Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Hoping to get some help on Lasting

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

  • Charlaquin
    started a topic Hoping to get some help on Lasting

    Hoping to get some help on Lasting

    So, I know I may be opening a can of worms by inviting discussion of Lasting. But in the Reach to change Primary Factor thread, WHW correctly identified that the issue I was having with that rule stemmed less from the rule itself and more from the book operating on guidelines that it did not thoroughly explain - "whatever you think of as a more powerful version of the spell" did not lead me to the correct assessments of what certain example spells' primary factors should be, and I blamed primary factors being locked to certain effects rather than the instructions being lacking. They also identified a set of guidelines that were extremely helpful for correctly assessing Primary Factors, which as pretty much resolved the issue for me.

    I was hoping we might be able to develop similar guidelines for what makes an effect Lasting. The book says only "When a spell ends, look at what it changed, if anything, in the environment. Those are its Lasting qualities." which has similarly lead me to the wrong conclusions about whether part of an effect should be Lasting or not. Can we put our heads together and come up with a set of clear, objective rules for what makes part of a spell's effect naturally Lasting, and what qualifies a spell's effect for being able to be made Lasting with +2 Reach?

  • Diggs
    replied
    Originally posted by Fortunatus View Post

    Then we differ on that (assuming I understand what you mean by "that"). No biggie. I'll bow out of that conversation, as it's not really going anywhere and I'm clearly in the minority. I'll stick to using my not-so-copious free time seeing if I can poke holes in what you've put together so far, on a purely rules basis.
    "That" being rules for fair gameplay. I'm not commenting on success.

    Leave a comment:


  • Fortunatus
    replied
    Originally posted by Diggs View Post

    I think that is a requirement for the rules.
    Then we differ on that (assuming I understand what you mean by "that"). No biggie. I'll bow out of that conversation, as it's not really going anywhere and I'm clearly in the minority. I'll stick to using my not-so-copious free time seeing if I can poke holes in what you've put together so far, on a purely rules basis.

    Leave a comment:


  • Diggs
    replied
    Originally posted by Fortunatus View Post
    My preference would be to simply have the rules, and let magic be capricious and mysterious in-game. I don't really see a need for magic to be more consistent than is necessary to tell interesting stories, so long as a robust set of rules keeps game-play fair (consistency being one of the cornerstones of fairness).
    I think that is a requirement for the rules.

    Leave a comment:


  • Fortunatus
    replied
    Originally posted by EW-Matias View Post
    Life Force Assault messes with bodily functions enough to cause varied forms of tissue damage. It may simultaneously briefly stop air or blood flow, make muscles pull each other apart until they tear, make your kindneys and liver stop working or make your blood preasure so high your arteries burst. When all those eefects end and your body resumes normal functioning, you find it's pretty wrecked.
    You and I interpret rending a Pattern differently. C'est la vie.

    Let's get back to making a list of objective rules that work well, rather than attempting to justify those rules with game metaphysics.
    Last edited by Fortunatus; 03-07-2017, 10:40 PM. Reason: grammar; it's a thing

    Leave a comment:


  • EW-Matias
    replied
    Life Force Assault messes with bodily functions enough to cause varied forms of tissue damage. It may simultaneously briefly stop air or blood flow, make muscles pull each other apart until they tear, make your kindneys and liver stop working or make your blood preasure so high your arteries burst. When all those eefects end and your body resumes normal functioning, you find it's pretty wrecked.

    Leave a comment:


  • Fortunatus
    replied
    Originally posted by Diggs View Post
    None of that actually matters. It is acceptable to simply state damage is lasting as a rule.
    Agreed in full.

    Originally posted by Diggs View Post
    My preference is to tie logically niche case rules to the broader rules which are based on examples and explanations within the book. It isn't required.
    My preference would be to simply have the rules, and let magic be capricious and mysterious in-game. I don't really see a need for magic to be more consistent than is necessary to tell interesting stories, so long as a robust set of rules keeps game-play fair (consistency being one of the cornerstones of fairness).
    Last edited by Fortunatus; 03-07-2017, 10:40 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Fortunatus
    replied
    Originally posted by HardcoreHannes View Post
    Your second paragraph is actually exactly my reasoning. Damaging spells are basically magical knifes (whatever weapons) the mage gashes someone with. I think the same is true for Life-Force Assault, you are rending the pattern of a subject with magic, so the magic acts as a weapon.
    That's not the way I see it, though, in retrospect, I could have used a better example.

    Originally posted by HardcoreHannes View Post
    I don't see how it would follow that every spell is lasting from this. If I use Mind to implement false memories into a subject, the memory as well as the process of connecting the memory to the brain of the subject are made out of magic and when that magic dissolves, so does the false memory.
    Ah, my version of that spell does not implant a false memory. Instead, it warps the mind of a subject, so the magic acts as a tool that sculpts false memories into being. Hence, a Lasting false memory springs into being simply because I opted for semantics that seemingly put my spell at a remove from its intended effect. That's the way I see the whole "Life-Force Assault is just a magic weapon" notion, and that's why I call it specious.

    Leave a comment:


  • Diggs
    replied
    The issue with Life-Force Assault and Mind Flay exists only because of a lacking spell description. Mind Flay does mumbo jumbo so damage is inflicted. LF Assault isn't really better. This isn't about how the spell does what it does, which can be a problem for every spell, but what the spell does. I'm talking about what the spell does in the story, not game mechanics. So, this happens with some spells, they have black-box effects.

    I have a choice. I can say the spell works differently than almost all that do something similar for some reason or all damage dealing spells create or manipulate forces and objects to inflict damage just like every damage dealing spell that I can actually explain. I choose that the spells work the same even when I don't know how.

    None of that actually matters. It is acceptable to simply state damage is lasting as a rule. My preference is to tie logically niche case rules to the broader rules which are based on examples and explanations within the book. It isn't required.

    Leave a comment:


  • HardcoreHannes
    replied
    Your second paragraph is actually exactly my reasoning. Damaging spells are basically magical knifes (whatever weapons) the mage gashes someone with. I think the same is true for Life-Force Assault, you are rending the pattern of a subject with magic, so the magic acts as a weapon. I don't see how it would follow that every spell is lasting from this. If I use Mind to implement false memories into a subject, the memory as well as the process of connecting the memory to the brain of the subject are made out of magic and when that magic dissolves, so does the false memory.

    Leave a comment:


  • Fortunatus
    replied
    Originally posted by HardcoreHannes View Post
    I actually think that damage is lasting can be easily explained via the side effect rule. Inflincting damage isn't it itself something the spell does, since damage is not an additional state you inflict on somebody, it is the game's way of describing the fact, that part of a living beeing is destroyed. So what damaging spells actually do is using various ways of causing destruction, while the destruction itself is just the side effect. If I incenerate a house with a magical torch it has been established that it does not just miracoulsy stands there undamaged after my torch goes out.
    I go back to Life-Force Assault, whose description is the direct shredding of a living being's Pattern. That's not damage via a conjured medium. The same goes for Mind Flay. It seems like a heck of a stretch to me to say that either of those spells causes damage indirectly.

    Beyond that, the whole notion of separating cause from effect in these cases strikes me as specious hair-splitting at best. One might as well argue that gashing me with a knife is merely a way of causing destruction, and that any damage I take from that gash is just a side effect. That logic would make every spell Lasting. My character's spell didn't actually do anything, it just served as the cause of [insert effect here].

    Leave a comment:


  • HardcoreHannes
    replied
    I actually think that damage is lasting can be easily explained via the side effect rule. Inflincting damage isn't it itself something the spell does, since damage is not an additional state you inflict on somebody, it is the game's way of describing the fact, that part of a living beeing is destroyed. So what damaging spells actually do is using various ways of causing destruction, while the destruction itself is just the side effect. If I incenerate a house with a magical torch it has been established that it does not just miracoulsy stands there undamaged after my torch goes out.

    I have a lot more difficulty coming up with the same reasoning for healing spells though.

    Leave a comment:


  • Diggs
    replied
    Cool. I guess I'm not completely lost.

    Tessie exactly

    Diseases are complicated because sometimes a disease is the effect of another disease. Within the rules sometimes a disease would be represented as a condition rather than the norm. I think poison and disease (generally) should be treated the same so I made a rule to include both. Perhaps, different wording would be better. My intention is to exclude disease that doesn't work with disease rules.

    As I read the description of that cure poison spell, it seems to affect an organism by improving ability to eliminate poisons, bending rather than breaking the laws of reality. The side effect is, with enough successes, the poison can be eliminated. The spell to cure diseases seems to mechanically work the same without the description indicating how it works. If the rule has both work the same, as I think should be the case, then both cures would be lasting and damage done needs to be treated another way.

    I haven't gotten to creating spells so I'm not looking at Practices yet. I don't want Practices in my rules determining how Lasting works. I want a brief list I can run down as needed. Now if there is obvious higher magic that indicates it would more permanently cure poisons and diseases then I would go with that for Lasting effects, but then why include spells to temporarily treat? I can see value in halting the progress for a duration. Temporarily removing these problems so they come back at the end of the duration seems like a dumb spell to me. How is that better than freezing progress? I can see not having space to provide a halting spell but having a halt without a cure seems odd. Does not compute.

    Inflicting and healing damage is a paper thin line when it comes to whether it should be lasting or not. However, I think most people would respond to the notion that it would not be lasting with WTF even low magic can do that. There is definitely a meta element there. I would tend to think of it more precisely as the direct spell effect is whatever inflicts the damage and the side effect is the damage. There is a distinction because maybe the Mage misses or the target is immune. Thin, but I just can't see these effects not being lasting as the norm.

    Paralyzing a leg to create a leg tilt is the same as inflicting damage to tick a health box, restatement of effect or mechanical representation of the effect as you prefer. Creating an electric shock to paralyze a leg or inflict damage is one effect leading to another. Best explanation I can offer.

    I don't have all the spells memorized. Is there a spell that cures tilts or conditions? I can consider how it works with my rules if I have the spell description. I don't think the most direct way to inflict tilts, conditions, poison or disease would be lasting. The variety of methods allows for some to be lasting. Feature, not bug. Lasting within Life and Time was where I usually get confused so I tend to limit my view there.

    Leave a comment:


  • 21C Hermit
    replied
    So far, separating what the spell actually does to create an effect from the effect itself seems to set a good metric.

    Leave a comment:


  • Charlaquin
    replied
    Originally posted by Fortunatus View Post
    Way too meta for my blood. I see the the ticks in the boxes as a way for players to represent said wounds and damage, not as a "natural consequence" of those things. The character sheet simply doesn't exist in the game world, and it therefore has no place in any justification for the way things work from an in-game perspective. Until a character's fireball sets my dining room table on fire, I'm going to see any talk about the natural consequences of spells as coming from an in-game perspective.
    Yeah, like I said, it's a meta explanation and probably won't work for everyone. I kinda see it as like the heart attack example on a smaller scale, but I can see why its an unsatisfactory explanation for many.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X