> David > How about we get the HW rules to buy us a little flexibility
> > here - rather than setting arbitrary breakpoints at which abilities
> > can be gained, lets set difficulties for Refuting various things.
> > Ie Refute need for clothes is against a difficulty 14w1 (or
> > against d+20), refute need for sleep, or food, or drink is D+40, etc.
> > This means we know how to use it when a mystic uses their 'no need
> > for sleep' ability against the Chalana Arroys sleep spell etc.
>
> That's of course a much better rule. So, if you keep the
> levels I set:
>
> Refute need for clothes/shelter: w
> Refute sleep: w2
> Refute aging: w3
I agree with this too ... and :
> The exact levels are open for debate of course.
> I think you gain the ability to refute any manifestation
> of the material world without such differentiation, but
> different schools emphasize the importance of different
> parts. If you want a difference which is more palpable
> at the game level, different schools could have different
> modifiers on refuting different aspects. Is that what
> you are after?
This is very good stuff for 'manifest' mysticism ; different schools would specialise in refuting various different portions of the world, but be completely caught up in other parts of the unreal. The mystic samurai, for instance, would be very good at refuting the physical limitations of combat, and the social illusion of the caste system, but shite at refuting the terrible power of nature (see the film 'After the Rain', for instance). Pretty good at refuting their own desires though : I love the scene where the main character slays his regrets with his sword/soul ...
> So for a list of material aspects, we have so far
> clothes/shelter, sleep, aging, injury. Additional ones
> I can think of are sex drive & fear.
Also, solidity of matter, the physical strength of your enemy, the force of the wind, the sharpness of iron, the coarseness of words, the greed of a merchant, ...
... it's an endless list, really ...
> Not very well put by me... Not useful as in useful for
> personal gain, rather as in game mechanically discernable.
> Orthodox mystics, by focusing on refuting the world should
> be increasingly less "there", increasingly more detached
> and hard to influence in any way. My thought was that an
> automatic handicap to opponents is a way to show this
> non-active advantage. It is in no way manifest as the
> mystic doesn't do anything to make it happen. It's an
> expression of his detachment.
Certainly.
> I suspect that we won't solve the "orthodox/manifest difference
> or not" issue here and now, and the mechanic may not be
> that necessary anyway, since orthodox mystics are unlikely
> player heroes...
Yes, but : IMO, the various mechanics for 'manifest' mysticisms should, ideally, be adapted from mechanics for orthodox mysticism ; the other Eastern mysticisms are ultimately derived from the orthodox kind, after all ...
> > > My thinking was that the more advanced you are in the
> > > mystic philosophy, the greater the fall is.
> >
> > I don't see that it has that affect though, does it? Rather it just
> > seems to make it a totally flat chance, other than due to the
> > vagarities of the scale.
>
> True, so the difficulty should actually increase as you
> advance then...
Yes.
> Me > But : This is a deep point of Mysticism : that it must be the opposite of the
>
> > Manifest, and in game terms as well. The Mystic should ideally be someone who
> > sees past the Illusion of other characters' (or other entities') 'hero-stuff',
> > and who can increasingly interact (until he finally understands the Ultimate)
> > with those that have Manifest super-powers AS IF those powers were
> > (as they are) illusory, non-existent, and unreal.
> >
> > So, a Mystic should probably generate Negative Action Points versus
> > Entanglements in the Manifest.
>
> Hmm, perhaps this could be a return of my auto-handicap
> idea, i.e. negative edge rather than negative AP. To make
> that mechanic a bit more palatable, what about letting the
> mystic inflict a handicap on opponents, using the same
> table you use for getting edges for yourself?
Yes. This *has* to be one of the basic rules of Mysticism.
cheers,
Julian Lord
Powered by hypermail