[Torg] A Magic Meta-System (Magic Axiom, 7 of 9)

[Phil Dack]

----- Original Message ----
> From: Jones Jasyn <jasynj at gmail.com>
> To: Torg Torg <torg at justintimeadventures.com>
> Sent: Mon, 1 February, 2010 0:13:39
> Subject: [Torg] A Magic Meta-System (Magic Axiom, 7 of 9)
> 
> A Magic Meta-System
> 
> There are many systems of magic, each differing from the others. The Ages of 
> Magic, and the new Magic axiom, have been written with the varying 
> characteristics of different magic systems in mind. In effect, they describe not 
> just one system of magic, but a meta-system of magic. This meta-system allows us 
> to understand and incorporate many different magical systems.

I was thinking about this and I've changed my position recently. In the past I wanted a unified system that used the same mechanics for all magic, in a way that created parallels with alternative models but used the same core. Now I'm much more comfortable with the idea that, for magic at least, there's no right or wrong mechanic and that maybe AK's are the universal truth for Aysle but maybe not the cosmversal truth. 

As such, while I think a metamagic system will define spells in terms of their range, effects and so forth just as illustrated, I'm comfortable that in one cosm, a spellcaster might learn spells according to the number of ranks they have in "1st level spells" and then cast them without a roll, to as-near-as-dammit replicate old scholl D&D casting.

One interesting thought relates to D&D4. This allows for quasi-magical abilities in non-magic using classes. If you were to recreate these in Torg, would the magic axiom be in fact the correct axiom, reflecting the quasi-magical nature of the abilities, or would you need to create new super-skills a la Martial Arts, to reflect their stated nature?

> The mechanics of Mage: The Ascension cannot be perfectly replicated within Torg 
> (not uncommon, see the Translating Game Mechanics sidebar). Even so, its 
> concepts fit into the Magic chart and an appropriate axiom rating can be 
> determined.

I think you could get pretty close though. But you'd have to accept that Aysle have seen one possible metaphysic, not the only one.

Phil