Quote from: Spike;856330What I'm more interested in is if they've cleaned up those damned awful, gimmicky poker mechanics (yes, yes... they aren't that hard to figure out. Unless you're trying to interest casual players in the game and you have to spend an hour explaining the most basic rolls in the game...), and, as it sounds, splitting the power differential.

The dice system remains mostly unchanged. FWIW I found that most players, even casual ones, understood the use of runs and matches from poker to determine the dice result.

The power differential is now split, entrenched not just in the mechanics as before, but also the two (not three) separate rulebooks.

Quote from: trechriron;856326The Nazzadi were engineered from human DNA to be "alien humans", so I see no reason why they wouldn't express the same sexual orientations and desires in the same ratio as baseline humans.

They do. Their culture doesn't have any stigma attached to sexual preference for that matter. One of the first Nazzadi presented is a gay man. If anything the Nazzadi have fewer sexual hangups in humans and a somewhat more "classical" view of sexual orientation without a strict hetero/homo sexual divide.

The "problematic" elements seems to be their naming traditions only recognize male and female (gender binary?) and there was no explicit mention of intersex or transgender individuals. And the "Drow problem" where their jet black ebon skin is insulting and racist to "black" humans as it was intended to look inhuman and intimidating by their designers. I imagine there's more to it but that gist as I understand it.

Quote from: Spike;856330I'm curious, so I'll be looking into this later. Frankly I couldn't give to tinker's damns about all the cultural wailing, since I don't think I've ever run any pre-published game setting according to canon in my... shit, three decades of play? On either side of the table, really.

I usually don't run things totally canon either. But the more the published material diverges (or I diverge from it) the less support it provides. It is more work. If things are different enough, its frankly easier for me to covert to one of go to system since I'm more or less making every thing up anyway. Might as well use familiar tools.

So there's that and I don't see what so awesome about humanoid chameleons so far as the mood I'd like for my game to have. I don't see it as a game for deep exploration of a transhuman culture or "playing a monster". But I'm pretty conservative in my tastes about that kind of thing.

 Of course, in this case I can just stick to 1st edition. Its' not a clusterfuck and it seems that problems start with things I'm not planning to use much (mecha).

QuoteWhat I'm more interested in is if they've cleaned up those damned awful, gimmicky poker mechanics (yes, yes... they aren't that hard to figure out. Unless you're trying to interest casual players in the game and you have to spend an hour explaining the most basic rolls in the game...), and, as it sounds, splitting the power differential.

I'm not sure three core books is the way to go with that, personally. Sounds like a little TOO MUCH division of the power levels, complete with a lot of tedious repetition of the basic rules. I got enough of that from White Wolf back in the day, with a side helping from Palladium.

The mechanics are a little funky, I agree. The supplement glut is something I'm worried about too. Not so much buying the same rules is having to buy another full book to get some missing bit you need and disregarding 99 percent of the rest of it. Or if you're running a street level game but want a low end Tager as sort of a "boss" encounter or the like.  That's not necessarily going to happen its a risk.

I still find it weird that the solution to the problem with interaction between tiers of play is to separate those tiers of play by core book. Some of my favourite games of CTech were those that mixed or crossed tiers.

The whole issue is 98% fixed by simply adopting a x5 multiple for cross tier interaction. Tagers can take on PA but PA are still tough, and mecha are beyond personal scale conflict, all without a second rulebook.

More of an issue is the advancement of the various character types, and to v2's credit, it looks like its addressing that somewhat. However, I am not sure making Tagers less cool from the get go is really that appealing as other options.

Quote from: Skywalker;856333The dice system remains mostly unchanged. FWIW I found that most players, even casual ones, understood the use of runs and matches from poker to determine the dice result.

The power differential is now split, entrenched not just in the mechanics as before, but also the two (not three) separate rulebooks.

See, but none of my players are big fans of poker

Quote from: Spike;856350See, but none of my players are big fans of poker

The game is widespread that I think most people have a base level of familiarity even if they are not fans. More familiarity than most mechanical RPG concepts at least. Matches and consecutive numbers are also pretty straightforward concepts as well.

Quote from: Skywalker;856352The game is widespread that I think most people have a base level of familiarity even if they are not fans. More familiarity than most mechanical RPG concepts at least. Matches and consecutive numbers are also pretty straightforward concepts as well.

Personally, I've never played Poker and have almost no knowledge of the rules and only one of my players is any different

We never played poker but loved the poker mechanic in Cthulhutech

Well, some potential good news for those of you that liked the idea.

Quote from: martian_bob;19398735Radical changes? Not really. We're kicking around the idea of including the option of color-changing skin, but that's probably the biggest potential mechanical difference.

Seems kind of like this version is being designed by rpg.net.

Quote from: Nexus;856737Seems kind of like this version is being designed by rpg.net.

From the Galactic Cockrot Thread (we'll be eternally grateful to you for that one Mark)

Quote from: Brother Bob on awfulpurpleI'd just like to take this opportunity to say that what's been said about CthulhuTech in this thread is a) absolutely correct, and b) indefensible. My previous statements on the subject are similarly indefensible. All I can say is, going forward, we're going to do better. Don't take my word for it. We're developing a second edition now. The core book will be pay-what-you-want and/or Creative Commons, so you won't have to spend a dime to see for yourself. For those whose trust we've irrevocably lost, all I can say is I'm sorry. I look back on some of the things I said and some of the things we published, and I seriously don't know what I/we were thinking.

Accepting his sin, and donning the sackcloth and ashes, Brother Bob marks himself one of the repentant privileged, and in begging for forgiveness, he shall be born again as one of the righteous. Hallelujah!

P.S. The Deep Ones were never at war with Oceania.

Quote from: CRKrueger;856745Accepting his sin, and donning the sackcloth and ashes, Brother Bob marks himself one of the repentant privileged, and in begging for forgiveness, he shall be born again as one of the righteous. Hallelujah!

Yeah, that's about it.

Quote from: Spinachcat;855857I'm good with Ctech's "God is Dead" or "Slay for God" concept. It's too binary to be realistic, but its fine for high drama. Lukewarm isn't compelling and lacks passion to motivate characters.

and there exists a strong "God is Dead" or "God has abandoned us" or "No God would allow this, thus there is no God" response in the face of war and atrocity.

I think the binary notion of it completely makes sense.  If people have a "God is Dead/Slay for God" tendency in response to WWI and WWII how much greater would it be when the war is obviously supernatural in nature.  I mean it doesn't matter what religion you belong to or ignore, it has demons in it.  Now we see demons walking the earth in a war, that seems to be pointing to one of two possible options.
1. There is no God.
2. There is, and he's letting this happen for some reason, like we're not worthy.

It's kind of like how once you have gods in a fantasy world that can make their actual will known, "realism" meaning like earth, becomes a lot less "realistic" meaning what applies to setting X.

Quote from: Nexus;856746Yeah, that's about it.

Yeah Jesus Wept, the guy sounds like he's doing the John Cleese apology from A Fish Called Wanda, it's fucking embarrassing.

Quote from: CRKrueger;856750Yeah Jesus Wept, the guy sounds like he's doing the John Cleese apology from A Fish Called Wanda, it's fucking embarrassing.

It does almost sound like parody. So does the thread. I can't tell if he's just being diplomatic, trying to avoid another shitstorm and sell his game by nodding along or if they're seriously considering every idea more than one person suggests. Its worrisome if for no other reason than to think  TBP's approval matters that much.

Even though there are issues that are in need of addressing in CTech, I am doubtful of design by committee and public opinion and I am not confident that any change will really satisfy the critics regardless.

I am also kind of unimpressed by the number of people who rant rabid to stop any kind of discussion on CTech occur over there, suddenly taking a moderate view and saying things like "I never really had a problem with X".