Topic: stupid S&S questions
Started by: xiombarg
Started on: 7/1/2004
Board: Adept Press
On 7/1/2004 at 7:12pm, xiombarg wrote:
stupid S&S questions
Okay, I'm sure there are threads that answer these questions, but my search-fu is poor today.
1. Okay, Pacts. If I understand this correctly, a Pact roll is exactly like a Binding roll, except that its effects are different (you don't need to worry about demon Need, failure on the part of the Sorcerer works differently, etc.) and the demon gets bonus dice based on the chart. Is this correct? It's the fact that it's otherwise identical to a Binding roll I want to make sure of, as all the rules say is they're a subset of Binding... that doesn't seem to work like them at all. ;-D
2. Necromancy. This really hurt my brain. If I'm understanding the basic necromantic rules correctly, when you engage in a necromantic act, which usually involves killing someone, either yourself of someone else, either the act itself or an item involved in the act becomes a Token, which grants a bonus to sorcery equal to the Humanity of the victim. When you become undead, your own body becomes the Token, and you become, game-mechanically, a demon, with no Humanity score. Is this correct? Or am I confused?
Part of the problem here is I'm working from the PDF version of S&S I bought quite a while back, perhaps it's all explained better in the recent print version...
On 7/1/2004 at 8:29pm, Ron Edwards wrote:
RE: stupid S&S questions
Hi Kirt,
Ah geez, the PDF? Cripes. That thing was way way revised for the book, man. I don't even know what to tell you if you're using that.
1. Okay, Pacts. If I understand this correctly, a Pact roll is exactly like a Binding roll, except that its effects are different (you don't need to worry about demon Need, failure on the part of the Sorcerer works differently, etc.) and the demon gets bonus dice based on the chart. Is this correct? It's the fact that it's otherwise identical to a Binding roll I want to make sure of, as all the rules say is they're a subset of Binding... that doesn't seem to work like them at all. ;-D
What exactly are you asking? Trust me, what you typed doesn't make it clear. Don't bother trying to dissect it for me, just start over.
2. Necromancy. This really hurt my brain. If I'm understanding the basic necromantic rules correctly, when you engage in a necromantic act, which usually involves killing someone, either yourself of someone else, either the act itself or an item involved in the act becomes a Token, which grants a bonus to sorcery equal to the Humanity of the victim. When you become undead, your own body becomes the Token, and you become, game-mechanically, a demon, with no Humanity score. Is this correct? Or am I confused?
You're only a little confused. You still need a Token which is not your body. Otherwise OK.
Best,
Ron
On 7/1/2004 at 9:07pm, xiombarg wrote:
RE: stupid S&S questions
Ron Edwards wrote: Ah geez, the PDF? Cripes. That thing was way way revised for the book, man. I don't even know what to tell you if you're using that.This just confirms what I was considering anyway: Need to buy a copy of the book when I have more money. (I assume there's no discount for us poor slobs with the PDF... Wait, I see on the website that there is. I'll email you about that.)
What exactly are you asking? Trust me, what you typed doesn't make it clear. Don't bother trying to dissect it for me, just start over.I'll post more on that when I get home and have access to both books.
But on Necromancy...
You're only a little confused. You still need a Token which is not your body. Otherwise OK.Okay, yes, that makes sense. Now, I assume what makes a valid necromantic Token depends on the campaign world (as expanded so far), and the relevance of the necromantic act to the story? I mean, you can't just get a Token for every guy you kill, or can you?
On 7/1/2004 at 9:23pm, greyorm wrote:
RE: stupid S&S questions
xiombarg wrote: I mean, you can't just get a Token for every guy you kill, or can you?
You can. Or rather, you can add dice to an existing Token by rolling the victim's Humanity against it and adding any victories (thus it becomes increasingly more difficult to up the bonus dice in the Token).
I don't know if you can have more than one Token going at a time, but it would seem to me that a) you can't. You get ONE. End. b) you can. You can only use the bonus dice from one at a time, though, so big deal if you have multiple Tokens.
On 7/1/2004 at 11:04pm, DannyK wrote:
RE: stupid S&S questions
Y'know, it never occurred to me before, but this rule suggests that there'd be necromancers chasing after the local equivalent of Gandhi to make a Token from his skull. I like that.
On 7/2/2004 at 12:09am, greyorm wrote:
RE: stupid S&S questions
Only if Humanity is defined as peacefulness, non-violence, and Bhuddically enlightened behavior. If it were Samurai Honor, instead, then necromancers would be gathering blood and hearts from the daiymo's best and most faithful warriors, instead.
On 7/2/2004 at 1:41am, xiombarg wrote:
RE: stupid S&S questions
Okay, I'm home now.
According to p. 26 of the infamous PDF, under The Pact, "Binding adds this new subcategory." That's the bit I find confusing, I'll get to that in a minute.
It talks about how the Pact has to be specific, which I understand: A typical Pact might be "Go kill Zig'lag'ur the great, and return to this place immediately afterward, and I will give you a cookie" (two "specified acts", I imagine).
So, yeah, if the sorcerer wins the "Pact roll", the demon obeys, and if the sorcerer loses, the demon can pervert the intent of the command, demand more "pay", or reject the Pact entirely, which might include violence to the sorcerer.
All of the two paragraphs immediately above I understand, and mention only to make sure I'm not wrong.
The thing I'm unclear on is what the "Pact roll" is, i.e. what is actually rolled. I assume, given the "new subcategory" verbiage, that it's like a Binding roll, i.e. the Sorcerer's "Appropriate Score" vs. the demon's Will, only unlike a regular Binding, there are modifiers on the demon's side, as per the Pact chart. I also assume the sorcerer can get a bonus on his end by offering a good deal (i.e. more and better Need, or even Need and Desire), tho it doesn't actually say that.
So, is my understanding above correct?
On Necromancy, I didn't get this at all:
Or rather, you can add dice to an existing Token by rolling the victim's Humanity against it and adding any victories (thus it becomes increasingly more difficult to up the bonus dice in the Token).
Maybe it's the PDF, but I didn't see this at all. The closest is it mentions that a new Undead's Token "can be increased above the character's Humanity, depending on other sacrifices and traded victories from a wide variety of other possible rolls." I guess that could be a "traded victory", but I didn't read it as working exactly that way. I got the impression that this was a detail that was worked out between the GM and players.
Also, I assume you don't have be Undead to do Necromancy -- for example, you could create a Token from a sword used to murder the innocent, and then use the power from that Token to keep your dead girlfriend alive, as countering death is one of the things a Token can do. That's the impression I get from rereading the "nitty-gritty" section several times.
On 7/2/2004 at 3:41am, greyorm wrote:
RE: stupid S&S questions
xiombarg wrote: On Necromancy, I didn't get this at all: <snip>
Maybe it's the PDF...
Probably.
I'm reading the rules straight from the physical book, not the PDF.
To get a Token you do something involving death to something with Humanity (this means killing someone). You can increase the Token's power by doing the same thing later, rolling the Humanity of the new victim against the power of the Token (the number of bonus dice it can provide), and adding any victories rolled to the Token.
Also, I assume you don't have be Undead to do Necromancy
You'd be correct.
Dude, buy the book. Soooo much better and clearer!
On 7/2/2004 at 12:24pm, xiombarg wrote:
RE: stupid S&S questions
greyorm wrote: Dude, buy the book. Soooo much better and clearer!Yeah, I already emailed Ron about it. ;-D
In the meantime, tho, clarifying my questions now would make reading the book that much clearer...