Quote:
Originally Posted by Kromm
I'm just glad people like it.
In the interest of full disclosure: While I respect the work that went into Ritual Path magic, Sorcery, and other such systems – and the people who did the work – those systems fall very far from my own personal tastes. That's largely because "I can work magic!" already creates a mini-game, and "We have to define the magic I can work!" puts a mini-game within the mini-game. As a player, I find it too much to worry about when creating and playing my character. As the GM, I find I have to make too many extra judgment calls.
|
Man, this isn't wrong but my reaction to it is 80% to wish
GURPS Magic had been fully converted to Sorcery. The radically different approach to game balance in standard magic vs. powers isn't a problem for every game, but I do think it's a problem for some games. Especially high-powered and/or modern ones—modern, because for many spells game balance seems to
depend on being a stereotypical sword and sorcery world, e.g. Missile Shield granting absolute immunity to missiles is one thing when most people use melee weapons but another matter when guns dominate. While I think this book's approach is promising for
some of the genres standard magic hasn't historically done well, I still don't know how you'd use the Magical Styles (TM) approach for, say, a supers game where magic needs to be balanced against a wide range of powers.