Remove ads

Threads Of Destiny(Eastern Fantasy, Sequel to Forge of Destiny)

Voted best in category in the Users' Choice awards.
Reader mode
kfrar said:
Right, look, this entire conversation started with someone who wanted to see one Concept rather than another for narrative rather than mechanical purposes, and my skepticism of "nyoom" as a counterargument has already been addressed by the person who actually said it. But beyond that, I don't really have it in me to keep this discussion going, because if people going nyoom counts as metagaming to you - and more importantly, if you're willing to refer to the last Hanyi vote as "yoinking her pet project," without any qualifications, despite the many arguments at the time specifically focused on the risks of throwing her into the vipers' den or on the opportunities available for an ice spirit that personally helped drive a Weilu Restoration - then I believe our disagreements are too fundamental for further discussion between us to be productive.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

By all means, just pick and choose what you want to respond to of what I said. This conversation started because the author explicitly asked for feedback on whether we liked this type of vote, I'm not sure where you are going with that. There were two other quotes that talked about taking the option regardless of story, which is very metagamey and indicative of the type of engagement that going this direction would promote. Be skeptical of "nyoom" all you want, that wasn't the argument.

And yes I referred to that vote as "yoinking her pet project without talking to her", which is literally what happened. We exerted control over Hanyi's musical career without consulting her. What qualifiers did you want? My objection and reasoning that it doesn't fit her way is as much about not consulting her about it and the sense of entitlement over Hanyi's project as it is where it ended up going. The dichotomy between going out of our way to get her a hobby and the willingness to repurpose that hobby on our own at the first sign of personal profit.

kfrar said:
or on the opportunities available for an ice spirit that personally helped drive a Weilu Restoration
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

What are you talking about? Lets not bring wild supposition into this as a way to invalidate other people's misgivings.


I already said I regretted using nyoom (and the other of the 4 quotes that was similar on the power side tbh). Doubly so now that it appears you've taken the fact that I quoted it as an excuse to pull the ripcord. Kinda sucks that you're "willing to" cherry pick two things, misconstrue them, and then go with "if that's what you are willing to do" "then I believe our disagreements are too fundamental for further discussion between us to be productive"
 
Last edited:
Sentorian said:
If you find the insinuation that you want an inhuman Ling Qi insulting, why would you immediately follow up by saying that being inhuman is the draw of her as a character to you?
It seems like her being an successful cultivator is very important to you. I'm just trying to convey that I think there are other approaches. If you want to take offense at that, by all means.

Also, yes people are going to metagame, but I really don't see how spelling out exactly what they are going to be missing is going to result in people's feathers getting less ruffled. I don't think I've really seen many instance where people have been mad because their interpretation of a vote was wrong, especially considering you can just petition the author for clarification. Maybe I'm forgetting.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
You did not say inhuman, you said "optimized cultivation and power accumulation robot Ling Qi".
Which is a kinda insulting way to put people wanting to know what the outcome of a vote is.
I am interested in the inhuman ways cultivators develop.
Hanyi is inhuman, Zhengui is inhuman, neither is an optimized cultivation and power accumulation robot.
And i am quite happy to take less optimal picks, as long as i find those picks interesting, which again leads to clear vote options.

I'm not sure what other approaches you are assuming people are unaware of.
No approach is going tobe as clear or concise as stating "Vote X will result in Y", trying to make clear that this specific vote will advance X concept will always leave room for debate, and just create more work for the author.
 
Valmond said:
You did not say inhuman, you said "optimized cultivation and power accumulation robot Ling Qi".
Which is a kinda insulting way to put people wanting to know what the outcome of a vote is.
I am interested in the inhuman ways cultivators develop.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

You are right, I did not use the word inhumane in the snippet you quoted just there. I used it in the next sentence. Also, I figured it was fairly implied in the whole "cultivation robot" thing.

Why are you again taking offense to me saying you want an inhuman Ling Qi and then immediately saying you want an inhuman Ling Qi. I legitimately don't get it.

Valmond said:
And i am quite happy to take less optimal picks, as long as i find those picks interesting, which again leads to clear vote options.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Then I don't understand why it is so important to have everything is explicitly laid out for you. Couldn't you just.... vote for what is interesting? I don't see what metagaming or clarifying metagaming actually gets you beyond better metagaming. It's not narrative clarity, it's not like Motion +1 has some inherent meaning in universe. It just helps you evaluate what sort of impact it will have on the character sheet, which is the "cultivation robot" decision making divorced from actual character that I personally don't like. Maybe you do and that's fine, we can disagree.

Valmond said:
I'm not sure what other approaches you are assuming people are unaware of.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

The other approach is to try to minimize metagaming rather than lean into it. And I'm not saying that people are unaware of it, I'm just advocating for it.

Valmond said:
No approach is going tobe as clear or concise as stating "Vote X will result in Y", trying to make clear that this specific vote will advance X concept will always leave room for debate, and just create more work for the author.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

We disagree on what clarity here gives you. To me putting stats to things doesn't give any more clarity to what we are voting for or what the consequences of those actions will be, it just shifts the understanding of the consequences to a character sheet that I do not personally interface with well.

I just think that the focus for voting should be on what the character is in universe and how the character makes decisions in universe, not the exterior spreadsheet that we use to represent that character. I think codifying all decisions into stats and explicit outcomes like this shifts the balance towards the exterior rather than the interior. I'm Watsonian, I guess.
 
Sentorian said:
You are right, I did not use the word inhumane in the snippet you quoted just there. I used it in the next sentence. Also, I figured it was fairly implied in the whole "cultivation robot" thing.

Why are you again taking offense to me saying you want an inhuman Ling Qi and then immediately saying you want an inhuman Ling Qi. I legitimately don't get it.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Clearly you are either intentionally acting obtuse, or proving me right in how difficult clear communication is.
I take offense at you caricatyring those who disagree with you as people who merely want a cultivation robot, not the term inhuman.

Inhuman is a draw, cultivation robot is not.
Ling Qi is inhuman, because she no longer is, strictly speaking, human, that is what cultivation does.
That does not make her nothing but a cultivation robot.
 
Valmond said:
Clearly you are either intentionally acting obtuse, or proving me right in how difficult clear communication is.
I take offense at you caricatyring those who disagree with you as people who merely want a cultivation robot, not the term inhuman.

Inhuman is a draw, cultivation robot is not.
Ling Qi is inhuman, because she no longer is, strictly speaking, human, that is what cultivation does.
That does not make her nothing but a cultivation robot.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Yup, communication is hard. Just so I'm clear and know how not to offend you, let me relay my new understanding. "Cultivation Robot" is a bad, don't use. Inhuman a literal sense is good, because Ling Qi is a cultivator not a human. You would like an inhuman Ling Qi whose possible decisions have their future impact listed clearly with relevant metadata, so that the impact of each decision on her cultivation can be deterministically evaluated, with no confusion.

Is that right?
 
Last edited:
Sentorian said:
Yup, communication is hard. Just so I'm clear and know how not to offend you, let me relay my new understanding. "Cultivation Robot" is a bad, don't use. Inhuman a literal sense is good, because Ling Qi is a cultivator not a human. You would like an inhuman Ling Qi whose possible decisions have their future impact listed clearly with relevant metadata, so that the impact of each decision on her cultivation can be deterministically evaluated, with no confusion.

Is that right?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Assuming i have actually read what you are writing right, probably?
Though i am not sure if you are actually being serious, or just taking the piss.
 
We're actually looking at two axis here.

-Player exclusively driven by mechanics
--Transparent mechanics - This player would vote by the mechanical option they want.
--Opaque, but present mechanics - This player would guess what mechanics are present, and advocate it. Other mechanics driven players, lacking a better data source, trusts that his advocacy is correct and votes based on his guess of what outcomes are likely OR come to their own guesses and advocate it, OR follow the most likely guess.
--Non-present mechanics - This player would check out and come back when there's a more relevant vote option, like the weekly cultivation plan.

-Player mainly driven by mechanics
--Transparent mechanics - This player would vote by the mechanical option they want, assuming it has no problematic Narrative beats.
--Opaque, but present mechanics - This player would guess what mechanics are present, and eyeball whether their mechanical goals are met. They would then vote based on the guess or advocacy.
--Non-present mechanics - This player would vote based on the narrative

-Player mainly driven by narrative
--Transparent mechanics - This player would vote by the narrative option they want, unless there is a mechanical dealbreaker.
--Opaque, but present mechanics - This player would try to guess if any of the mechanics are anathema to them, if their guess is that theres no dealbreaker, they would vote by the narrative. If they guess that there is a dealbreaker, or if there is sufficiently convincing fearmongering about a dealbreaker, they'd vote by the mechanics.
--Non-present mechanics - This player would vote by the narrative option they want.

-Player exclusively driven by narrative.
--Transparent mechanics - This player would vote by the narrative option they want.
--Opaque, but present mechanics - This player would vote by the narrative option they want.
--Non-present mechanics - This player would vote by the narrative option they want.

Whether the mechanics are visible or not do not actually change voting behaviors with regards to mechanics or narrative.
It only makes it more likely that players are voting based on imagined, or fictional factors.

The people who'd drop in a vote with no more than a meme for reasoning would STILL do the exact same thing - they'd just use a different meme.
Juli Freixi said:
Question outside the current topic...
Is there a chapter or informative that explains the cultivation method of cloud barbarians?
Could someone give me the link if it exists?
Thanks in advance
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
We have very fragmentary information, but what it amounts to is:
-The Cloud Nomad fuses their cultivation base with a spirit.
-The two become one being. This potentially involves partial or complete loss of identity to both parties and is one of the reasons it is very rare to actually get a powerful spirit partner.
-The Imperial understanding of it is that one of the two cultivates Physical and the other cultivates Spiritual. Based on the above point, this should be some kind of misinterpretation - they are one being.
-The spirit retains the spirit attribute of rapidly reaching their natural plateau and then gets stuck there. This allows the Cloud Nomad bonded to the spirit to rapidly reach that point. However, it means that every stage above that plateau is extremely difficult, they have to drag both human and spirit up.
 
Sentorian said:
I just think that the focus for voting should be on what the character is in universe and how the character makes decisions in universe, not the exterior spreadsheet that we use to represent that character. I think codifying all decisions into stats and explicit outcomes like this shifts the balance towards the exterior rather than the interior. I'm Watsonian, I guess.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I mentioned this a bit ago, but I think that adding the numbers actually sort of helps with that because it'd tie in a factor to our decision making process that effects the characters that we as players can largely ignore.

Cultivators shape themselves towards what they're cultivating, and it seems to have strong mental effects that influence how they interact with people in lots of ways beyond the immediate obvious.

Voting for things that mechanically resonate with what we're cultivating at the moment seems like a reasonable simulation of how that'd act as a subliminal lens IC.

If anything adding the numbers would act as a balance against "narrative meta gaming" where we can just ignore some of the mental effects our cultivation style is having on Ling Qi's headspace to vote for something socially optimal in a particular situation.

We could still chose to do that, but we'd also basically be acknowledging it beforehand when we knowingly pick an option that doesn't fit the concepts we're writing into LQ's soul but does fit the conversation we're having better. Which, in a way, would give it more weight as a choice in my mind.
 
BronzeTongue said:
If anything adding the numbers would act as a balance against "narrative meta gaming" where we can just ignore some of the mental effects our cultivation style is having on Ling Qi's headspace to vote for something socially optimal in a particular situation.

We could still chose to do that, but we'd also basically be acknowledging it beforehand when we knowingly pick an option that doesn't fit the concepts we're writing into LQ's soul but does fit the conversation we're having better. Which, in a way, would give it more weight as a choice in my mind.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Yeah, this makes sense and will be how I try to see these things from now on. A visualization of Ling Qi's walking her Way based on our choices.

Useful both to give some control to us, and also a check to see how things have been going on the Numbers side without necessarily compromising the numbers side as well unless we reach an "efficiency choice", which should hopefully be quite rare.
 
With the concept xp shown in the vote options we will inevitably be faced with situations where we have to choose between what is right, and what is optimal (for cultivation), even more so than we do currently.
And frankly, i welcome that.
 
veekie said:
-The Imperial understanding of it is that one of the two cultivates Physical and the other cultivates Spiritual. Based on the above point, this should be some kind of misinterpretation - they are one being.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
IIRC all the rider nomads cultivate physical with the shamans focusing only on spiritual. Not that Imperials think the human does spiritual while the spirit beast does physical or vice versa.

This seems pretty accurate to what we've seen so far with only people like the Bardbarian being different in how he seems to use some spiritual stuff while not being a shaman.
 
Regarding the Chu.

I am not sure if Gan Guangli's words hold as much weight as some posters here think when viewed by an impartial observer.

The Chu fell... was it a couple of centuries ago? Do we have an official timeline?

None od the grandfathers Gan mentions were anywhere near alive when the Chu reigned. On the contrary, they were born and raised under Cai regime, which is quite heavy on the control (and propaganda) side of things.

Even if there were the good old days, which I frankly doubt just so we are clear, the new generations couldn't and wouldn't really talk about it.

Also, Gan is a person that is a beneficiary and retainer of the Cai. He is literally on their payroll. Of course that he would be praising the Cai and maligning the regime's opponents (which included the Chu). He would do so even if he didn't believe it. It's his job and duty.

Of course, Gan obviously believes it, and rather vehemently at that. But then again, he had been a Cai fanatic from the start of the quest.

So, no, I am not sure that Gan's words hold all that much weight.

It would be a different thing if a Sect Elder (especially the older/more powerful ones) spoke those same words, as they are likely contemporeries of the Chu and have far less reason to follow any kind of narrative.

Ps. I am looking forward to the Fang vs Xiao duel. I think Fang is being quite underestimated.
 
There probably are people alive who remember even among non nobility, or at minimum lower nobility, and some who remember tales of their grandfathers among commoner cultivators.
 
I don't really see the point in tying xp to minor conversational choices.

But my problem is less the xp and more I wish we didn't have so many votes that are minor conversational choices. "Will you ask this person about X or Y?" I'm not saying that can't be a good vote once in a while, but there's no substance or stakes to something like that.

This was the vote.

[] Ask him what he thinks of repentance and forgiveness then, where is the line? (+1 to Motion)

[] Ask him what he thinks of punishment, what is the virtue of rulership to him? (+1 to Power)
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

"Ask him what he thinks"?

[] Tell him that that the goal of punishment is to produce acceptance of error which must proceed forgiveness.

[] Tell him that that the goal of punishment is to set an example for society, not for the sake of the wrongdoer.


Or something like that. Ling Qi making a strong statement about what she believes is preferable to have a vote about asking someone else about one of two options.
 
Briefvoice said:
I don't really see the point in tying xp to minor conversational choices.

But my problem is less the xp and more I wish we didn't have so many votes that are minor conversational choices. "Will you ask this person about X or Y?" I'm not saying that can't be a good vote once in a while, but there's no substance or stakes to something like that.

This was the vote.



"Ask him what he thinks"?

[] Tell him that that the goal of punishment is to produce acceptance of error which must proceed forgiveness.

[] Tell him that that the goal of punishment is to set an example for society, not for the sake of the wrongdoer.


Or something like that. Ling Qi making a strong statement about what she believes is preferable to have a vote about asking someone else about one of two options.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Uh, she's not gaining xp for making a statement. She's gaining xp from hearing a different perspective on the same concept, thus growing her comprehension of the concept.


Affirming her own beliefs wouldn't progress any concept at all. She learns nothing.
 
veekie said:
Uh, she's not gaining xp for making a statement. She's gaining xp from hearing a different perspective on the same concept, thus growing her comprehension of the concept.
Affirming her own beliefs wouldn't progress any concept at all. She learns nothing.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

You seem to have misunderstood my point, which was that it was a basically pointless vote, not about the xp which I couldn't care less about.
 
Horium said:
Is that WoG? Didn't the Hui fall like four centuries ago or something?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
The Duchess is only 250 years old. Ogedai was about 500 years ago but the rebellion was only about 150 years ago. There is a timeline of major events somewhere around here.

Edit: here
forums.sufficientvelocity.com

Forge of Destiny(Xianxia Quest) Original - Fantasy

So, As I have been working on this project, I’ve been thinking hard about some aspects of the WoG I have given out regarding events outside of the story, and come to the conclusion that I can improve the settings verisimilitude a good deal. Namely, the whole length of time involved in imperial...
forums.sufficientvelocity.com forums.sufficientvelocity.com
 
Last edited:
BronzeTongue said:
I mentioned this a bit ago, but I think that adding the numbers actually sort of helps with that because it'd tie in a factor to our decision making process that effects the characters that we as players can largely ignore.

Cultivators shape themselves towards what they're cultivating, and it seems to have strong mental effects that influence how they interact with people in lots of ways beyond the immediate obvious.

Voting for things that mechanically resonate with what we're cultivating at the moment seems like a reasonable simulation of how that'd act as a subliminal lens IC.

If anything adding the numbers would act as a balance against "narrative meta gaming" where we can just ignore some of the mental effects our cultivation style is having on Ling Qi's headspace to vote for something socially optimal in a particular situation.

We could still chose to do that, but we'd also basically be acknowledging it beforehand when we knowingly pick an option that doesn't fit the concepts we're writing into LQ's soul but does fit the conversation we're having better. Which, in a way, would give it more weight as a choice in my mind.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

I imagine that it would be nice when making decisions to be able to see the future and have some representation of what effect taking a choice would be... but people don't work like that. Part of the in universe challenge of cultivation is trying to balance stuff like this and they don't get a nice character sheet filled with numbers that represent their cultivation. Adding numerical outcomes like this is still fundamentally an external thing that shifts more of our understanding of Ling Qi to the character sheet and away from the actual character.

There's still room for making social decisions based on cultivation, or ignoring social expediency for the sake of Ling Qi's way, but having magical prognosticating number deltas is not how Ling Qi would make that decision.

I just don't agree with "Narrative meta gaming" being a thing. I think the character sheet should be a reflection of the character, not the character a reflection of the character sheet.
 
veekie said:
We're actually looking at two axis here.

-Player exclusively driven by mechanics
--Transparent mechanics - This player would vote by the mechanical option they want.
--Opaque, but present mechanics - This player would guess what mechanics are present, and advocate it. Other mechanics driven players, lacking a better data source, trusts that his advocacy is correct and votes based on his guess of what outcomes are likely OR come to their own guesses and advocate it, OR follow the most likely guess.
--Non-present mechanics - This player would check out and come back when there's a more relevant vote option, like the weekly cultivation plan.

-Player mainly driven by mechanics
--Transparent mechanics - This player would vote by the mechanical option they want, assuming it has no problematic Narrative beats.
--Opaque, but present mechanics - This player would guess what mechanics are present, and eyeball whether their mechanical goals are met. They would then vote based on the guess or advocacy.
--Non-present mechanics - This player would vote based on the narrative

-Player mainly driven by narrative
--Transparent mechanics - This player would vote by the narrative option they want, unless there is a mechanical dealbreaker.
--Opaque, but present mechanics - This player would try to guess if any of the mechanics are anathema to them, if their guess is that theres no dealbreaker, they would vote by the narrative. If they guess that there is a dealbreaker, or if there is sufficiently convincing fearmongering about a dealbreaker, they'd vote by the mechanics.
--Non-present mechanics - This player would vote by the narrative option they want.

-Player exclusively driven by narrative.
--Transparent mechanics - This player would vote by the narrative option they want.
--Opaque, but present mechanics - This player would vote by the narrative option they want.
--Non-present mechanics - This player would vote by the narrative option they want.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

This presupposes that people all have their minds made up about how they vote and aren't evaluating it on a case by case basis where adding concrete metagaming information might influence their decisions
 
Reader mode
You must login or register to reply here.
Remove ads
Back
Top