[TORG] Philosophy of Magic Questions

[Kansas Jim]

Good grief, has it really been almost a month since I had time to sit
down and do more than skim my Torg emails? This 'real life' thing
sucks....

Rabbitfall wrote way back on 3/15:

> I'm well on my way through Compleat Magick, but I have realized that I
> can take this in different directions, any one of which is valid as
> long as I stick to it. So I am asking several questions that will tell
> me which of my choices is closest to people's expectations. Further
> elaboration on a point is always welcome.

Hopefully this isn't too late to be of some use.

> 1. The Aysle spell design system seems to be the basis upon which most
> spells are nominally created. Certain cases are exempted, such as Nile
> mathematics, Orrorshan occult skill, and a case could be made for wish
> magic. The complexity and effects for all of these are arbitrary. It
> is possible to use a standard spell write-up to determine the basic
> parameters of the spell, throw a set of standard theorems on the spell
> based on the nature of where it came from and determine a complexity
> rating from that. This would produce consistent results, but it would
> feed everything through one mechanism.

Consistency is a good thing IMO, especially if/when we're creating many
divergent settings with their own tweaked versions of magic. Having to
only learn the tweaks rather than an entirely new set of rules for
magic in every new reality encountered will I think keep people
interested in new magic instead of frustrating them into feeling that
it's not going to be worth the effort.

> 2. As written, the spell design system involves a minimum of five die
> rolls. These five basic die rolls may be augmented with Possibility
> spending. In addition, additional die rolls may be made to add the
> magical theorems to the spell, which may or may not reduce complexity.
> This causes randomness in how long a spell takes to design, as well as
> what the final product will look like. This randomness is so severe
> that even if two spellcasters with the exact same skills and
> knowledges produce a spell with the exact same values and theorems and
> work on it for the same length of time, their spells will probably
> have different final complexity ratings.

I have no problem with there being randomness in the spell design
system, in fact one of my main problems with Masterbook's streamlining
of the process was that they completely eliminated die rolls from the
design system. The crafting of magic should be more of an art than a
science (at least for most axiom levels*) so I'm fine with the thought
that two identically skilled mages could produce otherwise identical
spells with different final complexity values, just as two painters with
the same subject will usually produce different paintings.

(*At some point, certainly by the axiom level where "magic is easier
than, and produces superior effects to, technology", the production of
magic spells should probably become more science than art just as the
production of technological tools did. So I could see at higher axiom
levels a decrease in the amount of randomness involved in the spell
design process.)

> As this is of little use in determining a baseline for spells, I have
> created a modified system that uses the same Spell Laboratory Sheet
> but eliminates the die rolls. Instead, each spell uses the designer's
> base skills for determining the spell sum and provides an incremental
> decrease of spell complexity based on the number of theorems added. As
> no die rolls are involved, no Possibility spending is possible. This
> provides a baseline for spells, which can be used to create the
> "common" versions of spells.

However, even with what I said above I do agree that for providing
baselines it's best to eliminate the randomness. My own approach though
doesn't eliminate die rolls, I just assumed that the rolls would average
out so everything effectively gets a +0 bonus modifier. And with 99%
of the population being Ords the spending of P-Points never enters
the equation. A spell designed by a P-Rated magician cannot be used as
a baseline because P-Rateds are by definition not the baseline!

> Question 2a: Should this system, the original system as published in
> the Aysle Sourcebook, or some other option be considered the
> "standard" system? Please provide explanation.

It's what everyone should be familiar with, it's what is most readily
available to players on the assumption that Torg groups will have a
copy of the Aysle sourcebook available, so I think it should be used
as the standard. If it is not used, the standard should at least be
based on it enough that someone who has read the Aysle SB can pick it
up without much difficulty.

> Question 2b: For any system that should not be considered "standard",
> should allowing that system to coexist (or possibly replace) the
> standard system require a certain Magic Axiom to accomplish? If so,
> about where should that take place? (General answers are fine, such as
> "between Nile and Orrorsh".) If not, should it be allowed at all?
> Again, explanations are welcome.

Going with published examples (Nile Mathematics, Orrorsh Occult, even
Voodoo) I would say yes, an axiom requirement for coexisting nonstandard
systems is probably necessary (in Voodoo's case the axiom requirement
is that it can't use the standard system because it lacks Conjuration
Magic.)

But as for a generic axiom requirement for nonstandard systems? I don't
know if it would be as easy as saying all of them need axiom X. I think
it would depend on how it's nonstandard, what about it makes it unusual.
There might be a couple 'benchmark' axiom levels, some nonstandards
require axiom X while others require axiom Y and some need axiom Z.

> 3. As could be expected, the spells in Pixaud's Practical Grimoire
> often appear ridiculously undercosted when compared to this baseline

Really? My impression has always been the opposite, they're vastly
overvalued. In my tinkerings I've been able to build sometimes greatly
improved versions of the spells in Pixaud's with ord magicians who
have skill levels significantly below the listed skill requirement.

> 4. The following questions deal with wholesale modifications of spells
> (changing a conjuration/time spell into alteration/magic or changing
> the mechanics of how the spell achieves its effect).
> 
> Question 4a: Under what circumstances is it appropriate to abandon the
> spell write-up and substitute a completely new version? Does it
> require a violation of spell design or game rules, or is it simply
> enough to have found a more elegant way of achieving the spell design?

If the published spell simply doesn't work, it should be replaced. Since
there are often many different ways to achieve the same effect I would
not replace a published spell simply because there's a more elegant way
of doing it, though it might be beneficial to include both to serve as
examples showing that you can reach the same effect in different ways.

> Question 4b: How much can a spell vary from the published write-up and
> still be considered the same spell?

Given that there are some published spells which differed depending on
which sourcebook they appeared in, I'd say some amount of difference is
nothing to worry about. Maybe as a rule of thumb if important values
add up to around ten points or more different they could be considered
different spells (such as with Altered Fireball and Altered Fireball 
(improved).)

> Question 4c: Should a spell that uses different mechanics that reflect
> the intent of a spell better than the original mechanics did be
> considered a rewrite of that spell, or should it be considered a new
> spell?

Probably should be new, unless the original spell was actually
unworkable in which case it should be replaced.

-- 
Kansas Jim, Torg guru (ksjim (at) sdc (dot) org)
Torg website: http://www.sdc.org/~ksjim/index.html