just got my copy of TROS and im in love. I have only one minor hiccup. Im having trouble with the magic system. Spells in paticular. Im wondering if there are any sites or if ppl would be willing to post spells they have created so people who are having troubles can get a feal for creating there own spells.
Try this:
Name an effect--any effect--and we'll help you put it together. It'll freak you out when you realize we aren't making it up when we say "anything."
Jake
Here's one I happen to remember from the Quickstart rules... a neat little spell which, when Formalized (look that entry up in the index), means your sorcerer will be VERY hard to lock up for any length of time....
Lockpicking: Spell of One
Target 1 (inanimate object -- the lock)
Range 1 (touch -- goes up to 2 if you can't touch the lock or some part thereof)
Volume 1 (mass of the bolt or tumblers)
Duration 0
Level 2 (Movement 2: needs full 3D movement and control)
CTN 5 (5 seconds casting time)
(CTN becomes 6 if you can't touch the lock)
(CTN becomes 3 once Formalized, 4 if you can't touch the lock)
Successful casting of this spell allows you to telekinetically manipulate the bolts or tumblers of any lock you can touch -- though depending on how complex the lock mechanics are and how much you know about locks, you may require a separate Skill Roll against Lockpicking to actually undo the mechanism properly! Also, the spell does not itself disable or immunize you against any traps connected to the lock, and you may or may not be affected by them if you still have to touch the lock (for example, contact poison smeared over the whole lock would still work, but a needle designed to spring from the keyhole and stab your fingers probably wouldn't, as you don't actually have to touch the keyhole). This spell is most useful for getting past bolted doors and opening windows or latches; the locking mechanisms of Weyrth are fairly primitive.
Quote from: StephenLockpicking: Spell of One
Hmm.. you know, IMC I wouldn't allow this spell as written.
Lockpicking without being able to see what you're doing requires feedback, as you move each tumbler you can feel the tension as you hold the lock with the second pick (I know a little about it, but not enough to know the correct terms). Since you're not actually using lockpicks, there's no tactile feedback so you're just randomly moving tumblers and hoping something happens, which is about as effective as spinning a combination lock and hoping you get the right combo.
It's an easy fix though, just make it a spell of three and add a vision component so the sorcerer can see what he's doing inside the lock. Then it's easy and only adds minorly to the CTN (but changes the time from seconds into tens of seconds).
Brian.
I think I like your version better Brian. But one could argue that one does get feed back from telekenesis in the same manner as you can use it to pick up an egg without crushing it, or pull a lever without snapping it. There must be some kind of the teletactile feedback to it, ne?
OK..how would you use lightning as a spell..or control the weather?...
Quote from: Brian LeybourneQuote from: StephenLockpicking: Spell of One
Lockpicking without being able to see what you're doing requires feedback, as you move each tumbler you can feel the tension as you hold the lock with the second pick (I know a little about it, but not enough to know the correct terms). Since you're not actually using lockpicks, there's no tactile feedback so you're just randomly moving tumblers and hoping something happens, which is about as effective as spinning a combination lock and hoping you get the right combo.
I think it would be a little easier in Weyrth than you suggest, given that locksmithing is probably a fairly primitive science there; most "locks" would logically simply be bolt-and-eye or hook-and-eye arrangements, which I would argue don't need much in the way of tactile feedback to manipulate. (For the advanced locks, that's why you need the Lockpicking skill -- to make sense of what the magic is pushing against; as Valamir says, there's no reason we can't assume some kind of tactile feedback in Movement spells. In fact you'd almost need that kind of feeback to create animation spells.)
Quote from: kpike69OK..how would you use lightning as a spell..or control the weather?...
As I understand it, the revised book actually has a lightning spell in it (my original edition doesn't). But lets look at it anyway since I don't know the specifics of that spell.
Admittedly, lightning is a tricky one. However, I would do it with sculpture and movement. Sculpture would allow you to allign the molecules in the air so that they would carry an electric charge along a specified path. Movement would be used (probably requiring Vision as well) to rapidly bash air molecules against each other. This is how lightning is created in nature, the heavier molecules will tend to accumulate a negative charge and the lighter ones a positive charge. Then you just collect the positive charge and touch it to your aligned air molecule "path" and it'll strike the target. That's off the top off my head and pretty rough. There are certainly better ways to hurt somebody if that's your goal.
So, something like this:
T1 (air), R2 (line of sight), V1 (not much needed), D0, T5 (Movement3, Sculpture2, Vision3 = 3+1+1). Subtract 2 for formulisation and you get CTN7, 70 seconds to cast. Spells of three are never fast :-)
Controlling the weather... well, depends on what you're trying to do. It's easy enough to use Sculpture to create rainclouds (or destroy them), or Movement to blow away inclement clouds and weather etc. Heavy wind is easy with Movement. Etc etc.
Brian.
Quote from: StephenQuote from: Brian LeybourneLockpicking: Spell of One
I think it would be a little easier in Weyrth than you suggest, given that locksmithing is probably a fairly primitive science there; most "locks" would logically simply be bolt-and-eye or hook-and-eye arrangements, which I would argue don't need much in the way of tactile feedback to manipulate. (For the advanced locks, that's why you need the Lockpicking skill -- to make sense of what the magic is pushing against; as Valamir says, there's no reason we can't assume some kind of tactile feedback in Movement spells. In fact you'd almost need that kind of feeback to create animation spells.)
Yeah, fair call I guess. Hmm.. well, perhaps I would allow the spell if the character was proficient with locks, but I would require the vision component if they weren't.
Fair compromise? :-)
Brian.
well its all starting to make sense...I guess I just overcomplicated it. question?. summoning says you can summon forces?..just magical ones?.such as mana?..what are kinds of forces fire?...lightning?...some other magic systems such as mage use summoning to cast such spells to summon theses effects?..
Quote from: kpike69well its all starting to make sense...I guess I just overcomplicated it. question?. summoning says you can summon forces?..just magical ones?.such as mana?..what are kinds of forces fire?...lightning?...some other magic systems such as mage use summoning to cast such spells to summon theses effects?..
Yeah, that use of the term "forces" is a tad deceptive IMO. Summoning is used to summon demons/spirits (Why? Well, you could create Zombies by summoning a minor spirit and trapping it in a dead body then using movement to let it manipulate the body - this is one of the entries in OBAM actually). The other use of Summoning is to summon magical energy, which is used to maintain spells when you stop concentrating on them. For each level of the duration component you use, you have to add the same level of summoning to fuel that duration. You can even draw that energy directly into yourself, refueling your SP but causing automatic extra aging as your body is stressed.
So no, not for "summoning" fire or lightning or anything like that.
Brian.
Quote from: kpike69well its all starting to make sense...I guess I just overcomplicated it. question?. summoning says you can summon forces?..just magical ones?.such as mana?..what are kinds of forces fire?...lightning?...some other magic systems such as mage use summoning to cast such spells to summon theses effects?..
Quote from: Brian Leybourne
Yeah, that use of the term "forces" is a tad deceptive IMO.
(snip)
So no, not for "summoning" fire or lightning or anything like that.
BL> This has always been a bit of a "bug" in the magic system, at least from my perspective. I understand that there is no energy summoning in Weyrth, but it is something that is common in fantasy worlds, and something that I would like to be able to replicate using the RoS magic system. Sadly, the way that my group has done that in the past is to allow "summoning" to also summon energy and "banishment" to be able to destroy it. Sadly, this makes summoning vastly more powerful than it ought to be, and it is already one of the most powerful vagaries.
Anyone have thoughts on patching this?
yrs--
--Ben
Well, one possible balance would be to apply the automatic extra aging to all summoning effects (aging = CTN-successes+the level of summoning vagary used, just like in the Mana spells) instead of just the Mana spells. That way they take a greater aging and greater risk of being knocked out every time they use Summoning in that way.
Have to say though, IMO a better way is not to allow them to use Summoning in that way. Electric charges or heat can be done through the Movement vagary as I showed above, so it's still possible to create energy or fire etc. Similarly, Sculpture could be used to create water or air, etc.
Brian.
Quote from: Jake NorwoodTry this:
Name an effect--any effect--and we'll help you put it together. It'll freak you out when you realize we aren't making it up when we say "anything."
Jake
Actually, I'm pretty sure I can stump anyone's command of the magic system in this regard.
I made a Fireball once, but the precedents for it seem to have been removed. :(
But how about making a staff glow with an internal light that illuminates the room?
The closest I've been able to come is a Spell of Three using Vision (to see what's in the room) and Glamour (to make it look like it's being illuminated,) which doesn't ACTUALLY produce the effect, it just LOOKS like it does.
Such a circitous route to such a simple parlour trick.
Why is destroying the universe easier than lighting a room?
:)
Quote from: Brian LeybourneYeah, fair call I guess. Hmm.. well, perhaps I would allow the spell if the character was proficient with locks, but I would require the vision component if they weren't.
Fair compromise? :-)
Logical, certainly; although it occurs to me that if you've got the Lockpicking skill, what would you need the spell for? The entire point of using magic is to let you do things you
can't otherwise do.
(Answering my own question: it's safer, and lets you work at a distance or without probing the danger zone if you suspect it's trapped, or if you can't get at it, or if you don't have your lockpicks with you....)
So yeah, perhaps this is a fair compromise.
Of course, if you really wanted to do it right, with T1, R1, V1, D0 and L3, -2 for Formalization, you could construct a CTN 4 spell that would, with the merest touch, simply
punch the entire lock right out of the frame....
I think I'm getting the hang of TROS sorcery. ;)
Quote from: Bob RichterBut how about making a staff glow with an internal light that illuminates the room?
The closest I've been able to come is a Spell of Three using Vision (to see what's in the room) and Glamour (to make it look like it's being illuminated,) which doesn't ACTUALLY produce the effect, it just LOOKS like it does.
Such a circitous route to such a simple parlour trick.
Why is destroying the universe easier than lighting a room?
:)
Come on Bob, at least give us a challenge.
Firstly, your idea works, except that the vision component is not necessary. If your goal is to make the things in the room illuminated then Glamour can do it, Vision is only needed to see things you can't already see yourself. And as for your complaint as to how "real" it was, as long as it worked, how is it relevant if it's magical illumination or you just THINK it's magical illumination? The result is the same.
Another way to do it would be with Sculpture and Movement. Use Sculpture three to change the properties of the staff head to something that emits light when it heats up (you're making a lightbulb, essentially) and then use Movement to vibrate the molecules it it to create heat. Voila! Let there be light.
Sure, unlike many magic systems there isn't a concenient "create light" spell/effect but that's because TROS magic is modelled differently. I can still create any effect you can come up with, regardless of how much you think it's "cheating" :-)
Brian.
Interesting Brian. Cause from my perspective what you just described is the second reason I don't really care for the sorcery rules. It requires a fairly advanced knowledge (by 15th-16th century standards) of chemistry and physics. Why is this a problem? Well, three reasons it bugs me.
1) It opens up the whole wide range of destroy everything with my uber ability to manipulate things on the atomic level...cheap.
2) If sorcerers, due to powers like Vision, really were learning advanced notions of atomic level science centuries early, there should be some corresponding effect on Wyerth's development. I find it hard to believe that of all the scientist sorcerers there've ever been on Wyerth, that not one of them tried to use the scientific knowledge gained for non magical purposes. If vagaries like vision and motion really work the way you describe you'd need to have the technical knowledge of Thomas Edison to throw a lighting bolt. And if you did...why not avoid the aging rolls and just invent a generator and light bulb.
3) I like magic to be more magic than science.
Quote from: Brian LeybourneQuote from: Bob RichterBut how about making a staff glow with an internal light that illuminates the room?
The closest I've been able to come is a Spell of Three using Vision (to see what's in the room) and Glamour (to make it look like it's being illuminated,) which doesn't ACTUALLY produce the effect, it just LOOKS like it does.
Such a circitous route to such a simple parlour trick.
Why is destroying the universe easier than lighting a room?
:)
Come on Bob, at least give us a challenge.
Firstly, your idea works, except that the vision component is not necessary. If your goal is to make the things in the room illuminated then Glamour can do it, Vision is only needed to see things you can't already see yourself. And as for your complaint as to how "real" it was, as long as it worked, how is it relevant if it's magical illumination or you just THINK it's magical illumination? The result is the same.
Another way to do it would be with Sculpture and Movement. Use Sculpture three to change the properties of the staff head to something that emits light when it heats up (you're making a lightbulb, essentially) and then use Movement to vibrate the molecules it it to create heat. Voila! Let there be light.
Sure, unlike many magic systems there isn't a concenient "create light" spell/effect but that's because TROS magic is modelled differently. I can still create any effect you can come up with, regardless of how much you think it's "cheating" :-)
Brian.
The point is that I *can't* see it. It's bloody pitch-black in the room, and Glamour CAN NOT produce light, only the illusion thereof. Therefore, the
Vision component is REQUIRED.
If it's bright enough for me to see everything that would be illuminated, why do I need a glowing staff?
Folks have been telling me recently that I can't vibrate molecules with movement (esp. not without a vision component,) this is what lead to the death of the Fireball. And I don't allow people to perform elemental transmutation with Sculpture in my games. That would require an advanced degree in nuclear chemistry, something your average hedge-wizard doesn't posess.
It took the great Edison a number of years and hundreds of failures to make the light-bulb. How is my illiterate hedge-wizard going to be able to figure it out on the spur of the moment?
Why does it matter if it's magical illumination or only appears that way?
Because the two effects are diffferent. The result may be the same, but it's a different EFFECT.
TROS has no sorcerous light.
But that was an easy one, with a route I had already come up with.
How about a sword, that can be used and wielded by anyone, that will burst instantly into flame upon command, or with every blow struck, without harming the wielder?
TROS Sorcery is powerful: it's the only one I've seen so far that's capable of destroying the universe with a single spell that any entry-level character might know, but it's very limited in basic (and very useful) RPG tricks.
Those are all fair comments Ralph. And to be honest, I completely agree with you on all three. However, I wasn't defending sorcery so much as demonstrating that you can do anything with the system if you care to. Different focus.
How to make TROS magic more magical and less scientific? It would be pretty easy, all you have to do is shuffle the vagaries slightly so that it's possible to do things like altering the structure of metals or creating light without needing to see the molecules or know how light is made (the lightning spell I posted earlier in the thread suffers from a similar problem, that you have to know how electric charges are built up in nature).
That's easy enough... make a new Vagary called "Forces" that lets you create and control things like flame, light, and so on. And while you're at it, rename Sculpture to "Matter", Growth to "Life", and Summoning to "Spirit". Then, while you're at it, call the Vagaries "Spheres" instead, that's a better name. Hmm.. and we need a new one that governs magic itself, lets call it "Prime".
Sorry, sarcasm attack. But to be honest, if a more fantastic and less scientific magic system was your goal, you could do worse than merging the TROS and Mage systems together, you wouldn't even need to change much since the Mage system already works on D10 die pools etc. The other idea that I kind of like is dropping TROS magic altogether and making a TROSified version of Ron Edwards' Sorcerer for the magic system - TROS mages summon demons and get their power that way. I even spoke to Ron about this a while back and it's on my list of projects to do. Ah, so many projects and so little time...
Brian.
Quote from: Bob Richter
I made a Fireball once, but the precedents for it seem to have been removed. :(
But how about making a staff glow with an internal light that illuminates the room?
The closest I've been able to come is a Spell of Three using Vision (to see what's in the room) and Glamour (to make it look like it's being illuminated,) which doesn't ACTUALLY produce the effect, it just LOOKS like it does.
Such a circitous route to such a simple parlour trick.
Why is destroying the universe easier than lighting a room?
:)
Gotta disagree here, Bob. Glamour alone will work just fine. I think your definition of glamour here is too strict.
As for "removing precedents..." What do you mean? I've never deleted a post, even when I've wanted to.
Jake
I'd hollow out my staff and fill it with "dried" (or wet) oil. Cap it with something (wax, metal, wood (heck, use sculpture) stick a wick in it and light the puppy. For a brighter light, make kerosene or something. Shrink a nice dry redwood. That'll burn for a bit. Sculpt a reflective disc around the base out of silver, or make a mirror under or around it in a prism with glass or crystal. Fireworks (and adaptations there of (i.e. sparklers)) have been around for some time now too, existing way before circa 1400. Or teleport the light from the sunny side of the world into the room, or better yet bounce it around the world on a series of levitating mirrors controlled by some imprisoned spirits who have to spend the rest of eternity aligning up mirrors at me. Put some flint chips and steel shavings together in a crystal ball and spin them around to make sparks. Phosphorus glows, and so does lichen and so does certain types of naturally occurring fluid in fish, recreated with growth perhaps. Blown like bubbles. Or what if the number of rods and cones in the eye were increased. Maybe the ears could be altered to sense the vibrations of sound off the walls. Nah, too complicated.
Quote from: Brian LeybourneHave to say though, IMO a better way is not to allow them to use Summoning in that way. Electric charges or heat can be done through the Movement vagary as I showed above, so it's still possible to create energy or fire etc. Similarly, Sculpture could be used to create water or air, etc.
BL> To put it quite frankly, most fantasy worlds are not explicitly based upon modern scientific principles. If yours is, go you. But the ones which I am trying to adapt RoS magic to are not. They are based upon fantastical principles.
Now the answer to this is often "go use (ars magic, sorceror, mage, etc.) instead." The thing is, despite its warts, I find the RoS magic system to be wildly better than any I've played, and I do intend to keep using it. My question here is this:
How can I include the creation, destruction, and manipulation of natural energy without disrupting the game or the internal balance of sorcery overmuch?
yrs--
--Ben
Quote from: Ben LehmanHow can I include the creation, destruction, and manipulation of natural energy without disrupting the game or the internal balance of sorcery overmuch?
The easiest way I can see, is to just say that the 'Magic' aspect of the Spiritual Vageries encompas all 'energies', real or contribed. That way you can draw it to you, disperse it, or imprison it. Then extend the Physical Vageries to somehow include these and you'll have that manipulation. That might work.
Quote from: Jake NorwoodQuote from: Bob Richter
I made a Fireball once, but the precedents for it seem to have been removed. :(
But how about making a staff glow with an internal light that illuminates the room?
The closest I've been able to come is a Spell of Three using Vision (to see what's in the room) and Glamour (to make it look like it's being illuminated,) which doesn't ACTUALLY produce the effect, it just LOOKS like it does.
Such a circitous route to such a simple parlour trick.
Why is destroying the universe easier than lighting a room?
:)
Gotta disagree here, Bob. Glamour alone will work just fine. I think your definition of glamour here is too strict.
As for "removing precedents..." What do you mean? I've never deleted a post, even when I've wanted to.
Jake
If Glamour alone can light a darkened room (which, why would it be able to? it's illusion!) What ELSE can it do beyond the scope of illusion? Does it actually create physical light or only the mental illusion of light? Can one make an illusory sword that makes illusory wounds with Glamour?
I've always believed that Glamour was a mental Vagary, and therefore only created the appearance of something by influencing the mind.
As for that bit about removing precidents? All of the temperature-effecting spells are gone from the new sorcery section.
Quote from: RickI'd hollow out my staff and fill it with "dried" (or wet) oil. Cap it with something (wax, metal, wood (heck, use sculpture) stick a wick in it and light the puppy. For a brighter light, make kerosene or something. Shrink a nice dry redwood. That'll burn for a bit. Sculpt a reflective disc around the base out of silver, or make a mirror under or around it in a prism with glass or crystal. Fireworks (and adaptations there of (i.e. sparklers)) have been around for some time now too, existing way before circa 1400. Or teleport the light from the sunny side of the world into the room, or better yet bounce it around the world on a series of levitating mirrors controlled by some imprisoned spirits who have to spend the rest of eternity aligning up mirrors at me. Put some flint chips and steel shavings together in a crystal ball and spin them around to make sparks. Phosphorus glows, and so does lichen and so does certain types of naturally occurring fluid in fish, recreated with growth perhaps. Blown like bubbles. Or what if the number of rods and cones in the eye were increased. Maybe the ears could be altered to sense the vibrations of sound off the walls. Nah, too complicated.
Let's be clear, I want a glowing staff, not a torch.
I want to take my ordinary walking stick and make it glow at a moment's notice. Teleportation is another trick TROS Sorcery can't actually do, and using Movement on Photons...well, that's more'n a little bit odd.
I've just had a more awesome idea.
Ditch Glamour. It always bothered me. Just doesn't seem to work consistantly or fit. So we ditch it and replace it with something that alows the sorceror to bend the energies or forces of nature to his will or to will them around. (or somesort of mental twist to it that allows them to tap the energies otherwise offlimit to them).
Anyway, the aspects could be something like the nature of the energies(akin to Sculpture's composition) L1=# of simple waves(sound, water waves). L2=# of energies (light or radiation) L3=# of forces(inertia, magnatism, and maybe any contribed things like fire or life force);
the intensity or amount being controled, L1=a little bit, not too harmful, L2=a good bit, crippling, L3="that's alot of bit", very destructive;
and the guidence of it(like - L1=used in a way it would normally work. L2=works as it does naturally but with exceptions, like lightning bypassing a closer or more grounded target to strike another one. L3=using it in a way that's most unnatural(adding inertia to an illusion to give it umf).
Illusions woulds be created by first excersiseing dominion over the 'elements' of sound and light, and then using scuplture to shape it and movement to animate it.
There are some flaws to this method, about as many as to useing Glamour, but probablly more obvious. At any, I like it.
the question regarding the use of glamour is this, is there a difference as far as the object of the spell is concerned between the illussion of light and light itself? if there is what is it?
ok question..just what can you do with illusion? if you can create light from nothing could you create illusionary fire?..would it burn?....
burn as in cause damage, doubt it, you could have someone think it burns and what not depending on the level of teh vagary used and how many senses you witsh to fool.
maybe if I wanted to fool touch and sight I would maybe have the effected person suffer pain and shock unless they made a will power or perception roll to realize its not actually fire.......
Glamour isn't exactly illusion, though that's a big part of it. Glamour is "Fairy magic." You could burn down a whole building with it, and the building would really burn, but the next day the building would be there. You could make a sword out of glamour and "kill" a guy with it, but the next day (or after the duration of the spell) he'd be okay (if a little traumatized). I'd say what glamour really does is affect the senses (this is consistent with the vagary levels). Light falls into that category, IMO.
And remember--I, too, am an interpereter (not the creator) of the Magic system.
Jake
Quote from: Ashren Va'Halethe question regarding the use of glamour is this, is there a difference as far as the object of the spell is concerned between the illussion of light and light itself? if there is what is it?
In this particular case(the 'glowing' staff), just as far as the object is concerned, I would say not. The effect would be the same, the staff would be lit up. However, does the illustionary light illuminate the room?(which is of course the whole point). Under the assumption that glamour is mental trickery, it would seem to me that the staff would only appear to shine and not actually illuminate anything since the light is all in the witness's head and the knowledge of the room's contents are not. I don't see a way to use Glamour in this case without the use of Vision, in which case, there is no point to useing Glamour. Unless Glamour can give someone knowledge they didn't have; which would make Vision useless.
Why not summon up a small glowing spirit of some sort that surrounds the end of your staff? It is forced to stay there by application of conquer once the spirit is conjured.
in Game terms: Summon (spirit) 1, Conquer (control) 1, CT 2 for each, if you set the duration for 1 hour.
chances are, my spell requirements are buggered up a bit, since i'm not all on the up and up with sorcery yet, but the idea is there.
I had this same issue in a previous thread about Glamour as a physical force.
I agree that Glamour "light" cannot light up a room, break things or have any real effect on the real world. Glamour as "Fairy Magic" sounds very interesting, Jake, but if the vaugery is that powerful there would be no use for the other vaugeries. Glamour does it all.
Movement, as you've mentioned Brian, can perform all the spells you would ever need but the knowledge to do so would be non-existant. One could ignore that fact but that grates.
Maybe the best way to get around this is to use the more complicated method of producing the desired effect (I.E. Movement/Vision/Sculpture) as opposed to using Glamour, and keep the latter for actual illusion spells. Then allow that sorcerers, while able to manipulate the forces of the world have no true understanding of them. Edison hadn't the foggiest notion of what we now know of as photons and their properties, even though he did a bang up job of making the light bulb. Likewise sorcerers needn't have intimate knowledge of the science behind their sorcery. If any ambitous mage did decide to take on the science end of their skill, he/she would have a huge advantage. However, sorcerers are VERY rare, and a good portion of those are the Fey who don't give a magicly enhanced crap about science (in my game any way), and most of the rest are Gifted, who are either hunted by the inquisition outside of Gelure, or getting ready for war inside. I guess this is just me trying to keep the system (which I love) intact, and still justify its use.
EVH
Quote from: Jake NorwoodGlamour isn't exactly illusion, though that's a big part of it. Glamour is "Fairy magic." You could burn down a whole building with it, and the building would really burn, but the next day the building would be there. You could make a sword out of glamour and "kill" a guy with it, but the next day (or after the duration of the spell) he'd be okay (if a little traumatized). I'd say what glamour really does is affect the senses (this is consistent with the vagary levels). Light falls into that category, IMO.
And remember--I, too, am an interpereter (not the creator) of the Magic system.
Jake
I am remembering that, and that's why I'm still sitting here arguing with you. :)
I'd say what glamour does is fool the senses (illusion.) So I could make you think the room was lit, but how useful that illusory illumination actually was would depend on my ability (and willingness) to envision the room AS IT ACTUALLY WAS, thus the vision component.
My staff could appear to light the room, but I would still bump into the table I thought wasn't there because I still couldn't actually see it.
You guys are a bunch of damn nitpickers.
Glamour makes light. End of story. Gee-frickin' whiz.
Jake
::applause::
You know in one of my games I was running, there were torches that had Glamour flame on them to make light. It tripped the players out when the fire wasn't put out in water. Finally they realized what it was.
Jake,
If I illusorily fly with Glamor to a castle and talk with someone there, what happens after the spell fades just after the conversation ends? Where am I then? Do I remember what happened? Do I remember the conversation? Was the conversation with a real person? Is the information that was imparted by the person I talked to real, as in the information that they would have imparted had I actually been able to travel there?
If the information from the person in this spell is not true, then how can the information delivered by the light of the glamor spell be true?
Or is light an exception?
Mike
Why is this still such a big issue! Gee whiz! Aren't illusions at their core plays of light and shadow? Also look at the Interactivity aspect of Glamour. It allows others to manipulate or experience an illusion. I think if you make the illusion of a fire, or ball of light, you are perfectly within the rights of Glamour.
I make an illusion of flame. It looks like flame in every aspect, because it is a successful illusion. If it does not shed light like flame, it certainly doesn't look the way flame does, now would it?
As for Mike's question..
You never actually went to the castle, or had the conversation. However, it seems to you like you did, and it seems to them like you did. So, in essence, you did have the conversation. I would, however, make a vision component necessary.. Not to see what the illusion would have seen, but to allow the illusion to go out of your field of view.
It's magic, people. You're allowing the fact that scientific terms were used in certain circumstances to make you think that it has to abide by logic and physics. It doesn't. MOST ESPECIALLY faerie magic. Yes, it might seem incredibly powerful that you can light a room, or cause someone to burn and die (or seem to), or fly up and see someone in a castle (so long as the illusion doesn't leave your field of view) with a single vagary but as Jake says, it's Faerie magic. The very name means, in the most literal, dictionary sense, magic It doesn't mean illusion, that's simply what we assume because that is what the stories generally make it out to be.
Faerie Glamour allows things as a faerie changeling to be raised as a human child until the parents discover it, then when the faerie is thrown into the fireplace, it disappears and the child is returned unharmed. Faerie Glamour allows for whole hills to seem to disappear during the day, and people can walk where the hill was that night, and never see it. If you discount these tales, then you discount the entire basis of Fae, and you might as well not allow the Fey in your games..
Or worse yet, stick with DnD-style elves, dwarves, gnomes and halflings.
if teh illusion of flame does everything flame does then.....
AH Hell, I agree with jake on this one, and its pointles sto argue this, do what you want in your games and let this thread die in peace.
Quote from: Ashren Va'HaleQuoteif teh illusion of flame does everything flame does then.....
.....then it can burn you, if I put in the tactile aspects. It'll feel like you're actually on fire, the wounds will appear, and you might be horribly marred afterward, even up to years.. If I so decide to maintain the spell that long.
Anyone want a donkey-head? Mess with Puck, and you just might get one.
The problem with your response Lance, is that it doesn't use logic at all. See, in order to ba able to apply the rule in play, one has to be able to know what something can do, and what it can't. Your description only obfuscates a useful answer. You'd say that it can do whatever Fae magic should be able to do. Well, if I've never read anything on the subject how can I use that criteria. In point of fact, the book does have a description and it uses specific terms. From which we have to inerperet the effects.
As for the science comment that's way out of line. Which one of us is arguing science? In fact it's our faction that's claiming that the science angle can't make sense. To be really clear on my position, I personally feel that any system that tries to come up with in-game effects based on any sort of in-game logic where something like magic powers is concerned is doomed to failure. I don't even believe that it should be attempted. I mean it's fun to have rationales and all, and I wouldn't do without them. But in the end, I've always felt that the only way to effectively simulate these things is to have certain rules that pertain to the game-mechanical effects, and use those to describe the effects in game terms, and then attach whatever narration I want to the in-game effect.
But it's exaclty the point that looking at it in this sort of dispassionate, "Will it work in play" way, the mechanic as written is problematic. You saying, "just do it like I say" is not going to fix that. Logic must be applied.
So, let's look at cases. By your description above the only way that I should be able to get the information in question from the man is if I have a Vision vagary going as well. Well, how is the torchlight situation any different? The conversation and the perception of the room are both sensory information. If the conversation that would be returned would be of false information concocted by the glamor (and I would agree that this is what would happen in the case of no Vision being used), then the informatiojn returned by the light of the glamor should be similarly false. That is, without the caster or spell "knowing" that there is a door on the other side of the dark room, there's no particular reason that the light returned from the glamor should show that door.
This then shows the fallacy of the idea that it would look wrong. We're not saying that you can't use glamor to create the illusion of a lit room. You just can't use it to create an actual lit room. Even if you have Vision, then I'd say that Glamor woudn't make actual light, but would simply provide an illusion of the lit room in an accurate fashion (assuming that's what the caster wants).
This is just as powerful as you intend for it to be, Lance, and seems to fit your description perfectly.
In any case, it seems a good split in terms of game effects to keep actual perception and illusion in separate vagaries. OTOH, I can understand if they were to overlap in some ways, and the power were defined as such. But it doesn't seem to me to be that way. Nowhere does it say that the light emitted or reflected by glamor has the specifically excepted property of being real. If it did, I'd be right there with you. But from my reading, and an application of logic, I would be forced to rule that glamor does not create real light.
Mike
And I say that Glamour does create light, because if not Glamour, then what? Vision...I can see that, sight is a sense, and glamour effects the senses. For example, glamour can make me see a dragon when there is none, and when that dragon breathes flame I see the room around me lit up. I think it's insane to require that Vision be added into the spell so that the fire looks real. Fairy lights and dazzling effects--this is obviously glamour, guys. There's way too much of a pedantic thing going on in here.
Jake
Logically, magic shouldn't work at all.
Therefore, if we assume the given that magic does work, logic goes out the window when examining the system. Logic comes up with possible solutions, whereas magic makes the impossible happen. If magic such as this truly existed, chances are the world would have been destroyed long before the current. Logically. If some exceedingly unlikely event is possible (say, a 1-in-a-million chance) then it probably will happen, eventually. Once in a million years, perhaps. World's been destroyed already. Now we make new characters, and hope it doesn't happen to the next incarnation of Weyrth.
I have read up on Faerie, partially due to your own influence, Mike, when talking about the background of my own game. The resources are there, and so not knowing is really no excuse.
Also, you've twisted my example. The vision component to my illusory flight spell was only because the illusion (me, flying about) went behind a wall. The illusion itself went out of my field of view. If I use a glamour light spell in ANOTHER room, then I'll use vision there.. But not when the glamour is right there in front of me. As far as precedent goes, the only time I've noticed Vision being added to an existing spell is when magic is being worked where the caster couldn't see it, or when the magic involved seeing another location, or on an entirely different level.
It seems to me that this entire debate is because of bad phrasing. Firstly, calling it simply illusion. While the word, by it's dictionary definition, is quite apt, it has connotations that it cannot have real effects. Secondly, mentioning the Vision 3 option. It should have been explained that this was required to get the proper level of detail, not to be able to light a room. Thirdly, less a matter of phrasing, it should not have been listed under Mental... but really, where else to put it? It seems innocuous enough, until the examinations begin. From everything I've seen, it was intended to be as faerie glamour from legend, but it's been twisted.
Let's see about some other exceptions, if things are defined too rigidly.. Let's see.. Illusory fire cannot cause illusory pain, because that would require a Conquer component, a la the Pain spell. So it seems that the tactile component of glamour is entirely null and void. Matter of fact, how am I to directly deceive the mind at all without conquer? Hell, it seems now that glamour is entirely useless. I'll just use conquer to make people see/feel/hear what I want them to. Seems to me that glamour spells are Mental only by courtesy, or else it's an entirely useless vagary. Either what it makes appear are actually, physically visible, or it's useless. The Fey aren't looking quite so good a racial packet, now are they?
Enough. Run Glamour as you wish in your games. I'll make you a bet right here and now that if your interpretations remain as strict as they are now, it will be the least often used vagary, and for good reason. I, for one, will run it as intended.
Quote from: Jake NorwoodAnd I say that Glamour does create light, because if not Glamour, then what? Vision...I can see that, sight is a sense, and glamour effects the senses. For example, glamour can make me see a dragon when there is none, and when that dragon breathes flame I see the room around me lit up. I think it's insane to require that Vision be added into the spell so that the fire looks real. Fairy lights and dazzling effects--this is obviously glamour, guys. There's way too much of a pedantic thing going on in here.
Without wanting to be pedantic, Jake, I gotta disagree with you here.
Glamour doesn't create the actual physical energy of light. Glamour creates
the impression in my brain directly that that light would normally produce by bouncing off the real version of the object that's been illusorily created.In other words, a Glamoured torchflame looks and glows exactly like the real thing...
but it doesn't illuminate the room, because it's not objectively generating real photons of light that can bounce off
other objects and hit your retina, thus creating the nerve signals that create the sensation of sight. It
appears to be generating light because the magic is creating that impression directly in your brain
for the torchflame itself, but if the creating sorcerer didn't know what else was in the room, he couldn't illusorily depict it in your brain. So you can see the torchflame itself perfectly clearly, because that's what the sorcerer is creating through Glamour; you can't see what that torchflame would normally illuminate, unless the sorcerer already knows this and adds it to the illusion.
Now the Glamour-dragon's fiery breath might well make a cavern
appear brighter if it is already dimly lit, because your brain has already received data about the room and is simply making a reasonable subconscious extrapolation about what it would look like in brighter light. But it couldn't illuminate a pitch-dark room accurately unless the sorcerer already knew what was there, because Glamour doesn't manipulate energy; by its very definition as a Mental Vagary, it manipulates
information, specifically the false creation or reproduction thereof, and what a sorcerer can't see he can't create an accurate illusion of.
My solution to the "how do you make your staff glow?" is a Gandalf-style thing; find large, relatively unflawed crystals, sit them in sunlight, use Imprisonment to trap the sunlight in them over the course of a day, then release the light later when you need it by activating the crystal and placing it in your staff.
And I disagree. Glamour can light a room. Glamour is the magic of light and illusion. If it's "just illusion" than it's really only "conquer."
Jake
This is beginning to sound like a bunch of Trekkies argueing over how the holodeck works and what should and shouldn't be possible based on the description of what it does.
Glamour is not illusion. Glamour is real...Faerie Real...
Faerie Real is not the same thing as our real...but it is not illusiary either.
If you eat a Glamour Meal, you really ate a meal. It had taste, it had substance, and someone watching you would see you eating, not sucking down air. Its just that the meal is not filling, nor does it have nutritional value...its faerie real.
Faerie reality does not follow logic nor is it consistant. Fey are supposed to be unscruitable...is it any wonder that their magic is also.
So you burn a house down with Faerie Magic...its burned down...its char...you can sift through the ruins and get covered in ash. By dawn the house will be there as if nothing ever happened (with perhaps a tantalizing smell of smoke in the air). If you try to watch to see it come back...you won't. You can't. Why...because that's how it works.
Not to mention-Jake has repeatedly said it does what it does-end of story. When the creator of the game comes out and says "X is True" than X must be true in regards to the game. Want Glamour to work differently in your game-fine-do so. Just don't come yelling here that it is the way things work.
Quote from: Jake NorwoodAnd I disagree. Glamour can light a room. Glamour is the magic of light and illusion. If it's "just illusion" than it's really only "conquer."
Well, it's your game; you oughtta know. ;)
Apologies for being nitpicking; it's simply that the relationship between perception and reality that illusion spells examine has always been fascinating to me. I love to speculate about what is "real" in an illusion spell and what isn't, and where the energies of illusion magic go and what they do. Kinda evokes that whole how-do-we-know-ANY-of-our-perceptions-are-"real"? philosophical mindset.
For myself, I'll continue to play Glamour as a perception-only magic; if you define Conquer as necessary to induce
internal sensations like pain or hunger, or to affect memories or willpower, then there's still plenty of room to distinguish between them.
I've always liked the idea that magic still has logical, self-contained limits, like the need to have seen something before you can create a Glamoured version of it (you must have the memory in your brain so your subconscious can recreate it convincingly; otherwise, you need to have the artistic skill to reproduce it
consciously, which is 10 times harder), or the inability of an illusory torch to show what's actually there (this is often how illusions get broken in fantasy literature and myth; the hero notices something vital the illusionist has overlooked or forgotten), or the idea that illusory pain can only kill you if you are
willing to be killed on some level (do characters with high "death-wish" type SAs become more vulnerable to such things?), etc.... To me, this makes magic
more interesting to explore and play.
This is all well and good, y'all.
But first, I feel that it would be nice to hear from the designer. Jake did not design the magic system, a fact that he himself pointed out earlier in the thread. And while I personally think it's a good idea for a designer to take an active roll in helping interperet a rule for his audience, I find it odd that Jake, who is normally the guy who says, "it's your game, do what you like", has dicided to take stand on the subject, especially one that seems to be intended to eliminate the discussion of the topic. I'd even be willing to accept his fiat if I didn't see a problem with the proclamation, and an interesting and effective way out of the problem.
As far as pedantry, well I'd rather be pedantic than didactic. The entire opposing argument seems to be "that's how it is, just accept it", which is no argument at all. My pedantry, such as it may be, was in response to a similar attitude that occured first in the oppositions responses (such as implications that our side doesn't understand what magic is).
Anyhow, that's enough debating the debate for me. I'd like to continue to debate the point in question (I still feel that I have an important point that people are not understanding), but it seems that some people actually don't want to hear the opposing argument. So, I'll just walk away at this point.
Mike
Illusions are plays of light, shadow, and sounds...so why is it so beyond the realm of possibility that Glamour affects all of the above?
Quote from: StephenWithout wanting to be pedantic, Jake, I gotta disagree with you here.
LOL I find this to be hillarious... I personally could never say that the creator of the game is wrong when he talks about his game. To me that just seems silly, Jake made the game so doesn't that make his decision final pretty much? I think he knows more about it than any of us!
Just my personal thought
Quote from: ShadelingIllusions are plays of light, shadow, and sounds...so why is it so beyond the realm of possibility that Glamour affects all of the above?
It's not a question of possibility, it's a question of internal consistency and logic, which magic (for me anyway, YMMV) has to have in order to be believeable. My
characters don't have to know or understand all the internal principles, but
I do. If a spell can manipulate the Temporal forces of light and sound, then to me it's not a purely Mental-Vagary spell any more.
What Jake says goes, goes, as far as official definitions go, and I ain't arguing with that or even saying he's "wrong" -- the game is what he and Rick say it is; how can he be wrong? All I'm saying is that his definition breaks an element of suspension-of-disbelief for me, and I'm just trying to explain why it does so, how I do it differently, and why.
(And being exceedingly pedantic and nitpicky in the process, which is why Jake et al have every right to gripe. Apologies, guys. :D)
Stephen et al:
You gotta do what you gotta do for the game to work for you. Nowhere is this more true or more intentional for magic. Our intentions for Glamour was what I have stated. What it does in your game is up to you. I just wanted to make it perfectly clear what our intentions were.
Jake
Quote from: Amy1419LOL I find this to be hillarious... I personally could never say that the creator of the game is wrong when he talks about his game. To me that just seems silly, Jake made the game so doesn't that make his decision final pretty much? I think he knows more about it than any of us!
Just my personal thought
Keeping right out of the actual Illusion vs Light argument, can I just say that this particular statement is very unfair.
What it means is that Jake can never engage in any conversations on this board, because as soon as he speaks everyone else has to shut up because "God has laid down the law".
That's crap, and I know Jake doesn't want that to be the case. It's already hard enough for him to open his mouth (so to speak) because he's afraid of accidentally shutting down conversations.
Brian.
Quote from: Brian LeybourneQuote from: Amy1419LOL I find this to be hillarious... I personally could never say that the creator of the game is wrong when he talks about his game. To me that just seems silly, Jake made the game so doesn't that make his decision final pretty much? I think he knows more about it than any of us!
Just my personal thought
Keeping right out of the actual Illusion vs Light argument, can I just say that this particular statement is very unfair.
What it means is that Jake can never engage in any conversations on this board, because as soon as he speaks everyone else has to shut up because "God has laid down the law".
That's crap, and I know Jake doesn't want that to be the case. It's already hard enough for him to open his mouth (so to speak) because he's afraid of accidentally shutting down conversations.
Brian.
I didn't mean to come across by saying that everyone has to shut up when Jake speaks. Obviously everyone has their own opinions which is great but isn't it kinda crazy to tell the creator of the game that he is wrong basically? I dunno obviously we all have our different views and please don't think I am bashing anyone or anything. I just feel that if the creator says something was meant in the game to mean x than it means x unless you don't like it which of course is your decision. I just thought people were telling Jake that he doesn't know how he meant to write his game, thats all.
Sorry for the confusion.
Quote from: Amy1419Sorry for the confusion
Amy - no harm, no foul.
Sucks to be Jake sometimes, I guess. He's mentioned once or twice before that he's sometimes hesitant to enter conversations for that very reason. Maybe the fact that he has entered this one, and made a very definitive statement should be enough to tell me to shut my trap and stop putting words in his mouth. :-)
Brian.
I just feel bad that I feel more confident about my definition of glamour than my definitions of didactic and pedantic......
I'd like to see where it specifically states that Glamour is an effect that only exists in the minds of the viewers. Yes, it's placed into the mental set of vagaries, but I still maintain that it was only done so because it was the only appropriate place to put it, (it certainly didn't go into the other two, and besides, they were already full) and it didn't seem like it would do the harm that it is obviously doing. But the argument seems to have finally wound down into the "agree to disagree" phase, so I'll let it lie.
I will note this, however... It is a game of some note and success that has people arguing so vehemently over points of trivia and what is ultimately opinion. But then, we already know TRoS is great.
Also, I view Jake's interjections on such things as this, even when he is being firm, as a matter of stating the intent of the designers. If the game is run as it was originally intended, then it is so. That does not make anyone who still chooses to disagree wrong in their play, nor does it make him necessarily right for their games.. Thus, direct disagreement with Jake, Rick and Ben is okay, so long as it is done respectfully, and with the knowledge that it does not make them anymore wrong than the person arguing the point.
Love the game. Love the world. Love the magic system. Love the work that brought all of the previous into being. That being said, I do have a problem with the topic of this thread.
Glamour (as quoted in the text), is "the magic of illusions." Now that, of and by itself, is just peachy. When I think of Glamour magic, I think of faeries doing all sorts of nastiness to humans because humans are dumb and silly.. and because it is just so much darn fun.
Glamour allows humans to experience practically whatever the faeries wish for them to experience. The one constant in discussions of faerie glamour is its impermanent nature. It doesn't last. A sidhe (or siehe) Lord, full of wroth, can kill you dead...in any number of ways. Until the next sunrise. Then you wake up. Feeling sheepish. And used. Great way to explain to the wife, however, why you didn't come home last night... It was the wee folk, Molly... they took me! Traditionally, the magic of the fae would last from sunrise to sunrise...and then would be gone.
And I'm okay with that, too.
My problem concerns our (I know, I am taking liberties here...and if I have offended by doing so, I am genuinely sorry) impressions of the definition of Glamour as given in TRoS. Most people, myself included until I gave it some serious thought, consider illusions to be a false "something" that someone is perceiving, be it visual, aural, tactile...whatever. By that definition, Glamour is weak. And contradictory. I mean, as several have already mentioned, why not just use Conquer and be done with it? I order to you perceive this. And you do. Great fun.
However, what if we approach illusion as something more? Not just these false somethings, these erroneous perceptions of reality, but as an actual, temporary, reweaving of reality? Faerie lights do light up the swamp. And, if I'm really good, that dragon I just conjured will burn you. If it doesn't eat you. Or both.
In other words, the fea have the ability to alter reality... for a limited time. They could give you a sack of gold that looked like gold.. felt like gold.. tasted like gold.. spent like gold.. until tomorrow. And then it was gone.
Powerful? Yes. Obviously.
You don't hear anyone trying to claim that Conquer is not? Or how about Movement?
I know that we all bought the game and that we all can do with it as we please. But really. Glamour works (How, you might ask? I pull strands of Creation together and weave them into a complex pattern that becomes a Reality. However, as I am not the Creator, it lacks the permanence of Her/His/Its Creations.). Movement works. It's Magic.
Chris
That is probably the most... sensible? tangible? real? ..the best, at any rate; explanation of Faerie Glamour I've seen so far. The only problem is that it would take it quite firmly out of the mental category...
...which supports what I've been saying anyhow. I think it was a mistake, just as defining it simply as "illusion" was a mistake, though the definition, by the dictionary, is sound, because of it's connotations.
Quote from: Wolfen...which supports what I've been saying anyhow. I think it was a mistake, just as defining it simply as "illusion" was a mistake, though the definition, by the dictionary, is sound, because of it's connotations.
See this is what I don't get. The book says xyz, you say that it should be something else to support your view of how it should be (that luckily goes with the designers intent). Yes, if you wanted that intent, then it would be better to redefine it.
But I think it's fine as it is. And there interperetation that I see for how this Vagary works doesn't require it to change one iota.
So it seems odd to me that the interperetation that some of us have that follows the book seems so wrong to you.
As long as I'm back, the idea that I have to read the same literature as you to play TROS "Correctly" is ludicrous. As it happens, I can play exaclty as the text of the game requires and it all works quite well. Actually I have read quite a bit of this literature, and I think that my interperestation is actually closer to the literature. But I'm not going to require you to read what I have to get you to agree.
I'll just refer you back to the rules which is where I got my interperatation from in the first place.
Mike
This seems more to heat up because it staggers from glamour just being somthing like wearing a VR helmet, to it being a real and tangible force (albiet with a time limmit).
Jakes indicated the latter, which sounds pretty cool to me. And since conquour covers the VR type thing, it can't be that.
So essentially its like a little bit of fake universe superimposed onto normal reality. Quite frankly, that is pretty powerful stuff in terms of energy and all sorts of arrangements...but in terms of game power level, okay, because of the time limmit, so terms of that, there's no care (not that this has been brough up anyway)?
So Glamour lights the room, because it superimposes a light on that patch of universe you call a room. But once its duration finishes, its gone. If the glamourous torch set fire to a curtain, once the duration is finished that curtain is whole again. One could hardly call that real, so it ends up in the realm of illusion, even though it was a physical effect.
Sound about right, for a summing up?
Oh, and usual disclaimer: This is just one way to play, yada yada, do your own thing, we'll only send one or two death squads... ;)
Personally I'd wonder if the D&D type spell lists are the result of such debates like this getting heated, so they make things nice and rigid instead. Hope things don't turn out to prove 'em right.
Quote from: NoonSo Glamour lights the room, because it superimposes a light on that patch of universe you call a room. But once its duration finishes, its gone. If the glamourous torch set fire to a curtain, once the duration is finished that curtain is whole again. One could hardly call that real, so it ends up in the realm of illusion, even though it was a physical effect.
Sound about right, for a summing up?
Can't speak for anyone else... but... Yup. That's what I was saying. Nice "sum up."
Chris
[quote="Mike Holmes]
So it seems odd to me that the interperetation that some of us have that follows the book seems so wrong to you.[/quote]
The reason it seems wrong to me is that Jake quite clearly stated designer's intent, and it doesn't jive with your interpretation of the rules. Your interpretation does follow what the book says quite closely, but it doesn't follow with designer's intent. Seems to me that a mistake was made in the book if it's closest interpretation doesn't jive with designer's intent.
As for correctness of play, it's been made clear that the only requirement for "correct" play is to have fun. I happen to agree more with designer's intent on this particular than with literal rules interpretation, and the literature I have read backs up my viewpoint. If the literature you have read contradicts mine, well, perhaps I should read yours to get a broader viewpoint. I doubt I would change my interpretation of the rules though, and I'm not asking you to change yours. I'm only debating the point because I like to debate, and I feel I've stated it as clearly as I'm able, and Sneaky Git and Noon have stated it notably clearer.
Anyhow, been an interesting conversation, but I think it's about done.