Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Time Liches

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

  • #31
    Originally posted by Lareath View Post
    Could you point me at those threads? I haven't read any of them.
    It's come up a lot.


    Resident Sanguinary Analyst
    Currently Consuming: Changeling: the Lost 1e

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by Tessie View Post
      [...]I can see how people with a lesser grasp on the English language can misinterpret[...]
      Well that's just hurtful and callous. :P

      I actually can't find a technical interpretation of a rule of English that obligates 'each individual use' be treated as plural and obliterates it's uses as a signaler group of things or subject. ('USA' or 'UK' are a plurality of things, but can used as singular object in sentence structures.) Then allowing it to go on to specify that group or subject (that is actually a multitude of things) only counts as one against the limit. 'Each individual use' not enumerating a number of things, but blanketing all parts be treated as a whole.

      Then go further to state barring a object's addition uses weight on spell casting point blank actually hurt game play. Denying players the ability to develop their character, spell casting, or story in ways unique to them, the story, or the body of players to further invest and interact with the game. Excepting in some one dimensional, shallow ways. Thus hurting, not improving, game play. :P
      Last edited by HarbingerLeo; 10-19-2018, 07:55 PM.

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by HarbingerLeo View Post
        Then allowing it to go on to specify that group or subject (that is actually a multitude of things) only counts as one against the limit. 'Each individual use' not enumerating a number of things, but blanketing all parts be treated as a whole.
        This is in a sentence that immediately follows from "The number of Yantras you can apply to a given spellcasting pool is limited by your Gnosis." It is a non-sequitur for "Using one ritual item in multiple ways counts each individual use as one Yantra" to be read as "one ritual component can be used in five different ways and only count as a single Yantra toward the limit" in that context.

        Denying players the ability to develop their character, spell casting, or story in ways unique to them, the story, or the body of players to further invest and interact with the game.
        Please, do tell how the most potent Yantras being individual spell mnemonics keyed off of virtuoso skills, expressions of your personal occult identity, rare otherworldly reagents acquired at great cost, and pieces of the manifest souls of your magical betters is unharmed by your Arrow mage not being able to automatically treat his silver knife as a +2 Yantra out of hand.

        This isn't a bucket-o-dice game. This is a system where two dice is a meaningful bonus for your spell construction and the symbolic overhead for any given spell makes being able to double up on a +1 (in a system where most +2s come with limitations) is enough of a benefit for any mage who isn't firmly camped out at the bottom of the ladder.


        Resident Sanguinary Analyst
        Currently Consuming: Changeling: the Lost 1e

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by HarbingerLeo View Post
          Well that's just hurtful and callous. :P

          I actually can't find a technical interpretation of a rule of English that obligates 'each individual use' be treated as plural and obliterates it's uses as a signaler group of things or subject. ('USA' or 'UK' are a plurality of things, but can used as singular object in sentence structures.) Then allowing it to go on to specify that group or subject (that is actually a multitude of things) only counts as one against the limit. 'Each individual use' not enumerating a number of things, but blanketing all parts be treated as a whole.

          Then go further to state barring a object's addition uses weight on spell casting point blank actually hurt game play. Denying players the ability to develop their character, spell casting, or story in ways unique to them, the story, or the body of players to further invest and interact with the game. Excepting in some one dimensional, shallow ways. Thus hurting, not improving, game play. :P
          Literally no one else has interpreted this the way you do.
          That should give you pause.

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by HarbingerLeo View Post
            I actually can't find a technical interpretation of a rule of English that obligates 'each individual use' be treated as plural and obliterates it's uses as a signaler group of things or subject. ('USA' or 'UK' are a plurality of things, but can used as singular object in sentence structures.) Then allowing it to go on to specify that group or subject (that is actually a multitude of things) only counts as one against the limit. 'Each individual use' not enumerating a number of things, but blanketing all parts be treated as a whole.
            'USA' and 'UK' are both grammatically singular in modern usage, hence the United States rather than these United States being current usage.

            And there is no way to interpret the rules text in question to mean anything other than "each use of a particular object as a Yantra counts as a separate and additional Yantra" using an American English understanding of syntax

            Then go further to state barring a object's addition uses weight on spell casting point blank actually hurt game play. Denying players the ability to develop their character, spell casting, or story in ways unique to them, the story, or the body of players to further invest and interact with the game. Excepting in some one dimensional, shallow ways. Thus hurting, not improving, game play. :P
            I disagree, making players go above and beyond to optimize spellcasting rolls provides a narrative investment when they decide that a particular spellcasting roll is too important to just use easy yantras.


            Mentats - a 2e Free Council Obrimos Legacy (Mind/Forces) built around being a human computer; Thaumatech Engineers - a 2e Free Council Obrimos Legacy (Matter/Prime) focusing on the creation of Imbued items and the enhancement of Sleeper technology; Priests of the Watchful Eternity - a 2e Silver Ladder Moros Legacy (Life/Death) of Mages that enhance Mortals to fight strange entities

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by HarbingerLeo View Post
              Well that's just hurtful and callous. :P

              I actually can't find a technical interpretation of a rule of English that obligates 'each individual use' be treated as plural and obliterates it's uses as a signaler group of things or subject. ('USA' or 'UK' are a plurality of things, but can used as singular object in sentence structures.) Then allowing it to go on to specify that group or subject (that is actually a multitude of things) only counts as one against the limit. 'Each individual use' not enumerating a number of things, but blanketing all parts be treated as a whole.

              Then go further to state barring a object's addition uses weight on spell casting point blank actually hurt game play. Denying players the ability to develop their character, spell casting, or story in ways unique to them, the story, or the body of players to further invest and interact with the game. Excepting in some one dimensional, shallow ways. Thus hurting, not improving, game play. :P
              USA and UK are proper nouns and refers to singular entities even though they're named after multiple. Using either as plural (USAs, UKs) would imply multiple unions of states and kingdoms, not multiple states and kingdoms within those unions.

              "Each individual united state has one governor." That's a closer analogue to what we're discussing, and an example that supports me. That's a correct way of saying that there is one governor for each state. Each state has one governor.

              Each use (singular) counts as one Yantra (singular) = multiple uses (plural) counts as multiple Yantras (plural).
              It's precisely because 'each use' is in singular that it has to be read that way. Each use counts as one Yantra means that each additional use counts as one additional Yantra. Especially since it's specified each individual use so they should not be refered to collectively.
              If it was in plural, it could (depending on the exact phrasing) collectively refer to multiple uses counting as one Yantra and that's when your interpretation could be correct.
              Multiple uses (plural) counts as one Yantra (singular).
              Last edited by Tessie; 10-20-2018, 06:50 AM.


              Bloodline: The Stygians
              Ordo Dracul Mysteries: Mystery of Smoke, Revised Mystery of Živa
              Mage The Awakening: Spell Quick Reference (single page and landscape for computer screens)

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by HarbingerLeo View Post

                I spent some time thinking about that after the post.

                It needs to be written: '[...]counts as one Yantra each for this limit' or '[...]counts as only one Yantra for this limit'. Considering it could punish players for putting in the time and effort to come up with something like that spear I'd read it the second way as a GM. (And it's more fun the second way for thought experiments.) Unless I'm missing some other context clue or rule of the English language that prevents it from being read the second way?

                They're right. You have misread it. You can reuse the same item for multiple Yantra slots, but it does use those multiple Yantra slots. You don't get to say "oh, my dagger is gold, so it's both a weapon *and* a Path metal" at Gnosis 1.


                Dave Brookshaw

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by Dave Brookshaw View Post


                  They're right. You have misread it. You can reuse the same item for multiple Yantra slots, but it does use those multiple Yantra slots. You don't get to say "oh, my dagger is gold, so it's both a weapon *and* a Path metal" at Gnosis 1.
                  totally missing the point: I disagree. You absolutely do say that at Gnosis 1. So that you can have a scene about your mentor explaining that "yes, that IS how it works, you just aren't good enough to pull it yet"

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by Lareath View Post
                    totally missing the point: I disagree. You absolutely do say that at Gnosis 1. So that you can have a scene about your mentor explaining that "yes, that IS how it works, you just aren't good enough to pull it yet"
                    I mean if you want to alter the rules in your game so it works that way, it's your game and nobody can tell you not to.
                    But uh, Dave is kind of the Developer of Mage. If there's anyone who can provide authority as to how the rules are supposed to be interpreted/read, it's him.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by HerbertIsBestBert View Post

                      I mean if you want to alter the rules in your game so it works that way, it's your game and nobody can tell you not to.
                      But uh, Dave is kind of the Developer of Mage. If there's anyone who can provide authority as to how the rules are supposed to be interpreted/read, it's him.
                      .... you missed the joke. Your character can, incorrectly, say that. Because at Gnosis 1 your character doesn't understand magic very well.
                      And since Gnosis isn't a numerical thing in-setting, your Mentor is not going to say "you can't do that until you have Gnosis 3." They're going to say "That is possible, but not to be attempted until you have deeper understanding of the underpinnings of magic"
                      Last edited by Lareath; 10-24-2018, 08:25 PM.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        I want to argue over it not being a tool to power game, but a narrative tool in a heroic build up...

                        ...but in the end I stand corrected. My apologies.

                        Comment

                        Working...
                        X