🚀 go-pugleaf

soss@unix.cie.rpi.edu (Steven Soss) writes:

>Define three magic attributes (skills?) called Power, Control, and Accuracy.

I would call Power a gift that could be bought in levels: first level
gets you Terrible, second level costs another supernormal power and
gets you Poor, etc.  Control and Accuracy sound like n-e skills, to
me.

>These would be rated on the scale of Terrible to Superb.
>
>	POWER: this skill is defined as the ability of the caster to
>draw upon the essence in which to power his spell.  A mage with a
>superb power could summon dragons, create castles, raise entire
>cities.  A poor power mage might have difficulty in levitating a
>briefcase.  
>	CONTROL: this is the ability to cast the spell that you wanted 
>to cast.  Mastery of this skill is what makes the magic fickle or not.
>A high power mage with low control might cast a spell to create a
>castle and summon a dragon instead.  Or cast a fireball spell and
>instead just turn the victims clothes red.  
>	ACCURACY: the ability to pinpoint the target of the spell.
>While a bit more nebulous than the other two skills, this is used more
>when trying to pick out a unique target.  Superb accuracy might allow
>a mage to pluck off the nosehairs of a nearby orc.  On the other hand,
>a poor accuracy might cause a rain spell to act in the next town (or
>even on the next day).

I like this idea very much, though I think you bend it too much trying
to fit it into my FUDGE Magic system, which isn't necessary at all, you
know.  Let it be its own system.

That said, I would change the terminology and some of the mechanics you
propose:  POWER is fine, but Control & Accuracy sound too much alike.
If I were to use a system like this (and it seems very nice), I would
probably introduce a radical terminology change, and call Warp and Weft
for what you call Control and Accuracy.  I would call the whole process
Spellweaving.

Power would define the "size" of spell you could weave.  Warp is the
weaver's word for the threads that run directly away from you: the
framework that the Weft (sometimes called Woof) is woven into and on.

So Power would strictly determine potency of spell available to be cast
(and could be augmented at some severe cost), Warp would be a skill
that determined the general shape and focus of the spell, and Weft
would be a skill that determined the final pattern of the spell (how
precisely fine-tuned you can make it)..

>Now with these overlying skills, almost any type of mage is possible.
>You can set CONTROL to a maximum of fair to allow all magic to have
>some fickleness associated with it.  

I don't think that would work well with this system - better to forget
my personal gripes and develop and beautiful system that works for
you!

>When casting a spell, you can determine sucess in two ways.  The GM
>assigns a task difficulty for each area of the spell (control, power,
>and accuracy), and the caster rolls against his skills.  

I wouldn't think you'd have to roll for POWER if the spell is equal to
or less than your Power - just if you're trying to create a spell
ordinarily beyond your Power level.  I would just roll for the Warp and
Weft.  A poor Warp roll means the basic nature of the spell is off,
while a successful Warp roll but poor Weft roll means you got the right
kind of spell, but either too weak, or off target, or even too strong -
just off somehow.

>Failures to cast a spell can be handled in the way that the current
>FUDGE system works - a draining of some magic battery or something.

I would think that only crit failure would do that - again, don't try
to cram FUDGE Magic into your own system - it has its own penalties for
spell failure built into it - see my previous paragraph!  Don't sell
yourself short!

>So what do
>you all think?

I like it a lot!  I may write it up concisely and add it to the
Addenda, ignoring all the matchups with my earlier system.  Would you
mind if I changed Control and Accuracy to Warp and Weft, or do these
terms leave you cold?

-- 
  - Steffan O'Sullivan		         sos@oz.plymouth.edu