You're still describing things in terms of rules a little bit....
Tadeusz arrives, and after ascertaining that the magic is really magic and not just a tech provided illusion, he learns the skill.
In that world there is a powerblock "Magic and psionics is unusable without the use of a completely clear mind." So he learns the Clear Mind skill.
He arrives in another world with the same limitation of a powerblock and because he has Clear Mind, he can use magic and psionics.
Both worlds are 15@10.
Eric, that's got the effect I was after, but it's not at all how I am thinking about it.
I think about this is terms of actually being in the verse. Being a verser. Yes, you have the Clear Minds skill, and yes, it is in effect what I was thinking about. But not.
Think about it like you're a verser. Wouldn't you like to be able to learn a skill that would work in every flatline world you came to? I mean yes, if run by the same referee and same player, that is what you have here. However, a different referee would handle that differently.
This would be kind of like making what you described (with some tweaks) a single rule in the book. A different way to bias worlds.
Think about it like you're a verser. Wouldn't you like to be able to learn a skill that would work in every flatline world you came to?
Except that no verser would know the word "flatline." It even bothers me somewhat when MJ's elder versers talk about "bias."
Also:
Think about it like you're a verser. Wouldn't you like to be able to learn a skill that would work in every flatline world you came to?
The saying that springs to mind is "tough beans." The simple fact is that there are some worlds where certain skills won't work, and no power short of the ruling deity will change that. This is crucial to the referee's ability to create worlds and run scenarios; if I can't stop you from using your magic lamp that summons genies, I can't very well run a Victorian horror scenario without it turning into a farce, can I?
Also:
Think about it like you're a verser. Wouldn't you like to be able to learn a skill that would work in every flatline world you came to?
And mind reading, TK pulses, and self-healing don't count?
___
Eric's example is very good. It demonstrates what I've been trying to say: anything you can do by breaking the rules could have been done without breaking them. Since the rules are a lot more useful to us if they never break, why break them when there's another way?
Scott, you really need to become a teacher.
Eric, after what Scott said, I get it. Your example started the wheels turning though.
That book is too hard to read. Too technical. I wonder if a "User Friendly" version could be written.
And Scott, I think the versers would know the word "Flatline" before they knew the word Bias. My first world was high psionic. I landed in a flatline world next, thinking that I still had full psionics. I think my character would have to come up with SOMETHING to call the effect I was encountering. Flatline would be as good a word to use as any.
I think my character would have to come up with SOMETHING to call the effect I was encountering. Flatline would be as good a word to use as any.
Maybe, in the sense of "no heartbeat, he's flatlined," implying that psionics is dead here. I would be more likely to just say "dead," though, or "inert" ("this world is psi-inert, don't bother with MulTK"), or, if I was feeling creative, "psionerous."
"Flatlined," in the rulebook, is actually a reference to the bias curve as it would appear when drawn on a graph. So, unless your character had an idea of bias as something with two axes (level and intensity) which could be plotted on graph paper, the term "flatlined" wouldn't mean the same thing to him as it does to MJ Young (or to you, for that matter).
That book is too hard to read. Too technical. I wonder if a "User Friendly" version could be written.
I could see the use in a Referee's Guide, full of the kind of stuff that we discuss here on the forum all the time: the rules as a toolset (not a model plane), tricks to pull for the tricky stuff (Eric's solution to your problem in this thread), an almost-too-thorough discussion of what amatuer vs. professional vs. expert "really mean" (with examples of tasks that each would roll for/not need to roll for/be penalized on), and so on. No new rules and few technicalities; just summaries and advice.
I doubt that would be published anytime soon or even be a priority, though. After all, the forum is here. For now.
Maybe, in the sense of "no heartbeat, he's flatlined," implying that psionics is dead here. I would be more likely to just say "dead," though, or "inert" ("this world is psi-inert, don't bother with MulTK"), or, if I was feeling creative, "psionerous."
Yeah, that's exactly how I meant it. I mean I found that out in a hospital. Death would have been on my mind. I could see my character saying "Flatline" and I'm not kidding about that at all.
EDIT: If I had a better time in the world where I found out, the word I likely would have used would have been "psionicsless" "This world is psionicsless"
"Flatlined," in the rulebook, is actually a reference to the bias curve as it would appear when drawn on a graph. So, unless your character had an idea of bias as something with two axes (level and intensity) which could be plotted on graph paper, the term "flatlined" wouldn't mean the same thing to him as it does to MJ Young (or to you, for that matter).
And Scott, something else. I think bias would be known to the versers. That's part of why I wanted a "Verser Planet." One verser could, over time, figure out what skills worked more often than others. Someone that payed attention, who had been to enough worlds (not less than 1,000 probably) could notice patterns and document them. I could even imagine a really anal retentive sort keeping notes on it, and starting to develop a bias scale. It would require a lot of revision and tinkering, but I could see that. A large group of versers, perhaps there's several versers doing the same thing. They compare notes, and experiences with others. It would either take one verser a really long time, or a lot of versers a slightly shorter long time, but I could see it happening.
And ya know what else? Even if a verser did have the skill I was describing, the referee could "flatline" the bias, by setting it at 1@1 all the time, and the skill wouldn't work anyway. It was a psychotic ramble. An interesting psychotic ramble though.
MJ thinks 'bias' is completely obvious. I think this is proof that MJ doesn't think like normal people sometimes. But we all suffer from our own 'but everyone knows that' blind spots.
Indeed, a Referee's Guidebook would be GREAT! I'd have multiple examples of the same thing, just explained in different ways. Tell them the basic rule. Explain it by using an example....
....Joe want to punch Jim, and so he lets fly with a left hook. Joe's Strength is...
And lastly, repeat the rule again in more informal language.
I think Champions rulebook did something like this, and the differeing explanation types were very helpful.
And the examples also made the whole thing just more fun to read which is important.
I doubt it will happen, but a fellow can dream.
And thanks much, Wodium. I blush.
John, I think I know what you are trying to do better than you do: you are trying to break the game.
The core concept of the game lies in this, that the rules very carefully define the relationship of the integrity of the character against the integrity of the world. That is, the Victorian Horror world has to remain a Victorian Horror world even when the Great Mentalist steps into the middle of it; yet the Great Mentalist must remain the Great Mentalist even when he lands in the middle of the Victorian Horror world. This is the problem of Integrity, that the world retains its integrity, and the character retains his integrity.
Bias solves this problem specifically by saying this is what works and this is what does not work, this is how hard it is, this is how easy it is.
Thus when the wizard lands in a world in which wizardry is commonplace, he finds that his wizardry is easy; rules that make it such that real wizardry is occuring but the verser cannot do what he has already learned are contrary to the spirit of the game. At the same time, when the wizard lands in a world in which magic is unknown, he still has to have some magic, but not enough that he can completely change the nature of the universe--otherwise there would be little sense in making different worlds different, and it could all be the same world in which everything is possible all the time for everyone, a homogenous mish-mash which makes for one interesting world, but not a multiverse.
And so sometimes the wizard lands in worlds in which he can do most or even all of what he knows, but it is all very difficult. He responds to this in one of three ways. One is he devises skills that are so potently ritualized that they will work even without any help from the world. The second is he gets so good at the skills themselves that his expert skill ability levels and outstanding attributes make these things easier. The third is that he diversifies into skills that are not magical.
Yet sometimes the wizard lands in worlds in which not only is magic difficult, much of what he knows does not work at all, no matter how good he is at it. No amount of enhanced ritual will help. No skill will overcome this impediment. At this point, there are only two possible responses: either he diversifies into non-magical skills, or he figures out which skills actually will work and how he can use these to his benefit.
What you want to do is create a skill that will remove the differences between universes, so that if you land in a world in which magic is difficult and often impossible, you can ignore that and use magic just as if it were some swords & sorcery world.
If I wanted to put you in a world in which you were on a space station but there was lots of magic and psionics around, I'd have sent you somewhere like Krull. I sent you to a world where there was no knowledge of these things, but they were possible, but they were difficult. I did that because I was going to throw challenges at you that would require you to think, to come up with solutions that might be risky, that might not work at all, that might result in botches--because the game is only interesting to the degree that your options are limited. The beauty of the bias system is that the referee can change the limits. If the player could ignore the limits, there would be no sense in having them. The effort I put into designing a world that would offer you specific kinds of challenges would all be wasted.
I find the entire idea highly offensive. If you don't like the worlds I create for you, we'll see whether Adam will take you back as a player. You can deal with his peccadillos instead of mine. My peccadillos include that bias exists to create worlds that provide different game experiences, that force you to find different approaches to your problems, different categories of solutions, instead of using the same routine skills over and over and over again. If you want something different, I don't know--go play Rifts. I've nothing against Rifts, and Kevin S. whose last name is impossible to spell is a wonderful guy with whom I've shared panel seats before, but this is Multiverser, and it's an entirely different and, I think, much better game.
*****
Regarding the use by the elders of the word "bias", there is a perfectly reasonable and historical reason for this.
Multiverser was played (under several different development names) for at least five years before I became involved. Most of the rigors of the bias system were my refinements, but it was always the case that there was this system whereby worlds supported or opposed each of the then three bias areas (I added the bod bias area to cover all the skills that were absent from tech, psi, and mag). The players themselves--those whose characters are preserved as the elders--observed this phenomenon in the worlds in which they played, that sometimes things were easier and worked better, and sometimes they were harder and did not work as well. They began to say that worlds "had bias" in various areas. They meant that a world would display a bias toward or against skills in each area.
When my character, known to all as the Architect, entered the game, he (not immediately, but while he was still building Umak Tek) met these original versers (whose names he had seen in Michael's Foxhole, originally dubbed Roland's Hole), they gave him that word as their way of explaining the differences between universes. He--I--insisted that it would be more accurate to say that a universe is biased rather than that it has bias; that's probably because bias has meaning in physics and electricity that should be distinguished from the psycho-social meaning intended in their usage. However, the concept of a universe "having bias" or "being biased" emerged in play as the way the characters themselves defined their experience. It was subsequently (not quite concurrently) used in crafting the rules, and thus the rules, referees, and players all speak of the bias of a world (or a skill or a character).
As to speaking of the bias of a skill, that's probably the Architect's fault. Here I must admit that he had an unfair advantage.
Looking at the tech bias area, we can see that there is a progression in technology based on two axes: the recognition of basic principles (fire, leverage, pressure, electricity) and the application of those principles (maintain fire, light fire, create flamethrower). It made sense to me as game designer that this dual-axis approach would apply to all four bias areas--and I could see its application fairly reasonably in body skills. It fell to me as game designer to determine, then, what the progression of principles was in all four areas, and what the progression in intensity was in each level.
It was also rather obvious that learning a new principle would be harder than learning a new application, and thus the bias scale was devised on those concepts.
Now here's where the unfair advantage comes in. The Architect is me as player, and he happens to have versed out just before I started working on the game. Thus while I as game designer am trying to make sense of how the multiverse works and set down the framework of bias for all possible skills, at the same time I as character am trying to figure out how things work in the universe in which I find myself--NagaWorld, a universe in which all skills are possible but very difficult. Here goes the "unfair advantage" part: what the game designer thought would be the easiest skills to learn, the character also thought would be the easiest skills to learn. And thus the brilliance of The Architect arises in large part because it turns out that the multiverse works very much the way he deduced it would. His knowledge of the exact details of the curve and such are not as precise as mine, but he recognizes that something like this is in operation, that certain skills work when other skills work, that the skills he expected would be harder to learn and to teach are indeed harder to learn and to teach, that learning skills that are not as difficult provides a foundation for learning skills that are more difficult--all things which, looked at from within the game, are perfectly reasonable things for someone to grasp given first that his thinking happens to correspond with the reality and second that he has the time to use, learn, and teach things in many different universes.
He also probably was the one who coined the term "flatlined", because for him there really is a sense of some kind of curve against a two-axis graph of principles versus applications. The other versers had already recognized that there were worlds in which very little was possible, and they had several words for this. (Flatlined might have been one of them, and they were already using phrases like "biased out" and "leveled out".) The game already had the notion of levels and intensities on skills (including the scale as it appears in the rules), but the Architect was the one who perceived reality in terms of this framework.
For what it's worth, the Architect is responsible for two other common terms. He was the first to call alternate selves "divergents", on the assertion that they were the same people whose reality diverged from the original. Prior to that they were usually called "frags", short for "fragments", on the theory that they were in some existential way part of the same person. He also first used the term "indigs" as short for "indigenous", for which no term had been in use previously, and versers had a difficult time talking about non-versers.
More than you wanted to know, probably, but it explains some of the points raised.
--M. J. Young
John, I think I know what you are trying to do better than you do: you are trying to break the game.
No MJ, about that you're wrong. I'll tell you exactly what I was doing. I was in a psychotic state, and I was rambling. This happens to me a lot. What you all witnessed on the board was what is currently a psychotic episode for someone who used to scream obscenities for hours on end. Yes, it's annoying to all of you, but look at it from my point of view...... That's right, you're not psychotic, you can't do that. Just deal with it when I do that. Music Wars, and the current Daywalkers world are the results of my psychotic rambling. So, it does have uses.
I find the entire idea highly offensive. If you don't like the worlds I create for you, we'll see whether Adam will take you back as a player. You can deal with his peccadillos instead of mine.
MJ, just as I had to be forced in Pearl Harbor to learn something, sometimes you have to be offended to teach. I've heard it said that if a teacher has every answer to all of his student's questions, then he isn't doing his job very well. Just forget this thread was ever here. It was psychotic ramble. Sometimes these produce fruit, sometimes not. This is a not case.
MJ Two Posts
And regarding Anything being possible. I suddenly recall something I learned in Bible summer camp. A question was asked "Can God make a rock so heavy that He Himself cannot move it?" It's a loaded question. Either answer means that God can't do something.
The point was, sometimes it's through limitations that you prove that anything can be done. That's pretty much the point you've been making all along, isn't it?
EDIT: And from completely out of nowhere, I get the answer to that question. Yes, God can make a rock so heavy that He Himself cannot move it. The human heart.
Interesting history MJ. At a minimum, there is a substantial minority that thinks in terms like 'bias' without having to be taught it by the game. At a maximum, I'm the guy in the minority who thinks he's the majority.
I'd suggest a governmental study if I thought President Obama would give me a couple million dollars to study this Very Important Question if I thought I could get away with it.
I feel better about that now. In-game, the Architect got very lucky: his initial assumptions just so happened to line up perfectly with reality. Given the size of the multiverse, that was bound to happen to somebody.
Still, my players will never meet this man if I can possibly help it.
(And I most certainly can. Ha.)
MJ, the reason why I said that this could be invaluable to medicine is because, in a semi-psychotic state, I was able to write a mostly coherent, and quite interesting (I thought) ramble about a way to improve the game. Misguided and ignorant it was, yes. However, you must admit it showed thought, imagination, and was at least mostly in a form which you could understand, and not just mindless gibberish.
My therapy works. What more proof do they need?
"Can God make a rock so heavy that He Himself cannot move it?"
Ah, don't you love thread drift?
The answer to that question is that God writes the rules, and is bound by them, because He cannot lie.
In this universe, God cannot make anything so big or so heavy that he cannot move it--because, believe it or not, the rules of this universe say that there is nothing so big or so heavy that you cannot move it.
You probably are aware of Newton's law (I don't remember the number--first, I think) that for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. As a gun afficionado (if I spelled that right, I've impressed myself tonight) you know that this means that when you fire a bullet from a gun, the bullet pushes the gun backwards as it flies forward, with the same amount of force. The bullet flies faster and farther because it is lighter, and has less resistance (the resistance to the gun being your hand). You can feel the kick, though. Spring systems in modern guns spread the kick to some degree such that the force is not as strong but lasts longer, but it's still there.
And if you are standing on the surface of the Earth and jump up in the air, the force of your legs pushing against the ground have pushed the earth away from you. The amount the earth moves is probably not measurable--I believe the formula is your mass over (your mass plus the mass of the Earth) equals the percentage of the distance you moved, and the remainder was moved by the Earth.
And I suppose that if it were Jupiter, you could not possibly jump. However, if you are not on Jupiter, you could fall, and when you impacted the surface, you would move Jupiter by an amount based on (your velocity times your mass) equals (Jupiter's mass times Jupiter's change in velocity), which is an amount so small that we might never be able to measure it--but it does move.
That's because in this universe, the rules are written such that nothing is immovable, nothing is stationary, and anyone can move anything, to some degree.
However, God could create a universe in which the rules are different, in which things are fixed and cannot be moved; in such a universe, God can create objects that not even He can move, because He created the rule that the objects could not be moved, and He is bound by His own rules.
People ask whether there is anything God cannot do, and the answer is yes, there are things God cannot do. God cannot lie; God cannot break His own promise.
--M. J. Young
But if the earth were sitting on another planet, there's no way you could move it. Imagine a boulder the size of the earth, sitting on the planet you're on. Jump on it all you want, you're not going to move it. God could though.
Actually, since both planets would be resting on nothing but each other, and the pair of them are still in space, it's really no different than before except that 1) it's harder to jump in the first place because you have to overcome the gravity of both planets, and 2) they move about half as far (not that you'd notice).
No Scott, that didn't quite come out right. It would be too hard for me to explain, and I really don't feel like starting another argument. It sounded different in my head, that's all.
What I was saying before though is that the rock God can make, which is so heavy He cannot move it, is the human heart.
God made the heart, and you can make it so hard (like a rock) that God can't move your heart or change you on anything. That's the rock so heavy that God can't move it.
"And if you are standing on the surface of the Earth and jump up in the air, the force of your legs pushing against the ground have pushed the earth away from you. The amount the earth moves is probably not measurable--I believe the formula is your mass over (your mass plus the mass of the Earth) equals the percentage of the distance you moved, and the remainder was moved by the Earth."
This is exactly the kind of thing I want to spend my time studying, but don't have the resources for the textbooks. Ah, bless the internet for having info like this-when NoCharge wants to connect, that is.
Yeah, but I goofed--the formula you quoted tells what percentage of that distance the Earth moved, and the rest is your movement.
But it's really a rather simple and obvious sort of equation, and if you got it wrong the numbers would show it pretty quickly.
--M. J. Young
Oh, no I understood it, I research a LOT of things on my own time...rather randomly, I'm afraid. Of course, it does help in determining what could possibly be interesting enough to make a career out of, and the closest to pique my interest even half that far is psychology.
Studying Greek history.