Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Stacking Paradox Rules

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

  • #46
    Originally posted by Falcon777 View Post

    You can't roll a pool of zero dice, Matias.
    A pool of zero dice is a chance die, which the text explicitly still says you have to roll.





    The text says Each Paradox Roll, so, if you're doing a Knowing Practice spell which no sleeper can perceive, you aren't over-reaching (which can easily happen if you have multiple spells being controlled), you don't have to roll it with or without modifier. The thing is that it's easy to just "over-reach a little" at first, maybe 1 or two dice which you snuff out with mana and tools. By the third time you'll be rolling 2 dice, then 3... it can blow up.

    Comment


    • #47
      And as Dave himself pointed out in the thread linked to earlier is part of the intent of the developer, having a Paradox pool that's a Chance Die is actually a pretty tempting risk to have for a few rolls.

      If you're facing a Chance Die on Paradox, pick Contain.

      10% of the time Paradox will get successes, but unless your Wisdom is in the toilet, you'll easily counter roll and take a bashing or at worse two.
      80% of the time nothing happens.
      10% of the time you regain a WP and the cumulative Paradox modifier doesn't go up that time.

      Comment


      • #48
        Originally posted by Heavy Arms View Post
        10% of the time Paradox will get successes, but unless your Wisdom is in the toilet, you'll easily counter roll and take a bashing or at worse two.
        Not even two, at that — chance dice expressly don't benefit from 10-again in 2e.


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

        Comment


        • #49
          I always forget that change... well, even stronger point then, yay!

          Comment


          • #50
            Originally posted by Malus View Post

            A pool of zero dice is a chance die, which the text explicitly still says you have to roll.





            The text says Each Paradox Roll, so, if you're doing a Knowing Practice spell which no sleeper can perceive, you aren't over-reaching (which can easily happen if you have multiple spells being controlled), you don't have to roll it with or without modifier. The thing is that it's easy to just "over-reach a little" at first, maybe 1 or two dice which you snuff out with mana and tools. By the third time you'll be rolling 2 dice, then 3... it can blow up.
            No, a pool of zero dice is only a chance die if it once actually had dice.

            Comment


            • #51
              And... the +1 from the cumulative Paradox penalty is as much an actual die as any other source of Paradox dice by the rules.

              That's sort of the crux of the problem here. People arguing for #1 are in some form or another, claiming that the cumulative Paradox die is "special" in that it only gets added if another source of Paradox dice is added first to the same roll not just to a roll previously in the scene. But there's no basis for that in the text.

              Comment


              • #52
                If there's no paradox roll, there's no modifiers that apply to it.

                If I'm not surfing in a tsunami, I'm not taking the -5 to surf a tsunami.
                Last edited by Malus; 08-06-2019, 01:11 PM.

                Comment


                • #53
                  I mean, the text is written a bit awkwardly in this regard. The Paradox dice-pool is either non-existent (or null as labelled before), or a base of zero dice, and you can't tell the difference until any potential modifiers are considered.

                  This is kinda backwards from how the rest of the system works. Usually you determine if there's an action first, and then figure out what the dice pool would be. Paradox has you figure out what the dice pool would be, to determine if there's even an action in the first place.

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Originally posted by Malus View Post
                    If there's no paradox roll, there's no modifiers that apply to it.
                    Except literally everything that 'causes paradox' is just a modifier to the roll.

                    Casting in front of Sleepers? Modifier. Reaching? Modifier. Inured spell? Modifier. It's modifiers all the way down. None of them are flagged as being 'special modifiers that cause the paradox dice pool to exist, don't worry about those other ones because they totally work differently'.

                    I'm not saying interpretation #1 is wrong. I'm just saying that this whole argument about 'It's just a modifier!' doesn't hold up very well because they are all modifiers. Interpretation #1 is better supported by arguments that don't lean too hard on that language.

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Originally posted by Falcon777 View Post

                      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.
                      Yes, that's the intuitive assumption that would lead to interpretation #1. But if we stick to it, then Interpretation #2 has no leg to stand. I only entertained the possibility of *no roll* counting as a roll and it's implications to demonstrate how that way of interpreting the rule would lead to weird unexpected results, that would be fair to call "unintended".

                      BTW, I'd like to know where I lied, misrepresented anything, or put words in anyone's mouth.
                      Last edited by EW-Matias; 08-06-2019, 06:30 PM.

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Originally posted by EW-Matias View Post
                        BTW, I'd like to know where I lied, misrepresented anything, or put words in anyone's mouth.
                        Sure. All of 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.
                        Originally posted by EW-Matias View Post
                        I went through every case for each interpretation of what counts as a "Paradox roll".
                        Originally posted by EW-Matias View Post
                        I explored the possibilities of the vague language.
                        What you are doing is not interpreting the text, but inserting qualifications where there are none.
                        Originally posted by EW-Matias View Post
                        To have it your way and also don't contradict this pretty uncontroversial assumption of how the game and the world works, you have to insert qualifications and caveats that are nowhere in the book for it to make sense.
                        Originally posted by EW-Matias View Post
                        You dismissed everything I said off hand, even though I repeatedly asked you why. I'm open to being corrected, but you are not engaging at all.
                        Originally posted by EW-Matias View Post
                        Either all spells, no matter what, count as a Paradox roll, or only those who get their Paradox dice from other sources that aren't the stacking bonus count. But neither of those is your position.

                        Originally posted by EW-Matias View Post
                        So you are basically admitting you have been arguing in bad faith the entire time?
                        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.
                        Originally posted by EW-Matias View Post
                        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.
                        "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.
                        Originally posted by EW-Matias View 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.
                        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".
                        ------------

                        To get into a few key specific issues:

                        1) You have never "explored" any opinion but your own. All posts about other readings/interpretations have simply been to state that they're dumb/weird/nonsense/etc. without any actual engagement with them.

                        2) You have hypocritically inserted your own "house rules" into the text by asserting that the cumulative Paradox dice require other Paradox sources to add to the roll after the cumulative factor is triggered by rolling Paradox.

                        3) You repeatedly assert this whole "only one Paradox free" spell thing despite it being a complete strawman. The #2 position is that the cascade only starts after something else causes a Paradox roll, but once it's triggered the die/dice it adds count as incurring Paradox like any other source of Paradox dice.

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Originally posted by EW-Matias View Post
                          BTW, I'd like to know where I lied, misrepresented anything, or put words in anyone's mouth.
                          Your repeated and insistent claim that the only logical implication of a reading whose outcome results in the establishment of a Paradox pool's existence within a scene after at least one Paradox-risking spell has been cast must be "a spell that doesn't risk Paradox counts as a spell that risks Paradox no matter when it's cast," for starters, but I'm feeling petty, so let's go down the list with direct quotes to make it entirely clear:

                          Originally posted by EW-Matias View Post
                          So you are basically admitting you have been arguing in bad faith the entire time?
                          Originally posted by EW-Matias View Post
                          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.
                          Originally posted by EW-Matias View Post
                          I won't get anywhere just because you say so? […] Are you arguing we should just do whatever? Is that it?
                          Read these and tell me how I'm supposed to interpret them, because it sure as hell reads like you deciding what Arms and I mean on your own and being really prepared to fight about it.
                          Last edited by Satchel; 08-06-2019, 07:18 PM. Reason: Arms beat me to the punch.


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

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            I did further digging, and while it's (again) older material, I think the language here clarifies the situation (source):

                            You get one Reach for free with every dot in the primary Arcanum you meet or exceed the spell’s Practice by. Every additional Reach risks Paradox dice according to Gnosis. You can also risk Paradox in other ways – casting an obviously magical effect in front of Sleepers adds a die, or using a spell that you’ve burned your Wisdom over previously. If you have a Paradox dice pool, you also bag an extra die for each previous paradox roll your character has prompted in a scene.
                            Followed by:

                            Once a spell has a Paradox dice pool, you can’t get rid of it entirely. Spending Mana reduces the Paradox pool one-for-one, using your dedicated magical tool as a yantra knocks two dice off. The most you can do is reduce the Paradox pool to a chance die, though – once you’re risking Paradox, the Storyteller is going to roll it.
                            That second paragraph uses similar language from the book, but it's clearer in the first quote that the cascading effect is meant to be an addition to existing Paradox pools ("If you have a Paradox dice pool..."), rather than a trigger for Paradox in and of itself. This blog entry was also posted before that example I linked, so it's consistent with how that plays out as well. All this is to say, I don't think the published material indicates that this changed -- it's just that what's in the book was presented a tad ambiguously. Like, there's definitely a good semantic argument you can make in favor of the second interpretation, but I feel/think/would argue that it's not consistent with pretty clear examples of it being the first. I'd also note that that second interpretation isn't how it worked in the first edition, but that's not evidence so much as precedent.

                            To put it another way, I can't think of why this rule would've been so fundamentally changed in those eight months between the posted example and publication, but then the language wasn't altered at all. (Or, okay, I can, because writers sometimes forget stuff like this, but I think it's a stretch.)

                            I also remembered the quick spell casting charts in the back of the book, and in the Paradox modifier table the language is pretty consistent with the first interpretation: "+1: Per Paradox roll after the first made for the same caster within the same scene."

                            I don't know if this helps any, but it really seems to me like the intent here was the first interpretation.
                            Last edited by Yossarian; 08-06-2019, 08:41 PM.



                            Social justice vampire/freelancer | He/Him

                            VtR: Curses of Caine in Requiem 2ndTricks of the DamnedBtP: Secrets of VancouverCofD: The CabinActual Play: Vampire: The Requiem – Bloodlines
                            Podcast: The Breakup

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Originally posted by Yossarian View Post
                              To put it another way, I can't think of why this rule would've been so fundamentally changed in those eight months between the posted example and publication, but then the language wasn't altered at all. (Or, okay, I can, because writers sometimes forget stuff like this, but I think it's a stretch.)
                              Well, one was brought up already by Satchel. It's possible that playtesting had Paradox be too much of a paper tiger.

                              Consider in the example thread you linked to before, despite two supposedly big Paradox risking effects the end result was 2 resistant bashing damage. So 30 minutes later, and Cowl suffered no lasting consequences.

                              It's really hard under the #1 interpretation for Paradox pools to build high enough for Paradox to have as much teeth as it's probably meant to have. Moving to #2 from late playtesting could have been a response to this to make Paradox a bit more risky to incur.

                              Though this is speculation of course.

                              I also remembered the quick spell casting charts in the back of the book, and in the Paradox modifier table the language is pretty consistent with the first interpretation: "+1: Per Paradox roll after the first made for the same caster within the same scene."
                              I referenced this earlier... and I think it doesn't really do much. The +X is based on number of rolls, but it doesn't do anything to create an exemption for this source of Paradox dice to only apply if other Paradox dice apply to the same roll.

                              The logic of "if there's even 1 die added from the chart, you have to check for Paradox, so if the cumulative Paradox is at 1 or more, every spell for the rest of the scene for that scaster incurs Paradox," remains.

                              The only thing it would really change is that the cascade would happen after the second Paradox roll rather than the first.

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Originally posted by Heavy Arms View Post
                                snip.
                                But what I'm saying is, I don't think there's any reason to think that it did change. I totally understand why one would think the second interpretation is valid or an improvement and so forth, but I feel like it's a stretch to say there was a deliberate change in the face of two fairly concrete counterexamples, combined with the fact that there was no major change in any of the wording. The blog post is pretty close to what's in the book: "Once a spell has a Paradox dice pool, you can’t get rid of it entirely." vs. "Once a single Paradox die is added to the Paradox dice pool, the Storyteller must check for the possibility of a Paradox." One could argue about the meaning of "a single die" (and it seems like a lot of this hangs on that?), but that reads to me as two different ways of saying the same thing. One is slightly more formal, but I think it's just meant to note that, all things being equal, if you reduce Paradox to a Chance Die you still have to roll it. It probably could've been worded more clearly, but I agree the book is ambiguous in a certain light.

                                That, and the wording is always specific about it being Paradox rolls when it comes up, not spells in general. If it changed, then why wasn't it reworded? Sometimes there are oversights, sure, especially in complex systems like Mage, but what's the evidence that it was changed? I don't think there's enough to go on. Like, I could easily be wrong if there's official confirmation, but it strikes me as strange that the rule is being read as a different mechanic even though the wording is pretty much the same.

                                To clarify, I get all the arguments about why it might've been changed; I get the logic. But I don't understand where the premise comes from when A) the wording is more or less the same in the original blog post and B) when the playtest operated under the assumption that it's 1 not 2. I agree that you can read it the second way, but why are we making assumptions that it changed on what seems like no evidence? It's kind of a long thread now, so maybe I missed that?

                                I'm not trying to be combative, but I'm not really convinced by the speculative / semantic arguments as opposed to "The Mage developer did it this way and the wording hasn't changed."

                                Again, you could be completely right and I've just wasted a massive amount of breath! It's happened before and it'll happen again.



                                Social justice vampire/freelancer | He/Him

                                VtR: Curses of Caine in Requiem 2ndTricks of the DamnedBtP: Secrets of VancouverCofD: The CabinActual Play: Vampire: The Requiem – Bloodlines
                                Podcast: The Breakup

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X