Question on Different Types of Magic

[Bob Richter]

I think you can do pretty much damn near anything, like transforming a victim's blood to molten lead (T3/R2/V2/D0/Sculpture3, Vision 3), TN11; victim saves as Smite [p. 135] or dies instantly in agony; source U.K. LeGuin).  

P

Hm. I don't know if I'd allow that in my game. Sculpture wouldn't seem to be able to alter the temperature of a substance. Altering something's elemental nature....eh. Maybe.

Seems like you'd need at least a Movement component to heat it up (if you actually wanted it MOLTEN...)

Quite true... I'm looking at Smite as the model for an "instant death spell" at TN 12.  Blood to Molten Lead has a lower Volume,  but adding the Movement vagary would raise the TN back to 12.  Of course, you could drop the TN by 1 by making it a "touch" spell.

As far as game balance, even when formalized, the spell takes 5 rounds to cast (4 using Touch range, but then you have to hit your target).  Unless the Sorcerer has some serious protection, odds are he/she won't get the spell off, and there's still the target's SA saving roll...

Of course, I've always been of the mind that, if a player's action is going to completely screw up my story, as GM I'll find a way to make sure that it doesn't happen.  That's why they make GM screens...   ;)

P

I don't care about game balance. I'm mostly interested in the mechanics of spellcasting and whether or not Sculpture can have effects on the subatomic level. :)

Yes, turning your enemy's blood to lead will kill him (and rather gruesomely at that.) Then again, so would merely bringing it to a boil. :)

[prophet118]

quite true, biology tells us that any time something (in the human body) is denatured, it changes shape, thus losing function in the body...

one of the methods of denaturing is by heating things...

on a side note... if this system is as open as i think... why do something flashy... just use vision, along with movement... speedup/slow down someones heart...or just stop it..

the stuff we could get into would be fairly brutal.... getting into the summoning vagery... well could you summon a demon to appear inside someone?... kinda like using them as a host..... i suppose if the ritual needed it...lol

i think sculpture could work on the subatomic level, but you would obviously need a high level of vision, just to see what you are doing, and since this might last a while (cast wise) i think you have to use summoning... though im not sure..im kinda iffy as to wehn you need to use summoning, and when you dont.... i think instantaneous spells dont need it, like pain style spells... instant effect, bang it hurts... though you could use summoning to extend its duration to weeks or months i suppose...

someone correct me if im wrong here

[spunky]

I don't care about game balance. I'm mostly interested in the mechanics of spellcasting and whether or not Sculpture can have effects on the subatomic level. :)

Yes, turning your enemy's blood to lead will kill him (and rather gruesomely at that.) Then again, so would merely bringing it to a boil. :)

I guess, if you want to be accurate scientifically, all you need is Vision 3 (to see sub-atomic particles) and Movement 3 (to arrange them in whatever configuration you desire), and then you could do pretty much anything, like Dr. Manhattan (WATCHMEN).  

P

[spunky]

Of course, I've always been of the mind that, if a player's action is going to completely screw up my story, as GM I'll find a way to make sure that it doesn't happen.

Don't think I'm misinterpereting you, but there is some flaw with this in TROS standards. It's as much that player's story as yours. Now, if you're talking about a munchkin that's out to screw everyone...that's one thing. But if it's because you and the player disagree on where the story could/should go, then there's another, more crucial, issue at stake.

Jake

Not really.  When you play TROS, you sit down with the players and, as characters are created, make sure that they create SAs that are in line with your story; the GM story being the "A" plot, if you will, or the overall arc of the campaign.  If through the course of their actions, they create "B" plots to explore, and I want to take them there, great.  But ultimately, my responsibility as GM is, 1) are we having fun, and 2) what will make the best story.  

If a player wants to go in a different direction, they're free to go there -- via PBEM, or by writing a blurb on what they think should happen.  But when everybody sits down to play, I'm going to run the story that's most interesting for all the players, and as GM, I'm the final arbiter of what that is.  Hopefully, since we drew up characters together, we're on the same page; if not, well, role-players have never been the type to hold back criticism...

P

[Ron Edwards]

Hello Spunky,

That's very interesting, but I think you'll hit the cliff wall like Wile E. Coyote if you play TROS in that fashion. It might be more helpful to consider "A," the story-arc, to be under construction by everyone at the table, with the GM and players both contributing to it in different ways.

Best,
Ron

[Jake Norwood]

Spunky--

I'm not saying that you're playing "wrong." If you and yours are having a good time, then there is no "wrong." However, the way the game is intended actually works more like this:

Step 1: Players create SAs together, with a little bit of guidance from the Seneschal so that he feels comfortable with the SAs and relationships at the table, and feels that he can work with them.

Step 2: The Seneschal creates the game based on the players SAs, prepared with the fact that nothing he created is really all that "sacred," and that players actions can change anything (with magic like it is, for example, it's hard to have an uber-villian when you can just melt his head), or they can change their SAs at almost any time (though they should talk it over with the Seneschal first, in case any of his immediate upcoming events would be horribly disturbed...it's really sort of a "talk it over" kind of thing).

Step 3: The players are even more enamored with the story and the game *because* their input means more than it ever has. The Seneschal, meanwhile, gets to enjoy the process of reacting to the players' decisions and trying to help the often chaotic actions of players become something beautiful...kinda like sculpting clay that moves a little on its own.

That's how it was intended, that's what I meant, and that's really how the game is written. *However,* if your group is enjoying what you do, then it isn't wrong...it's just a little different than what I wrote.

I would suggest giving "my way" a shot--you may be pleasantly suprised. And change is fun.

Happy gaming,

Jake

[spunky]

Actually, my group's biggest complaint about the campaigns we've played in the past is that they never end.  Our current game has a definite arc, and while the characters have plenty of room to maneuver, I do know where they are going, and ultimately, how the campaign will end.  They have tremendous leeway as far as which road they travel, but the destination is fixed.  Which is just like life.

That said, I'd be interested to see if the group would respond to the idea of playing TROS as you both described, with a "rotating" GM so that everyone gets to play, and letting a collective story unfold.  

[We did this once before with D&D.  The campaign was called "Bastards" and only evil characters were allowed.  It became PARANOIA with swords and was an absolute ball, but the story was not its strongest suit.]    :)

P

[Jake Norwood]

Actually, it seems that stories played as described above come to a climax much faster (and less forced) than long-arc campaigns. I love running both, but lifestyle has pretty much eternally made me a runner of 3-6 game stories. I am working on a bigger one, though...and planning as I go.

Jake