Hi,
I’m contemplating a scholar as a second character, and am wondering what examples there are of scholarly pursuits in our game, where I take a definition from Definitions.com:
Of course, every in-game skill needs to be “learned” from someone with the “teacher” skill, but I’m looking for something deeper here -- something which would be fun to play, have a research component, and be a viable character choice that might add something to the existing game (without making demands of changes from plot).
Here are some examples/nonexamples of my own. To comment on one, please refer to them by number. I really would like to hear reasons why EVERYTHING could be looked at in a scholarly way, but be reasonable... If you have more examples/nonexamples, please continue the numbering from where I (or the previous person) left off. If chapter specific, please mention your chapter.
1. Celestial Magics.
Evidence against being a scholarly pursuit: (a) “study time” in the evenings is merely a matter of memorizing spells, not studying, (b) new spells cannot be researched, (c) in-game, my impression in Ashbury is that when spells change it is due to a change in the universe of magic, not one particular person’s scholarly pursuits.
Evidence for being a scholarly pursuit: The Alliance Rule Book (ARB) states that members of the scholar class are often “deep in study in the guilds researching arcane texts and documents.”
2. Earth Magics. Same as in 1 above.
Sidenote: Earth Magic, in Arch Enemies by Mike V (Ashbury fiction), seems to be portrayed as Channeling: casting spells tire you out, and rest replenishes them, not being limited in number each day.
3. Alchemy and other crafting skills.
Evidence for: several chapters have chapter-specific recipes, often which were researched in-game by characters. For example Deadlands has several Alchemical recipes against undead, Ashbury (HQ) has a special Alchemical recipe against the Red Madness disease, and the rumor is that in Barran (Gettysburg) one can use the in-game tags for various items to make your own recipes for Alchemy, Potions, Scrolls, etc. Intricate traps have a lot of research potential in any chapter, though high-level games probably just use wards instead.
Argument against: these examples are chapter-specific.
4. Monster experimentation.
Evidence for: Different monsters have different weaknesses (double damage from fire) and strengths (immune to ice). I’ve seen books in Ashbury which try to catalogue this sort of thing, so it is clear that characters have at least written down what they have learned in fights.
Question: How would people feel, in game or out of game, if there was a PC or NPC going around imprisoning monsters, stabbing them with various things, writing down what they found, and repeating? Maybe not my sort of scholarly pursuit…
5. History.
Evidence for: Ashbury has so much recorded history that it is difficult to sort through. Simply looking through old issues of the Ashbury Times is certainly research, and I could easily envision someone writing an in-game book about some aspect of the history of Ashbury (maybe from a skewed point of view…).
Arguments against: The inconsistencies between player guides, race packets, etc causes some difficulty merely in role-playing, since different people have conflicting truths about the same thing.
6. Mapmaking.
Argument against: It appears that, beyond the basic maps in the player guides, nothing is set in stone (and indeed provided maps are sometimes ignored). So plot cannot give detailed map information to PCs beyond what is publicly already available. For example, all the chapters are supposedly on the same planet – but does there exist a map which connects them? Is this a FOIG question, or is this a “no”? My experience is the latter.
7. Information (troop movements, who/what is causing a disease/rebellion/uprising/war, weaknesses of an arch nemesis, etc).
Evidence for: characters must talk to people, travel to places to scout things out, etc to gain information.
Argument against: This doesn’t seem to be a valid profession, by itself, for someone. Also, this appears to rely on in-between-game actions, which the ARB warns to “Just keep in mind that this is a live action game which takes place at the events. The on-line chats are there to enhance your role-playing fun and not replace them” – indeed, many plot submissions receive no response.
8. Fortunetelling.
Evidence for: Ashbury has a complete fortunetelling process laid out in the player’s guide. It is very intricate and looks like it would take a lot to really understand and get into. Plot could place clues in modules which are only understandable to these fortunetellers.
9. Gambling.
Evidence for: Just like in real life, one could figure out winning strategies to any in-game games.
10. Illusions.
Evidence for: Plot uses fireworks and smoke. A PC might also be able to? In addition, mirrors (if they won’t break easily) and light spells could be used.
Evidence against: I’ve never seen this.
I have no data yet about formal magic, or for looking up old in-game tomes, but feel free to create your own numbers!
On a related note, does anyone have examples of research books or research articles which were written in-game, and copied for wider use?
Thanks for your ideas!
Patrick
I’m contemplating a scholar as a second character, and am wondering what examples there are of scholarly pursuits in our game, where I take a definition from Definitions.com:
Of course, every in-game skill needs to be “learned” from someone with the “teacher” skill, but I’m looking for something deeper here -- something which would be fun to play, have a research component, and be a viable character choice that might add something to the existing game (without making demands of changes from plot).
Here are some examples/nonexamples of my own. To comment on one, please refer to them by number. I really would like to hear reasons why EVERYTHING could be looked at in a scholarly way, but be reasonable... If you have more examples/nonexamples, please continue the numbering from where I (or the previous person) left off. If chapter specific, please mention your chapter.
1. Celestial Magics.
Evidence against being a scholarly pursuit: (a) “study time” in the evenings is merely a matter of memorizing spells, not studying, (b) new spells cannot be researched, (c) in-game, my impression in Ashbury is that when spells change it is due to a change in the universe of magic, not one particular person’s scholarly pursuits.
Evidence for being a scholarly pursuit: The Alliance Rule Book (ARB) states that members of the scholar class are often “deep in study in the guilds researching arcane texts and documents.”
2. Earth Magics. Same as in 1 above.
Sidenote: Earth Magic, in Arch Enemies by Mike V (Ashbury fiction), seems to be portrayed as Channeling: casting spells tire you out, and rest replenishes them, not being limited in number each day.
3. Alchemy and other crafting skills.
Evidence for: several chapters have chapter-specific recipes, often which were researched in-game by characters. For example Deadlands has several Alchemical recipes against undead, Ashbury (HQ) has a special Alchemical recipe against the Red Madness disease, and the rumor is that in Barran (Gettysburg) one can use the in-game tags for various items to make your own recipes for Alchemy, Potions, Scrolls, etc. Intricate traps have a lot of research potential in any chapter, though high-level games probably just use wards instead.
Argument against: these examples are chapter-specific.
4. Monster experimentation.
Evidence for: Different monsters have different weaknesses (double damage from fire) and strengths (immune to ice). I’ve seen books in Ashbury which try to catalogue this sort of thing, so it is clear that characters have at least written down what they have learned in fights.
Question: How would people feel, in game or out of game, if there was a PC or NPC going around imprisoning monsters, stabbing them with various things, writing down what they found, and repeating? Maybe not my sort of scholarly pursuit…
5. History.
Evidence for: Ashbury has so much recorded history that it is difficult to sort through. Simply looking through old issues of the Ashbury Times is certainly research, and I could easily envision someone writing an in-game book about some aspect of the history of Ashbury (maybe from a skewed point of view…).
Arguments against: The inconsistencies between player guides, race packets, etc causes some difficulty merely in role-playing, since different people have conflicting truths about the same thing.
6. Mapmaking.
Argument against: It appears that, beyond the basic maps in the player guides, nothing is set in stone (and indeed provided maps are sometimes ignored). So plot cannot give detailed map information to PCs beyond what is publicly already available. For example, all the chapters are supposedly on the same planet – but does there exist a map which connects them? Is this a FOIG question, or is this a “no”? My experience is the latter.
7. Information (troop movements, who/what is causing a disease/rebellion/uprising/war, weaknesses of an arch nemesis, etc).
Evidence for: characters must talk to people, travel to places to scout things out, etc to gain information.
Argument against: This doesn’t seem to be a valid profession, by itself, for someone. Also, this appears to rely on in-between-game actions, which the ARB warns to “Just keep in mind that this is a live action game which takes place at the events. The on-line chats are there to enhance your role-playing fun and not replace them” – indeed, many plot submissions receive no response.
8. Fortunetelling.
Evidence for: Ashbury has a complete fortunetelling process laid out in the player’s guide. It is very intricate and looks like it would take a lot to really understand and get into. Plot could place clues in modules which are only understandable to these fortunetellers.
9. Gambling.
Evidence for: Just like in real life, one could figure out winning strategies to any in-game games.
10. Illusions.
Evidence for: Plot uses fireworks and smoke. A PC might also be able to? In addition, mirrors (if they won’t break easily) and light spells could be used.
Evidence against: I’ve never seen this.
I have no data yet about formal magic, or for looking up old in-game tomes, but feel free to create your own numbers!
On a related note, does anyone have examples of research books or research articles which were written in-game, and copied for wider use?
Thanks for your ideas!
Patrick
