From: Burton Choinski (burt@ptltd.com)
Date: Fri 02 Jul 1993 - 17:28:56 EEST
Joerg Baumgartner (|) and Dave Cake (>) on my Sorcery Suggestion...
------------------------------------------------------------
| > I really like the basic concept behind Burtons sorcery system, with
| >studies as well as skills and spells (though I think that calling studies
| > skills is actually quite fine)
|
| Studies is quite a ggod word for it. I was thinking of something like "name
| lore" when I toyed with this idea, like everyone/thing having its own true
| name, and the study/skill represents how close the sorcerer came to it.
That's how I envisioned it, but I wanted something other then "Iron Lore",
"Bronze Lore" etc. I see the studies as an in-depth examinination of the
substance -- chemical propertites, malleability, color, feel, etc. The
study allows you to "know" the substance.
I came up with the whole thing because it seemed insane for a Sorcerer, who
wants to know the whole bank of Substance affecting spells, needs to
learn 4x (number of substances), rather then 4+ (number of substances).
It makes it more logical to link them anyways. Having Mastered Form/Set,
The Sorcerer can then spend time researching the substances of his interest.
As a CS person, I didn't study "C graphics", "Postscript graphics",
"Fortran Graphics", "Basic Graphics", "C Business", etc. I learned the
tools/spells/languages, then apply those tools on my studies to produce the
desired affect.
| > I have a few minor problems with it (I am happy for some spells to
| >remain ungeneralised, and I think that some of the Studies are somwhat
| >redundant (like Attribute studies, I'd rather that these spells remain
| >separate spells rather than variants)), but overall I like it, and would
| >be happy for RQ Sorcery to take this form. It is reminescent of Ars Magica
| >and Chivalry and Sorcery, but without immense complexity.
|
| From the power balance point of view, you are right about the attribute
| spells being different spells, but for the sake of simplicity, I'd throw
| them in with the other spells.
When I was organizing the spells I was trying to come up with some internal
consistancy in the ways the spells fall out. Spells that do not have
a category are just not properly classified. :)
Take two spells -- Smother (Banish <Air>) and a similarly made Ignite
(Conjure <Fire>). Both are effective death sentances at high durations
if you overcome the poor bastard's magic points. If you have to handle
10 minutes (minimal duration) of no air or 1d3 location damage on your
head each melee round, you will be equally in trouble.
Also, look at TAP and DIMINISH. Which is more cost effective -- Tap STR
at intensity 3, or Diminish STR with a duration 3? The former is FOREVER
while the later is a pain for just over an hour. Yet technically, both
are the same "quanta" of spell -- they are cast as needed. TAP is not
a ritual or anything.
Given the current inconsistancies in the Sorcery magic, I though it best to
work up a consistant base idea, then determine the modifiers from this base
to simulate the existing spells. Granted, working from this constant base
does make some spells redundant (Tap becomes a more cost-effective Diminish,
since the attribute "energy" lost is converted to useful form in the
former, but thrown to the winds in the later. If I work on this some more
I'm sure I'll fold other spells together and work out modifiers.
| > What I would like to know, before I try to rewrite it etc., is how do
| >others on the list feel about it (either like or dislike), and how do Oliver
| >and the gang feel about it? try to concentrate on generalities rather than
| >specifics.
|
| As you might see from my answer, I support this for a generalized system for
| certain spell effects. I have no problem with specific spells sewn together
| from this taught to lesser pupils, such as Paul Reilly's Hrestoli spells in
| the Dailies, and certainly there would be restrictions as to who teaches or
| knows which studies, varying from sect to college.
This idea makes sense. The peasants, lords and knights are given "black
box" spells, with all the components hidden. They just push the button
(cast their MP and say the right words) and off it goes to do it's specific
purpose. Once you get to the Wizard stage you are finally taught the
Studies and Skills and spells you need to roll your won.
| I'd propose that one can alternatively learn a certain combination of
| manipulation plus spell plus study as one new spell with fixed costs, which
| would be the way these are taught to students.
The spell bundles could be pre-created with duration, range, intensity
all figured in, then take 25% off the magic cost off the top since it is a
complete and formalized spell, polished and well defined (As opposed to
casting on the fly by taking Spell X, throwing in Study Y, mixing in a
few manipulations and hurling it at the target). Such "Fixed" spells have
casting percentages, just as if you picked up a Sorcery spell matrix...You
have to learn how to properly use it just like any other spell.
You could have "Lazy Sorcerers" who just learn polished bundles from
other sorcerers without knowing the underlying parts, and to Fred the
Impala rider he would look as much a sorcerer as one who knows the whole
ball of wax. But observation would show which is the true master of the
arts, and who is just a dabbler, a street magician with a bag of tricks.
If all you have is an Ignite 10, lighting campfires eats a lot of magic.
I'm going to have to work on this some more. It might have some promise
But the real mage can just toss on an Ignite 1 and be done with it.
if I can figure out the subtle rules that the effects of the spells must
follow.
-- Burton
0,,
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.7 : Sat 05 Jul 2003 - 20:28:09 EEST