New Grounds: Post Mortem and Forever Abilities!

[Malloki Tuwile]

My newest Ability has caused some discourse in Discord. I have been pulled aside by someone higher up the pecking order than myself and it has come to the attention of moderators that there is no standing rule against what I’ve done.

The move is called Hex: Murderer of Malloki. Effectively it is Illusion with Trigger (upon Malloki’s death) and Ongoing with no definite end. Meaning, it takes place at the time of death and extends indefinitely.

Spoiler

It also had Indiscriminate so it made it technically impossible to avoid if you win a fight against him, but… that is more my error.

With this sort of “blind spot” and being the first to come across it, I’ve asked if I could sort of pioneer a new Effect or Modifier through these higher ups and was given the go ahead for consideration. This is, of course, assuming that no rule is made against this sort of shenanigans entirely.

But let’s assume this CAN be a thing, a means to leave a lasting mark on another being, an effect that happens AT death and/or extends FOREVER. What would that look like?

Well, I’ve come up with a few thoughts as an Effect or as a Modifier and I’ve been told to make a thread about it. Let’s begin.


Last Will (500)
This ability acts as if all Effects had Trigger (upon Death). An ability with this effect only functions when the bearer dies.

Instantaneous effects can be deadly or debilitating temporarily, but Ongoing effects must be milder to the point of merely a nuisance. This lasts until the end of a scene at the target’s discretion.

Transcendent (1000?)
When used in an ability with another effect that is ongoing, that effect lasts indefinitely. It does not matter time, nor distance nor death of any party involved, a Transcendent ability simply lasts.

Only one instance of a Transcendent may be active at a time unless the Affects Multiple modifier is applied. This allows one additional target instead of an area of effect.

If Finite is applied with multiple end-clauses, each additional clause beyond the first applies an additional -25 Essence reduction.

Transcendent cannot be reduced below 500 essence by any means.






As you can see, these are VERY MUCH a work in progress... and while yes, these are abilities I will probably abuse with my hex/curse/voodoo shinigans, you can see the value I put on these is quite high... as they should be. These are very open ended, and honestly I'm looking for good wording to limit the absolute devestation they can cause. Dying supernova is fine, but Last Will + Transcendant can lead to "you kill me, you die. Period."

 

[Ridley]

To be completely honest, I think I'd really want to limit any sort of ability that lasts forever.. Effects like that would be wonderful for me, and character concepts I like, but I have issue with the fidelity of these abilities.

We do fights because we want to have some sort of specific interaction, and that much is consensual. one is consenting to the possibility of death as well as losing other things, just the knowledge of knowing 'you lost to Ridley', is in and of itself an addition.

I'm noting this because Multerra is specifically built to allow for more of a collaborative experience - something less PvP-focused than the OV is - and because the current specifics on how easy death are were made with a very specific ideal in mind for the consequences of PvP.

This is one of the reasons I flat-out have a problem with the 'forever' thing as it is now. I do not like the idea of players building custom consequences to de-incentivize PvP even further.

With a system for 'forever use', even if we limit to 'aesthetic things that don't harm stats/well-being, you could do things like force a drug trip on an opponent, make them hear whispers for the rest of their life, Cause them to never stop feeling a small itch in their skull, perceive all frogs as innately more dangerous, or force you to want to sneeze, but not be able to, every single time you hear the word 'laundry.'

There is an argument to be made that one can simply choose not to fight an opponent, and that's not a bad one by itself, outside of events - however, it would be a bad idea to split modifiers between events and non-events. furthermore...

The second issue I have, and the reason I really don't think I could handle a forever modifier, is it's a direct breach of writing fidelity I both don't want to encourage, or enforce.

The point of Multerra is to write the story one wants and collaborate as one sees fit with other writers. As it stands, I would say malloki's mark should be roleplayed by someone else with permission - like a long tongue or a particularly loud voice, if someone wishes to have something, that's on them.

Say I was still playing Shale evans - a human - and I was bitten by Remilia, with both of us permitting, after a long fight. I can opt to keep my character as is, in the current system, or we could do the roleplaying. the vampire venom goes through, Shale is changed and grows pale, and the appropriate moves and physiology are bought with essence to allow for me to match the mechanics of my character to the roleplay. This is something collaborative and fun, and shouldn't require essence beyond what I spend on my own vampire stuff. The fidelity of both players is respected and I always get to choose if I really want to play a story.


The problem comes when this changes from an agreement to a move I can't avoid. Remilia bites Shale, I might not want to follow that storyline or do what might be needed to play a vampire, but there's now a move and a mechanic to cause me to have pale skin and red eyes.

I now have the option of Continuing to play Shale, but having a vampire mechanic thrust on me, Switching characters because I do not want to roleplay this concept out, or trying my luck at just - ignoring the vampire stuff and trying to pretend it didn't happen in my own writing... at which point that's something staff would have to force.

When one adds a modifier like this and a forced consequence, it really changes the writing from an open conversation to one with demands. it can cause someone to write a story they did not give permission to and do not want to write. It does take away from writer Fidelity and gives a tiny window into being able to force other people to roleplay things they may not want to.

The only difference in the narrative potential of both scenarios I posted above is the permission involved, and I think that will affect the mood and willingness of people to write here - and forcing potentially unwanted effects to create drama is not fun.

If Ridley burns gilgamesh badly in a battle, before dying, and we decide, together, that the resultant burns may have left Gilgamesh in a permanent state of pain - that creates some interesting ideas. Gilgamesh has the ability to choose to quest for something to heal his injuries, he can do posts adapting to it - but it's always his choice. Gilg in the system we have now will never need to roleplay this out. Whether or not we decide to do this idea, there's no hint of worsening relationships coming from this decision.

With the 'forever' modifier, I see the opposite. I see people unwilling to put themselves in those situations to fight at all, while the same people who would have willingly taken those permanent modifiers to their character after-battle will continue to. As someone who believes that good writing comes from an enjoyment of the roleplay, the only thing keeping this as a 'with permission', narrative situation affects is how much bad roleplay and unhappiness will come it.

That's my opinion on the forever modifier. TL;DR: your abilities should be a way to enhance your own roleplay, never to control someone else's.

 

[Solomon Grundy]

I think this sort of plays into my Stand Arrow consumable, since it has much of the same "inflicting a condition on the opponent" but the way it works in lore and in this system is that it's 50/50 between getting the power or just suffering massive damage.

 

[Malloki Tuwile]

I knew the forever modifier had a lot of issues to begin with, and I see your points thoroughly. What about something less... demanding?


Lingering (+25 per rank)
Effects with this modifier have a chance to leave lingering effects. These effects are not directly debilitating or beneficial. The chances of a lingering effect to take hold is not guaranteed, and its impact are usually very small.
For example, lingering pain from Damage.




This more denotes a common lingering effect, with the potential of lasting beyond a fight. Fireball may have lingering burns. Like Burned status in Pokemon, iTunes more situational and let's a writer define what MAY happen, but the opponent isn't forced into it.

What are your thoughts on the post morten effect Last Will for instant effects? Self destruct and such.

 

[Solomon Grundy]

That's kind of like combining Ongoing, Debuff, and Finite

 

[Matsukaze Tenma]

I mean I know I'm necroing, but, I'm not trying?
Sorry, and then not sorry...

Anyway, I agree that it sounds borderline for ongoing and debuff... finite too are all modifiers related. As it is written! And I feel like maybe I'm missing the point to some degree to make the point that I think when I read this, so again. Sorry.

The reason why I'm necroing is part of the description that you put forth. Specifically, this bolded part. I'm far from an expert, especially here, but, I do think this might be a thing that we should consider. Or not, I'm not an expert.

Effects with this modifier have a chance to leave lingering effects. These effects are not directly debilitating or beneficial. The chances of a lingering effect to take hold is not guaranteed, and its impact are usually very small.

Okay, why is this important?
I read this as the impact is small yes, but mostly, I read this as possibly hard to notice. And that is something I don't see in the rules? As in an effect that is small or subtle or is hard to notice.
There is a few things that I said here, that actually don't combine well or anything. An effect that is small is one thing. A subtle effect is actually something entirely different than one that is small (I feel like this is an extra effect, or like linked, which the later is solved by how one writes the ability).

What I mean by subtle, well it exists so I'm not being super new or bright here.
Subtle as in the ability or tagged effect is hard to notice. Notice the effect of or be noticed in the first place.
I think that might have a place. Here. Specifically because I see poison on the example list. You don't or might not want a super obvious burning poison right?
Hence subtle. You want a poison hard to detect. Maybe that's a given, but some poisons you know that you've ingested. And it isn't just poison. Illusion. The whole point is that they're hard to detect so maybe it sounds built in. It probably is. It might be limited, but... subtle knives?

Like knives you can easily hide on your person. Guns that are small and can be hidden easily.

So I'll stop there, because I'm not creative. I'm not at all being creative, even with the name. And it might only have mild use. Or strict use.

The reason I'm mentioning this is that feels it can be effect, so
Effects with this modifier have a chance to leave lingering effects. These effects are not directly debilitating or beneficial. The chances of a lingering effect to take hold is not guaranteed, and its impact are usually very small.

this becomes something like what you described (Limited) (Ongoing)( Subtle)(Finite?)
I guess in short I'm wondering about this

Subtle(+25/+50) Is the application or Effect hard to detect?
A subtle effect means that the ability is hard to detect through normally or while the target is distracted. If it is hard to detect through normal senses then higher cost. If applied when target is distracted, lesser cost. A subtle effect ends when it is discovered. Only the ability rank applies once discovered.

Probably countered by sense abilities, and rough

Going to go hide in my hole now, bye!

 

[Miyamoto Musashi]

To be completely honest, I think I'd really want to limit any sort of ability that lasts forever.. Effects like that would be wonderful for me, and character concepts I like, but I have issue with the fidelity of these abilities.

We do fights because we want to have some sort of specific interaction, and that much is consensual. one is consenting to the possibility of death as well as losing other things, just the knowledge of knowing 'you lost to Ridley', is in and of itself an addition.

I'm noting this because Multerra is specifically built to allow for more of a collaborative experience - something less PvP-focused than the OV is - and because the current specifics on how easy death are were made with a very specific ideal in mind for the consequences of PvP.

This is one of the reasons I flat-out have a problem with the 'forever' thing as it is now. I do not like the idea of players building custom consequences to de-incentivize PvP even further.

With a system for 'forever use', even if we limit to 'aesthetic things that don't harm stats/well-being, you could do things like force a drug trip on an opponent, make them hear whispers for the rest of their life, Cause them to never stop feeling a small itch in their skull, perceive all frogs as innately more dangerous, or force you to want to sneeze, but not be able to, every single time you hear the word 'laundry.'

There is an argument to be made that one can simply choose not to fight an opponent, and that's not a bad one by itself, outside of events - however, it would be a bad idea to split modifiers between events and non-events. furthermore...

The second issue I have, and the reason I really don't think I could handle a forever modifier, is it's a direct breach of writing fidelity I both don't want to encourage, or enforce.

The point of Multerra is to write the story one wants and collaborate as one sees fit with other writers. As it stands, I would say malloki's mark should be roleplayed by someone else with permission - like a long tongue or a particularly loud voice, if someone wishes to have something, that's on them.

Say I was still playing Shale evans - a human - and I was bitten by Remilia, with both of us permitting, after a long fight. I can opt to keep my character as is, in the current system, or we could do the roleplaying. the vampire venom goes through, Shale is changed and grows pale, and the appropriate moves and physiology are bought with essence to allow for me to match the mechanics of my character to the roleplay. This is something collaborative and fun, and shouldn't require essence beyond what I spend on my own vampire stuff. The fidelity of both players is respected and I always get to choose if I really want to play a story.


The problem comes when this changes from an agreement to a move I can't avoid. Remilia bites Shale, I might not want to follow that storyline or do what might be needed to play a vampire, but there's now a move and a mechanic to cause me to have pale skin and red eyes.

I now have the option of Continuing to play Shale, but having a vampire mechanic thrust on me, Switching characters because I do not want to roleplay this concept out, or trying my luck at just - ignoring the vampire stuff and trying to pretend it didn't happen in my own writing... at which point that's something staff would have to force.

When one adds a modifier like this and a forced consequence, it really changes the writing from an open conversation to one with demands. it can cause someone to write a story they did not give permission to and do not want to write. It does take away from writer Fidelity and gives a tiny window into being able to force other people to roleplay things they may not want to.

The only difference in the narrative potential of both scenarios I posted above is the permission involved, and I think that will affect the mood and willingness of people to write here - and forcing potentially unwanted effects to create drama is not fun.

If Ridley burns gilgamesh badly in a battle, before dying, and we decide, together, that the resultant burns may have left Gilgamesh in a permanent state of pain - that creates some interesting ideas. Gilgamesh has the ability to choose to quest for something to heal his injuries, he can do posts adapting to it - but it's always his choice. Gilg in the system we have now will never need to roleplay this out. Whether or not we decide to do this idea, there's no hint of worsening relationships coming from this decision.

With the 'forever' modifier, I see the opposite. I see people unwilling to put themselves in those situations to fight at all, while the same people who would have willingly taken those permanent modifiers to their character after-battle will continue to. As someone who believes that good writing comes from an enjoyment of the roleplay, the only thing keeping this as a 'with permission', narrative situation affects is how much bad roleplay and unhappiness will come it.

That's my opinion on the forever modifier. TL;DR: your abilities should be a way to enhance your own roleplay, never to control someone else's.

I wholly agree with all of this.

If someone were to force permanent changes onto my character through moves, I'd change character on the spot.

I am the one who controls my character and decides where their story goes. Not someone else.