Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Angle]

I'm neutral on the will stuff.  Would it still be possible to summon a "Living stone human"?  And then control it with stone control?

Yes, you can still control things you summon with will rolls.

And it doesn't make sense to me to be able to control something that's half laser and half steel with just laser control.  I think the old system of needing control over both, and having separate rolls to control each.

That way, there's more of a disadvantage of giving your steel golem the ability to burn/explode whatever it touches.  Of course, if you already have something that will make it more fragile than a steel golem, and less dangerous than a laser golem, then it's already balanced.

But do whatever you want.  Even if it works terribly, it'll be different from everything I know of.

I think it does make sense, because it is part laser, after all. But you'd take a 50% penalty, which would be rather ruinous. And of course, a steel laser golem would be less lasery and less steely than either. This way composite materials have roughly the same value as non composite materials for will based characters. They're more difficult to control, but because there is such an incredible variety of them, it's possible to find one that meets most any specifications.

[flabort]

Is it possible that you may make materials have tags that specify what cattegories of shapes they can be made into, and the ease of shaping that material into that kind of shape? (Swords, claymores, katana, daggers, axes, etc. would all be in the [simple blades:x] tag, for instance.) A material can have any number of these tags, and a composite material would have the average of both materials (if one didn't have a tag the other did, then the ease of creation for the one lacking is considered 0); Additionally, an Ease tag just for shaping that material in the first place would make it easier to will, say, gold into shape, then, say void or zentol. So by making a composite of a hard-to-will material with an easier one would be able to be willed by someone who "can" will either, and make the more dangerous, difficult one slightly easier to will.

Such as

Code: [Select]

{
"name" : "Iron",
"symbol" : "i",
"color" : [192, 192, 192],
"stats" : [["density", 5]["ease", 6]]
"ease" : [["geometric", 10]["simpleblades", 10]["complexblades", 8]["armor", 9]]
}
{
"name" : "Gold",
"symbol" : "g",
"color" : [192, 192, 64],
"stats" : [["density", 2]["ease", 10]]
"ease" : [["geometric", 10]["simpleblades", 6]["complexblades", 4]["armor", 7]]
}
{
"name" : "Void",
"symbol" : "V",
"color" : [0, 0, 0],
"stats" : [["density", -10]["ease", 0]]
"ease" : [["geometric", 2]]
}
Though if you don't want to take this idea, it's fine by me. I just thought it was a neat way of doing things.

[Angle]

That's a neat idea. Yeah, I'll probably do that. Thanks. Now, of course, I need to figure out how I'm going to write out the notation for items and materials to respond to things. Lets say we want wood to burn when exposed to heat. How do I write that out in JSON Notation? I'm thinking something like this:

Code: [Select]

"response" : [["Heat", ">", 10, "AQUIRECONDITION: BURNING"], ["Heat", "<", 0, "AQUIRECONDITION: FREEZING"]

Also: I need to post less, or you all need to post more, cause I have almost half the posts in the thread.

[flabort]

OK. 
Just so I'm not wasting space completely, I guess there would also be tags within the Shape definitions, too, that identify which categories they fit into (for use with the Ease cattegories).
For example, despite being a blunt item, a hammer would have the simpleblades tag and tools tag. So if a material can be shaped into a simpleblade, you can make a hammer out of it. If it can be shaped into a tool, you can make a hammer out of it. And if you can shape it into either, then both ease bonuses stack, and you can make a really good hammer out of it.
Of course, some might have to be both - a pike would need to be made either out of a material that is both geometric and complexblades, or a material that is one and another that is the other (Wood and Clockwork, for example). Fortunately, most materials are geometric.

Materials I can think of that might not be geometric: Flesh, Clockwork, Plant, Fungus, Booze (or any other liquid or gas), fire/lightning, or souls of the dead.

I'm also noticing that making a simple geometric shape (like a pyramid) out of a gold/void mix might be the easiest thing you could make out of void so far. They hybrid material has -6 density, ease 5, and geometric ease 6.

[Angle]

That's actually not quite how I was thinking of doing things. I figured things that belong to multiple categories would use the best scores, or maybe the average, not the sum. So if you can make something into tools with one ease, and Geometric shapes with another, you use the best. For things like pikes, Id probably use my CompositeItem class - It'd be made up of two parts, A shaft and a blade. So you could make the shaft out of one material, and the blade out of another. So long as it wouldn't destroy the shaft, of course.

For composite materials, I'm actually thinking they're stats would fall randomly between the stats of the materials that make them up, rolled for each time you make one. So you might end up with one GoldVoid composite that has density -9.7, and another with density 1.4.

[flabort]

*Nods*
That's a far better idea than what was going through my head at the time.
And I just remembered, gold is denser than iron, but softer. Whoops, oh well, that can be fixed later.

I did think of another idea that also utilizes the ease stat. Spells with a higher ease give you less corruption, assuming you're doing that. So, easier to will and less dangerous to cast. Maybe.

[syvarris]

That reminds me, when we used some of the stronger pg.4 words it would tire out the person using it.  I think Paris had managed to make a human who shared his pool, and that really exhausted him IIRC.

So yeah, that would be cool if the more powerful words caused more contamination.  Of course, there's already the effect of "Why say 'homing fire ball' instead of just fire three times in a row?", and making material words less risky to use would just worsen that.

[Angle]

There are going to be a few differences in word usage. For example, in order to get make fire appear, you would need to use "create fire", not just "fire". And stacking a single word a bunch would get you no extra benefit. You'll start out with a single simple spell in your book, probably along the lines of "Create Something Something", which it will tell you the effect of but not what any of the individual words do. In sum, this should work to make complicated spells more desirable than simple ones in combat, while not making learning words too much more difficult.

[Angle]

I'm thinking of reviving this. Is anyone still interested?

[mastahcheese]

*Raises hand*

[Angle]

Alright then. I'll work on this in between working on Agora.

[Gamerlord]

I am also very interested.

[Lost in Nowhere]

This is very interesting, as is the original game, which I had no idea existed beforehand.

[lemmily]

ptw, definitely very interested! Is this previously just a forum game or is there anything else? I'm very intrigued and apparently I cant find anything else.

[Parisbre56]

ptw, definitely very interested! Is this previously just a forum game or is there anything else? I'm very intrigued and apparently I cant find anything else.

Yep, just a very, very fun forum game that came to an end due to the number of people playing (there was no waitlist). You should read it, if you have the time, if only for the absurdity and awesomeness it contains (Beam of Explosive Blackholes was a spell you could do for example).

I think piecewise published a more "official" perplexicon rulebook a while back that describes, enhances and offers variations to the original perplexicon system (search for Perpublicon). There are also several games based on the system (search for Toaster's "The pit of magic").