"Prove it" calls

[obcidian_bandit]

There seem to be a couple (that I've seen so far) of calls that exist solely to "prove it" to the listener. For example, the example for Karma is: Return (Karma Dodge).

In 1.2 (and before) things like "Slay" and "Assassinate" were the "Prove it" calls; justifying why you're suddenly swinging so much damage (and in more recent editions, determining whether we could use Evade). I'd like to believe that we've grown beyond the need for "Prove it" calls, and would like to be able to trust that the player using the skill has a valid reason for doing so. We already believe that someone has a Dodge when they call it, so why do we need them to justify (in the example above) that they are using a Return by burning the Karma and the Dodge to power it? Can't we just accept that they did the thing correctly and that they're not cheating, rather than cluttering up the (already very verbose) combat call dialogue with unnecessary justifications of exactly where the effect/call/etc is coming from?

 

[ASFDan]

I agree with this as well. For a time the new rules simplified defensive calls to just Guard, Return, Reduced, and No Effect. I know there was debate over the loss of information (you can currently strategize based on the specific defenses your target is using), and it has gone back and forth since, but where it stands at the moment is just not an improvement.

As it currently stands (in 0.7) the rules require you to use the name of the skill (Dodge), and suggests confused players can ask for clarification (it's a Guard ability). Except when it says something different (Return (Karma Dodge)). Not only is it an unnecessary 'prove it' call, but it is also confusing and not friendly to new players.

I would argue strongly that this should be turned around completely, with the category of defense being the required call (Guard!), and that an experienced player looking to gain more information can ask for a clarification as to the specific source of the defense (Weapon shield!). This creates a system that is much more streamlined and friendly towards new players, while still preserving the ability to gain strategic information for those who want it. I would also suggest that such a system fits the vision set forth for the new rules much more closely than what is currently proposed.

 

[Draven]

Just for clarification sake, the call for Karma Dodge isn't Return Karma Dodge, just Karma Dodge.

I prefer using the name of the ability rather than just the effect, because it gives me information about my target's abilities that may be useful to know.

I wouldn't be terribly against the idea of using just Karma as the call, but I wouldn't want to go to calls of purely Guard/Return.

 

[Auric]

I can't even count how many times I've seen someone use a defensive call on something it didn't work on, for example spell shield against an arcane spell. If the player simply says guard there no way for them to ever be corrected.

I can also say based on the player feedback from previous rounds you are in the minority, most people liked the full call better which is why it was changed back.

 

[Draven]

Additionally, I've seen folks use Magic Armor against Spellstrikes, because it's a weapon strike and they don't know better. It's actually a pretty common error amongst new players, and one I made myself at one of my earliest events.

The ability to say, "Doesn't work," is important.

 

[James Trotta]

I can't even count how many times I've seen someone use a defensive call on something it didn't work on, for example spell shield against an arcane spell. If the player simply says guard there no way for them to ever be corrected.

I can also say based on the player feedback from previous rounds you are in the minority, most people liked the full call better which is why it was changed back.

if people are still screwing up their defensive calls, the better solution might be simpler rules instead of longer verbals. Basically mistakes should be super rare instead of so common that we need to listen to everyone's long verbals to see if they are doing it right.

 

[Durnic]

Not only is it the three reasons posted above, but it is also flavor. If I'm fighting something and it's calling dodges, evades and parries those all play our differently in my head and allow me to forward that information in RP.

"I just fought an undead with a sigil on his face and he was both nimble and an excellent swordsman" versus "I just fought an undead with a sigil on his face and I think I hit him a lot but he always had an answer for anything I did."

 

[Draven]

if people are still screwing up their defensive calls, the better solution might be simpler rules instead of longer verbals. Basically mistakes should be super rare instead of so common that we need to listen to everyone's long verbals to see if they are doing it right.

Simpler rules aren't always the right answer, and come with their own issues, generally about "less fun."

 

[kalindra]

Is noting the original source also necessary because you can't Return from the same source twice, or would this apply only to the Karma? For example, if you Karma Dodge and the attack gets Baned, can you also Karma Parry?

Just for clarification sake, the call for Karma Dodge isn't Return Karma Dodge, just Karma Dodge

Currently, the v0.7 doc says:
"When this Ritual is used, the verbal will be 'Return (Karma <Original Guard Source>)', for example 'Return (Karma Dodge)'."
Has the Return been dropped since this version?

I generally agree that defense calls ought to be specific--the most common mistake I see is Spell Shield for Elemental. However, I'm not convinced that (Return) Karma Dodge is a good verbal if we're going for maximum clarity. Because it's a return and not a guard, it's also important that the original caster (and therefore the target of the returned ability) understands that the attack is being sent back--not just that they know the target is using his defense correctly. Because Karma would (presumably) appear only in the ritual descriptions, and not elsewhere in the list of defensive/return abilities, I would anticipate a lot of exchanges like the following:

Guy 1: "Spell Death!"
Guy 2: "Karma Dodge!"
Guy 1: "Ok, he dodged it, cool, time to walk away, la la la"
Then Guy 2 has to watch and make sure Guy 1 knows it was a return and didn't just hear the "Dodge" part.

 

[Draven]

I could have sworn that was deleted from the verbal. @Durnic can you confirm?

 

[James Trotta]

Simpler rules aren't always the right answer, and come with their own issues, generally about "less fun."

I agree that simpler isn't always best, but I'm asking about a pretty specific context. I'm asking because it seems to me that ARC and owners want fewer mistakes: "ARC expanded the scope in an aim to make the game friendlier to new players and remove redundancies as well as exceptions. Over many many years the game had had pieces added on and added on without any fundamental changes, resulting in a lot of bloat and confusion that both makes the game more difficult for no reason and turns new players away."

If playtesters are making mistakes with their defensives, I think we should find out why before deciding that the solution is longer verbals to make it easier for marshals to catch the screw ups. Simpler rules may not be the answer - they aren't always better. A lot depends on why people are calling incorrect defensives.

 

[Durnic]

I could have sworn that was deleted from the verbal. @Durnic can you confirm?

I am pretty confident it was accidentally left in the playtest packet and that it the proper verbal would be "Karma Dodge". I shall ask.

 

[Inaryn]

Tangent: Karma? Really? Isn't that kind of an explicit religious term/idea?

 

[Draven]

Tangent: Karma? Really? Isn't that kind of an explicit religious term/idea?

I don't think it really crosses the line. It gets a fair amount of casual usage. It certainly has less religious/spiritual symbolism than the Tree of Life I see regularly.

 

[Durnic]

I could have sworn that was deleted from the verbal. @Durnic can you confirm?

I have confirmed that, in the 0.8 packet at least, the call is simply "Karma (Ability Used)". Eg, "Karma Dodge".

 

[EC-JP]

Tangent: Karma? Really? Isn't that kind of an explicit religious term/idea?

Bless, COP, Templar are already all over that line.

In all fairness though, the ritual was written/named when the operative mechanic was JUST Guard/Return/etc and was not something that was expected to be one of the most common things said in combat. With adding the source back in, that is something to look at in the final language pass (once we're sure the mechanic itself is still desired).

 

[Zymm]

As it currently stands (in 0.7) the rules require you to use the name of the skill (Dodge), and suggests confused players can ask for clarification (it's a Guard ability). Except when it says something different (Return (Karma Dodge)). Not only is it an unnecessary 'prove it' call, but it is also confusing and not friendly to new players.

To be fair, that isn't friendly to veteran players either. If I had to make a guess, I'd say it's cumbersome to those developing 2.0 as well.