Insect Wylderkin
- Thread starter Ash
- Start date
How diffrent would a simple costume for any of those mentioned creatures be? Color is based on environment which again..is chapter specific. A bear costume could even be interchangeable with the mentioned animal because most if not all PC wylderkyn do not look exactly like..most of the time any where close to how the actual animal looks IRL. My argument stands it looks like a weasle.
Your argument would do better with dinosaurs which may or may not have had feathers, so the costuming could vary wildly.
Your argument would do better with dinosaurs which may or may not have had feathers, so the costuming could vary wildly.
Inaryn
Knight
Agahi said:
I'd dare say the markings on a badger are pretty distinct. The black footed ferret a bit less so.
Badger left. Sea otter middle. Black footed ferret right.
My argument is independent of the type of animal. I can make the same set of arguments for a velociraptor, for the leptarctus, or for any number of other extinct animals that we don't have solid evidence of how they looked.
You don't know.
It's less of a matter about wether I know or not and more a matter of what scientist agree upon. Leptarctus is a mustelidae, which can range in looks very slightly and still remain within that grouping. The slight variation that is possible Is IMO close enough that a PCs costuming would not matter on the point.
If I saw a weaslekin IG I would assume it was a bearkin untill told otherwise, so I see no problem with a Leptarctus. Same with a Trex, I would assume it was a lizard (or even an orc (no tusks)) from some of the lizardkin i've seen), not a Trex untill told otherwise.
I agree with you there is a diffrence in the animal, but practicly it dosent matter because a player is an anthropomorphic animal that favors its human side, in which case color diffrnces can even be attributed to the OOG race of the player.
On another note, is there a reason you do not want this IG? I already said I got the ok to do this years ago, and even heard tale of a group of PC velociraptors.
If I saw a weaslekin IG I would assume it was a bearkin untill told otherwise, so I see no problem with a Leptarctus. Same with a Trex, I would assume it was a lizard (or even an orc (no tusks)) from some of the lizardkin i've seen), not a Trex untill told otherwise.
I agree with you there is a diffrence in the animal, but practicly it dosent matter because a player is an anthropomorphic animal that favors its human side, in which case color diffrnces can even be attributed to the OOG race of the player.
On another note, is there a reason you do not want this IG? I already said I got the ok to do this years ago, and even heard tale of a group of PC velociraptors.
Inaryn
Knight
Agahi said:
1. Suspension of disbelief. I personally find it a step too far to have to not only envision that you're an anthropomorphic animal, but that you're also an extinct anthropomorphic animal. By making something that is OOG extinct, you're making a deliberate choice to engage OOG knowledge, which can drop some people out of their IG groove. In other words, you're breaking the 4th wall.
2. Fairness (last I checked, you couldn't make a sabre-toothed tiger sarr except as an NPC in some chapters)
3. Because making stuff up about a creature you've never seen and don't know a whole-lot about is pretty much exactly how mythological creatures came to exist. You're basically just creating your own.
So there's less suspension in disbelief when you see a High Orge, versus a Kin? All kin have the potential for engaging OOG knowledge, if your character has never encountered that kind of animal IG, then they would not know what kind of kin it was IG? If your character wouldn't know, then play it like that and roll with it. I really don't see how this is going to mess with people's IG groove. And if it does, then there's a chance for someone to work on staying in their IG groove.Inaryn said:
Just as with the kin races, I would expect this to be up to the individual chapter. All I see in the ARB/Race packet regarding choice of Sarr is not to RP it like a house cat and it should be based of a large hunting cat.Inaryn said:
People already pull from folklore for their kin, which is stuff that someone else made up. Not to mention, we're playing in a game, that is completely made up.Inaryn said:
In the end, it should be up to the chapter, with the caveat to the player that they may not be able to play that character in another chapter.
what if those animals are not extinct in a given chapter, in that case wouldnt not allowing them be oog 4th wall breaking? I dont see an issue with sabertooth tigar sarr either, though I admit I never asked in the old topic.
Like I said though this was already confirmed as ok, and I believe there are PCs in some chapter databases that are in fact extinct animals oog, so I suppose I'll just say what i'm alwasy told. If you want it change submit a rule proposal to your owner...
Like I said though this was already confirmed as ok, and I believe there are PCs in some chapter databases that are in fact extinct animals oog, so I suppose I'll just say what i'm alwasy told. If you want it change submit a rule proposal to your owner...
Inaryn
Knight
Agahi said:
Something like this would likely take owner input. As is, clarifications that have been previously made but not rolled into the current edition are generally considered null. Some people may still play it that way, but if it doesn't get updated to the current edition, it has to be rediscussed and reclarified again. This has been the case with several rules editions now.
To be clear, the ARC is there to make clarifications when things are hazy and to hand down rules the owners decide on. The owners are the ones who actually get to discuss and vote on new rules and changes to the rules.
i understand where you're coming from: since there's no verifiable source for extinct creatures' characteristics, there's no way to verify that X player is playing their kin correctly. this would make sense, if there was a standardized way to play any of the living animals. that is, if there was one standard way to play a wolfkin (as outlined in the ARB) it would make sense to exclude extinct animals, except there isn't. same base kin differ wildly within the game, even within the same chapter. the only real difference between a Wolfkin and a Mousekin is how either PC chooses to play them, even down to substantial costume characteristics like tail, fangs, ears, fur, whatever. it's ALL made-up, none of it is based in the "real" world of animal characteristics. a velociraptorkin with feathers would be just as good as a velociraptorkin with scales; just like a wolfkin with fur is just as good as a wolfkin with smooth skin since, just like dogs and cats, there are hairless wolf breeds -- and, even if there weren't, ¿who's to say this individual isn't the exception like an albino or a mutant? i dig where you're coming from, but it's splitting hairs on a bald head, it's just not an important game notionInaryn said:
personally, i see no reason why mythical kin wouldn't work, even were someone to be a Dragonkin (or a or a unicornkin, or a rockin, or a cthulhukin :twisted: ), they wouldn't gain any IG advantage beyond what is outlined in the ARB for all Wylder. it's all just cosmetics
This is why I've been interested in the idea that a friend of mine kicked my way for some time now, changing the Alliance over to be 5 races for mechanical purposes.
Humans : As they are now. Gypsies and Barbarians are culture packets.
Elves : Wild/High/Stone/Dark are all culture packets.
Goblinoids : Ork/Ogre/Kobold/Goblin Etc.
Dwarves : Hoblings/Dwarves are separate but related races, again with the culture packets.
Fey : Mystic Wood Elves/Biata/Dryads/Animalkin are all culture packages.
Why is this interesting to me? Because it would mean we could radically simplify the mechanics of our racials, while at the same time opening up much more freedom to players as to what they're playing. 'I'm a half-drow!' translates into 'I'm an elf-type, with a weird-*** culture packet!' mechanically, and we move on.
It would also be nice because the wider range of things that could be played would really help to eliminate the current pinata-NERO style of 'It isn't a PC race, beat it to death!'
Humans : As they are now. Gypsies and Barbarians are culture packets.
Elves : Wild/High/Stone/Dark are all culture packets.
Goblinoids : Ork/Ogre/Kobold/Goblin Etc.
Dwarves : Hoblings/Dwarves are separate but related races, again with the culture packets.
Fey : Mystic Wood Elves/Biata/Dryads/Animalkin are all culture packages.
Why is this interesting to me? Because it would mean we could radically simplify the mechanics of our racials, while at the same time opening up much more freedom to players as to what they're playing. 'I'm a half-drow!' translates into 'I'm an elf-type, with a weird-*** culture packet!' mechanically, and we move on.
It would also be nice because the wider range of things that could be played would really help to eliminate the current pinata-NERO style of 'It isn't a PC race, beat it to death!'
