Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Reflected_Shadows" data-source="post: 6846891" data-attributes="member: 6828291">1. Expectations. Games want to look familiar and provide a layer of what you expect to see. This means either some form of Vancian Magic or Spell Point system, or amalgamation of the two. There is also the concept of a skill spell, and &quot;equip spell&quot; systems. There are only so many methods to apply magic use to a game, after all, and there is a point at which the prior effort of commitment stimulates further commitment, even if the effort is in vain or there is a better way to do things.2. Simplicity. They wanted to keep a streamlined feel. They didn't want Spellcasters to be &quot;abusive&quot; just by having a toolbox of stock answers and win buttons. They also didn't want to ruin spellcasting as a means to control it. 3. Customization. I think they wanted a system that would be easy and painless to adapt/change per group. 3e was in many aspects a pain if you wanted to change core things because the system of spellcasting in prior systems had some kinda stupid design elements, which forced even more stupid design elements. Changing one thing you thought was stupid reveals why it was there - to prevent something else stupid. And this is a cascading effect where, like an onion, each layer has other layers beneath it. So in short, they wanted a magic system with as few layers of dependency as possible. So, instead of developing a whole new animal, they made adjustments to the machine we already had.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Reflected_Shadows, post: 6846891, member: 6828291"] 1. Expectations. Games want to look familiar and provide a layer of what you expect to see. This means either some form of Vancian Magic or Spell Point system, or amalgamation of the two. There is also the concept of a skill spell, and "equip spell" systems. There are only so many methods to apply magic use to a game, after all, and there is a point at which the prior effort of commitment stimulates further commitment, even if the effort is in vain or there is a better way to do things. 2. Simplicity. They wanted to keep a streamlined feel. They didn't want Spellcasters to be "abusive" just by having a toolbox of stock answers and win buttons. They also didn't want to ruin spellcasting as a means to control it. 3. Customization. I think they wanted a system that would be easy and painless to adapt/change per group. 3e was in many aspects a pain if you wanted to change core things because the system of spellcasting in prior systems had some kinda stupid design elements, which forced even more stupid design elements. Changing one thing you thought was stupid reveals why it was there - to prevent something else stupid. And this is a cascading effect where, like an onion, each layer has other layers beneath it. So in short, they wanted a magic system with as few layers of dependency as possible. So, instead of developing a whole new animal, they made adjustments to the machine we already had. [/QUOTE]

Verification