Kevin's Watch

Not being acquainted with P1 or P2, I can't really give an opinion on what equates a 'middle-power' artefact. However, if someone could give some examples, I can brainstorm some ideas. (I don't really have the time to sift through the old game threads, sorry)

As it stands, I see no problem to the way the rules are, though that could be because I am not familiar with the way things were in previous games.

I don't know how things were done before, but if you view the DRP sacrifice as the craftsmanship needed to make the artifact work, removal of that would make the performance of it unreliable. An artifact so produced might not work the way intended, or sometimes misfire and not work at all. So a middle way could have an artifact that could work as though DRP had been expended on it, just not reliably so.

I would see the Woven Sphere that Norn created in P2 as being an artifact requiring DRP sacrifice, whilst Simjen's Nails, also from P2, might not.

Damelon's suggestion seems logical. Add to that the further problem that such artefacts may be able to be destroyed with far greater ease, and I think you'd have an adequate balancing factor.

From a vet. RP'r perspective, the main problem we have is the openness of Pantheon as a game. If there was a point system in place, or stats we could just assign a certain value, and then any artifact above that value would require sacrifice. However, this game is all about aesthetics and ideas, so it's a little more difficult.

A simple, but time consuming, solution would be to propose each artifact we wanted to make to Xar, and have him decide on a case to case basis on what it will cost in terms of sacrifice and total number of DRP expenditure. I for one, know that I will be making plenty of artifacts in this game, though, so this probably wouldn't work so well.

If there was some way of making a distinction between all the artifacts as Major or Minor, like the races, then we could have some sort of ground work. Here's my idea.

Minor Artifact: DRP 1 to 3, no sacrifice required.
Major Artifact(the number in parentheses is the required DRP sacrifice) :DRP 4(1), 5(1), 6(2), 7(2), 8(3), 9(3), 10(4), 11(4), 12(5), 13(5), 14(6)

The idea goes that any artifact of three DRP or under requires no DRP to be expended. A Major artifact require DRP sacrifice that progressively increases as the DRP used to create the artifact increases. Untill using 14 DRP where six DRP would be required to sacrifice (14 + 6 = 20 *highest DRP total possible*

These numbers could be moved around, make it higher than three for instance, but thats my idea.

A Minor artifact is just that, Minor. You can't expect the same type of results or power from the thing, but on the other hand, you keep the DRP level quota. Major artifacts are vastly more powerful but they require DRP sacrifice.

Thoughts?

ugh. ya'll will have to explain what balon just said to me. i understand math-talk not at all.

Lucimay wrote:ugh. ya'll will have to explain what balon just said to me. i understand math-talk not at all.

Basically, as you use more DRP, you'll have to sacrifice more DRP.

I like the idea. I think it would work well, although it would entail the GM possibly having to create some new rules to go with it. More work for the GM is never a good thing.

Montressor wrote:I like the idea. I think it would work well, although it would entail the GM possibly having to create some new rules to go with it. More work for the GM is never a good thing.

Although, better to get it over with now than have to implement new rules in turn fifteen.

(stretching mind back more than half my life to D&D days)

I would say that creating an artifact that involves permanent sacrifice of DRP should be for items that
1. Are powerful enough to make a difference in inter-diety conflict (a god's sword for example)
2. Powerful enough that just by their very existence boosts that god's domain or followers, witrhout further DRP input.

I see a case for 'mid level artifacts' that don't need permanent sacrifice of DRP, like 'magic items' in D&D.
So, for example, a powerful sword for a prophet, or a crown that shines with light, or an invisibility cloak. Items that will help one particular worshipper only, or that will help a group of worshippers on one occasion only.

I could go with a combination of Balon and StoneMaybe's idea. I like the idea of a deterrent to creating massively powerful objects. But not that all objects of power require a permanent loss of DRP.

The way I've so far seen this rule is that the "sacrifice" of the DRP effectively gives that item those DRP. So whatever is done with that item automatically has the power of the sacrificed DRP, without additional DRP needed to power that specific action, unless so desired.

So if I create a wand and sacrifice 2 DRP to do it, anything that wand does has the power of 2 DRP behind it.

I like the idea of having objects that are created with DRP, but do not contain any DRP. They would have their specific effect or purpose, like Simjens Nails, or an inspiring sword for a prophet, but not have any power beyond what they were created for...

...Hmmm...am I making sense?

uKulwa wrote:I like the idea of having objects that are created with DRP, but do not contain any DRP. They would have their specific effect or purpose, like Simjens Nails, or an inspiring sword for a prophet, but not have any power beyond what they were created for...

...Hmmm...am I making sense?

Aye, mil-rd.

I think that as Balon said we should set a difference between minor artifact and greater artifact.

Balon correct me if i'm wrong:
your function is
DRPs used -2 / 2 = DRPs to sacrifice

Correct?

Perhaps an alternative to permanently sacrificing a drp would be to double or triple the number of drp's used to create it. Either:
1) Sac 1 drp, and use an addition 2 to create an artifact that gives a +2 dice modifier. (If that's how it works?)

or

2) Spend 4 or 6, and no sac, to create an artifact that gives a +2 dice modifier.

Rothmog wrote:I think that as Balon said we should set a difference between minor artifact and greater artifact.

Balon correct me if i'm wrong:
your function is
DRPs used -2 / 2 = DRPs to sacrifice

Correct?

actually ROUND((DRP used - 3) /2 , 0)

where DRP <=0 doesn't count!


And great ideas bothers and sisters. I think you will give Xar enough ideas to help him decide if enhancing the game play that these ideas help is worth updating the game rules.

I'm not sure that would work, Fist, as a 1 DRP permanent sacrifice is a lot more significant than any one-off DRP expenditure, even a large one.


How about we just allow the creation of powerful items that aren't Artifacts? An Artifact may just be a specific, more powerful kind of thing; it doesn't preclude the existance of other types of items of power. I assumed we would be able to continue making things similar to those we did in P2, they just wouldn't be Artifacts.

Murrin wrote:I'm not sure that would work, Fist, as a 1 DRP permanent sacrifice is a lot more significant than any one-off DRP expenditure, even a large one.


How about we just allow the creation of powerful items that aren't Artifacts? An Artifact may just be a specific, more powerful kind of thing; it doesn't preclude the existance of other types of items of power. I assumed we would be able to continue making things similar to those we did in P2, they just wouldn't be Artifacts.

I think that is the problem ... Xar's current thinking is pretty broad on what an 'artifact' is based on my discussion with him. Perhaps you could give examples of powerful items that would not be artifacts. The one I suggested to Xar was a gift my prophet received in P2: Argothoth gave AK's prophet a sword that killed with one strike. For P3, Xar sees such an item needing a DRP sacrifice.

Hmm. I was thinking of things like the unbreakable stones with Maeror's dogma on them--I wouldn't have thought of those as Artifacts. They used a small amount of DRP, a number of them were created at once, and they didn't really have any significant power.

The die is cast. My first turns moves are sent. Let the games begin.

Alea Iacta Est.