NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #31/NN_1992_31.iso/spool/rec/games/design/2557

Internet Message Format | 1992-12-22 | 3.8 KB

Path: sparky!uunet!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!swrinde!cs.utexas.edu!tamsun.tamu.edu!gergo.tamu.edu!carl
From: [e-mail] (Carl D. Perkins)
Newsgroups: rec.games.design
Subject: Re: net.rpg - eliminating mundane magic
Date: 22 Dec 1992 21:22 CST
Organization: Geochemical and Environmental Research Group - TAMU
Lines: 58
Distribution: world
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
References: <[e-mail]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: gergo.tamu.edu
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Robert J. Hall) writes...
> > Could have a bizaare effect on the type of magic cast in a world where
> > magic works as described above.  Every mage would constantly be trying
> > to come up with new spells, as old ones are used up.  All the obvious
> > spells would have been used up ages ago, so magic would be pretty weird.
> > Forget your average fireball spell.  That went ages ago.  These days
> > people cast 'poison confetti rain' spells etc...

Hmmm.... "poison confetti rain"... I kinda like that!

>I made another post that I hope clears up this little misunderstanding. To
>repeat: it is not the spells that are used up, but rather the spell using the
>particular components researched by the Wizard. The Wizard is free to keep
>finding new components that can be put together to make a Fireball spell, but
>once he has done so, the spell begins losing its effectiveness each time it
>is used. The spells can have the same name and similar properties, but if they
>use different components, they are considered different spells. Finally, the
>number of possible components is nearly infinite, but they are difficult to
>discover - requiring hefty investments in time and materials. A novice wizard
>is unlikely to know more than a few components or spells.
>
> Bob Hall                   |  if [ -bs message ]; then
> [e-mail] |  fi

This sounds like a lot of bookkeeping. You have to keep track of every
component every wizards has ever researched and how many times it has been
used by each. So Clunk the Competent knows Fire Production 117, 221, and 437
and has used them 9 times, 5 times, and just 1 time respectively...
Now immagine that each wizard knows 3 or more  different components in each of
3 or 4 different component type categories...

This gets even worse if the number of people knowing a specific component
also has an affect on the effectiveness. Particularly annoying if you've just
spent a lot of time and money researching a new component and it turns out
that it is, conincidentally, a component that the 87 members of the Cult of
Zippity-Do-Dah on the southern continent happen to have been using extensively
for the last 6 months - and you didn't even know there *was* a southern
continent. On the other hand, this makes for an interesting nasty thing you
could do to a wizard - tell every other wizard you can find about that
worrysome component you know the wizard has been saving for when he is in
real trouble so it is much less effective when he actually has to use it.

I'm not saying this is unworkable, but it could get a bit bothersome to
keep track of. I might be willing to do it in the case where the effectiveness
is independant for each wizard (the number of wizards knowing it has no affect
on how effective it is for each) or maybe even if the number of wizards knowing
it has an effect, but how often the others have used it has no additional
effect on how well it works for you other than the general "commonly known
component" penalty.

It occurs to me that this could actually work quite well for a computer game
system, where the computer can do all the bookkeeping of who knows what and
how often it has been used and whatnot. If the GM use a computer to do the
bookkeeping for the RPG it could also work with a bit of software to maintain
a spell component database.


--- Carl