Spells Feedback

[Indirik]

With regard to experience, anyone who has been playing longer should have an advantage over new players, so I don't see how that is even an issue.

Oh, I agree with this. I'm not trying to argue that it shouldn't be that way. What I don't want to see, though, is that after two or three years, that every spell some new player tries to make comes back marked "Denied, some else already has that". This could be insanely frustrating, especially when they are submitting iconic spells, like Fireballs, Magic Missiles, Invisibility, etc.

At the early stages there will be lots of new spells to be created, later on in the game, if there are hundreds of spells already created, the need/idea of new ones may be limited.

What I'm not understanding, though, is why we have to limit the learning of basic spells just because someone else already made a spell with the same effect. Does it matter if two people have discovered the formula for a Light spell independently? What intrinsic property of a spell makes it so that once it has been "discovered", that no one else can ever discover it without first finding the person that discovered it first?

Keep in mind that it is completely possible for someone to independently develop the exact same spell and effect without ever even knowing that someone else has already developed it. Especially when it comes to standard magical fantasy fodder like Invisibility, Magic Missiles, Healing, etc. The possibility that someone can't independently invent, research, learn, and cast somethings as simple as a Sleep spell because someone else already created a spell with that effect is mind boggling. Especially if, as it seems like will be the case, creating and researching spells is a big part of the game.

We will find ways to ensure spells get into the game.

Something will be worked out regarding duplication of spells and we will let people know what that is once it is clear to the GMs.

I'm glad to hear that. I am eager to find out what measures will be devised to to ensure this. Personally, I'd try to work something out based on the complexity of the spell. i.e. a [1,1,1] spell should be trivial to duplicate. A [2,3,3] much harder, and a [5,5,5] nearly impossible.

Just remember we haven't actually started the game proper yet and hopefully once it is active, things will make more sense.

I do trust that you will come up with something good to cover these situations.

[Nosferatus]

I'd like to suggest the GMs to just correct spelling mistakes if they find them.
I can make mistakes and i don't fell like reworking spells because of spelling mistakes but rather because of issues with the spell it's self.
My accepted spells also got spelling mistakes btw, just so you know...
and also if someone says about half an hour just make it into half an hour if you think time has to be specific, i don't know i imagine magic not as something 100% calculable, but rather as used energy, so sometimes something lasts for 37 minutes, and sometimes it lasts 22 minutes.

It feels a bit childish to reject spells on spelling mistakes, just correct them if you see them.
I am goddamn dyslexic .

[James]

I'd like to suggest the GMs to just correct spelling mistakes if they find them.

That will be the case in the future, but at the moment the interface does not allow us to make any modifications ourselves. This will be getting changed, but until then we will not be able to accept any with any errors in (and if some have slipped through we will have to address those once we are able to).

Apologies for the current inconvenience.

[Tom]

Why not? All our characters are expert programmers? Just because I don't duplicate the source code character-for-character doesn't mean that I can't get the same effect. There are, after all, many different programming languages, formatting conventions, etc.
So, once someone creates a spell for a ball of fire that flies out and blows up, no one else can ever make a spell that has a ball of fire that flies out and blows up? Or does that mean that I can't call mine "Fireball", it has to be called "Indirik's Spherical Conflagration"? Or perhaps mine has to have blue fire, instead of orange fire? Or it's made of hot plasma instead of burning fire?

I'm not trying to be argumentative, here. I'm just trying to get a better understanding of the system. It seems to me that if once the generic spells have been designed, that creating new ones will get more and more difficult. So the people that start first, and especially the ones that "register" all the common spells, will have a huge advantage over the people that start later.

Theoretically, you can invent spells, duplicating other people's effects. We may have a library of "common spells" that can be learned that way.

Like complex software, artwork, constructions, inventing one from scratch is very time-consuming. Yes, you can re-invent the combustion engine or the lightbulb without ever having seen a blueprint - but it will take years of failed experiments, getting the proper resources, fiddling with the details, etc. etc.

That is why we won't simulate the re-invention part within the game. It would mean dedicating your character to this task for a very, very long time.

[Tom]

Sorry, but if the game is based around magic, and you can't start out with stronger magic, the one who knows more different spells is going to have an enormous advantage over the one who knows only a few.

There are actually two systems to the game. The advancement in power (through skills) is one, acquiring spell formulas is the other. The second one is purely self-limited by you players. No game mechanics stops you from having a collection of a hundred spells a week after starting the game. You probably won't be able to use most of them since your skills aren't that good, but your opponent with 20+ skill in everything can't harm you one bit unless he knows a harm spell or two.

[Tom]

Don't be ridiculous. I don't have to "master" a spell to monopolize it. I could enter 500 Death spells right now, and never learn a single one of them, or even bother putting any points in the Death base. But once I've designed the spells, no one else can ever master them, either, because "I own the patents, bizatch!".

So, what is there in the system that prevents someone from doing something like this?

The basic misunderstanding here seems to be that if you invent the spell, no one else can ever discover it. That's not true and I didn't say that. What I did say, and will stick with is that there won't be duplicate spells in the database. I don't want to have 20 different Fireballs where the only difference between them is their name and the flame colour.

There will also be different methods of gaining spells than the "spell creation" interface. I want to leave that even though I don't want to have much invention, because it allows you, the players, to be creative instead of having to rely on whatever spells the small GM team can come up with. But invention is not intended to be a major source of spells for your character.

The main source should be other characters. Since new characters will start out with spells that the older ones almost certainly already know, trading is not much of an option. But this is one way to get apprentices, favours, debts, etc. - which gives us stuff for roleplays, intrigue and conflict.

There will also be spells you can find through roleplaying. If you discover an old mystical library, the GMs may reward you with a few formulas.

Councils as a source of spell sharing have already been mentioned.


So please don't stick to spell invention as a source of spells. That's not what it's for. That is why there is no guarantee that you automatically learn the spells you invented - and also no guarantee that we won't be giving it to someone else.

[Tom]

Does it matter if two people have discovered the formula for a Light spell independently? What intrinsic property of a spell makes it so that once it has been "discovered", that no one else can ever discover it without first finding the person that discovered it first?

It's not an in-game restrictions, it's an OOC restriction. We just don't want 50 identical spells. A fireball should be named "Fireball", not "My Flaming Sphere", because otherwise people will have no idea what the heck the thing does.

Again, you being the inventor of a spell doesn't mean it is yours. We may well store it and give it to someone else as part of his starting spell collection.

[loren]

After some discussion spells that heal a portion of a body are target 1.  The same would hold for non-lethal damage to a limb.  Say cutting the Achilles tendon of a target, blinding them etc.
---

Setting a broken bone would be a Target 1 spell.

Poisoning someone is clearly a Target 2 spell.

Basically, for healing and direct damage: A single wound healed or caused will usually be a Target 1 spell, major damage (or wounds that cause terminal effects to the entire being) are usually Target 2.

[Zakilevo]

What about protection? Like a barrier spell or shield? How do I decide the level of effect for these spells?

[Jinsyn]

After some discussion spells that heal a portion of a body are target 1.  The same would hold for non-lethal damage to a limb.  Say cutting the Achilles tendon of a target, blinding them etc.

I had been asked to revise Bruise Begone to Target 2 prior to this decision, and the spell was previously accepted for Target 2. Can a GM manually change it back to Target 1, or should I resubmit with Target 1, while the Target 2 version is deleted?

Edit: Oops! When I reworked two more Heal spells (Knit Bone and Coagulate Blood) to revise them back to Target 1, I think I accidentally changed the Effects instead of the Targets. Sorry for the inconvenience

[loren]

What about protection? Like a barrier spell or shield? How do I decide the level of effect for these spells?

What do you want it to protect... a person then 2, a small group 3 etc.

I had been asked to revise Bruise Begone to Target 2 prior to this decision, and the spell was previously accepted for Target 2. Can a GM manually change it back to Target 1, or should I resubmit with Target 1, while the Target 2 version is deleted?

Unknown, Tom could manually fix it.  That was the only one I know of that was accepted with an incorrect target size.

[Fury]

Again, you being the inventor of a spell doesn't mean it is yours. We may well store it and give it to someone else as part of his starting spell collection.

Any chance of giving just one spell that we invent as part of our starting spell collection? It seems reasonable to at least own one thing that we invent. Don't want to submit my cool mind-blowing spell if someone else is going to own it 

[Tom]

Any chance of giving just one spell that we invent as part of our starting spell collection? It seems reasonable to at least own one thing that we invent. Don't want to submit my cool mind-blowing spell if someone else is going to own it 

Wrong mindset.

We are building this game together. If you approach the spell creation part with a protective attitude, that's a mistake.

That said, chances are that you will get a couple of your own spells rather than those of other people.

[Indirik]

There will also be different methods of gaining spells than the "spell creation" interface. I want to leave that even though I don't want to have much invention, because it allows you, the players, to be creative instead of having to rely on whatever spells the small GM team can come up with. But invention is not intended to be a major source of spells for your character.

So please don't stick to spell invention as a source of spells. That's not what it's for. That is why there is no guarantee that you automatically learn the spells you invented - and also no guarantee that we won't be giving it to someone else.

Hmm... OK. That makes things make a bit more sense, then. I was under the impression that the creation of spells was intended to be more significant in the playing of the game. The fact that designing a spell doesn't confer any form of ownership, or guarantee that you'll even have the spell IG puts a whole new light on things. In other words, putting spells into the interface means that we are participating not in character development, but world building. We are, in effect, writing a common spell book from which the GMs can pull source material.

[Tom]

We are, in effect, writing a common spell book from which the GMs can pull source material.

Exactly. And that you will receive a few of those spells you've contributed for your own use is simply the reward/incentive for your efforts.