06-14-2018, 12:14 AM | #41 | |
Join Date: May 2018
|
Re: Jack Vance's style of magic - good or bad?
Quote:
This was similar to the Dying Earth stories, except that in the stories, the casters stored spells in their minds and they disappeared when cast (which, of course, D&D copied). |
|
06-14-2018, 12:21 AM | #42 | |
Join Date: May 2018
|
Re: Jack Vance's style of magic - good or bad?
Quote:
|
|
06-14-2018, 12:34 AM | #43 | |
Banned
Join Date: Mar 2018
|
Re: Examining "Once Per Day" in TFT: Solution or Problem?
Quote:
As our Jacksonian magic system is: ad hoc, per usum based, we have no need for such timing-systems. So, again, as stated in the OP: "if we are going to seriously consider adopting the Vancian concept of "Once Per Day" as a rule deliniator, I feel we are obligated to also provide a matching rule for how that passage of time is accurately measured - without much "fudge". JK PS - and yes Ty,... I put the extra Latin in, just for you ;-) Last edited by Jim Kane; 06-14-2018 at 01:42 AM. Reason: Typo |
|
06-14-2018, 12:58 AM | #44 |
Join Date: May 2018
|
Re: Examining "Once Per Day" in TFT: Solution or Problem?
|
06-14-2018, 01:06 AM | #45 |
Banned
Join Date: Mar 2018
|
Re: Examining "Once Per Day" in TFT: Solution or Problem?
Yes, we already covered that case, a couple of pages back or so Zot.
The Trail-Twister spell is a rare outlier, and certianly *not* representative of the basis of our per usum magic system. It also was the key example as to why we also would need to know when a day-length spell deactivates if we are in combat-turn time, *if* we were to adopt more of these per diem based spells into our system. No one said a "per day" spell did not exist. What was said was *we do not have a time-keeping-system at our tactical-level* for such per diem spells because the basis of the Jacksonian magic system is per usum -"per use"; and therefore, does not require such extra timing systems. JK Last edited by Jim Kane; 06-14-2018 at 03:10 AM. Reason: Typo |
06-14-2018, 08:26 AM | #46 | |
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Tyler, Texas
|
Re: Examining "Once Per Day" in TFT: Solution or Problem?
Quote:
|
|
06-14-2018, 08:32 AM | #47 | |
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Tyler, Texas
|
Re: Jack Vance's style of magic - good or bad?
Quote:
My statements below assume a system otherwise similar to D&D (I.e., spells divided into power levels). IF you assume that IQ 8 = D&D 1st level, IQ9 = 2nd level, etc., a beginning wizard could plausibly take ST8, DX11 IQ13 and have access to the equivalent of 5th level D&D spells. Of course, the spell levels can be incremented differently. And also, now that I think about it, the number of spells would be limited. Can you post an outline of your system? I find myself intrigued... |
|
06-14-2018, 12:13 PM | #48 | |
Join Date: May 2015
|
Re: Examining "Once Per Day" in TFT: Solution or Problem?
Quote:
If there's something that can't be done for 24 hours after it was done, it shouldn't say "once per day" but some wording that makes it clear there's a 24 hour delay. I'd love to see more content about how it's sometimes/often interesting to track what's going on in a campaign in time and space as days pass at different levels of detail. I'd like to see more examples and systems to help players/GMs who haven't done much of that before have better examples of how and why that's fun and interesting and possible. But the main reason it because I think it can make for a really fun/interesting/immersive play experience, and not because I think it's vital to have an effect that lasts exactly 24 hours down to the second. In fact that seems a bit silly (I might add a random factor even in a case where the exact time did matter), but I do see it being important in principle that there be a clear rule that could be resolved fairly/objectively. |
|
06-14-2018, 07:51 PM | #49 | |
Banned
Join Date: Mar 2018
|
Re: Examining "Once Per Day" in TFT: Solution or Problem?
Quote:
So to your main question, if you don't want to go back to the OP, wouldn't you agree that when it comes to defining spells, they all should have a defined beginning, middle, and end? Seems to me, it's reasonable to want to know when a thing not only turns on, but turns off. As it stands now, using Trail-twister as an example; we know exactly when it turns on, but, once we go - time-wise - from the "combat-scale", to the "day scale", and back to the "combat scale", we do not know when it turns off - and that should not be; in my opinion. And that problem will rear it's head with each new "per day" spell - if more are adopted. One of the beautiful things about TFT, is that it is "very low fudge" compared to it's predecessor; so why would anyone want to invite fudge back in? It's fine to use "per diem" spell mechanics, but for Pete's Sake, let's do it right and define it fully - like most everything else in TFT; otherwise, you might as well play the other game. I don't think that is such an unreasonable standard for us to expect out of our system. JK Last edited by Jim Kane; 06-14-2018 at 08:24 PM. Reason: Typo |
|
06-14-2018, 08:03 PM | #50 |
Join Date: Jun 2012
|
Re: Examining "Once Per Day" in TFT: Solution or Problem?
I agree with Jim that if we are going to have per diem effects in TFT we need to define what "per diem" means in game mechanical terms. Is it Sunrise to sunrise, midnight to midnight, dawn to dusk? If instead "24 hour recharge time" is meant then that is what should be given in the rules.
|
|
|