All Posts

[#][F] Holden - 3/1/2013
Imrix wrote:
Stephenls wrote:
Fitter Happier wrote:
Nobody is gonna come out and write "You can NEVER EVER UNDERSTAND EXALTATIONS because they are MIRACLES" because that would be fucking stupid.

The books are going to say "the creation of Exaltation was miraculous" and then they will not talk about the creation of Exaltation anymore.

Jesus, this forum.


Mmmmyep.
Then why are you posting about it as if it's impossible? You haven't exactly been hesitant to roll out the "you can do it, but we're not going to support it because it's outside the scope of the game we're selling," card elsewhere! What makes this area so freaking special?!


People keep hysterically demanding that we talk to them about this stuff in greater and greater detail.

[#][F] Stephen Lea Sheppard - 3/1/2013
Imrix wrote:
Then why are you posting about it as if it's impossible? You haven't exactly been hesitant to roll out the "you can do it, but we're not going to support it because it's outside the scope of the game we're selling," card elsewhere! What makes this area so freaking special?!

Courtesy, mostly.

Different people are attracted to the game for different reasons. I was initially sold on Exalted, and I go on about this, because of the disease rules. Let me do this again: In D&D3e, all the diseases were bullshit made-up stuff like "filth fever," generally they were not that dangerous, and stories centering around, say, an epidemic would involve something like "A disease that causes the villagers' flesh to slowly transmute into snakes." You solve it by going into the dungeon and killing the evil wizard who maintains the ritual that causes the disease. Exalted's got cholera. In Exalted, a scenario involving an epidemic is going to be something like "You encounter a village that's experiencing a cholera epidemic. Got anyone with Medicine? Do you even give a fuck?" Which is much more compelling, to me. (Possibly someone's extorting the village for medicine or something and you can go beat them up. The Guild is good for that.)

Another example: In D&D, the +3 damage from a +3 sword doesn't really come from anything. The sword's generically more damaging. In Exalted, the basic killing power of a daiklave doesn't actually come from magic. It comes from the daiklave being a twenty pound imperishable razor blade that's nearly massless from the perspective of the person wielding it, but has full mass and momentum to anyone hit with it.

Both of these setting facts speak to an underlying non-nonsense philosophy on the part of the creators. It's a game by people who are bothered by nonspecific damage sources, who like the idea that "It's just magic, whatever" is a lazy, insufficient explanation. They're signifiers that in Exalted, things happen for reasons.

There are people for whom the scientific approach to magic used occasionally in 1e and heavily in 2e is a major draw. There are people for whom "Exaltation is a miracle" is not an inspiring statement, but an infuriating dodge; for them saying something is a miracle is the same as saying "I can't be arsed to care about why that happens. Fuckin' magnets, how do they work?"

3e is not at any point going to come out and say in so many words "That's gone" or "That applies less than it did." It's not going to spend page space discussing "Things that worked well in theory in previous editions but when fully implemented turned out to be problems, sometimes insoluble problems."

But those things will apply less than they did. For people who found appreciation of those underlying attitudes critical to their appreciation of the game, 3e may feel... off. Off in ways they can't quite put their finger on.

This will make them frustrated.

This, in turn, will make me frustrated when they come online and make poorly-articulated complaints.

So I'm being clear.

[#][F] Holden - 3/1/2013
Stephenls wrote:
Okay, here we go.

Remember that big argument we had when John said that Exaltation in 3e is a miracle, and is not entirely subject to analysis by the scientific method basically because fiat, and a bunch of people really objected to this on ideological grounds and it turned into a big thing?

And then, later on, John said that Creation runs on a set of tangental physical laws, and a few people objected to this on ideological or practical grounds, and again it turned into a big thing?

When John says that the First Age ran on magic, and not science, yes, he partially means that it runs on magic and that magic did not use the same set of aesthetics as modern technology, nor does it use the aesthetics of sleek future tech. But he also means, I'm pretty sure, that it ran on miracles, miracles that are not entirely subject to analysis by the scientific method, miracles that required luck and intuition and moments of transcendental understanding to harness.

Those of you who object to this on the grounds that it's an incoherent statement (because the scientific method is a sufficiently powerful analytical tool that it should suffice to categorize intuition and moments of transcendental understanding, while anything built on luck is insufficiently reliable to harness), or because it's built on anti-intellectual or Luddite axioms, can commence objecting. You should be aware that 3e will be written under the assumption that it is coherent.

Yes, this is a major departure.


I find it useful to keep in mind that one of the major tricks of the Sidereal Exalted has its level of power output determined by how good you are at star-gazing and spontaneous poetry; and that one of the greatest routes to power for the children of the Wyld, glamour sorcery, has "does this make for an interesting story?" as the ultimate pass-fail gate for whether or not a given spell is possible.

Can you apply the scientific method to that? You can try. I don't envy you the task.

[#][F] Stephen Lea Sheppard - 3/1/2013
Fitter Happier wrote:
Nobody is gonna come out and write "You can NEVER EVER UNDERSTAND EXALTATIONS because they are MIRACLES" because that would be fucking stupid.

The books are going to say "the creation of Exaltation was miraculous" and then they will not talk about the creation of Exaltation anymore.

Jesus, this forum.


Mmmmyep.

[#][F] Stephen Lea Sheppard - 2/28/2013
Doctor Crimson wrote:
ysadrel wrote:
Stephenls wrote:
When John says that the First Age ran on magic, and not science, yes, he partially means that it runs on magic and that magic did not use the same set of aesthetics as modern technology, nor does it use the aesthetics of sleek future tech. But he also means, I'm pretty sure, that it ran on miracles, miracles that are not entirely subject to analysis by the scientific method, miracles that required luck and intuition and moments of transcendental understanding to harness.

.


My preferred archetype to play is the savant-hero, who acts upon the world through force of intellect, insight and calculation; I do not feel as though the above would permit that sort of hero to shine.



I don't understand, it seems to me Ex3 won't stop you from making such a hero.


In the very rarified and abstract portions of the fiction layer, anyway.

[#][F] Stephen Lea Sheppard - 2/28/2013
Morty wrote:
Yes, I can't help but feel that all this discussion isn't terribly relevant to how the game will actually be played.


It really isn't, except to the extent that feel impacts enthusiasm, which enhanced play. For example, my best friend is a tremendous Exalted fan, and this is going to make him want to stab John, for roughly the same reason that if you tell a scientist that for something to be wondrous, it cannot be fully comprehensible, that scientist will have a sudden urge to punch you.

[#][F] Stephen Lea Sheppard - 2/28/2013
Okay, here we go.

Remember that big argument we had when John said that Exaltation in 3e is a miracle, and is not entirely subject to analysis by the scientific method basically because fiat, and a bunch of people really objected to this on ideological grounds and it turned into a big thing?

And then, later on, John said that Creation runs on a set of tangental physical laws, and a few people objected to this on ideological or practical grounds, and again it turned into a big thing?

When John says that the First Age ran on magic, and not science, yes, he partially means that it runs on magic and that magic did not use the same set of aesthetics as modern technology, nor does it use the aesthetics of sleek future tech. But he also means, I'm pretty sure, that it ran on miracles, miracles that are not entirely subject to analysis by the scientific method, miracles that required luck and intuition and moments of transcendental understanding to harness.

Those of you who object to this on the grounds that it's an incoherent statement (because the scientific method is a sufficiently powerful analytical tool that it should suffice to categorize intuition and moments of transcendental understanding, while anything built on luck is insufficiently reliable to harness), or because it's built on anti-intellectual or Luddite axioms, can commence objecting. You should be aware that 3e will be written under the assumption that it is coherent.

Yes, this is a major departure.

[#][F] John Mørke - 2/28/2013
It's not really such a big mystery. We don't give away all of our secrets and we don't explain all of our ideas because we want you to buy the books.

[#][F] John Mørke - 2/28/2013
Gaius wrote:
John Mørke wrote:
The point is, if you can resurrect a daiklave, you can resurrect its Evocations. If you can build a daiklave that only exists in theory, you are building a vector for Evocations. In essence, you have the option to build your own custom Evocations by building a wholly original artifact.
This is a somewhat tangential point, but I was wondering how "locked in" Evocations are within a given Artifact. If the design and theory are such significant factors, does this generally mean a particular daiklave has a certain "full potential" of Evocations to be unlocked, independent of whomever does the unlocking? Might it instead be possible for two different wielders of that daiklave to ultimately wind up with very different sets of Evocations, appropriate to the relationships and legends forged with them?

I like the idea of an Exalt finding the legendary sword of a prior incarnation and reawakening all the magic it once commanded, or of making such a wonder and achieving with it all the potential (and more) he'd had in mind at its forging. I just also like, for an example, the idea of a hero finding a blade, steeped in the especially bloodthirsty intent of its crafting and of its subsequent history, and -- while finding it relatively easier to master Evocations prone to incredibly brutal effects with lots of collateral damage with it -- through great effort, numerous trials, and nigh-inhuman dedication, can draw from it Evocations deeply against that initial and past nature, capable of protecting or even healing others. Both are cool, but is that latter example the sort of story one is meant to be able to tell with this concept?


Evocations are mostly fixed, because I want people to compete for artifacts.

This is not the full answer, I am not ready to give that much detail yet.

[#][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] Holden - 2/28/2013
Ekorren wrote:
John Mørke wrote:
Ekorren wrote:
Holden wrote:
I lot of the stuff we're doing is informed by this material that, as you've said, you and many other people aren't familiar with, having joined the party further on down the line. What would you suggest would be helpful to explain where we're coming from? (Other than the obvious "go read Scavenger Sons!" etc)

I have been thinking about that, and I think the problem is in the teasers. As much as I appreciate the teasers and the answered questions (it proves that you like your jobs and want to let people know what you're working on), the teasers are mere fragments that can't, for some reason, be elaborated on. A fragment of something big causes confusion. I think a better way of doing spoilers/teasers is to do fewer Q/A threads and focus more on spoiler articles such as your barbarism post. An elaborate description of a major change will help avoiding confusion and misinterpretation. Maybe it would be wise to hold back on some teasers until the Kickstarter?


The majority benefits from teasers because they fuel conversation and get people excited.


Yes, but look at the example with Holden's barbarism post. It was not just a teaser, but a well-written and elaborate explanation. And that post spawned so much discussion I had to stop reading after page 8. I think focusing the teasers is better because it lets you control the subject of the thread (by creating it) and you can more easily moderate derailing discussions that end in whine.


It also took me 3 hours to write and was posted incomplete because I just had other shit I needed to do. :\

[#][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] John Mørke - 2/28/2013
Aranis wrote:
The writing team needs to take responsibility for communication of their vision. As it is right now, the way that it breaks down again and again is like the following metaphor.


We have to agree to disagree. I don't believe that the vast minority of confused posters implicates me or my writers in having committed shoddy presentation. I also address quite a bit of confusion from day to day, and then I ignore some of it because not everyone who asks a question is asking in good faith or is someone whose confusion it's my job to alleviate. Some people will not accept my explanations no matter how many times I write them. I also see a few people who can follow the trajectory of my statements to deduce outcomes that are shockingly close to what I am doing, and they're not just lucky guessers because they do it all the time. They are the kind of people who I ask to write for the game line.

[#][F] John Mørke - 2/28/2013
Ekorren wrote:
Holden wrote:
I lot of the stuff we're doing is informed by this material that, as you've said, you and many other people aren't familiar with, having joined the party further on down the line. What would you suggest would be helpful to explain where we're coming from? (Other than the obvious "go read Scavenger Sons!" etc)

I have been thinking about that, and I think the problem is in the teasers. As much as I appreciate the teasers and the answered questions (it proves that you like your jobs and want to let people know what you're working on), the teasers are mere fragments that can't, for some reason, be elaborated on. A fragment of something big causes confusion. I think a better way of doing spoilers/teasers is to do fewer Q/A threads and focus more on spoiler articles such as your barbarism post. An elaborate description of a major change will help avoiding confusion and misinterpretation. Maybe it would be wise to hold back on some teasers until the Kickstarter?


The majority benefits from teasers because they fuel conversation and get people excited.





[#][F] Holden - 2/28/2013
Monkipi wrote:
Holden wrote:


(That's not necessarily a condemnation of 2e, per se: the mandate from On High was that on a scale of 1 to 10, where 1 is "totally different game with a few conceptual similarities" and 10 is "Chaosium edition update, where most of the text is reused and we just tweak a few rules," EX2 was to be a 7.5.)



Would you care to comment on where you guys see Ex3 falling on that same scale? I imagine the answer cleaves closer to 1 than to 10, but IDK.


Maybe a 5? Hard to say.