Court Wizard - No Enchantments?

Looking through the playbooks, the Court Wizard seems like he got a somewhat shorter stick than wicker-wise -- I know the classes aren't intended to be balanced against one another, but it seems a shame that he doesn't get to do enchantments, for example.

Also, what's the intention of the Call Upon Your Gods right? I get that Bold instead of Weird is an error (saw it in a previous thread) but doesn't it still just give a right that everyone has anyway? Consult With the Other World?

I'm with you on the right to call upon the gods; it needs a tiny little buff of some kind to make it distinct from consult the other world.

In general, though, I don't think the Court Wizard is weak. The step out of your earthly life, throw down demons, and whisper to ghosts moves are look pretty attractive. After two or three sessions you'll probably be able to take the right of enchantment from the Other World domain as well.

Every player can do ANY of the things that every playbook gives rights to do. 

I can bemoan that I'm not the king of Denmark... but it lacks the gravitas to do that when I have no RIGHT to be the king of Denmark.

Hamlet has the right to be king of Denmark and so he gets to make Monologues about it and we LISTEN to him.   He gets to drive STORY with his right to be king of Denmark.  I do not.

Calling upon the gods is something anyone CAN do.  It's different than what you have the RIGHT to do. 

Rights are there for building motivation and story, not for giving you supernatural powers.

Yes, rights drive the story. Some rights also give you additional abilities, and I don't know why you would say they're not for that. I really don't think it's correct to say that every player can do any of the things that every playbook gives rights to. Can the War Captain decide to "Step out of [his] earthly life and journey in other places."? You might say, "Of course! But he has no right to expect it to work when he tries." But that's not really any different than saying a first level fighter CAN cast magic missile, but has no right to expect it to happen, or for it to deal 1d4 damage. It might be technically true, but it strains the definition of "can" and "cast magic missile." 

The reason I'm asking This right seems like it's trying to do both of those things, but by granting a right that everyone already has. It's like if Hamlet's right that you wrote read: "You have the right to be King of Denmark. Treat this as Winning Someone Over."

Every player can do ANY of the things that every playbook gives rights to do. 

That is incorrect.

Yes, rights drive the story. Some rights also give you additional abilities, and I don't know why you would say they're not for that. I really don't think it's correct to say that every player can do any of the things that every playbook gives rights to. Can the War Captain decide to "Step out of [his] earthly life and journey in other places."?

No. There are clearly rights that have game effects but are phrased as rights.  No one is talking about those.

We're clearly talking about rights that don't have game effect.  Of which there are many. 

You have the right to slay whom you must for the protection of all.

There are also rights that INCLUDE game effects.

You have the right to confront your betters for justice. When you do, treat it as winning them over, but roll
Strong instead of Good.

No one is confused about rolling strong instead of good.

The reason I'm asking This right seems like it's trying to do both of those things, but by granting a right that everyone already has. It's like if Hamlet's right that you wrote read: "You have the right to be King of Denmark. Treat this as Winning Someone Over."

They certainly can do both.  But I believe the second part of the move is the less interesting and will not drive story.  It's the RIGHT that will drive the story. 

And NOBODY has the RIGHT to be king of Denmark but Hamlet.  If Rosencratz and Guildenstern bemoan that they have the right to be king of Denmark we call bullshit and don't listen.  If later they take that right as an advancement... we shall see what comes to pass.

Similarly no one but the Wizard has the RIGHT to call upon the gods and be WRONGED if they are prevented from doing so. 

Say you are the wizard and you have that right and travel to another land where they tell you that they forbid the worship of gods other than their own.  You can now make the move.  You can curse them for not allowing you to speak to the only TRUE gods!  You can tell them that you will see their gods scattered in the wind like the piles of twigs they are!  You can shout at the mountain tops that your gods shall be displeased and will rain down fire among their false idols! 

I bet you more than anything your war on their gods will be interesting.  I'd be a fan of that character!

If ANY other character goes to that land and is told NOT to call upon their gods.  They can defy them and do it anyway... and maybe pay a price.  But I promise you... if your rights are denied and you make an eloquent speech and show us that you have the WILL to make it come to pass.  The MC listens.  The other PC's listen.  Story goes where the worthy take it.  If I was another character in THAT game I would have to decide what to do... either to help you or to hinder you.  I'm involved in this war now whether I wanted to or not.  Perhaps I'm the War captain and I am drawn to your plight and Muster Troops to aid you in the destruction of these false gods! GAME ON.

Quote from: Golux on September 07, 2014, 11:01:43 PM

Every player can do ANY of the things that every playbook gives rights to do. 

That is incorrect.

It's not.  The game effects that are awarded with the rights are separate.  Some people can try things and fail or not be ABLE to.  But in general we're not talking about those few rights that have otherworldly ability attached.

If I don't have the right to confront your betters for justice.  I can still do it.  I might get smacked down for it but you bet I can.

If I don't have the right to slay whom you must for the protection of all.  I may still do murder upon someone for what I see is the protection of all.

We're OBVIOUSLY not talking about game effects here.

It's not.  The game effects that are awarded with the rights are separate.  Some people can try things and fail or not be ABLE to.  But in general we're not talking about those few rights that have otherworldly ability attached.

This thread was started about rights for enchantments which is a game effect according to your own definition, but which is also a supernatural power.
But.
All of the rights are game effects.
When a wicker-wise has "the right to be overcome by an oracular vision" that is a game effect in the exact same way that a Keep-Liege has "the right to impose law on the villages under the stronghold’s protection." One could be viewed as completely narrative, but there is a game effect in exercising either right just as their is a game effect for being denied that right. If a Dragon-Herald tries to be overcome by an oracular vision, nothing will happen. If a Dragon-Herald tried to impose law on the village under the stronghold's protection, nothing will happen (or maybe the player will trigger a basic move while role-playing the attempt).

This thread was started about rights for enchantments which is a game effect according to your own definition, but which is also a supernatural power.

I think I read the OP different than you. 

Also, what's the intention of the Call Upon Your Gods right? I get that Bold instead of Weird is an error (saw it in a previous thread) but doesn't it still just give a right that everyone has anyway? Consult With the Other World?

I thought the question was more oriented toward giving a right for a move everyone has access to.

That's what I am answering mostly.

But.
All of the rights are game effects.
When a wicker-wise has "the right to be overcome by an oracular vision" that is a game effect in the exact same way that a Keep-Liege has "the right to impose law on the villages under the stronghold’s protection." One could be viewed as completely narrative, but there is a game effect in exercising either right just as their is a game effect for being denied that right. If a Dragon-Herald tries to be overcome by an oracular vision, nothing will happen. If a Dragon-Herald tried to impose law on the village under the stronghold's protection, nothing will happen (or maybe the player will trigger a basic move while role-playing the attempt).

I don't think this is true at all.  I think if the Dragon Herald tries to impose law on the village under the strongholds protection then as MC I will make the NPC's behave accordingly.  They will laugh at him and not do so.  If he brings soldiers then it's a different matter. He may get away with it.  If there is a Keep Leige in play he might have something to say about it.  There is nothing preventing the player from ATTEMPTING that which he has no right.  It just might not work out and in fact drive story because now the Keep Leige has been denied her right to impose law. Now we get conflict.  Now the story heats up. 

I agree with you there are a lot of moves that are mechanics based and characters that have not selected those rights can't do those things.  But those are fairly obvious and no one is asking questions about them.  There are MANY rights in the game that do not have mechanics with them and THOSE are not strictly permissive. They are there to be used only when you are DENIED those rights.

I may slay a man in the defense of all.  But if I do not have the right to do that, I can expect that someone will PROBABLY lay the smack down on me for it and there isn't shit I can do about it.

If I HAVE the right to slay a man in the defense of all and someone tries to punish me for it after the fact.  I can declare that I have that right and the gods are displeased!  I can declare that I will wage war on those who would seek to belittle my right. I can drive story to see that my rights are not impugned again! 

In this instance the right to slay a man in the defense of all isn't a game effect.  It doesn't prevent people who don't have that right from trying to do so.  It's just not going to be a major driving motivation when that right isn't upheld for those who don't have it.   

Quote from: nerdwerds on September 08, 2014, 02:00:02 AM

If a Dragon-Herald tried to impose law on the village under the stronghold's protection, nothing will happen (or maybe the player will trigger a basic move while role-playing the attempt).

I don't think this is true at all.  I think if the Dragon Herald tries to impose law on the village under the strongholds protection then as MC I will make the NPC's behave accordingly.  They will laugh at him and not do so.  If he brings soldiers then it's a different matter. He may get away with it. 

I don't think there is absolutely any difference in either of these statements.

Quote from: Golux on September 08, 2014, 03:32:11 AM

Quote from: nerdwerds on September 08, 2014, 02:00:02 AM

If a Dragon-Herald tried to impose law on the village under the stronghold's protection, nothing will happen (or maybe the player will trigger a basic move while role-playing the attempt).

I don't think this is true at all.  I think if the Dragon Herald tries to impose law on the village under the strongholds protection then as MC I will make the NPC's behave accordingly.  They will laugh at him and not do so.  If he brings soldiers then it's a different matter. He may get away with it. 

I don't think there is absolutely any difference in either of these statements.

I feel like you're just fighting now.  If you don't then I'm just splitting hairs and we have to agree to disagree.

Say you are the wizard and you have that right and travel to another land where they tell you that they forbid the worship of gods other than their own.  You can now make the move.  You can curse them for not allowing you to speak to the only TRUE gods!  You can tell them that you will see their gods scattered in the wind like the piles of twigs they are!  You can shout at the mountain tops that your gods shall be displeased and will rain down fire among their false idols! 

I bet you more than anything your war on their gods will be interesting.  I'd be a fan of that character!

OK. I get your POV is that the intention is to act as a right to consult gods that are possibly strange and foreign to the locals. If that's the case, the move will probably be rewritten to read something like:

"You have the right to call upon your gods or the gods of your people, though you are far from them," removing the mechanical statement "When you do, treat it as consulting with the other world, but roll Bold instead of Weird." Vincent has said that the Bold instead of Weird thing is an error, but just leaving "When you do, treat it as consulting with the other world" doesn't really add anything. 

I'll be interested to see, though, if Vincent plans to add some additional function to that move. 

Quote

Say you are the wizard and you have that right and travel to another land where they tell you that they forbid the worship of gods other than their own.  You can now make the move.  You can curse them for not allowing you to speak to the only TRUE gods!  You can tell them that you will see their gods scattered in the wind like the piles of twigs they are!  You can shout at the mountain tops that your gods shall be displeased and will rain down fire among their false idols! 

I bet you more than anything your war on their gods will be interesting.  I'd be a fan of that character!

OK. I get your POV is that the intention is to act as a right to consult gods that are possibly strange and foreign to the locals. If that's the case, the move will probably be rewritten to read something like:

"You have the right to call upon your gods or the gods of your people, though you are far from them," removing the mechanical statement "When you do, treat it as consulting with the other world, but roll Bold instead of Weird." Vincent has said that the Bold instead of Weird thing is an error, but just leaving "When you do, treat it as consulting with the other world" doesn't really add anything. 

I'll be interested to see, though, if Vincent plans to add some additional function to that move.

I don't think there needs to be a rewrite.  There are many rights that have no game mechanic.  You have the right to consult the gods is like... a (no pun intended) A GOD GIVEN RIGHT.

My example about the locals is something the GM can do to challenge that right to make story.  You can consult the gods wherever you damn please and to whichever god you damn please.  That's your right. If someone challenges that right it lets you draw motivation out of that engagement to make story.  I think that's the crux of what rights are for. (Please note I'm talking about non-game mechanic rights.) 

What would you see the difference being between this move as written (minus the bold thing) and:

You have the right to slay whom you must for the protection of all.

They seem to add similar flavor to what your character has the right to do.  I see no problem here...

Yes, remove the entire mechanical statement.

-Vincent

Perfect, that's what I figured. Thanks!

For a foreign trader character with Bold as the high stat, having the right to worship their own gods, even this far away from their home, and to roll Bold instead of Weird, would be a good, strong right. For the high Weird Court Magician, though, the right's mechanically gutted.

There are several of these in the rights lists, where if you copy them straight over into a playbook without checking against the stats you'll gut the right. The Troll-killer has one too, and I think the Castellan, and possibly some of the others.

For purposes of this playtest, it's probably best to just call them out when you see them, and then don't worry about them.

-Vincent