Re: [spoon-discuss] Where do we go from here?

[Glotmorf <nomicmorf@xxxxxxxxx>]

--- Baron von Skippy <bvs@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> I've got a fairly rough idea for a direction to go
> in which is (I think) pretty revolutionary (read: It
> comes with a whole new slew of problems). I'd like
> to see things get a little more abstract and
> precedent-based in this game. This idea came to me
> back when we were talking about putting Aes Sedai
> into this game - instead of having set powers (Force
> Grip, Push, Pull, Catch, Kickthecrapoutof), everyone
> gets a certain number of mana points (or some like
> term) in each of the five variants of the True
> Source and whenever you want to use them, you tell
> the Minister of Aes Sedai what you're trying to do
> and they, DM-like, determine a) whether it works, b)
> what it costs, and c) what the effects are, and then
> records all of that information so that others can
> do the same later. In this way, we avoid having to
> propose every single thing and the rules get a
> little more flexible and the game gets more
> interesting to play.

My preference would be White Wolf's Mage system (nine
spheres instead of five), but that's just because it's
what I've worked with.

Along those lines, though...if someone does X using a
certain sphere combination, is it really best if
everyone is then able to do it?  I'm thinking in terms
of (a) research and/or reverse-engineering, since,
just because someone sees something done doesn't mean
he immediately knows how to do it, and (b) shtick,
inasmuch as there are things that one person has
figured out to do because he has a natural knack for
it, something no one else might. (For the moment I'm
discounting (c) patent, because there are no secrets
in nature, and magic and science are both, strictly
speaking, products of nature.)

> So if we had a number of different Ministries that
> had that sort of mutability, and a central set of
> checks and balances (Dave can veto anything that's a
> Bad Thing (TM), for example), would that be good for
> people? I mean, this can be applied to a lot of
> things. I also had an idea featuring a huge list of
> simple materials which can be combined by players to
> make complex objects - for example, you could buy a
> lot of pipe, some sheet metal, parts of an engine,
> four wheels, and weld it all together into a car to
> cruise around the Grid on. If someone wanted to
> cause that car problems, say by throwing a Can of
> Whoopass at it, it would be up to the Minister to
> figure out the effects, as opposed to the thing
> simply vanishing (for example, a car might be
> smithereenized, but a tank might keep going, albeit
> with a brand new window on one size, and then you'd
> need to buy materials to fix it).

So the objects used as components would have to be
invented through rule proposals?  Or would they go
through your Invention Minister, much like the rotes
would go through the Magic Minister?

And...what about combining magic and science? :)

-- Glotmorf


__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
http://sbc.yahoo.com
_______________________________________________
spoon-discuss mailing list
spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx
http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-discuss