167971061[/unixtime]]Ohayo Gozaimasu!!!! ^_^ ^_^ ^_^
Katana wa totemo suigoi desu!!!!!
(that means Samurai swords are really great!! In Nihongo)

But vampiric werewolf ninjas don't use katana. Lycanthrovampiric shinobi (Shinobi is another reading of "ninja" in Nihongo, SUGOI, NE??!?!) use Ninja-To, which means "ninja sword" in Nihongo.

\'|'/ YAAAAAY \'|'/

: lol fireworks if you didnt know \'|'/

Anyway, SAYONARA!!!! (that means goodby in Nihongo!)

:):)

But of course.


Also, Shinobi no mono wore 'black' and not deep blue that would blend in with a natural environment; just like the stage-hands in japanse play houses used, they wore black too!

It must have been really convenient for the playhouse directors to have a stage hand's uniform used, since it's all black and covers the wearer almost completely; so convenient!

And Ninja-to's weren't invented in the same playhouses as a way to distinguish Samurai from Shinobi by giving Shinobi straight swords, while Samurai packed curved swords.

Because everyone knows that Ninja didn't use katanas and/or farming/gardening tools as their weapons! That's a lie!





On a side note: in D&D... rogues make better ninjas than ninjas themselves, mechanically at least.

Also, GG Cathaz

[Eela6]

what's wrong with furries and japanophiles? anyway... emo vampires are completely player/st-caused... I know one person who larped vampire and played baby football... anyway...

I'm a hateful man. I have no idea what "Baby Football" is, but I'm assuming it's some sort of amateur American football league. That's cool, it's a good sport.

The serious problem with many of these 'communities' is that they are, to a large extent... I don't know how to say this any better - they're masturbation and self-delusion.

I say this as a man whose regular use of free time is rearrangement of numbers in dungeons and dragons to make my character's numbers be slightly higher (or lower, as the cause may be) than someone else's.

The difference is, I don't pretend this is something that is productive or generally accepted. I have no problem with someone who enjoys anthromorphic art or whatever, it's not my thing but I have no right to yell at them about that. On the other hand, you have an extremely vocal population of furries who rise up at any possible instance of believed persecution and clamor loudly for everyone to be wowed by their ability to dress up in bad costumes and/or write bad pornography and/or (etc.) They then make themselves feel better by saying that they're a lot better than someone else. They rant and rave and compare themselves to movements with much more grounding than their own, ones that haven't ground most of their credibility into the ground.

It's not going to get them laid and it's certainly not going to change public society, so what's the point? Again, it makes them feel better. Masturbation and self-delusion. While I agree they certainly have freedom of expression to talk about that, so do I. If they can't take a little criticism, they're hardly open-minded.

Likewise, Japanophiles's biggest problems are not the fact they love japan. It's that they love Japan to the exclusion of all other cultures, and fail to see any flaws whatsoever. Japan is cool. I eat a lot of sushi, I play a frightening amount of video games, and I have a strange addiction to one, and only one anime. On the other hand, it's certainly not Shangri-La. The Japanese are not beyond reproach, they can do wrong, not all the women are randomly attractive and ready to fall in love with american tourists*. Yet, whenever someone raises a criticism of any one of their many passions [anime, japanese culture, the katana, the japanese social situation], some vocal member of the community will grind what's left of their communal diginity into the ground.

... that did not sound nearly hateful enough. Hold on, give me a moment. I'll get a back to a level proper for these boards within a couple posts.

*The proper quote for this is "fall ass-backwards into japanese pussy, taken from a review on the " Artistic History of Webcomics.