Back to the main page

Mailing List Logs for ShadowRN

Message no. 1
From: K in the Shadows <Ereskanti@***.COM>
Subject: Spell Design (was: Foci)
Date: Sat, 2 Jan 1999 17:37:33 EST
In a message dated 1/2/99 5:11:21 PM US Eastern Standard Time,
m0ng005e@*********.COM writes:

> I can see your point; the karma from the previous learning is already
> spent on that spell, but (as most folks see it) higher force or limited
> versions are different spells. What if you want different versions? Can
> you use the same 6 karma to learn (per SR3) "manabolt 6", "manabolt 8
w/
> exlcusive limitation (karma)", "manabolt 6 w/ fetish limitation
(karma)",
> "manabolt 4 w/ exlucive lmitation (drain)", and "manabolt 5 w/ fetish
> limitation (drain)"? I'd think at character creation, at least, you'd
> have to pay for those all seperately.

Yes, you can learn any single variation of those spells with the same 6 points
of karma. Please note, even I know that you are in each of *those* cases
learning seperate variations on true formulae. In the case(s) we were
discussing previously, the example would be ... "I have a Force 6 Manabolt and
want to learn it at Force 8 now." I'm not talking about changing the process
of function, merely the gramatics and/or direct syntax of the formulae.

At that point, the terms are getting to high for SR. I apologize.

> The only cost ever given for learning a spell is karma = force
> (modified for limitations). This did come up in SR3 playtesting, and
> adjustments for previously known spells are not mentioned in SR3.
> If I was making a house rule, I'd subtract 1/2 the karma (and
> possibally spell points) already spent on known versions of that spell
> from the cost of learning new versions.

Then you Mongoose are far easier on the player(s) than we are. If a player is
going to learn "Detect Enemies" and then later get "Detect Enemies:
Winternight Cells", they are learning two different spells. Same goes for
"Manaball" vs. "Manaball with a Telesmic/Talismanic Geas". Changing
the
process, changes the formulae. Changing the Target/End Goal does as well.
Changing the Force/Effectiveness of a given formulae does NOT change the
formulae itself. If a process is changed, and it therefore increases the
*apparent* or *net* effectiveness, then the formulae is different.

I sure hope you are following what I am saying here.

> And P.180 of SR3, but I really do wish there was an example in any of
> those books of somebody learning an already known spell at higher force.
>
> Mongoose

*That* would have been nice, yes.

-K
Message no. 2
From: Mongoose <m0ng005e@*********.COM>
Subject: Re: Spell Design (was: Foci)
Date: Sat, 2 Jan 1999 17:37:26 -0600
:> I can see your point; the karma from the previous learning is
already
:> spent on that spell, but (as most folks see it) higher force or
limited
:> versions are different spells. What if you want different versions?
Can
:> you use the same 6 karma to learn (per SR3) "manabolt 6", "manabolt
8
w/
:> exlcusive limitation (karma)", "manabolt 6 w/ fetish limitation
(karma)",
:> "manabolt 4 w/ exlucive lmitation (drain)", and "manabolt 5 w/
fetish
:> limitation (drain)"? I'd think at character creation, at least, you'd
:> have to pay for those all seperately.
:
:Yes, you can learn any single variation of those spells with the same 6
points
:of karma. Please note, even I know that you are in each of *those* cases
:learning seperate variations on true formulae. In the case(s) we were
:discussing previously, the example would be ... "I have a Force 6
Manabolt and
:want to learn it at Force 8 now." I'm not talking about changing the
process
:of function, merely the gramatics and/or direct syntax of the formulae.

HMM. But I don't see the difference (or the point)- if you learn it
at force 8, but with the exclusive (karma) limititation, according to you
it now costs 6 karma, but if you learn it without the limit, it costs only
2, since you know the spell as a lower rating version? It should either
cost the full amount in all cases, or allow the full savings in any case
where a spell with the same name is being learned, despite limits (which
are just LEARNING varients, not part of the design formula).

:> The only cost ever given for learning a spell is karma = force
:> (modified for limitations). This did come up in SR3 playtesting, and
:> adjustments for previously known spells are not mentioned in SR3.
:> If I was making a house rule, I'd subtract 1/2 the karma (and
:> possibally spell points) already spent on known versions of that spell
:> from the cost of learning new versions.
:
:Then you Mongoose are far easier on the player(s) than we are.

"Would be" easier. I said "If". I don't think Thats to soft- If you
know
a spell at force 6, you knock 3 off the cost to learn spells with the same
name. You could get some force 3 ones, with limitations, just for the
time and cost of learning, but would have to pay 4 karma to bump it up to
force 7. Then you would have spent a total of 10, so you could get some
limited force 5's for "free". Its not nearly as cheep to pump up to a
force 10 or something.

: If a player is
:going to learn "Detect Enemies" and then later get "Detect Enemies:
:Winternight Cells", they are learning two different spells.

Of course. Different name, different design, different formula.

:Same goes for
:"Manaball" vs. "Manaball with a Telesmic/Talismanic Geas".

Whatever that is. If its a limited version of "Manaball", as in
exclusive or fetish required, its still a manaball- you LEARN it with the
limitation, but it isn't part of the design or formula.

:Changing the Force/Effectiveness of a given formulae does NOT change the
:formulae itself. If a process is changed, and it therefore increases the
:*apparent* or *net* effectiveness, then the formulae is different.

By the book it does- higher force formula's have different design TN's
(and higher prices). BTB, I think that would indicate you should pay
karma = full actual force of the spell, but that tends more to lead to
folks learning every spell at force 5-8, instead of starting at 2 and
working up. Either way seems fair.


Mongoose
Message no. 3
From: K in the Shadows <Ereskanti@***.COM>
Subject: Re: Spell Design (was: Foci)
Date: Sat, 2 Jan 1999 22:17:57 EST
In a message dated 1/2/99 6:25:02 PM US Eastern Standard Time,
m0ng005e@*********.COM writes:

> :Same goes for
> :"Manaball" vs. "Manaball with a Telesmic/Talismanic Geas".
>
> Whatever that is. If its a limited version of "Manaball", as in
> exclusive or fetish required, its still a manaball- you LEARN it with the
> limitation, but it isn't part of the design or formula.

Okay, in this one instance I think I see/perceive part of the comm break here.
If you learn a spell with an exclusive or fetish requirement attached to it,
you are learning it via a different means.

This is where Steve K. and the others simply -simplified- the spell learning,
design and casting processes into a single, uniform system. Sadly, a great
deal is lost in the doing of such. Actually, now that I think of it, this is
NOT Steve K's work that has created this system. This is earlier than him,
because the same system exists all the way to Grimoire I (first ed). Who is
that then, R. Charrette??? No, Paul Hume. Eeek, I think I figured out the
problem....

-K
Message no. 4
From: Mongoose <m0ng005e@*********.COM>
Subject: Re: Spell Design (was: Foci)
Date: Sun, 3 Jan 1999 03:20:34 -0600
: Actually, now that I think of it, this is
:NOT Steve K's work that has created this system. This is earlier than
him,
:because the same system exists all the way to Grimoire I (first ed). Who
is
:that then, R. Charrette??? No, Paul Hume. Eeek, I think I figured out
the
:problem....

ROTFLOL. Yeah, it always seemed odd that using foci and exclusive
casting were tucked away under... learing spells??? (Not under drain, or
force, or whatever).On the other hand, it does give people greater leway
in teaching spells and swaping fomulai, which could otherwise get
obnoxious.

Mongoose

Further Reading

If you enjoyed reading about Spell Design (was: Foci), 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!