Sorry, confused here. Is that the status covenenat members need to learn the stuff or to teach someone.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sorry, confused here. Is that the status covenenat members need to learn the stuff or to teach someone.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sorry what I mean is if Kats status 1 she doesnt have to move up status to advance in thebian sourcery. But to teach it she needs the required status?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
That's what's required to learn from the Covenant. So Katrina will need Status 2 to learn Theban 3 from the LS.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ok, I don't want to be seen as a problem creator but I hate this rule. Mainly because it makes it stupid to play a member of the Lancea Sanctum, Ordo Dracul or Circle of Crone Character.
Its not about needing that status to learn it, allthough it seems that people inside thoose covenants don't get any sort of advantage over people who are not inside it. (Besides the fact that we don't get hunted down and killed).
Its more about smaller covenants that dont qualify to do status posts. The Lancea Sanctum has 3 members so we can not actually do status posts at all.
The proposed method of raising status with XP seems rather unfair in my opinion. Everyone in the LS might hate me, yet I pay for Status 5 when they all think I should be status 1. This menas we have to also pay for Status with XP where as others do not. It makes it unfair on both accounts.
For smaller covenants we should allow status posts to be done. Even if for calculation purposes you include each persons twice or something. As long as you have two members your fine then.
There are major disadvantages to learning the art without being a member of that covenant. Should they find out your going to find an entire covenant working against you.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Isn't that assumption predicated on Covenant members teaching those secrets without any concern? What would it take for Katrina to teach someone Theban?
Sure you can, you just don't have the requisite number to effect a change.
That's not true at all. To the Invictus, Status is everything. As far as "paid" Status goes, it's assumed to be earned, and only negative actions can remove it. So I really don't understand these objections... could you clarify?
Well, no. Then you'd end up with a 4 and a 5. Of course we could do away with vox populi Status altogether and make it a purchase-only, when I approve it only, like Werewolf Renown. I'm trying to get you guys involved with your Covenants beyond them being a subset of powers.
...yes?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Kat would not teach it to outsiders, not for one life boon not for one hundred life boons. She knows all too well what happens to people that do.
The issue with paid status is that its not earnt like city status, clan status etc. Say I buy status up to 5 and then do something that would send me down to 1. Whats to stop me next month buying up to 5 again and assuming she did something to get there. Ok its only 2 X level but still, I prefer the way the site does it now. Rather than pay for it its more or less done through your characters actions and opinions of others.
I firmly believe status should be earnt and buying it with XP would be a nightmare. I quite like status posts makes me think what my character thinks about that person.
There has to be some way status can work for smaller covenants. I know its some work on you but perhaps an npc could be brought in to fill the space gap? I dont know, I have no idea how the actual calculations are done.
Just a side question, not to change the subject too much, But how is status calculated again? Isn't there a thread somewhere that shows how the equation works?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I honestly can't remember. We changed the original formula -- you'd have to ask rnt what was finally decided on.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
So assume everyone else feels the same way
You can only buy 1 dot a month.
I prefer it that way also, it's just an option for smaller Covs. Yes, an NPC would be an option, but then everyone expects the NPC to run the Covenant. There's also no IC basis for bringing in new NPCs suddenly. Let's just see how it works; if it doesn't work well, I can always change it.
I am really happy with NPC's not running the cove's and I would like to keep it that way. The problem with NPC's are exactly what West pointed out. If an NPC is in a Cove there expected to run the Cove by people not in the know. I look at what Forn did over in Lost, working toward having Player Ran Courts where possible. I like that much more. There is a benefit, of course, with NPC's you don't have to worry about player availability or dropping. You just need an ST. Of course the ST has to be available. And I think I lost my train of thought so I will return to the wiki'ing before I start Rambling even more...
Draft this Post
