Possible changes to Tribe background restrictions

General discussions, named after our Out of Character gathering point in our game.

Re: Possible changes to Tribe background restrictions

Postby Tim » Mon Jan 30, 2012 7:07 am

Red wrote:Are you surprised that WtA is mildly racist? ;)


No, not in the least--I just figured they were whole hog. I mean, we already have them claiming Wendigo don't know anyone and have no money, how big of a step is it for Uktena to be poor too?

Ah well.
"As the ancient Hindu philosophy states, 'Don't start none, won't be none.'"
User avatar
Tim
 
Posts: 13
Joined: Fri Jan 13, 2012 6:12 am

Re: Possible changes to Tribe background restrictions

Postby djehuti » Mon Jan 30, 2012 9:28 am

Tim wrote:I think Resources caps make far more sense that flat out restrictions, except for Talons. 3 seems totally reasonable. (If you want to have your Gnawer/Wendigo/Strider/Uktena be the 4th man in a super powerful company due to some interesting history, I think that's something for a Wizard to discuss in an app.)


I think I'd be a fan of R3 for tribes not Gnawers, maybe R2 as a cap for Gnawers. Otherwise, I'm with you there.
djehuti
 
Posts: 4
Joined: Fri Jan 13, 2012 4:49 am

Re: Possible changes to Tribe background restrictions

Postby Sky » Tue Jan 31, 2012 4:22 pm

djehuti wrote:
Tim wrote:I think Resources caps make far more sense that flat out restrictions, except for Talons. 3 seems totally reasonable. (If you want to have your Gnawer/Wendigo/Strider/Uktena be the 4th man in a super powerful company due to some interesting history, I think that's something for a Wizard to discuss in an app.)


I think I'd be a fan of R3 for tribes not Gnawers, maybe R2 as a cap for Gnawers. Otherwise, I'm with you there.


I think... Anyone who wants resources 4 or 5 needs to seriously justify it, anyway. That's a LOT of money.
Resources 2 is a reasonably sustainable life. Resources 3 is /comfortable/. I would be ecstatic if I could get to a point in my life where I was at Resources 3.

If we believe that these tribes should have a harder time having resources than other tribes, then it should be either a much lower cap, or we should go with "These tribes don't generally have resources. If you wish your character to come in with resources, prepare to explain it very very well in your app."
And then we would expect that it would be much harder to have a Gnawer with even resources 1.
Current Character: Jacinta, Kavi, Isaac, Wrong Way, Nadine, and Keeva

** Don't forget to send (@mail) your activities to Caern Convos! **
Sky
 
Posts: 12
Joined: Fri Dec 30, 2011 3:30 am

Re: Possible changes to Tribe background restrictions

Postby Runtywolf » Tue Jan 31, 2012 6:00 pm

I'm in agreement that setting hard limits on backgrounds in general is going to be arbitrarily limiting and is unnecessary. Sure, it can be understood that if a Gnawer is apping with Resources, they need to explain it very well. But why eliminate the possibility of a high-resources Gnawer when there could be a very compelling and interesting, well-written and reasoned explanation for it?

Setting soft limits I could stomach, ie. 'Most Gnawers can only get Resources 2 out of the box, but if you feel the desire to try for more, feel free to compose a Very Compelling reason why.' But again, why bother with the cap if the understanding is already there? Gnawers generally don't have much in the way of resources. App for them all you want, but your mileage may vary.

I feel the same is true for most of the other semi-restricted backgrounds, with PB being the slight exception, given it's partially mystical and the spirits could arguably have a stake in it (see Rat (and arguably Cockroach as well) stripping PB from its/their adherents). But again, unless, for example, Rat feels the need to make it an outright Tribal Ban that her adherents can never have liquid resources, why set numerical limitations?
Character-bodies!
Earth-Whisperer
Ishmael
Karuvar
Dirk
Panlong, GMbot.
Runtywolf
 
Posts: 17
Joined: Fri Jan 13, 2012 4:16 pm

Re: Possible changes to Tribe background restrictions

Postby Tim » Tue Jan 31, 2012 6:25 pm

Sky wrote: If we believe that these tribes should have a harder time having resources than other tribes, then it should be either a much lower cap, or we should go with "These tribes don't generally have resources. If you wish your character to come in with resources, prepare to explain it very very well in your app."
And then we would expect that it would be much harder to have a Gnawer with even resources 1.


By much lower, do you mean 1? Because I can't agree with that; there are plenty of examples one can give of Wendigo and Striders, as ethnic groups, having access to at least Resources 3. Gnawers, maybe not, but 2 is 'average' and thus I think within a Gnawer's grasp via Kin.
"As the ancient Hindu philosophy states, 'Don't start none, won't be none.'"
User avatar
Tim
 
Posts: 13
Joined: Fri Jan 13, 2012 6:12 am

Re: Possible changes to Tribe background restrictions

Postby Sky » Wed Feb 01, 2012 5:21 am

Tim wrote:
Sky wrote: If we believe that these tribes should have a harder time having resources than other tribes, then it should be either a much lower cap, or we should go with "These tribes don't generally have resources. If you wish your character to come in with resources, prepare to explain it very very well in your app."
And then we would expect that it would be much harder to have a Gnawer with even resources 1.


By much lower, do you mean 1? Because I can't agree with that; there are plenty of examples one can give of Wendigo and Striders, as ethnic groups, having access to at least Resources 3. Gnawers, maybe not, but 2 is 'average' and thus I think within a Gnawer's grasp via Kin.


My point was that I don't think we should have a cap, because it's nonsensical. We should accept that MOST Gnawers will not have resources. That MOST Striders and Wendigo, if they have resources, will have low resources. That there are reasons that can be written into applications for there to be exceptions.

There's really not a reason to say: We're going to cap Wendigo at 3 (which, as I say, is a level I would be /more/ than happy to ever achieve in my real life). Why bother capping at all? Wendigo, IN GENERAL, should not have much in the way of resources. If they do, they've put it in their application. If they're writing it into their application /anyway/, then saying we're capping at 3 unless they write it into their application is just plain silly.

Dude. Simplicity. Wendigo, Striders, Gnawers - IN GENERAL - do not have much money. Write anything beyond that into your application, and if it fits, it'll be accepted.
Current Character: Jacinta, Kavi, Isaac, Wrong Way, Nadine, and Keeva

** Don't forget to send (@mail) your activities to Caern Convos! **
Sky
 
Posts: 12
Joined: Fri Dec 30, 2011 3:30 am

Re: Possible changes to Tribe background restrictions

Postby Tim » Thu Feb 02, 2012 5:58 pm

Ah, gotcha. Well I can see removing the cap all-together, in that case.
"As the ancient Hindu philosophy states, 'Don't start none, won't be none.'"
User avatar
Tim
 
Posts: 13
Joined: Fri Jan 13, 2012 6:12 am

Previous

Return to The Lounge

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron