Magickers and Nil Reach.

[Jingo]

Magic is the only thing mages can do effectively. Until that changes, mages will want to be effective at magic.

Removing the nil reach would be a huge mistake. I'm actually in the camp of opening up other reaches, but I get that most players can't be trusted with that kind of power.

Don't let your OOC preferences get in the way of seeing to the heart of a problem.

Nil reach is necessary the way the magic system is set up. You would have to make large changes to how spells are maintained and practiced before you removed it.

Gonna +1 because this is the gist of it.

The only way no-nil works is by overhauling the system.

There are ways to make magick risky without completely eliminating the option to play a city rogue mage.

I feel like this post fits perfectly in the other thread on magickal city protections.

Fits just fine here. While we're talking about limiting magick users, we can also talk about how they've been limited already.

[Tisiphone]

Removing 'nil' ain't gonna make nobody happy. Let's go over the possible consequences as predicted in this thread:

• Magickers sit in their caves for longer because they have to wait for their spells to wear off: We're back to magickers sitting in caves instead of interacting with the game world, and still just coming out of hiding when they're branched. Which will encourage them to spamcast more, because what else are you going to do while waiting for your spells to wear off? Better just get it all out of the way at first.
• Magickers come out to interact with the world before being fully branched: Which just means instead of having magickers saying, "Fear me, for I wield coded power that could screw you over!" you'll have magickers saying, "Fear me, for the docs say you should, even though I'm a weeny!" and you'll be experiencing magick more in the day-to-day of Armageddon.

The problem is that the game has shifted so much over the years from the place of magick in the past - a feared, secretive force that nevertheless you might be able to work with in real, day-to-day circumstances (in some cases) to "All magick is evil and makes you want to eat babies," being the default commoner position. The code doesn't support the latter position, and so either it needs to change or the magick system needs a complete overhaul.

I support a complete overhaul, but then, I like WFRP.

Either way, removing 'nil' won't help - it will just exacerbate matters.

[Lizzie]

I agree that it would need some changes. I think it needs some changes.

Warriors can only warrior and want to warrior effectively too, but they can't fully branch in 5-10 days played.

I'm not trying to be mean here, I just feel like that comment best illustrates my point. I just feel like magickers really do scale up in power extremely quickly and with little effort/risk unless they want to take those risks. They don't even need a partner to help them achieve their goals. Making it risky is attractive to me.

Some spells are so dangerous and so uncontrollable that no one would ever volunteer to BE a partner. That's a huge downside. Other combat classes CAN spar in relative safety. Magick classes cannot spar using their magick in relative safety. In addition, other combat classes, if they find someone who can defend really well against them, can engage in a spar that could easily last 20 RL minutes, with each partner taking a shot against the other every second, or even more frequently. Magick classes attempting to be "better" at the spells they have, can cast twice - possibly three times, and then they have to stop completely until they regenerate enough mana to cast again. They *cannot* cast again, until they stop combat and rest. So they'd cast cast - disengage - sit for 5 minutes. Then get up, cast cast, disengage, sit for 5 minutes.

As I said before - yes, you CAN use un and never use nil. Some people prefer it that way. And that's great. Most people find it too impractical, and it forces us to play a much more aggressive, forceful, obvious role, thus further shoving us into iso roles which most other players never see until we are so powerful they'd have a tough time stopping us. That is EXACTLY what you think you're trying to stop by insisting on getting rid of nil. All that will do is force more of us to do that.

[Giled]

With my scant amount of clout in the community, feel free to take this with a glittering cube of salt.

If you remove the nil reach, and have mages learn their way out in world, then the onus needs to shift back to PCs to treat mages as if they are in fact, scary, dangerous, and going to curse you and all potential children. Does that mean you should tuck tail and run, everytime? No. Rally a posse, report them to soldiers, get a group of friends and might makes right them all to death, fine. But walking into a room of outdoor proportions, spotting someone invoking the power of the gerber baby, and leaping at them with weapons drawn is a little silly. A fresh out of the box warrior, will bone sword to death a fresh out of the box mage all day long. Maybe I'm already jaded, but I have found I can't trust some players to actually want to interact with others, without making sure they take advantage of codedly getting the jump on the other person.

Additionally, without going too far into the veil of magick, typing:
em growls
then  'kill amos' works 100 % of the time.

Whereas:
pem The ground rumbles under @me feet, as #me takes a deep breath, ^me fist shaking at ^me side,
then Cast 'wek un death laser' amos, works far less reliably until codedly competent (not to mention some spells don't even have an effect until further along in progression)

[IAmJacksOpinion]

I think a lot of the magick helpfiles and stuff could stand to be guildlocked too, since it's not like the average person knows any of help magick

Umm... they are?

->help spell fireball
Looking for skill 'Fireball'.
You don't have the skill 'Fireball'.

[Desertman]

I'm down for anything that makes it harder for magickers to exist.

Yes....yesssss...suffer magickers....suffer....

[Bogre]

I think a lot of the magick helpfiles and stuff could stand to be guildlocked too, since it's not like the average person knows any of help magick

Umm... they are?

->help spell fireball
Looking for skill 'Fireball'.
You don't have the skill 'Fireball'.

I think she means like: help magick sphere, help magick reach, help magick basics etc rather than spell files.

Personally I think it's nice to be able to see how the magick system works on principle, so people assessing the game can kind of get a glimpse.

But it's almost interesting to think what would be the case if the helpfiles didn't have the words. So you'd have to find out in game or make inferences what 'threl' means. But really, it would just effect new mage players so I don't think it's feasible.

[Lizzie]

This is another reason why the whole nil/un situation is even a discussion on the GDB: because the help files tell people exactly what they are for, and everyone can read the help file. Your mundane character shouldn't know there are more than one way to cast a spell. And if you've never played a mage before, YOU shouldn't know that there are more than one way to cast a spell.

I don't think any of this stuff should be "okay" for mundane characters to know about, let alone discuss openly.  So I'm totally with Case about the docs needing to be guildlocked, just like the spells are guildlocked.

Not because you, the player shouldn't know. But because if it's not there, you know your *character* shouldn't know. What you do from there is up to you and your RP, but its absence from the public help files sets a "ground rule" that you can decide whether or not to break ICly.

[The Silence of the Erdlus]

Magick classes attempting to be "better" at the spells they have, can cast twice - possibly three times, and then they have to stop completely until they regenerate enough mana to cast again.

My last witch could only cast once. There's that possibility for witches too.

[dravage]

Your mundane character shouldn't know there are more than one way to cast a spell. And if you've never played a mage before, YOU shouldn't know that there are more than one way to cast a spell.

I totally get the first part, even though I'm not sure why anyone ICly would want to know or could benefit from knowing. But I'm curious as to the second part.

I'm pretty new and I've never played a magicker - I don't have the karma to do so anyway. But why should that stop people like me being able to read about magic in the game world and how it's roughly composed? I.e. What are the actual arguments against this? That people can somehow exploit that information?

Like Bogre said, it's a nice way for people to become interested in the role picks who wouldn't otherwise have a clue about how complex they are to play, the social implications, if it's tricky to play from a code perspective, so on and so forth. Having read through the help files I'm definitely intrigued and would love to play one one day. Limiting all that information to IC means only would never have given me the same perspective or interest to play, not least because my character is highly unlikely to inquire to any great depth without fearing their head would explode.

Just some thoughts from a new player's perspective.

[Beethoven]

I agree, please keep these help files public. When I was new, the interesting magick system was one of the things that attracted me to the game, having come from MUDs where magic was lame "cast 'magic missile' kobold" kind of stuff. You don't ever really understand it until you try it anyway.

EDIT: As for taking away the nil reach, the more I think about it the more I realize that the consequences of this would be both unwanted and hilarious. Fearing having these spell effects lingering on them for ridiculous periods of time, you'd have magickers casting buff spells on random critters all the time. So if you're out hunting, you'll always have to worry about whether or not chalton #1928384 has been granted the Invisible Swirling Force Field of Doom or not. Or maybe you'll take a look at that gortok you're fighting and realize it's glowing with an unholy aura. Oops!

This kind of experimentation is cool and all...as long as it's just a few nil-nixing magickers doing it. If all mages are compelled to do it all the time, you're going to have a problem, hah.

[Lizzie]

Your mundane character shouldn't know there are more than one way to cast a spell. And if you've never played a mage before, YOU shouldn't know that there are more than one way to cast a spell.

I totally get the first part, even though I'm not sure why anyone ICly would want to know or could benefit from knowing. But I'm curious as to the second part.

I'm pretty new and I've never played a magicker - I don't have the karma to do so anyway. But why should that stop people like me being able to read about magic in the game world and how it's roughly composed? I.e. What are the actual arguments against this? That people can somehow exploit that information?

Like Bogre said, it's a nice way for people to become interested in the role picks who wouldn't otherwise have a clue about how complex they are to play, the social implications, if it's tricky to play from a code perspective, so on and so forth. Having read through the help files I'm definitely intrigued and would love to play one one day. Limiting all that information to IC means only would never have given me the same perspective or interest to play, not least because my character is highly unlikely to inquire to any great depth without fearing their head would explode.

Just some thoughts from a new player's perspective.

Because there's an "implied permission" involved. If it's available for anyone to read in the official Armageddon docs, it's "acceptable" for your character to know about it. It sets the wrong example for players who don't spend a lot of time reading the opinions on the GDB, but do spend a lot of time reading the docs. For example - I didn't even know the GDB existed when I first started playing. I read the official docs, and not even all of them. I basically jumped on in. By the time I'd read the GDB, I had already picked up some bad habits because of my ignorance, which was assuming that if it's on the documentation, and not *specifically excluded* (as in a "What your character does NOT know" doc, which doesn't exist), it was fair game.

[RogueGunslinger]

Magick classes attempting to be "better" at the spells they have, can cast twice - possibly three times, and then they have to stop completely until they regenerate enough mana to cast again.

Or they can cast ten times before they need to regen mana. It's certainly not black and white and not everyone regens the same.

Like Bogre said, it's a nice way for people to become interested in the role picks who wouldn't otherwise have a clue about how complex they are to play, the social implications, if it's tricky to play from a code perspective, so on and so forth. Having read through the help files I'm definitely intrigued and would love to play one one day. Limiting all that information to IC means only would never have given me the same perspective or interest to play, not least because my character is highly unlikely to inquire to any great depth without fearing their head would explode.

Just some thoughts from a new player's perspective.

I agree 100% that anyone should be able to read the magick help files.

Because there's an "implied permission" involved. If it's available for anyone to read in the official Armageddon docs, it's "acceptable" for your character to know about it. It sets the wrong example for players who don't spend a lot of time reading the opinions on the GDB, but do spend a lot of time reading the docs. For example - I didn't even know the GDB existed when I first started playing. I read the official docs, and not even all of them. I basically jumped on in. By the time I'd read the GDB, I had already picked up some bad habits because of my ignorance, which was assuming that if it's on the documentation, and not *specifically excluded* (as in a "What your character does NOT know" doc, which doesn't exist), it was fair game.

Uhhh. There's tons of information in the docs that is absolutely NOT okay for your character to know. Getting rid of all of it takes away a ton of the depth and uniqueness that makes the game appealing to new players researching it.




I wish the people saying the Nil is required for some spells would clarify or expand somewhat. Because they're either lying to help their point or are massively exaggerating the risks and underestimating the methods to avoid those risks. Because in my experience that simply is not the case.

I personally use the fuck out of Nil on my mages and probably forever will because its fairly clear most people think it's important. But if I can get by leveling a damage-spell against myself, without using Nil then what the hell other spells are so dangerous that having to cast it on something else is going to make the guild suddenly useless? I can think of common spell type, which SHOULD be massively fucking dangerous, that would be irritating but not at all impossible to raise without nil.

I do leave room for the fact I could be missing something, since everyone who's saying it is being vague as hell, I can't be sure.

[Desertman]

Do people roleplay knowing that sort of stuff in-game as mundanes?

I've never once in my entire "career" seen a mundane mention knowing any of that....ever. If I could recall a single instance of someone roleplaying deep knowledge of the spheres and reaches etc I might see the point but I can't. (I would also have reported them, but I've never once been given a reason to.)

Maybe they are all talking about it when I'm not around, but, it seems like a non-issue in my experience.

[Beethoven]

I briefly had a mundane PC that had a surface-level understanding of that kind of stuff, because they had IC reason to. I hope you wouldn't have reported me!

Also, obviously Oash nobles and to an extent, mundane employees would have some knowledge of the magick system.

But yeah, I've never seen a mundane PC that just knew about the minutae of magick because it was in the docs and no other apparent reason.

[whitt]

I totally get the first part, even though I'm not sure why anyone ICly would want to know or could benefit from knowing. But I'm curious as to the second part.

I'm pretty new and I've never played a magicker - I don't have the karma to do so anyway. But why should that stop people like me being able to read about magic in the game world and how it's roughly composed? I.e. What are the actual arguments against this? That people can somehow exploit that information?

There are two camps to this one.
1) Is that all sorts of IG information, anything that is not "public knowledge", should be found out by the player IG.  This has the benefit for new players that their characters are (by default) as ignorant of things and how they actually work as the player themselves is.  You base your reactions on what you can learn from the public docs and that's all.  The downside is that this also gives veteran players a chance to nuance their reactions that new players don't have.  The player doesn't unlearn.  Consider this the hardcore "No Spoilers" approach.  You want to know what happens in The Force Awakens?  Watch the movie.  Don't talk about it.  Also you don't get to know how long the movie is, or if it is part of a trilogy or a standalone.

2) Things like Reach are game mechanics.  If there is no documentation of it, then new players suffer if there is also not adequate IG tutelage.  You may play multiple characters that are mages and never learn some mechanic or be hindered in the growth of your character because you, the player, do not know how to "level up".  This is a downside to some new players and huge advantage to the veterans that played enough to know these mechanics.  On the mundane side?  This is like no one ever telling you to sleep if you're damaged so much that your hp won't regen or that burning through all the materials a crafter is given in a single hour doesn't advance your skill as much as failing a couple of times and going to do something else, then failing again.

[Incognito]

Here's the only argument needed for the justification of Nil reach - ICLY.

There are many IC reasonings, for not wanting to cast certain spells or groups of spells, depending on a player's wish or a PC's background.

For example (without even going into IC details) : You might want to play a peaceful mage and not want to cast any aggressive spells at Un in your lifetime.

Forcing EVERYONE to have to cast at Un, ALL the time, is not only unreasonable, but unrealistic too.

Does anyone have an IC and OOC justification for removing Nil?

How is the existence of the Nil reach currently detrimental to mages, or to others?

How will removal of Nil reach improve gameplay?

[Desertman]

Removing nil will make it so that magickers have to go out "into the world" more often to "level their spells", if I understand it correctly.

It should in theory add more danger, and thus more meaning/more feelings of accomplishment to the player, to becoming a powerful magicker.

[whitt]

Does anyone have an IC and OOC justification for removing Nil?

IC - Not so much.  OOC is pretty easy.  You don't get better at hitting a target with a gun by holding the gun and saying "BANG! BANG!".  You don't improve at free-throw shooting by standing on the line and shouting "SWISH!".  You want to learn how to effectively apply an explosive to breech a door?  You blow open a whole bunch of doors.  You don't magickally know how effective the charge is, or how much collateral damage is coming by setting it and then agreeing with yourself that it was done right.

OOCly, NIL reach appears as an easy out for veteran magickers to skill up without any risk.  You run to your hidey-hole, burn through your mana, and then go do something else.  No muss.  No fuss.

How is the existence of the Nil reach currently detrimental to mages, or to others?

Used correctly?  Probably isn't.  Possibility and perceived abuse is what folks seem to argue against.

How will removal of Nil reach improve gameplay?

It probably won't.  In fact, it will just prompt a call that magicks should expire while logged off just like alcohol poisoning does.

[Pale Horse]

Removing nil will make it so that magickers have to go out "into the world" more often to "level their spells", if I understand it correctly.

It should in theory add more danger, and thus more meaning/more feelings of accomplishment to the player, to becoming a powerful magicker.

Can we skip through the GDB hate cycle right right now to head it off?

"There's too much magick in the world/mage players aren't playing true to the documentation that it should be rare/I'm tired of seeing a mage every 2 rooms outside the gates."

[Desertman]

Removing nil will make it so that magickers have to go out "into the world" more often to "level their spells", if I understand it correctly.

It should in theory add more danger, and thus more meaning/more feelings of accomplishment to the player, to becoming a powerful magicker.

Can we skip through the GDB hate cycle right right now to head it off?

"There's too much magick in the world/mage players aren't playing true to the documentation that it should be rare/I'm tired of seeing a mage every 2 rooms outside the gates."

While I agree with that, I'm not talking about that.

Someone asked a question. I was answering their question.

But you can do whatever you feel is enjoyable for you personally?

[Incognito]

Here's a thought....

Think of using Nil as sparring with dummies. You'll learn, but at a much slower pace. (not as if you're slashing your sword in the air).

[RogueGunslinger]

Uh. Magick SHOULD expire when logged off.

Here's a thought....

Think of using Nil as sparring with dummies. You'll learn, but at a much slower pace. (not as if you're slashing your sword in the air).

I could think of it that way, but it isn't that way, or if it is it's such a minuscule effect as to be negligible.


Not to mention you can't use sparring dummies to raise anything other than off/defense and only for a very, very tiny amount.

[Pale Horse]

Removing nil will make it so that magickers have to go out "into the world" more often to "level their spells", if I understand it correctly.

It should in theory add more danger, and thus more meaning/more feelings of accomplishment to the player, to becoming a powerful magicker.

Can we skip through the GDB hate cycle right right now to head it off?

"There's too much magick in the world/mage players aren't playing true to the documentation that it should be rare/I'm tired of seeing a mage every 2 rooms outside the gates."

While I agree with that, I'm not talking about that.

Someone asked a question. I was answering their question.

But you can do whatever you feel is enjoyable for you personally?

I should preface my posts.

I wasn't critiquing your idea, though it apparently came across as such and I apologize.  I was showing my pessimism that any change made to bring more magickers out into the open (as it were), will naturally show more magickal plots/actions even if only one or two spells are shown during a single 'gicker's play session.  To everyone else, it looks like a lot of magick.  To that one player, it was just two spells.  Some will (rightly, from their view) claim that there is too much magick being shown for whatever reasons they feel are valid (they don't like magick, they think its being abused, they like magick but think it should be more rare, etc).  The mage players will (rightly, from their view) be a confused/hurt/offended since they were trying their individual best to limit their obvious magickal effects and that it was only some players who weren't being true to the documentation and around and around and around we go..again.

[BadSkeelz]

I don't see any need to hide the magick docs currently visible, for reasons others have already laid out. I've never met a mundane who knew any of it (without a manifestly clear reason).

I also didn't really understand how lame nil was until I started playing a mage, especially a Gemmed mage.

I also hate magick much more strongly as a player than any of my characters do. So there's that.