How to: Spider Climb

[galivet]

proindrakenzol, my argument there is that your interpretation doesn't align with the common meanings of words or with the overwhelming body of examples we have for Shielding spells. You've got in your favor what, a part of one sentence that you're taking out of context? Even the very next words in that sentence carry on talking about protection from supernatural attacks. If you're going to respond, do so with something more meaningful than rhetoric.

Dude just say you're house ruling it to be how you want. You aren't tracking with the mainstream interpretation of the rules here. You want a sufficiently smart and educated mage Macgyver to be able to produce any Forces or Matter outcome with two Arcanum dots, a rubber band, and a physics textbook, then cool. But it's not what the devs created.

"I protect the subject from the fundamental forces of nature holding his body together, thus causing him to disintegrate unless he fully Withstands. See, my knowledge of physics and 'creative' Humpty Dumpty mangling of word meanings let's me do Unmaking with only two dots! So smart!"

It's rules lawyering - using a 'clever' interpretation of the game rules to undermine the broad intent and spirit of the game.

[galivet]

kaiserafini, Many Roads is about accomplishing the same outcome with various Arcana, not about accomplishing the same effect with various Practices of the same Arcanum.

[proindrakenzol]

proindrakenzol, my argument there is that your interpretation doesn't align with the common meanings of words or with the overwhelming body of examples we have for Shielding spells. You've got in your favor what, a part of one sentence that you're taking out of context? Even the very next words in that sentence carry on talking about protection from supernatural attacks. If you're going to respond, do so with something more meaningful than rhetoric.

I quoted the section about mundane phenomena, the supernatural section is irrelevant because we're discussing mundane phenomena. Further, there are sidebars (such as the one for Ban) that support the idea of secondary consequences being intended. Further, the Shielding spells presented do protect against more than your interpretation of direct harm; including protecting from beneficial effects, and protecting Mysteries from being influenced by the person shielded.

There's also the sidebar KaiserAfni quoted.

Your and git's arguments, however, are variations of "I don't like it" and "I don't think it should work that way," with no actual textual evidence or dev responses cited. It just doesn't feel right to you. So drop the rhetoric and give me a meaningful response.

Dude just say you're house ruling it to be how you want. You aren't tracking with the mainstream interpretation of the rules here. You want a sufficiently smart and educated mage Macgyver to be able to produce any Forces or Matter outcome with two Arcanum dots, a rubber band, and a physics textbook, then cool. But it's not what the devs created.

1) I'm not tracking with some people's interpretations of the rules here, there's no evidence your opinion is the "mainstream."

2) I don't want any Forces or Matter outcome with two dots, and I didn't say that anywhere, you're just making things up.

"I protect the subject from the fundamental forces of nature holding his body together, thus causing him to disintegrate unless he fully Withstands. See, my knowledge of physics and 'creative' Humpty Dumpty mangling of word meanings let's me do Unmaking with only two dots! So smart!"

Except that isn't actually supported by the rules, because a person is considered a single subject, you're not shielding a single atom in a person from another atom because you explicitly can't.

It's rules lawyering - using a 'clever' interpretation of the game rules to undermine the broad intent and spirit of the game.

"Astute players will likely figure out a multitude of ways to accomplish similar effects with different Arcana, sometimes at different dot levels. This is okay. Just because a Fate ••• spell can do a thing doesn’t mean a Forces • spell that does a similar thing is “broken” or should be disallowed."


Uh-huh.

[galivet]

Using different Arcana to accomplish the same outcome isn't the same as using different Practices of the same Arcanum to accomplish the same. What you advocate for erases the functional distinctions between the Practices, leaving only distinctions of fluff text. But the Creative Thaumaturgy section centers on outcomes -- damage, protection, healing -- not how the fluff text is phrased.

With your interpretation, the benefit of having higher Arcanum dots is merely that the mage can put less work into conniving out fluff text to justify whatever effect she wanted to do. It undermines so much of the rules and character progression.

It's a matter of whether you enjoy playing the game, or you enjoy breaking the game. Of course it's easy to break the game if you're open to granting characters "immunity" to the necessities of life to kill them "as a side effect."

Also one way to realize that your opinion is not mainstream is that in the primary online community with meaningful discussion of the game you have 4 people disagreeing with you and none mirroring your opinion

[galivet]

"The devs wrote what the Practices mean, but they didn't specify that the Practices don't also mean these other things I want them to mean. So they can also mean whatever I want unless a dev specifically contradicts it.'

If you mean something else then post a specific example because this is my understanding of your position.

You can't be immune to wholly helpful or neutral phenomenon -- it's beyond the meaning of the word the devs chose to use. Find me a dictionary that explains how I can be immune to eating dinner or breathing or clothes and I'll believe otherwise.

"I quoted the section about mundane phenomena, the supernatural section is irrelevant because we're discussing mundane phenomena."

It's all in the same sentence! You can't even find a complete sentence that supports you unedited so you have to cherry-pick a *phrase*, where all the surrounding context contradicts you.

[KaiserAfini]

Using different Arcana to accomplish the same outcome isn't the same as using different Practices of the same Arcanum to accomplish the same. What you advocate for erases the functional distinctions between the Practices, leaving only distinctions of fluff text. But the Creative Thaumaturgy section centers on outcomes -- damage, protection, healing -- not how the fluff text is phrased.

With your interpretation, the benefit of having higher Arcanum dots is merely that the mage can put less work into conniving out fluff text to justify whatever effect she wanted to do. It undermines so much of the rules and character progression.

It's a matter of whether you enjoy playing the game, or you enjoy breaking the game. Of course it's easy to break the game if you're open to granting characters "immunity" to the necessities of life to kill them "as a side effect."

Also one way to realize that your opinion is not mainstream is that in the only online community with meaningful discussion of the game you have 4 people disagreeing with you and none mirroring your opinion

Just to clarify, I have agreed with proindrakenzol's interpretation, because both the references provided indicated that the RAW and RAI seem to support it. That being said, I also agree each argument has merit and that while dev intent points towards one direction, there is nothing inherently wrong to customize the game for a way that you and your players prefer. In addition, your final statement was an Argumentum ad Populum, rather than predicated on an objective criteria like a rules reference or developer clarification.

Ultimately I feel that rule does not make you happy and that is perfectly fine. There is a middle ground where everyone does what resonates with their table, which can lead to chronicles each of you enjoy best. There is no completely wrong answer here.

[proindrakenzol]

Using different Arcana to accomplish the same outcome isn't the same as using different Practices of the same Arcanum to accomplish the same. What you advocate for erases the functional distinctions between the Practices, leaving only distinctions of fluff text. But the Creative Thaumaturgy section centers on outcomes -- damage, protection, healing -- not how the fluff text is phrased.

This already happens with the spells in the core book: Telekinesis can let something fly, it just requires more work than Flight.

With your interpretation, the benefit of having higher Arcanum dots is merely that the mage can put less work into conniving out fluff text to justify whatever effect she wanted to do. It undermines so much of the rules and character progression.

It requires a lot more than just fluff, it requires more work. Yes, clever application of Shielding can let you create a nuclear explosion, but you still need to set up the mundane conditions, it's not something you can just do on the fly in the middle of combat.

It's a matter of whether you enjoy playing the game, or you enjoy breaking the game. Of course it's easy to break the game if you're open to granting characters "immunity" to the necessities of life to kill them "as a side effect."

You can use Matter 2's Shaping to move all the oxygen away from a person and keep it that way until they asphyxiate, and I don't think even you would argue that's outside the rules, doing it a slightly different way isn't going to "break the game."

Also one way to realize that your opinion is not mainstream is that in the only online community with meaningful discussion of the game you have 4 people disagreeing with you and none mirroring your opinion

"No one" except LadyLens, who proposed the spell that kicked off this discussion, and KaiserAfni, who at least seems to support my ideas.

Tessie doesn't think that Shielding is the correct practice, but doesn't seem to have a problem with the effects at those dot levels.

Only you and totalgit are adamant in your opposition. That's two people, not four; and even four isn't representative of the forum.

If you want my actual house rule, it's that affecting things smaller than size 0 (i.e. sub-macroscopic) requires the same dice penalties as affecting things above size 5.

[galivet]

"In addition, your final statement was an Argumentum ad Populum, rather than predicated on an objective criteria like a rules reference or developer clarification."

Please explain how to justify an argument as not mainstream without bringing in evidence of popular opinion. Community consensus is absolutely relevant when discussing canonical rule interpretations.

[proindrakenzol]

"The devs wrote what the Practices mean, but they didn't specify that the Practices don't also mean these other things I want them to mean. So they can also mean whatever I want unless a dev specifically contradicts it.'

"Shielding spells, sometimes called Warding spells, offer
protection against phenomena under the Arcanum’s
purview. A Shielding spell might protect against a ghost’s
Numina (Death), make the mage immune to fire (Forces)
or disease (Life), or allow her to survive in a caustic atmosphere
(Matter). Mages protect themselves from general
harm through the power of their Arcana with the Mage
Armor Attainment rather than Shielding spells."

That's what I think shielding means. And yes, you can protect yourself, or someone else, against the effects of gravity or other things that are generally considered "non-harmful."

If you mean something else then post a specific example because this is my understanding of your position.

You can't be immune to wholly helpful or neutral phenomenon -- it's beyond the meaning of the word the devs chose to use. Find me a dictionary that explains how I can be immune to eating dinner or breathing or clothes and I'll believe otherwise.

Both of your examples are nonsense; "eating dinner" isn't a thing to shield against, it's an action; being immune to clothes is also meaningless, do you mean they repel clothing? or that they are unaffected by the social bonus provided by clothes worn by someone else?

Stop being absurd and maybe we'll be able to have a real conversation.

"I quoted the section about mundane phenomena, the supernatural section is irrelevant because we're discussing mundane phenomena."

It's all in the same sentence! You can't even find a complete sentence that supports you unedited so you have to cherry-pick a *phrase*, where all the surrounding context contradicts you.

The surrounding context doesn't contradict anything! Also, you haven't actually responded with any rules text at all.

"In addition, your final statement was an Argumentum ad Populum, rather than predicated on an objective criteria like a rules reference or developer clarification."

Please explain how to justify an argument as not mainstream without bringing in evidence of popular opinion. Community consensus is absolutely relevant when discussing canonical rule interpretations.

I did not say your final statement was an argumentum ad populum. I said that you are incorrect about the number of people "on your side" in this argument, incorrect about the number of people "on my side" of this argument, and that such a small number of people is not representative of the forum anyway.

But you're clearly more interested in gaslighting than discussing, so I guess we're done here.

[galivet]

I want to see your specific example of using Shielding to harm someone as a side-effect. I want to see whether it's really a Shielding spell per the definiton of the Practice which you quoted: a spell providing protection from harmful phenomenon.

[KaiserAfini]

"In addition, your final statement was an Argumentum ad Populum, rather than predicated on an objective criteria like a rules reference or developer clarification."

Please explain how to justify an argument as not mainstream without bringing in evidence of popular opinion. Community consensus is absolutely relevant when discussing canonical rule interpretations.

To give an example, if the community says Making is a one dot effect, while the core book and/or devs says its five dots, that makes it a popular house rule. Another example of a popular one is adding interesting restriction into Attainments to justify an extra Reach or experimenting with cooler implementations of "double Ruling" Arcana. But then again, homebrewing is pretty great because it allows you to create new and interesting things to suit the feel you want for your chronicles.

[galivet]

To give an example, if the community says Making is a one dot effect, while the core book and/or devs says its five dots, that makes it a popular house rule. Another example of a popular one is adding interesting restriction into Attainments to justify an extra Reach or experimenting with cooler implementations of "double Ruling" Arcana. But then again, homebrewing is pretty great because it allows you to create new and interesting things to suit the feel you want for your chronicles.

This is pointless sophistry; we're discussing how to interpret the Practices here, and it's a subtle enough issue that I've found multiple occasions where it's been discussed in the past specifically with respect to using Shielding to kill people. This isn't the first time someone has latched on to that particular phrase regarding immunity to mundane phenomenon.

Please post your example spell proindrakenzol.

[Satchel]

But you're clearly more interested in gaslighting

Pro, the word "strawman" exists for many reasons, and one of them is so that you don't have to accuse someone of trying to make you doubt your sanity just because they misrepresent your argument in a conversation that's very clearly getting heated. This isn't helpful to anyone.

[galivet]

Well, looks like he took his ball and went home. Best I can figure, he wants to interpret Shielding as being able to "protect" or "immunize" a subject against phenomenon that are neutral or helpful (or even necessary), even though with the common understanding of those words one can only be protected or immunized against things which at least hold the potential to be harmful.

So I would guess that his example spell would be similar to the mockeries I posted previously, where a Shielding spell "protects" the subject from some necessity and the subject is harmed or dies as a "side-effect."

I believe the entire debate turns on how one interprets the meaning of words like "protect" and "immune."

I think it's common sense that mages would never classify a spell that that has the inevitable outcome of doing net harm to the subject as a Shielding spell. The Practices are meant as human-comprehensible categories for spells. to have an effect so mislabeled would inevitably result in confusion. However I certainly can believe that some players might wish to misclassify a spell as belonging to a two dot Practice if its more natural classification would require a higher Arcanum rating to cast.

[proindrakenzol]

Pro, the word "strawman" exists for many reasons, and one of them is so that you don't have to accuse someone of trying to make you doubt your sanity just because they misrepresent your argument in a conversation that's very clearly getting heated. This isn't helpful to anyone.

It's clear my erstwhile interlocutor isn't interested in actually having a discussion or argument. You can call it strawmaning or gaslighting, it doesn't really matter at this point. galivet doesn't want an honest debate and there's no reason to further engage, it's not like we're ever going to play in a game together and he can make whatever house rules he wants.