[TORG] Is it worth maintaining the "Additional" state path cost?

[Dominick Riesland]

On Mon, Jul 27, 2009 at 9:03 AM, Phil Dack<philipdack at yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
> Much as I love the magic system, my view is that the whole thing is over-complicated and unplayable. The TRB used to talk of casting on the fly as if it were something you could do in-game, albeit at great risk. Aysle SB clarified this with a system that also meant it risked great physical harm to the player as the GM and other players got increasingly aggravated at the time it took!
>

Well, I've never had that problem, basically because the only one who
would try such a thing was me, and no other GM was brave enough to
have me playing a magician...

> If you really want to revise it, I'd strip it right back and start almost from scratch, but this might be outside the scope of what you're trying to do. If you want to work within the existing system, I'd keep it all in place. It all made sense to me when I threw my spell design spreadsheet together, although that was some time ago!
>

If I had license from Eric Gibson to rebuild the Magic system
completely in my own image, I would probably begin at the beginning.
But until the rumored Torg 2.0 comes out, we have to deal with what is
already in place, for the most part. I'm already adding a few things
that are needed to fill in holes, but what I have so far (having
processed every spell not duplicated either in Pixaud's, the Aysle
Sourcebook, the Torg Rulebook, or R&E, plus the first 32 pages of
Pixaud's) takes 250 pages of reworking, rules explanations, and so on.
When adding the rest of what is published and rules for what is merely
alluded to (such as wish magic, rules for designing synonymous
knowledges, and rules for designing spells using other systems such as
engineering and mathematics), I may be only half done.

> I think it's right that every added complexity to a spell process is reflected in a more difficult design. Focusing is more complex than direct casting, Ward more complex still, Impressed more complex still. What I think is lacking from the system is some idea of how, as the axiom changes, spell designers are able to compensate for these added complexities. E.g. an M16 is much more complicated than a flintlock and is thus much harder to make. But this complication is mitigated by the benefits of high Tech (machine tooled parts, moulded plastics, etc.) and high Social (coordination of different organisations providing different elements of the final item). We don't have a very clear idea of how the magic axiom similarly compensates, e.g. with more powerful theorems, albeit it perhaps more restrictive, so they can only do one thing - e.g. a process theorem that only works for spells with Living Forces as a mechanism.
>

That is a function of an incomplete Magic Axiom chart. I began by
trying to clear that up, and even now I find places where effects are
not stated. Also, there are items that should do more than they
currently are, which could be reflected in giving them more power at
higher Axiom Levels.

One such thought is allowing a world with a high enough Magic Axiom
(currently looking at Magic 21 for this) to generate direct benefits
from the process theorems used in manipulating spells. Take your
standard Charm Person out of R&E, with manipulations of control,
duration, and state. The idea is that if you are capable of
manipulating the spell (by having at least one add in each of these
process theorems), you can use your knowledge of these theorems to do
more than simple manipulations. Control might do something like
increase the disbelief DN by the number of adds you have in it, or
allow you to "purchase" an additional control aspect if you have
enough adds. Each add in duration might allow an extra round of
duration, and so on. Also, the process theorem of state has an added
benefit (determining the number of impressed spells a mage can hold)
that no similar theorem has as of yet.

State Path, now that I've dealt with it extensively, isn't all that
bad. There are some glaring inconsistencies, which I am trying to
remove. The biggest one for me is the idea that a state path that uses
magic to turn fire into electricity is easier than one that increases
or decreases the size of the fire. This is dealt with in my current
incarnation, although I haven't been as consistent with it as I would
like.

Dominick Riesland, aka Rabbitball
Creator of the Cosmversal Grimoire
"There are always possibilities, my sergeant told me. But he never had
his possibilities torn away like wings from a fly."