Posts made by Ganymede

@lordbelh said:

I think Game of Marriages is more of a fallback option, and the easiest way to build RP without needing any sort of staff hand-holding. You get scenes re: arranging it, etc, etc. You get a bit of politics, you get a bit of romance, you get a bit of everything if there's nothing else going on. And to those players who only want to play Game of Marriages, they can do that even if you provide something else for the greater game. Its not an either/or scenario.

If you want to discourage the Game of Marriages, then you have to give your players something to do for the greater game. And, as usual, Requiem for Kingsmouth provided a model for that: developing your territory and expanding your influence.

I mentally divide political games into two kinds of games: the petit game, and the grand game. Going on quests, interacting with others, hashing out personal rivalries, bar RP -- that's all part of the petit game; gaining influence, improving your holdings, making alliances -- that's all part of the grand game. There's some overlap -- e.g., political marriages -- but, for the most part, you can divide the game elements so.

Most existent game systems fail to incorporate both. Even Requiem had to mash together Damnation City with Blood & Smoke to get what they had, which worked to an extent but had some major flaws to it. Still, that system -- as clumsy as it was -- provided endless amounts of consternation for my PC, who was not built for the Grand Game, but got tossed into it by @lordbelh. Lots of fun; lots of miserable fun.

Some players like the grand game; some like the petit game. But whatever you do, if you're going to create a Space Lords and Ladies game, you really need a good system that puts together both.

@ThatOneDude said:

Oh, from the back and forth it seemed like you didn't want to use Mage but something more "mage light".

If I was not clear, I meant "deconstructed" Mage.

Mage, to me, is an ideal magic system for a high-magic fantasy game, once you pull out the Paradox mechanic. Because I want a low-magic game -- which, in my mind, is more akin to settings such as The Witcher or Dragon Age -- I needed to modify Mage to restrict its potency while retaining what I like about it: it's flexibility. In my mind, the solution is to create a system where magic is delivered primarily by rote, and where improvisational magic is extremely limited.

To paraphrase: I want a system that has the freedom that Mage's system provides, but is not as potent relative to other options in a game.

In what I'm trying to cobble together -- with aficionados like Sammi and Coin in mind -- is something where the grandiose powers are rare but possible, and "traditional" magic like lightning bolts and fireballs are "favored" in the sense that anyone can easily start out with them without needing to "level-up" considerably.

I hope that makes sense. It makes sense to me, but I recognize that I'm not the best communicator.

@ThatGuyThere said:

In his defense Street Fighter like most fighting games has a great backstory, it is just that for the most part you get none of that during the play experience.

Plus, those back stories are articulated in games in a manner consistent with Japanime dramas, which is to say "terribly."

@ThatOneDude said:

Why not just do magic like they did in the Second Sight book but slightly changed where needed for the new ruleset. It sounds like its what you're looking for...

Because that system is not open-ended, and requires conversion into CoD. If I'm going to do converting, I might as well use the mechanics provided in M:tAw.

@ThatOneDude said:

Was the plan to use other "spheres" (vampire/werewolf/ect)?

No.

@Coin said:

Honestly, I know it doesn't seem like it because it feels very simple, but that's actually too complicated in my opinion for what you're trying to accomplish. It just... adds a step too many. IMO.

I don't think it's too complicated.

On the one hand, you implicitly suggested that the free-throwing of fireballs may be contrary to the low-magic feel I wanted to accomplish. On the other hand, you're saying it's too complex for a player to count up the 1s in a roll and apply it as bashing damage if a WP is not spent for attribute-affinity Rotes.

I don't think that the latter is too complicated, but you're also right on the first point. I'm just trying to find a middle-ground, if possible.

The second option seems pretty familiar to the fantasy world. Mages that cast a lot of magic get tired, and sometimes fall over with fatigue. Whereas M:tAw requires the expenditure of Mana to constantly unleash Rotes, I don't see why requiring the expenditure of 1 bashing damage is an unacceptable alternative to Mana-spending.

So, I don't think it's too complex, but, again, the system is mostly in development. I get the feeling, however, that whether you count up the 1s or whether a Mana cost Is converted to a 1B cost isn't going to make or break whether you, as a player, would play on the game.

@Sammi said:

It's also possible to allow low-level effects to be free and have higher-level effects require energy from the mage in order to make stuff happen. If Willpower is too restrictive, then it's a possibility to allow the caster to take physical damage in order to cast if they don't use the Willpower to control the energies.

That's what I'm thinking, actually. That you can cast an attribute-aligned Rote without spending WP, but doing so means taking 1 bashing for each 1 rolled on the activation roll.

@Coin said:

I was just suggesting a way to split the difference. It's only useful if you really want people to have to watch out regarding how much they can cast. If you don't care because people should be allowed to cast all the magic they want (or at least, within the scope of their Avatar), then sure.

What would you prefer?

@Coin

Not sure if I need to. Let's say a person has 15 dice for a fireball attack: that means they invested substantial XP into raising all Avatar attributes to 5, a skill to 5, and their Arcana to 5. If XP auto-gain is capped, then you have someone who is so narrowly-formed as to be completely useless in an infinite number of other respects, who would be unlikely to be able to do anything else with any reasonable level of skill.

Besides, that's still only 15 dice, which would likely do, on average, 4-5 damage. You'd probably be better off making an archer.

@Coin said:

I actually really like that, except that I would insit that you can't have more than two Attributes from the same vertical category. So you can't have Intelligence, Wits and Resolve; it might have to be Intelligence, Wits, and Composure; or Intelligence, Manipulation, and Resolve. Mostly to promote a better spread.

I initially thought of forcing people to pick one from each of Mental, Social, and Physical categories, but then realized that may be too spread out. In my example, I could see Ganymede's Avatar having Intelligence, Manipulation, and Resolve, but it may be a little odd to have Intelligence, Dexterity, and Resolve.

So amended and accepted!

I'd also allow being able to cast rotes that aren't within your Attribute spread--but maybe it costs a WP point, or takes an extra turn of concentration, or some other surplus cost that makes it worth it, but not as easy. Kind of like how in Awakening if you cast a creative thaumaturgy spell with Arcana that aren't from your Path, you have to pay an extra 1 Mana.

I thought about allowing Mages to use their Rotes without WP cost. Sure, you'd have fuckers tossing fireballs back and forth like Triss Merigold, but who cares: PHANTASIE MEENZ MAGIK. Then again, I want a darker, low-magic sort of game, so maybe not.

But, perhaps the proposed model is too restrictive. I can see that perspective. So, let's amend and go with 1 WP to cast a Rote without an Avatar-attribute, but no WP for a Rote within the Avatar's attributes.

See? I'm an easy-going game dev.

@Coin

Interesting idea.

Over lunch, I devised an alternative to what I proposed before: a custom-design "Avatar" built around one Power attribute, one Finesse attribute, and one Resistance attribute. The Avatar is the PC's conception of his idealized self as Imago, and defines how his magic is formed and manifested. The PC's Arcana are limited to the PC's sum of Avatar attribute points, divided by 3 and rounded down.

Example: Ganymede's Avatar is the embodiment of Pedantry, where all aspects of reality may be shifted based on one's mental will, knowledge, and acumen. The Avatar therefore is based on Intelligence, Wits, and Resolve. Out of CGen, she picks Intelligence 4 (because she's stupidly smarter than you, stupid), Wits 2, and Resolve 2. She elects to take 4 XP from her CGen-awarded XP to take Intelligence 5, because daayyyyyyum, she be the smartest bitch queen, bitch. The total of her Avatar attributes is 9, so she can start with any Arcana at 3.

Next, Rotes are highly personal, and developed through repeated reiterations of the Imago. The thing is, how the Imago is formed is affected by a Mage's Avatar. When developing the Rote, the Mage has to describe how the Imago is formed, and then propose an applicable attribute and skill and Arcana modifier. The attribute chosen must be one of the Avatar attributes, and bear a reasonable relationship to the Imago and effect; the skill chosen must be reasonably-related to what the Mage must do to cast the spell (e.g., if you have to strike the target with your hand, then Brawl); and, as expected, the Arcana must be the highest level Arcana necessary for the Rote, or, if there are two or more of the same, one of those.

Example: Ganymede conceives of a Rote that would allow her to muddle and bewilder a target after delivering a sentence of impenetrable logic and complexity. She proposes the roll to be Intelligence + Empathy + Mind. EmmahSue, who reviews the Rote, disagrees with the use of Empathy, and instead proposes that Persuasion be used. Ganymede, not wanting to mentally beat up poor EmmahSue, who, after all, has to deal with Mr. Raptor, accepts. Hence, the creation of the Rote: "Ganymede's Baffling Balderdash."

To add a layer of understandable complexity -- and to restrict the circle-jerking of rote-swapping -- suppose that a Mage can only use Rotes that use his Avatar's attributes. That means that "Ganymede's Baffling Balderdash" can only be used by Mages whose Avatars have Intelligence as the Power attribute.

Buuuuut, suppose we make the game a little more interesting by awarding players that teach and Rotes beats, which slightly reduce costs. Then people would have an incentive to mix and mingle, get into tutelage agreements, and, you know, role-play.

Just some thoughts.

@Sammi said:

Not really a suggestion, but a question: have you read up on gutter magic, from Witch Finders? It's closer to oWoD's sorcerer rules.

Not from Witch Finders, but I remember Hedge Magic from Sorcerer. And, if I recall, I remember it being as vague as a personal injury attorney's emotional damage allegations.

@Arkandel said:

Only this: Either adopt an existing system with no or relatively few house rules which does what you want adequately or make a new system which does exactly what you want.

I am aiming to make a new system that does what I want it to. Have you not been paying attention?

You're getting nigh useless in your advanced age.

@Insomnia

I like going to my Time Warner Cable store. It's right by a mall, at which there's an O'Charley's. And when I go there, they give me what I want, and help me pick a better, cheaper option for me and my needs.

Last time, they got a dude to my place to help out within 24-hours, and he came there within 30 minutes of when he said he'd be there.

I'm one of the lucky ones. Hate me.

@Coin said:

Sounds pretty similar to D&D wizard-style memorization, for all practical purposes. "Oh, for this session I have a-b-c memorized".

That's exactly what it is. Kind of. In D&D, you have a number of spells memorized too. I was more inspired by Earthdawn, where you have spell matrices in which you keep your magic ready for unleashing.

Aside from that, I'm with @Misadventure in that I fail to see a way to concretely delineate each Arcanum to a specific Attribute. What is it about "Forces" that is intrinsically represented by "Strength"? Etc. It seems like it will end in a mostly arbitrary classification.

I know that it's arbitrary, but it was merely a suggested system, quick and dirty. Again, one of the goals is to create a system that does not require adding a template on top of the Mortal sheet and did not include a Power Stat. A friend of mine suggested that it's more pulling out the Supernatural Merits and replacing them with more flexible Merits. Which is not far from the truth.

That said: any suggestions?