Any questions or criticism of the fluff?

[BlueStar86]

Why is the Viktoria experiment considered a failure to the Neverborn? They nearly crippled December, he was struggling to beat Rasputina (proven in that the fight wasn't an instant win, she wasn't going to win, ever, but he should have defeated her in one go, like he did before), and the next time he ends up against the Viks he stands a very good chance of being killed.

Before now the Neverborn didn't have too many weapons that would work, they had the Gravespirit, a horrible option, a handful of relics, most of which only work for people who aren't good with them, like Sonnia Criid's sword, and maybe some incredibly difficult to make rune-circle-based spells. So why would they consider a weapon that can hurt the Tyrants, with just a swing, in the hands of someone who knows how to use it, a failed experiment?

It's the "if it bleeds, we can kill it" principle.

[Dracomax]

Why is the Viktoria experiment considered a failure to the Neverborn? They nearly crippled December, he was struggling to beat Rasputina (proven in that the fight wasn't an instant win, she wasn't going to win, ever, but he should have defeated her in one go, like he did before), and the next time he ends up against the Viks he stands a very good chance of being killed.

Before now the Neverborn didn't have too many weapons that would work, they had the Gravespirit, a horrible option, a handful of relics, most of which only work for people who aren't good with them, like Sonnia Criid's sword, and maybe some incredibly difficult to make rune-circle-based spells. So why would they consider a weapon that can hurt the Tyrants, with just a swing, in the hands of someone who knows how to use it, a failed experiment?

It's the "if it bleeds, we can kill it" principle.

I think that may actually be the point; while december is weakene, killing him just delayed his return. The next time Vik takes hime down, it'll probably bewhile possesed by the masamune, with the sum total of delaying December a few more months, while creating a bloodthirsty duet that may end up fueling an entirely different Tyrant.

All this, and because of Zoraida's interference, they will be unlikely to aim the two next time they need to fire them off.

So, seeing as from the neverborn perspective, the Viks are just another powermad maelstrom of violence and greed on the loose, rather than a tool that can permanently end tyrants, I think it's reasonablr for the neverborn to consider the exorcise a failure.

[BlueStar86]

I think that may actually be the point; while december is weakene, killing him just delayed his return. The next time Vik takes hime down, it'll probably bewhile possesed by the masamune, with the sum total of delaying December a few more months, while creating a bloodthirsty duet that may end up fueling an entirely different Tyrant.

All this, and because of Zoraida's interference, they will be unlikely to aim the two next time they need to fire them off.

So, seeing as from the neverborn perspective, the Viks are just another powermad maelstrom of violence and greed on the loose, rather than a tool that can permanently end tyrants, I think it's reasonablr for the neverborn to consider the exorcise a failure.

That really wouldn't have been a problem if Zoraida had actually paid Viktoria for her work, yeah it wasn't perfect, but if she had paid Viktoria, they could use them again.

With what I've read, I don't think the Viks like being the Avatar of Slaughter, it certainly doesn't make sense for Bounty Hunter Viktoria to enjoy it, she prefers being in control of herself (her destiny/story/whatnot), Sword Mistress might think it's cool, but will follow BH Vik anyway. If anything, I think they'd go find a better Avatar or perfect their current transformation so they can operate more efficiently.

Not taking December down in a permanent fashion is a minor set back when you have a weapon that can wreck him, every time it's used against him. Especially since he has otherwise proven invincible. I think it's foolish, if not outright suicidal to not keep a weapon like that on retainer

[nerdelemental]

Maybe Zoraida just needed to stall December, though she knew he couldn't be killed permanently?

[Dracomax]

Everything seems to suggesst that at the time, her goal was to kill him permanently.

Book 1 has her beleiving December dead.

Book 3 has her telling Leveticus that she now thinks they can't be killed, but that they are like him.

It would have made sense for Zoraida to realise she should pay the Viks. Pandora and Liltih would never have likely even thought of it.

The issue now is that Viktoria realises she's been manipulated.

In addition, I get the impression that as long as they keep the Masamune, the Viks will be berserkers. Makes me wonder if it's really a Masamune, or if the whole "masamune" legend is different in the Maliverse.

[Sliver Chocobo]

Or it's really a Muramasa

[Dracomax]

Or it's really a Muramasa

Exactly what I was thinking.

[BlueStar86]

No, it's definitely a Masamune, it's pretty much the only sword in that shape that also happens to kill ghosts that efficiently. I think the big issue with it is that it's been tainted somehow, probably by Masamune's apprentice, all the people it's killed, or by where it was for all this time (Masamune died in 1343 and it's early 1900s-ish in Malifaux) since it's location prior to Viktoria getting it is never really explained.

Viktoria only feels manipulated because Zoraida didn't give her the rest of her payment, another 2 soulstones, and because she could have made a lot more. Now, if Zoraida were to give Viktoria more soulstones (like 10 or so), Viktoria may be willing to work for Zoraida again, though the trust is kind of broken already, so Zoraida will have to be really persuasive.

There isn't too much that's more persuasive than earning the reputation as the one who killed the Tyrants and becoming stupid rich in the process, at least not to Viktoria, who's primary motivation is to become a legend.

[ThePandaDirector]

I can't think of the Masamune without thinking of Sonnia's sword, but it's clear that while Sonnia's sword is the key to her freedom, the Masamune is somehow the opposite. Thinking of the legend I also think of the aether, like the blade could be used to cut all in it's path including the line between life and death. Either the blade is a Tyrant or it the key to their imprisonment/release.

I kinda hope I'm wrong, possessed sword I can deal with, but more of "that" would be hard to swallow.

[nerdelemental]

I've thought a lot about this discussion and have studied the chapters of Book 2 and 3 quite a bit, too. What strikes me as my disconnect is the importance everyone has about the Tyrants. Certainly they're in there as the climactic stuff of a big story arc that spanned 3 books (and more, no doubt), but even in Book 3, the notion that it's all about this monumental Tyrant opposition and possession didn't sit correctly in my head.

My guess is that because of Tyrant inclusion, it seems so big - that everything's about them.

Yet, in writing, I didn't really think that way. So many of the conflicts I described along the way are what many of you have just said you wanted. So, although some levied a bit of criticism about "too much tyranty stuff, need more small conflict" I read that as praise. The Tyranty stuff should stand out, although I think there was considerable little of it. Rasputina, for example, has three full chapters devoted to her, but one focused on the raging storm mounting (by December, I admit, but it was just a storm) and Joss struggling to get up the mountain. Then Joss confronts her and realizes the depth of her psychosis and the pressure she's under. She's killed a whole ton of people and then nearly kills him. Or, another Tyrant-dominant story: Sonnia. She's all over the place and only has the one interaction with Cherufe. Seamus? His chapter focuses more on Samael Hopkins trying to figure his stuff out more than the conflict between Seamus and the Grave Spirit. These were three climax chapters and they clearly stand out as dominating images. That's probably awesome for me. They were supposed to.

However, I still think most of the story focuses quite a lot on the interaction of smaller players. The figures you all know so well. Most don't have much of a clue about Tyrants. Their interaction is significantly different. Unless, of course, you're reading "Nicodem is creating some kind of undead army to confront Tyrants" then, no wonder you think it's all Tyrant dominating.

They're in there, fer sure.Tyrants are a real pain in the ass, fer sure.

[BlueStar86]

I think Nicodem is building an undead army to fight the Governor-General, who is evil, not just a guy doing his job, he's genuinely evil, I think both he and Lucius are under the influence of, or actually are, Tyrants. Nicodem will not be prepared for that fight when it comes, but I suspect fate will step in, bringing Von Schill into play, which could very well even the odds.

[Dracomax]

I think Nicodem is building an undead army to fight the Governor-General, who is evil, not just a guy doing his job, he's genuinely evil, I think both he and Lucius are under the influence of, or actually are, Tyrants. Nicodem will not be prepared for that fight when it comes, but I suspect fate will step in, bringing Von Schill into play, which could very well even the odds.

Or he'll just hire Von Schill. given the stated animosity between the Governator and Von Schill, he might even come cheap.

[nerdelemental]

Von Schill has quite a bit of animosity toward undead, too, don't forget. More than for the Governor, I'd wager.

[Orboros]

Don't really a question nor critcism but i really have to save thank you for the great story that is "Cold Hearted", it entertained me from beginning to end

[ThePandaDirector]

I can understand what Nerdelemental is saying.

The Tyrant related stuff does stick in your mind, because the scenes they play in are so cinematic (sub-climatic). In some regards it works, in others not so.

It isn't difficult to understand why people would think Nicodem is raising an army to do something, only for it to then be used for/against the Tyrants, but it's clear that half the time, characters know nothing about them.

My problem isn't so much this idea of over-including the Tyrants, it's the lack of characterisation that they leave in their wake.

A great analogy I came across recently is to do with how frames in video footage are transported. The frame's per second (25 in the UK) are split into four, firstly you have the most important frame (the I frame) which is used as a foundation, then you have the fourth frame next (the P frame) which shows the significant change and the two B frames inbetween just fill in the gap. So it goes IPBBPBBPBB which becomes IBBPBBPBBPBBIBBP... So if you take I as the characters origin (possibly pre-Malifaux) and P as any significant change in the character, with B being the transition.

Characters like Hoffman and Kirai appear to go IBBP (which is linear character development). They start with what they're like originally and then build up from there (the I frame is Kirai losing Francis, Hoffman on the train). They're storyline will likely build to a point where they have a cinematic climax (I'm seeing Ryle and Ikyro as the keys to that) which will form the P frame. Note they have yet to interact with any known Tyrants.

Sonnia and 'Tina seem to be going BP, then possibly IB which doesn't work technically. They both started in the mundane, already in their roles, and appear to have their cinematic development slightly prematurely. If that development doesn't change their character enough (P isn't differnt from I) then the question is why not go IPBB or IBPB. Currently Sonnia and 'Tina are fighting for their very souls (possibly an I frame in itself), but without an original I frame to work off, there's little reason to care above the level of "please don't let her be like Hamelin".

Hamelin actually follows how it technically works I (normal Hamelin) then P (P for Plague), but since he has yet to bring in the B frames there's a chasm in his character (I--P, though it feels more like I--------P) So Hamelin went from cool to bland. It'd possibly be best, depending how Wyrd want to treat Tyrants (who are in limbo between being conceptual and characters), to start with Plague Hamelin as I and go from there - we've got an origin, but as of yet no character.

The story as a whole works similarly. We're down the line away from the original I frame (the origin of Malifaux itself), but as it stands I feel like we're missing I (mostly in terms of character) and B frames, leaping from P to P with little transition. I understand not much might happen in a B frame (at least with the constraints of an annual book ) but going P frame "Winter" to P frame "Drought" without B frame "f**k weather reports", does make the issue worse. It's getting hard to imagine Malifaux on a normal day and I half expect it to start raining frogs (which Marcus turns into an infernal army..to not use aginst the Tyrants)

[BlueStar86]

Von Schill has quite a bit of animosity toward undead, too, don't forget. More than for the Governor, I'd wager.

That's why I stated fate would intervene, the set up would go as thus: Nicodem attacks with his huge army, the guards go and fight Nicodem, but get slaughtered in the process. The undead army marches in, Von Schill notices the guards are preoccupied by something, so he attacks, by the time he gets to the place where the Governor General and Lucius are fighting, most of the undead army is destroyed G-G and Lucius. Nicodem triggers his avatar and seriously injures/weakens G-G, and takes Lucius out of the fight completely. Unfortunately, the G-G still has loads of fight left in him, nearly killing Nicodem, but gets put down by the combined might of Von Schill and his Friekorps.

Naturally they fought many undead to get in, several of them are badly injured, including Von Schill, but they manage to get out of there, because his troops are well-trained, and I'm pretty sure that Von Schill's breakfast consists primarily of nails.

Edited October 18, 2011 by BlueStar86

[nerdelemental]

Actually, PandaD, I think you're right on the money. Although it annoys you, I think it's more purposeful than you like. Sorry.

Those characters will, of course, see deeper development, no doubt. However, part of my plan is to show them as base and simple in human terms and expectations. They're not human so I portray them as very flat adn their motivations seem simple becasue of the glimpse we have toward them.

I guess this is my spoiler alert (and I'm usually so careful to keep my cards close): up until now, the only possession you've seen is with Hamelin. He is simple and you don't see much. Notice, though, that whenever he showed up in Book 2 I didn't discuss anything from his POV, but from those around him reacting to him. Book 3 is going to push things. Sonnia and Seamus are the ones to watch now. Rasputina, although not possessed, is sure to change, right? Seamus has already spoken after he has two tyrants kicking around over him. We can see he's not quite like Hamelin although his whole body's changed, regardless of his mind. We'll see where it goes.

Criticism's all good. Nothing to worry about. Just me briefly pointing out some observations from my end. And this: I think you're right, Panda (and others), but I'm doing it on purpose and sorry it's not working for you, but you haven't really seen too much to go on yet.

edit: Oh! I almost forgot! Drought: seems you're fixated on the speed of drought as some kind of natural weather drought that happens in late summer when it doesn't rain. That's not what's going on. It's still winter and there's drought. It's not because of no water, entirely; it's because something's gone wrong with the water. More than that: there's something wrong with the food, too. The cattle are getting bloodthirsty and attacking one another and no one can eat them. But it's before the tyrant stuff even goes down. Chapter 4. (right? IIRC).

Edited October 18, 2011 by nerdelemental

[ThePandaDirector]

I apologise if I come across as strong, but I'm trying to provide hard criticism at the expense of coming across as antagonistic (difficult when my avatar looks like it wants to maul you). I honestly love most of the fluff and Malifaux as a whole, but if I can help balance the praise I can hopefully make Malifaux better for everyone =]

I can understand why you'd portray Tyrants from a human perspective and why they'd then appear simple due more to comprehension than characterisation. As it stands Hamelin was more an element than a character, while Sonnia, 'Tina and Seamus are likely to each have their own way of battling the inner demon the Tyrants represent.

And I also understand the drought isn't natural, similar to the afflication the animals suffer (and apparently the patients too). My issue was that these afflictions appear to happen too often and there isn't any gap between animals going mental, December making the winter deadly and Cherufe causing massive drought. It's a matter of pacing, book 2 just had plague, worked fine, but book 3 fits in even more (when the plague is still going on in some areas), which makes transitions in the over-arcing story appear more extreme than they really are. I understand it creates far-reaching effects (everyone suffers from 'Tina and December's struggle), but without breaking individual afflictions apart from each other it comes accross as the apocolypse.

I think it's an ironic contrast we have here, and one I've not really noticed until you mention the way you're handling Tyrants. People want deep and personal, you give them it, people want hot babes with big swords, you give them that too. But when you try and fit the two together in a meaningful way, by having the big stuff viewed from the perspective of the deep and personal characters, it causes people to see the big stuff as an invading element when it's what they asked for, but supplied in a fromat (i.e. the slow-burning novelistic style) that they're not used to. People expect Tyrants in comic books and cheap novels, and they expect deep period drama in novels and HBO (I'm a little bit obsessed). I think if Malifaux can be more of a slow, but steady, burner and continues to be subtle and purposeful with how it reveals the big stuff (because you've got a bigger space to do it in) then Malifaux could go from what some people see as Deadwood and Heroes' hideous love child to fantasy steampunk's answer to The Wire :D

Considering I have faith that you can pull it all off, the only real point I want to press home is to not make the fluff annual. Trying to cram all this into one book, with rules and other stuff, is going to get harder and harder. Plus, anything you do in one book that proves unpopular/controversial has to wait at least a year to payoff and by then the story is taking more leaps and bounds. Wyrd can say it's not possible or they're working on it, but from my pov fluff is pretty much a priority in a character-based skirmish game. It's clear your writing has brought just as many new gamers as the models, and it's about time you got extra attention and growth.

Just know from my end I understand where you're coming from (though from a film perspective), and if I ever find the time to write my own story (possibly Malifaux) I'll be sure to seek out as much criticism as possible

Edited October 18, 2011 by ThePandaDirector

[Necromorph]

I actually think with hamelin in particular, that the lack of depth is intriguing. It makes him more of the mysterious badass that way...but....that's assuming there is more to him, which seems very likely.

As we've seen in book 3, hamelin has had time to rest after the his loss to ikiryo...and he's f***ing angry. I hope his anger (and the fact that hes running out of time to beat the other tyrants to ascend) will bring him into a more agressive role in the fluff and well see more of what he's all about.

[LoboStele]

...but without breaking individual afflictions apart from each other it comes accross as the apocolypse.

Umm...I thought the whole point is that it IS the apocalypse? 4 Horsemen and all that...

[Inquisitor Wall]

Without going back and rereading the first 2 books, I had assumed that Seamus had killed Molly, and then brought her back for information, but I got the feeling from book 3 that Molly's investigations into other news stories are what led to her death.

Anyone know how/why she was killed?

[Sebastian Nemo]

I remember her trying to investigate the gorgon's stone, and in the way she encountered Seamus. Murder ensues.

[dsmiles]

I remember her trying to investigate the gorgon's stone, and in the way she encountered Seamus. Murder ensues.

Exactly. Seamus offed her going for the Tear, IIRC.

[BlueStar86]

I was just rereading the section of the first book involving Viktoria's doppelganger and her sword acted exactly like the legend said it would. Vik stabs her doppelganger, but because the doppelganger is innocent it doesn't injure her, and it kills the ghost possessing the doppelganger. This is exactly the same as the legend of the weapon.

I believe something has infected the Masamune, possibly remnants from when it was used on December. Such a weapon should show an unprecedented level of discipline, it's practically the sword Samurai Jack is using after all, except I've never seen it do the glowy thing because there aren't more Viktoria stories.

[FearLord]

Without going back and rereading the first 2 books, I had assumed that Seamus had killed Molly, and then brought her back for information, but I got the feeling from book 3 that Molly's investigations into other news stories are what led to her death.

Anyone know how/why she was killed?

Seamus breaks into a museum where the Gorgan's Tear is on display and Molly is there interviewing the curator about it. Seamus kills her and steals the Tear. He later turns up at her funeral and reanimates her using the Tear.

The book 3 story about Molly implies that she was in the middle of other investigations when she died, and therefore she never completed them.