38071
Forum Games and Roleplaying / Re: Wagon train to the stars: Settling down (Salvation spin-off)
« on: January 11, 2013, 08:34:57 pm »But again, not terribly useful ATM.Lenses?Bingo.
LASER RIFLES
May 9, 2024: The May '24 Report is up.
News: April 23, 2024: Dwarf Fortress 50.13 has been released.
News: February 4, 2021: Dwarf Fortress Talk #28 has been posted.
News: November 21, 2018: A new Threetoe story has been posted.
Forum Guidelines
But again, not terribly useful ATM.Lenses?Bingo.
LASER RIFLES
That's already what happens in Fortress Mode. Dwarves just aren't that good at deciding what makes a legendary hero...Yeah, but you can't do that in Adventurer mode, and dwarves name weapons they get 'attached' to. I'd like to see the system expanded to include weapons used by famous heroes being named and registered as 'artifacts' even if they're essentially a normal sword.By that logic, if a dwarf uses a specific weapon to kill a powerful/notorious enemy, the weapon should be given a name/title either by the bearer or by the RNG. This would actually be friggin' awesome, and I'm all for it, particularly if it means we can name Adventurer mode weapons.It sorta happens - weapon can get named, but it can get named from "just" sparring or killing wild animals.
Just imagineMeh. Kinda silly. It also makes FB Roulette even worse.
Two dwarves, one runs past the other, the other turns and sees a cascading wall of fire approaching. He turns and runs as well, and both begin making their way through the tunnels. Through the craftsdwarves halls, through the kitchens, and out the main entrance. The elves are vaporized. Out of breath, they turn just in time to see the top of the mountain fracture, large pieces falling down the sides
¨What happened?¨
¨Forgotten beast made of Caesium. It got wet.¨
I'm not so sure large amounts of the stuff would react fast enough with water to act like the equivalent weight of gunpowder say. The most dramatic explosions I've seen from the stuff is from small bits. Notice how in this video you get a rolling explosion rather than a single huge blast.Indeed. It's an area:volume thing.
Still would make an interesting set of materials in game or even better if more interesting material reactions like this were possible.Interesting? Perhaps. Deadly? Yes. Inexplicable? No, excep maybe for alchemy.
More like "Injure myself unless I know what the heck I'm doing."QuoteWhat's the problem with this?No one would have magic...
That much is understandable.
No one would learn "Kill myself skill unless I manage to not die 100 times"-No-Jutsu
Well, that requires magic to be something that happens whenever someone does something instead of an actual force. The latter makes more sense. Also, even with that knowledge, you'd need to practice some to do it right or, alternatively, to not do it when you don't want to. Regardless, skill is useful.QuoteProblem is, "learning" power like that doesn't make senseMakes perfect sense. It is revealing the true nature of things and as such with that knowledge you gain what others do not which is the ability to manipulate it. Nothing more then complete knowledge of this will suffice.
In otherwords it is magic, actual magic. The context of real magic and not magic as a quasimechanical skill.
Why, not what. Also, you seem to be doing the exact same thing, so...QuoteWhy is that?Response as a quote
If magic is given as a gift by a god, it makes total sense to not need to study to learn how to use a spell--although other learning may be in order if you're not expecting the god to intervene every time you need it done. On the other hand, if magic is independent of greater powers (e.g, arcane spellcasters in D&D, including the wizard which is pretty close to your idea of arcane magic, or mages in Shadowrun, which are even more so), you'd need more practice--not just to learn how to do the spell, but how to do it right.QuoteSure, if magic is granted by gift. If it's meant to be studied to learn it...Confused as to what you mean
Depends on the world. But, most of the time, while knowledge is power, you need power to back up the knowledge. Again, in D&D (I keep using that example because it's well-known, and more importantly because its rules are well-defined), you can know all the true names you like, but you can't do squat without a level of truenamer.QuoteAll the knowledge of true names in the universe won't help you if you if you can't use any kind of magic. You still need some learning, if only to make sure you don't accidentally use magicSilly Rabit. The True Name "IS" magic. If you know the true name of a creature and you use it, you ARE using magic. There is no skill required no degree of skill required. You either know the true name or you do not.
Necromancy is a single ability. It's pretty much a single spell--Animate Dead. Heck, it's less versatile than the D&D spell of the same name, because you can only create one kind of undead. So yeah, it's basically a single spell. The only game in town? Sure. A whole school of magic? Not as it is now.QuoteI've played some RPGs, and I don't remember any of them having new levels of a specific spell. New spells? Sure, but that's different that what I saidNecromancy isn't a spell. So the equivilant would be an entire magical system.
This has a major flaw, and I'm not talking about making pretty much every sentence a whole paragraph. I'm talking about how absolutely nothing, not even actual philosophy or knowledge, works like that. You get better at everything. Why should magic be different?QuoteIf your definiton of "magical" is "utterly inexplicable," sureIt is rather easy to understand. Though it is by far more philosophical then academic. Where the requirement is a true understanding rather then academic conjecture.
In otherwords Philosophy based magic rather then Science Based Magic.
It does require you to step outside the barriers created by modern living where philosophy is treated with such disrespect that useless is synominous is philosophy.
Where to understand a concept is to gain power by that concept and where true revelation is power. You can manipulate something you cannot understand with science magic because understanding is not required, you just need the basics and you are done.
In this form of magic which I shall dub Philosophy magic you need that understanding far beyond in order to make it function because it only functions through understanding and not through manipulation of disconnected details like science often does.
How is necromancy not "Science Magic," if you're using the definition I'm thinking of? It does the same thing, reliably, every time. And if that isn't what you mean by "science magic," what DO you mean?QuoteArcane magic is magic. You're assuming that current!necromancy is 1.0!necromancy, an annoying fallacy which is used almost everywhereRead closer I am saying that as Necromancy currently is it actually manages to be more outright magical then science magic. Thus even if Science magic is added in I want Necromancy magic as it currently is to stay, possibly expanded, in the game somehow because it actually rounds out the game and provides a great system for the game to use.
Well, about the "keeping someone alive" thing: The idea is the same, you get better at something you already know how to do.QuoteWhy? I can see a vampire knowing "I need to bite peoples' necks kinda like this," but not "Here's a way I can feed off a person to keep him alive even with a bit less blood," or "I need to remember to secrete that anesthesia before biting next time." The basics? Sure, those can be innate. The details? Not so muchA lot of that sounds like it should be either unconscious or just outright logic. If a Vampire cannot "keep someone alive" then it is another kind of skill outside of feeding. As well whether or not to use Anesthesia sounds unconscious and a vampire would do automatically.
How to put it. If a skill caps out at Novice it isn't a skill or it is part of an aggregate of skills. "How do I bite?" caps at novice because once you got an idea it is done.That's frankly a stupid idea, made stupider by the fact that there's already a skill for just that goes all the way from Dabbling to Legendary+n.
A "Vampire" skill I could imagine existing. It representing the knowledge and skill of just being a vampire. Yet it would still need to be expanded (which Vampires will eventually have, with elder vampires unlocking new abilities with age)I don't think this would work well as a skill, or perhaps not as being restricted to vampires, depending on what you mean.
Well...In this game because it is making a statement on nature versus nurture, the normality of such, as well as how many people have it.It isn't the same thing. Including different races doesn't say anything about a race except that they exist.Why is that any different? How is including homosexuality in the game say anything about it except that it exists?
Including Homosexuals in the game is, in the current political environment, an outright political statement.
Just remember FATAL.You'd better not be saying that Toady shouldn't not add homosexuality just because FATAL had it. Because that would be completely moronic.
Does anyone remember FATAL?
FATAL did this badly, so my advice to Toady is, read FATAL and don't do any of that.
Guess what? Adding it needs someone else to infer something into it to be a statement.Only through inferrence. It says nothing passively.Leaving it out would be like saying that it doesn't fit anywhere in the Dwarf Fortress multiverse. Which would be quite big, given how diverse and all-encompassing Dwarf Fortress aims to be.Would it be a "political statement" to include homosexuality in the game? It would be an even bigger statement to leave it out.Now adays? Nope. Leaving it out is pretty neutral.
I don't know what you're talking about. Spain's conquistadors made them the richest nation on Earth for a while, there was never really a period of doubting them.Well, replace that with a note about a country with a less-successful start.
Plus, a self-sufficient colony in the New World didn't have that many requirements, being that it was still on Earth. Extraterrestrial colonies are going to need to produce everything they need right from the start, with almost no contributions from the outside environment.There's minerals, which isn't insignificant. Plus, as I mentioned earlier and elsewhere, there are prototypes of neat little greenhouses which provide air and food for people in nice compact packages; a model of one was on display at the Museum of Science and Industry for a while.
Doesn't work on Chrome. Try Firefox.Ah, that's my problem.