Author Topic: Concepts  (Read 7876 times)

Zakilevo

  • Guest
Re: Concepts
« Reply #15: November 08, 2011, 01:26:31 AM »
Might want to change the description. It says 'an instant' and by my understanding an instant does not mean a couple seconds.

Morningstar

  • Noble Lord
  • ***
  • Posts: 251
    • View Profile
Re: Concepts
« Reply #16: November 08, 2011, 06:59:51 AM »
Whatever happens, happens instantaneously. There's no sustained fire, even for a few seconds. Make duration 2 and you're looking at napalm. :D

Tom

  • Administrator
  • Exalted Emperor
  • *
  • Posts: 8202
    • View Profile
    • BattleMaster
Re: Concepts
« Reply #17: November 08, 2011, 01:08:19 PM »
You're all thinking modern-times notions of time. A second would've been an instant to a medieval person, wouldn't it?


Zakilevo

  • Guest
Re: Concepts
« Reply #18: November 08, 2011, 03:53:03 PM »
Uhhh........ Are you kidding me Tom lol. I think everyone except you thought effect one was instant. I mean effect two's description was seconds to a minute. If you wanted to use the medieval idea, I think you should had descriptions like that as well. I mean this makes things quite different. You were playing on a totally different league...

Tom

  • Administrator
  • Exalted Emperor
  • *
  • Posts: 8202
    • View Profile
    • BattleMaster
Re: Concepts
« Reply #19: November 08, 2011, 08:12:08 PM »
Uhhh........ Are you kidding me Tom lol. I think everyone except you thought effect one was instant. I mean effect two's description was seconds to a minute. If you wanted to use the medieval idea, I think you should had descriptions like that as well. I mean this makes things quite different. You were playing on a totally different league...

Ok, maybe we need to get this straight. By "instant" I do not mean a point in time, because by pure physics alone, using that interpretation any instant effect would create infinite forces. It has to be long enough to be physically possible, even if it is magic. Breaking a bone in someone else's body is an "instant" effect in the game in so far as it has no duration worth mentioning - for all everyone cares, it practically happens in an instant. Of course, it does not physically happen in an instant, i.e. zero or even almost-zero time, because the hydrostatic shock alone from such an event would kill you.

It is an interesting thought to require spells like Fireball to have a duration longer than 1, though. Absolutely, a fraction of a second of exposure to even a very, very hot flame would not do much damage to you at all. I can totally see the point, and it would solve a part of the problem of harm spells being so extremely powerful compared to other spells.

So, can we agree on duration 1 meaning "less than a second" ? If you look at the other duration descriptions, it should be obvious. Here they are, so you don't have to look them up:
Code: [Select]
        1 => 'an instant',
        2 => 'a short while, about a minute',
        3 => 'about an hour',
        4 => 'a whole day',
        5 => 'several weeks, maybe a month',

As you can see, every step up is one order of magnitude higher (minute, hour, day...) so it follows that 1 is one order of magnitude down, i.e. seconds or something.


But, again, even if we were to allow up to a second for duration 1, some harm spells wouldn't do much harm. A second of being engulfed in flames is probably not exactly pleasant, but unless something catches on fire (and even many perfectly flamable things need a longer exposure than that), the damage is likely to be minimal.

I think this is a good thought and we should re-think quite a few spells based on that. I was orginally afraid of balance (lightning being more powerful than fire, at the same SP cost), but as I don't plan to write a full-blown Certamen anymore but would rather rely on roleplaying, that's not a problem. And fire has other advantages that balance things out.





Zakilevo

  • Guest
Re: Concepts
« Reply #20: November 08, 2011, 10:15:46 PM »
One thing I do not like about the current system is that if you want to use a spell which lasts more than an hour (lets say 2 hours) I need to use effect of 4. That is just not right in my opinion. I do not think the caster should put in so much more just to make the effect of the spell last an hour more. I mean a 2 hour duration spell needs same amount of work as a whole day duration spell?

IMO, we should have
1= under a min
2= under an hour
3= hours under 12 hours
4= under a day
5= under a week

I think spells shouldn't last more than a day but oh well.

Indirik

  • Exalted Emperor
  • ******
  • Posts: 10849
  • No pressure, no diamonds.
    • View Profile
Re: Concepts
« Reply #21: November 09, 2011, 02:26:38 AM »
You could carry the same reasoning to just about any level, and any system. For example in your proposed system, it costs as much power to cast a 2 hours spell as a 12 hour spell. It lasts six time longer, but takes the same power? Any such system with only five levels of granularity will necessarily have some oddities in the math like that. Not that I have any particular issue with your proposal. Yours seems to offer a bit finer control on the lower end, at the expense of very high energy cost for the longer duration stuff.
If at first you don't succeed, don't take up skydiving.

Zakilevo

  • Guest
Re: Concepts
« Reply #22: November 09, 2011, 03:04:16 AM »
Good point.

Maybe we should have a bigger scale.

Tom

  • Administrator
  • Exalted Emperor
  • *
  • Posts: 8202
    • View Profile
    • BattleMaster
Re: Concepts
« Reply #23: November 09, 2011, 10:38:54 AM »
No, we just need to move away from technological to mental concepts.

The system is built on orders of magnitude, because we think in orders of magnitude. That's why "59 minutes" seems to be a different time to people than "1 hour" until they start thinking. And that's why "one of anything" seems to be different than "many of anything".

Basically, maybe we should rewrite them as:
  • a second or two
  • a minute or two
  • an hour or two
  • a day or so
  • a week or a month
I'm not in the least concerned about mathematical equality - it's x60, x60, then x24, x7 (or x31) - that's not an issue for me.


Anarki_Hunter

  • Knight
  • **
  • Posts: 26
  • Gra'd Arbitrator
    • View Profile
Re: Concepts
« Reply #24: November 09, 2011, 02:47:27 PM »
Oh..

I was thinking on the lines that the minute specifications of 'Duration' were moderated by GM's during spell approvals and other players during Spontaneous casting (on fair play basis) that; any form of casting directly affecting other casters (such as harm type) spells will adhere towards lower value of magnitude if the spell description fits the game.

It would be a bit out of bounds for a Harm spell to last longer than 2 hours with Duration: 3, but at the same time control or change spell can last a bit longer for around twice that amount with the same duration magnitude.

---

May be the 'Duration' can be understood to move along with 'Effect' and 'Target'?:
.Higher 'Effect' will sway the spell towards higher value of Magnitude (like five to six times the hours with Duration: 3)
.Higher 'Target' will sway the spell towards lower value of Magnitude (Lowest around an hour or two with Duration: 3)
.overall "power level" can also have a effect?
« Last Edit: November 09, 2011, 02:58:27 PM by Anarki_Hunter »

Zakilevo

  • Guest
Re: Concepts
« Reply #25: November 09, 2011, 05:27:39 PM »
Hmm...

Well the concept of time was different back in the days like you pointed out Tom. People either looked at the sun or they were usually event oriented. But I doubt we can use any of these.

Tom

  • Administrator
  • Exalted Emperor
  • *
  • Posts: 8202
    • View Profile
    • BattleMaster
Re: Concepts
« Reply #26: November 09, 2011, 05:57:50 PM »
It would be a bit out of bounds for a Harm spell to last longer than 2 hours with Duration: 3, but at the same time control or change spell can last a bit longer for around twice that amount with the same duration magnitude.

I don't see why. "Harm" does not have to mean "kill". Illness, diseases, weakening - all part of harm.

Zakilevo

  • Guest
Re: Concepts
« Reply #27: November 09, 2011, 06:19:17 PM »
Wouldn't weakening be change?

Indirik

  • Exalted Emperor
  • ******
  • Posts: 10849
  • No pressure, no diamonds.
    • View Profile
Re: Concepts
« Reply #28: November 09, 2011, 06:22:32 PM »
That depends on your "intent".  I can't easily think of a straightforward situation in which you would want to weaken someone without the intent being to harm them.
If at first you don't succeed, don't take up skydiving.

Halden

  • Freeman
  • *
  • Posts: 23
    • View Profile
Re: Concepts
« Reply #29: November 09, 2011, 08:41:28 PM »
Wouldn't weakening be change?

I am of the opinion, as well as the hope, that the same spell could be performed in a multitude of different ways.  For example, to create a candle light effect, one may cast a low level spell with a fire base and perception intent. Or perhaps a create intent with a fire base. In the same way, a bolt of fire could be just as damaging as a shard of ice. This would allow you to be essentially equally effective as your peers in the same situations, but at the same time, each spellcaster has different skillsets. Of course, once higher level spells are created, specializations would be formed, each with its own...flavor.