[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: matrix gems
Keep It Simple Stupid :)
AQ is "supposed" to be "simple" (that would be cooler with finger
quotes).
While AQ has fallen quite short of being "simple", I'm with Greg in that
there is no reason to add complexity if you don't have to. What does
this "attunement" crap really get you? What benefit does it add to the
game to justify the added complexity?
-Steve
----- Original Message -----
From: "Greg Mowczko" <mooch@cioe.com>
To: <fooboy@laf.cioe.com>; <steve@virtual-voodoo.com>
Cc: <gmlist@cioe.com>; <zodo@laf.cioe.com>
Sent: Tuesday, February 29, 2000 10:03 AM
Subject: Re: matrix gems
> Attune? that is crap. The only attuning that happens with a matrix gem
> is it changes to its colorful state when the correct person touches it
> and then fades to a dull grey(?) after it hasn't been handled for a
> while. No attunuation it just works for you or gives you pain.
>
> Greg
>
> > From fooboy@laf.cioe.com Tue Feb 29 09:01:45 2000
> > Date: Tue, 29 Feb 2000 09:01:29 -0500 (EST)
> > From: Foo <fooboy@laf.cioe.com>
> > To: "Steven E. Ames" <steve@virtual-voodoo.com>
> > cc: "Sean L. McLane" <zodo@laf.cioe.com>, gmlist@cioe.com
> > Subject: Re: matrix gems
> >
> > No, I think I'm going to go with Wright's plan. All Matrix Gems
require
> > time to attune to, so all incants on your person are at +2 ranks.
When
> > you use them, they act as if they are +2.
> >
> > -*********************************-
> > - Joel Gunderson -
> > - fooboy@laf.cioe.com -
> > - The only completely consistent -
> > - people are the dead. -
> > - -- Aldous Huxley -
> > -*********************************-
> >
> > On Mon, 28 Feb 2000, Steven E. Ames wrote:
> >
> > > Joel, whack me if I'm wrong here....
> > >
> > > Your suggesting that matrix gems only come into play when you
_USE_ the
> > > incant, not when your creating it? i.e. A nomad who uses an incant
while
> > > holding a nomadic (or chromatic) matrix gem has that incant act as
if
> > > its two ratings hire than it really is?
> > >
> > > That seems more consistent, just not sure how to bundle that up
into a
> > > magi-physical rationale.
> > >
> > > As for Sean's question on creating them... gots to be holding it
the
> > > whole time. A quick touch is just lame and I doubt any intelligent
GM
> > > would let that fly. The matrix gem doesn't just bestow power at a
> > > touch... its used to distill energy.
> > >
> > > -Steve
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: "Sean L. McLane" <zodo@laf.cioe.com>
> > > To: <gmlist@cioe.com>
> > > Sent: Monday, February 28, 2000 12:33 PM
> > > Subject: Re: matrix gems
> > >
> > >
> > > > <my comments included below...>
> > > >
> > > > > From fooboy@laf.cioe.com Mon Feb 28 12:27:16 2000
> > > > > Subject: matrix gems
> > > > >
> > > > > Ok, I'm about to point out an enormous inconsistency in the
rules
> > > (or at
> > > > > least the way people have been interpreting them).
> > > > >
> > > > > Matrix gems multiply some of the skills/abilities of
individual
> > > > > backgrounds by 1.5. IE, a mage has 1.5 times his normal
number of
> > > spell
> > > > > units when holding a matrix gem. If he drops the gem, his
total
> > > number of
> > > > > spell units goes back to the normal total. The same holds
true
> > > across the
> > > > > board. For warriors, your combat mod is multiplied by 1.5. If
a
> > > warrior
> > > > > drops his matrix gem, it goes back to its normal total. Ditto
for
> > > augers,
> > > > > marines, and priests. Nomads work a little differently.
> > > > >
> > > > > Typically, a Nomad holding a Nomadic matrix gem should have
all his
> > > > > incants increased by two ranks. However, players have been
using
> > > nomadic
> > > > > matrix gems (be it their own or someone elses) during the
creation
> > > of an
> > > > > incant to add two ranks to the total ranking of the incant on
a
> > > PERMANENT
> > > > > BASIS. This is flat out wrong. Once the incantor lets go of
the
> > > matrix
> > > > > gem, the incant should go back to it's normal ranking. This
is
> > > exactly
> > > > > the way mage/priest/warrior/auger/chromatic matrix gems
function.
> > > Now,
> > > > > correct me if I'm wrong here Dan, but isn't AQ pretty much
based on
> > > the
> > > > > fact that you have to give something to get something? Expend
exp
> > > for
> > > > > skills, expend exp for magic items, expend exp for spells, and
> > > expend exp
> > > > > for incants. The way people have been using the nomadic
matrix gems
> > > has
> > > > > been giving them something for nothing, and it's inconsistent
with
> > > the way
> > > > > the rest of the system works.
> > > > >
> > > > > Any questions?
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Do you think that this should apply only to anyone doing incants
in
> > > the future,
> > > > or should it also be grandfathered to include existing incants
that
> > > have been
> > > > boosted by this method.
> > > >
> > > > Also, when making an incant with the Matrix gem, does the gem
have to
> > > be held
> > > > through the duration of making the incant, or just touched once
at
> > > some point
> > > > during the making. This would be a significant question for
those who
> > > are
> > > > nomads as a secondary background, not primary.
> > > >
> > > > -Sean
> > > >
> > > > > If it's ok with everyone, I would like to announce this at the
next
> > > gaming
> > > > > session to make this official.
> > > > >
> > > > > -*********************************-
> > > > > - Joel Gunderson -
> > > > > - fooboy@laf.cioe.com -
> > > > > - The only completely consistent -
> > > > > - people are the dead. -
> > > > > - -- Aldous Huxley -
> > > > > -*********************************-
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>