Talk:The Monolith From Beyond Space and Time

From 1d4chan
Revision as of 20:08, 20 July 2019 by Triacom (talk | contribs)
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

The table that happens when you're hit by an attack, makes the attack the focus. Let's look at the entry in question that can make you invincible against a specific attack:

The worms are liquified by the trauma, releasing energy that not only cancels all effects and damage suffered in this attack, but grants the character full immunity to this attack type in the future.

Now let's add some context, let's say the character died to a poison dart:

The worms are liquified by the trauma, releasing energy that not only cancels all effects and damage suffered from the poisoned dart, but grants the character full immunity poison darts in the future.

The table very clearly refers to the attack that hit the player by saying "this attack", otherwise looking up the table would be pointless if it was an instant kill attack, and the module still clearly says you use the table even if it is an instant kill. Also it would be impossible for the table to cancel all effects and damage suffered in this attack to mean the worms, since A) getting infected by the worms is not an attack, and B) the worms cannot damage you by attacking themselves. They also do not normally damage you and can only do so via some table results, which are effects but not attacks.

I still disagree and think it's only supposed to grant immunity to the worm attack itself, but with how poorly it's written in the table it could go either way. I'd look for an FAQ, but I don't feel like putting up with even more of this mess than I have already. --Newerfag (talk) 15:12, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
Using the context of the description given, can you show how "this attack" refers to the worms and not the attack/effect that triggered the roll on the table? -- Triacom (talk) 00:14, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
I can't, looking closer I saw that there's no way to tell exactly what he intended by "this attack". So I guess it should be fine to leave that part as is, though I did note the crappy editing factor of it. --Newerfag (talk) 15:26, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Now let's look at the duplicates:

This blood can also be collected in a container and brought out of the brain. Splashing the liquid on the ground (and it must be all of the blood collected, not just a few drops...) will grow a complete replica of the original character (sans equipment) who will have the same attitudes as the original except it will have a violent burning hatred of its duplicate.

So aside from one bit, they're identical to their original in any way, shape and form. You know what that also means? Should their original not be around, they'll behave in exactly the same way as the original. While it doesn't say you'll be given control of the duplicate, there's also no reason why you shouldn't since they're going to do exactly what that original's player wanted to anyway because they're the character the player was running. If the player isn't in control per say, they'll need to be consulted constantly to know what the duplicate is doing, effectively putting them in control anyway. -- Triacom (talk) 18:55, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

On the other hand, that means if the original doesn't want to hold the door shut (and why would they?) neither will the clone. But I guess if you had a way to immobilize or mind-control the clone to force it to keep it shut and the lack of time inside the monolith kept that method from wearing off, it could work...though I get the feeling that Raggi didn't intend for that to be the "solution" here. --Newerfag (talk) 15:12, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
Yes you could claim the duplicate won't want to close the door if the original didn't want to close the door, but the only way to know if they will or won't is to ask the player who played the original. Frankly it doesn't matter if the duplicate is the one to close the door (or leave) or not, all that matters is one of the two does it, since the duplicate can take all of their gear and the original player would still be in control, as I described above. The duplicate also doesn't need a reason to hold the door shut, they can just wish to be on a different planet (especially if their original wanted to explore) and the adventure is won. -- Triacom (talk) 00:14, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
I guess so, though knowing Raggi he'd probably just make the duplicate an NPC under his control or something equally asshole-ish. Plus, since it's the monolith that travels that would mean reopening it if they wanted to explore (and thus unleashing all its insanity somewhere else)...but since it's no longer the party's problem I guess that technically counts as a win? --Newerfag (talk) 15:26, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
Yes, since the book says that the monolith just needs to be on a different world for it to stop messing around in your world I'd take that as a win. The best win I think would be to find one of the ways to paralyze somebody permanently, and then tricking a duplicate into holding the door closed before having the paralysis take effect. That way the monolith is permanently out of the picture for everyone, no matter who or where they are. -- Triacom (talk) 15:39, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
Honestly, the first time I read it long ago, I figured the "win condition" was for one lawful soul to volunteer to shut the door, then merge into the multiverse for the XP boost. --SpectralTime (talk) 16:58, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
If they merge with the universe the door opens again. I suppose you can also do that after moving it to another world to win. -- Triacom (talk) 17:21, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
Preferably a universe of pure nothingness so nobody else has to deal with its horseshit. --Newerfag (talk) 20:01, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
I wonder what kind of horseshit Raggi would pull to prevent that from happening. Let's not forget that the only way you'd figure out how to do any of this is either to read the module, or accidentally leave your body and come across a friendly inhabitant who's willing to tell you, which I'm betting Raggi would not have in his games. -- Triacom (talk) 20:08, 20 July 2019 (UTC)