This is a thread I have posted here before, but I have new features I am considering adding, so I would like some feedback.

Selection: Roleplay Evolved has two core mechanics. Covert Comparisons are a diceless mechanic intended to be used when speed or maintaining immersion trumps the need for mechanical precision. It basically works by having the GM say, "Your stat is A grade, the task is C grade, therefore you pass with two extra successes."

The Fusion Pool is the exact opposite: it is a dice mechanic intended to be open to a ton of player creativity and to capture a lot of mechanical nuance. However, it accomplishes this at the expense of being a complex and possibly slow mechanic with a hefty learning curve. I want to repeat this: the fusion pool is NOT intended as an all-in-one mechanic the way the D20 roll is; it is intended to partner with Covert Comparisons.

How does the Fusion Pool work?

Players select four step dice representing skills and attributes relevant to an action. Unlike many other mixed dice systems, players may double-up or even triple-up representations for specific skills or attributes, but they must follow a set of rules the GM provides called the Splicing Rules.

The player rolls, and counts dice which rolled 1, 2, or 3 as successes.

Optionally, the player may add Die Echoes, which cost additional resources like Action Points, but allow you to bank any successes you've already rolled, pick up some or all of your dice, and reroll them. You can only reroll each die once, so you can't spend all your Die Echoes on your best die, but you are expected to prefer rerolling your best dice first. As with before, count how dice which rolled 1, 2, or 3 as successes.

On the GM side, the GM can set the difficulty several ways. The obvious way is to start with a Covert Comparison and draw a finger across a GM table ("C grade means 2 successes required.") Or you can follow the boilerplate rule of 1, 2, 3. One success needed? Easy. Two successes needed? Normal. Three successes needed? Hard. More than 3? Very hard to practically impossible.

Why is it a bloody Roll-Under?

Most step dice systems struggle to include the D20 and the D4. Written as a roll-over, the gap between the D12 and the D20 becomes an almost unplayable power skip. Written as a roll-under, the gap becomes the first step in a learning curve, and the D20 and the D4 can both fit into the same progression curve.

Additionally, a roll-over system would probably have to use a roll and keep approach, which involves more arithmetic. I am trying to save all the complexity budget operations for other things, which means an arithmetic-free core mechanic.

Optional Rules:

Vetoing. If a player rolls successes, but not enough successes to succeed, they may take narrative control to veto a certain negative outcome from resulting from their rolls.

"The kidnapper holds the governor's daughter up, and says, "I'll kill her!"

"I shoot at the exposed side of his face." (Rolls two successes out of four needed.)

"I do not shoot the governor's daughter."



Feedback Request: Shedding Dice

Die Shedding is a death spiral mechanic where compromised players lose dice. You assemble your pool normally, but instead of rolling all four dice, you choose and remove a number of them from your pool, and then roll.

The point of Die Shedding is that it cancels Die Echoes out, and as players can purchase all the Die Echoes they want by spending more AP, the death spiral becomes an AP penalty where the player may choose to ignore the penalty or restore their roll.

My Thoughts

The Fusion Pool mechanic has proven to tolerate a lot of feature-creep because it is an arithmetic-free mechanic which is not always used for every action. It's more a "combat or PCs are up to something creative" roll which gets pulled out on special occasions, or it gets hacked down by ignoring some of the rules.

That said, I think that the Fusion Pool is very close to the limit for how much feature creep it can accept without chugging, and that I should probably choose between Vetoes or Die Shedding rather than having both. So I have to ask: which strikes you as the more relevant feature?

Quote from: Fheredin on February 10, 2025, 08:55:38 PMThis is a thread I have posted here before, but I have new features I am considering adding, so I would like some feedback.

Selection: Roleplay Evolved has two core mechanics. Covert Comparisons are a diceless mechanic intended to be used when speed or maintaining immersion trumps the need for mechanical precision. It basically works by having the GM say, "Your stat is A grade, the task is C grade, therefore you pass with two extra successes."

The Fusion Pool is the exact opposite: it is a dice mechanic intended to be open to a ton of player creativity and to capture a lot of mechanical nuance. However, it accomplishes this at the expense of being a complex and possibly slow mechanic with a hefty learning curve. I want to repeat this: the fusion pool is NOT intended as an all-in-one mechanic the way the D20 roll is; it is intended to partner with Covert Comparisons.

How does the Fusion Pool work?

Players select four step dice representing skills and attributes relevant to an action. Unlike many other mixed dice systems, players may double-up or even triple-up representations for specific skills or attributes, but they must follow a set of rules the GM provides called the Splicing Rules.

The player rolls, and counts dice which rolled 1, 2, or 3 as successes.

Optionally, the player may add Die Echoes, which cost additional resources like Action Points, but allow you to bank any successes you've already rolled, pick up some or all of your dice, and reroll them. You can only reroll each die once, so you can't spend all your Die Echoes on your best die, but you are expected to prefer rerolling your best dice first. As with before, count how dice which rolled 1, 2, or 3 as successes.

On the GM side, the GM can set the difficulty several ways. The obvious way is to start with a Covert Comparison and draw a finger across a GM table ("C grade means 2 successes required.") Or you can follow the boilerplate rule of 1, 2, 3. One success needed? Easy. Two successes needed? Normal. Three successes needed? Hard. More than 3? Very hard to practically impossible.

Why is it a bloody Roll-Under?

Most step dice systems struggle to include the D20 and the D4. Written as a roll-over, the gap between the D12 and the D20 becomes an almost unplayable power skip. Written as a roll-under, the gap becomes the first step in a learning curve, and the D20 and the D4 can both fit into the same progression curve.

Additionally, a roll-over system would probably have to use a roll and keep approach, which involves more arithmetic. I am trying to save all the complexity budget operations for other things, which means an arithmetic-free core mechanic.

Optional Rules:

Vetoing. If a player rolls successes, but not enough successes to succeed, they may take narrative control to veto a certain negative outcome from resulting from their rolls.

"The kidnapper holds the governor's daughter up, and says, "I'll kill her!"

"I shoot at the exposed side of his face." (Rolls two successes out of four needed.)

"I do not shoot the governor's daughter." 

Have you considered using a card based resolution instead?  it seems as though this system has a lot of technical debt on the periphery you could get rid of my accepting a small amount in your core mechanic.

Skills & Attributes  - The Core mechanic

Attributes run from 1 (or 2) to 12 and represent the threshold for success, skill represents how many cards you draw for a skill check. so for example Punching Nuts 3 and Big Muscles 4 means when punching someone in the nuts you draw three cards, any cards with a value above 4 are success and you count those up. J=11, Q=12, K=13 in this setup, so the face cards just have assigned values, except Joker which when drawn subtracts 1 success, Ace adds +1 success.

Critical success are made when you draw your exact attribute value, so back to the nut punching example, if I drew a 4, I get a critical success, maybe I give him testicular torsion or something? or maybe it's just a +1?

Of course you might need to adjust DCs, but 1 being easy, 2 normal 3 hard, 4 very hard seems about right, and it means certain DCs are above a player if they don't even have the skill rating for it. or at least they have to bet correctly to get DCs above what their card drawn would even allow.

But I mean this adds sooo much Player skill! as players are drawing from the same deck of cards there is a cooperative skill element to this, with tricks like card counting and optimizing actions by picking characters for certain tasks with certain skill+attribute values, this has the fun if odd quirk that sometimes picking a player/character with a lower card draw is better if you know the remaining deck roughly.

Quote
Feedback Request: Shedding Dice

Die Shedding is a death spiral mechanic where compromised players lose dice. You assemble your pool normally, but instead of rolling all four dice, you choose and remove a number of them from your pool, and then roll.

The point of Die Shedding is that it cancels Die Echoes out, and as players can purchase all the Die Echoes they want by spending more AP, the death spiral becomes an AP penalty where the player may choose to ignore the penalty or restore their roll.

My Thoughts

The Fusion Pool mechanic has proven to tolerate a lot of feature-creep because it is an arithmetic-free mechanic which is not always used for every action. It's more a "combat or PCs are up to something creative" roll which gets pulled out on special occasions, or it gets hacked down by ignoring some of the rules.

That said, I think that the Fusion Pool is very close to the limit for how much feature creep it can accept without chugging, and that I should probably choose between Vetoes or Die Shedding rather than having both. So I have to ask: which strikes you as the more relevant feature?

as to how Die shedding and  Die Echos get translated or what I think of them? hell if I know! but this card system replacement is much more skillful right? I mean you never said this was your design goal but I'm going to assume it and judge accordingly.

being serious though maybe you can bank extra success using action points, and draw face down cards, which allow you to expand your draw on a chosen skill check.

with Shedding cards, where you remove a card from your draw to cancel out a face down card somewhere else or a success/critical.

Quote from: Socratic-DMHave you considered using a card based resolution instead?  it seems as though this system has a lot of technical debt on the periphery you could get rid of my accepting a small amount in your core mechanic.

I have. Card mechanics tend to be non-diagetic, and players are conditioned to interpret things like runs and suits as non-diagetic. To use a wine-tasting analogy, I am going for a core mechanic which is light and effervescent because the mechanics--while crunchy--melt into the fiction. Cards have a lot of body and will not melt into the fiction the same way because they proceedurally generate strong non-diagetic elements.

That's not to say I've never messed with cards in a roleplaying game. I have a half-finished prototype of a Top Gear RPG where you play race car drivers. The entire premise of the game is you play a cross between Cribbage and Texas Hold'em...and you can make players discard cards by insulting their character. Very Top Gearish. Doesn't quite work right because Cribbage involves some big brain involvement when counting, so you tend to either be playing the cards or firing off insults (usually the lead player like Mario Kart.) My point is it has potential, but still needs more time in the oven.

Quote from: Fheredin on February 11, 2025, 10:02:36 PMI have. Card mechanics tend to be non-diagetic, and players are conditioned to interpret things like runs and suits as non-diagetic. To use a wine-tasting analogy, I am going for a core mechanic which is light and effervescent because the mechanics--while crunchy--melt into the fiction. Cards have a lot of body and will not melt into the fiction the same way because they proceedurally generate strong non-diagetic elements.

And what are you trying to imply, that a card mechanic can't be diagetic? your reasoning seems faulty then, like you just haven't really considered it, I mean card games require in general less math on the players part, while retaining technical depth which seems like a recipes for success given the players don't have to take as many breaks from the in-universe fiction to do math problems. 

I note with some disappointment that you seem to be twisting yourself into pretzels to avoid making this admission. Card game mechanics are not inherently inferior at being diagetic.

I am not surprised you don't like my suggestion. Often making a suggestion you don't like makes the path forward more obvious by contrast. What I am concerned by is that the reasoning as to why you don't like cards is based off statements which are varying degrees of wrong. That really isn't a promising sign.

QuoteAnd what are you trying to imply, that a card mechanic can't be diagetic?

Card features like suits and card pool features like flushes and pairs and runs are all non-diagetic, and players are conditioned to interpret them as non-diagetic. This is not the same as a die's number, which is technically also non-diagetic, but players are conditioned to interpret it as diagetic.

This is not to say this is always a huge deal, but that it runs counter to my general desire for a low visibility, low-effort mechanic with high crunch potential. Card mechanics have the high crunch potential, but when you explore the differences between card mechanics and dice mechanics in a card mechanic, the card mechanic's non-diagetic components make it quite visible and often relatively high effort. So no, not for this project.

QuoteI am not surprised you don't like my suggestion.

No, I like it well enough. It just isn't for this project. I suggest that as far as card mechanics go it's rather inoffensive. It doesn't explore hidden information or explore asymmetric play potentials cards excel at relative to dice. This worked well enough for Through the Breach. But I have to say that for the design space you have available, it doesn't strike me as particularly ambitious.

Oh, and I may have spoken too soon about not disliking it. I'm not a fan of using the stat to determine the number of cards drawn. You'll either have to reshuffle the deck regularly (time waster) or the card count would shift too quickly and players counting the cards would have a significant advantage over players who didn't count the cards, giving you a min-max munchkining problem.


While I've got you talking about card mechanics, though, I suppose I should ask you about my own card RPG game.

In Formula Double-One, you play as race car drivers on the Reality TV show Formula Double-One. The game is broken into rounds which each have a theme prompt, like talking about your car, your team, a story about a previous race, pull pranks on other drivers, or messages from your sponsors.

Players are dealt 6 cards and discard 1 card to a hand called the Underdog. Then the GM cuts the deck and flips up a card. Players then go around the table responding to the prompt (example: each player roleplays out a message from their sponsor). If your response to the prompt insults another player character such that someone at the table laughs, you may flip your character sheet over to indicate you have landed your insult for the round, then force them to discard another card of their choice to the Underdog. You may insult players when it isn't your turn, and you may insult players as many times as you want, but you can only insult a player and force them to discard once per round.

At the end of the round, the GM flips another card face up, then players choose the best combination of 5 or fewer cards they can make, and then tally them like a Cribbage hand.

At the end of the round, the player who is the furthest behind collects the Underdog hand and counts it the same way. They choose the best combination of 5 or fewer cards they can make and tallies it like a Cribbage hand.

Then the player who received the underdog chooses the prompt for the next round and narrates the transition to the next prompt as they score their points.

First player to 121 points wins the race. It...might take a while.

Quote from: Fheredin on February 12, 2025, 09:00:37 PMWhile I've got you talking about card mechanics, though, I suppose I should ask you about my own card RPG game.

Was there suppose to be a question which followed after that sentence?
Because I don't see it.

Quote from: Socratic-DM on February 12, 2025, 11:54:02 PM

Quote from: Fheredin on February 12, 2025, 09:00:37 PMWhile I've got you talking about card mechanics, though, I suppose I should ask you about my own card RPG game.

Was there suppose to be a question which followed after that sentence?
Because I don't see it.

Some things are obvious to people who are not attached to a project which are difficult to see from inside it. I just wanted to confirm that nothing came screaming out of the (web)page at you.

If nothing did, I think I have the answer I needed.

Quote from: Fheredin on February 13, 2025, 04:48:51 PM

Quote from: Socratic-DM on February 12, 2025, 11:54:02 PM

Quote from: Fheredin on February 12, 2025, 09:00:37 PMWhile I've got you talking about card mechanics, though, I suppose I should ask you about my own card RPG game.

Was there suppose to be a question which followed after that sentence?
Because I don't see it.

Some things are obvious to people who are not attached to a project which are difficult to see from inside it. I just wanted to confirm that nothing came screaming out of the (web)page at you.

If nothing did, I think I have the answer I needed.

Given prior interactions I'd be shocked (and don't believe) you weigh my opinion at all.
But my personal feelings aside I also suggest you don't weigh my opinion at all regarding your design for the following reasons.

1. Card mechanics are not my expertise: yes an admission I can and have made. but out of lack of interest in light of my own design goals, regardless of what you may imagine they be, valid or not.

2. Relating Fusion Pool mechanic: I don't know enough about the periphery mechanics of your system to make a judgement of the Fusion Pool. I've seen games that used multiple sized dice to represent attributes/skills, and I've played / considered dice pool systems, but this might be the first instance of both.  Covert Comparisons I've seen before because to a lesser extent I practice it at my table, though not in any formalized or mechanical fashion.

3. I'm playtest driven not theory driven: as I DM quite a bit. I have a lot of room to playtest concepts, and have the pleasure of people interested enough in my projects to also playtest them.

Quote from: Socratic-DM on February 13, 2025, 06:22:44 PM

Quote from: Fheredin on February 13, 2025, 04:48:51 PM

Quote from: Socratic-DM on February 12, 2025, 11:54:02 PM

Quote from: Fheredin on February 12, 2025, 09:00:37 PMWhile I've got you talking about card mechanics, though, I suppose I should ask you about my own card RPG game.

Was there suppose to be a question which followed after that sentence?
Because I don't see it.

Some things are obvious to people who are not attached to a project which are difficult to see from inside it. I just wanted to confirm that nothing came screaming out of the (web)page at you.

If nothing did, I think I have the answer I needed.

Given prior interactions I'd be shocked (and don't believe) you weigh my opinion at all.
But my personal feelings aside I also suggest you don't weigh my opinion at all regarding your design for the following reasons.

1. Card mechanics are not my expertise: yes an admission I can and have made. but out of lack of interest in light of my own design goals, regardless of what you may imagine they be, valid or not.

2. Relating Fusion Pool mechanic: I don't know enough about the periphery mechanics of your system to make a judgement of the Fusion Pool. I've seen games that used multiple sized dice to represent attributes/skills, and I've played / considered dice pool systems, but this might be the first instance of both.  Covert Comparisons I've seen before because to a lesser extent I practice it at my table, though not in any formalized or mechanical fashion.

3. I'm playtest driven not theory driven: as I DM quite a bit. I have a lot of room to playtest concepts, and have the pleasure of people interested enough in my projects to also playtest them.

If you'll remember, I specifically said I thought that one person knowing all of game design was an unreasonable expectation.

That said, I think that it's worth taking a moment to look at the bigger picture of the RPG market and the people making RPGs (and their skill-sets...or lack thereof.) At this point there are:

• People out there who have been playing RPGs for just about 50 years. You can have decades of experience with RPGs and have less than half the lived experience of most other people in the room.
• People who spent years trying to pluck theories out of thin air on The Forge (or years reading them). It's generally my conclusion that The Forge did result in some interesting design changes, but it didn't produce a D&D Killer, so it's clear this wasn't a quantum leap.
• People who have been hanging out on RPG discussion forums and reading and playing obscure RPGs for over a decade.

I want to make it clear where I was (and am) coming from; I think that if you or anyone else tries to make RPG content by using one of these three well established angles...you're pretty much doomed before you start. There are tons of super-highly experienced classic RPG players. There are a bunch of Forge alumni (for better or worse). There are tons of people on forums who know a lot of obscure RPGs. If you play strength against strength, you will lose.

Conversely, if you educate yourself on something that isn't well known in the RPG space, you have a huge comparative advantage. You have a knowledge pool which is somewhere between rare and just yours. So you should seek out at least some game design education. And while, yes, I would say some basic stuff is probably prerequisites to everything, in general you are better off going deep into the most obscure stuff you can find which you enjoy than going broad with a bunch of all-purpose stuff other people have already explored out. When you're in the pool with players and designers who have been playing RPGs for 50 years--and have been designing games based on guess and playtest experiences for almost as long--making a game like that is going to be almost impossible.

In my case, I had a friend interested in video game design some years ago, and so I naturally cross-classed. Video game design discussion circa 2010 to 2015 was actually a fantastic foundation because it gave me a completely different perspective on how RPGs work. The second thing I lucked out on was when a friend introduced me to Magic: The Gathering and I asked myself why, oh why don't RPGs use the Stack? The short answer is it's hella difficult, but I didn't figure that out until I was over 2 years deep into prototypes and had mostly brute-forced answers to most of the big problems.

Quote from: Fheredin on February 13, 2025, 10:02:07 PMf you'll remember, I specifically said I thought that one person knowing all of game design was an unreasonable expectation.

That said, I think that it's worth taking a moment to look at the bigger picture of the RPG market and the people making RPGs (and their skill-sets...or lack thereof.) At this point there are:

• People out there who have been playing RPGs for just about 50 years. You can have decades of experience with RPGs and have less than half the lived experience of most other people in the room.
• People who spent years trying to pluck theories out of thin air on The Forge (or years reading them). It's generally my conclusion that The Forge did result in some interesting design changes, but it didn't produce a D&D Killer, so it's clear this wasn't a quantum leap.
• People who have been hanging out on RPG discussion forums and reading and playing obscure RPGs for over a decade.

I want to make it clear where I was (and am) coming from; I think that if you or anyone else tries to make RPG content by using one of these three well established angles...you're pretty much doomed before you start. There are tons of super-highly experienced classic RPG players. There are a bunch of Forge alumni (for better or worse). There are tons of people on forums who know a lot of obscure RPGs. If you play strength against strength, you will lose.

I actually really don't understand where you're coming from, the words are processed but the mentality seems to be odd to me, or you misunderstand my goals, I have been designing an RPG for almost as long as I've been playtesting it, which has been a year, I joined this forum 2 years ago, I stopped playing 5th edition and moved to the OSR 3-5 years ago,this is only a recent venture and one which has been purely motivated on wanting to see a literal vision of mine come to pass, to create something which I want to see exist and play and finalize it.

To that aim even my  goal is to CC-SA the text portions of the game altogether. all the mentalities aforementioned are alien to my goals.
as to education what do you even mean? formal? no I have no formal background in game design, I like you have a video game dev friend, who plays at my table for my playtest and regularly has input on my design.

I'm not going to go down the long list of RPGs I own, but I regularly flip through or read them for inspiration, at least when I'm not reading other things for such insights.

I didn't say all of this to prove anything to you, but to point out you seem to make assumptions of peoples goals and existing outlooks, you assume what people are assuming. take this example from my thread.

QuoteCard mechanics would be about where I draw the line as I find them a bit annoying personally, where I could maybe see a card mechanic working is some sort of luck based magic or voodoo magic, but that'd a lot effort for a stylistic choice.

This is the reasoning I gave which you did not accept, the word which you fixated on was "luck" and luck vs skill.  when in the context it was said,  I meant it in diagetic sense, in-fiction sense, not literal as mechanical nor on any  arithmetical grounds which seemed to be what you harped on, I probably should have cleared that up better but instantly jumping to talking about "educating yourself and it not boding well as a designer" and lumping Zeno and my arguments together as though they were one in the same didn't exactly win me over... not to rehash something, but to point out you seem to assume people are wrong from the outset before they can even clarify a position they hold.

All this language about winning and losing, strength against strength seems like you take an inherently antagonist approach to game design and discussing it with people. maybe you mean't  it in a purely commercial context, but as stated before my aims aren't commercial nor even avant garde.

RPGs design is not a zero-sum game, or mutually-exclusive, if that were the case there wouldn't be successful retroclones to this day, or Shadowdark, which did nothing new from a design standpoint, it just did everything well, you can actually just tread an old path and do it "better" it turns out, and you don't need to be a 50+ year old crusty gamer to do it either. Mind you I'm not out to make a retroclone.

 

Quote from: Socratic-DM on February 14, 2025, 02:33:23 AM

QuoteCard mechanics would be about where I draw the line as I find them a bit annoying personally, where I could maybe see a card mechanic working is some sort of luck based magic or voodoo magic, but that'd a lot effort for a stylistic choice.

This is the reasoning I gave which you did not accept, the word which you fixated on was "luck" and luck vs skill.  when in the context it was said,  I meant it in diagetic sense, in-fiction sense, not literal as mechanical nor on any  arithmetical grounds which seemed to be what you harped on, I probably should have cleared that up better but instantly jumping to talking about "educating yourself and it not boding well as a designer" and lumping Zeno and my arguments together as though they were one in the same didn't exactly win me over... not to rehash something, but to point out you seem to assume people are wrong from the outset before they can even clarify a position they hold.

For better or worse I don't think we're going to make much progress unless we actually address this.

I think its best for me to describe my point of view with a metaphor. You and I are out shooting off guns like this is a cowboy movie and I challenged you to quick-draw and shoot the proverbial broad side of a barn, but instead of your gun clearing the holster you blast a hole in the ground right next to your foot. And then insisted everything is fine and square off to go again.

"No, it's bloody well not. I can get missing on a quick draw, but the bullet should not hit right next to your foot. Unload your gun and practice dry fire a few times before trying again."

This is basically the issue here. You are perfectly within your rights to decline using a mechanic, but your off-the-cuff analysis of that mechanic--and cards are a tabletop mechanic you should have some familiarity with--was way off. Cards do have a luck connotation, but that's more a general association with gambling than a specific association. Even in movies like Maverick, it's clear that the mythos is both skill and luck.

I do not think less of you for making a mistake--everyone starts off as a noob, and even highly experienced designers make mistakes. But at the same time, going briefly outside of your usual design tropes is a good general exercise. I put you to one of these exercises, observed that your intuitive fast-draw on one of these unusual tropes was way off the mark. Pointed out that you definitely want to look into why that's the case...and every single post of mine after that point had to have a nefarious double-meaning or I was changing goal posts.

I've been on the internet for long enough to take this stuff with a whole barrel of salt (particularly on this forum; it has a nasty habit of trying to haze people).

Quote from: Fheredin on February 14, 2025, 07:55:47 PMCards do have a luck connotation, but that's more a general association with gambling than a specific association. Even in movies like Maverick, it's clear that the mythos is both skill and luck.

You kind of just did it again, you're thinking of luck like a modernist thinks of luck, and assuming what I meant, I did not mean luck as probability, I meant luck as Fortuna, lady luck, or even fate as one might say, luck in that context had a lot to do with dessert (that which is deserved) and cards and luck under that connotation goes back much further than our modern conception of probability does or even the modern conceit of skill in a gambling context.

But let's just assume that I meant luck as probability for the sake of argument, that would still have very little to do with the critique you brought forth, to use your own little analogy:

You and I are out shooting off guns like this is a cowboy movie and you challenged me to quick-draw and shoot the proverbial broad side of a barn, but when I go to pull out my gun, I name drop that it's Colt Single Action Army, but it's actually a Ruger Vaquero, but you know it's not a Colt Single Action Army, it is actually a Ruger Vaquero, correcting me on what I'm holding makes sense, what doesn't make sense is saying that I'm somehow incapable and doing this quick-draw and that I should dry fire test it first or something... they're both single action revolvers chambered in 357., it really doesn't matter. you could call me an illiterate hick but that has nothing to do with whether or not I'm a good shot.

I could be wrong about cards mechanics fitting luck-based or more properly fate based or fate manipulation powers, but that still have nothing to do with whether or not it fits psionics, which was my core objection,  but to derive one from the other is just argumentum ad hominem.

To be frank I am starting to wonder if you're just wordcel trolling me on some level or you're just a hyper pedant, I really can't decide, the fact you're dodging parts of my arguments altogether and fixating on very specific points, both here and earlier makes me think the former as opposed to the latter.

Quote from: Socratic-DM on February 15, 2025, 01:48:35 AM

Quote from: Fheredin on February 14, 2025, 07:55:47 PMCards do have a luck connotation, but that's more a general association with gambling than a specific association. Even in movies like Maverick, it's clear that the mythos is both skill and luck.

You kind of just did it again, you're thinking of luck like a modernist thinks of luck, and assuming what I meant, I did not mean luck as probability, I meant luck as Fortuna, lady luck, or even fate as one might say, luck in that context had a lot to do with dessert (that which is deserved) and cards and luck under that connotation goes back much further than our modern conception of probability does or even the modern conceit of skill in a gambling context.

<snip for brevity>

To be frank I am starting to wonder if you're just wordcel trolling me on some level or you're just a hyper pedant, I really can't decide, the fact you're dodging parts of my arguments altogether and fixating on very specific points, both here and earlier makes me think the former as opposed to the latter.

Well, if you're more comfortable talking the religious, cultural, or literary side of things, let's take a peek under that hood, instead. What are some specific premodern things you are getting the idea that this luck/ fate/ deity of is a distinct concept from the modern concept of secular luck a la Mr. Magoo? I am not necessarily disagreeing with this, but I do want to know what the literary or mythological basis for this distinction is.

And while we're at it, why did you bring up Voodoo as associated with cards in your original post? Voodoo is actually a quite modern religion relative to cards, and as near as I can tell has never shared time or space with cards of any kind. This is an oddly specific association.

Now, allow me to make an educated guess as to what the association was; tarot. Tarot reading involves a deck of cards. I assume you are making an association between fortune telling via tarot cards and Voodoo (an oddly specific and strange association I don't understand), and fortune telling via a tarot card deck (which involves fate and such) with gambling with a playing card deck.

Now is the part where you come in and tell me how wrong I am, right? I am guessing you know something I don't, at least about Voodoo, and possibly tarot reading, as well.

Quote from: Fheredin on February 16, 2025, 05:03:29 PMWell, if you're more comfortable talking the religious, cultural, or literary side of things, let's take a peek under that hood, instead. What are some specific premodern things you are getting the idea that this luck/ fate/ deity of is a distinct concept from the modern concept of secular luck a la Mr. Magoo? I am not necessarily disagreeing with this, but I do want to know what the literary or mythological basis for this distinction is.

Why? so you can find some fault with my choices and we go around and around again with more semantic time wasting? Don't think I don't notice this pivot your pulling, I'm wiser to that. it's clear your fishing for error. just look at how you place the burden and proof on me.

To be honest, fate is a bit culturally specific, the Greeks viewed it as being a bit more flexible than say the the Norse viewed it, Christians altogether viewed it as either an illusion or downright deterministic depending on the period and sect in question. But I tend to lean with either the medieval romantic idea it or the Classical Greek idea of it. or even perhaps something like how Dune handles it, it has the semblance of scientific probability, but really is nothing like it.

I hadn't exactly decided on specifics yet except settling on not using it in the modernist sense, I hadn't gotten to that phase yet on my cosmology to consider a fate based mechanic, the only major thing I decided on was to use the planets like the  medieval spheres cosmology and the way they were believed to influence people's fate or outcomes. or at least use inspiration from that model.

so I don't know what this inquiry is trying to prove?

QuoteAnd while we're at it, why did you bring up Voodoo as associated with cards in your original post? Voodoo is actually a quite modern religion relative to cards, and as near as I can tell has never shared time or space with cards of any kind. This is an oddly specific association.

Vodoun is actually a pretty old religion unto itself, The south Louisiana version of this, which has a lot of french and Catholic influence, is often called Voodoo (I used that word for convenience) Bokor are practitioners who use both white and black magic (as we might call it) ones that are more evil are often associated with vices, hence gambling and thus card games as a connotation with them. as they are often depicted in media as necromantic tricksters with a card shark feitsh.

QuoteNow, allow me to make an educated guess as to what the association was; tarot. Tarot reading involves a deck of cards. I assume you are making an association between fortune telling via tarot cards and Voodoo (an oddly specific and strange association I don't understand), and fortune telling via a tarot card deck (which involves fate and such) with gambling with a playing card deck.

Certainly the Tarot, it's quite the strong visual invocation of fate, hence you see it a lot, but you made a mistake. I never once said The Tarot and Voodoo are associated. I want you to read over the original quote carefully.

QuoteCard mechanics would be about where I draw the line as I find them a bit annoying personally, where I could maybe see a card mechanic working is some sort of luck based magic or voodoo magic, but that'd a lot effort for a stylistic choice.

I even highlighted it in bold for you. one or the other, not both, I didn't say and, or with. I'm really confused what sort of thread of argument you're pulling on?

QuoteNow is the part where you come in and tell me how wrong I am, right? I am guessing you know something I don't, at least about Voodoo, and possibly tarot reading, as well.

It certainly seems so. I like how you dodged most of the points brought up in the previous post and fixated on a specific thing again. like pop-culture quizzing somehow makes a point?

I suspect your strategy is to get me to say something which you can get all specific and semantic about, and then try to loop that as some sort of win for your overall point about my design influences or choices and then make another attempt at false equivalence + ad hominem?  is that about right?

Quote from: Socratic-DM on February 16, 2025, 07:26:11 PM

Quote from: Fheredin on February 16, 2025, 05:03:29 PMWell, if you're more comfortable talking the religious, cultural, or literary side of things, let's take a peek under that hood, instead. What are some specific premodern things you are getting the idea that this luck/ fate/ deity of is a distinct concept from the modern concept of secular luck a la Mr. Magoo? I am not necessarily disagreeing with this, but I do want to know what the literary or mythological basis for this distinction is.

Why? so you can find some fault with my choices and we go around and around again with more semantic time wasting? Don't think I don't notice this pivot your pulling, I'm wiser to that. it's clear your fishing for error. just look at how you place the burden and proof on me.

Uhh...to keep the conversation positive? That said, if you actually thought that all I was doing was semantic time wasting, you would have simply stopped replying; methinks the lady doth protest too much.

QuoteTo be honest, fate is a bit culturally specific, the Greeks viewed it as being a bit more flexible than say the the Norse viewed it, Christians altogether viewed it as either an illusion or downright deterministic depending on the period and sect in question. But I tend to lean with either the medieval romantic idea it or the Classical Greek idea of it. or even perhaps something like how Dune handles it, it has the semblance of scientific probability, but really is nothing like it.

I hadn't exactly decided on specifics yet except settling on not using it in the modernist sense, I hadn't gotten to that phase yet on my cosmology to consider a fate based mechanic, the only major thing I decided on was to use the planets like the  medieval spheres cosmology and the way they were believed to influence people's fate or outcomes. or at least use inspiration from that model.

so I don't know what this inquiry is trying to prove?

I meant related to playing cards, but I can provide ideas on this, anyways. Have you considered an epicycles mechanic where you roll a large positive die and a smaller negative die to determine your zodiac sign?

Quote

QuoteAnd while we're at it, why did you bring up Voodoo as associated with cards in your original post? Voodoo is actually a quite modern religion relative to cards, and as near as I can tell has never shared time or space with cards of any kind. This is an oddly specific association.

Vodoun is actually a pretty old religion unto itself, The south Louisiana version of this, which has a lot of french and Catholic influence, is often called Voodoo (I used that word for convenience) Bokor are practitioners who use both white and black magic (as we might call it) ones that are more evil are often associated with vices, hence gambling and thus card games as a connotation with them. as they are often depicted in media as necromantic tricksters with a card shark feitsh.

Media such as?

I have encountered media using voodoo, but it's kinda unusual and I have never encountered it being associated with a card shark. I can (sort of) see how that would be connected because the Cunning Monkey is African folklore which eventually became the inspiration for Br'er Rabbit in the Song of the South, who eventually became the inspiration for Bugs Bunny. I am familiar with a tale where the monkey swimming in the ocean tricks a shark into taking him back to land, but I am not familiar with any card shark tales from any sources.

Quote

QuoteNow, allow me to make an educated guess as to what the association was; tarot. Tarot reading involves a deck of cards. I assume you are making an association between fortune telling via tarot cards and Voodoo (an oddly specific and strange association I don't understand), and fortune telling via a tarot card deck (which involves fate and such) with gambling with a playing card deck.

Certainly the Tarot, it's quite the strong visual invocation of fate, hence you see it a lot, but you made a mistake. I never once said The Tarot and Voodoo are associated. I want you to read over the original quote carefully.

QuoteCard mechanics would be about where I draw the line as I find them a bit annoying personally, where I could maybe see a card mechanic working is some sort of luck based magic or voodoo magic, but that'd a lot effort for a stylistic choice.

I even highlighted it in bold for you. one or the other, not both, I didn't say and, or with. I'm really confused what sort of thread of argument you're pulling on?

I will concede the point if you cite a specific example of voodoo being associated with a card shark in media. And bear in mind that I am asking the bare minimum of you by asking for only one example. One example could very well be an author's creative decision, so by all rights I should be asking for 7 or 8 examples from 2-4 different authors to establish that this is a trope of the religion and not a one-off.

But one example will have to do.

Quote

QuoteNow is the part where you come in and tell me how wrong I am, right? I am guessing you know something I don't, at least about Voodoo, and possibly tarot reading, as well.

It certainly seems so. I like how you dodged most of the points brought up in the previous post and fixated on a specific thing again. like pop-culture quizzing somehow makes a point?

I suspect your strategy is to get me to say something which you can get all specific and semantic about, and then try to loop that as some sort of win for your overall point about my design influences or choices and then make another attempt at false equivalence + ad hominem?  is that about right?

I'm no troll, but I confess a certain degree of schadenfreude from reading this. I'm not calling out the majority of your bad faith interactions or unfounded accusations because I'm trying to keep the conversation in the zip code of civil, and to be frank I don't see anything in them which is worth responding to. It would just chaff the thread.

However, it looks like you are doing a fantastic job of scaring yourself silly that I might try to troll you that doing nothing becomes the best troll move available. So now you've made me into a Quantum Troll, where if I don't troll you, I'm still trolling you.

What can I say? You've made it impossible to avoid trolling you. RIP report inbox.