Exalted: Essence

Best Selling RPGs - Available Now @ DriveThruRPG.com
So let me see...:shade:
Philoctetes didn't get a festering wound that smelled so badly he got stranded because of it.
Menelaus didn't get his wife stolen away because a goddess decided to give her to her favorite hero.
Ajax the Great didn't suffer a bout of madness which made him kill indiscriminately. This didn't make him forfeit his honour. He wasn't driven to suicide over it.
Patrocles didn't get killed like the inexperienced youth trying to get fame...which he was... by a much more experienced warrior.
Achilles didn't get his loot confiscated by a king. Neither was his friend killed in battle, causing him to make a choice that he knew would end in his death.
Odysseus didn't lose his ships and his friends due to the revengefulness of a capricious godling. He didn't encounter monsters that nearly killed him over that.
...yeah, we can have none of this:devil:!

Sure, the Exalted don't suffer the rules for bloodloss (though tell that to Philoctetes...:gunslinger:). But they do suffer many of the other dangers that await mortals...or they wouldn't even be relatable as protagonists.

But grit often leads to tragedy. And in those cases, it often does - see above:thumbsup:!
You're defeating your own argument. NONE of those things would occur to a normal man. They are exaggerated and extremely potent events that they overcome or succumb, due to being great heroes. You seem to think that tragedy makes something gritty...
 
You're defeating your own argument. NONE of those things would occur to a normal man. They are exaggerated and extremely potent events that they overcome or succumb, due to being great heroes. You seem to think that tragedy makes something gritty...
A mortal gets a festering wound that smells so badly he gets stranded because of it. And he's useless now anyway, isn't he?
Another gets his wife stolen away because a goddess decided to give her to her favorite hero.
A mortal suffers a bout of madness which makes him kill indiscriminately. He's driven to suicide by the shame of what he'd done during his fit.
A n inexperienced, young mortal boy gets killed while trying to get fame, after facing a much more experienced warrior.
A mortal who participated in a skirmish gets his loot confiscated by a king. Later his friend is killed in a battle, causing him to avenge the murder although he'd die over it.
A mortal loses his ship and his friends due to the revengefulness of a capricious godling. He encounters monsters that nearly killed him, got many of his shipmates (the rest drown in a storm caused by said godling). He wanders the coasts for years not managing to get home due to the godling's constant meddling, and prays to the gods for deliverance. Meanwhile his wife is having to fight off would-be suitors who want her hand (not to mention other parts...), and his farm.

Yeah, totally different...oh wait! Same issue, just presented with 80% less melodrama:shade:!


Also, you might want to check my reply in the thread about changing adventures:thumbsup:! If you think an Exalt isn't closer to a mortal living in Creation than he would be to you or me, or anyone in a cyberpunk setting I'm speechless! Speechless, I sa...

...for all of 15 seconds, except the forum has a mandatory 60 seconds delay between posts! Also: and yet the adventures for cyberpunk can still be adapted for Exalted.
 
Last edited:
You seem to be arguing that a story happens to be "gritty" because a particular type of event happens in it.

I disagree. To me, "gritty" is not merely about the events that happen in a thing, it is to a certain extent about the presentation of that thing. You can put a very gritty spin on a lot of that subject matter, you can put a very epic, mythic spin (as, indeed, did the original Greek storytellers, who were regaling people with these tales as part of their religious traditions). Looking solely at the thing which happens without considering the wider aesthetic presentation is oversimplifying things.
 
I'd love them to just bring out system-neutral setting books as this is still too mechanically heavy for me - it's all the exception based rules that I really dislike the most.
 
I'd love them to just bring out system-neutral setting books as this is still too mechanically heavy for me - it's all the exception based rules that I really dislike the most.
The Realm is systemless and really solid (I just ordered a physical copy with the money I would have spent on Essence.) There's also a lot of lootable setting books from previous editions, and hopefully Across the Eight Directions will indeed come out eventually.

(Also as much as I love Creation specifically, its being a kitchen sink setting means it's easy to raid liberally from history, OSR blogs, random tables, and so on.)
 
I'd love them to just bring out system-neutral setting books as this is still too mechanically heavy for me - it's all the exception based rules that I really dislike the most.
Well, some 1st edition and 2nd edition books have mostly system-neutral content:thumbsup:!
 
Scavenger Sons and Games of Divinity would be a good place to start.
 
So let me see...:shade:
Philoctetes didn't get a festering wound that smelled so badly he got stranded because of it.
Menelaus didn't get his wife stolen away because a goddess decided to give her to her favorite hero.
Ajax the Great didn't suffer a bout of madness which made him kill indiscriminately. This didn't make him forfeit his honour. He wasn't driven to suicide over it.
Patrocles didn't get killed like the inexperienced youth trying to get fame...which he was... by a much more experienced warrior.
Achilles didn't get his loot confiscated by a king. Neither was his friend killed in battle, causing him to make a choice that he knew would end in his death.
Odysseus didn't lose his ships and his friends due to the revengefulness of a capricious godling. He didn't encounter monsters that nearly killed him over that.
With the exception of Philoctetes and his wound, none of that is what the average person understands “gritty” to mean, and festering wounds are not something that happens to the Exalted. Also, Philoctetes is hardly a major character. Stuff like that happens to minor characters in Exalted too.

Grittiness does not mean that bad things happen to characters. Grittiness in literary genres refers to a kind of uncompromising realism—i.e. adhering to realism at the expense of other narrative conventions. For example, not treating protagonists differently from minor characters. You see this in The Wire, for example, and it’s part of what made A Song of Ice and Fire seem so different, as you couldn’t rely on literary conventions (like who’s the protagonist) to anticipate what would happen next. Also, once you’re talking about heroes, magic and monsters, you’ve probably left the realm of the gritty behind, though ASoI&F and the Black Company books do try to see how far they can walk that line and still defy traditional fantasy genre conventions.

Heroic epic is generally the opposite of that. Odysseus might suffer hardship, but there’s no chance that he will die during the Odyssey. You also won’t see him get the runs from his poor diet while at sea. And even when the floor of the hall is ankle-deep with the suitors’ blood, there’s no chance he will slip in it and fall on his ass. It’s just not the genre for that sort of thing, however possible it would be in real life. The heroes’ hardships are weighty things worthy of their status. In other words, the genre is highly stylized and unconcerned with realism. The fact that some of the things they deal with might happen in some form to a real-life person doesn’t refute that. Nor does not being gritty mean the characters don’t face challenges; if that were the case, pretty much every work of literature or film would be gritty, rendering the term meaningless.
 
So the Kickstarter ended yesterday, about two grand shy of 1000% funding (and the Companion PoD discount stretch...hopefully they'll give us that as a gimme with Pledge Manager funding).

The last Monday Meeting notes went big in stressing that Essence is an addendum to 3e, not a new edition replacing it. Stressed really hard, in fact.

I have not changed my opinion that the Exalted team and OPP might need to start discussing what happens if Essence overtakes 3e as the de facto "real" Exalted current edition.
 
The preview document is available to all backers via backer only updates.
Oh, ok, thank you
So the Kickstarter ended yesterday, about two grand shy of 1000% funding (and the Companion PoD discount stretch...hopefully they'll give us that as a gimme with Pledge Manager funding).
*whistles* Well, it seems like Exalted is still practically a license to print money.

Oh, a question: Is Power Exalted Essence term for what called Initiative in EX 3rd?
 
I have not changed my opinion that the Exalted team and OPP might need to start discussing what happens if Essence overtakes 3e as the de facto "real" Exalted current edition.
I'd be genuinely surprised if they had not had that discussion informally already. They can't not have considered the possibility, especially if they are getting questions about it. And it would be real weird to say "it's not a replacement for Ex3!" in the Monday Meeting Notes if they weren't getting that sort of question.

In fact, some of the phrasing - talking about the possibility of people using Exalted: Essence as the basis of their games but still pulling support material from other Ex3 books - feels to me a lot like the verbal chicanery which happened around Blood & Smoke: the Strix Chronicle not being Vampire: the Requiem 2E until it got renamed Vampire: the Requiem 2E.

Of course, Ex3 is a book which a) it would be ruinously expensive to keep in print via conventional print runs and b) is already fully available as a PDF and a POD book, and it costs Onyx Path nothing to keep it available in those formats. So if Ex3 never gets into conventional distribution via conventional print runs again, but Essence does, and Essence is talked up as the jumping-on point for Exalted and so on, and Essence basically de facto displaces the Ex3 core book, then Onyx Path can still say that they haven't replaced Ex3 core because the book is still available. So they've made a statement which might appease the heat out of annoyed Ex3 diehards who regard any dilution of the crunch as anathema, but still allows them to adapt to a world where Essence is the de facto point of entry and the version of the game which sees more actual play without making liars of themselves.
 
I'd be genuinely surprised if they had not had that discussion informally already. They can't not have considered the possibility, especially if they are getting questions about it. And it would be real weird to say "it's not a replacement for Ex3!" in the Monday Meeting Notes if they weren't getting that sort of question.
Actually, you should still say that, if you anticipate people might think it is:thumbsup:.


With the exception of Philoctetes and his wound, none of that is what the average person understands “gritty” to mean, and festering wounds are not something that happens to the Exalted.
Unless they have been wounded by a Festering Wounds Charm. Which he might have been.

Also, Philoctetes is hardly a major character. Stuff like that happens to minor characters in Exalted too.
How many characters have killed the analogue of Paris? And I don't mean Hilton:tongue:?

Also, I gave you examples how the exact same things, with less flash and bang, happen to the minor characters as well...

And of course, we're talking about an edition where The Great Curse has reportedly been left to a negotiation between players and GM. The Great Curse doesn't happen to minor characters either, so obviously there was no need to go to such lengths:shade:?



IMO, you're wedded to a particular definition of the genre, and one which I find does the genre disservice to appease snowflake players.

Grittiness does not mean that bad things happen to characters.
According to some people, actually it does...:grin:

Grittiness in literary genres refers to a kind of uncompromising realism—i.e. adhering to realism at the expense of other narrative conventions. For example, not treating protagonists differently from minor characters. You see this in The Wire, for example, and it’s part of what made A Song of Ice and Fire seem so different, as you couldn’t rely on literary conventions (like who’s the protagonist) to anticipate what would happen next.
True, that's one possible definition - but it's not the only definition. Also, the only time when you people note "uncompromising realism" is when something bad happens to characters...


Also, once you’re talking about heroes, magic and monsters, you’ve probably left the realm of the gritty behind, though ASoI&F and the Black Company books do try to see how far they can walk that line and still defy traditional fantasy genre conventions.
No, you haven't, unless you choose to. ASoIaF, The Black Company and The Witcher show some of the ways to do so.

Heroic epic is generally the opposite of that.
Having literally grown up on heroic epics, I strongly disagree:devil:.

Odysseus might suffer hardship, but there’s no chance that he will die during the Odyssey.
Sorry, I call BS. By that logic, which as stated above I know and find both tired and erroneous, there shouldn't be a mechanic for PCs to die, except if the players and GM negotiate a character death!

You also won’t see him get the runs from his poor diet while at sea.
What poor diet? On a ship which usually moors for the night where possible, and doesn't sail longer than a few days at most (and most would have avoided that as well, unless a capricious sea god acts up)?

We're talking about sailing in the Aegean Sea here, and you're approaching it with the logic applicable to sailing in the Atlantic during the Golden Age of Piracy. Sorry, wrong Golden Age and wrong setting:devil:!


And even when the floor of the hall is ankle-deep with the suitors’ blood, there’s no chance he will slip in it and fall on his ass.
There's also no chance any Exalted would suffer that. They usually would have Crane Stance activated (and scene-long) before the battle...especially since it was him that first rolled Join Battle!

It’s just not the genre for that sort of thing, however possible it would be in real life.
Possible, yes. Probable? With trained and experienced fighters, not really. And he was just back from a war.
They were little piglets for the slaughter.

The heroes’ hardships are weighty things worthy of their status.
In other words, the exact same issues minor characters encounter, except described in a more flashy way. See my previous post on the matter.

In other words, the genre is highly stylized and unconcerned with realism.
Again, I disagree. Strongly.

The fact that some of the things they deal with might happen in some form to a real-life person doesn’t refute that.
Oh please, give me an example of a hardship that befalls the epic heroes in Ancient Greek myth and can't happen to a real-life person...
Protip: many of them were real-life people, and the rest were considered plausible enough by the contemporaries:evil:!

Nor does not being gritty mean the characters don’t face challenges; if that were the case, pretty much every work of literature or film would be gritty, rendering the term meaningless.
But the kind of challenges in a non-gritty work is, putting it simply, different.
 
Nor does not being gritty mean the characters don’t face challenges; if that were the case, pretty much every work of literature or film would be gritty, rendering the term meaningless.
It's not a 'challenge' if there's no chance for failure.

Sounds like want is 'gritty' Exalted... so what game is that?
 
I'm glad Exalted is getting a simpler version. Always found it's premise super cool, but was rejected by it's crunch.

And I agree that grittiness can exist in fantasy too. GoT is a good example IMO.

Oh, and Simlasa Simlasa avatar with that Beethoven-haired goose is awesome. :heart:
 
It's not a 'challenge' if there's no chance for failure.
I don't think he meant no challenge, but that death isn't random or commonplace unless I am misreading something.
 
Looking through some of the design notes, I saw that the so called "Red Rule is emphatically in place. I find I have mixed feeling about that. I hope there is some explicit allowance for games played without it.
 
I don't think he meant no challenge, but that death isn't random or commonplace unless I am misreading something.
How do you guaranteee that then?
Sounds like, in a game, death would only happen if the Player wills it.
Again, not my thing.
Can you opt to play 'street level' Exalted?
 
Last edited:
Oh, a question: Is Power Exalted Essence term for what called Initiative in EX 3rd?

Yes. Power is much simpler in being just a pool you gain much like a reverse HP.

Looking through some of the design notes, I saw that the so called "Red Rule is emphatically in place. I find I have mixed feeling about that. I hope there is some explicit allowance for games played without it.

You group can agree it’s own boundaries. Red Rule is a baseline that applies in the absence of such agreement.
 
How do you guaranteee that then?
Sounds like, in a game, death would only happen if the Player wills it.
Again, not my thing.
Can you opt to play 'street level' Exalted?
There are more ways to fail than dying. But, IIRC what was said, death is by GM fiat so you're the GM, just say dead is dead when determined by the mechanics, such as falling below Incapacitated.

Defending Exalted.... this feel so weird.... O.o
 
There are more ways to fail than dying.
That's the mantra... but, for me, dying needs to be one of the ways.
GM fiat works though... just saying dead is dead.
 
That's the mantra... but, for me, dying needs to be one of the ways.
GM fiat works though... just saying dead is dead.
Again, I think they’re just trying to emphasize that an Exalt’s death should be a climactic event. They’re already hard for an ordinary person to kill, so this isn’t even a big deal because players will tend to know when something is dangerous to them, but it’s not a game in which a rock thrown by an extra is going to do you in. There are plenty of real supernatural threats to Exalts, though, including other Exalts, and if you play a Solar or Lunar, there’s a bunch of Terrestrials who basically think killing you is a sacrament and are quite capable of doing so.

It’s just that the group should be on the same page when it comes to the death of Exalted characters. If the ST wants a lethal game, there’s nothing stopping them; you just need to be clear about that. It’s also fine if people don’t want that but prefer to explore other consequences. Lots of Exalted stories explore the consequences of the Exalt’s actions, both successes and failures. You can pretty easily set yourself up as a god-king, but can you really make life better for the people? You can face armies single-handed, but can you truly be free? It’s up to you what to explore.
 
That's the mantra... but, for me, dying needs to be one of the ways.
GM fiat works though... just saying dead is dead.
My issue is that to me, death isn't a failure state. Failures can be fixed, and that you can't do if the character is dead. Often it just ends the game for that player. Maybe for the session, maybe for the entire game.

Not that it's all that bad a thing for a simple D&D game, where you can just grab the same stats and flip 'em about and in 15 minutes you're ready to go, if you have the drive for it, but not everyone does.

Exalted, however, where concept is king and you have like multiple dozens of Charms/Powers to make a new character from, it's just a hassle that could take hours to complete. That just kills the momentum for the table, maybe for the day.

And it's not just Exalted, any game with a front loaded game design, like HERO or my personal favourite M&M 3e, those require time to invest in the mechanics when building a character
 
You seem to be arguing that a story happens to be "gritty" because a particular type of event happens in it.

I disagree. To me, "gritty" is not merely about the events that happen in a thing, it is to a certain extent about the presentation of that thing. You can put a very gritty spin on a lot of that subject matter, you can put a very epic, mythic spin (as, indeed, did the original Greek storytellers, who were regaling people with these tales as part of their religious traditions). Looking solely at the thing which happens without considering the wider aesthetic presentation is oversimplifying things.
Yeah...except that absolutely no one was referring to the aesthetic presentation of Exalted. The statement was...
”Exalted is never really a gritty game for the PCs, and failure means they don’t get the outcome they want, not that they trip over themselves like chumps.” Clearly talking about mechanics here, ie. the kinds of things that can happen to PCs, and whether or not that counts as gritty.
 
Mechanics can reinforce aesthetic, though, as anyone who's rolled on a Rolemaster critical hit table or WFRP mutation table can tell you.
 
Last edited:
Yeah, pretty much everything about Exalted characters, from the fiction in which they’re semi-immortal divine heroes, to the character creation (streamlined in Essence but still rather involved), signals that this is a game in which individual characters are resilient and you’re probably going to be keeping yours around for the length of the chronicle. Or if you do die, it’ll be a major event and not a surprise when it happens. You won’t drown while swimming across a river, but you might fall heroically while defending a city from a rampaging river god.
 
Yeah...except that absolutely no one was referring to the aesthetic presentation of Exalted. The statement was...
”Exalted is never really a gritty game for the PCs, and failure means they don’t get the outcome they want, not that they trip over themselves like chumps.” Clearly talking about mechanics here, ie. the kinds of things that can happen to PCs, and whether or not that counts as gritty.
Indeed:thumbsup:!
Yeah, pretty much everything about Exalted characters, from the fiction in which they’re semi-immortal divine heroes, to the character creation (streamlined in Essence but still rather involved), signals that this is a game in which individual characters are resilient and you’re probably going to be keeping yours around for the length of the chronicle. Or if you do die, it’ll be a major event and not a surprise when it happens. You won’t drown while swimming across a river, but you might fall heroically while defending a city from a rampaging river god.
And in the end, drowned is drowned:devil:.
 
Looking through some of the design notes, I saw that the so called "Red Rule is emphatically in place. I find I have mixed feeling about that. I hope there is some explicit allowance for games played without it.
The red rule is just "no sexual stuff happens to your character without your consent," dude.

The only "support" for not playing with that rule is... not playing with the rule.

But why the hell would you want to? Even if you personally don't intent to take advantage of the "No I don't want that" part of it, I think it's only polite to let people know that you're not gonna step over their boundaries.

Edit: Like, literally. This is the red rule. The entire text of the red rule.

In almost all aspects, Exalted doesn’t mechanically distinguish
between Storyteller characters and those the players
control. Here’s the exception:

A player-controlled character can only be seduced or otherwise
put in a sexual situation if the player is okay with it.
Otherwise, any such attempt fails automatically.

This is completely up to the player’s discretion, and they can
waive this rule’s protection if they want their character to be
seduced, if they think it would improve the story, or for whatever
other reason. This is entirely up to the player, and on an
attempt-by-attempt basis—waiving the rule once doesn’t
void your ability to call on it later against the same character,
or even in the same scene. If no one in your group ever
invokes this rule, that’s also fine—but players don’t have
to watch their character put into a sexual situation they’re
not comfortable with.

Groups that feel comfortable in doing so should allow player
characters the full range of their seductive prowess when
entangled with Storyteller-controlled characters… although
remember that the Storyteller is also a player and their
boundaries should be respected.
 
I don't care for it and wouldn't be using it of I adopted these rules. And, oddly enough, with some players its easier explaining that you're not using it if its allowed for in the text. Weird, but something I've run into a more than a few times over the years.
 
The red rule is just "no sexual stuff happens to your character without your consent," dude.
Yes, I know what it is.
The only "support" for not playing with that rule is... not playing with the rule.
See my response to Isator Levie. Short version is if it not explicitly noted as an option in the rule book, some folks act like you're violating the game if you don't use a mechanics or guideline.
But why the hell would you want to?
Because it feels artificial to me and a bit silly. Its easier to talk you into killing your wife than seducing cheat on her. If you want your character to be very resistant to being seduced there were ways to build that mechanically, just as there were ways to make them resistant to harming their beloved. Hopefully there are similar ways in Essence.

In the end, its game/story. I've run into a few players that had an issue with their imaginary character having imaginary sex they didn't plan for due to events in the game and mechanical results anymore than imaginary person suffered imaginary injury/emotional trauma/defeat due to events and mechanics. If there are going to be social mechanical effects, I prefer for them to be as universal applicable as possible. PCs have some degree of script immunity, but I don't feel its to that.

Its a valid matter of taste and I make things clear when someone wants (assuming they're new. Most of my players have been with me for years). If its not to their taste, no one is forcing them play with me or our group.

I've seen some odd stances on the subject, like one person that felt the power essentially 'veto' seductions and such extended beyond their player character to any of 'their' npcs (allies, followers, etc) but the GM could not apply the "red rule" to NPCs when their character attempted seduction or romance even when. for example, their PC didn't mesh with NPC's orientation.

Saying that to say this: its an aspect of play that has allot of different outlooks (many games, even of Exalted, don't deal with sexuality at all or only very vaguely, for instance) , similar to lethality (in some games, PCs can't die without PLAYER consent, not my cuppa but that's how some like it). No one is 'right' or 'wrong' though, just different tastes.
 
Last edited:
If we include Sex Moves they protest. If we include NO SEX MOVES ALLOWED they protest too. I give up. XD
 
In the end, its game/story. I've run into a few players that had an issue with their imaginary character having imaginary sex they didn't plan for due to events in the game and mechanical results anymore than imaginary person suffered imaginary injury/emotional trauma/defeat due to events and mechanics. If there are going to be social mechanical effects, I prefer for them to be as universal applicable as possible. PCs have some degree of script immunity, but I don't feel its to that.
How hard is it to talk to them first that things like this are going to be included? That's basic session 0 stuff there. Some people have real life trauma that this kind of thing exacerbates. I don't see the controversy surrounding it.
 
My group already has a zero sex policy in place. In my experience it’s just super awkward and not fun for anyone at the table.

and honestly, I don’t think I’d want to play a game where “rape” or “seduction” was on the table.

but I don’t see why the inclusion of the rule is a bother, when you can just ignore it at your table if you want too.

it should be brought up in session zero though.
 
My group already has a zero sex policy in place. In my experience it’s just super awkward and not fun for anyone at the table.

and honestly, I don’t think I’d want to play a game where “rape” or “seduction” was on the table.

but I don’t see why the inclusion of the rule is a bother, when you can just ignore it at your table if you want too.

it should be brought up in session zero though.
Furthermore, I'd say the inclusion of the rule is a good thing, because some people are too timid to lay out boundaries explicitly. And some GMs are kinda dickholes who could probably use the reminder that they should be considerate of the others at their tables.

Just because I am willing to look you in the eye and say "no, I don't want that," doesn't mean it's a problem if someone else needs the help.
 
If we include Sex Moves they protest. If we include NO SEX MOVES ALLOWED they protest too. I give up. XD
Hence my constant "make a game YOU would find fun" advice:thumbsup:!

How hard is it to talk to them first that things like this are going to be included? That's basic session 0 stuff there. Some people have real life trauma that this kind of thing exacerbates. I don't see the controversy surrounding it.
But "session 0 talk" is explicitly not what the Red Rule is. It means talking to them on a case-by-case basis, OOC, before engaging IC. Even when the event itself should have been a surprise IC (like the PC not knowing someone was on the same social event)...

So yeah, I can see the Red Rule being a problem for some Referees. Including for some of those I like playing with.
 
But "session 0 talk" is explicitly not what the Red Rule is. It means talking to them on a case-by-case basis, OOC, before engaging IC. Even when the event itself should have been a surprise IC (like the PC not knowing someone was on the same social event)...
I mean session 0 talk to know if you're going to use it at all and if that rule should be used.
 
How hard is it to talk to them first that things like this are going to be included? That's basic session 0 stuff there. Some people have real life trauma that this kind of thing exacerbates. I don't see the controversy surrounding it.
As I said, that's already what I do.

But it helps if the optional nature of whatever it is is including as its keeps the complaints and bickering to low roar, IME. That's all I was wondering about since from the production notes I'd seen the presence of the so called Red Rule was emphasized as if it was critical with nothing mentioned so far about it being optional or working without it. I hope that it was included as it might make my life easier if I adopted this game.
 
Furthermore, I'd say the inclusion of the rule is a good thing, because some people are too timid to lay out boundaries explicitly. And some GMs are kinda dickholes who could probably use the reminder that they should be considerate of the others at their tables.
I didn't say the rule -shouldn't- be included. I don't think it -has- to be included but since it is (and it seems pretty emphatically by the production notes) I hoped it was included that its optional were included for the reasons I stated earlier.
Just because I am willing to look you in the eye and say "no, I don't want that," doesn't mean it's a problem if someone else needs the help.
I make the mood in the game clear up front, give it a 'rating' essentially and describe what it may include. If someone doesn't like that level of play, its cool. They don't have to play with my group. If they decide to give it a try but find they don't like our style, that's cool too. No style is for everyone and folks can always leave if they want. We're all adults.
 
Banner: The best cosmic horror & Cthulhu Mythos @ DriveThruRPG.com
Back
Top