Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Systematic Questions, PLEASE FOR THE LOVE OF GODS HELP!

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Systematic Questions, PLEASE FOR THE LOVE OF GODS HELP!

    Ok I will have more then this but for now:

    How does skill selection work in character generation work?

    The path section says you choose 3 skills but certain of the paths in Origin seem to have a varying amount of selections to choose from (examples being Suburbia having the skills: Culture, Empathy, or Technology vs Chosen which has: Culture, Integrity Occult, or Subterfuge vs Created which just states a flat Athletics, Empathy, Survival).

  • PenDragon
    replied
    Okay, that's enough, this thread is over.

    Leave a comment:


  • WyrdGM
    replied
    Originally posted by JohanDracys View Post
    I am legitimately unsure of the motives of this post. Do you want me to retract my apology? That’s pretty petty for me to do (even for me). Do you need to just prove I’m wrong? Again? I had legitimately made a mistake and misattributed your quote to a fictional poster. I could make excuses for the mistake, but the mistake was still mine. But what besides continuing to attack me is the point to this at this stage?

    Okay, since you say you are ASD, I'll explain how this NT reads this:

    Originally posted by JohanDracys
    Replying to WyrdGM: I wasn’t aware I had accused you of that. I did not ascribe motives to comments before they were there. I read them. But if you read an accusation against you in my tone that was not there then I can only point you to who I was addressing in the post you quote. Your posts on reflection were simple, succinct and accurate upon reflection with my current understanding.
    This does not read an as apology.
    Saying you were 'I wasn’t aware I had accused you of that.' could be an apology if it was meant as 'Oh sorry, I was not aware, did not mean that, my bad,' but instead you followed it up with 'I did not ascribe motives to comments before they were there. I read them. But if you read an accusation against you in my tone that was not there then I can only point you to who I was addressing in the post you quote.'

    Instead, that comes off as a 'You are misreading. I did not say that. And if you think I did, you are wrong, I was addressing someone else.' Again, that is not an apology.
    So, since you said you were addressing someone else, I pointed out how you were addressing me, and indeed, ascribed a motive of trying to make you feel dumb.
    Things that directly contradict the statements in your own non-apology apology.

    I do not care for an apology from you. You do not need to make one. My complaint is your lack of intellectual honesty. You see it as an attack. I see it as you attacked me when I was trying to politely explain a misunderstanding I believe you have with the text, and when you were called out for your shenanigans, you pull more bad faith tactics.

    None the less, you have one thing very correct. This conversation has run it's course.

    Leave a comment:


  • JohanDracys
    replied
    I am legitimately unsure of the motives of this post. Do you want me to retract my apology? That’s pretty petty for me to do (even for me). Do you need to just prove I’m wrong? Again? I had legitimately made a mistake and misattributed your quote to a fictional poster. I could make excuses for the mistake, but the mistake was still mine. But what besides continuing to attack me is the point to this at this stage?

    Leave a comment:


  • WyrdGM
    replied
    Originally posted by JohanDracys View Post

    Replying to WyrdGM: I wasn’t aware I had accused you of that. I did not ascribe motives to comments before they were there. I read them. But if you read an accusation against you in my tone that was not there then I can only point you to who I was addressing in the post you quote. Your posts on reflection were simple, succinct and accurate upon reflection with my current understanding.
    Originally posted by JohanDracys
    Since I had previously quoted in greater detail what the definition of a Condition was, and the application of a Condition as an Enhancement had no relevance in the discussion or the answer to my question, I fail to see how this post in any way serves the discourse except as I began the post with, to pile on with comments in order to try and make me feel dumb.
    This was literally a reply to me. To my post. Bold emphasis mine.

    Leave a comment:


  • JohanDracys
    replied
    Replying to Milo:
    Originally posted by milo v3 View Post
    As far as I'm aware no one has questioned your ability to read or understand English, so I am uncertain why you are repeating that fact in various different responses.

    Don't attack people who answer your questions just because you disagree with them, especially when the posts you eventually agree with are repeating the same information that was said in posts that you decided were attacks on your intelligence, you are going to get more productive and efficient discussion for future questions if you don't assume people have agendas.

    The book does have presentation issues in regards to some topics, I'm sure everyone here can agree on that. Most of us at least are not going to assume someone is dumb or unable to read simply because they misunderstand or overthink a mechanic that was presented to readers in an obscure manner.

    There have been repeated aspersions to my ability to understand the text, and continued attacks because I refused to accept the interpretations presented by respondents. While I can't understand many issues, I do understand when someone saying "It's literally that simple" is condescending to me. And I went through every line of the book, extracted the relevant rules to the question I had (Complication, Condition, Injury Condition, and Antagonist) applied appropriate analytical skills, and was continuously rebuffed and told I was wrong without redress to my actual argument. I.e. English isn't English. It has nothing to do with being called illiterate. It's an alliterative device in order to emphasize a point, often used in a narrative or debate, though can be dangerous if over used as it can be in danger of making one hyperbolic.

    I will break down this logistical issue as simply as possible: Complications as -A, Conditions are B, Injury Conditions are -C or -A*B
    Antagonists cannot be -C. Therefor it doesn't matter what -A is in -C, because you can't have a -C. Just like you can't square root a negative number (and have real numbers). The fact that everybody kept emphasizing they could take -A continued to be in a context of -C. For which I kept trying to point you that was impossible because the book stated was already impossible. But as Pendragon has finally told me, the writers omitted a key element of the book (in favor of reducing system bloat) in that there was an exception to the rule. (Unreal numbers... god I hate algebra and can't believe I'm trying to use it as a metaphor (probably badly) for this). By finally pointing out that the system bloat (and helping me realize it was a book error) that allowed -A to exist completely separate of -C despite still being in the context of -C (my key concern), I was able to resolve my issue.

    Replying to WyrdGM: I wasn’t aware I had accused you of that. I did not ascribe motives to comments before they were there. I read them. But if you read an accusation against you in my tone that was not there then I can only point you to who I was addressing in the post you quote. Your posts on reflection were simple, succinct and accurate upon reflection with my current understanding.

    But AGAIN, I have moved on. I got my answer. and people continue to not let it lie. I have ASD and I don't hyperfixate this much.


    And this time I didn't miss the post.
    Last edited by JohanDracys; 05-24-2019, 10:37 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • WyrdGM
    replied
    Originally posted by JohanDracys View Post
    Since I had previously quoted in greater detail what the definition of a Condition was, and the application of a Condition as an Enhancement had no relevance in the discussion or the answer to my question, I fail to see how this post in any way serves the discourse except as I began the post with, to pile on with comments in order to try and make me feel dumb.

    I did read the book. I had an entire week off to do so. I know how to apply the English language. Logical fallacies in the wording of the entries I continuously pointed out were evident in the plain text reading of the book. I was referencing the book as I wrote my posts. And since I am forced to accept a plain text reading of the book as writer's intent, I did not understand the system. Hence my question. But thanks to Possessed and Pendragon who were very helpful in explaining that system and reasons why they are not adequately explained.

    But as I said. I got my answer and have the distinct desire to move on from this issue.
    First, I did not do anything to try and make you feel dumb. I am not a person who things making a fallacy makes someone dumb. Sometimes we make wrong decisions based on a faulty premise or faulty understanding of a situation. You made an assertion of a premise that led to a conclusion. I explained why your premise was faulty. I went into further explanation as to describe why it was faulty. I did so in a simple way that was not buried in a wall of text, but I was neither condescending, nor trying to make you 'feel dumb.'

    Second, you keep ascribing motives and attitudes that were not present before you decided to go on an attack mode. You are your own self-fulfilling prophecy.

    I did nothing to try and make you feel dumb. I had, and have, no desire to do so. You are literally not worth the effort of me trying, especially when your constant assaults of people who are trying to be helpful, such as me, does nothing more than make me want to write you off. And so I do.

    Good day, sir.

    I said good day.


    Leave a comment:


  • Heavy Arms
    replied
    Originally posted by JohanDracys View Post
    1) I did miss Heavyarms post. And honestly happy I did, since it in no way addressed any of my issues and only exacerbated the issue.
    Ad hominem fallacy. You have not established anything in what I said was incorrect or how it doesn't address your points, and are simply using my attitude towards you to dismiss my answers; esp. evident as milo points out that my answers are no different in substance than ones you've accepted.

    What I don't accept is when people tell me English isn't English, which has been the entirety of this question's argument.
    Fallacy of composition. Critiquing or disagreeing with one part of your application of English does not translate to an assessment of your total mastery of the language. Being told you're misreading something doesn't mean you're being told you're illiterate; your ability to read is not judged on a single action.

    Since I had previously quoted in greater detail what the definition of a Condition was, and the application of a Condition as an Enhancement had no relevance in the discussion or the answer to my question, I fail to see how this post in any way serves the discourse except as I began the post with, to pile on with comments in order to try and make me feel dumb.
    Or, rather the point is that you didn't actually present a fallacy in the text. You have yet to actually establish any fallacy, paradox, or other construct in the text on this topic that results in the "book being false."

    What this adds to the discourse is to hope that one of us can possibly get through to you that you're not actually communicating a real problem. As some have rightfully noted, it's possible to miss the total rules because they aren't arranged optimally. But you're claiming the total rules don't work without a single bit of actual argumentation to that fact. You just jump to your conclusion without an iota of actually making a point no matter how much you post about it.

    I did read the book. I had an entire week off to do so. I know how to apply the English language.
    And you can still be wrong about something inside the book despite that. It happens to all of us. Nobody here is faulting you for that.

    That you respond to your mistake being called out with double, triple, and quadrupling down on it is something some of us will fault you for. Oddly, for all your talk of "English is English" you're the only arguing against the most direct reading of the text in this case. That is, you're the one saying English isn't English to maintain that there's a fallacy in the text... rather than just being happy that you missed something and moving on when it got pointed out to you instead of all that.

    Logical fallacies in the wording of the entries I continuously pointed out were evident in the plain text reading of the book.
    Logical fallacies don't work by just pointing at the text and stating, "Fallacy!" (that's a fallacy itself).

    One of the reasons I opened this post how I did, was to illustrate properly assigning a fallacy requires both specifying what the fallacy is of the many kinds of them, and where the fault in the logic actually is.

    "1. A complication is a negative consequence to a roll that is overcome with additional successes
    2. A condition is a longer term complication that resolves under a set circumstance
    3. An Injury condition is inflicted when a character takes damage
    4. An Antagonist does not take Injury Conditions
    5. An Antagonist does not take Injury Conditions per say but can be assigned complications (see pt 1)"

    This isn't a proof of a fallacy. There isn't even a formal logical issue with these points (even if your posting on points 1 and 2 are very questionable). If you want to step up and actually get on with showing what this supposed fallacy is? Go for it. I'm actually extremely curious to see what you've got.

    Leave a comment:


  • milo v3
    replied
    As far as I'm aware no one has questioned your ability to read or understand English, so I am uncertain why you are repeating that fact in various different responses.

    Don't attack people who answer your questions just because you disagree with them, especially when the posts you eventually agree with are repeating the same information that was said in posts that you decided were attacks on your intelligence, you are going to get more productive and efficient discussion for future questions if you don't assume people have agendas.

    The book does have presentation issues in regards to some topics, I'm sure everyone here can agree on that. Most of us at least are not going to assume someone is dumb or unable to read simply because they misunderstand or overthink a mechanic that was presented to readers in an obscure manner.
    Last edited by milo v3; 05-24-2019, 04:43 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • JohanDracys
    replied
    So I was legitimately happy till I refreshed my browser, and found the enormous pile on on a question and topic I'd moved on from.Which kind of proved several of my points about how condescending all of you have been to someone who is asking for help. But since I'm back let me address a few points:

    1) I did miss Heavyarms post. And honestly happy I did, since it in no way addressed any of my issues and only exacerbated the issue.


    2)Possessed: THANK YOU! I'm truly sorry I missed your post. Yours and Pendragons were the best answers. And while I would have still had questions to your explinations, I thank you for your answer. I found it neither insulting nor condescending. I am actually approaching from a position of ignorance. I accept not understanding something. What I don't accept is when people tell me English isn't English, which has been the entirety of this question's argument.


    3)

    Originally posted by WyrdGM View Post

    Not a fallacy. Your premise is incorrect.
    Specifically 2.



    Edit: To wit... a Condition can be an enhancement, such as Blessed, with no complication
    A complication can occur, both long term and short term and not be a condition.
    A complication can exist without a condition; a condition can exist without a complication.

    They are independent of each other, but can be tied together.

    Since I had previously quoted in greater detail what the definition of a Condition was, and the application of a Condition as an Enhancement had no relevance in the discussion or the answer to my question, I fail to see how this post in any way serves the discourse except as I began the post with, to pile on with comments in order to try and make me feel dumb.

    I did read the book. I had an entire week off to do so. I know how to apply the English language. Logical fallacies in the wording of the entries I continuously pointed out were evident in the plain text reading of the book. I was referencing the book as I wrote my posts. And since I am forced to accept a plain text reading of the book as writer's intent, I did not understand the system. Hence my question. But thanks to Possessed and Pendragon who were very helpful in explaining that system and reasons why they are not adequately explained.

    But as I said. I got my answer and have the distinct desire to move on from this issue.

    Leave a comment:


  • milo v3
    replied
    I am literally reading the book, and for that Milo and Heavy Arms continuously condescend, because I went to school, went to college, studied English, and applied those skills to the material I read. I
    I haven't condescended at all. I think you might need to take a break and calm down as you appear to be seeing attacks where there aren't any and then ignoring any statements made in those statements. That isn't to say that others in this thread might not have an agressive or bitter tonne from frustration, but it doesn't help anyone if you end up just assuming people who are trying to explain something as being an insult.
    Last edited by milo v3; 05-23-2019, 06:35 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • WyrdGM
    replied
    Originally posted by JohanDracys View Post


    1. A complication is a negative consequence to a roll that is overcome with additional successes
    2. A condition is a longer term complication that resolves under a set circumstance
    3. An Injury condition is inflicted when a character takes damage
    4. An Antagonist does not take Injury Conditions
    5. An Antagonist does not take Injury Conditions per say but can be assigned complications (see pt 1)

    This is a logistical fallacy.
    Not a fallacy. Your premise is incorrect.
    Specifically 2.

    Originally posted by Origin, Pg 66
    A Condition is a long-term status that lingers on a single character, affecting the challenges they face, and is usually represented as a Complication or Enhancement (or some mixture of the two).
    Edit: To wit... a Condition can be an enhancement, such as Blessed, with no complication
    A complication can occur, both long term and short term and not be a condition.
    A complication can exist without a condition; a condition can exist without a complication.

    They are independent of each other, but can be tied together.
    Last edited by WyrdGM; 05-23-2019, 04:27 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Kyman201
    replied
    Originally posted by Florin View Post
    I did all of that using the rules as written. I used complications as they're used regarding injuries (how they're used in the "effect" sections of the various suggested injury conditions.) I didn't use injury conditions. If you can't come up with an example like that with your reading of the rules, then you need to change how you're reading the rules, because the rules work as written.
    Yeah, echoing this, I've been running a game as written for a while now, and most things seem to be proceeding smoothly.

    I think this is the book equivalent of a PEBKAC error. Only in this case it's like... PEBBAC?.

    Also, Johan, don't think I didn't notice Heavyarms (who's being far more patient than you deserve) posted a nice breakdown as to why you're reading the rules wrong about an hour before you came in and doubled-down on your incorrect reading, nicely overlooking him.

    As you overlooked my attempts to help you at the start of this thread.

    So yeah... 'FORGIVE' me if I'm a bit more bitter towards someone so obviously arguing in bad faith and ignoring the points people try to make, then playing victim when called out.
    Last edited by Kyman201; 05-23-2019, 04:37 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Florin
    replied
    I did all of that using the rules as written. I used complications as they're used regarding injuries (how they're used in the "effect" sections of the various suggested injury conditions.) I didn't use injury conditions. If you can't come up with an example like that with your reading of the rules, then you need to change how you're reading the rules, because the rules work as written.

    Leave a comment:


  • JohanDracys
    replied
    Originally posted by Florin View Post
    Have you tried running a combat with the system? I think part of the problem you're having is so much of the system is driven by the narrative of the combat. It's hard to just white-room things and attempt to analyze them logically. The narrative is the driving force in a Storypath game, not the rulebook, which means sometimes logic gets wonky.

    As an example, if the PCs are fighting a giant, and one of them hits the giant with an injury stunt, it's pretty obvious you're going to apply some complication involving the lower-half of the giant's body, because it's what the setup demands based on relative heights. Maybe it moves at half-speed now because its knee was smashed. Maybe it falls prone because the PC hamstrung it. Maybe it gets a -1 to defense rolls because the PC bruised its thigh. What would seem fair to you as storyguide given everything that's happened in the game up to that point? Whatever seems fair to you is how the complication works in this instance. You look at the stunt, how many damage boxes are already filled, how many it has left, and any other extenuating circumstances, and you make a decision.

    As an example of the example, say a scion of Thor is using a hammer and hits the giant with an injury stunt. It's the first round of combat, so the giant is still at full combat capability with, say 5 health boxes. So, it seems reasonable to me the scion of Thor hits the giant in the right foot and hears a bone crack. Cross off one health box for the giant, and now it has a complication causing it to move at half-movement speed if using its right foot. If the giant had already been injured for 3 health levels, then I might have ruled the scion of Thor hit the giant in the kneecap, shattering it, causing it to fall prone and making it unable to get up, giving it a complication of -2 to its Defense rolls and losing its ability to move, and it also now has 4 health boxes filled.

    If the scion of Thor had been wielding two swords instead, it might hamstring the giant or cut an artery in its thigh, with complications simulating those types of wounds instead. Obviously at first, you're going to probably either over- or underestimate the severity of complications you need to apply. You'll get the hang of it, though.

    Seriously, stop trying to figure out the logic of specific wording in the books and try it out, see what feels right to you. Does it feel better to you to think of the complications you give antagonists as injury conditions? Then use that term in your brain to make it make sense to you. Just remember you don't have to worry about the momentum or resolution portions of injury conditions when you're running antagonists.

    So, unfortunately, no I have not managed to run a combat. Surprisingly enough, my pack of murder hobos looked for a peaceful solution to the scenario I placed in front of them, and one of them earned a visitation from their divine parent for their trouble (I'm of the opinion in my game that pursuant to the books allusions that most children of gods never get visitations and become Hero tier characters, my PCs started as Origin and need to actually do something to get noticed.). The problem I'm having is I can't test a system I fundamentally do not understand. It's not about "white rooming" the system. It's about the words on the page. Fundamentally Scion is an RPG. RPGs have a basic framework of rules that define the mechanisms of the world. These can be loose or strict. Depending on a gaming groups preferences some groups prefer certain play styles and thus certain games over others. It's abundantly clear this is a very loose rules system. But there are still rules.

    Those rules do not make sense on the page. And nothing said here (and I'm legitimately not trying to be obstinate), has changed that.

    The definition of complication is clear.
    The definition of condition is clear.
    The definition of Injury condition is murky but clear enough.
    The statement that Antagonists do not take Injury conditions is explicit.

    To your point about the giant being injured and and cracking his kneecap etc, unless that complication is only about the fact that giant has been forced to his knee and not at all about the injury itself (and thus just needs to spend thresh successes on any roll to overcome his complication in order to achieve his action until he gets up), then you are missing my point. And that is that all 3 entries are still explicit that Antagonists do not take Injury Conditions. This is a plain text reading of the book.

    Now I'm fine with someone telling me that the Rules as Intended are as you've described. Because I agree... it's remarkably stupid as I've laid it out, for in your case of Thor attacking the giant, for the giant to never once take an injury complication while Thor can be given concussions, broken arms, be kneecapped, and more. But the way the book is laid out, the way the book reads, and the way the book is worded:

    1. A complication is a negative consequence to a roll that is overcome with additional successes
    2. A condition is a longer term complication that resolves under a set circumstance
    3. An Injury condition is inflicted when a character takes damage
    4. An Antagonist does not take Injury Conditions
    5. An Antagonist does not take Injury Conditions per say but can be assigned complications (see pt 1)

    This is a logistical fallacy. Now, since as everybody loves to say, Scion is about the Narravtive, we will apply logic to this. The logic to a Narrative requires that this system is false. Therefor, the book is false. Now since I do come from a long tradition of having some faith that the game developers did intend what they wrote to mean what they said on the page, this creates an irrevocable conflict for me, since I can either use the Narrative justification to throw the baby out with the bathwater, or I can place my faith in the writers and use an obviously flawed system I know to be inaccurate. Everybody tells me how to fix it (Use combat as designed, ignore Antagonists entry) but that's a house rule to fix a problem. Which again I would be fine with if someone would just tell me that it was broken. Everybody instead has been telling me that I'm stupid for not realizing what is very clear.

    Originally posted by MoroseMorgan View Post

    I think you have the wrong reading of that. My quote explicitly shows that while they don't suffer injury conditions, they do suffer from Complications and their associated penalties to actions, which was the initial complaint, from my understanding.

    It is a clearly explained rule with a clear exception, with a suggested use case. While there are some ambiguous rulings in the book, this isn't one of them, although it would have been helpful to reiterate this sidebar in the antagonists section in my opinion.

    No, it actually states that Antagonists do not suffer Injury Conditions but do suffer complications. Since the two terms are separate and do in fact have separate definitions with separate (though related) systems, it is a related element to my query but only further adds confusion, since now it adds an entirely new set of questions since if an Antagonist can't take an Injury Condition, but can take a complication, what exactly is the systematic being applied? See my above replies to Florin and the Thor vs Giant example. This is a basic terminology issue. Now if your position is that "antagonists don't take injury conditions but still suffer complications from those injuries" that is again contrary to the words on the page. And would be something I would agree with. I've been trying to find why the book explicitly says the contrary, and everybody has been trying to tell me that water isn't wet.


    Narrative is great. I love telling stories. I tell grand great stories with Werewolf the Apocalypse and Dungeons and Dragons applying or ignoring systems as thematically and narratively appropriate but at the base of every game is a framework in which the universe works so that all parties (The DM/GM/ST and now Storyguide as well as the Players) understand the game world operates.

    If the words on the page do not actually make sense in the order that they are written, you can't actually run the scene to test anything out.


    Originally posted by PenDragon View Post
    While the book could be slightly better organized it does make it clear, on Origin Page. 116 in the sidebar entitled Antagonists and Variable Stunts, that Antagonists should take complications as a appropriate.

    As for the reason behind this, it is there to reduce system bloat on the storyteller. Antagonists don't need full conditions, complete with Momentum triggers and resolutions and large descriptive text blocks describing the effect. They are leaving it to the storyteller to adjudicate the effect on the fly, which is IMO quite sensible and explicitly benefits the players. As the storyteller you have to work through player's lower level injuries before you can deliver a truly nasty injury complication, with these rules players are not limited in this way, and are free to cut off antagonists arms and sear out their eyes from the get go.
    This is perhaps the best explanation for "why" all those entries exist. Thank you. Now if any of that was said in the book, I could have saved myself 3 pages of argument. I'm perfectly fine with that justification for why X+Y= Scion! I just want it actually on a page, because when I read a systematics section of a book, I actually need to understand that. Thank you... I can reasonably infer that from everything said in the book and move forward.


    More questions will torment you later, I promise. But for now I need to ice pack my brain and go watch Ryan Reynolds be an electric rodent.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X