[TORG] Philosophy of Magic Questions

[Stephen John Smoogen]

On Sun, Mar 15, 2009 at 2:41 PM, Dominick Riesland <rabbitball at gmail.com> wrote:
> 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.

It sort of is. The system can be used to create spells, but very few
of the spells in the books are written using the system :). Or if they
were.. they were mangled to make them less useful . However, for all
the campaigns.. I have used it with some modifications to replace all
spells. [Basically I see how I would do an Orrorsh or Nile via that
system to keep the items lined up in ability.]

> 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.

The reason for all this is 2 fold.
1) Magic is supposed to be more random/quantum than other things. So
yes.. two different wizards working on the same thing are supposed to
come up with completely different things..
2) The spell design method is meant to work on the fly for those
foolish enough to try it.

> 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.

To deal with this, we came up with what 3rd Edition D&D would call
take 10. In this case, we would design the spell in the general case
with all rolls assumed to be +0. If a mage wished to try and improve
on a spell they could fool around with the design.. The idea was that
if a mage took longer than X, they could carefully come up with the
best spell points... or if they collaborated and looked over each
others shoulders (or the spell was peer reviewed etc..) a run of the
mill +0 spell could be designed. No possibilities could be spent, but
time was higher.I think we came up with that if you spent 1 day (or 1
week?) on each of the rolls that would make sure you had come up with
a general spell.

> 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.)

I think the general rule for all the spells in Torg was:
A. Start designing via spell sheets etc.
B. Look and see that you have to get the book out on Friday.
C. Make up values and publish.

I would much prefer to have spells that were done via a standard ethod
than eyeballed.

> 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?

Its your game/universe. If it doesn't work for you.. do what does. I
think most of our spells were rewritten by one guy on a weekend
because he realized that they were just too awful to think that mages
had not blown all their heads apart for 1000s of years.. when it made
much more sense to do it like X. We also changed the rules a bit that
total effects (volume+range+effect+time) were limited by some formula
of number of adds of mage knowledge and axiom. I can't find that
notebook anymore.

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

Personally I don't think they could vary anything and still be the
same :).. but its better to have something that works than something
that hurts.

> 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?

I would say consider it your own variant. Make up a wizard and go with it.



-- 
Stephen J Smoogen. -- BSD/GNU/Linux
How far that little candle throws his beams! So shines a good deed
in a naughty world. = Shakespeare. "The Merchant of Venice"