Posts by: Eric Minton

Back to List

[#][F] Eric Minton - 2/28/2013
Note that "not even binary inputs" is also a valid interpretation -- no gestures, no passwords, etc -- and is probably more fitting to the tight strictures of task binding.

[#][F] Eric Minton - 2/28/2013
Segev wrote:
How is "admit everybody who says this password" and "fill the cup when I say the password" different?

edit: By which I mean, "different in a way that the first is acceptable and the second isn't."
No, you're right, the cup-filling gesture is probably kosher.

As noted earlier, this is all about the bright line between task binding and regular binding. None of the sorcerers in my games have ever tried to game the system with edge cases, so I cannot speak from experience as to what needs to fall on which side of the line. But that line is what you need to keep in mind when determining what tasks are valid and what aren't.

[#][F] Eric Minton - 2/28/2013
Segev wrote:
Interesting. Rather than "wait X days" and "then attack Y," which is two tasks, could you say, "Attack Y on the last day of Calibration" and call that one task?
As per Savant and Sorcerer, no, that would just be a semantic reordering of the same pair of tasks. A delay would only be relevant if it's part and parcel of the core task (like "push forward the seconds hand of my demon-powered clock once per second").

Mind you, Savant and Sorcerer presents the issue in terms of demons being obsessed with their tasks and being unwilling to hang around waiting before fulfilling the task. But I think that parsing out the delay as a separate task is the only way for that ruling to make sense.

Segev wrote:
Does this also mean you can't put in triggers that serve as "input?"
That's correct. You must rely on the demon's own judgment as to what actions it takes in support of the task.

Segev wrote:
Two examples, the first of which I think is an "intended" use for taskbinding and the second which I think might potentially be an abuse:

1) "Defend my castle against all who I do not grant permission to enter."
2) "Bring me a cup of pure, clean water whenever I beckon you like this," including a demonstration of the beckoning hand signal.
#2 is unacceptable because it relies on outside input. Fill the cup every hour? Sure. Fill the cup when it thinks you might be thirsty? Sure. Fill the cup in response to your instructions? Nope.

Ultimately, this is to draw a bright line between task binding and regular binding, to avoid the inevitable task of "obey me as if you were bound in the normal way, but since it's a task you have to do it forever instead of for a year." It's kind of like how you can't wish for a genie to give you more wishes.

[#][F] Eric Minton - 2/28/2013
Segev wrote:
Interesting. Rather than "wait X days" and "then attack Y," which is two tasks, could you say, "Attack Y on the last day of Calibration" and call that one task?
As per Savant and Sorcerer, no, that would just be a semantic reordering of the same pair of tasks. A delay would only be relevant if it's part and parcel of the core task (like "push forward the seconds hand of my demon-powered clock once per second").

Mind you, Savant and Sorcerer presents the issue in terms of demons being obsessed with their tasks and being unwilling to hang around waiting before fulfilling the task. But I think that parsing out the delay as a separate task is the only way for that ruling to make sense.

Segev wrote:
Does this also mean you can't put in triggers that serve as "input?"
That's correct. You must rely on the demon's own judgment as to what actions it takes in support of the task.

Segev wrote:
Two examples, the first of which I think is an "intended" use for taskbinding and the second which I think might potentially be an abuse:

1) "Defend my castle against all who I do not grant permission to enter."
2) "Bring me a cup of pure, clean water whenever I beckon you like this," including a demonstration of the beckoning hand signal.
#2 is unacceptable because it relies on outside input. Fill the cup every hour? Sure. Fill the cup when it thinks you might be thirsty? Sure. Fill the cup in response to your instructions? Nope.

#1 is actually unacceptable as well, for the same reason. Grant admission to a set of people listed during the binding? Sure. Grant admission to people wearing specific livery or who repeat a certain password? Sure. Grant admission in response to your instructions? Nope.

Ultimately, this is to draw a bright line between task binding and regular binding, to avoid the inevitable task of "obey me as if you were bound in the normal way, but since it's a task you have to do it forever instead of for a year." It's kind of like how you can't wish for a genie to give you more wishes.

[#][F] Eric Minton - 2/28/2013
As per Savant and Sorcerer -- which is the first source I know of to discuss task binding in detail -- there are no limits on the complexity of a task. There are other limits on task binding, however.

The most notable is that the terms of the task must be complete and self-contained; no task can demand further input after the binding is complete. Thus, you can call up a demon and instruct it on how to act in war, but the task cannot compel it to obey the instructions of a sergeant, captain or general, as the specifics of such instructions would not be part of the terms laid down during the binding. Similarly, you could task a demon to be your manservant, but you would not then be able to command the manservant to perform (or refrain from performing, or perform in a different way) any specific duties other than those laid down during the binding -- which makes for a poor manservant.

In addition, the task must be exactly that -- one task. It cannot be a laundry list of unrelated activities. In this light, "wait here X days and then go to war" is actually two tasks -- one to wait X days, the second to go to war.

(Note that all this refers to 1e/2e task binding. I do not know how bindings will work in 3e.)

[#][F] Eric Minton - 2/27/2013
EDIT: Deleted. Await proper example from devs.

[#][F] Eric Minton - 2/27/2013
I am interested in the progress of this game and will be following the thread.

[#][F] Eric Minton - 2/26/2013
AmineHsu wrote:
See, here's the thing though, if you're going to make some sort of blanket declaration like "Guns don't work" or "Technology can't proceed past the bronze age" (which I note isn't EXACTLY what any dev has said that I can tell) or something along those lines, some level of explanation will be expected, otherwise it just comes across as... arbitrary.
We have to say that guns don't work for the same reason we have to say that the Yozis can't be freed.

[#][F] Eric Minton - 2/26/2013
Limited Reagent wrote:
Olollort wrote:
Eric Minton wrote:
Olollort wrote:
Eric Minton wrote:
Creation has five elements: air, earth, fire, water and wood. You will not find one atom of carbon, potassium or sulfur anywhere.

The inner workings of Creation exist to facilitate a specific genre, namely pulp fantasy. Anything in our scientific understanding of the real world and its concomitant technologies -- from gunpowder to computers to nuclear bombs -- which interferes with facilitating that genre has no place in Creation.
The sections which refer to bananas and SULFUR by name disagree.
Bananas and sulfur both exist in Creation. Neither of them are elements, nor can either of them be used to make gunpowder.

Creation has no gunpowder because guns don't fit the developers' aims for pulp fantasy Creation, and the needs of the setting outweigh any potential benefits of universally incorporating all real-world scientific observations and technologies into our pulp fantasy game. It's not because we dislike bananas or sulfur, both of which continue to exist in Creation.


So the answer is to be inconsistent?
Creation can be consistent with itself without being consistent with the real world.

Also, sulfur is made of atoms in the real world, that's what Omicron was referring to I assume. In Creation, sulfur is not made of atoms. It's probably made of earth and maybe fire. It's a thing superficially similar to the real world sulfur, but is not actually the same thing. As long as it has the basic properties a person in antiquity would've given to sulfur, it is sulfur-like enough for it to be called sulfur in Exalted. This is just like how Creation in myriad ways resembles Earth, but is not actually the same thing.
Exactly this.

Science is a methodology used to systematically understand the rules by which the universe works. Science works in Creation. But Creation is a fundamentally different universe from our own, one which works by different rules.

What are those rules? Some may be presented in upcoming Exalted supplements. Others will be worked out at your table insofar as they are needed. But we are not in the business of writing alt-universe chemistry and physics textbooks whose contents are largely irrelevant to presenting a playable and awesome pulp fantasy setting. Your character with Lore 5 knows a great deal about the rules by which Creation works. Insofar as you and your fellow players feel a desire for such information, you can invent the details at your table.

(If you want to replay Lest Darkness Fall with your character in the lead role, abusing knowledge of chemistry for fun and profit, that's great! But we will not support that in the books.)

[#][F] Eric Minton - 2/26/2013
Limited Reagent wrote:
Olollort wrote:
Eric Minton wrote:
Olollort wrote:
Eric Minton wrote:
Creation has five elements: air, earth, fire, water and wood. You will not find one atom of carbon, potassium or sulfur anywhere.

The inner workings of Creation exist to facilitate a specific genre, namely pulp fantasy. Anything in our scientific understanding of the real world and its concomitant technologies -- from gunpowder to computers to nuclear bombs -- which interferes with facilitating that genre has no place in Creation.
The sections which refer to bananas and SULFUR by name disagree.
Bananas and sulfur both exist in Creation. Neither of them are elements, nor can either of them be used to make gunpowder.

Creation has no gunpowder because guns don't fit the developers' aims for pulp fantasy Creation, and the needs of the setting outweigh any potential benefits of universally incorporating all real-world scientific observations and technologies into our pulp fantasy game. It's not because we dislike bananas or sulfur, both of which continue to exist in Creation.


So the answer is to be inconsistent?
Creation can be consistent with itself without being consistent with the real world.

Also, sulfur is made of atoms in the real world, that's what Omicron was referring to I assume. In Creation, sulfur is not made of atoms. It's probably made of earth and maybe fire. It's a thing superficially similar to the real world sulfur, but is not actually the same thing. As long as it has the basic properties a person in antiquity would've given to sulfur, it is sulfur-like enough for it to be called sulfur in Exalted. This is just like how Creation in myriad ways resembles Earth, but is not actually the same thing.
Exactly this.

Science is a methodology used to systematically understand the rules by which the universe works. Science works in Creation. But Creation is a fundamentally different universe from our own, one which works by different rules.

What are those rules? A few details relevant to play may be presented in upcoming Exalted supplements. Others will be worked out at your table insofar as they are needed. But we are not in the business of writing alt-universe chemistry and physics textbooks whose contents are largely irrelevant to presenting a playable and awesome pulp fantasy setting. Your character with Lore 5 knows a great deal about the rules by which Creation works. Insofar as you and your fellow players feel a desire for such information, you can invent the details at your table.

(If you want to replay Lest Darkness Fall with your character in the lead role, abusing knowledge of chemistry for fun and profit, that's great! But we will not support that in the books.)

[#][F] Eric Minton - 2/25/2013
Olollort wrote:
Eric Minton wrote:
Creation has five elements: air, earth, fire, water and wood. You will not find one atom of carbon, potassium or sulfur anywhere.

The inner workings of Creation exist to facilitate a specific genre, namely pulp fantasy. Anything in our scientific understanding of the real world and its concomitant technologies -- from gunpowder to computers to nuclear bombs -- which interferes with facilitating that genre has no place in Creation.
The sections which refer to bananas and SULFUR by name disagree.
Bananas and sulfur both exist in Creation. Neither of them are elements, nor can either of them be used to make gunpowder.

Creation has no gunpowder because guns don't fit the developers' aims for pulp fantasy Creation, and the needs of the setting outweigh any potential benefits of universally incorporating all real-world scientific observations and technologies into our pulp fantasy game. It's not because we dislike bananas or sulfur, both of which continue to exist in Creation.

[#][F] Eric Minton - 2/25/2013
Creation has five elements: air, earth, fire, water and wood. You will not find one atom of carbon, potassium or sulfur anywhere.

The inner workings of Creation exist to facilitate a specific genre, namely pulp fantasy. Anything in our scientific understanding of the real world and its concomitant technologies -- from gunpowder to computers to nuclear bombs -- which interferes with facilitating that genre has no place in Creation.

[#][F] Eric Minton - 2/25/2013
Aranis wrote:
bullies and petty tyrants, not as persons of interest with whom one might strike a bargain
Here on Earth, persons of interest with whom one might strike a bargain -- whether in business, politics or the like -- are all too often bullies or petty tyrants. Why should Creation be any better?

[#][F] Eric Minton - 2/22/2013
Zironic wrote:
John Mørke wrote:
Speaking in the purely hypothetical, not confirming / not denying mode of speech, "if" I were to put a stand-alone Exalt with its complete Charm set in a book, I would make that character completely non-existent in the setting.
I must admit I have troubles parsing this sentence. I think that you're implying that the chosen of masks either won't have a charmset, or won't be alone.
I believe he's saying that if he were to write up the Chosen of Hypotheticals, a stand-alone Exalt of which only one exists in the setting, there would be no reference in the setting material to Hype O'Thetical, the one Chosen of Hypotheticals, who lives in some city or other and does some stuff, and who is taking up the one Chosen of Hypotheticals slot in all of Creation. The rules would be there, but no sample NPC, so a player or Storyteller can create their own Chosen of Hypotheticals instead.

(Hypothetically speaking, of course.)

[#][F] Eric Minton - 2/20/2013
Segev wrote:
I am leery of "Exalted" no longer meaning "of potential beyond even the gods."
What is it that you mean by "potential beyond even the gods"?