Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 39

Thread: 1st Age Magic

  1. #16

    Re: Blatant/Subtle etc. etc.

    I think I may tie the Blatant/Subtle and Fë/Hröa distinctions to the base TN, if only to give more of an idea of how hard certain types of magic are. I'd say that Blatant magic is always at least a significant effect. However, I want to avoid the pass/fail type of distinction where no matter how high the result of a test, it has no effect on the spell itself. I may rule that trying to make a specific effect is a bit harder than just winging it. It's one thing to say, "I want to avoid being detected by the werewolves," but quite another to say, "I want to look like that Orc scout we felled a few paces back."
    Good examples, that's exactly the kind of distinction in effect that I was trying to describe! And oh yeah, I can definitely see these distinctions manifesting in, or at least influencing judgement calls on, TNs. I think they really function best as conceptual and descriptive guides and decision support. I'd argue that these concepts could be woven into just about any system fairly easily, providing some nifty guidelines and shorthand framework for the improvisational/interpretive aspects of an ME magic system.

    Even with subtle magic that distinction is there. Making a sword that will pain servants of the Shadow is quite different from making one that is intentionall lighter, faster, and sharper than what is often possible. I think this would be more along the lines of how Fëa and Hröa are different.
    Perfect! A qualifiable difference between Narsil and the Barrow Blades right there! :-)
    Last edited by Manveru; 02-09-2004 at 02:39 AM.

  2. #17

    More Blatant/Subtle

    Another handy twist that's possible with this paradigm is that powerful Blatant magic could have lingering, probably weaker, and perhaps even different, Subtle magic effects.

    Take the Lammoth for example. If someone was standing right there when Morgoth let loose his yelp upon Ungoliant sinking her teeth into him, well, let's just say that I wouldn't want to have experienced that Blatant expression of power firsthand and leave it at that ...

    BUT ... a weaker, echo of that uber-yelp persisted in that region for hundreds of years. You guessed it! A lingering SUBTLE expression of the same power!

    Handy huh? 8^D

    This concept needn't have an explicit mechanical instantiation at all, but could even serve purely as a Narrator Plot Device, and a descriptive 'wrapper' for lingering environmental 'magic' like the Dead Marshes or the water of the Valley of the Withywindle. It's at least some way to relate/explain this fuzzy stuff within the context of a Magic system, without having to statisticate.

    Side note: I made some edits, fixes, and further clarifications and examples in some of the posts above, FYI! (Lucky for me I'm not not on EST huh? ;-)
    Last edited by Manveru; 02-09-2004 at 03:17 AM.

  3. #18

    More Vala thoughts

    Minor concern still, but frankly, I'm just here to shovel as much idea fodder out as I can so:

    Of any non-Aratar who have Provinces of note, and power that's not constrained to themselves alone and is even evidenced in ME, I think that Nienna and Irmo (Lorien) would be the first contestants. Thinking (Spiritual) Healing and Dreams/Visions (as distinguished from true Foresight) specifically.

    Food for thought or shelf, no expiration date! ;-)

  4. #19

    MORE Blatant/Subtle

    Ooooh! And the One Ring could be considered, in the Blatant/Subtle paradigm, as being _tremendously_ powerful invested Sorcerous Subtle magic which has the capacity to empower/augment (and Corrupt! ;-) whatever Blatant AND Subtle powers a wielder already possesses! Scary! (Which for a Hobbit of course would be like, nil, wouldn't it? Hehe! :-P) PLUS! *rubs hands* It has the (Sorcery) Dark Fire (Blatant+Hroa) effect of shunting the wielder into the Spirit World, where they're (whaddya know!) MORE easily discerned by the Enemy! Tricksy isn't it! *cackle*

    (Oh right, bed)

  5. #20
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Eastern USA
    Posts
    45

    Re: More Blatant/Subtle

    Originally posted by Manveru
    Another handy twist that's possible with this paradigm is that powerful Blatant magic could have lingering, probably weaker, and perhaps even different, Subtle magic effects.

    Take the Lammoth for example. If someone was standing right there when Morgoth let loose his yelp upon Ungoliant sinking her teeth into him, well, let's just say that I wouldn't want to have experienced that Blatant expression of power firsthand and leave it at that ...

    BUT ... a weaker, echo of that uber-yelp persisted in that region for hundreds of years. You guessed it! A lingering SUBTLE expression of the same power!

    This concept needn't have an explicit mechanical instantiation at all, but could even serve purely as a Narrator Plot Device, and a descriptive 'wrapper' for lingering environmental 'magic' like the Dead Marshes or the water of the Valley of the Withywindle. It's at least some way to relate/explain this fuzzy stuff within the context of a Magic system, without having to statisticate.
    I think that'd only work in extenuating circumstances. Note that Melkor was a Vala and Sauron a Maia. The Dead Marshes are the result of a battle of mythic proportion.
    Men are weak.
    Elrond for President!
    Vote Peredhel!

  6. #21
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Eastern USA
    Posts
    45

    Re: More Vala thoughts

    Originally posted by Manveru
    Minor concern still, but frankly, I'm just here to shovel as much idea fodder out as I can so:

    Of any non-Aratar who have Provinces of note, and power that's not constrained to themselves alone and is even evidenced in ME, I think that Nienna and Irmo (Lorien) would be the first contestants. Thinking (Spiritual) Healing and Dreams/Visions (as distinguished from true Foresight) specifically.

    Food for thought or shelf, no expiration date! ;-)
    I'm not too keen on that, insofar as their powers are essentially passive. Several reaction, edges, and order abilities recreate their powers quite nicely. The Art, however, is an active, if subtle, thing.
    Men are weak.
    Elrond for President!
    Vote Peredhel!

  7. #22

    Re: Re: More Blatant/Subtle

    Originally posted by Green
    I think that'd only work in extenuating circumstances. Note that Melkor was a Vala and Sauron a Maia. The Dead Marshes are the result of a battle of mythic proportion.
    I don't know about only working in extenuating circumstances, but it WAS intended primarily as a Narrator plot device to "put a handle" on this stuff, and really nothing more.

    Melkor's a Vala, yes, and what that means is that the same rules work for him as they do for everyone else in Arda, it's just a matter of scale. If you take more than a cursory look, there are other examples of this sort of dynamic in there too, but it's hardly a make or break point, just a flourish.

  8. #23

    Re: Re: More Vala thoughts

    Originally posted by Green
    I'm not too keen on that, insofar as their powers are essentially passive. Several reaction, edges, and order abilities recreate their powers quite nicely. The Art, however, is an active, if subtle, thing.
    True. I think there's still room in the power framework and millieu, certainly. But more to the point, it's probably not worth the effort. ;-)

  9. #24

    Duration scale

    Thinking that the Duration scale may need more definition on the bottom, it seems like its too easy, actually, to get rather outrageous durations for effects that would not seem to really deserve it (thinking of Flame of Arnor with a duration of 1 Chapter 8^O).

    I think that's where the Blatant/Subtle distinction can come in handy again. For flashy spells that are supposed to come and go (i.e. Blatant), the duration scale could be shorter (my earlier casual suggestion of dropping a step up or down isn't workable when I actually look at it, it's too grainy for that).

    So, Blatant spells could have one table of Durations, and Subtle could have one similar or the same to the one you have now, which it really seems like it could work for.


  10. #25
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Eastern USA
    Posts
    45

    Re: Duration scale

    Originally posted by Manveru
    Thinking that the Duration scale may need more definition on the bottom, it seems like its too easy, actually, to get rather outrageous durations for effects that would not seem to really deserve it (thinking of Flame of Arnor with a duration of 1 Chapter 8^O).

    I think that's where the Blatant/Subtle distinction can come in handy again. For flashy spells that are supposed to come and go (i.e. Blatant), the duration scale could be shorter (my earlier casual suggestion of dropping a step up or down isn't workable when I actually look at it, it's too grainy for that).

    So, Blatant spells could have one table of Durations, and Subtle could have one similar or the same to the one you have now, which it really seems like it could work for.
    But then again, the question becomes: Why do it that way if it's seemingly obvious that things work like that anyway? If you put in the non-rules text that subtle magic, while not as obviously powerful, can have more lingering effects, there's really no need for more tables and charts and what not. The same goes for blatant magic. If part of the definition of blatant magic is that it is, generally speaking, a one-shot deal, making up even more rules just restates the obvious and gives the feeling of being less flexible. Too much contingency planning can make things unworkable, and one of the guiding principles of my system is the KISS principle. The main strike already going against this system is that it is unfamiliar. The other one is that it relies on human judgement to work (instead of looking up a spell and then saying, "I cast X."). Introducing another complicating element to it would just turn people off. I believe I said earlier that I think the subtle/blatant distinction works well for assigning TNs to various effects, and keeping it in that role works well.

    If you look at the table again, you will see that things like scale and duration are a matter of how successfully the spell is cast, not on a generic roll. To reiterate: "From each success level, spells may have one or more of these results. In general, the higher end of each success level gives more boons than the lower end. You may, if you wish, pick one option from the success level you rolled and one option from the success levels below it. "

    I think common sense rather than anything explicitly in the rules should be the guide. Let's take your Flame of Anor example. In the book, that spell consistently works in a very particular way every single time it is cast. Using my system, though, you get a sliding scale of possible results. You will not be doing 5d6 +5 damage every time you create a beam of divine light. If a player rolls, say, a superior success, it means that the spell has a "significant effect." The effect in that instance could be damage or range or even how well it draws attention. To work like it does in the book, I'd rule (or at least have in my head) that the player would need an extraordinary success. If the player actually rolls a complete success, it is not a failure. You just don't get something on as big a scale. Say, instead of doing damage greater than a bonfire, you do, say, torch-like damage. So, to revise the effects of success, it's:

    • Marginal success: does no damage, base range measured in feet, affects self, lasts one round, or +2 to a test result
    • Complete success: base damage 1d6 + Bearing modifier, base range measured in yards, affects a small group (no more than 10), lasts one scene, or +5 to a test result.
    • Superior success: base damage 3d6 + Bearing modifier, base range measured in miles, affects a large group (no more than 100), lasts one chapter, or +10 to a test result
    • Extraordinary success: base damage 5d6 + Bearing modifier, base range measured in tens of miles, affects a huge group (no more than 1,000), lasts as long as the story, or a +15 bonus to a test result
    • Legendary success: base damage 10d6 + Bearing modifier, base range measured in hundreds of miles, affects a host (1,000+), lasts as long as the chronicle, or gives a +20 to a test result.
    Men are weak.
    Elrond for President!
    Vote Peredhel!

  11. #26
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Rosemary Beach, Florida
    Posts
    29
    Originally posted by Green
    *thwaps vgunn with a big sock stuffed with a Hobbit*

    I was kind of hoping for a bit more constructive feedback on my own ideas.
    Sorry Green, looks good to me. Though I was hoping to see you develop it more for your Kathanaksaya game.

  12. #27
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Eastern USA
    Posts
    45
    Originally posted by vgunn
    Sorry Green, looks good to me. Though I was hoping to see you develop it more for your Kathanaksaya game.
    Kathanaksaya doesn't really work like that.
    Men are weak.
    Elrond for President!
    Vote Peredhel!

  13. #28

    Re: Re: Duration scale

    Originally posted by Green
    But then again, the question becomes: Why do it that way if it's seemingly obvious that things work like that anyway? If you put in the non-rules text that subtle magic, while not as obviously powerful, can have more lingering effects, there's really no need for more tables and charts and what not. The same goes for blatant magic. If part of the definition of blatant magic is that it is, generally speaking, a one-shot deal, making up even more rules just restates the obvious and gives the feeling of being less flexible. Too much contingency planning can make things unworkable, and one of the guiding principles of my system is the KISS principle. The main strike already going against this system is that it is unfamiliar. The other one is that it relies on human judgement to work (instead of looking up a spell and then saying, "I cast X."). Introducing another complicating element to it would just turn people off. I believe I said earlier that I think the subtle/blatant distinction works well for assigning TNs to various effects, and keeping it in that role works well.

    If you look at the table again, you will see that things like scale and duration are a matter of how successfully the spell is cast, not on a generic roll. To reiterate: "From each success level, spells may have one or more of these results. In general, the higher end of each success level gives more boons than the lower end. You may, if you wish, pick one option from the success level you rolled and one option from the success levels below it. "

    I think common sense rather than anything explicitly in the rules should be the guide. Let's take your Flame of Anor example. In the book, that spell consistently works in a very particular way every single time it is cast. Using my system, though, you get a sliding scale of possible results. You will not be doing 5d6 +5 damage every time you create a beam of divine light. If a player rolls, say, a superior success, it means that the spell has a "significant effect." The effect in that instance could be damage or range or even how well it draws attention. To work like it does in the book, I'd rule (or at least have in my head) that the player would need an extraordinary success. If the player actually rolls a complete success, it is not a failure. You just don't get something on as big a scale. Say, instead of doing damage greater than a bonfire, you do, say, torch-like damage. So, to revise the effects of success, it's:

    • Marginal success: does no damage, base range measured in feet, affects self, lasts one round, or +2 to a test result
    • Complete success: base damage 1d6 + Bearing modifier, base range measured in yards, affects a small group (no more than 10), lasts one scene, or +5 to a test result.
    • Superior success: base damage 3d6 + Bearing modifier, base range measured in miles, affects a large group (no more than 100), lasts one chapter, or +10 to a test result
    • Extraordinary success: base damage 5d6 + Bearing modifier, base range measured in tens of miles, affects a huge group (no more than 1,000), lasts as long as the story, or a +15 bonus to a test result
    • Legendary success: base damage 10d6 + Bearing modifier, base range measured in hundreds of miles, affects a host (1,000+), lasts as long as the chronicle, or gives a +20 to a test result.
    Why have these two terms, Blatant and Subtle? Because you know what your ideas of ME magic are, and you're happy with leaving it fuzzy and interpretive (as actually, so am I). I think that a Blatant/Subtle distinction would be very useful for other people (and players too) to be able to come up with ME magic effects of their own. Without having an idea as to how it 'works' (setting wise, not game mechanic wise) this is a bit more confusing. *shrug*

    The table above makes much more sense! Your intial table seemed to just look like a duration table based on Degree of Success (yes, I did in fact understand that part easily ;-).

    Actually, I was a little lost at the beginning of your post, as it seemed like you were speaking to points that I wasn't actually trying to make. . I'm fully aware of the difficulties you cite above concerning the pit-falls of retooling this thing. I'm not encouraging that you do any of those things. And, speaking to your 3 points above as to why you want to keep it simple, I'm all for it! I'm not talking about 'introducing another complicated element', I'm tying to suggest ways of defining the elements you have in there already more clearly.

    Hmmmm ... maybe I need to be going about this a different way ...

    What's Ironic to me is that I'm not really presenting the Blatant and Subtle concepts as mechanics in the sense that you seem to be taking them, so maybe I'm not being clear enough. But I'm thinking of them as conceptual shorthand that's intended to be an AID for adjudicating this stuff faster. My point wasn't that you needed more mechanics. It was that the Duration table you posted initially seemed to imply that EVERY spell cast in this system would follow that rule. So that if SOMEHOW somebody gets a 6+ over the TN for Flame of Arnor (not that hard actually), they'd have a FLame of Arnor effect that could last the entire chapter. And, if you were really keen on having this thing called a table with durations based on degree of success, you might want to consider one table for the 'long lasting' magic and another for the 'quick immediate' magic. You're working around that NOW by having the degree of success applicable to other parameters of a given magical effect.

    I think I see where you want to go with this pretty clearly Green, cuz I've been there many times myself, with the same goals. I think that given the investment of time and thought I have chosen to put into this thread, I should probably just stop flapping my lips and put together something of my own so that I can point at it and go "OK, this is what I meant". ;-)

    The key question is, are you making this system for yourself alone, or for others to use? If the former, very little of my concerns apply. If the later, well, I see a lot of areas that could cause confusion for people walking into it. Another issue is priority. If you're main goal is to deviate as little as possible from the existing system (for simplicity, etc.), but still provide some way of doing the interpretive magic thing rather than rote spell lists (and ideally sometime before next week) then that's a different priority then just wanting to design a playable system that is as closely based on Tolkien's ideas as much as possible, without considering it's direct translatability from the existing CODA system.

    In ANY case, have fun! I think I've probably been on the stage here long enough, I'll let others pipe up now. Your posts have given me much to think about with regard to representing an ME magic system in CODA. I think I'm going to try to take a crack at it, inpired on your and vgunn's efforts, with the objective to make a ME magic system that works with CODA and is derived primarily from the courpus of the source setting.

    But I'm not expecting to have it done by next week ... ;-)
    Last edited by Manveru; 02-09-2004 at 05:46 PM.

  14. #29
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Eastern USA
    Posts
    45

    Re: Re: Re: Duration scale

    Originally posted by Manveru
    If your main goal is to deviate as little as possible from the existing system (for simplicity, etc.), but still provide some way of doing the interpretive magic thing rather than rote spell lists (and ideally sometime before next week) then that's a different priority then just wanting to design a playable system that is as closely based on Tolkien's ideas as much as possible, without considering it's direct translatability from the existing CODA system.
    Precisely. That is exactly my goal: to deviate as little as possible from the existing system but still provide a way of doing interpretive magic rather than rote spell lists.
    Men are weak.
    Elrond for President!
    Vote Peredhel!

  15. #30

    *smack forhead*

    Gah! It all makes sense. Ok, well, carry on!

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •