Sorry, folks, but I’ve been quite occupied with things that didn’t lend themselves to posting. So, here’s a quick question to throw out for discussion:
Tribal Weaknesses.
Completely optional, added in for Revised, mostly used by folks who wanted to add some more drawbacks to the Garou. Should we include them? The argument pro is “they wouldn’t take up too much space, maybe a page or so, and it would help make this an exhaustive book.” The argument con is “How many people actually used them?” (Full disclosure: I didn’t. I can see why some folks would like to, though.)
Discuss!
Edit: In case I wasn’t clear before, these would be optional rules jammed into an appendix or sidebar at best: there is zero chance of making them mandatory. The question is whether or not they have enough of a hold to be worth making room for.
I always liked them, but never thought they were a necessity – say, if the majority of people I was playing with didn’t want them then I was fine to leave them by the wayside. Personally, I definitely think they should be included amongst the optional rules as they are a nice mechanical (though, again, not a needed one) way to reinforce the personality of the Tribe. They’re great for flavor.
I too like the tribal flaws, because they give a mechanical pressure to persuade a player to play a Tribe in a certain way (there’s always SOMETHING you can trust is shared among a Tribe’s people.)
However, I too think that it’s great as an optional rule. Some STs just don’t want to deal with more mechanics (Glasswalkers who can’t regain Gnosis outside of a City or a Caern, GoF who have to chose a Hatred, Silver Fangs with a derangement, etc.), or players who don’t like that they must take a “flaw” that doesn’t give them points.
Since we already have some “optional” stuff in the rules, I would like to see them kept.
I haven’t played many games using the Revised rules, but I’ve never had a problem with using the Tribal Weaknesses in the ones that did use them.
I join my voice to the others. They’re excellent optional rules which add a magnificent level of flavor especially the Wendigo one. I completely agree that they would be an excellent addition. I would however lean towards trying to flesh them out at least a little, some of them are a little dry and cut and would deserve a little explaining if only to say “No one knows why, it’s a tribal mystery”.
Ugh, get rid of them. They were terrible, they create stereotypes instead of incouraging roleplay. Every single Black Fury hates men? Every single Uktena is dangerously, irrationally curious about everything? It doesn’t add anything to the game.
If some of them are more reasonable (Silent Striders, Silver Fangs, Red Talons, Glasswalkers) then the others need to be replaced with something of equivalent value that would be supernatural in nature — imposed by their totem — instead of social. Or the tribes whose weaknesses make real supernatural sense can have some advantage of equal value to cancel them out, such as making that Pure Breed free for Silver Fangs (isn’t a Derangement a 3-point Flaw?).
I meant *encouraging*.
As for “advantages to balance out” the tribal weaknesses that have reasonable supernatural causes, I remind myself of a thread on ShadownEssence a while ago about giving each tribe a “5-point package” which would include tribal willpower bonuses, and the Silver Fang’s Pure Breed, but give each tribe the same overall value so it’s balanced. The idea was to include things which every cliath (sans ronin) would either have learned due to the lifestyle common to their tribe’s cubs, or been trained deliberately by the sept before their Rite of Passage.
http://www.shadownessence.net/forum/topic/33243-5-point-packages/
Leave them optional.
Also, garou in in-universe texts/stories in the rulebook shouldn’t work under the assumption that they are a fact.
THIS.
Seen that done a lot, and it can be a bit bothersome.
VERY clearly optional. Being an online gamer, I’ve seen the weaknesses done few times, and as cool as they can be, they can also wreck concepts and make some tribes impossible to play in certain settings.
Do not remove them, because there are people who like them. But make it clear these are not part of the typical canon.
Please leave them in.
I do not like them or use them, because I find them limiting to my role-play. However, I fully support keeping them in as optional rules because I know some folks do use them.
One thing I would love to see that it’s probably too late to change, is to have separate sections in the book about what most Garou know about the world vs. Storyteller knowledge. I hate that there’s all that info about Pentex up front when most Garou don’t know about its existence. Or shouldn’t.
I enjoy the optional nature of them.
I have always allowed them to be bought off in chargen for a pittance for those not wanting to be a stereotypical member of their tribe.
Optional is perfect and where they belong inho in an exhaustive WW book.
Alexis
*smiles*
imho*
Alexis
*smiles*
I’ve already posted this elsewhere but I figured to put it here as well.
Uktena’s intense curiosity and stargazer’s obsessive mind-games were never really defined beyond the basic -“this will trigger it”
Also wendigo wheel of the seasons was in truth A LOT more severe than anyone else’s except maybe CoG’s near retarded weak veil.
In general the tribal weaknesses never worked thematically as they were meant to imo.
What I’d like to see is to change the tribal weaknesses to be Tribal totem bans or flaws.
This would also dilute certain problems such as:
-Does the tribal weakness show up in cubs who haven’t been adopted to the tribe yet, also does someone who switches tribe get two bans and why don’t the black spirals dancer have a tribal flaw unless we count being -Ikthya as one?
100% with you there. It would further expand on the influence of having a tribal totem. Because, franctly, it means very little.
A pack get a totem, it comes with bonuses and a ban. You get accepted into a tribe and… nothing. It it came with a supernatural influence (but non canonical and optional) it would solve a lot of problems with them flaws and strengthen the concept that a pact with totem influences you. For example, in one of the official apocalypse scenarios, if a totem was corrupted, the entire tribe would follow. I think this link to the totem isn’t very felt normally, and this would help.
Some tribebooks have used the totem Bans as unofficial tribal flaws and I think they work better than the ‘official’ flaws. Striders and Gnawers are at odds because their totems demand them to do opposite things, for example.
Well, it certainly makes more sense this way IMO. Otherwise, it’s mostly like the entire social background restriction discussion all over again.
Why must a character hate a form of weak people as a Get of Fenris? Because he was raised amongst the Fenrir. K, wait, wha? No. As a guy who lived his entire life until 6 months ago in the city without any prior knowledge of the Garou (like most homids according to the canon), he was NOT raised by Get. He wasn’t even raised by Garou. His mom was involved in a one night stand 14 years ago (animal attraction) and he’s still dealing with puberty. Without the totem influence over his mind, that scenario does not lead all the time to someone who has issues with weak people.
But even so, people shouldn’t have to care about those kinds of details if they don’t want to. So, optional makes more sense to me.
I like the Flaws adding unity to the tribes, and their not any worse than Vampires Clan Weaknesses, but can easily understand why some people dislike them. So I would definitely encourage having them as optional rules if for no other reason then for completeness sake, especially since there are folk who use them around.
Also Blue Fox BSD’s have a basically suggested tribal flaw of each member having a derangement in the Book of the Wyrm if I recall correctly in the small, very small, box that handles how to play them if one would be so inclined.
But Clan Weaknesses are supernatural problems inflicted by a magical curse.
Most Tribal Weaknesses are just “You have this social problem because all Black Furies are man-hating butch lesbians!”
Totemic bans, on the other hand, would have an actual supernatural reason for being there, and for EVERY member of the tribe having them.
I concur with your points, feeling the same way myself. It seems that they were merely added to follow Vampire, and I wouldn’t want them around any more than a Morality stat (and I hate those so much).
I wouldn’t mind if they where left out. Definitly Optional I allow players to take there tribal flaws as Flaws if they want.
Inlcude them and leave them optional. Some people don’t like them because Tribal Weaknesses seem a little too much like VtM’s Clan Weaknesses, but I think they won’t mind their inclusion unless they’ll be made mandatory rather than optional. If, for some reason, they can’t make it into W20 leave them for W20 Companion.
I didn’t much care for them for a couple of reasons- they used mechanics to enforce roleplay stereotypes, and as I recall they weren’t exactly equal in terms of how much of a slap they dished out (Fianna’s gimped willpower vs whatever easy ride the Children of Gaia got). If they’re included, I wouldn’t mind seeing them as maybe a 2-point Flaw that lets players choose whether or not their character is particularly entrenched in their tribal mindset.
I’ve only every played werewolf in larp and for us they were never optional. I think some rethinking is certianly in order.
When you did the revised stuff a lot of the old super stereotypical stuff went away like the sword of Heimdal guys.
An irrational hatred or a gut reaction is a kind of mental state that doesn’t cross well with non-standard character types. Supernatural disadvantages like the glasswalkers or red talons inability to regain gnosis in various places make sense if you look at them as a kind of tribal ban that must be upheld or cannot be ignored.
Bans are very important to garou life and upholding the one your tribal totem imposes on you is doubly important to your own identity.
I would much rather see something that imposes a social penalty or a supernatural flaw than something that requires a course of action without fail.
Black Furies are a prime example of a bad one. Being forced to frenzy on pig ignorant men is not a good flaw. Being supernaturally stripped of a rage, gnosis or willpower when you had a chance to protect a woman and failed to do so is in keeping with both the tribal dictates and with the natural leanings of pegasus.
You can ignore it if you want, or argue the point but it’s not simply down to a frezny test to prove you’re doing the right thing.
Leave them optional, but leave them in. And give a bit more thought to where they come from and why. It’s not simply a matter of upbringing or culture.
This. I really like tribal weaknesses, as an idea, I just hated most of the ones offered. I really like the idea of shifting things more toward spirit-ban-esque supernatural issues. Like totemic bans, but for the tribal totem rather than the pack totem.
Making them all into totemic bans of some kind, barring things like the Silent Strider and Silver Fang curses (Owl and Falcon realize their children have enough problems and have relaxed their former bans) and then making them optional would turn an annoying, stereotype-ridden impediment to character development into an interesting piece of spiritual texture. It would add to the game, instead of getting in the way of good roleplaying.
They should be optional (and excluded from gameplay examples and character writeu-ps), they should all be supernatural in origin, and they should be carefully balanced against each other.
Oh, and lastly: just so taking a tribal totem as a pack totem doesn’t remove your obligations, the tribal bans should be different from the pack bans. After all, a pack is a different social unit, with different purpose and activities, than a pack. Just as a sept totem doesn’t act like a pack totem, neither should a tribal totem. So if a Black Fury joins a pack following Pegasus, she must follow BOTH of Pegasus’ bans.
+1
Keep them, but as an optional rule. I never used them and no GM I played with used them. So they are non-existent to me.
Unless their addition would remove something better from the book.
I like some Tribal Weaknesses, especially those deeply rooted within the Tribe’s history (such as the Silver Fangs madness), though I some others make less sense to me (like the Get of Fenris hatred). I think all weaknesses should come from supernatural origins (the Tribe’s Totem for most, but as with the Fangs, it can be anything given the right excuse) so that ALL members of the said Tribe have it. Hatred seems too much like a character flaw, and not a Tribe-wide problem, and if it is, it makes the Get look too narrow-minded, for example.
Hmm interesting. I would like to see them included if for no other reason than the fact that I had NO idea that they WEREN’T in the 1st and 2nd edition. I didn’t own the first edition, but I had 2nd and Revised and I would have sworn they were in the 2nd. I always used them. It seems especially appropriate now that background restrictions aren’t even mandatory now (not that anything was every REALLY mandatory, but you know what I mean). Part of my thinking, admittedly (and I know this isn’t really a good argument) is that Vampire clans have weaknesses, so Garou tribes should as well. I know, I know. Two different games.
Hm.
Seems kind of split, which of course makes my job no easier: I think actually overhauling them entirely is probably a task for something like a Companion (and certainly would stress that they’re purely optional), so I was more curious about their overall acceptance as-is. Which seems pretty down the middle. Dangit.
In that case, allow me to try to be a bit more helpful.
I suggest Including them regardless. Those who play with them might be cross if they’re not being included in their all-encompassing book and will need to go look in a another volume to find them. Those who don’t play with them will simply ignore that page. No harm done if you have the space.
Brilliantly appropriate random icon for your post, I must say. 😉
I think that one of the problems with the “people’s thoughts on the Tribal Weaknesses as-is” is that most of us likely never saw, or used all (or even most) of them. I’m really only familiar with a handful, myself, and many folks’ STs may not have implimented them, or used them “as intended”, or certain games may have felt unbalanced because, say, someone played a Glasswalker out in the wilds, or someone’s Get of Fenris happened to choose a Hatred that was set off constantly during a game, and so it felt more unfair as well.
I think I side on the “leave them in as an optional rule to make W20 exhaustive” crowd. Like most here, I like some, I don’t like others, and there’s some issues with their implementations. But, as mentioned, they’re short. A page in a huge tome.
Completely reworking them is a good idea, though not something that should be in the main book. I would _love_ to see it happen. Especially the idea of having Tribal Bans (Forsaken’s inclusion of this concept made me very happen) due to that meshing better thematically and narratively.
If they do get included in the main book though, I think they do need a revision. I’m not sure I need to rehash most of the complaints already put out there. Mechanical tweaks on some, and most could use rewordings that help stress their nature to make role-playing them more interesting.
The only Tribal Weakness I’ve ever seen players remember, really, is the Silver Fang weakness.. mostly just as an excuse to insult Silver fangs as sister banging inbred degenerates. And as someone who primarily played Silver Fangs.. let me say how annoying it was.. I mean how many Shadow Lords docked themselves renown whenever they failed at something that would of normally given them renown?
I would say leave them in, but keep them optional. Then do an over haul in a later companion. I like the idea of making them more Spiritual Bans inflicted upon the Rite of Passage rather then some crazy genetic or social thing.. especially with the Silver Fang derangement thing.. given the revelations in the Revised Tribe book that it was a curse placed on the Tribe by Luna.. capricious bitch that she is..
I really liked the alternative ‘dark ages’ flaw for the silver fangs
( from the original WW dark ages supplement, dont know if its in the second version)
Lordly Arrogance The frenzy chance when there rightful authority was challenge or ignored
I would certainly include that as an option or historical refrence if flaws are included.
Didn’t use them. Didn’t really like them. I had to look up what most of them even were.
Well tribal flaws are something that essentially brought from VtM, and no other game lines had clan/tribal flaws if I can correctly recall. While I always supported the idea that several flaws could be appealed on several occasions, such as the Silver Fangs flaw, some others wouldn’t make no sense, such as the Wendigo and Stargazers one.
In all these years I never enforcer any of my players to mandatory play with flaws, just encouraged them on some specific instances.
As I am aware of, almost all other Werewolf parties I met didn’t played with flaws as primary ruling as well.
So, instead of issuing on Black Furies their tribal flaw, you can for example say “many Furies having hard tempers on many due to Totem influce” or something like that.
Erm, weaknesses like these were actually pretty common in the cWOD material:
VtM, KotE, DtF, CtD and MtR all had this style of weakness, any they weren’t optional.
WtA added them as an option.
HtR, MtAc and WtO didn’t have these sorts of weaknesses built in by splat, but there were still heavy drawbacks that came in at other places.
Orpheus was the only game line to simply avoid this entirely.
Actually, KotE’s Dharmic “weaknesses” weren’t built-in. You could suffer weaknesses for imbalance and the like, but this isn’t splat-based. While Devil-Tigers (for example) had certain negative behaviors associated with them, none of them suffered any mechanical drawback for being Devil-Tigers.
Your overall point is a valid one. Just saying. 😉
The entries under “Weakness” in KotE aren’t mechanical weaknesses like the normal VtM ones. Yes.
But there is a built in splat drawback: violating your Dharma’s tenets, which can cost you a dot of Dharma (Which is a lot worse than violating Humanity/a Path in VtM).
It’s certainly my favorite of that cluster of weaknesses precisely because it is far more RP based than a +1 diff to a generic roll, but I think it fits into that category well enough.
But yeah, that’s my only way to get that to be worth saying: I wish the W20 weaknesses would feel more integrated into character actions rather than arbitrary penalties.
Ah. Now that you explain it like that, your point makes more sense. 🙂 And I agree with you, Kuei-jin have very little margin for error.
I also agree with your point that weaknesses should integrate into behavior instead of being a +1 diff here something like that. I posted some ideas for something like that about three posts down which may be what you’re looking for (if I can toot my own horn, here).
Tribal Weaknesses
Black Fury Anger: -1 difficulty to enter frenzy when provoked by men.
Bone Gnawer Social Outcasts : +1 difficulty on all Social rolls involving other tribes.
Children of Gaia Weak Veil: Witnesses are at +4 on Delirium Chart.
Fianna Low Self-Control: All Willpower rolls are at +1 difficulty.
Get of Fenris Intolerance. Player must define a specific Intolerance at creation time (and with approval). Wyrm creatures (ex. Banes, Fomori, Vampires, etc.) cannot be chosen as these are considered ‘give mes’. Examples: Cowardice, Compromise, lower animals, weakness.
Glasswalkers Weaver Affinity: Cannot regain Gnosis in the wilderness.
Red Talons Wyld Affinity: Cannot regain Gnosis in the cities.
Shadow Lords Failure’s Dagger: – 1 Renown for failure.
Silent Striders Haunted: Haunted by Ghosts every time a Strider sidesteps they send out rippled through the dark umbra alerting any nearby ghosts or walking dead to their presence.
Silver Fangs Derangement: Years of inbreeding with limited flocks of kin have taken their toll. Every Silver Fang has a derangement it can be overcome temporarily. Madness to be chosen by player final decision up to storyteller. Examples: Amnesia – high stress you forget; Manic-Depression; Multiple Personalities; Obsession.
Stargazers Obsessive Mind Games: Failing an Enigma roll makes the Stargazer become obsessed with the riddle, unable to concentrate on anything else until he solves the puzzle. They suffer a +1 on all perception rolls, +1 on all initiative rolls until the puzzle is solved.
Uktena Intense Curiosity – Pathologically compelled to unravel any mysteries presented to them. When they learn someone knows something they don’t they become distracted until able to get the secret. They suffer +1 diff on all willpower rolls and +1 difficulty on all social rolls and -1 difficulty on all frenzy rolls until the secret is revealed.
Wendigo Wheel of Seasons –
Spring: +1 difficulty to all Willpower rolls, the vibrancy of life distracts the Wendigo.
Summer: -1 difficulty to all frenzy rolls, summer is the traditional season of war
Fall: +1 difficulty to change forms; the world slows down in autumn, and fewer new things are born.
Winter: -1 difficulty on all soak rolls; winter is the Wendigo’s season, and they use their hate and anger to fortify themselves during this time.
Hey Tora!
Awesome idea for the flaws, I really like them. The wendigo one makes me really happy too!
I agree with not taking them out, entirely. Optional works great for me, and I’d always have them in my games because.. well simply I enjoy that part of the RP. You can change and craft your flaws into something that you and your players do like.
The only two I dislike is the Red Talon and the Glasswalker. Perhaps instead of making them unable to regain gnosis and meditate in the wilderness/cities make it harder for them instead. They are still primarily Gaian shapeshifters, even if they are affinitied with other forces. Perhaps add to the difficulty in the places where they are less comfortable?
I don’t think this would be just one page. The Silver Fangs’ weakness is useless without a list of Derangements and their mechanics. Granted, having Derangements in the book is useful for other players, but still it’s something to remember.
Derangements should be on the Core, including W20, as they come up in multiple places and occasions besides the Silver Fangs. So no having the Tribal Weaknesses as an optional rule in the W20 has nothing to do with having Derangements in there as they should be included whether or not the Weaknesses are.
Short version: Leave them optional.
Long Version: I have always suspected tribal weaknesses were concessions to Vampire fans that insisted that if clans were to have weaknesses, then tribes should too because that’s only “fair.” Different games, different standards, I say. (Though I could be wrong about that.)
But even if that were not the case, while some weaknesses were interesting and thematic, others seemed arbitrary, as if writers/devs were stretching to come up with something/anything that could be applied instead of letting that weakness flow forth organically from the tribes’ concept. So we ended up with silver-furred Malkavians and wandering werewolves plagued needlessly with ghosts and crossover mechanics. We had ethnic stereotypes (bigoted Northern Europeans! weak-willed Irish!). And there were weakness-imposed intrusions on roleplaying all around. (“ST: This matter makes your Uktena curious!” “Player: Um, no, not really. My character doesn’t care what the Shadow Lord is hiding. He’s actually more concerned about–” “ST: No, you ARE curious! +1 difficulty on Willpower rolls!” “Player: Um, okay.”)
Better not to have any weaknesses at all than more of that. And if you’re going to include them, make them fit and make them optional. I don’t mind the failings of each tribe being described in vague terms, and in fact this is a very good thing. These failings can reference optional weaknesses elsewhere in the book. Maybe instead of a set weakness, reward Garou that fall to their tribe’s traditional failings with Willpower, Renown or bonus experience — a perennial temptation to repeat the sins of their ancestors.
Here’s an idea of what I’m talking about. The traditional failings of the Bone Gnawers is they’re listless, cowardly, and the least respected of the tribes. I suppose a +1 difficulty on Social rolls is one way to do this, and that’s functional and simple. But let’s be more creative here.
There are normally Glory Renown penalties for cowardice. Not so much for the Gnawers. It’s not like they get an entirely free pass on this, especially where their weakness leads to a caern or packmates being lost. But a Bone Gnawer that flees from a fomor or duel is given more leeway than other Garou. After all, look what he is… you can’t expect any better of him. And so while there are certain to be Gnawers that fight their tribe’s negative stereotype, the fact the Renown and social consequences for retreating from danger often aren’t there means some Gnawers will do it. The werewolf may even regain Willpower from this. Same with shirking responsibilities, being socially repugnant and whatever — Gnawers with these failings are more tolerated because it’s expected of them, even among the spirits. And there you go, an enforceable tribal weakness that doesn’t preclude roleplaying, impose direct mechanical penalties or the like.
As a contrast, take the Get of Fenris. A Get that flees from battle or shows weakness will suffer more Renown loss than any other Garou. However, werewolves that are overly aggressive and have issues with restraining their Rage should suffer social consequences, but the Get are given more slack on this than others; while the tribe’s elders and spirits won’t exactly reward some headstrong Fenrir pup that took a swing on a higher-ranking Garou, they won’t punish it that harshly either… you gotta respect his moxie if nothing else. And even as he’s lightly admonished, the angry Get finds his resolve increase (gets Willpower) for facing down his opposition with bravery. And the cycle of Rage continues.
See how this approach takes the weaknesses of a tribe and actually turns it into a left-handed strength? And provides an incentive for players to roleplay their tribes’ weaknesses instead of always being the one noble individual that stands against [negative stereotype]? Outside of individual roleplaying, this also establishes a setting justification for the tribe’s failing.
Speaking as a person who has not actually played WtA, I appreciate that tribal weaknesses paints a picture of some aspect of the tribe. Just by looking at those weaknesses, I get a feel for what the tribe values or is known for.
I’ve always avoided giving them to players unless they specifically wanted them. They are a lovely way to inform people on how the stereotype of the tribe works and what to expect from NPC’s. I’d keep them if those two pages wouldn’t be better spent on something so awesome it’d blow our minds 🙂
I’ve always loved Tribal Weaknesses, so keeping them as an optional set of rules is a good thing in my book. STs who love them can use them, and those who don’t can ignore them. Everyone wins. 😉
Except for the word count budget.
True, this is a factor. But speaking as someone that doesn’t really care for them (at least how they were presented, anyway), their absence would be a rather glaring omission. Because a lot of people do like and use them.
One of the points I keep seeing brought up is the idea that Tribal Weaknesses are great for illustrating some aspect of the Tribes. Which I find kind of baffling. Most of them seem poorly thought out. The Black Fury Weakness stands out to me; the Revised writeup explicitly states that the Tribe doesn’t hate men, yet their Weakness encourages them to rip out men’s guts.
Very good point, here.
I always added Tribal Weakness as an optional Flaw called Tribal Sterotype for 2pts.
I also preferred the Glasswalker weakness from Dark Ages: Known To Vampires & the Silver Fangs Lordly Arrogance.
I would like to see them. mayhaps something akin to the LARP rules, where Tribal advantages also allow for Tribal advantages.
I thought a couple of the tribal weaknesses were interesting, but, for the most part, they seemed arbitrary and ill-balanced. None of my players ever used any of them except the Silver Fang derangement. The various totemic/pack bans got a lot more use and, as mentioned above, made more sense.
I’d say either ditch them, or give them a severe overhaul to balance them out.
Btw anyone remember what the bunyip and croatan and original howler tribal flaws were like?
Well, to be completely sincere, I didn’t use them very much, but I think that they give very much to the themes of the tribes. In fact, with a little work in the systems, I’d include them in the tribe pages.
I love the way the weaknesses enforce a tribal connection, if they don’t serve that purpose than they should be ignored or thrown right out. The list you have above is a better representation of what was found in the tribe books, but i would like to see an even better refinement of them, maybe like what is found in Werewolf the Forsaken… somthing that adds to the role-playing experience instead of the mechanical monster that is the CWoD.
Perhaps too much of a “revision” for the 20th anniversary edition – but were it up to me, instead of a bunch of unrelated weaknesses mostly connected to negative stereotypes of the tribes in question, I’d do something more like Werewolf the Forsaken, and give each tribe an oath. I suppose mechanically, renown could take a hit if a character violates their tribal oath.
I’m just going to mention like most have here. I’d say Include the Tribal Weaknesses (which could use a little revising as some have suggested) but keep them as a take it or leave it option for the players to work into a more fleshed out character. Those that don’t want to use them? Fine… Doesn’t say you can’t have two characters of a tribe who must have the same tribal weakness. So maybe a Black Fury hates men, and her Sister just finds them really annoying. Maybe Tribal Strengths need to be outlines more clearly in contrast.
I personally require players to use them with every game so i’d like to see them in the new book, though I guess if they weren’t included I can just use the ones from revised.
I like *most* of them. The problem is: they don’t make much sense. As some posters wrote, the tribe isn’t something biological, but spiritual. If your parents are full blooded wendigo kinfolok, but you’re raised in germany, ignorant of your garou nature, and after your fist change the Get of Fenris adopt you, which tribal weakness do you get? You don’t get to be a ‘true Get’ until you develop a serious intolerance.
I’d say they should be GENERIC flaws, which award extra points to certain tribes, to deflect that some tribes develop them more often than others – Glass Walkers are prone to attune themselves to the city more than any other tribe but it might also be the case of some Bone Gnawers, inbreeding might plague the Silver Fangs but this can happen among any tribe (they mingle only among their own kinfolk after all), the black fure flaw is just a flavor of the Get of Fenris one (and any garou can be prone to be intolerant) and the wheel of seasons is one I feel appropiate to any garou, specially theurges and lupus for their affinity to the spiritual and the nature cycle respectively.
Have your cake and eat it, too.
You may have noticed that I bring up that whole, “changing breeds are affected by the human myths about them” vibe I picked up or headcanoned (I can’t even remember anymore) a lot. Well, that’s because the very slightly fey-like nature really compliments them. It gives weight to the Fianna being drunken irish gaelic bard stereotypes. It gives weight to them being empowered by culture, but also strapped down by it. They’re subject to their culture’s interpretation of them, subtly altered by it. And this affects everything from their Gifts to their dispositions.
Merits and Flaws that have applied to Garou and all other Changing Breeds have always played on these mythological flaws. That is, when they didn’t do practical things like take an eye from you or give you an eidetic memory. You know what I mean.
I see absolutely nothing wrong with offering the Tribal Weakness as an optional flaw. Offer it with some sort of offset, maybe a +1 Permanent Gnosis rating, as they are quite clearly not only especially sensitive to their tribe, but their spiritual nature. Being ruled by the negatives of their tribe may not necessarily mean they get a bonus out of it, especially what with living in the world of darkness. But it might.