Enabling Co-op on Magical Disturbances

[Acacea]

At the moment, the mechanical system for magical disturbances left by GMs is for solo attempts only. I do not really understand the purpose in the current implementation, because the DCs are so slim as to be pointless for anyone but Storold.

It's not actually the difficulty that I disagree with, though. I think that it should be difficult-to-impossible for anyone but Storold to repair such disturbances... alone. On GM quest after GM quest we have tackled them in groups and circles - some people have spent a lot of time trying to research and participate in them. Now it is just a mechanical system only one person can help with.

Maybe it could use the main person's* concentration score, and do some division with present party member caster levels and/or SC.

Like I said... it's not the DCs that are the problem, it's the fact that the system assumes anyone would ever try such things alone, which they never have. Did no one repair these before Storold? No... it just took a lot more of them, which itself makes him stand out more than making him the one person in the church that is actually doing anything in the very cause they are utterly devoted to carrying out. More than that, he could be leading little bands of mages that can participate in ritual mendings instead of just having to watch.

I just don't like everyone else being forced out solely by mechanics, nor Storold himself being reduced to a lone magical Roomba.

[SIZE=10]*The character having the dialogue[/SIZE]

[Ravemore]

Very good points!!

[EdTheKet]

I do not really understand the purpose in the current implementation, because the DCs are so slim as to be pointless for anyone but Storold.

We simply have never considered a co-op approach. Good idea though!

[lonnarin]

We had that bard/spellcaster co-op check reinforcing the magical barrier during the 2nd great Hempstead Tsunami not long ago.  Andrew, Acacea and Farros all playing their loudest and all the mages channeling energy... then Hedessa's head exploded.

[Acacea]

Please consider allowing team projects. There is no reason why there should not be disturbances that Storold alone cannot attend to. It was always my belief that no one should do them alone to begin with - that kind of thing was a huge deal on quests and teams of characters have always tackled them, particularly Lucindites. Magical disturbances are almost entirely the point of the Lucindite church, as from a Lucindite perspective they are caring for the body and soul of the goddess herself. Completely excluding the rest of the church and PCs with long experience simply because they are only able to try alone kills a lot of potential roleplay and would-be effort.

*adds an extra sad face for good measure*

Grabbing a GM when you have a team of people looking into one is often not an option. Please consider various co-op possibilities. There are several different ways it could be done.

[Dorganath]

Quoting Ed just for the fun of it....

We simply have never considered a co-op approach. Good idea though!

@Acacea, I know we've had several conversations on this and I'll admit freely it hasn't been a priority. It's a good idea, but it's never gone past the idea stage.  There's no real reason for that.  It just....hasn't.

For this next comment, I'm separating the RP of things (i.e. your question of whether or not people fixed these things before Storold) from the mechanical side of things and only speaking about the latter...because sure, Lucindite NPCs likely have been attempting to correct those disturbances for quite a long time, and what can happen on a quest situation with a capable group doesn't need active mechanics.

Anyway, the balance point, and this is where the lack of progress is at primarily (meaning a discussion that needs to happen which has not yet happened) is that whatever co-op mechanics we come up with, we need to keep from encroaching too heavily upon Storold's WLDQ reward. Otherwise, I'd probably say "OK, we'll make it straight addition." and call it a day.

So it's not forgotten...just...kinda...shuffled.

Come on now...turn that frown upside down!

[Alatriel]

....:p

[Acacea]

I could have quoted too... because it hadn't been considered at the time. (By Ed, anyway. We'd talked about it before.) 6 months later it has been pointed out.

Consider this simply a bump with elaboration. I did not rant on the lack of response, only reiterated the reasons for the thread in order to justify the bump.

As far as encroaching on a WL reward, if you have to cripple a faith in order to create a position, you are going about quests backwards. You need to make WLs desirable parties within roleplayable groups, teachers and leaders, not make them "lone magical roombas*."

If you reward someone with boots that can spider-walk along sheer cliffs or even ceilings so that they always auto-succeed their climbing checks, does it make using ropes, piggy back rides, and other group efforts to carry those not so good at climbing encroach on their reward?  

That is solely a response to the issue of balancing against WL rewards, and because it has come up as a "problem" when discussed before.

*Taken from original post!

[Gulnyr]

If Storold can do something alone that everyone else pretty much must do as a group or not do at all, isn't he still the king of the hill?  Should I be upset that a lot of Jennara's WL reward effects can be duplicated by most casters (if maybe not as efficiently)?  I'm not, by the way.  No offense to Storold or Pibe, of course.  I'm just not getting it.  

Anyway, doesn't really matter.  

Would it be possible to make something more generally useful that would also help the magical disturbance thing? In other words, build one system to use for many things.  If it's possible to fix disturbances as a group, maybe we could climb as a group, too, instead of just staring at the clumsy people like idiots or having to have a caster buff them. So someone could make a Spellcraft check (with any modifiers) to assist the primary disturbance fixer, or a Strength check (with a rope modifier, maybe) to help some Samnyma across a chasm or up a cliff, or whatever else could be done with one character assisting another. All the same system, just put to different uses with different skills or attribute rolls depending on the task.  

The bonus (or penalty) to the primary's roll could be based not just on the overall skill level of the assistant(s) but on the degree of success (or failure).

[Dorganath]

@Acacea
Uh, no, we're note "crippling an entire faith." That's a little over-the-top and it ignores what I said about separating the RP aspects of ways to fix those magical disturbances (which is already possible) from the mechanical request you're making.  It it solely the mechanical aspect I'm talking about.  

And it's not what I was saying anyway.

It's a mechanical balance factor that has to be sorted out.  Storold has a huge advantage both mechanically and in an RP sense, but no one has ever said that Storold is not THE ONLY one who can attempt to fix the disturbances.  The very fact that there is any chance at all for a single caster would imply this alone.

All I've been saying is that we need to have the discussion as to how many non-Storolds it takes to rival one Storold in probability and/or if there is some cap that we don't want to pass for a group attempt...and that it is this discussion that has not yet happened. It's an oversight, not a back-handed attempt to "cripple" anything or anyone. Also, my reasoning for keeping whatever system we develop from encroaching on a reward should not be seen as resistance to the idea, but only a statement of what needs to be done before it is coded.

As Ed said in this thread and as I have said to you privately in the past, a mechanical representation of a group effort was simply not considered when the system was designed.  It's just that simple.

@Gulnyr
It is precisely the efficiency factor that makes many WLDQ rewards unique and special.  Sure, in Jennara's case, much of what her reward can do can also be mimicked by most casters, but not in that neat of a bundle.  The same can be said for Connor's reward (the mechanical portions anyway), or Acacea's or many others.  It is often not that no one else can do A Thing...it's that no one else can do A Thing in the way that the WL can.

So yes, Storold is king of the hill as far as magical disturbances goes, but let's say (and I'll purposefully exaggerate for illustration) we make it so that two people could make an attempt at about the same chance for success as Storold.  Well suddenly that makes what Storold can do somewhat less special.  This is of course an unreasonable example and not one we'd implement. On the flip side, what sorts of levels of success are reasonable for a group?  How may people would it take to make an attempt with a reasonable chance for success? 10? 15?  The number shouldn't be too low nor to high.

So again, that is a discussion that hasn't happened but which needs to.

I'm not saying "no" here or being resistive. I"m just telling you all what needs to be worked out and why I just didn't jump all over the idea and sing its praises.

As Ed said, it's a good idea!

[Acacea]

Why would I accuse anyone of backhanding (implies intent), particularly when the guy that is answering plays a Lucindite who himself has been involved in repairing several disturbances himself? Some of them on the same quests I was attending.

I was simply saying that if somebody's reward is threatened by a group of people being able to shoot for the same thing, then the rewards are backwards. There was no intent implied there, just a suggested shift of perspective. The statement was actually more directed at the reward itself (if that is the sole reward), needing to be defended against multiples, not the actual intent behind the reward. It doesn't matter if it was solely mechanical - my example can be shorn to mechanics as well, with the point being that if the climb skill can't be grouped because someone has spider boots, then it wasn't the best mechanical reward... assuming that mechanics follow the world and all.

This leaves out the discussions that were had in the past over these same issues, however, and that it was given as a big reason it might not fly. I have heard it before, which is why I responded specifically to that worry... however it was no doubt also subconsciously inspired by recent threads devoted to the WL frustrations in general which I will not get into. (That's not a dig, Pibe, PMing to explain) Specific numbers were also suggested that involved a lot more than two people, heh. A little over-the-top, isn't it? But extreme examples serve their purpose I think?

I really wasn't bitter or anything about not getting a response, and knew that it was probably already long forgotten for obvious reasons... it is the list of serious considerations that are the hold-up that were kind of weird and struck hashed and rehashed nerves. I do realize that it involves work and someone to do them (where we really don't have much of anyone), but pretty much doubted that it had been brought up for consideration at all and hit it again, that is all... I just reiterated. The sad faces were were transparent attempts at being extra persuasive at prompting solution discussion, not really tears at being broken up about it.

That is why the thread was bumped - to prompt it for consideration and discussion. I know it takes someone to do it. It didn't really seem like it was important enough to remember... which was fine. There's other stuff to do. Like I said, it wasn't considered at the time, but it was discussed immediately after implementation announcement... it's a bump for a forgotten thread that doesn't even affect everyone.

In case by leaving out the long discussions on IRC make it seem as though I thought there was simply a co-op switch to be toggled, I will include random implementations that have pros and cons later which have been mentioned.

I know it is hard to believe, but a "not exactly on the top of the list but noted" would have worked just as well... you could just as easily say "you could have just said bump" as I probably would have spared myself the rest.

Gulnyr's suggestion does affect everyone and is more to the point about the theme of group aid in general, however, which makes all of the potential suggestions more con than pro - it would be just for the one thing and not for all solo checks. It deserves a separate thread and bigger discussion. I will leave out the sad face at the end of that sentence to avoid any misunderstanding.



Oops.

[Hellblazer]

Speaking of magical disturbance, I don't know if this is remotely possible, but if there is a magical disturbance in an area that has npc casters, shouldn't the disturbance affect the npc's as well?

[Acacea]

I wish! The non-casting you see in toolset created dead/wild magic areas is due to careful selection of non-caster creatures, not because they are affected by it... there are a lot of variations on the vault that are the same way, and I don't understand enough about it to know what would need to change, how, or level of impossibility.

The best that can be done with what we have right now, that I know of, is for DMs to pay attention to what zones they are making DMZs and removing casters and replacing them with other creatures... but then that's whole spawn replacing at times so, well, pretend for now! Maybe someone else knows enough to make it happen. *stares in their direction*

[Dorganath]

Yeah, correct.  The permanent Wild and Dead magic zones are designed with that in mind, including the choice of creatures.  Any "casting" they appear to do should be interpreted as an ability, not an actual spell.

Temporary disturbances are meant to be transient, and yes, GMs should pay some attention to what creatures are in the area, but since they're transient, it's not really a huge issue unless every single hostile NPC in the area is a spell caster. Making wild/dead magic affect NPCs would unfortunately interfere with "spell-like" abilities (that are not intended to be magic or spells) that creatures in permanent wild/dead magic zones are supposed to possess.

[Acacea]

On the bright side, our items aren't disenchanted, either...

It's "dead magic lite."