Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Is someone watching me?

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

  • #16
    Pledge yourself to The Eye, I am sure she has some kind of power here. This can in no way go wrong!

    Comment


    • #17
      Sometimes in order to make sense of the rules, you have to remember that they're part of a game, being interpreted by a human, and meant to serve for the telling of a dramatic cooperative story. It helps to filter out some of the nonsense and nitpicking that would detract from actual gameplay.

      Sympathetic connections exist between objects that are close in a metaphysical sense. It's the supernal truth of space. The Lie says that you're close to what you're touching or standing near or see often in your day-to-day. The Supernal says that you're close to what is meaningful to you. But something can't be close to you without you also being close to it. Sympathy is a two-way street; there are no uni-directional sympathetic connections.

      The sympathy concept is highly subjective and open to interpretation (by your ST). As far as I'm aware there's not a quote in the core rules that requires "repeated and/or intimate interaction between two people and/or objects." Similarly, "a sympathetic connection definitely requires a more intimate interaction than just observation" isn't stated anywhere. Two actors have a sympathetic connection if either of them has special meaning to the other. The items listed in the Sympathy Strength chart are not an exhaustive list; they're examples.

      I would rule that intentionally observing someone even one time is roughly on par with casting a spell on someone even one time. It's enough to create a Weak connection. That connection may fade with time, but I would say that it exists at least for the duration of the scene in which the observation occurred. The connection, like all connections, is bi-directional by its nature for as long as it exists. The Correspondence spell is not a parser looking for perfect syntax or an evil genie that tries to twist words; "The being who watches me" is close enough to get the point across. Particularly in the context of actual gameplay where finding the person spying on you may be a plot point. No sane ST is going to drag skin mites into the drama of a scene.

      I think this is the best answer for this problem. If you think you're being watched, look for a sympathetic connection you have with the being (i.e. person/spirit/ghost/supernal entity/vampire etc..., not skin mite) watching you.
      Last edited by galivet; 04-20-2017, 05:56 PM.

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by galivet View Post
        Sometimes in order to make sense of the rules, you have to remember that they're part of a game, being interpreted by a human, and meant to serve for the telling of a dramatic cooperative story. It helps to filter out some of the nonsense and nitpicking that would detract from actual gameplay.

        Sympathetic connections exist between objects that are close in a metaphysical sense. It's the supernal truth of space. The Lie says that you're close to what you're touching or standing near or see often in your day-to-day. The Supernal says that you're close to what is meaningful to you. But something can't be close to you without you also being close to it. Sympathy is a two-way street; there are no uni-directional sympathetic connections.

        The sympathy concept is highly subjective and open to interpretation (by your ST). As far as I'm aware there's not a quote in the core rules that requires "repeated and/or intimate interaction between two people and/or objects." Similarly, "a sympathetic connection definitely requires a more intimate interaction than just observation" isn't stated anywhere. Two actors have a sympathetic connection if either of them has special meaning to the other. The items listed in the Sympathy Strength chart are not an exhaustive list; they're examples.

        I would rule that intentionally observing someone even one time is roughly on par with casting a spell on someone even one time. It's enough to create a Weak connection. That connection may fade with time, but I would say that it exists at least for the duration of the scene in which the observation occurred. The connection, like all connections, is bi-directional by its nature for as long as it exists. The Correspondence spell is not a parser looking for perfect syntax or an evil genie that tries to twist words; "The being who watches me" is close enough to get the point across. Particularly in the context of actual gameplay where finding the person spying on you may be a plot point. No sane ST is going to drag skin mites into the drama of a scene.

        I think this is the best answer for this problem. If you think you're being watched, look for a sympathetic connection you have with the being (i.e. person/spirit/ghost/supernal entity/vampire etc..., not skin mite) watching you.
        Sounds good, the person watching you probably has a better sympathetic connection to you than you have to them? (Id say if they watching you its at least medium depending on how long they have been watching you/emotional it is) So you can filter them using the reach in correspondence to "Show me all connections that are stronger to me than i have to them?" or similar wording over x area around you.

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by totalgit View Post

          Sounds good, the person watching you probably has a better sympathetic connection to you than you have to them? (Id say if they watching you its at least medium depending on how long they have been watching you/emotional it is) So you can filter them using the reach in correspondence to "Show me all connections that are stronger to me than i have to them?" or similar wording over x area around you.

          I would like to know where the idea that sympathetic links can be asymmetric comes from. As I understand the rules, there is one link between two entities, and the link has one value of strength. If this ability for the two "directions" of a normal sympathetic link to have different strengths is a real thing, please point to me where that's covered in the core rules. According to my current understanding, there is no such thing.

          I'm not trying to be a jerk. There's a real possibility that this is a part of the rules I don't understand. But I'm here reading and re-reading the passages on sympathy and I don't see it.

          Comment


          • #20
            I'm not sure it's written explicitly in the rules. I'm almost completely certain that Dave has specifically mentioned somewhere here on the forums that sympathy is indeed asymmetric. Somewhere, anyways. If I find it in the book I'll let you know.

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by Falcon777 View Post
              I'm not sure it's written explicitly in the rules. I'm almost completely certain that Dave has specifically mentioned somewhere here on the forums that sympathy is indeed asymmetric. Somewhere, anyways. If I find it in the book I'll let you know.
              I remember Dave saying that too, but it's not exactly easy to dig up everything he's said.

              Comment


              • #22
                The dude needs to publish a Midrash or something. I'll see if I can find anything with my search-fu. In the meanwhile, I'd say it's at least ambiguous enough that you could run it either way.

                To me it makes more sense for the connection to be symmetric. All of the entries in the sympathy strength chart begin with "The two subjects...", implying parity. I would feel differently if each entry began with "One subject is..." It's probably yet another occasion where multiple devs worked on the book and the left hand didn't know how the right hand was interpreting so the book ended up internally inconsistent.

                Comment


                • #23
                  I think he might have mentioned asymmetric sympathetic links specifically in the context of creating/destroying them with magic? Possibly as part of the discussion of the Mysterium merit that grants sympathetic connections.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by galivet View Post
                    The sympathy concept is highly subjective and open to interpretation (by your ST). As far as I'm aware there's not a quote in the core rules that requires "repeated and/or intimate interaction between two people and/or objects." Similarly, "a sympathetic connection definitely requires a more intimate interaction than just observation" isn't stated anywhere. Two actors have a sympathetic connection if either of them has special meaning to the other. The items listed in the Sympathy Strength chart are not an exhaustive list; they're examples.
                    My interpretation is based on the fact that all non-mystical examples in the list of example sympathetic connections are people or objects you should meet more than once for such labels to be accurate (except for murder weapon, which is example of an intimate interaction), and the text from the spell Web-Weaver which confirms that using an object once is not enough to cause sympathy in any meaningful way.
                    No, the list is not an exhaustive list of examples, but the reason it's included in the first place is that you should be able to determine what's reasonable strength for sympathetic connections. I posted according to my interpretation based on the examples given.


                    Bloodline: The Stygians
                    Ordo Dracul Mystery: Coil of Smoke

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      http://forum.theonyxpath.com/forum/m...d-at-your-head

                      In this thread Dave says "
                      Sympathetic connections are not two-way. The Egregore has an Intimate connection to all members of the Order. They don't have one to him.
                      It is from 2015 tho so im unsure of the edition being talked about, as i wasnt paying attention when 2e came out.

                      Id be very adverse to using magic to increase my sympathy to a target only to strengthen their link back to me aswell for free! Hence why i think Sympathetic links are one way. One from A to B of x strength (my link), another from B to A (his link) of y strength.In order for B to use your A-B link he'd have to borrow it.
                      Last edited by totalgit; 04-21-2017, 10:51 AM.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by Mrmdubois View Post

                        I remember Dave saying that too, but it's not exactly easy to dig up everything he's said.
                        Advanced search using Dave Brookshaw and "sympathetic" worked well

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          He was talking about Sympathy generally, but it impacts 2e more since there wasn't many writers for 1e who bothered to actually focus on Sympathy (or Space) if they could avoid it.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Well I'm sympathizing (zing) with that reluctance. The game rules made more sense to me and were easier to apply with symmetric sympathy. It also made more sense in the game setting. Sort of a.. "when you stare into the abyss, it stares also into you" idea where you can't be close to something without it also being close to you. Sure, you can look at Sauron through the Palantir, and then he'll read your mind right back. The idea that having a lock of your enemy's hair or whatever is a double-edged sword -- handle with care!

                            I think that unless I come across some serious mechanical issue with another part of the game that falls out from sympathetic links being symmetric, I'm just going to run them that way in my game and disregard the 2015 forum post. I think it makes the game better. Cleaning up the fifth dot of the Egregore merit (the issue that provoked Dave's post) isn't high on my list of priorities.

                            Regarding the question that's the main point of this thread: Apparently there isn't a clear, elegant, non-cludgy way to detect when someone is watching you that covers everything from being tailed to satellite surveillance.
                            Last edited by galivet; 04-21-2017, 01:18 PM.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              galivet I don't, it basically dangled this tantalizing idea that Space ought to be able to do more than just move things around and then completely ignored that possibility and made the function of moving things around too heavily dependent on conjunctional arcana as well. For me it was a terribly dissatisfying utilization of Space regardless of whether or not Sympathy is asymmetrical or not.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X