Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Dedicating a Wallet or purse

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

  • Prince of the Night
    started a topic Dedicating a Wallet or purse

    Dedicating a Wallet or purse

    in a game Im running now it came up if you dedicate a wallet or purse, does cash that wasn't originally in it make the shift?

  • Prince of the Night
    replied
    oh ditto with Dedicating a gun.

    Leave a comment:


  • heinrich
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Possessed
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Heavy Arms
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • heinrich
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Heavy Arms
    replied
    Originally posted by heinrich View Post
    Obviously cubs don't have the Rite, probably not even a Rituals Ability rating.
    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.

    Having them loose their cloths when stepping sideways seems to be a little - socially awkward, especially in LARP.
    I can't say I've ever been in LARP situation where this was really a problem. Something relatively close happened at one LARP. It was basically treated like going to the locker room after PE class. The cubs undressed and shifted to lupus to avoid snickering from the Homids and because most of them were Homids and needed to work on their wolf side. Then they all went into the Umbra with the Den Father, had some lessons about spirits, and came back, shifted back, and got dressed. The actually getting undressed part was just not actually done (just like you don't have to take off your clothing if you shift to lupus and the clothing is supposed to meld into your fur).

    And I disagree that the fluff on page 119 of rev. core mentions a yet-unknown Rite or something...
    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.

    But have I connected the wallet and a specific coin, or have I connected the specific wallet to a general magnitude of cash, that can be made up of any instance of the classes coin or bill?
    The specific coin is the only interpretation supported by the wording of the Rite

    I'd argue, that this is supposed to be the way the Rite works, for convenience's sake.
    I'd agree that some small level of this would better than the RAW. I don't see any real case for it being what the Rite is supposed to do just because it's a better take on the Rite than the official one.

    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.

    But I'm not going to say that's the intent of the RAW.

    Garou Spirit magic should be intuitive to some degree, and own shouldn't decide matters of re-dedication, or not being part of something else, on a molecular or even atomic bases.
    "I cast a spell on the wallet and the contents of the wallet at the time the spell was cast," is intuitive and not "molecular or atomic," in the basis of how it works.

    Well, there is a difference. For "It allows werewolves to bind objects their bodies" isn't that far a stretch.
    Changing a singular to a plural is a fairly big leap in this context.

    ...although a lone werewolf may conduct certain minor rites and mystic rites.
    It's a Mystic Rite always phrased in the singular.

    This would mean, anyone present with the Ritemaster may dedicate stuff to themselves in a communal Rite, does it not?
    No. At best it means everyone present helps the Ritemaster dedicate something to themselves by lowering the difficulty of the roll.

    Unless a Rite targets everyone present for it (plenty do) it only affects who it says it affects and more people are there because it makes Rites more effective to be done as a group.

    Would that mean one could make a Rite defunct by killing that particular spirit?
    Type of spirit not specific spirit? Why not? Sounds like a story seed to me (good luck though).

    I would argue that several universal Rites are powered by a vast number of spirits.
    Based on...

    And that them powering these Rites isn't a cerebral act on their side, but something, that just happens.
    It's probably best stated somewhere in between as spirits are generally neither cerebral or completely instinctual.

    One can enact Rites basically anywhere, there isn't a need for a specific spirit, or type of spirit, or anything like that to be within any measure of reach.
    Not universally true. But the ability to use most Rites without a specific spirit being present where the Rite is done doesn't need to be impactful in this regard. Distance in spiritual matters isn't distance in material terms.

    In the case of change cash, yes.
    Which means it's a house rule and you shouldn't be trying to convince people it's how the rules are by default and just move on. There's no need to get into this huge debate just to make our house rule sound "official" it stands on it's own as being a better rule than the RAW anyway.

    Doesn't mean that it is applicable as a general rule.
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • heinrich
    replied
    Originally posted by Heavy Arms View Post
    Yes, but it's pretty clearly born from you adding things to the rules that aren't actually there. They're not inherently bad, but they're still not what's written.
    You are right. Having done a full text search through DriveThruRPG pretty much any NPC in the books has this Rite. It is also named one of the most common Rites.
    Obviously cubs don't have the Rite, probably not even a Rituals Ability rating. Having them loose their cloths when stepping sideways seems to be a little - socially awkward, especially in LARP.

    Possibly the idea that the Rite should be one that a garou can enact for another stems from this very practical problem, that Laws of the Wild doesn't address. Neither does the tabletop game, by the way, but cubs aren't usually the forcus of the play. However, in all five corebooks there the character creation doesn't warn you about not taking the Rituals background. And I disagree that the fluff on page 119 of rev. core mentions a yet-unknown Rite or something...


    Originally posted by Heavy Arms View Post
    How does that matter when you've linked a group of objects together into one on a mystic level?
    But have I connected the wallet and a specific coin, or have I connected the specific wallet to a general magnitude of cash, that can be made up of any instance of the classes coin or bill?

    I'd argue, that this is supposed to be the way the Rite works, for convenience's sake. Garou Spirit magic should be intuitive to some degree, and own shouldn't decide matters of re-dedication, or not being part of something else, on a molecular or even atomic bases. That's what technocratic dimensional science does, probably.


    Originally posted by Heavy Arms View Post
    It allows a werewolf to bind objects to their body. It doesn't need to "forbid" something it doesn't say it can do.

    It also doesn't forbid you from declaring that a dedicated object does infinite unsoakable agg damage to all Wyrm creatures within (Gnosis) miles once they're in the radius of the effect. But it clearly can't, because that's not what it says it does. By your logic though, it should be considered as something the Rite doesn't "forbid" you from doing with it.
    Well, there is a difference. For "It allows werewolves to bind objects their bodies" isn't that far a stretch.

    Actually, the general Rites rules of W20 state:
    Ritemasters generally lead groups of Garou in the performance rites. These rites are grand ceremonies usually held at caerns with much tradition and socializing going along with them. It is the nature of rites to be social affairs. Most rites require the presence at least three Garou, although a lone werewolf may conduct certain minor rites and mystic rites. Many older septs frown on
    practice of performing rites away from the group.
    This would mean, anyone present with the Ritemaster may dedicate stuff to themselves in a communal Rite, does it not?

    Would mean that a pack theurge would only need 10 minutes and the entire pack present to allow for all to dedicate new items...

    Originally posted by Heavy Arms View Post
    That's not how Rites are described as working. Rites work because of ancient pacts formed between the Fera and the spirits. Rites aren't powered by the whole freaking Umbra if they don't specify the participation of a spirit, they're empowered by whichever arcane spirit pact bound whichever group of spirits to make it happen. It's just not important 99% of the time.
    Would that mean one could make a Rite defunct by killing that particular spirit? You know, drop it's Essence/Power to 0 and then destroy it's Gnosis.

    I would argue that several universal Rites are powered by a vast number of spirits.
    And that them powering these Rites isn't a cerebral act on their side, but something, that just happens.
    One can enact Rites basically anywhere, there isn't a need for a specific spirit, or type of spirit, or anything like that to be within any measure of reach.
    So, a Rite basically means that the world allows for some supernatural effect in a shifter performs specific acts.
    If there is some place this power comes from, it would be the spirit realm in general.

    The moot rite, the rite of dedication, the rite of summoning being examples of Rites so general in nature, that their power probably isn't tied to a specific spirit or type of spirit, but an general consensus within the spirit community.

    Also, the fulff specifically mentions that lesser Rites started out as habits and turned into Rites of sorts. So the "pact" for a specific Rite aren't necessarily formal agreements from acient times. There could have been several ways how Rites came into existence.



    Originally posted by Heavy Arms View Post
    Right. The problem is you're also inserting that it forms a connection between the Garou, the item dedicated (which might be multiple items conceptually linked together as long as you don't get abusive about it), and everything that could be included in that conceptual grouping on Earth that isn't present at the Rite.
    In the case of change cash, yes. Doesn't mean that it is applicable as a general rule.
    Obviously dedicating a specific item only dedicates that item, and possibly conceptually linked objects. Like a set of cloth or sword and scabbard. Doesn't link it to any other sword, for purposes of the Rite, although there might be a conceptual connection to swords in general.
    Linking conceptually sets for purposes of the rite is mentioned in Laws of the Wild revised.

    Leave a comment:


  • Heavy Arms
    replied
    Originally posted by heinrich View Post
    One would argue, that putting cash in and pulling cash out is the normal use for the wallet.
    So what? Mixing and matching clothing is normal use of human fashion, but it doesn't mean my single dedicated outfit gets to be my whole wardrobe.

    There's no normal use clause in the books.

    I'd further argue that the cash isn't significantly enough to warrant that it is present at the time of talisman dedication, the specific coins that is.
    Unless it gets nebulously "abusive." A word that isn't even in the most current version of the Rite; and only in one of them too boot. Because the Rite isn't talking about adding new stuff later, it's talking about bundling stuff together as one item when you perform the Rite. "Conceptually linked groups of objects may count as a single object as the Storyteller’s discretion." This is in direct reference to the cost per object and the cap on how many you can have. The point is to not bog the game down with annoying minutiae while still having meaningful limits on what the Rite can do. So one outfit costs 1 Gnosis to dedicate and counts as one object to your total. Not "you can swap pieces of your outfit around whenever you want."

    There's nothing in the text of the Rite that supports the idea that you can dedicate stuff that wasn't present at the Rite being enacted.

    It is the nature of coins of a specific value to be interchangeable, is it not?
    How does that matter when you've linked a group of objects together into one on a mystic level?

    Maybe so. But it is in the nature of some changes to happen more often than others. I'd argue that buying stuff and therefore have fluctuation in the cash of the wallet is normal, non abusive use. Filling the wallet with cash, stepping sideways to leave a bank vault via the umbra, then empty the wallet and go back on the other hand is an abusive behaviour, within the guidelines of the Rite. It isn't necessarily the changes made to the wallet per hour that count, but the intend, too.
    Except this has nothing to do with the guidelines of the Rite. The Rite is talking about bundling objects for the purposes of enacting the Rite and how many items you can have dedicated. It never talks about abusing them by doing shit like putting stuff in your wallet, having the wallet dedicate new things just by putting them in it, and then dumping them in the Umbra and repeating... because the Rite isn't formulated to allow it to even happen.

    The text passage on page 119 of revised core book has specifically a mentor dedicate cloth to another werewolf.
    Maybe they used a yet unprinted Rite that allows it. It never says what Rite was used. It's also fluff that doesn't match the text of the Rite, and the rules of the power trump fiction entries.

    The Rite write-up never specifically mentions the possibility to perform the Rite for others, though, it also never explicitly forbids it.
    "This common rite allows a werewolf to bind objects to her body, allowing them to fit her various forms (jeans will grow to accommodate the Crinos form rather than splitting at the seams, for example) and accompany the Garou into the Umbra. "

    It allows a werewolf to bind objects to their body. It doesn't need to "forbid" something it doesn't say it can do.

    It also doesn't forbid you from declaring that a dedicated object does infinite unsoakable agg damage to all Wyrm creatures within (Gnosis) miles once they're in the radius of the effect. But it clearly can't, because that's not what it says it does. By your logic though, it should be considered as something the Rite doesn't "forbid" you from doing with it.

    Arguing for powers to do things they don't say they can do because they don't say they can't do that doesn't work with the way powers are written for WtA or really the WoD at large.

    And while there is a novel from the 1st Edition era, where a Child of Gaia undresses to go stalking in Crinos in the back-allies of San Francisco, I doubt that the intend is that every character who does not have this particular Rite has no access to dedicated cloth.
    Sure, but the intent doesn't matter if it never makes it into the book. Never, over five core books (1e, 2e, Rev. DA Werewolf, W20) did they say Talisman Dedication is meant to be used on other Garou. So either the intention is for there to be a more advanced version that does but nobody got around to writing it, or in over 20 years, nobody thought to reword the Rite despite changing it in subtle ways (being able to bundle items together as one item for the Rite wasn't in the original version for example).

    Well, we seem to have a discrepancy on what we understand when reading the rules
    Yes, but it's pretty clearly born from you adding things to the rules that aren't actually there. They're not inherently bad, but they're still not what's written.

    I'd argue that the Rite is powered by the spirit world as a whole (like all Rites that don't state specifically the participation of a spirit)...
    That's not how Rites are described as working. Rites work because of ancient pacts formed between the Fera and the spirits. Rites aren't powered by the whole freaking Umbra if they don't specify the participation of a spirit, they're empowered by whichever arcane spirit pact bound whichever group of spirits to make it happen. It's just not important 99% of the time.

    ...and that it forms a connection between the garou it is dedicated to and the item that is dedicated (including parts that make sense to be included with the item and their inclusion isn't abusive). Like a gun and it's holster.
    Right. The problem is you're also inserting that it forms a connection between the Garou, the item dedicated (which might be multiple items conceptually linked together as long as you don't get abusive about it), and everything that could be included in that conceptual grouping on Earth that isn't present at the Rite.

    Leave a comment:


  • heinrich
    replied
    Originally posted by Heavy Arms View Post
    Applying a paradox in general is a fairly dubious argument. After all a paradox has no solution. It doesn't support one interpretation or another, it just demonstrates both are flawed (unless you resolve the paradox first).
    True. It was just to reference to the fact that this problem is unsolved and has been for a long time.
    Obviously there might be a level of change that makes an item a new one, but there is also a level of change that doesn't. Every person might feel differently about it.


    Originally posted by Heavy Arms View Post
    Though I don't find the Ship of Thesus particularly relevant because it's not a practical paradox. It's a paradox of identity... a social value by humans after the fact, or at best a metaphysical value that doesn't really slot in with WtA metaphysics.

    In fact, WtA metaphysics resolves the paradox rather easily. By virtue of its animist axioms, being "The Ship of Thesus" imbues the ship with enough spiritual power for its spirit to exist. Any chances made to the ship that suit the spirit empower it to be what it is but more, and any changes that go against the spirit of the ship weaken it or force it to change as well. This can include dividing into two spirits for two different ships, both with the spirit of The Ship of Thesus even if one is empowered more by being made of the original, and the other by the symbol of Thesus to the people of Athens.

    Thus in WtA metaphysics, Talisman Dedication isn't operating on vague concepts like "wallets" or "cards," but the specific spiritual forms of the wallet and the cards right in front of you.
    I disagree. What you say about the spirit and the ship I agree on. But, unless the spirit of the wallet is awoken, one can't really know the impact any change might have on the wallet. One would argue, that putting cash in and pulling cash out is the normal use for the wallet. I'd further argue that the cash isn't significantly enough to warrant that it is present at the time of talisman dedication, the specific coins that is. It is the nature of coins of a specific value to be interchangeable, is it not? An ID, driver's license and such however are significant objects and should be dedicated in their own right, however they in my opinion, meet the criteria for being treated as one item with the wallet for purpouses of the Rite as per the revised Core book.




    Originally posted by Heavy Arms View Post
    If I shop by cash twice a day, that's a pretty constant change to the contents of my wallet.
    Maybe so. But it is in the nature of some changes to happen more often than others. I'd argue that buying stuff and therefore have fluctuation in the cash of the wallet is normal, non abusive use. Filling the wallet with cash, stepping sideways to leave a bank vault via the umbra, then empty the wallet and go back on the other hand is an abusive behaviour, within the guidelines of the Rite. It isn't necessarily the changes made to the wallet per hour that count, but the intend, too.



    Originally posted by Heavy Arms View Post
    This example is irrelevant because it doesn't work. Talisman Dedication only works for yourself. If the whole pack wants to have black tie clothes dedicated to them for something, they each need to know and perform the Rite, meaning the total time remains 10 minutes for just one outfit.
    I disagree. The text passage on page 119 of revised core book has specifically a mentor dedicate cloth to another werewolf. And while I find the description unfortunate, especially because if the 10 minutes time window, I wound't argue that it can be performed for the benefit of others.
    The Rite write-up never specifically mentions the possibility to perform the Rite for others, though, it also never explicitly forbids it. And while there is a novel from the 1st Edition era, where a Child of Gaia undresses to go stalking in Crinos in the back-allies of San Francisco, I doubt that the intend is that every character who does not have this particular Rite has no access to dedicated cloth.

    Originally posted by Heavy Arms View Post
    I could go on about how dumb this is, but we're talking about how to deal with the rules as they are, not how we'd change them.
    Well, we seem to have a discrepancy on what we understand when reading the rules


    Originally posted by Heavy Arms View Post
    "Connect them mystically," or "strengthens the existing metaphysical bond between gun and bullet," doesn't change that Talisman Dedication operates on the objects in front of you via the spirits of them, not the concepts of the objects in front of you.
    I'd argue that the Rite is powered by the spirit world as a whole (like all Rites that don't state specifically the participation of a spirit) and that it forms a connection between the garou it is dedicated to and the item that is dedicated (including parts that make sense to be included with the item and their inclusion isn't abusive). Like a gun and it's holster.

    Leave a comment:


  • Heavy Arms
    replied
    Applying a paradox in general is a fairly dubious argument. After all a paradox has no solution. It doesn't support one interpretation or another, it just demonstrates both are flawed (unless you resolve the paradox first).

    Though I don't find the Ship of Thesus particularly relevant because it's not a practical paradox. It's a paradox of identity... a social value by humans after the fact, or at best a metaphysical value that doesn't really slot in with WtA metaphysics.

    In fact, WtA metaphysics resolves the paradox rather easily. By virtue of its animist axioms, being "The Ship of Thesus" imbues the ship with enough spiritual power for its spirit to exist. Any chances made to the ship that suit the spirit empower it to be what it is but more, and any changes that go against the spirit of the ship weaken it or force it to change as well. This can include dividing into two spirits for two different ships, both with the spirit of The Ship of Thesus even if one is empowered more by being made of the original, and the other by the symbol of Thesus to the people of Athens.

    Thus in WtA metaphysics, Talisman Dedication isn't operating on vague concepts like "wallets" or "cards," but the specific spiritual forms of the wallet and the cards right in front of you.


    Originally posted by heinrich View Post
    Constant changes, just like radical ones, should not be permitted.
    If I shop by cash twice a day, that's a pretty constant change to the contents of my wallet.

    So with overhead a pack theurge would need an hour to re-dedicate stuff for a five member pack, who need to go to a black tie event.
    This example is irrelevant because it doesn't work. Talisman Dedication only works for yourself. If the whole pack wants to have black tie clothes dedicated to them for something, they each need to know and perform the Rite, meaning the total time remains 10 minutes for just one outfit.

    I could go on about how dumb this is, but we're talking about how to deal with the rules as they are, not how we'd change them.

    I'd also argue, that if you combine items as one dedicated item the Rite doesn't connect them mystically.
    "Connect them mystically," or "strengthens the existing metaphysical bond between gun and bullet," doesn't change that Talisman Dedication operates on the objects in front of you via the spirits of them, not the concepts of the objects in front of you.

    Leave a comment:


  • heinrich
    replied
    Originally posted by Prince of the Night View Post
    So whats a Corax or Returned Camazotz who travels by his own wings to do when trying to check into a hotel room? Rely on Credit Cards
    Sleep in Corvus form on a tree, or something?

    My take would be that they can dedicate a wallet that is appropriately filled for their lifestyle and Ressources rating. All cash that is used or refilled within these appropriate limits isn't an abuse of the rules that allow to combine items nor is it a new item as per the Theseus' Paradox. So in my opinion, that topic can be handwaved and one goes on...

    Leave a comment:


  • Prince of the Night
    replied
    So whats a Corax or Returned Camazotz who travels by his own wings to do when trying to check into a hotel room? Rely on Credit Cards

    if your trying to lay low that could be problematic.

    Leave a comment:


  • heinrich
    replied
    Theseus Paradox is exactly it. I would argue that in this cases that aren't abusive, the item remains the same.
    Constant changes, just like radical ones, should not be permitted.


    But, re-dedication with the Rite isn't the answer here either. The rule of thumb states 10 minutes per Rite level if no time is given. So with overhead a pack theurge would need an hour to re-dedicate stuff for a five member pack, who need to go to a black tie event. A one time event, I'd argue. Although the Rite classically is only performed under one's auspice, meaning the person to whom something is dedicated, I guess. So repeated re-dedication for lesser changes seem unpractical. Although one could botch and a mishap with implications that could lead to a subplot, simply to get some change money, seems over the top.

    Sure, the Rituals Skill has in revised core a in-universe example that depicts this Rite as an affair of mere moments. But I'd argue that this doesn't reflect the way the Rite is intended to be used.

    I'd also argue, that if you combine items as one dedicated item the Rite doesn't connect them mystically. I'd argue that items that qualify as being in t he same set for the purpose of the Rite are already sharing a connection. Much like in Mage.

    Leave a comment:


  • Illithid
    replied
    Originally posted by heinrich View Post
    Is there a page reference for that claim?
    So, some things essentially belong together. The corebook revised edition states as much when it suggests to combine some items together as long as this leeway isn't abused by the players. So, I'd argue a purse, more specifically a wallet, is essentially tied to coins, bills, credit cards and ID card. That is what one would assume to find in a purse. Therefore a wallet filled with such items when dedicated counts as one item and even if the specific coins or bills change the wallet and new coins and bills are considered a dedicated item for purposes of the Rite.

    Same goes for a gun. I would argue that a holster might be included with a gun if dedicated, for the are essentially items that belong together. Also specific bullets shouldn't need a re-dedication, while I argue that a second magazine does.
    Ship of Theseus or Theseus' Paradox.
    Is it still the same if parts are slowly replaced? If the dedicated gun needs a replacement spring, then new firing pin, etc etc until no parts were there at the original rite of dedication?

    I think that the spirit of the Answer (And the answer by the spirits) is that if the item would still be considered the same for most purposes, then you're good

    A wallet is the same even if yo clean out your cards and have different cash in there. A gun is the same with a different clip/different bullets, but maybe not if you swap out the stick magazine for a drum mag, or make other significant changes to the gun.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X