[Torg] 10-step Axioms (was Re: Why 0-21? Or why not?)

[Jasyn Jones]

On Feb 24, 2010, at 7:08 AM, Alexandre Chessel wrote:

> To be honest, I also have to admit that I didn't quite get the point of arguing about "quantitative" or wtf the problem is with having game mechanisms and difficulty numbers.

Don't worry about it, it was obfuscated code.

> If someone could list all the issues a chart may have to answer before getting "torgable"..?
> 
> May I start to help..:
> 
> -Reconnection DN
> -Miracles of faith, invocation
> -Spell building
> 
> -...probably a lot more

Actually, when the List had this exact same argument in 2006 or so, those were the only rules anyone could identify that were directly connected to the arithmetic values of the axiom charts. None of these three rules are utterly essential as-is.

Spell permanency needs to be done differently, for lots of reasons, and I said so long before choosing a 21 chart. (My original solution, cribbed from Bloodshadows, was wrong and I came up with a better one.)

The reconnection DN rules are metaphysically and practically questionable. (An issue I talked about before proposing 21 charts, and in fact my complaints were the source of Dom's house rule.)

As for invocations, the rules for them are badly misdesigned. (A community rating for a Focus total, when nearly all the faithful after Spirit 5, the first Spirit rating invocations become possible, won't have focus?) I proposed some changes to these back in '08 (which Jim commented on and helped refine) and rethinking the Spirit chart will involve changing them for other reasons.

> But despite all the fascinating things I could read here, I'm a bit disappointed. No answers specifically about a ten entries chart.

Yeah, all comments about your idea were actually arguments aimed my way.

As I said at first, I understand you suggestion on a practical basis: 

Assuming 8 realities in a game, each with their own unique value for each axiom, you have 8 levels for each axiom.

In a sense, that chart doesn't "need" any more, because you'll only ever use those 8.

That's not the basis I started from, but I understand the reasoning.

> My apologizes, but with all the time you use your brains cells on formulas, granularity, quantitative aspect, Moh Scale (LOL never heard about it, I'm not on hard science) and so on, you could have easlilly came up with new entries missing all the blanks of the old charts ! ;-)

<slightly hurt tone> I thought I had.

;) Kidding.

Good luck with your game.
--
Jasyn Jones
jasynj (at) gmail (dot) com

"To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield."
Ulysses, Alfred Lord Tennyson

Check out my Torg webpage, Storm Knights:
web.me.com/stormknights/