From: Peter van Heusden (pvanheus@cs.uct.ac.za)
Date: Thu 02 Sep 1993 - 13:36:22 EEST
Dave writes:
> The second is a speculative one about sorcery. With reference to
> Burton Cholinskis Sorcery with studies system, does anybody have objections to
> this in principle? There are some problems with it from a practical point of
No, I actually like it. Very AM like.
> view (its very incompatible with existing sorcery), but I want to know what
> people think about the basic idea. The basicgame effects are
> to complicate sorcery for most users, but give practitioners grater flexibilty
> and many new abilities (some of them rather curious and many not very useful). I liked the basic idea a lot but hadproblems with the implementation, as I
That's the direction I like. Flexibility is the heart of a good system imho..
half the fun in AM is being able to whatever you like.
> thought that Burtons striving for purity of implementation made it very
> incompatible, and was inappropriate in other parts. I also thought that it
> could benefit from being combined with the Paul Reilly Presence system.
> So I have given some thought to writing my own version with the
> emphasis on compatibility with existing rules and the draft version. Will
> I get shouted down for overcomplication? or does the idea meet with guarded
> approval? I like the idea, because it seems to me that it has the capability to
> bring a very Ars Magica like feel (or manipulating complex laws, and with the
> possibilty of on the spot creation of complex spells) to advanced practitioners
> of sorcery. SHould I present my version?
PLEASE, send along
> Cheers
> Dave Cake
>
>
Peter
*******************************************************************************
Peter van Heusden One man one newsfeed
CS3, UCT, Cape Town, RSA "but I love the setting. and the hippies
pvanheus@cs.uct.ac.za will be back in the fall" Red_Guest on MediaMOO
0,,
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.7 : Sat 05 Jul 2003 - 20:29:35 EEST