Doc Democracy

I had to think on this through an insomnia period last night,  It all came back to the word, "story".  I came into this hobby through wargaming back in the mid to late 1970's (Microarmor for the win!), and I approached gaming as a competitive/cooperative group activity. Roleplaying was important, but it was in support of the activity. It was later in the  early 80's when playing Champions  with Carl Rigney, that we got into "Deep Roleplay", but even so, when I played and when I ran, I was thinking  "what would the characters do in this situation?{", rather than, "What would the characters do to be entertaining?".  In the old Usenet newsgroup rec.games.frp.advocacy, there were long and drawn out discussions and debates, and I found that I fell mostly in the "Simulationist/ Situationist" camp in that I was uncomfortable fudging die rolls as a GM, and  I would be completely transparent as a GM about rules and rolls, while being intentionally opaque about in game information and the intent of the opposition. That was what asking questions and detective work were for.  Sometimes the players found clues and stopped X, Y, Z on time, and sometimes they were ambushed because the missed, or didn't bother looking for clues.  I would also try not to play favorites among the players or characters.  I would lay out Hero System constructed "Tactical Puzzles" for my players and  see how they would solve it. I was entertained by watching them think, and fight. I didn't go for that "cooperative storytelling" philosophy, because my entertainment was seeing other people come up with creative solutions within a very tight, and mechanically constrained situation.
 
I rebelled against the trend  moving at the time that gave us "the Rule of Cool", and heavy reliance on literary sources.  To me, games like Amber or Fudge, and now Fate, were an anathema.  I desire structure and some amount of internal logic to my games. It may be, that I just don't "feel" the magic.  For me, a good game was a good "game".  It was cooperative in the way  a wargame was cooperative, but it was also competitive to a degree.
 
You mentioned " A good campaign striving to give magic unintended consequences should look to impose story consequences.", but all I can think of is the back an forth  between P.C.'s and N.P.C.s as they react to each other's moves in game. Having  utter, but localized crop failures because a P.C. used a spell seems unnecessarily arbitrary.  To me Consequences are a result of action and intent, usually. (or a bad decision or even bad luck), because in the end I want to have my game seen as "fair" to the players, and as open as I can manage, because I despise railroad tracks in games I play, as well, and a lot of RPG's of "Narrative significance", seem to invest a lot in steel rails and right of ways. 
 
For me, though it's all about the mechanics. I has to be, or it feels unfair and arbitrary and unattractive. Hero arrived, and for me was the fairest system I had experienced up to that time, as it was all about points rather than die rolls, and one could "wargame" a fight easily and simply. A good chunk of the fun of Champions was designing characters to test (or exploit) the rules in different combinations. This may be an antique point of view these days, but I still like it as a "game". For me a story is what the players tell "after the game" , not so much as during it. XD

I dont "want" magic in my game, I want "magic" in my game.  :-)
 
I think what you described in the pathfinder game is a great episode in a game.  It is not how you make magic in your game feel more like magic than an alternative technology.  I agree that something like that makes players less interested in playing magic - it is exactly the effect I was talking about magicians having on gun users in battles by making their weapons unreliable.  :-) :-)
 
I think there are better ways, often out of combat situations...

The Pathfinder scenario imposes mechanical consequences. A good campaign striving to give magic unintended consequences should look to impose story consequences.

My biggest epiphany in teaching people to play HERO has been treating the provided character sheet simply as a building sheet and designing a sheet that hides most of the numbers not needed often in gameplay, that uses words to describe powers rather than game terms, and has some design features that tie the sheet into the genre being played (even if that was simply a decent font).
 
This is a long-standing rant of mine.  game designers spend forever thinking of the mechanics and getting the rule book right and then seem to ruch out whatever black and white set of boxes with numbers in it that will suffice to hold the details the GM requires.
 
The character sheet is the players window to the system and the game.  The character sheet is the primary way in which the game designers must hook the players with the system and genre they are peddling.  We deserve better!  
 
I would say the first sheet that put me on this loop was Justice Inc - it screamed pulp to me.  That was pre-cheap printing and PC design tools...so much could be done now.

There are many little bits of magic I bet soldiers wished they might have.
 
A charm that prevents water and dust getting into their gun (even more useful for black powder weapons than modern stuff.
 
A charm that strengthens the integrity of the weapon (so less chance of barrels breaking etc).
 
A charm that keep your uniform clean (or at least presentable).
 
A charm that cleans your uniform (when the first one doesn't work)
A charm that speeds the loading of your weapon.
 
A charm that helps your aim.
 
A charm that reduces your need for water (or food)
 
A charm that keeps you warm (or cool)
 
A charm that identifies friends and foes on the battlefield.
 
A charm that allows squads to keep in communication.
 
So many little magics that make being a squaddie more comfortable.  :-)
 
Doc

Absolutely. 100% agree. I was using the scientific language for the benefit of this discussion. I was trying to explain that the mass effects of magic could cause problems for technology by removing the crutch of reproducibility that science depends upon. If I was to have such an effect then it would need to have a better name. However, not all of the magic should be so obvious. If gunpowder fails to ignite, if rivets fail to hold, if metal tubes fail to retain their integrity without obvious cause, then it will reduce morale of the troops as they cannot trust their weapons. If you see vines grow out of the rifle stock, you use it as a club or stab with the bayonet. If you see nothing and try to fire the weapon, you lose the chance to do anything...
 
:-)
 
Pratchett's Pandemonium is a much better name for this kind of effect... :-)

I wanted to challenge this as it is my own default assumption set.
 
I think it is easy to berate the media, especially labelling them as liars. I think it is easy to believe the best of people and their willingness to do things better.
 
Those two easy things make it feel that the current situation must be the result of machinations at the highest levels, classic conspiracy fodder.
 
Now, who is to blame if we have a lying media? Us of course. We buy the newspapers, browse the advert supported sites and share the stuff we buy into and even the things we want to decry to our friends. In a first world democratic nation, The key driver for a lying media that peddles fake news and a right wing agenda is the right minded people that pay for the media.
 
That is those same people that back fairness and inclusion, a chunk of whom help vote in the politicians that drive the policy debate in response to the dog whistle politics of that very same media.
 
At some point we need to stand up and admit that we are responsible for our country's politics and culture. We are the ones allowing or facilitating it to happen and that if we cannot stop it, either accept the limitations of our fellow countrymen or accept that we might need to lose some of the choice and freedoms that have been our main goal over the past century.
 
(Or did I go a bit too far at the end there?? :-) )

I wanted to challenge this as it is my own default assumption set.
 
I think it is easy to berate the media, especially labelling them as liars. I think it is easy to believe the best of people and their willingness to do things better.
 
Those two easy things make it feel that the current situation must be the result of machinations at the highest levels, classic conspiracy fodder.
 
Now, who is to blame if we have a lying media? Us of course. We buy the newspapers, browse the advert supported sites and share the stuff we buy into and even the things we want to decry to our friends. In a first world democratic nation, The key driver for a lying media that peddles fake news and a right wing agenda is the right minded people that pay for the media.
 
That is those same people that back fairness and inclusion, a chunk of whom help vote in the politicians that drive the policy debate in response to the dog whistle politics of that very same media.
 
At some point we need to stand up and admit that we are responsible for our country's politics and culture. We are the ones allowing or facilitating it to happen and that if we cannot stop it, either accept the limitations of our fellow countrymen or accept that we might need to lose some of the choice and freedoms that have been our main goal over the past century.
 
(Or did I go a bit too far at the end there?? :-) )

Have a look at the Brian McClellan books which is a fantasy setting in an age of black powder with some powder mages focussed round gunpowder.
 
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Sins-Empire-Gods-Blood-Powder-ebook/dp/B01MAUGT9K/ref=sr_1_4?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1489397937&sr=1-4&keywords=brian
 
Interesting story if not brilliantly told.
 
 
Doc

Have a look at the Brian McClellan books which is a fantasy setting in an age of black powder with some powder mages focussed round gunpowder.
 
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Sins-Empire-Gods-Blood-Powder-ebook/dp/B01MAUGT9K/ref=sr_1_4?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1489397937&sr=1-4&keywords=brian
 
Interesting story if not brilliantly told.
 
 
Doc

I don't do much with scripting for my Roll20 Hero game. In fact, I have done more with it since stealing from Doc Democracy's work in the Champions sandbox he built than I ever did on my own. He's got some good ideas as to how to accomplish some things I'd never considered.
 
Roll20 is good for flexibility at the expense of a DIY approach to everything.

Have a look at the Brian McClellan books which is a fantasy setting in an age of black powder with some powder mages focussed round gunpowder.
 
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Sins-Empire-Gods-Blood-Powder-ebook/dp/B01MAUGT9K/ref=sr_1_4?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1489397937&sr=1-4&keywords=brian
 
Interesting story if not brilliantly told.
 
 
Doc

There are many little bits of magic I bet soldiers wished they might have.
 
A charm that prevents water and dust getting into their gun (even more useful for black powder weapons than modern stuff.
 
A charm that strengthens the integrity of the weapon (so less chance of barrels breaking etc).
 
A charm that keep your uniform clean (or at least presentable).
 
A charm that cleans your uniform (when the first one doesn't work)
A charm that speeds the loading of your weapon.
 
A charm that helps your aim.
 
A charm that reduces your need for water (or food)
 
A charm that keeps you warm (or cool)
 
A charm that identifies friends and foes on the battlefield.
 
A charm that allows squads to keep in communication.
 
So many little magics that make being a squaddie more comfortable.  :-)
 
Doc

There are many little bits of magic I bet soldiers wished they might have.
 
A charm that prevents water and dust getting into their gun (even more useful for black powder weapons than modern stuff.
 
A charm that strengthens the integrity of the weapon (so less chance of barrels breaking etc).
 
A charm that keep your uniform clean (or at least presentable).
 
A charm that cleans your uniform (when the first one doesn't work)
A charm that speeds the loading of your weapon.
 
A charm that helps your aim.
 
A charm that reduces your need for water (or food)
 
A charm that keeps you warm (or cool)
 
A charm that identifies friends and foes on the battlefield.
 
A charm that allows squads to keep in communication.
 
So many little magics that make being a squaddie more comfortable.  :-)
 
Doc

There are many little bits of magic I bet soldiers wished they might have.
 
A charm that prevents water and dust getting into their gun (even more useful for black powder weapons than modern stuff.
 
A charm that strengthens the integrity of the weapon (so less chance of barrels breaking etc).
 
A charm that keep your uniform clean (or at least presentable).
 
A charm that cleans your uniform (when the first one doesn't work)
A charm that speeds the loading of your weapon.
 
A charm that helps your aim.
 
A charm that reduces your need for water (or food)
 
A charm that keeps you warm (or cool)
 
A charm that identifies friends and foes on the battlefield.
 
A charm that allows squads to keep in communication.
 
So many little magics that make being a squaddie more comfortable.  :-)
 
Doc

I'm not sure why you have the impression that magic is rare in my setting (you've commented on my other threads that give detail to the setting); I was merely pointing out alternative ways that magic could be limited below the "unstoppable cosmic power" level you were describing that didn't involve the user being dead, insane, or wishing that they were.
 
And I don't see how guns would remotely pose a risk to magic dying out unless one was specifically writing to that scenario - after all, just because we have guns doesn't mean we don't give soldiers knives too. Or put another way - even if all magic can do is let people shoot lasers out of their eyes once a day.... you don't think that's a useful tool to have on hand?

I have the odd notion that we should be able to model a crowbar almost purely with skill levels (though needed to look in the rulebook to check current rules)
 
How about
 
Crowbar:  4 overall levels, only to increase damage or with skills that could be enhanced with use of a crowbar (-2), OAF (-1)
 
It potentially looks a bit expensive (12 points) but maybe not for the value...
 
Doc

OK, I see what you're saying. But I'm thinking most crowbar-related tasks would be STR-based anyway - ie "I'm going to try and open this crate" "OK, roll your STR damage." "I have a crowbar!" "OK, add +3d6." So a STR/damage adder would still work. Seems like maybe we're over-thinking it.

I will begin bringing things over soon. This displays an aspect of my Belbin profiling (analyses the role you play in a team). I scored 0 in "finishing/completing". I am not the guy who crosses the t's, dots the i's and ensures everything is delivered. I am, apparently a mix of what they call Plant (creative, unorthodox and generators of ideas) and Shaper (people who challenge the team to improve).
 
What that seems to mean is that I am incredibly excited about new stuff, want to introduce it, want to keep tinkering until it is good enough to do the job it is intended for and then loses interest in the last bits that might make it usable for everyone else...
 
:-)
 
So I a tinkering and solving problems but not packaging up and bring the solutions back to the boards...
 
I will force myself to overcome my natural inclinations and in time will continue posting character solutions here.
 
 
Doc
 
PS: this post is an exercise in self-shaming. Part of my process to overcome that lack of finishing by making public promises...

You know, my biggest concern is that somehow it has become accepted that we should consider all, or oven most, politicians to be venal and/or corrupt.  It is a dangerous situation and it means that politicians have very little incentive to strive to be better, noone would believe them.
 
If all our politicians are venal and/or corrupt then who is to blame?  In a democracy the ultimate blame must rest with the electorate, it is they, after all, who elect these venal and corrupt people.  The problem is that we cannot be bothered to actually engage with the process, we want a vote or two every five years to be enough.  It is not.
 
I think there is also the problem that we flock to rumour and half-truths about our politicians, holding them to higher standards than we hold ourselves, feeding a scandal hungry media more ready to challenge personal failings than with policy failings.
 
the biggest problem with an acceptance that all politicians lie is that when one really does simply say whatever is most personally beneficial then there is not the outrage there should be about a politician that blatantly lies to the electorate.
 
It would behove us all to demand our politicians are truthful, that they are held to account for lying and that we are more circumspect about what we call a lie.  We all need to accept that we get the politicians we deserve and that simply sounding off on the internet is not engaging with the political process and does not strengthen democracy...
 
Doc

You know, my biggest concern is that somehow it has become accepted that we should consider all, or oven most, politicians to be venal and/or corrupt.  It is a dangerous situation and it means that politicians have very little incentive to strive to be better, noone would believe them.
 
If all our politicians are venal and/or corrupt then who is to blame?  In a democracy the ultimate blame must rest with the electorate, it is they, after all, who elect these venal and corrupt people.  The problem is that we cannot be bothered to actually engage with the process, we want a vote or two every five years to be enough.  It is not.
 
I think there is also the problem that we flock to rumour and half-truths about our politicians, holding them to higher standards than we hold ourselves, feeding a scandal hungry media more ready to challenge personal failings than with policy failings.
 
the biggest problem with an acceptance that all politicians lie is that when one really does simply say whatever is most personally beneficial then there is not the outrage there should be about a politician that blatantly lies to the electorate.
 
It would behove us all to demand our politicians are truthful, that they are held to account for lying and that we are more circumspect about what we call a lie.  We all need to accept that we get the politicians we deserve and that simply sounding off on the internet is not engaging with the political process and does not strengthen democracy...
 
Doc

You know, my biggest concern is that somehow it has become accepted that we should consider all, or oven most, politicians to be venal and/or corrupt.  It is a dangerous situation and it means that politicians have very little incentive to strive to be better, noone would believe them.
 
If all our politicians are venal and/or corrupt then who is to blame?  In a democracy the ultimate blame must rest with the electorate, it is they, after all, who elect these venal and corrupt people.  The problem is that we cannot be bothered to actually engage with the process, we want a vote or two every five years to be enough.  It is not.
 
I think there is also the problem that we flock to rumour and half-truths about our politicians, holding them to higher standards than we hold ourselves, feeding a scandal hungry media more ready to challenge personal failings than with policy failings.
 
the biggest problem with an acceptance that all politicians lie is that when one really does simply say whatever is most personally beneficial then there is not the outrage there should be about a politician that blatantly lies to the electorate.
 
It would behove us all to demand our politicians are truthful, that they are held to account for lying and that we are more circumspect about what we call a lie.  We all need to accept that we get the politicians we deserve and that simply sounding off on the internet is not engaging with the political process and does not strengthen democracy...
 
Doc

You know, my biggest concern is that somehow it has become accepted that we should consider all, or oven most, politicians to be venal and/or corrupt.  It is a dangerous situation and it means that politicians have very little incentive to strive to be better, noone would believe them.
 
If all our politicians are venal and/or corrupt then who is to blame?  In a democracy the ultimate blame must rest with the electorate, it is they, after all, who elect these venal and corrupt people.  The problem is that we cannot be bothered to actually engage with the process, we want a vote or two every five years to be enough.  It is not.
 
I think there is also the problem that we flock to rumour and half-truths about our politicians, holding them to higher standards than we hold ourselves, feeding a scandal hungry media more ready to challenge personal failings than with policy failings.
 
the biggest problem with an acceptance that all politicians lie is that when one really does simply say whatever is most personally beneficial then there is not the outrage there should be about a politician that blatantly lies to the electorate.
 
It would behove us all to demand our politicians are truthful, that they are held to account for lying and that we are more circumspect about what we call a lie.  We all need to accept that we get the politicians we deserve and that simply sounding off on the internet is not engaging with the political process and does not strengthen democracy...
 
Doc

You know, my biggest concern is that somehow it has become accepted that we should consider all, or oven most, politicians to be venal and/or corrupt.  It is a dangerous situation and it means that politicians have very little incentive to strive to be better, noone would believe them.
 
If all our politicians are venal and/or corrupt then who is to blame?  In a democracy the ultimate blame must rest with the electorate, it is they, after all, who elect these venal and corrupt people.  The problem is that we cannot be bothered to actually engage with the process, we want a vote or two every five years to be enough.  It is not.
 
I think there is also the problem that we flock to rumour and half-truths about our politicians, holding them to higher standards than we hold ourselves, feeding a scandal hungry media more ready to challenge personal failings than with policy failings.
 
the biggest problem with an acceptance that all politicians lie is that when one really does simply say whatever is most personally beneficial then there is not the outrage there should be about a politician that blatantly lies to the electorate.
 
It would behove us all to demand our politicians are truthful, that they are held to account for lying and that we are more circumspect about what we call a lie.  We all need to accept that we get the politicians we deserve and that simply sounding off on the internet is not engaging with the political process and does not strengthen democracy...
 
Doc

You know, my biggest concern is that somehow it has become accepted that we should consider all, or oven most, politicians to be venal and/or corrupt.  It is a dangerous situation and it means that politicians have very little incentive to strive to be better, noone would believe them.
 
If all our politicians are venal and/or corrupt then who is to blame?  In a democracy the ultimate blame must rest with the electorate, it is they, after all, who elect these venal and corrupt people.  The problem is that we cannot be bothered to actually engage with the process, we want a vote or two every five years to be enough.  It is not.
 
I think there is also the problem that we flock to rumour and half-truths about our politicians, holding them to higher standards than we hold ourselves, feeding a scandal hungry media more ready to challenge personal failings than with policy failings.
 
the biggest problem with an acceptance that all politicians lie is that when one really does simply say whatever is most personally beneficial then there is not the outrage there should be about a politician that blatantly lies to the electorate.
 
It would behove us all to demand our politicians are truthful, that they are held to account for lying and that we are more circumspect about what we call a lie.  We all need to accept that we get the politicians we deserve and that simply sounding off on the internet is not engaging with the political process and does not strengthen democracy...
 
Doc