Author Topic: Alternate idea about hexing  (Read 12948 times)

Offline toturi

  • Conversationalist
  • **
  • Posts: 734
    • View Profile
Re: Alternate idea about hexing
« Reply #60 on: January 20, 2011, 07:29:45 AM »
It is not illogical in any way: the dominant paradigm of mortal wizards in the setting is that they can't use computers. Therefore the default assumption, unless specified otherwise, is that a given mortal wizard can't use computers, or has enough difficulty as to make it extremely prohibitive and troublesome. The weight of evidence in the fiction is pretty clear, and it is fallacious logic to take this one line and twist it in the direction needed to justify Luccio = 1337 haxx0r.
Her interest in computers being purely theorectical is the most plausible explanation, you could apply Occam's Razor to this. But her write-up is also written from the perspective of someone whose source suffers to a great degree from an inability to make full use of technology.
« Last Edit: January 20, 2011, 07:31:27 AM by toturi »
With your laws of magic, wizards would pretty much just be helpless carebears who can only do magic tricks. - BumblingBear

Offline devonapple

  • Posty McPostington
  • ***
  • Posts: 2165
  • Parkour to YOU!
    • View Profile
    • LiveJournal Account
Re: Alternate idea about hexing
« Reply #61 on: January 20, 2011, 07:31:02 AM »
I believe I have already addressed this.

I still think this is an example of the "Burden of Proof" fallacy (aka "Appeal to Ignorance"), in which the burden of proof is placed on the wrong side.
"Like a voice, like a crack, like a whispering shriek
That echoes on like it’s carpet-bombing feverish white jungles of thought
That I’m positive are not even mine"

Blackout, The Darkest of the Hillside Thickets

Offline toturi

  • Conversationalist
  • **
  • Posts: 734
    • View Profile
Re: Alternate idea about hexing
« Reply #62 on: January 20, 2011, 07:46:37 AM »
I still think this is an example of the "Burden of Proof" fallacy (aka "Appeal to Ignorance"), in which the burden of proof is placed on the wrong side.
If this thread was about the dominant paradigm of mortal wizards in the setting and someone brought up this issue, you would be right. But this thread is about alternatives, hence I am more inclined to place the burden of proof, as you put it, where I have.
With your laws of magic, wizards would pretty much just be helpless carebears who can only do magic tricks. - BumblingBear

Offline sinker

  • Posty McPostington
  • ***
  • Posts: 2115
    • View Profile
Re: Alternate idea about hexing
« Reply #63 on: January 20, 2011, 08:28:43 AM »
You can only go so far with the rhetoric of deniability before it devolves into the old chestnut of "have you stopped beating your wife?"

God knows I have.  ;D

Offline devonapple

  • Posty McPostington
  • ***
  • Posts: 2165
  • Parkour to YOU!
    • View Profile
    • LiveJournal Account
Re: Alternate idea about hexing
« Reply #64 on: January 20, 2011, 06:02:39 PM »
Setting aside the Luccio chestnut and moving forward with a proposed Alternate Hexing option:

We seem to have two options on the table:

1) Discipline Check
Wizard is near technology. GM asks for a Discipline check. If successful, no hex. If failed, tech is hexed and Wizard gets a Fate Point. Player can still buy out of the Compel with another Fate Point.

Analysis: If used as an absolute rule, this hinders weakens a GM's ability to Compel poignant plot-complicating tech failures, unless they reserved the right to just Compel the hexing rather than asking for a Discipline check.

2) Random Hex Check
Roll Fudge dice whenever Wizard is around technology. On a -4, that tech is hexed.

Analysis: This method seems to imply that Fate Points and Compels on hexing would be removed from the picture, since it is taking it out of the hands of both player and GM. I can still see a Wizard spending a Fate Point to avoid a particular accidental hex, but it's not going to come up that often. I would recommend that the GM roll again when a Wizard begins to lose his cool or get distracted around tech which may have "passed" a hex check earlier that Scene.

What do folks think?
« Last Edit: January 20, 2011, 06:09:39 PM by devonapple »
"Like a voice, like a crack, like a whispering shriek
That echoes on like it’s carpet-bombing feverish white jungles of thought
That I’m positive are not even mine"

Blackout, The Darkest of the Hillside Thickets

Offline BumblingBear

  • Posty McPostington
  • ***
  • Posts: 2123
  • Rawr.
    • View Profile
Re: Alternate idea about hexing
« Reply #65 on: January 20, 2011, 07:29:29 PM »
Setting aside the Luccio chestnut and moving forward with a proposed Alternate Hexing option:

We seem to have two options on the table:

1) Discipline Check
Wizard is near technology. GM asks for a Discipline check. If successful, no hex. If failed, tech is hexed and Wizard gets a Fate Point. Player can still buy out of the Compel with another Fate Point.

Analysis: If used as an absolute rule, this hinders weakens a GM's ability to Compel poignant plot-complicating tech failures, unless they reserved the right to just Compel the hexing rather than asking for a Discipline check.

2) Random Hex Check
Roll Fudge dice whenever Wizard is around technology. On a -4, that tech is hexed.

Analysis: This method seems to imply that Fate Points and Compels on hexing would be removed from the picture, since it is taking it out of the hands of both player and GM. I can still see a Wizard spending a Fate Point to avoid a particular accidental hex, but it's not going to come up that often. I would recommend that the GM roll again when a Wizard begins to lose his cool or get distracted around tech which may have "passed" a hex check earlier that Scene.

What do folks think?

Good gist.

I like option 1.
Myself: If I were in her(Murphy's) position, I would have studied my ass off on the supernatural and rigged up special weapons to deal with them.  Murphy on the other hand just plans to overpower bad guys with the angst of her short woman's syndrome and blame all resulting failures on Harry.

Offline devonapple

  • Posty McPostington
  • ***
  • Posts: 2165
  • Parkour to YOU!
    • View Profile
    • LiveJournal Account
Re: Alternate idea about hexing
« Reply #66 on: January 20, 2011, 07:33:28 PM »
I like option 1.

Excellent - thank you. Do you feel a GM should be free to waive the roll and go straight to a Compel if he feels strongly enough about a given situation?
"Like a voice, like a crack, like a whispering shriek
That echoes on like it’s carpet-bombing feverish white jungles of thought
That I’m positive are not even mine"

Blackout, The Darkest of the Hillside Thickets

Offline petroskhan

  • Lurker
  • Posts: 3
    • View Profile
Re: Alternate idea about hexing
« Reply #67 on: January 20, 2011, 08:56:13 PM »
I have been greatly enjoying this thread, even though it's made my head hurt.  But, as I was reading, a random question intruded, and I thought I would throw it out there.

A player in our game has a character whose only source of magic is Soulfire.  Now, this hasn't, oddly enough, come up yet, so I will ask:  Would this type of user of magic disrupt technology as a "full wizard" would?  Or is a user of Soulfire not really magical enough to have this issue? 

I am leaning towards him NOT disrupting technology, but would be very curious to see what others might think on the issue.

By the way, if this has been addressed or answered, I do apologize; I did actually search for it, but couldn't find it.

Offline sinker

  • Posty McPostington
  • ***
  • Posts: 2115
    • View Profile
Re: Alternate idea about hexing
« Reply #68 on: January 20, 2011, 09:00:27 PM »
It's regularly argued about and also one of those issues on which we often agree to disagree. Some people say any mortal spellcaster, regardless of where his/her power comes from, disrupts tech. Some people say that sponsored magic, being of the sponsor and not of the mortal is different. Use what you like.

Offline petroskhan

  • Lurker
  • Posts: 3
    • View Profile
Re: Alternate idea about hexing
« Reply #69 on: January 20, 2011, 09:05:44 PM »
Of course, right after posting, I found a thread on the very topic. 

The answer is exactly what I was afraid of, and actually is what makes this game (and the DresdenVerse) so interesting.  So much is uncertain, and it leaves a TON of room for debate and tailoring to each groups needs/wants.

Thanks for the reply; I guess we won't know for sure 'till Jim answers...I'll wait...

Jim?  Mr. Buthcher?  Hello? 

Offline petroskhan

  • Lurker
  • Posts: 3
    • View Profile
Re: Alternate idea about hexing
« Reply #70 on: January 23, 2011, 01:40:13 AM »
You know, this topic has spawned some other questions in our (beginning) group.

Since werewolves are basically using a very narrowly focused sort of "spell" to change, would they be affected adversely by running water?  Like when Nicodemus had Harry under running water, and he couldn't cast, would that affect a werewolf the same way?  Would he be able to summon, and hold onto, the necessary power? 

And what about someone who uses Soulfire?  The magic doesn't really come from him, but it does have to go through him...would he be able to cast under the same circumstances? 

Yeah, we do go off on tangents...a LOT.

Offline BumblingBear

  • Posty McPostington
  • ***
  • Posts: 2123
  • Rawr.
    • View Profile
Re: Alternate idea about hexing
« Reply #71 on: January 23, 2011, 02:51:25 AM »
Excellent - thank you. Do you feel a GM should be free to waive the roll and go straight to a Compel if he feels strongly enough about a given situation?

I think so, yes.

As you know, I am a big proponent for wizards with more control affecting technology less.

That said, any angry/upset/hurt/crazy wizard flinging magic inside a particle accelerator... I don't care how much control they have.

Things will get hairy.  No pun intended.

So yes, ultimately the GM has control anyway, but as a PC, if it is a situation where my character would obviously be hexing the hell out of stuff ... like casting spells and having ragged emotions while going through a metal detector... it would not bother me at all and I would have to bow to inevitability.

Part of the drawback for slinging around a few 5 or 6 weapon attacks per scene is having a bad romance with technology.
Myself: If I were in her(Murphy's) position, I would have studied my ass off on the supernatural and rigged up special weapons to deal with them.  Murphy on the other hand just plans to overpower bad guys with the angst of her short woman's syndrome and blame all resulting failures on Harry.