Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Stacking Paradox Rules

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

  • #76
    For those who don't want to create a discord account or just not join a server for a single discussion:





    Edit: I don't know if this has been brought up (and I don't care to wade through 5 pages of comments with some of the most obnoxious people on this site just to look), but the modifier for previous dice pools is unique in that it specifies that it applies to paradox rolls, implicitly stating that it does not apply on spells that doesn't risk paradox.
    Last edited by Tessie; 08-07-2019, 03:29 PM.


    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


    • #77
      Originally posted by Biston View Post
      It's mine and Axel's server, and far be it for me to turn down an invitation to plug it.
      Thank you.

      And while I still find the claims that the text as written should be read that the cumulative Paradox dice are triggered by Paradox rolls is clearly stated very hard to buy, Dave's clearly stated the official ruling. I will no longer be claiming anything but #1 as the official rules.

      -----------

      lnodiv

      For pure Mage games, we'll probably end up moving to the official ruling.

      Ultimately for our playstyles it's just not a big enough difference to house rule.

      For our mixed splat games, we'll probably be keeping it as a house rule. People complain enough about mages being OP, and it was a decent way to help mollify that concern.

      Comment


      • #78
        Originally posted by Tessie View Post
        For those who don't want to create a discord account or just not join a server for a single discussion:





        Edit: I don't know if this has been brought up (and I don't care to wade through 5 pages of comments with some of the most obnoxious people on this site just to look), but the modifier for previous dice pools is unique in that it specifies that it applies to paradox rolls, implicitly stating that it does not apply on spells that doesn't risk paradox.
        I could kiss you! Thanks for getting that!

        Comment


        • #79
          Seemed pretty obvious to me, if it were #2 it would say something more like “The Mage incurred Paradox earlier in the scene.”

          Comment


          • #80
            And if #1 was communicated more clearly in the text, it would say something like, "When rolling Paradox, add an additional die after the first Paradox roll that scene." The "it should be phrased..." argument swings both ways.

            The actual phrase in the book (which has been cited, including the base text and the summary text) - especially in context of the passages around it, and how it's oriented in the text as part of a chart that makes it look identical in consideration to other Paradox dice sources - to steal a term from the Discord conversation, more clearly parses as a trigger a magnitude rather than a trigger of effect.

            #1 infers the full meaning (and the official ruling is this) is: [Add 1 die to the Paradox poll] each [time a] Paradox roll [has been triggered] after the first made.

            #2 infers the full meaning is: [Add 1 die to the Paradox pool for] each Paradox roll after the first made.

            So the base phrasing can easily be taken in two directions. The summary phrasing in the back of the book though is literally, +1: "Per Paradox roll after the first made for the same caster within the same scene." This lines up extremely neatly with interpretation #2, and adds nothing to support interpretation #1.

            -----------

            And remember that this is only a parsing issue because the text doesn't do anything to separate this out more effectively.

            If the cumulative Paradox dice were more clearly segregated, or the text didn't put down all the things that build a Paradox pool as "modifiers," this would never have been an issue regardless of trying to suss things out from the wording in the charts.

            There are lots of examples in the rest of the CofD books where the rules have to construct a special dice pool or rating that's not directly based on a character sheet, and separates out what builds the dice-pool itself to roll/modify in the first place, and what's a modifier after the initial pool is constructed. Feeding in Beast the Primordial? Never has this problem because factors into your feeding potential pool are delineated into base potential, and modifiers. It doesn't matter if you have +5 worth of modifiers if you don't do anything to get your base potential to 1 or more first. Chases have you set terms (aka the number of successes need to win the Chase) and then has a whole table of modifiers once the terms are set. Fire and Sunlight damage in Requiem 2e are both constructed in a similar two stage process (fire explicitly with a base rating and modifiers).

            So if the intent was for there to be a delineation of stuff that counts as building a Paradox pool, and stuff that only modifies Paradox pools... the text and presentation seriously fall down on the job, and it's not like there's a way to blame it on things being a new edition to have not had reasons to think about presenting things in a way 1e didn't since other 2e material already tackled this.

            Comment


            • #81
              Plenty of people read it at #1. You typing up paragraphs about how you misunderstanding should be blamed on the text won't and isn't needed to salvage whatever perception of image you feel might have been tarnished by being wrong. I've been corrected plenty, best thing to do is acknowledge you were wrong, affirm you prefer it one way or the other to yourself, and then either go on your way or introduce a houserule.


              Come visit our unofficial Mage: the Awakening Discord Server!
              https://discord.gg/Z42DJ9h

              Comment


              • #82
                Originally posted by Biston View Post
                Plenty of people read it at #1.
                Plenty of people read it as #2 too.... so... what? We're all supposed to just say that Dave made it clear what the official ruling is, and thus the rules themselves are retroactively more clearly stated?

                The issue I have is not that people read it as #1 on their own, it's that there's this repeated undertone to a lot of posts that #1 was super-duber clear, and there's no way to have possibly read it differently that isn't a personal flaw in the reader.

                You typing up paragraphs about how you misunderstanding should be blamed on the text won't and isn't needed to salvage whatever perception of image you feel might have been tarnished by being wrong.
                Do you... really expect this to have any sort of positive impact on things? Trying to do the whole, "hey just chill and move on," thing doesn't work while also taking shots at someone's ego.

                Is there a reason you're not pestering people that are posting in support of #1 now that it's well settled by Dave and telling them to just go on their own way?

                Comment


                • #83
                  Will everyone stop? What Sith_Happens probably meant was they can't see why this took a 5 page arguement about a rule no one questioned much for years (especially since I am fairly certain the ruling was the same in 1e anyway).
                  I saw that as a quick quip to the dust settling after a
                  simple question that got waaay to heated waaay too fast (and likely embarrassed the poor OP from starting the topic!

                  The topic coulda died right there!

                  I know where you are coming from, I can see why you think the rules make #2 a valid interpretation. I get it, even if I don't agree, I got it enough to know that this problem could only be solved by Dave.

                  Then it was! Then Sith made their mild snark about how unexpectedly intense this conversation got, how could it go on for 5 pages when some of us never even saw #2 as an interpretation for so long?

                  Biston is probably just responding to you because you sent paragraphs at Sith's tiny comment.

                  C'mon, let this sink to the bottom of the ocean of fragments already.

                  Comment


                  • #84
                    Maybe snark immediately following the participants being called some of the most obnoxious people here was a poor choice?

                    I mean, for fuck's sake.

                    Comment


                    • #85
                      Originally posted by lnodiv View Post
                      Maybe snark immediately following the participants being called some of the most obnoxious people here was a poor choice?

                      I mean, for fuck's sake.
                      Yeah that's true too...

                      Comment


                      • #86
                        To sum up where the argument went wrong:

                        That is substantially closer to the inference to be made from people saying that that's their reading of the rule and providing supporting arguments for that reading than "this must-emphasis-on-must be the intended reading of the mechanic."

                        The interpretive process is not a raw binary of The Text Is Clear and I Made Up A Thing That's Clearly Not The Text.

                        This thread exists because someone brought up an ambiguity and asked if there was a clear ruling because it had been brought into question, and then people spoke up for their respective readings, which they don't have to identify as house rules to justify doing prior to the emergence of an actual clear statement.

                        whenever anyone makes an argument for #1 you double down on #2 being the correct interpretation.
                        This is a really awful way to characterize relatively measured responses to basically everyone supporting #1 apart from Matias after this argument kicked off because he…

                        • Called interpretation #2 weird…
                        • Built a terrible backward strawman of the interpretation to base an argument on that he barely addressed as being a rhetorical device until after multiple pages of insisting that was the logical conclusion despite multiple people telling him that wasn't the interpretation…
                        • Accused the people arguing with him of getting personal after he made a very clear implication that they must not agree with him because their egoes were too big, and…
                        • Refused to acknowledge that there was anything wrong with the way he had approached the topic of the disagreement when the above was pointed out to him.

                        When this is your contribution to most of a five-page argument, you are the problem. It doesn't matter that the interpretation you supported is the right one, this is a bad way to go about conducting yourself in a disagreement.

                        Having been there myself, this is a point of reflection, but if anyone else from the Interpretation #1 camp wants to give people shit for typing long posts, please don't. It's plain bad form. You've won the argument, be gracious.
                        Last edited by Satchel; 08-08-2019, 09:12 PM.


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

                        Comment


                        • #87
                          Oh, for fuck's sake, do you have to always get the last word when you were both clearly wrong and acting like a bunch of assholes?

                          Your egos are so fragile you can't take someone casually commenting that they find something weird?

                          Just to make something clear, my point wasn't strawman. I don't even know how to respond to utter moon logic of that statement. Some people proposed #2, and backed it up with a very literal reading of the rules as written. I pointed that the only way the rules could support that would have really weird and clearly unintended consequences, and you kept insisting that I was wrong without ever acknowledging my reasoning. I don't want to say everyone who disagrees with me is because they don't understand me, but it's clear to me you still don't understand my initial argument and all this nonsense has come because instead of seeking to understand in good faith, you decided to be an asshole about it and double down at every opportunity, even after the original argument has been settled.

                          I was waiting for this thread to die, but you keep trying to pin all the blame on me. Like, maybe I could have been a more enlightened person and just not care about what you said and just stop responding, and I will accept that. But you were both assholes, and I won't let you clean your hands of this.

                          Comment


                          • #88
                            Originally posted by EW-Matias View Post
                            Oh, for fuck's sake, do you have to always get the last word when you were both clearly wrong and acting like a bunch of assholes?
                            If we're going to play the last word game, your behavior sucked way more than Satchel's or Arm's, and in fact consistently deterred me (at least) from participating.

                            Either way, the thread's done.


                            Sean K.I.W./Kelly R.A. Steele, Freelance Writer(Feel free to call me Sean, Kelly, Arcane, or Arc)
                            The world is not beautiful, therefore it is.-Keiichi Sigsawa, Kino's Journey
                            Male/neutral pronouns accepted, female pronouns enjoyed.

                            Comment


                            • #89
                              I'm just shutting this down before the suspensions start getting handed out.


                              Onyx Path Forum Administrator
                              Posts in this color are moderator posts
                              Posts in this color mean a Great Old One has driven me mad.
                              Forum Terms of Use
                              the Contact Us link.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X