Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Dedicating a Wallet or purse

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by Heavy Arms View Post
    Depends on the cub? Any cub raised in the know can have Rituals (Kin can have Rituals too), and even learn Rites even if the spirits don't usually empower Rites performed by cubs. Of course "usually" could be an exception here.
    Yes, those cubs could.

    Originally posted by Heavy Arms View Post
    OK... the point is though, that the Rite isn't actually mentioned. The mentor figure just dedicates the clothing of their pupil without any explanation of how they did that. There's no definitive statement that it was a use of Talisman Dedicate as intended; it could have also just being the author getting it wrong.
    Authors having a different idea than other authors how thinks work and editing that doesn't seem to wheat that out is kind of a theme within the WoD.

    The word "dedicated" is used, so it is fair to assume that's what the author was going for. However, my fulltext search of DriveThruRPG also found a reference in When Will You Rage II, where the dedication of cloth is specifically mentioned as "Rite of Dedication" instead of "Rite of Talisman Dedication" so... who knows.

    Originally posted by Heavy Arms View Post
    If you presented me with a house ruled version of the Rite that said, "For objects like a wallet, lunch box, or clip of ammo, they can be refilled/reloaded with new contents that match the same conceptual space as the original contents at the time of dedication. This is limited to once per scene, and up to Gnosis times a day." I'd be happy with it. Hell, typing it I might just start house ruling it that way with a bit of experimentation.
    One could tie limits to the Gnosis or simply leave it to the ST.
    However, it should be a clear separation to backpacks as containers for just anything (I wouldn't allow that, based on conceptually belonging together or lack thereof).
    Using the Rite of Talisman Dedication on a set of items that belong together, conceptually, I would allow a container to be added - but I wouldn't allow for a universal container.

    Originally posted by Heavy Arms View Post
    Changing a singular to a plural is a fairly big leap in this context.
    True.

    Originally posted by Heavy Arms View Post
    Unless a Rite targets everyone present for it (plenty do) it only affects who it says it affects ...
    But unlike other Rites it doesn't state that it allows for the Ritemaster to dedicate object to him, but for a garou to do so. So, the garou might not necessarily be the ritemaster?

    Originally posted by Heavy Arms View Post
    Type of spirit not specific spirit? Why not? Sounds like a story seed to me (good luck though).
    It is. It shouldn't be that easy though.

    Originally posted by Heavy Arms View Post
    Based on...
    Well, what single spirit would be powerful enough to grant the power that comes with "Rite of Talisman Dedication". Also be omnipresent in a level that would allow for that spirit to grant the power whenever and wherever the Rite is performed.
    Also, Rites that per the general Rites section have different styles per tribe and per the specific Rite wording differ per auspice - what single spirit would allow for such a broad variety of Rite executions ?
    I would argue, that a consensus within the spirit world to shape the world in a way that these rites are possible would make much more sense.

    Originally posted by Heavy Arms View Post
    The arbitrary nature of this is over-wrought and unhelpful. It's just begging players to pester STs with where the line is, because you're never defining it well.
    Maybe. The point would be that there is from a storytelling standpoint a difference between not thinking about change you get after buying a soda and bringing stuff into and out of the Umbra with a dedicated backpack. This difference should be self-evident and if players have a question on a specific application to the guidelines, they may ask the ST. But if it is to good to be true in their characters' current situation, it probably isn't.

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by heinrich View Post
      Authors having a different idea than other authors how thinks work and editing that doesn't seem to wheat that out is kind of a theme within the WoD.
      Yes, one of the reasons I don't bother looking at the dedicated fiction pieces (aka the novels, or the between chapter stories) at all for these sorts of conversations. There's never been strong editorial oversight to make sure those things follow the rules close enough to be good examples of specific rules in action.

      ...mentioned as "Rite of Dedication" instead of "Rite of Talisman Dedication" so... who knows.
      Wasn't really going to bring this up originally.... but this would be the mysterious unheard of Rite I was hypothetically tossing around before.

      One could tie limits to the Gnosis or simply leave it to the ST.
      Explicit limits are good, because it helps players understand what they can and can't do. To much ST handwaving for the basic function of things is frustrating.

      However, it should be a clear separation to backpacks as containers for just anything (I wouldn't allow that, based on conceptually belonging together or lack thereof).
      Using the Rite of Talisman Dedication on a set of items that belong together, conceptually, I would allow a container to be added - but I wouldn't allow for a universal container.
      Um... yes? That's why my phrasing was, "...new contents that match the same conceptual space as the original contents at the time of dedication."

      So putting money back in a wallet is fine. New money is the same conceptual space as the original money. If a backpack is full of comic books, new things to read would be fine, but you can't fill it with food, because that's not the same conceptual space as the original contents at dedication. No universal containers. And a lot more clear to players than, "just don't abuse it."

      But unlike other Rites it doesn't state that it allows for the Ritemaster to dedicate object to him, but for a garou to do so. So, the garou might not necessarily be the ritemaster?
      There is some wiggle room here, but it's a strained reading of the wording instead of treating the character dedicating the items as the ritemaster (otherwise what is the ritemaster doing in all this? Standing there?).

      It shouldn't be that easy though.
      "Wipe out every spirit of peace in the Tellurian to depower the Rite of Contrition" doesn't seem easy to me at all.

      Well, what single spirit would be powerful enough to grant the power that comes with "Rite of Talisman Dedication". Also be omnipresent in a level that would allow for that spirit to grant the power whenever and wherever the Rite is performed.
      Why are we talking about single spirits?

      I would argue, that a consensus within the spirit world to shape the world in a way that these rites are possible would make much more sense.
      Or it's just something like the Lunes given the link to Auspices.

      The point would be that there is from a storytelling standpoint a difference between not thinking about change you get after buying a soda and bringing stuff into and out of the Umbra with a dedicated backpack
      Right. I get that. But this tangent on house ruling things seems to be boiling down to "give a concrete rule for people to go by" vs. "make it ST arbitration." And eventually that's just going to be a personal preference thing. I'll arguing for a concrete rule over ST fiat because of my values on gaming design, but I'm not sure it's going to matter and it doesn't seem fruitful to keep banging on about it.

      Comment


      • #18
        Personally, and admittedly this is only loosely related to raw though I do think it works with my perceived rai, I have always gone with the logic heinrich uses. That is to say back when I was new to WtA I went with what the rite at the time said and required seperate dedication for every piece of clothing, which resulted in everyone dedicating only pants and shirt, or only pants. And pretty much after the first game I had to deviate from the rites text and decided to allow everything in one’s pockets to also shift along, feeling that it was ridiculous to keep track of wallets and keys and such after each change. Even back then I did not however even question that the money in the wallet wouldn’t shift along. After a few years I decided that my previous ruling wasn’t enough and allowed players to dedicate set’s of clothing in addition to automatically allowing the contest of their pockets to shift along. I was quite happy to see the rules changed towards my thinking in W20.

        Now I would say that heinrich, and to some extent I, is correct in his interpretation of the rite due to the rules having the clause of working at ST discretion when speaking of dedicating conceptually similar item groups, like clothing, the aforementioned ammo box with ammo Etc. And I’d say money shifting along with the wallet, whether you interpret that to be the only the money inside the wallet at the time of the rite or money in the wallet in general, that is the beauty with rules that depend on ST discretion we can be all correct in our interpretation of the rite even when we disagree in how it works, at least as long as we dont end up at the same gaming table.

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by Heavy Arms View Post
          Yes, one of the reasons I don't bother looking at the dedicated fiction pieces (aka the novels, or the between chapter stories) at all for these sorts of conversations. There's never been strong editorial oversight to make sure those things follow the rules close enough to be good examples of specific rules in action.
          I look at them, for they kind of show the rules in action or show discrepancies one might want to have thought about before a game gets there.

          Originally posted by Heavy Arms View Post
          Explicit limits are good, because it helps players understand what they can and can't do. To much ST handwaving for the basic function of things is frustrating.​
          They are constraining on the other hand and I, for one, wouldn't want to come into a position, where I would want to disallow an action, but had previously tied the ability to take that action to a character stat and would therefore now have contradict my previous ruling.
          Static rulings are predictable, and that can be good. But I would leave more freedom, possibly by something like: "Once the character had done that for more than her permanent gnosis times within a day, any additional try requires a Gnosis roll difficulty 7. The difficulty might increase if the character tries repeatedly."

          Sure, it seems complicated, it probably is, but it leaves possibilities.

          Originally posted by Heavy Arms View Post
          "Wipe out every spirit of peace in the Tellurian to depower the Rite of Contrition" doesn't seem easy to me at all.
          That was if one specific type of spirit was responsible for powering that Rite, as opposed to one specific, albeit powerful, spirit.


          Originally posted by Heavy Arms View Post
          Why are we talking about single spirits?​
          Probably because I missed the "group of (spirits)" in an earlier post of you.

          Originally posted by Heavy Arms View Post
          Right. I get that. But this tangent on house ruling things seems to be boiling down to "give a concrete rule for people to go by" vs. "make it ST arbitration." And eventually that's just going to be a personal preference thing. I'll arguing for a concrete rule over ST fiat because of my values on gaming design, but I'm not sure it's going to matter and it doesn't seem fruitful to keep banging on about it.
          Yes, it is a personal preference thing. I kind of like to be a bit more unrestricted as ST.

          Which might be ironic for my LARP players, for I am known for extensive rules.

          Comment


          • #20
            oh ditto with Dedicating a gun.


            Comment

            Working...
            X