BattleMaster Community
Toms Other Games => SpellMaster III => SM General Discussion => Topic started by: Tom on August 09, 2011, 01:33:51 PM
-
I've written up everything and sorted it and put it up here:
http://lemuria.org/SM3/
Check it out, and post below what you think or especially what you don't understand. I'm sure the first draft is not perfect, your feedback will help me improve it.
-
I'm sure the first draft is not perfect, your feedback will help me improve it.
It's actually pretty good from a new player's point of view. There wasn't much in there that made me think "wait, what?" and I got a pretty good view on how the game will be played.
The only thing that had me a little confused is that you say there are no character sheets (Characters page), but you talk about experience levels and gaining experience/concentration/energy over time. Will the game track this for me? Or will I have to keep track of this myself?
-
The game will track that for you, once it's done.
-
...Unless I'm missing something, that skill progressions chart means it will take several years to advance a single skill to mastery. Am I missing something?
-
...Unless I'm missing something, that skill progressions chart means it will take several years to advance a single skill to mastery. Am I missing something?
Yes. You get experience points over time as well as by actually using those spells.
-
Ah! Every hour of every day. I misread that as every day, and was calculating based on one XP a day...
-
interesting rules. It would be awesome if we can form the council.
-
My understanding is that Councils are player-formed organizations. It is intentional that the players form such organizations.
Players can (and it is heavily recommended that they do) form alliances of magicians, called Councils.
Tom had mentioned earlier something about "council stones" being needed to form a council. If you wanted to form a council, you had to go and find a council stone. I don't see anything in the rules about this, though.
Just a general comment on the site: The text is a bit hard to read in that fancy font. Cramped and ornate makes a rough combination.
-
Just a general comment on the site: The text is a bit hard to read in that fancy font. Cramped and ornate makes a rough combination.
You should have seen the fonts Tom tried previously *shudder*
-
Just a general comment on the site: The text is a bit hard to read in that fancy font. Cramped and ornate makes a rough combination.
I could easily make it less cramped what line-spacing etc. would you prefer?
-
I think there are two thing that make it hard to read. First is the calligraphy font. Parts of the letters are too thin, and disappear. This is particularly noticeable on the lower case a and e. I can understand why you chose the calligraphy font, it makes for a good feel to the site. But it does make it a bit difficult at times.
On looking further at the line spacing issue, it is really only an issue when you have the drop capitals (or initials) on the first line of a paragraph. When you have the large drop capital on the first line, the spacing between the first and second lines is much smaller, causing the letters to actually overlap in some cases.
-
which browser? can you post a screenshot?
-
I'm not seeing what Indirik is seeing on the a's and e's. And I definitely see the desire to make it look the way it does. But the particular font in use looks clunky, or dated, to me.
If you're embedding fonts into your CSS, which html5 seems to have finally come up with a standard for all browsers to support, it shouldn't be that rough to change this out to a different font. Maybe try one of these?
champignon (http://www.fonts2u.com/champignon.font)
abbeyline (http://www.fonts2u.com/abbeyline.font)
be safe (http://www.fonts2u.com/be-safe.font)
windsong (http://www.fonts2u.com/windsong.font)
the king & queen (http://www.fonts2u.com/the-king-queen-font.font)
But really, any true type font would work.
-
My browser is Chrome. I just upgraded this morning to the latest beta, but it looked the exact same yesterday with the latest stable. Here's a screen shot showing the text spacing, and the very thin line weight of the letters:
(http://i.imgur.com/1VQCr.png)
Note how the g in the top line comes down far enough to overlap the f in the second line. The spacing between those lines is much smaller than the spacing between the next lines.
I just checked with FireFox. It renders everything much more bold, and also gets the line spacing correct:
(http://i.imgur.com/aXWuu.png)
Regarding Morningstar's fonts: Out of all those fonts, only "Be Safe" looks like something that would be legible for large blocks of text.
Another possible font, if you want to switch, would be something like "Chronicles of a Hero" from Blambot. It's more of a handwriting style font, though, rather than an engraved style. http://blambot.com/font_coah.shtml
-
good fonts are hard to find.
hm, it's strange that chrome renders it so much differently. both on Firefox and Safari it looked just fine. Is there something like Firebug for Chrome where you can change the font size live and check if it looks better than?
-
You can right click and "Inspect element" which opens the developer tools. You can then edit the page live and see the effects.
I went into the CSS and changed the "main" text size from 1.1em to 1em. This seemed to cause the text to lose all anti-aliasing, and made it more like what you would see in Firefox. A bit easier to read, but not as pretty. Making it larger doesn't seem to affect the extremely thin lines on the a and other such letters.
-
Regarding Morningstar's fonts: Out of all those fonts, only "Be Safe" looks like something that would be legible for large blocks of text.
Another possible font, if you want to switch, would be something like "Chronicles of a Hero" from Blambot. It's more of a handwriting style font, though, rather than an engraved style. http://blambot.com/font_coah.shtml
I was only looking off the top of my head for a few solid calligraphy fonts. There are thousands out there depending on the style you want. The hero one seemed very comic book. Anyway, I just checked the opening page text against the ones I listed, and both Be Safe and Abbeyline are solid. But like I said, point me in the direction for what you're shooting for and I can find just about anything you want. One upside to shoestring budget pencil & paper RPG writing- you tend to find great freeware. :)
-
The current font is pretty much what I'm looking for. Not too curvy, not too much "handwriting", not too elaborate.
-
Back on the subject of the actual content of the pages rather than the formatting, the magic system seems a bit odd. I don't really get the justification for some of the effects or duration. While the spell may only last a short while, the effects can be permanent. Why would I create a spell that incapacitates someone for a few hours, when I can create a spell that instantly whacks them over the head. The spell only lasts for "an instant", but the effects of it last for hours. Or permanently. The example of the rabbit illustrates this: It's easier to kill the rabbit than it is to incapacitate it for an hour. Maybe I'm looking at it wrong? Or is this a topic for its own thread?
-
I think if someone could split it, that would be best. I go into systems looking for pressure points to make sure they can bend but don't break and I'm sharing a similar hesitancy to Indirik.
Now, it could be that the system needs looking at to ensure that killing things are indeed harder than incapacitating them. But what might also be true is that we're approaching it from the wrong point of view. Maybe it takes more effort and skill to incapacitate something for a given time than to outright kill it. If that's the case, then the tweaking needs to happen in our perception and not the system.
I built a magic system very eerily similar to this (Form/Function instead of Intent/Base) and ran into some similar issues. One thing possibly missing even at first glance from the factors that play into the Power Level is any regulator on distance. Is everything to be assumed line of sight = within range? Should Fireball be something that starts out more akin to Burning Hands (hate D&D references, but it's ones most can relate to) where it's a close range spell and you have to increase the distance until a ranged fireball is possible instead?
I'm not sure what's best. You have to of course figure out what gets too clunky and make sure it doesn't go too far in that direction. But you have to also consider what may be an unforseen game-changer. Like, oh, giving an enemy a migraine while staring him in the eyes versus causing a critical brain aneurism from 2 regions away while you both sit atop your Isengard-equivalent tower. Distance matters.
I'll post more as it comes to me. I like the concept and would rather tweak what Tom's already got than propose anything new. But I'm nothing if not exploding with new ideas to try, so I'm happy to chat systems all day. ;D
-
You can always add a variable (like distance) and correlate it with % chance of failure. Just a thought.
-
Back on the subject of the actual content of the pages rather than the formatting, the magic system seems a bit odd. I don't really get the justification for some of the effects or duration. While the spell may only last a short while, the effects can be permanent. Why would I create a spell that incapacitates someone for a few hours, when I can create a spell that instantly whacks them over the head. The spell only lasts for "an instant", but the effects of it last for hours. Or permanently. The example of the rabbit illustrates this: It's easier to kill the rabbit than it is to incapacitate it for an hour. Maybe I'm looking at it wrong? Or is this a topic for its own thread?
Because someone could easily take your spell and RP how you caused an aneurysm in someone killing them. If that's not what you intended, it could get you in deep trouble rather quickly. For instance, you use your cheaper spell on a guard. Now rather than him having blacked out he got killed. And instead of people forgetting about it, they're looking for a killer and are much less likely to stop looking. Even if he doesn't get killed, someone who just blacked out on their seemingly own won't attract nearly as much attention as someone who looked as if they were physically assaulted.
Just a for instance.
-
I'm not sure what's best. You have to of course figure out what gets too clunky and make sure it doesn't go too far in that direction. But you have to also consider what may be an unforseen game-changer. Like, oh, giving an enemy a migraine while staring him in the eyes versus causing a critical brain aneurism from 2 regions away while you both sit atop your Isengard-equivalent tower. Distance matters.
Two things. One you can't really have directed intent if you don't know where your target is. That'd be a failure of RP checklist #3 (there are some obvious magical ways around this, but all of them could easily be 'detected' and used against your intent). And two, the farther away you are the more time it gives someone to react and thus increase the ease with which they could escape or otherwise find a way out of your devastating fireball of doom.
As an example. If you're within Burning Hands distance, the person has much fewer outs than if you're across a football stadium throwing fireballs. Or having lightning start to crackle around your hands as you cast a lightning bolt etc.
It is important to remember that it is collaborative story telling. If you cast a spell it's probably a sure bet that you're not going to write the effect if it involves someone else an NPC etc. See checklist#4.
-
Now, it could be that the system needs looking at to ensure that killing things are indeed harder than incapacitating them. But what might also be true is that we're approaching it from the wrong point of view. Maybe it takes more effort and skill to incapacitate something for a given time than to outright kill it. If that's the case, then the tweaking needs to happen in our perception and not the system.
Killing is inherently harder, but it simply requires less time and skill. That's correct. Killing is actually a worse outcome from a getting the result you want if you're trying to get something.
Think for a moment. A powerful spellcaster bursts into a King's hall. Kills all the guards and demands the King submit to him or die. If I was that King I might submit, but the spellcaster's enemies could swiftly undermine the position of the spellcaster in that court and ultimately the King will A) Hate the spellcaster, B) be in league with his enemies, and C) spread the word that nobody should trust said spell caster. If instead that same spellcaster bursts into the room, knocks out the guards and insinuates that he could do far worse to the King's enemies if he throws his lot in with the spellcaster he probably has himself a much more useful pawn of a King.
Which is the better outcome? Dead guards, pissed off King. Or Live guards and useful pawn?
-
Ask any black belt. killing requires a lot less control than incapacitating. Whacking someone on the head is a lot easier than holding them unconscious magically, but has a lot more potential random effects, like brain damage.
A distance modifier would make sense though, I think.
-
Yes, that part is intentional. For one, as has been said, killing is easier than most other things. Instant effects can create powerful permanent consequences, but they have two advantages: a) you can't control them beyond the instant and b) the consequences are non-magical.
To compare two examples: You can incapacitate someone by breaking his legs (instant effect) or by paralyzing his legs (duration effect). The first is cheaper. But those broken legs can be healed, magically or otherwise, while the paralysis would have to be dispelled or countered with a similar spell that would be at least as expensive.
Also, you can't undo the instant effect, which sucks for blackmailing.
Nevertheless, this is one area where you can "game" within the system by experimenting. Sometimes, an instant effect is better, but sometimes a duration effect will be better, especially during roleplaying.
Duration has been left out for reasons of complexity. The usual distance is "near line-of-sight" meaning that if you see it clearly you can hit it, without the usual problem that "line of sight" extends to the horizon (true, but at that distance you don't really see your target anymore). If you want to cast spells into the remote, a combination with a spell that allows it will be needed.
Finally, don't compare SM3 to D&D. We have two things that make it a very different game. One is that it's about storytelling and the other is that all spells are going through GM control. And in case of doubt, the rule that spells are precise will bite you. With the headache-inducing spell, you simply can not kill someone. It causes a headache, end of story. You can not use spells creatively.
-
Now, perhaps this doesn't fit SM3 properly (I'm still getting a handle on it), but what if killing someone magically, whatever the actual method, has a deeper price?
Like, it slowly corrupts you or something. Or maybe takes away some of your own life force each time.
Not sure what would work well within the game yet, but would this be a reasonable balance? 'Cause I can certainly see the idea of "Well, if you kill someone, that's usually not what you want, and it has ugly nonmagical consequences" not being nearly enough deterrent to balance the difference in difficulty...
-
Not sure what would work well within the game yet, but would this be a reasonable balance? 'Cause I can certainly see the idea of "Well, if you kill someone, that's usually not what you want, and it has ugly nonmagical consequences" not being nearly enough deterrent to balance the difference in difficulty...
Ooh, unless the consequences were explicitly that—that killing someone using magic always attracts more notice and gets you into more hot water, no matter the circumstances. Cosmic justice of a sort.
-
Now, perhaps this doesn't fit SM3 properly (I'm still getting a handle on it), but what if killing someone magically, whatever the actual method, has a deeper price?
I don't believe in artificial stuff like that.
I much prefer that your actions have real, tangible, logical consequences. In this game, every single other player can come up with something. A mob of angry friends of your victim, a court case, the guy being important for something... you have the odds stacked against you already, no need for more. :-)
-
I've got a question about storing energy.
Is the limitation of "item/artifact or own body" a strict one? More specifically, could one use something more like a specially prepared location as an "item"?
I'm thinking of something like a sacred grove or spring, or a stone circle. Something vaguely Druidic.
Also, could one sort of combine the two, and store the energy in an animal—a familiar of sorts?
-
In case you missed it, Tom updated The World portion giving an overview of our setting.
http://lemuria.org/SM3/welcome/world (http://lemuria.org/SM3/welcome/world)
-
I've got a question about storing energy.
Is the limitation of "item/artifact or own body" a strict one? More specifically, could one use something more like a specially prepared location as an "item"?
I'm thinking of something like a sacred grove or spring, or a stone circle. Something vaguely Druidic.
Also, could one sort of combine the two, and store the energy in an animal—a familiar of sorts?
Those were examples.
You can store in a location, with the limitation that you'd only be able to draw on energy when you are in that location.
You can store in an animal, downsides are it can run away or be killed.
-
Those were examples.
You can store in a location, with the limitation that you'd only be able to draw on energy when you are in that location.
You can store in an animal, downsides are it can run away or be killed.
OK, thanks. I sort of thought so, but with the strict limitations on spells, I wanted to be sure.
-
Should we be able to login currently? If so, I'm not able to.
-
Should we be able to login currently? If so, I'm not able to.
I'm working on things. You should be able to register, and then login, but there's nothing to see there, yet. As I'm going on holiday tomorrow, there won't be anything there for at least one more week. And all accounts registered will likely be cleaned out because I'm still working on things.
-
Noooooooooooooooooooooooooooo! My character has such a cool name! :'(
-
Noooooooooooooooooooooooooooo! My character has such a cool name! :'(
You can re-create him when the site launches. :-)
-
The usual distance is "near line-of-sight" meaning that if you see it clearly you can hit it, without the usual problem that "line of sight" extends to the horizon (true, but at that distance you don't really see your target anymore). If you want to cast spells into the remote, a combination with a spell that allows it will be needed.
Clairvoyance/clairsentience/clair-whatever, or would also require a combination of spells? That is, seeing/hearing/etc something happening in the present. Or psychometry or whatever, to view events related to an area or an object that have already happened.
Just getting some clarifications here. Perhaps those types of spells would not even be feasible in this universe, but it's good to know these things now.
-
Tom and I both hinted that it would be required to 'hit' something farther away than you can really see. Remote viewing of some type or another.
That's not to say that people wouldn't be able to feel you doing it, I'll leave it up to Tom though for a final word.
-
Are we allowed to use Self and Other as Bases?
For the former, I mean something like affecting your body to produce a corresponding effect upon your target, such as stabbing your hand with the Intent to Harm someone else's hand in a similar/identical fashion. For the latter, I mean basically the opposite, like producing an effect upon yourself that corresponds to what someone else is currently doing with the Intent to Mimic, such as causing yourself to suddenly sprint just as fast as someone next to you, by mimicking/copying/absorbing their speed.
-
Clairvoyance/clairsentience/clair-whatever, or would also require a combination of spells? That is, seeing/hearing/etc something happening in the present. Or psychometry or whatever, to view events related to an area or an object that have already happened.
Just getting some clarifications here. Perhaps those types of spells would not even be feasible in this universe, but it's good to know these things now.
Anything with time is always tricky. Then again, as far as events that have been roleplayed are concerned, using such a spell "only" means you can claim IC knowledge of something that's already been written down. It could work.
-
Are we allowed to use Self and Other as Bases?
No. The concept of Base excludes such things.
For the former, I mean something like affecting your body to produce a corresponding effect upon your target, such as stabbing your hand with the Intent to Harm someone else's hand in a similar/identical fashion.
The Base for something like that would be a concept like Correspondence. But I'm not sure I would allow abstract bases.
-
The SM3 website should have a very prominent link to the forums, since that's where the action takes place.
Also, if I'm logged in on my character page, and I click on one of the Background links to do some reading, I lose all of the "The Game" links, forcing me to log in again to get back to my character. Or just hit the back button on my browser a few times. But still, it should remember that I'm logged in.
-
The SM3 website should have a very prominent link to the forums, since that's where the action takes place.
Also, if I'm logged in on my character page, and I click on one of the Background links to do some reading, I lose all of the "The Game" links, forcing me to log in again to get back to my character. Or just hit the back button on my browser a few times. But still, it should remember that I'm logged in.
I'm aware of both of these. It' still very much a work-in-progress.