TROS magic system and spells

[Sneaky Git]

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

[Lance D. Allen]

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.

[Mike Holmes]

...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

[Callan S.]

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.

[Sneaky Git]

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?

Can't speak for anyone else... but... Yup.  That's what I was saying.  Nice "sum up."

Chris

[Lance D. Allen]

[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.