Skeptomancy 2.0

[Paul C Duggan]

At 10:43 PM 2/22/99 -0500, Paul C Duggan wrote:
>Major charge: fake a supernatural event so that a large audience (1000+)
>is convinced something unnatural occurred. Alternatively, convince an
>>adept of the rational explanation for his powers. Prove the Naked
>>Goddess tape is a fake. Convince a clergyman that God doesn't exist.
>
>I'd make it more than a thousand.  Even that's not so VERY hard with TV
>and CGI and such.  "Alien Autopsy," anyone?

True. I think I was thinking it meant convincing essential the whole of
the large audiance. Something pretty undeniable, not just guys in rubber
suits. But maybe 100k people is a better figure.

>>Cold Reading
>>Charges: 3 minor charges
>>
>>Effect: Learn any 5 things you want to know about a person that you are
>>engaged in oral conversation with. Age, health, politics, sexual
>>history, religious persuasion. Doesn't work on people you know well or
>>who know you well.
>
>MUNCHKIN: Okay, I want to know his PIN number, the secret he most wants
to
>conceal...

Hey, these charges are hard to get. I say give it to him. :-)
>
>Let's make this "five things the person would admit to a friendly              
>acquaintence" such as age, health, etc.

ok. Or maybe make the Soul stat of the mark a minimum roll (is there an
"official game-mechanic term" for that?)

>
>>Interference
>>Charges: 1-10 minor charges
>>
>>Effect: Minor charges spent within Soul stat feet have no effect 20% of
>>the time per charge spent. No unnatural phenomenon will occur if the
>>minor charges do work. Additional charges may be spent by the interferee
>>to increase their chances of it working by 20%.
>
>Does this simply make spells fail, or do they fail and lose the charge
too?

I was thinking that charges would get spent and lost. why not?
>
>>Peer Review
>>Charges: 1 minor or significant charge
>>
>>Effect: A Skeptomancer can use this spell to share resources with other
>>skeptomancers. After casting this spell, other skeptomancers within soul      
>>stat feet of the adept may add their charges to whatever effect is being
>>attempted. Significant spells may only be cast if a significant charge
>>is used for Peer Review. It may be better to think of this as a special
>>ability of skeptomancers rather than a spell, since using this is not
>>considered breaking the skeptomancer taboo.
>
>Why not just say the spell costs X+1 and transfers X charges to a nearby
>skeptomancer?  Hm, you'd get some fun Penn & Teller action - one
>Skeptomancer who's spent his Soul points on persuasive skills (and can
>consequently reap charges) and another who spent his Soul points on a
high
>magick skill (can can therefore USE the charges).

not bad. I was wondering why I had to run this off the soul stat. The
bright atheist seems more like the mental picture of the skeptomancer. And
I liked everway where you had magics running off of any characteristics.
Any reason some mind-based magics are too "off paradigm"?

I was also thinking of Minor spell

Sike!
charges: 1 minor charge
Effect: allows substiution of the skeptomancer skill for lying, including
flip-flopping rolls.
 >
>>Significant Formula Spells
>>
>>Cry Wolf
>>Charges: 2 significant charges
>>                                                                              
>>Effect: Makes the claims of an authority figure to be demonstrably
>>false. If a scientist claims oat bran will prevent cancer, the next
>>study will really find that it causes it. A mayor claims the economy
>>will improve, it will actually worsen. This only applies to questions
>>about tendencies or future predictions. If someone claims the Eiffel
>>tower exists, it won't cease to. If they claim it is structurally sound,
>>it will start falling apart.
>
>If you only want it for 2 sigs, I'd say it makes the claims APPEAR false.
>If you want it to actually change something as big as the economy or the
>results of an election, you're going to need some fairly serious
leverage.

Well, I was erring on the side of power. What if this had to be cast
before the guy made any claims? Then you don't know what is going to
result and its a risk. I also think i meant by saying a mayors claims
about the economy that it was more of a local area thing. But I wasn't
sure if that were too vaguely defined (hey, vague can be good). 
	
	"Riverboat gambling will be good for Philadelphia!"

 >
>>Counterspell
>>Charges: 1 significant charge
>>
>>Effect: nullify a significant blast, formula spell, or artifact. It has
>>no effect                                                                     
>Again, does the charge get spent, or not?  (I'd say not.)

how come? 
>
>>Monster from the Id
>>Charges: 3 significant charges
>>
>>Effect: Causes the target to experience his most frightening beliefs
>>coming true. This should be something related to their most failed
>>madness meter, and only effecting them personally. If they fear AIDS,
>>they get it. If they fear nuclear war it doesn't happen.
>
>Again, you might want to bump up the charge cost on this OR have it be an
>entropic-like effect where they BELIEVE it happened.                         

I'm thinking the set-up time and difficulty of changing someone beliefs
make charges pretty hard to get so they should be worth alot.

But thanks for the feedback.

"I am an impure thinker. I am hurt, swayed, shaken, |  paul           + | +
elated, disillusioned, shocked, comforted, and I    |                 --|--
have to transmit my mental experiences lest I die." |                 + | +
                     --  Eugen Rosenstock-Huessy    |  pduggan at world.std.com