[TORG] Philosophy of Magic Questions

[Dominick Riesland]

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.

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.

Should the entirety of the magic system be fed through the Spell
Laboratory Sheet, with the only modifications occurring after the
spell itself is designed? Why or why not?

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.

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.

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.

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.

3. As could be expected, the spells in Pixaud's Practical Grimoire
often appear ridiculously undercosted when compared to this baseline
system. Various forms of creative editing have been done to make the
common spells playable, such as adding pattern and process theorems,
raising the skill/knowledge total needed to learn the spell, or
changing aspects of the spell itself (cast time, effect value, etc.)

Question 3a: Of the various choices presented, which are the most
acceptable, and which are the least acceptable? Are there some that
only should be done in specific circumstances?

Question 3b: How far a spell should be modified from its published
values? For example, if a spell can be made playable by adding +10 to
Difficulty and Backlash to the published version, is this acceptable?

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?

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

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?

That's all for now. I may have more later, but this should be enough
to digest at the moment.

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."