Print

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

[kj1225]

The problem being that the mundane stuff isn't useful for the situations we get into. Magic is.

[Parsely]

Note to self: gotta stop using my heat vision to dry the good silverware.

[GreatWyrmGold]

kj: What I'm hearing from you is that you basically hate the core of the game.

[kj1225]

I hate that you're making us use something other than the apparent core.

[GreatWyrmGold]

When you have a hammer, and a variety of tools that aren't as "fun" to use, you shouldn't always use the hammer when the screwdriver or wrench would work better. Especially when hammers have the chance to accidentally kill or wound everyone on your side.

[Draignean]

I'd love to see the drama here stop because, frankly, it's irritating to look at a thread you're watching and find five pages of wangst.

As with all good things, use in moderation. Use magic when you need to, but when mundane stuff works, use it.

Look at it this way. Like nuclear weapons, magic is probably capable of solving your problems. Like nuclear weapons, magic is entirely capable of making more problems for you.

   I believe you're missing the majority of your player's points. From what I've read, not even KJ disagrees that magic should be able to generate an apocalypse. The problem is that there is no in-between level of skill or magic.
   To use the nuke analogy, you've trapped your players in a room with two objects: a butterknife and a recoilless rocket launcher. There is also an angry mutant cave bear in the room. What should they use to fend off the bear? If they choose the butterknife, you punish them because they just took butter to a bear fight. This is perfectly reasonable. If they choose the recoilless launcher, you punish them because they just set off a recoilless weapon in an enclosed space, not to mention the high-explosive payload. This is also perfectly reasonable. What is unreasonable is the fact that the player is only presented with the two options.

   I think this kind of a game could work very well. A year or two ago I even briefly entertained the notion of a WOT game where the players were men who could channel, thus plunging them a little farther into uncontrollable madness every time they used their abilities. However, the players not only need to feel that there is another path than MAGIC, but that equal gains can be had from a path without MAGIC under 95% of all circumstances. More importantly, the chance of triggering a magical apocalypse needs to be small compared to the number of actions taken. Currently, you seem to trigger one on a 1,6. Which would be fine if there wasn't a 1/36 chance of that happening. Multiply by 6 players, who seem to be using magic at least half the time, and each turn gives you a ~10% chance to start the apocalypse. Far too frequent.

Well, that's my take on the situation. I'd love for you to cooperate.*

*I'd threaten to pluck out your eyes, but this isn't my thread. So the threats will be minimal.

[Parsely]

I agree with the above statement completely.

[kj1225]

But that doesn't cover what we have. It's more like, when you have a hammer, a scalpel, and a loaf of bread and are told that you'll be destroying walls while the ceiling is falling. Sure you can do it with a lot of effort and skill with a scalpel but it's more efficient and less dangerous to use the hammer.

Ninja x2...

As do I.

[Harry Baldman]

"When they aren't devastated by waves of flame, they tend to be a bit more dangerous. Where're the others?"

"Tryna contain a bit o' crystal magic gone wrong, methinks. And lookin' for the crystal wizard as well. I could be helpin' em, but instead I'm choosin' to delegate, since neither o' those I can help with. And what else're ya supposed to do if not melt 'em? Slashin' 'em with swords is a pretty stupid idea, y'know. Even I know that. Better ta maybe shoot their handlers. And not charge at 'em. But hey, I'm not some general guy or anythin'."

Thus spake Kext of Moodus!


((The biggest problem with mundane approaches to problems is the damnable skill system put in place, which basically ensures that everything mundane you do (aside from about two or three situations you may have predicted in your character sheet) is heavily penalized, essentially making mundane actions inefficient and unlikely to succeed 90% of the time, unlike magic, which works more often but with possible disruptive consequences (maybe institute a d6 apocalypse die that you roll when somebody rolls a 7-0, with a 1 meaning apocalyptic events and a 2-6 meaning regular destruction).))

[ragnarok97071]

That's probably accurate, but still...

You were willing to do the apocalypse twice for some arbitrary reason. You lost the right to not be assumed to try and end the world.

"Arbitrary reason," huh? So I should ignore the source material and not let even the worst of rolls cause potential apocolyp...ses? Apocalypsises? Apocolypti?

Apocolypses, per Buffy.

FIND SELINA.

[GreatWyrmGold]

I believe you're missing the majority of your player's points. From what I've read, not even KJ disagrees that magic should be able to generate an apocalypse. The problem is that there is no in-between level of skill or magic.
To use the nuke analogy, you've trapped your players in a room with two objects: a butterknife and a recoilless rocket launcher. There is also an angry mutant cave bear in the room. What should they use to fend off the bear? If they choose the butterknife, you punish them because they just took butter to a bear fight. This is perfectly reasonable. If they choose the recoilless launcher, you punish them because they just set off a recoilless weapon in an enclosed space, not to mention the high-explosive payload. This is also perfectly reasonable. What is unreasonable is the fact that the player is only presented with the two options.
I think this kind of a game could work very well. A year or two ago I even briefly entertained the notion of a WOT game where the players were men who could channel, thus plunging them a little farther into uncontrollable madness every time they used their abilities. However, the players not only need to feel that there is another path than MAGIC, but that equal gains can be had from a path without MAGIC under 95% of all circumstances. More importantly, the chance of triggering a magical apocalypse needs to be small compared to the number of actions taken. Currently, you seem to trigger one on a 1,6. Which would be fine if there wasn't a 1/36 chance of that happening. Multiply by 6 players, who seem to be using magic at least half the time, and each turn gives you a ~10% chance to start the apocalypse. Far too frequent.
Well, that's my take on the situation. I'd love for you to cooperate.*
*I'd threaten to pluck out your eyes, but this isn't my thread. So the threats will be minimal.

Alright. What alternate solution do you propose? The dice only have so many sides, you know.

But that doesn't cover what we have. It's more like, when you have a hammer, a scalpel, and a loaf of bread and are told that you'll be destroying walls while the ceiling is falling. Sure you can do it with a lot of effort and skill with a scalpel but it's more efficient and less dangerous to use the hammer.

You have a lot more options than that, though. You're just not thinking well enough to use them.
You're also ignoring the helpful little careful casting rules.

((The biggest problem with mundane approaches to problems is the damnable skill system put in place, which basically ensures that everything mundane you do (aside from about two or three situations you may have predicted in your character sheet) is heavily penalized, essentially making mundane actions inefficient and unlikely to succeed 90% of the time, unlike magic, which works more often but with possible disruptive consequences (maybe institute a d6 apocalypse die that you roll when somebody rolls a 7-0, with a 1 meaning apocalyptic events and a 2-6 meaning regular destruction).))

For the first point: Only when skill would logically be a consequence. The alternative is to let anyone have a good chance of success the first time they attempt any kind of task, whether it's parkour or fencing.
For the second: Seems like a clunky obvious rules patch. Doesn't fit with the rest of the system.

[scapheap]

It seems that fantasy games with magical powers extant but a bad idea to use don't go over well. Noted.

No, it more you didn't add a labeled downside.

Take my TBI game, My goal, 'Magic is bad'. How? Make magic users have the lowest health and make magic cost health.

In this case, goal, 'Magic is bad'. How? ...if you roll a 1 and 6 for two different things you cause the end of the world.

If you don't want players using magic for slapping people on the bum, add a cost. If you want players to really think if magic is need here, made that cost dear.

I hope I not put that rudely.
---
Kuroe nods at her handwork before awaiting orders

[Harry Baldman]

For the first point: Only when skill would logically be a consequence. The alternative is to let anyone have a good chance of success the first time they attempt any kind of task, whether it's parkour or fencing.
For the second: Seems like a clunky obvious rules patch. Doesn't fit with the rest of the system.

((For the first point: God forbid people succeed at things, right? Or that we accidentally veer into a slight lack of realism for the sake of more fun or a narrative that doesn't stop every five seconds due to the heroes being chronically and critically unable to do anything that isn't exploding things. Wouldn't want either of those to happen, no sir.
For the second: so what? It ought to work, and that's what matters.))

[freeformschooler]

Holy shit. This is why I (mostly) stopped stopped talking to players in-thread, as a GM. The normal two-way pincer reading is getting me 5+ pages of argument. Just change it, mate, and get back to running - doesn't matter how, you can always adjust later if it's still broken.

[GreatWyrmGold]

Take my TBI game, My goal, 'Magic is bad'. How? Make magic users have the lowest health and make magic cost health.
In this case, goal, 'Magic is bad'. How? ...if you roll a 1 and 6 for two different things you cause the end of the world.
If you don't want players using magic for slapping people on the bum, add a cost. If you want players to really think if magic is need here, made that cost dear.
I hope I not put that rudely.

There's a difference between "cost" and "drawback". I was aiming more for "drawback".
Moreover, the idea of "cost" goes against source material.

And I'm sick of people constantly complaining about one thing or another, people aren't having fun, and frankly I don't have hugely vested plans in this game. This is getting to be more of a chore than something fun.