Regarding Magic Characteristics

[Galivan]

There seems to be a lot of confusion among players, and even between the GMs, concerning legitimate spells and their composition. I believe the problem begins with the inflexibility of the system of spell genesis and magnifies with the rigidity of rulings.

It appears that the strict rules and rulings are to avoid allowing players to create "cheesy" spells which can accomplish grandiose effects with little relative effort on the part of PCs. This goal is understandable, for balance reasons as well as to maintain universal continuity. (One wouldn't want a Pun-Pun running lose in a persistent universe!)

I believe that there is another method to scale the cost of a spell along with its power without penalizing creativity. The way in which you can simultaneously reward creativity, while not allowing "cheesy" spells, is to divide each current characteristic into two parts and add a fifth. The current system requires a "Base" and an "Intent". I, however, propose that a spell be created from five characteristics: "Primary Base", "Secondary Base", "Means of Intent", "Result of Intent", and "Disposition". This five characteristic method of generation allows magic to be more malleable.

Perhaps the math could be finagled in a way that having the same primary and secondary base or the same means and result of intent would decrease the power level of a spell?

[Zakilevo]

I think spells should have an affinity based on their base. Some types should be more effective against others.

[Galivan]

It just occurred to me that I didn't explain Disposition in my post. Silly mistake, really. I meant that to be sort of a multiplier. If you not only INTEND to kill a target, but truly DESIRE to kill that target, it should be easier. In the same vein, if you INTEND to kill the target, but truly DESIRE not to kill that target, it should be more difficult. After all, magic is in the mind and emotions should play a major role. (Oh, and if you are indifferent towards the target, obviously it won't be easier or more difficult to carry out the intended spell.)

[loren]

If you're trying to kill someone, that's your intent.  How strong that intent is doesn't factor in as it's more the end goal, not how pained you are to have to get there that matters.

[Galivan]

I disagree with you, Loren. By allowing a Means and Result division, you would increase the difficulty of a spell and thus require more concentration.

The changes I'm proposing hinge upon the view of magic as a mental construct of the caster. Your mind must be in harmony in order to cast with more ease.

[Morningstar]

Philosophically, I think I agree with you, Galivan. Were this real life or even quickly factored in by programming behind the scenes, I'd be onboard for at least furthering the discussion about it. However, for a forum-based text only, play-by-post RPG, I think our current spell system is already overly complicated enough and should be pared down, not further expanded.