Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="gizmo33" data-source="post: 3759721" data-attributes="member: 30001">We're talking about the mechanical aspects of magic.  To the degree that conceptual issues support/clarify mechanical issues then AFAICT it's relevant to the discussion.  Talking about conceptual issues that don't relate to the mechanical issues under discussion AFAICT makes no sense.  Call it "trouble" if you will, but I hope you see what I mean.Yes "A is exactly like B.  A is nothing like B".  I get into these debates all of the time on the internet, and I have yet to figure out how to interject subtlety into this.  The way magic works in novels is vague to a degree that IME would not be useful in an RPG.  The preceeding statement falls into neither category of A being completely like B, or being completely unlike B, but if those are the only two statement patterns that I can choose from I'm afraid I just cannot make my point.These particulars of the Vancian system I am less adamant in defending.  The Sorcerer character class *already* doesn't follow this paradigm, and yet *no mention* was made of that fact in Wyatt's statement AFAICT.  *For good reason*  Because this aspect of Vancian magic was not his problem.  And this aspect of Vancian magic is not addressed by going to a "per-encounter" resource model.  Spell points are typically a per-day resource, and you have the same potential "9:00-9:15" problem with them as you do with Vancian, even though AFAICT they address the problem you described above.  A "Sorcerer" type character class design already solves your problem, why is the "per-encounter" design important in this?Wish duplicates any spell of 8th level or lower - including all of the powers you mention above.  I so far see no difference other than the use of the word "organic", the meaning of which in this context I am not certain.Well, let me restate, instead of vague, how about this:  novel magic is unsufficiently described to serve as a complete model for a game.  For this reason, you can't say that any given novel presents a workable magic system because it never puports to describe the magic system in it's entirety or in ways sufficient to be interacted with by persons other than the author who has a relatively limited agenda of telling his story.  Other than as a "Tolkienesque" mental excercise, development of such a magic system would serve no purpose in telling the story.The priorities of a game in this way are significantly different.  The intention of a game is to allow players to, relatively autonomously, interact with the various aspects of the "world" in order to create a story, et. al.  Few authors appear to be completist/simulationists of the type that Tolkien was (with respect to languages) and yet a typical RPG campaign design makes Tolkien's level of detail the norm rather than exception.In general, me too.  While my wish list of stuff would probably be different from yours, I would hope for both of your sakes that 4E is more modular than 3E so that both of us can pick and choose what we want.  I've answered this numerous times - even if you don't agree that's not the same thing is that you "don't see" so I'll say it again so that you can say "I see why you're saying it but I disagree" and that is this:  my extrapolations IMO are a very logical, and rather conservative assessment of what Wyatt's rather clear design goals were that were stated in the quote.AFAICT that's like saying that the authors believe in the principle of good grammar but will only use it for Chapter 1 of the book.  Assuming we understand each other I guess we'll just have to disagree on this as it is dependant on a basic understanding of human nature.</blockquote>

Verification