Back to the main page

Mailing List Logs for ShadowRN

Message no. 1
From: Fade <runefo@***.UIO.NO>
Subject: Re: Clarifying Something (was:Re: Hyper Magicians)
Date: Mon, 29 Sep 1997 11:36:23 +0000
Keith wrote:
> > Let me try to spell the two options out clearly..
> >
> > Option one: The spell's force is the number of ones needed to fumble the
> > spell.
> > If you use a force one spell, you only need to roll one 1 to fumble no
> > matter
> > how many dice you roll.
> >
> This is the part of the idea that is completely and utterly stupid. Sorry,
> it is.

As can be expected, opinions wary.

> Sure, from a game mechanics point of view, it does make a good deal
> of sense, IF the player-character in question is pulling crap and
> "min-maxing" to the Nth.

That was the original point of this thread, yes.

> However, it doesn't make sense for the "beginning" magician. Magical
> misfires can be incredibly dangerous, even if they are force 1. Force 1
> Transform or Petrify could be horrendous (permament disfigurements, even if
> they might be minor ones....or severe osteocondensation....neither of which
> are "Flaws" I as a GM or Player would ever dream of putting on to a
"newbie
> mage."

There is obviously a discrepancy in how we view fumbles. I would not
have a fumble for a force 1 spell be more than a slight, short term
inconvenience. It's more in the way of a 'fizzle'. I think I
mentioned that in the post you snipped or the one before that on the
subject when you said the same thing. And since that appears to be
your main point against the rule, then we disagree in how severe the
fumbles should be rather than the rule itself. Or is there other
reasons why you do not like the rule?

> How about a Rule of One's for spells with the "number of ones" is equal to
> the magician's attribute?

Well, in your words, that is completely and utterly stupid. The
original point was that low force spells are too easy to cast. Now
they would be too easy to cast and impossible to fumble to boot.
(With magic rating 6, you could cast a force 1 spell, add 6 dice and
practically never fumble.. or add 4 dice and never fumble, since you
can't *get* enough 1's to fumble.).
--
Fade

And the Prince of Lies said:
"To reign is worth ambition, though in Hell:
Better to reign in hell than to serve in heaven."
-John Milton, Paradise Lost
Message no. 2
From: David Thompson <david.s.thompson@****.EDU>
Subject: Re: Clarifying Something (was:Re: Hyper Magicians)
Date: Mon, 29 Sep 1997 23:18:24 -0400
At 11:36 AM 9/29/97 +0000, Fade wrote:
>Keith wrote:
>> > Let me try to spell the two options out clearly..
>> >
>> > Option one: The spell's force is the number of ones needed to fumble the
>> > spell.
>> > If you use a force one spell, you only need to roll one 1 to fumble no
>> > matter
>> > how many dice you roll.
>> >
>> This is the part of the idea that is completely and utterly stupid. Sorry,
>> it is.
>
>As can be expected, opinions wary.
>
>> Sure, from a game mechanics point of view, it does make a good deal
>> of sense, IF the player-character in question is pulling crap and
>> "min-maxing" to the Nth.
>
>That was the original point of this thread, yes.
>
>> However, it doesn't make sense for the "beginning" magician. Magical
>> misfires can be incredibly dangerous, even if they are force 1. Force 1
>> Transform or Petrify could be horrendous (permament disfigurements, even if
>> they might be minor ones....or severe osteocondensation....neither of which
>> are "Flaws" I as a GM or Player would ever dream of putting on to a
"newbie
>> mage."
>
>There is obviously a discrepancy in how we view fumbles. I would not
>have a fumble for a force 1 spell be more than a slight, short term
>inconvenience. It's more in the way of a 'fizzle'. I think I
>mentioned that in the post you snipped or the one before that on the
>subject when you said the same thing. And since that appears to be
>your main point against the rule, then we disagree in how severe the
>fumbles should be rather than the rule itself. Or is there other
>reasons why you do not like the rule?
>
>> How about a Rule of One's for spells with the "number of ones" is equal
to
>> the magician's attribute?
>
>Well, in your words, that is completely and utterly stupid. The
>original point was that low force spells are too easy to cast. Now
>they would be too easy to cast and impossible to fumble to boot.
>(With magic rating 6, you could cast a force 1 spell, add 6 dice and
>practically never fumble.. or add 4 dice and never fumble, since you
>can't *get* enough 1's to fumble.).
>--

It is impossible to have a situation where it is impossible to fumble. If
the magician rolls a number of dice less than (insert force/magic
rating/sorcery skill as desired), there is still the chance of a fumble if
the roll comes up all ones.

I've been thinking about this whole situation, and I've come up with my
interpretation (my view has changed). Here goes, tell me what you all think.

RuleS of One for Spellcasting: (most drastic effect applies)
^
1)If the caster rolls all 1's -- catastrophic rule of one (this is bad,
fireball in the face, etc.)

2)If the caster rolls a number of 1's greater than or equal to sorcery skill
--catastrophic failure again.

3)If caster rolls a number of 1's greater than or equal to spell force
--minor botch effect (levitate person moves in opp direction of desired,
treat spell makes recipient really itchy but still works, fireball is at
half force, etc.)

Additionally, a sorcery test TN = spell force can be made to offset 1's under
option number 3. Every two successes offsets one 1. (This roll can't prevent
catastrophic failure, then a point of karma pool can be spent to offset the
rule of one, but no re-rolls as per basic karma pool rules.)

How does this sound?

--DT
Message no. 3
From: Justin Pinnow <vanyel@*******.NET>
Subject: Re: Clarifying Something (was:Re: Hyper Magicians)
Date: Tue, 30 Sep 1997 07:39:53 -0400
> From: David Thompson <david.s.thompson@****.EDU>
> Date: Monday, September 29, 1997 11:18 PM

> I've been thinking about this whole situation, and I've come up with my
> interpretation (my view has changed). Here goes, tell me what you all
think.

> RuleS of One for Spellcasting: (most drastic effect applies)
^
> 1)If the caster rolls all 1's -- catastrophic rule of one (this is bad,
> fireball in the face, etc.)

> 2)If the caster rolls a number of 1's greater than or equal to sorcery
skill
> --catastrophic failure again.

> 3)If caster rolls a number of 1's greater than or equal to spell force
> --minor botch effect (levitate person moves in opp direction of desired,
> treat spell makes recipient really itchy but still works, fireball is at
> half force, etc.)

> Additionally, a sorcery test TN = spell force can be made to offset 1's
under
> option number 3. Every two successes offsets one 1. (This roll can't
prevent
> catastrophic failure, then a point of karma pool can be spent to offset
the
> rule of one, but no re-rolls as per basic karma pool rules.)

> How does this sound?

What you have described under sections 1 and 3 are the standard rules (if
you include the rules for Magical Misfires, which are optional), except for
offsetting the 1s rolled with Sorcery skill (which is my house rule). IMO,
you don't need #2, as it is just extra to worry about.

> --DT

Justin :)
Message no. 4
From: David Thompson <david.s.thompson@****.EDU>
Subject: Re: Clarifying Something (was:Re: Hyper Magicians)
Date: Tue, 30 Sep 1997 13:32:30 -0400
At 07:39 AM 9/30/97 -0400, you wrote:
<snip my rules ideas>
>> 2)If the caster rolls a number of 1's greater than or equal to sorcery
>>skill
>> --catastrophic failure again.

>
>What you have described under sections 1 and 3 are the standard rules (if
>you include the rules for Magical Misfires, which are optional), except for
>offsetting the 1s rolled with Sorcery skill (which is my house rule). IMO,
>you don't need #2, as it is just extra to worry about.
>
>> --DT
>
>Justin :)

The point of #2 is that it is really unlikely that #1 will ever happen for
high force spells with lots of magic pool. Mages can be throwing 12+ dice
in, and those will never come up all 1. Therefore, if half of them do
(still unlikely), a catastrophic fumble will occur (for a 6 sorcery skill).
Besides, if you read carefully, it says that optional magical misfires
apply for a number of 1's >= force OR skill level. My interpretation is
that if the number is greater than force only, that is not a "bad" fumble.
Plus, with the addition of your house rule for offsetting ones, it means
that skilled magicians can cast low force spells with lots of pool dice and
still get the spell right more than 5 times in 6, which I personally
believe makes sense.

--DT
Message no. 5
From: "J. Keith Henry" <Ereskanti@***.COM>
Subject: Re: Clarifying Something (was:Re: Hyper Magicians)
Date: Tue, 30 Sep 1997 17:57:10 -0400
In a message dated 97-09-29 23:22:09 EDT, david.s.thompson@****.EDU writes:

>
> RuleS of One for Spellcasting: (most drastic effect applies)
> ^
> 1)If the caster rolls all 1's -- catastrophic rule of one (this is bad,
> fireball in the face, etc.)

Agreed to here, even if the "beginning mage" has a force 2 and a Sorcery 2?
I've had a player in my games like this. It would have been very bad.

> 2)If the caster rolls a number of 1's greater than or equal to sorcery
skill
> --catastrophic failure again.

How about "Minorly Catastrophic", a bit worse than what you suggest below.

> 3)If caster rolls a number of 1's greater than or equal to spell force
> --minor botch effect (levitate person moves in opp direction of desired,
> treat spell makes recipient really itchy but still works, fireball is at
> half force, etc.)

These are very good options actually. I think I'll try them out even.

> Additionally, a sorcery test TN = spell force can be made to offset 1's
> under
> option number 3. Every two successes offsets one 1. (This roll can't
> prevent
> catastrophic failure, then a point of karma pool can be spent to offset
the
> rule of one, but no re-rolls as per basic karma pool rules.)

I'm not sure I agree with the Sorcery Roll, but perhaps with Willpower
(trying to quickly reclaim some of the focus sort of thing).

> How does this sound?
> --DT

Very, Very Nice guy. Thumbs Up here.
-Keith

Further Reading

If you enjoyed reading about Clarifying Something (was:Re: Hyper Magicians), you may also be interested in:

Disclaimer

These messages were posted a long time ago on a mailing list far, far away. The copyright to their contents probably lies with the original authors of the individual messages, but since they were published in an electronic forum that anyone could subscribe to, and the logs were available to subscribers and most likely non-subscribers as well, it's felt that re-publishing them here is a kind of public service.

Thwap!