From: Curtis Shenton (curtiss@netcom.com)
Date: Fri 11 Jun 1993 - 07:44:23 EEST
I know we want to avoid too much traffic on this list but there are too
many points here I'd like to comment on for me to pass up. :) What can I
say, the flesh is weak.
>
> Re: Pauls and Mikes new system
>
> The problem with making it too difficult to become a sorcerer is that
> you'll have very few PC sorcerers. This is the problem with Warhammer
> FRP, the magicians are gross but it takes an eternity to get any good.
> As a result, there are a lot more NPC magicians than PC's.
>
> I would suggest reducing the number of separate skills a sorcerer needs
> to know, to something like the Ars Magica Creo, Ignem style. Spells could
> be trained up separately, and should be easier than learning the lores.
I think Graeme is right that right now it looks to hard to generate
> (This is a hint for Paul to publish his rune sorcery concept: the
Sorcerors. At the same time we have to make sure it's not too easy. But
I think between learning lores, spells, and establishing a Presence a
sorceror has plenty of things he needs to do to become powerfull. I
think that it should be a bit easier to become a sorceror(assuming you
are part of the right culture and have followed all the rules, I'm
talking game mechanics) than to become a shaman or a priest. But
starting sorcerors shouldn't be as powerfull as staring shaman and
priests. They should have to spend lots of time reading ancient tomes,
perforing starnge rituals, and speaking to forgotten spirits to
accumulate power.
> westerners would divide their sorcery lores into runic areas; the other
> cultures could do it differently.)
Yes! The basic sorcery rules shoudl not be based on any one culture, but
rather easily configurable to fit each different sorcery using group.
Sorcery metarules instead of rules for Malikioni.
>
>
> The "special effects" of Presence: Loren suggested some nice ideas, but
> they all appeared fairly nasty (i.e hideous appearance, animals frightened).
> I think these are a case for Pendragon-like personality traits: an adept
> binds his twin to the physical world, unlike a shaman, and so his personality
> becomes obvious in the real world. If the character is genuinely nasty, as
> many independent sorcerers seem to be, then there should be hideous and
> frightening effects. If he's saintly, there should be comforting, reassuring
> effects. Of course, what might comfort fellow worshippers may frighten others:
> the Dominican approach rather than the Franciscan...
I like this alot. But we need guidelines for what establishes the
effects. Maybe how the sorceror fares in the ordeal and how he tries to
reshape himself and his presence?
>
> In short, I think the effects should be personal, rather than cultural.
I think they should be both. The rules should allor for individual
sorcerors to develop individually, after all powerfull sorcerors seem to
be a group of unique people rather than one stereotype, but with lots of
information about how each culture _expects_ a sorceror to develop.
>
> Someone (I forget who) said he thought that most sorcerers are fairly
> twisted. I think this should be avoided, especially as part of the rules
> system: ie adepts "crippling their fetch". This is a theistic or animistic
> prejudice: adepts control their twin. They would say that shamans are
> controlled by theirs, and are insane/possessed. I don't think the base
> rules system should contain these slants.
Again I agree. If we can't manage to make the rules unbiased then each
group of magic rules should have the outlook of someone from that
culture by way of background. So the rules for Presence should mention
how this is the best way to handle magic, the rules for shaman should
mention how the shamans powers are the best way to do magic, and the
divine magic should mention how this the the best magic. Remember Greg
keeps stressing that their is no "right" answer. All sorcerors shouldn't
be neroitic, repressed basket cases no one likes. Though it's all right
to establish cultural stereotypes.
>
> Re: Animistic spirit magic: though I posted my problems with the system
> yesterday, I do prefer it to the current system as an explanation of how
> spirit magic works. The problem with re-doing it for RQIV is that it isn't
> broken, maybe not perfect, but not broken. What I would really like for
> RQIV is more spirit magic spells: I think the list emphasizes combat spells
> too much.
I'd like this too. Maybe if the spirit magic spells weren't so optimized
for combat it would "feel" more like animistic magic too me.
>
> Graeme.
>
>
-- Curtis Shenton curtiss@netcom.com internet & 4@3091 WWIVnet "At the GM's option, strategic nuclear weapons may be considered 'magical'"-From the CyberCthulhu rules in Interface 0,,
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.7 : Sat 05 Jul 2003 - 20:27:41 EEST