[edgeofhearing]

But that's a weaker argument than this: Joran Sisko, while being influenced BY a Trill symbiont, is NOT a Trill, nor is there a Trill symbiont inside of him. Therefore, even though it opens this opportunity to do this mission, we shouldn't say he is a Trill or with worm.

That's been mentioned. Some people disagree that that's the end of the story. We can keep saying that back and forth if you want to though.

[AllenGould]

There isn't going to be a piano or composer card to play off of lore references on Joran. That's not a hook that I can see anyone willing to spend the time or design space to "grab."

Oh, you underestimate the craftiness of designers. Dan has spent *years* working to get Chef Riker in a set, for instance.

And I see at least three more pianists in Trek that 1E doesn't have cards for.

[Slayer07]

But that's a weaker argument than this: Joran Sisko, while being influenced BY a Trill symbiont, is NOT a Trill, nor is there a Trill symbiont inside of him. Therefore, even though it opens this opportunity to do this mission, we shouldn't say he is a Trill or with worm.

That's been mentioned. Some people disagree that that's the end of the story. We can keep saying that back and forth if you want to though.

True enough, the only relevant thing is that unless something happens rather quickly here Trill with Symbiont (which I did not vote for) is not going to win so it won't matter.

[Tim]

1E missions aren't strictly limited by what actually happened in the show. Pakleds weren't in "Prime Factors" VOY at the other end of the DQ trying to Acquire Technology. Tomalak and General Krim were not even mentioned in "The Adversary" DS9 for Investigate Coup. If you exclude Fed, probably MOST missions have affiliation icons from affiliations that didn't appear in the episodes at all.

That's really making something out of my point that just isn't there though.

In the examples you give, at least people are trying to do the mission AS STATED (except for Espionage Attempts which get all sort of weird, but that's Premiere for you). Yes, it does make sense that Trill physicians might want to examine (and Trill security want to contain) Joran, but that's not what this mission (from a completely different episode) is about.

I don't follow your distinction. If it is stated in Joran's lore that he counts as a "Trill With Symbiont" then he would be doing the mission as stated. My point is about how "trek sense" theme is used in missions in 1E. It's well within trek sense for Joran to be the one diagnosed for that mission.

But that's a weaker argument than this: Joran Sisko, while being influenced BY a Trill symbiont, is NOT a Trill, nor is there a Trill symbiont inside of him. Therefore, even though it opens this opportunity to do this mission, we shouldn't say he is a Trill or with worm.

Even the "Trill" options will be written in such as a way as to not be a species. The way species work in 1E Joran Sisko should be human. We're just talking about him counting as with symbiont for the Symbiont Diagnosis mission.

Joran Sisko is just being influenced by a Trill symbiont --- he's only hosting one Trill mind not an entire slug in his stomach. If there were already multiple ways to use different types of Trill hosting then making a distinction would make sense. But making a gameplay distinction between different types of hosting Trills at this point? I don't buy it. Especially when the only application of having a symbiont is a mission where it makes perfect sense for him to be "diagnosed" at.

[Boffo97]

But that's a weaker argument than this: Joran Sisko, while being influenced BY a Trill symbiont, is NOT a Trill, nor is there a Trill symbiont inside of him. Therefore, even though it opens this opportunity to do this mission, we shouldn't say he is a Trill or with worm.

That's been mentioned. Some people disagree that that's the end of the story. We can keep saying that back and forth if you want to though.

Well, I haven't seen much of an argument for it other than boiling down to "Wouldn't it be cool if he could do this mission?"

That said, even if you combine Trill and Trill with symbiont, that option is in 5th place right now, and that's without the "No" voters affecting it.

[BCSWowbagger]

VEDEKS DON'T EAT SPIDERS come at me

My wife who does not play 1E and I agree that this quote made this entire thread worth it.

[Boffo97]

I don't follow your distinction. If it is stated in Joran's lore that he counts as a "Trill With Symbiont" then he would be doing the mission as stated. My point is about how "trek sense" theme is used in missions in 1E. It's well within trek sense for Joran to be the one diagnosed for that mission.

Yes, if it were in the lore that he was a Trill with symbiont, then he would work for that mission. There is no argument there. The argument is that he shouldn't because he is not with symbiont. There is zero physical worm content inside Joran Sisko. (Certified by the Worm Council of Bajor.)

That said, if a future Zhian'tara card had something on it saying that those with the keyword could be used as a Trill with symbiont for purposes of that mission, I'd personally have no problem with that. The problem is that we shouldn't say he is something he's not just for the sake of "Wouldn't it be cool if he could do that mission?"

Joran Sisko is just being influenced by a Trill symbiont --- he's only hosting one Trill mind not an entire slug in his stomach. If there were already multiple ways to use different types of Trill hosting then making a distinction would make sense. But making a gameplay distinction between different types of hosting Trills at this point? I don't buy it. Especially when the only application of having a symbiont is a mission where it makes perfect sense for him to be "diagnosed" at.

You make my point for me when you use the word "hosting". Being influenced (which we all seem to agree he is) by a symbiont is NOT hosting a symbiont or "with symbiont". Symbiont Diagnosis is only interested in a member of a Trill (clearly a reference to species) with symbiont.

So a Zhian'tara card allowing use of Zhian'tara personnel with that mission? Good.

Errataing said mission to allow Zhian'tara personnel (and possibly a future Will Odan, who would also be locked out here despite actually being with symbiont)? Good.

Calling Joran with symbiont when he isn't just so he could do that mission? Bad. Because that isn't the case.

[nobthehobbit]

And, further, there's no host-symbiont bond for a Palukoo bite to disrupt.

[MidnightLich]

I notice only one other person has voted for Jadzia Dax. I think referencing her makes more sense than most of the options up there.

It was implied (if not outright said) that if Jadzia Dax were to win, that would make Joran a persona of her as well as a persona of Sisko.

Since the two of the coexisted, this shouldn't be the case.

If I implied that, I did not mean to. I think I said the opposite:

4. Jadzia Dax
This would be a lore reference only, not a persona.

-crp

[Boffo97]

Yeah, that was me messing up. Sorry.

[frakkingoff]

Just because you can't see it doesn't mean there won't be anything.

I could see, for instance, a requirement of Music x3 OR a composer. (I don't know what the source for such a card would be; I'd leave that to the folks over in Creative.) Or a card that gives a boost to Music personnel but a bigger boost to pianists. (A new version of Omag, perhaps, though that might just be a special download of any pianist.) I don't find the argument "they shouldn't be on there because they're unlikely ever to be used" persuasive in the least, particularly when they are completely factual (he was a composer, he was a pianist) and I can think of ways to use them in future. Being a composer or a pianist is more specific than just what the Music skill signifies, and therefore can be used to different effect than that skill.

Yes, if put to the sword, you or I or anyone else in this thread COULD design a card that uses "pianist" as a keyword. I'm not saying it CAN'T happen, I'm saying it WON'T happen. There's a distinction there.

This is a KEYWORD vote - a vote on important words in lore that may have gameplay significance. If you don't think a word is ever likely to be used, then I don't see what metric you're using to judge whether or not it should be included as a keyword. We're not arguing about whether Joran is a pianist, we're arguing about whether or not it's worth the opportunity cost (of other keywords) to put "pianist" in as a keyword when it's not going to be used as such.

I can give creative a reason to use pianist as a keyword right now if they want to make the card .

Yes, but I don't think anyone wants to make the card, which is the point.

1E is littered with phrases that in theory could be considered keywords or something to base a card off of but aren't. Renaissance Man, Jazz Musician, fortuitous holodeck programmer, Dance and Thespian, Vegetarian, Snappy conversationalist. Heck, pianist is not new it's on Amarie and Neela Darren so if anything else it's consistency.

And no one's used keyword junk to make junky cards, so why should we throw in another one that no one's going to use? You're proving my point for me.

If nothing else it's more information on the character which in my mind would be far more valuable than an WotC Easter Egg.

But far less valuable than actually useful information or interesting keywords.

Oh, you underestimate the craftiness of designers. Dan has spent *years* working to get Chef Riker in a set, for instance.

No, I think it is you that over-estimates the interest of designers in making boring cards or mechanics. Given a finite number of cards and time, I don't see any designer interested in devoting a card slot to a "pianist" mechanic.

Chef Riker is interesting and important to the Star Trek mythos. Comparing him to "pianist" keyword, in terms of priority and interest by designers, is comparing apples and bowling balls.

[frakkingoff]

Well, I haven't seen much of an argument for it other than boiling down to "Wouldn't it be cool if he could do this mission?"

Aren't almost all the traits we've discussed, and most of the ones we've included, boiled down to "Wouldn't it be cool if he had this?" I don't see why that logic is valid for other choices but not to something as innocuous as lore (and as interesting as being able to help solve, or steal, a nigh-unsolveable, unstealable mission which is rarely used).

That said, even if you combine Trill and Trill with symbiont, that option is in 5th place right now, and that's without the "No" voters affecting it.

And that's why some of us are arguing for it, in the hopes of converting some hearts and minds.

Only voting for things that are already winning because they're already winning is pretty nihilistic.

[winterflames]

Sine qua non

[Tim]

Only voting for things that are already winning because they're already winning is pretty nihilistic.

Talk about nihilistic. None of the current options with 10 votes mean anything. They don't matter in gameplay at all.

Might as well just be an excerpt from Kafka's Metamorphosis in his lore box. Would be the same card.

"You must try to get rid of the idea that this is Joran. The fact that we have believed for so long, that is truly our real misfortune. But how can it be Joran? If it were Joran, he would have long ago realized that a communal life among human beings is not possible with such an animal and would have gone away voluntarily."

[Slayer07]

Just because you can't see it doesn't mean there won't be anything.

I could see, for instance, a requirement of Music x3 OR a composer. (I don't know what the source for such a card would be; I'd leave that to the folks over in Creative.) Or a card that gives a boost to Music personnel but a bigger boost to pianists. (A new version of Omag, perhaps, though that might just be a special download of any pianist.) I don't find the argument "they shouldn't be on there because they're unlikely ever to be used" persuasive in the least, particularly when they are completely factual (he was a composer, he was a pianist) and I can think of ways to use them in future. Being a composer or a pianist is more specific than just what the Music skill signifies, and therefore can be used to different effect than that skill.

Yes, if put to the sword, you or I or anyone else in this thread COULD design a card that uses "pianist" as a keyword. I'm not saying it CAN'T happen, I'm saying it WON'T happen. There's a distinction there.

This is a KEYWORD vote - a vote on important words in lore that may have gameplay significance. If you don't think a word is ever likely to be used, then I don't see what metric you're using to judge whether or not it should be included as a keyword. We're not arguing about whether Joran is a pianist, we're arguing about whether or not it's worth the opportunity cost (of other keywords) to put "pianist" in as a keyword when it's not going to be used as such.

I can give creative a reason to use pianist as a keyword right now if they want to make the card .

1E is littered with phrases that in theory could be considered keywords or something to base a card off of but aren't. Renaissance Man, Jazz Musician, fortuitous holodeck programmer, Dance and Thespian, Vegetarian, Snappy conversationalist. Heck, pianist is not new it's on Amarie and Neela Darren so if anything else it's consistency.

And no one's used keyword junk to make junky cards, so why should we throw in another one that no one's going to use? You're proving my point for me.

If nothing else it's more information on the character which in my mind would be far more valuable than an WotC Easter Egg.

But far less valuable than actually useful information or interesting keywords.

Oh, you underestimate the craftiness of designers. Dan has spent *years* working to get Chef Riker in a set, for instance.

No, I think it is you that over-estimates the interest of designers in making boring cards or mechanics. Given a finite number of cards and time, I don't see any designer interested in devoting a card slot to a "pianist" mechanic.

Chef Riker is interesting and important to the Star Trek mythos. Comparing him to "pianist" keyword, in terms of priority and interest by designers, is comparing apples and bowling balls.

I would actually disagree about Chef being important and interesting. Yeah it's probably more so in the long run than the word pianist but still...

One man's interest is another's boring idea. One man's keyword is another man's nothing but flavor. I can tell you I've never used assassin cards in my deck builds, so it means nothing to me. And for that matter I can tell you I at least have yet to make use of chef either. Doesn't mean they don't have their uses just that they haven't done me any good. Likewise anyone who has never played Hirogen don't care about Alpha Hirogen, anyone who has never played Borg aren't as worried about Counterparts unless they have to worry about their homeworlds.

I think you missed my point when I spoke of WotC Easter Egg. Once keywords are done I would rather have real information on the character than the useless Easter Egg. Let's be honest, most keywords just aren't relevant to a CIVILIAN musician. In my mind next should come real information about the character instead of an Easter Egg.

I'm not saying it CAN'T happen, I'm saying it WON'T happen. Yes, but I don't think anyone wants to make the card, which is the point.

Didn't know you spoke for the entire creative and design team and what they want to see by the way, thanks for sharing .

You do realize the top winning 'keyword' right now isn't even a keyword right? As things stand it could be just flavor lore unless design chooses to capitalize on it which we can't prove they ever will.

Even if pianist or composer do NOT become keywords they can still be part of the lore for flavor. Saying they are not keywords may be correct, saying they should not be in lore is another matter altogether.