Matt_E

There will be a release each month for the Mythras system in general, but not every one will be a Classic Fantasy product, as I understand.

As I wrote on the TDM forum when the CONAN 2d20 game came out, to me the 2d20 system seems weaker that Mythras, yet still probably suitable for purpose in this case. My initial impression was that the 2d20 system allows for too many player successes (i.e. challenges would almost always be met, so less true drama and more "faux danger"), but that is an almost meaningless opinion, as I have not played the system. It also seems to me that use of the GM's Doom pool versus the players' Momentum pool could rule a lot of the game. ...but I have already dragged the thread far enough from the OP...

Wow, sounds like a recipe for real cognitive dissonance. :-)

So, albedo, then. There will also be albedo from tremendous cloud cover that will result from the constant high humidity over most of the globe...but I'm unsure of what other than water vapor might be in the atmosphere, to trap the heat that the water is assumed to absorb... Water or ice, if all that heat just gets re-radiated back into space, well, so much for your warm planet with energetic climate. It's rather complicated. However, since this is just a game, if we can accept light sabers and hyperspace travel, ahem, then I think we can overlook some of the intricacies of geophysics.

I'm trying to stay positive/not become totally negative here, but it's becoming difficult...so, this is the last I will contribute to this thread. The quoted sentence at first seems merely to be a disingenuous argument ("moving the goalposts"), but shortly is revealed to be a complete canard, as the following sentences proceed to describe precisely the same ideas of hit points, damage, etc., just using different words--! What, then, is the "bigger picture", exactly? The OP was the one who brought up "designing a game", so I am dumbfounded by the claim that I have somehow missed the point in focusing on mechanics (especially when the alleged point is then described in essentially the same terms that I would use in my own suggestions). I should probably just go back to publishing some content...

"Now since water absorbs more energy than ice" I don't understand this statement. Are you referring to specific heat? At what temperature and pressure? I think albedo might have a bigger effect; is that what you mean?

I think I misread the word "stabilization". If I had read it as "feedback control", it might have made more sense. The only way a gyroscope helps you here, AFAICS, is to tell the thrusters or other mechanisms that adjust your course when to stop adjusting, because your actual heading matches what your captain selected, which is what the gyroscope's disposition reflects. I don't know what you mean by "decenter", but, I admit, at this point my interest wanes.

How? The point is, there is no instability.

Yes, but my point is that the mechanics of any game, Mythras included, are what set it apart. Otherwise there would be one RPG out there. The question is not whether anyone has ever addressed the idea before, or how they did it in some other system. Rather, it is how to integrate new rules most suitably into the system at hand. Bolting on existing rules could work, but we are looking for elegance and seamlessness. That's the difference between Michelangelo's David and Frankenstein's Monster. For example: "thats a no brainer" -- Well, is it? Are you sure it would not be (CHA+INT)/2, or simply CHA? If we're going by M-SPACE, there is lots of freedom. "It could possibly work well for things like oration and debate" -- There is already a Professional skill called Orate in Mythras. What becomes of that? There is also the slightly different Standard skill Influence. "an entertainer trying to impress an audience" -- There are already Professional skills such as Craft (Storyteller) (if you think that should be different than Orate), Play (Instrument), and Act, and the Standard skill Sing. How do they square with the proposed Social Combat system? Yes, some prefer roleplaying and some prefer an explicit game mechanic. That has already been addressed in prior posts. You favor the former--fine. Again, my point is that game design is real work, if you want a real result.

Sorry, I didn't mean to say that there are or should be or could be no "weapons" in Social Combat. I agree that there are. All I meant was that presently there is no formal equivalent in the system, or in the proposed alternative. There should be, though. As I said, though, finding these formal equivalents for "real" combat aspects like weapons, HP, CS traits, and SEs will take some consideration. Good luck at your meeting!

I'd have to think about that one. My initial instinct is, that planet would have a core of ice, due to pressure. That's not much of an issue in game terms, though. :-)

My initial thought is, how does this actually square with Combat Style, in a close analogy? The problem is, Combat Style brings a bunch of weapons together under a single score, perhaps with a trait. There are no "weapons" in Social Combat, and there are no traits, so far. There are Special Effects, if you consider the Spirit Combat table--fine. The way things are now, in Social Combat you would get to use your favorite appropriate skill for the Task at hand. Skills are not weapons, though. Each has a score for success, but none for damage, so to speak. Also, what are the "hit points" in Social Combat? Physical Combat (actual HP) and Spirit Combat (MP, or Tenacity) have their tallies; for Social Combat, would this be based on CHA, as suggested in M-SPACE? How would all of this interact with, or replace, the Task mechanic for conflict resolution? This requires a bit more careful thought, it seems to me. It would be lovely and elegant to have a single, overarching approach to Combat in Mythras, with consistent, unified concepts and mechanics. Based on the OP, it seems like we could end up with one approach for Physical Combat, one for Spirit Combat, and still one more for Social Combat...which is what we have now, actually, when you think about it...

I hadn't really thought about that. I agree, it would be nice to have a single chart of "die step progression" for all of Mythras, to be used in any such situation. Probably this is at the level of a tweak or erratum to be folded into the next edition. Loz? Pete? Incidentally, I think Simon's chart is not quite right toward the top, as it ignores d12s there. Should not 2d10 be followed by 1d10+1d12? :-D I like the fact that Mythras actually uses the d12. I have all these dice in my kit; why shouldn't I get to roll them?

Looks super Old Skool :-D Nice work, threedeesix, UbiquitousRat, and all.

I, too, was boggled by that arithmetic. Now that I read more, I am beyond jealous. With our current schedules and preferences, my crew only manages to play a few times per year, when you come down to it. It's all about priorities, folks. :-b

You have to spend an AP proactively on reloading. Whether the reloading ends up taking one round or more depends on how you may have spent your other AP reactively, when next it's your turn to spend an AP proactively. I try to avoid using the word "turn" in Mythras, as it often confuses. Example 1: You have 3 AP. Your bow has a reloading time of 2 listed in the table. When first it's your turn, you spend 1 AP proactively to fire. You're far outside of melee combat, so nobody is near enough to attack you, which means you choose not to spend any AP reactively on defense (because there's no need). The next time your turn comes around to spend proactively, you spend 1 AP on reloading. The next time your turn comes around, you spend again, and your weapon is reloaded and ready to go. You have spent 2 AP proactively to reload it, and 1 AP initially to fire it, totaling 3 AP spent, which means your character is out of AP for this round. Firing and reloading has taken one round. Example 2: Consider the same scenario, but you are attacked, by an enemy firing his own weapon at you. Suppose you have the initiative. When first it's your turn, you spend 1 AP proactively to fire. Then you are attacked at range; you have no cover, so you opt to Evade, at a cost of 1 AP spent reactively (not on your turn). The next time your turn comes around to spend proactively, you spend 1 AP on standing back up. Your enemy is reloading his own weapon, and nobody else attacks you--fine. You have spent 1 AP proactively to attack, 1 AP reactively to Evade, and 1 AP proactively to stand back up, totaling 3 AP spent, which means your character is out of AP for this round. You only got two turns this round, and you have not even begun to reload your bow. From these examples, we see: * Your character always has the same number of Action Points to spend in a round (of course). * Your character does not always have the same number of turns (chances to spend proactively) in a round. Sometimes you forsake a later turn to do something else first (like defend yourself). * Therefore, your ranged weapon does not always get reloaded in the same number of rounds--which is a poor way to measure it, anyhow. Understanding the "Action Point economy" is key to having smooth, fun combat in Mythras--whether or not anyone ever uses a ranged weapon. :-) For example, the Special Effect Press Advantage suddenly takes on new significance, if you didn't have all of this straight already: When your character gets to strike first, she can keep using Press Advantage every time she scores a SE, which means she gets to spend all of her AP on attacking that foe, and he is forced to spend all of his on defending*--! Now, lots can happen with subsequent defensive SEs, but in a one-on-one fight, Press Advantage can be decisive. *Assumes they have the same number of AP, or she has more

The base Mythras rules may be more interesting here, in terms of additional careers that include those Professional skills. RAW is made for fantasy gaming, though, so you may still have some work to do in adapting those careers to your M-SPACE game. For example, Mythras has "Courtesan" for Seduction.

Sorry: http://designmechanism.freeforums.org/

I think it could be in the Spirit Plane, viewing the enemies through cloudy glass, by seeing their auras (spirits). It could report numbers and general location, I think, and strengths, including whether they have a shaman or cult spirits with them. I don't think it could give details about their tactical disposition. It might have to use the equivalent of Trance to accomplish that, but I don't remember if there's a mechanism in RAW for it. I do think a spirit can be in the material world without being Manifest. In your proposed scenario, I might say that if the spirit is to report tactical details of the enemy, then it needs to Manifest, which means it can be spotted and attacked. It does get to attempt Stealth, I think, to try to avoid detection. You may want to post your questions on the TDM forum. There you will probably get answers better than mine. :-)

heheh Collective suicide... Yes, I think you can use a fetch (or any spirit, perhaps within some limited range) to scout an area. I think here the question is whether the fetch is in the same plane that it's trying to scout, and whether that plane is its plane of origin. The fetch is rooted in the Spirit World (SW), and starts off there. Scouting the SW is a normal thing for the fetch, just like scouting the Mundane World (MW) would be for a person. Now, a fetch scouting the MW while still in the SW would be just like a shaman using Trance to observe the SW from the MW, I think. That's "scouting across worlds". This sort of shadowy, indirect observation would be less revealing of details but could be sufficient for general information, and has the advantage of keeping the fetch safe and undetected (probably) in the SW. Finally, a fetch could come into the MW to scout the MW. This is just like a shaman Spirit Walking, discorporating to travel the SW. It takes some effort, and the fetch cannot recover MP when not in its native plane, but it can get the job done. If it does not Manifest, it is safe from magic and general detection, I think, but I would double check those rules. I think that's how it works, but honestly I have not explored the Animism rules much. Let me know if I have written something wrong or foolish; I could use a lesson here.

Yeah, this is my feeling, too--especially for powerful artifacts. I just decide what they can do, and don't worry about whether a character could duplicate some mechanical steps to create her own in gameplay. As far as I'm concerned, magic can be, well, magical.

Yes, I think everything you have said is correct (although there's a lot; I might have missed something). You seem to have a handle on the rules. Yes, that fetch would be major trouble. Let me draft a related situation: My character is an expert gunsmith and marksman, whose loyal sidekick has owned a shop for 20+ years. The inventory include a .50 gatling gun, two AK-47s, and a box of flash-bang grenades. Could not she and her assistant wipe out a whole party in short order? Of course she could. There are a host of related questions, though, including: * Would she? What is her motivation? Is she a wanton killer? Is she willing to break the law, or whatever rules she lives by? * Just because one can imagine this inventory, does that mean every gun shop must have it? Maybe some shops only stock handguns. As always, the question really is, what do you as GM want in your game? You could disallow the most awful spirit abilities for fetches, or for any particular fetch. You could make the awakening ritual very difficult and dangerous, which means that not every shaman will have a fetch. You could limit the fetch's ability to increase in POW, and start it off weaker. There are lots of options for turning the many possibilities into actual fetches that match your comfort zone for the game's power level. The same concern exists for other tier 4 and 5 magicians in Mythras. Consider a sorcerer with Wrack, or a mystic warrior with Enhance Action Points. Either one of them also could f*ck up a whole party right quick.

Yes, of course, raising the number of terms in an arithmetic series by 2 raises the mean by 1, when the difference between terms is 1. I like the 1d2 aspect for the randomness, but I don't feel strongly. That's exactly the opposite of my preference. :-) Yes, it is. That's why I would prefer 0 or 1 in the game. "Overload" depends on your POV. I prefer my magic weapons to be antiques by Stradivari, not mass-produced stuff available at Guitar Center. Well, again, that depends on your preference and POV.

On the TDM forum we have discussed this last point a bit. In Mythras, the tendency seems to be to separate Folk Magic from the "higher forms". How to accomplish that mechanically is ambiguous, in this case. In the old BRP-style, then, Bladesharp 2 would cause 2 damage versus an opponent that is "only affected by magic weapons", while a True Weapon would cause all rolled damage. That's BRP, though. In Mythras it's a bit weirder, because here Bladesharp increases weapon damage by a die step: A dagger goes from 1d4+1 to 1d6+1, while a great axe goes from 2d6+2 to 2d8+2 (!). So, how do we apply "just the magic part" to our wraith? I have suggested that the extra die step is what you use, treating that as 1d2. (You will lose, quickly, against that wraith.) Note that Mythras does not use progressive Folk Magic; there is just the one level of Bladesharp, as opposed to Bladesharp 1, 2, 6, or whatever. This emphasizes the power gap between Folk Magic and the higher forms. Overall that's a good thing, IMO. You could be even more draconian and just rule that, in Mythras, Bladesharp doesn't work at all against critters that are only hurt by magic. Going the other way, you could just allow the full 1d6+1 for your Bladesharp-ed dagger against a wraith--but that makes wraiths rather wimpy, no? In the end, your Mythras may vary, as we say. My personal take on "always on" magic weapons is that there should be 0 or 1 in a campaign at any time. (I have come to prefer low-magic settings, after years of high-magic "gamism".) Such a weapon should be a powerful artifact that shapes the destinies of people and kingdoms. Therefore it would probably be: * a True Weapon, always, with no MP expenditure by the user; * essentially unbreakable; * loaded with other magical effects, like being the bane of the creator's enemies (Demoralize), giving the wielder Witchsight, being able to fire a lightning bolt now and then, or having a charge of Heal Body that can be recharged at a temple.

>> why wear unnecessary clothing if you can choose or create an environment making textiles superfluous most of the time? Because sapient is not necessarily rational. :-) There could be many reasons for clothing that have nothing to do with practicality, and everything to do with psychology and culture--just like in the real world. ...but nudity could well be a standard, too; why not? Enjoy!