Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Stacking Paradox Rules

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by Satchel View Post
    That doesn't fly in any reading of this conversation, as I pointed out in my first answer to your "Why?" — if you cast five spells and only two of them risk Paradox, that's more than one Paradox-free spell no matter how you distribute the risky spells.
    Yeah, but AGAIN, I argue that from a strict reading of the rules, there is only one interpretation that allows for that, and you are systematically ignoring that.

    I don't think we have to ask anyone, I think the intended interpretation can be gleaned from the text, in that if the intention was to be have a watershed moment where from now on (but not before) every spell incurs Paradox no matter what, it would have been properly and clearly spelled out. Since it wasn't, I believe that shows the intention was one of the possible interpretations that follow from the a strict reading, and since many aspects of this edition point towards not punishing Mages *just* for using magic, but depending on how and why, I believe that the first interpretation in the OP is the only one that makes sense.

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by EW-Matias View Post
      Yeah, but AGAIN, I argue that from a strict reading of the rules, there is only one interpretation that allows for that, and you are systematically ignoring that.
      I am now and have been referring to the fact that you said this:

      Originally posted by EW-Matias View Post
      If you wanna interpret a spell that doesn't risk any paradox at all as a "paradox roll" for the purposes of stacking, you would only get a single paradox free spell pero scene.
      …and then got real confused when it was pointed out that making two risk-free rolls and then risking Paradox and casting two more spells does not result in you getting only one Paradox-free spell per scene in any reading of the mechanics.

      since many aspects of this edition point towards not punishing Mages *just* for using magic, but depending on how and why, I believe that the first interpretation in the OP is the only one that makes sense.
      "If you reach beyond your limits or cast obviously in front of Sleepers, your magic may have unexpected results" is not a "punishment," "just for using magic" or otherwise, and having the very minor snowball effect of seeing this added volatility apply to further spells you cast within a span of time other parts of the mechanics equate to an hour does not make that any moreso except for the extreme cases that the game already produces as an explicit effect of a Condition brought about by Acts of Hubris in the form of characters using magic even when they don't need to.


      Resident Lore-Hound
      Currently Consuming: Hunter: the Vigil 1e

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by Scarlet Witch View Post
        But the Mage who risks paradox, backs off to safe spells, then throws caution to the wind and starts using unsafe magic that escalates in how unsafe it is? That feels like MAGE to me, thats the feel and goal of this game.
        We literally have multiple game systems for "backing off" and "throwing caution to the wind" re: Paradox, not least of which is the fact that the same resource that makes the escalator likely to actually kick in is one of the main reasons you can always instant-cast any spell you have the Arcana for.

        Things have to go very wrong very rapidly for there to be multiple Paradox rolls in a scene without involving Sleepers and obvious magic, whereas being forced to tap into your Mana stores or lean on your Dedicated Tool to offset a pool of rolled dice that only have an effect if they succeed is something that you can often brush off as avoidable maintenance.

        "Subsequent spells in the same scene have a base Paradox pool of at least one die, which will either result in no extra consequence, apply a dice penalty to the spellcasting roll and mess with the basic Reach effects on the spell, necessitate that you spend Mana to reduce it to fewer dice or a chance die, or cause you some amount of bashing damage based on how it stacks up to a roll that you will probably have at least four dice in (and, in the unlikely event that countermeasure fails, give you a Condition that you likely have a full day to discharge as a complication before you get an Arcane Beat and have to cut it out with a ritual knife)" is extremely tame as disincentives go. Inured spells come with more danger than that by default.
        Last edited by Satchel; 08-05-2019, 07:12 PM.


        Resident Lore-Hound
        Currently Consuming: Hunter: the Vigil 1e

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by Satchel View Post
          I am now and have been referring to the fact that you said this:



          …and then got real confused when it was pointed out that making two risk-free rolls and then risking Paradox and casting two more spells does not result in you getting only one Paradox-free spell per scene in any reading of the mechanics.
          But my entire point is that situation simply isn't allowed by the rules. You either get that only spells that get their Paradox from inuring, overreaching or Sleepers count as Paradox rolls, or every single spell counts as a Paradox roll and thus only the first spell in every scene can be Paradox free. That's the point. I honestly feel like you are messing with me now.

          Originally posted by Satchel View Post
          "If you reach beyond your limits or cast obviously in front of Sleepers, your magic may have unexpected results" is not a "punishment," "just for using magic" or otherwise, and having the very minor snowball effect of seeing this added volatility apply to further spells you cast within a span of time other parts of the mechanics equate to an hour does not make that any moreso except for the extreme cases that the game already produces as an explicit effect of a Condition brought about by Acts of Hubris in the form of characters using magic even when they don't need to.
          This only makes sense if you ignore the half of the argument you left out, and the point I make above (and I've been making repeatedly): "You can only cast a single spell per scene, or everything keeps getting worse until you stop using Magic" IS punishment JUST for using Magic.

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by EW-Matias View Post
            This only makes sense if you ignore the half of the argument you left out, and the point I make above (and I've been making repeatedly): "You can only cast a single spell per scene, or everything keeps getting worse until you stop using Magic" IS punishment JUST for using Magic.
            […]
            I honestly feel like you are messing with me now.
            If you think I'm messing with you because you never actually bothered to state the equivalence you think this reading draws between "after you've made a Paradox roll, subsequent spellcasting now has a Paradox pool attached to it" and "any spellcasting at all causes subsequent spells to have a Paradox pool," that's on you.

            If you think Paradox can only screw you over despite explicit statements to the contrary, that's on you.

            If you think usually one to three dice of Paradox risk is equivalent to "everything keeps getting worse" instead of "everything is riskier," that's on you.

            Nobody has been proposing that the mounting bonus to Paradox pools kicks in from any spell at all, and arguing against a position nobody has been supporting looks really fucking weird, which is why Arms brought up strawmen earlier: It's not my argument.
            Last edited by Satchel; 08-05-2019, 07:41 PM.


            Resident Lore-Hound
            Currently Consuming: Hunter: the Vigil 1e

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by Satchel View Post
              If you think I'm messing with you because you never actually bothered to state the equivalence you think this reading draws between "after you've made a Paradox roll, subsequent spellcasting now has a Paradox pool attached to it" and "any spellcasting at all causes subsequent spells to have a Paradox pool," that's on you.
              I... I stated it in my first post. And I restated it constantly in every subsequent post. And you still keep ignoring me reasoning and just telling me I'm wrong.

              Originally posted by Satchel View Post
              Nobody has been proposing that the mounting bonus to Paradox pools kicks in from any spell at all, and arguing against a position nobody has been supporting looks really fucking weird, which is why Arms brought up strawmen earlier: It's not my argument.
              As I said in my first post, and repeated in every subsequent post only to be ignored, that's the logical conclusion of #2. The rules don't leave room for other possibilities, and you are just ignoring it. I honestly don't know how else to rephrase my point, both you and Heavy Arms are completely disinterested in hearing it out, just want to shout me down because I haven't humbled myself enough before you before stating my worthless plebian opinions.

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by EW-Matias View Post
                I... I stated it in my first post. And I restated it constantly in every subsequent post. And you still keep ignoring me reasoning and just telling me I'm wrong.

                As I said in my first post, and repeated in every subsequent post only to be ignored, that's the logical conclusion of #2.
                You made an offhand statement to that effect in your first post and then moved on to claiming that a spell with no other source of Paradox risk cast before a spell cast with Paradox risk is the same as one cast after on the basis of nothing anybody actually suggested through a knock-on reading of an altered version of the line that you decided on yourself.

                The premise of the second reading is that the wording of the line in the chart may not be as clear as it could be for the intended effect, which is entirely in line with how similar errors and ambiguities have emerged in the Chronicles in general and Mage in particular. The premise of the second reading is not the alteration of the text necessary to make "rapid spellcasting of any kind causes Paradox risk" the argument behind "Paradox risk sticks around for a given character for the scene" and nobody is terribly eager to be argued with as though that was their position.

                If you haven't got a problem with calling on writer clarification, you're welcome to do it, but you're not going to get anywhere by appealing to strict readings of the text when the fidelity of the text is what's in question.


                Resident Lore-Hound
                Currently Consuming: Hunter: the Vigil 1e

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by Satchel View Post
                  The premise of the second reading is that the wording of the line in the chart may not be as clear as it could be for the intended effect, which is entirely in line with how similar errors and ambiguities have emerged in the Chronicles in general and Mage in particular. The premise of the second reading is not the alteration of the text necessary to make "rapid spellcasting of any kind causes Paradox risk" the argument behind "Paradox risk sticks around for a given character for the scene" and nobody is terribly eager to be argued with as though that was their position.
                  I honestly can't parse what this paragraph means.

                  Originally posted by Satchel View Post
                  If you haven't got a problem with calling on writer clarification, you're welcome to do it, but you're not going to get anywhere by appealing to strict readings of the text when the fidelity of the text is what's in question.
                  I won't get anywhere just because you say so? As I've said, if you think the text should be ignored and we should do whatever we feel like... cool, I guess? But this is a thread about how to interpret the text. If we ignore the text, because the text might be wrong, and can't infer the devs intention, because we can't read their minds and even if we asked they might not remember, and we should ignore what the devs have said in the past, because they might have changed their minds later... what do we do? How do we interpret the rules? Are you arguing we should just do whatever? Is that it?

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by EW-Matias View Post
                    I honestly can't parse what this paragraph means.
                    "I'm not down to continue participating in an argument where you have created a strawman that you insist is the logical conclusion of the unstated hypothetical wording of an interpretation that was presented outcome-first, and I'm pretty sure nobody else is, either."

                    I won't get anywhere just because you say so?
                    You won't get anywhere with me or other people you've already disagreed with by using a rhetorical device that has demonstrably already not worked for reasons that are ingrained in the structure and basis of the disagreement.

                    As I've said, if you think the text should be ignored and we should do whatever we feel like... cool, I guess? But this is a thread about how to interpret the text. If we ignore the text, because the text might be wrong, and can't infer the devs intention, because we can't read their minds and even if we asked they might not remember, and we should ignore what the devs have said in the past, because they might have changed their minds later... what do we do? How do we interpret the rules? Are you arguing we should just do whatever? Is that it?
                    I'm not down to continue participating in an argument where you have created a strawman, again.


                    Resident Lore-Hound
                    Currently Consuming: Hunter: the Vigil 1e

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      It's very disingenuous on your part calling me pointing out the logical implications of a particular interpretation of the rules and repeating to you all the various contradictory arguments you have used as "strawmans".

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by Scarlet Witch View Post
                        But anyway, yes the paradox pool and paradox *modifiers* are separate things, the modifier for repeated paradox risks can only be added to a paradox pool if the pool *exists*, and to do that you need inured spells or sleepers or overreaching, the modifier exists still if you switch to safer magic but the pool does not exist during safe magic. The modifier instead lies in wait to ambush you.
                        The problem is that this is not supported it the text. The Paradox pool is solely built of Paradox modifiers and the book explicitly doesn't care what the source of them is.

                        The idea that the paradox pool can only be created by some sources of Paradox dice, but not others, is nowhere in the rules themselves. The cumulative Paradox penalty is only special because it can only add dice if so other Paradox is incurred first.

                        Or if we want to go with the simplified versions, we have the Rules Summary appendix:

                        "Determine Paradox Dice Pool
                        If Paradox pool never gains dice, skip to Step Nine. If Paradox
                        pool is gained then removed by penalties, roll chance die."


                        Nothing says one source of dice is different from another. If inuring creates a Paradox pool with it's modifier so does the cumulative Paradox penalty. They're listed in the same way.

                        "Per Paradox roll after the first made for the same caster within the same scene."

                        So, that's the version distill down by the authors.

                        Oddly, this actually creates a more direct third option, but one that doesn't seem like the intent:

                        The cascade starts with your second Paradox roll from other sources, not the first, since the +1 wouldn't start until after your second roll sets the base penalty to 1.

                        Originally posted by EW-Matias View Post
                        It's very disingenuous on your part calling me pointing out the logical implications of a particular interpretation of the rules and repeating to you all the various contradictory arguments you have used as "strawmans".
                        Dude... you have lied, misrepresented, accused people of saying things they haven't said, and so on.

                        If you want to keep destroying your credibility... keep digging... but it's kinda sad to watch at this point.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Also not jumping in here for long, and not touching the main argument at all, but I did see a couple of things I wanted to point out:

                          Originally posted by Scarlet Witch View Post
                          But anyway, yes the paradox pool and paradox *modifiers* are separate things, the modifier for repeated paradox risks can only be added to a paradox pool if the pool *exists*
                          So, this actually contradicts the text.
                          Everything that can create a pool is actually listed as a modifier, and they're never actually established as separate things as a result

                          Originally posted by Scarlet Witch View Post
                          Having to quit magic *period* after one tiny paradox risk for an entire scene? Noot fuuun.
                          Gonna hard disagree here - both on the implication and conclusion. Going with interpretation #2 from the OP doesn't mean you quit magic period after one tiny Paradox risk - it means that continued use of magic requires a deeper investment of resources, or willingness to accept greater and greater risks.

                          As well - both myself and others in my group (who both ST and play) have found it to be an excellent tool in creating and maintaining tension, which we do find fun. The only scenes where Paradox is even relevant in our games generally come from runaway Paradox chains like this; without them, there would be almost no meaningful instances of Paradox at all (out of hundreds of hours of play), and the entire mechanic would be wasted wordcount as unchained Paradoxes are laughably easy to handle.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by lnodiv View Post
                            As well - both myself and others in my group (who both ST and play) have found it to be an excellent tool in creating and maintaining tension, which we do find fun. The only scenes where Paradox is even relevant in our games generally come from runaway Paradox chains like this; without them, there would be almost no meaningful instances of Paradox at all (out of hundreds of hours of play), and the entire mechanic would be wasted wordcount as unchained Paradoxes are laughably easy to handle.
                            Just to be clear, Inodiv, you're saying that it's improbable to the point of near certainty that you will not have runaway chains of paradoxes without interpreting that one sentence the way you do?

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by Falcon777 View Post
                              Just to be clear, Inodiv, you're saying that it's improbable to the point of near certainty that you will not have runaway chains of paradoxes without interpreting that one sentence the way you do?
                              That's correct - most of us at my table stick pretty hard to spells that we can safely manage - they make up probably 70% of our casts, with maybe 25% being stuff that risks a Paradox but one that we're very likely to successfully contain. Releasing Paradoxes doesn't happen.

                              The remaining 5% of casts are when the Paradox pool has reached a point that it can't really be guaranteed to be safely contained, but a spell needs to happen regardless. Without interpretation #2, those circumstances would be (even more) vanishingly rare (than they already are).
                              Last edited by lnodiv; 08-06-2019, 12:12 AM.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by EW-Matias View Post
                                I... I stated it in my first post. And I restated it constantly in every subsequent post. And you still keep ignoring me reasoning and just telling me I'm wrong.


                                As I said in my first post, and repeated in every subsequent post only to be ignored, that's the logical conclusion of #2. The rules don't leave room for other possibilities, and you are just ignoring it. I honestly don't know how else to rephrase my point, both you and Heavy Arms are completely disinterested in hearing it out, just want to shout me down because I haven't humbled myself enough before you before stating my worthless plebian opinions.
                                You can't roll a pool of zero dice, Matias. The rules presume that you have a basic understanding that "Each paradox roll after the first" includes the understanding that rolling means having actual dice to roll.

                                Now, just to be fair, I interpret the rules as #1 and am not interested in changing that interpretation without direct word from the devoloper stating that it isn't the correct interpretation. I don't buy into the idea of questioning the developer's intentions regarding the text simply because it's been ambiguous and incorrect before. However, the piece that your logic was missing is what I've just stated. Even if all spells have a paradox pool (which I don't believe they do), you can't roll a pool of zero. So even with interpretation #2, you can't begin adding to the pool until you've risked paradox first via other means.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X