Rules / Website

[Indirik]

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.

[Morningstar]

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. 

[Tom]

The current font is pretty much what I'm looking for. Not too curvy, not too much "handwriting", not too elaborate.

[Indirik]

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?

[Morningstar]

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. 

[JPierreD]

You can always add a variable (like distance) and correlate it with % chance of failure. Just a thought.

[loren]

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.

[loren]

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.

[loren]

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?

[Bedwyr]

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.

[Tom]

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.

[Anaris]

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...

[Anaris]

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.

[Tom]

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. :-)

[Anaris]

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?