[RPM] Visualization and Versatile and Charms?

[Kalzazz]

Are the Visualization or Versatile advantages suitable for adding to Charm making rolls for RPMists?

[Christopher R. Rice]

Originally Posted by Kalzazz

Are the Visualization or Versatile advantages suitable for adding to Charm making rolls for RPMists?

The first, I don't see why not but you only get a +1 per three points by which you succeed. The second is all about inventing and the new, I don't see how that would add unless its the first time you've ever tried a spell and the GM is limiting rituals in some way (e.g., "new" spells require Invention rolls).

[starslayer]

Originally Posted by Ghostdancer

The first, I don't see why not but you only get a +1 per three points by which you succeed. The second is all about inventing and the new, I don't see how that would add unless its the first time you've ever tried a spell and the GM is limiting rituals in some way (e.g., "new" spells require Invention rolls).

Why would it only apply the +1/3 point of success, making a charm in offtime is about as about as static as 'I visualise the process every step of the way' as I can forsee. Even if some of the events are out of sequence it would still at most in my mind drop to the 1/2 range, not the 1/3 for 'things are clearly different then the visualization'.

Though I notice that this does need the clarification; this is for a PC who makes there static, established, done this multiple times before charms, in there known lab, in there off time, with no time constraints, between adventures, and with no interruptions rather then a more dynamic 'I need to make a new charm in the field' situation.

This would further conflict with your own second statement that versatile does not apply to charm creation- if the creation of a charm requires no creativity, then clearly visualising the route process should be possible.

[Christopher R. Rice]

Originally Posted by starslayer

Why would it only apply the +1/3 point of success, making a charm in offtime is about as about as static as 'I visualise the process every step of the way' as I can forsee. Even if some of the events are out of sequence it would still at most in my mind drop to the 1/2 range, not the 1/3 for 'things are clearly different then the visualization'.

1/3 is the typical bonus granted for combat and other hazardous unknown variable situations - thats what I use in my games and it's worked out just fine. Magic's a dangerous game you're safer playing with your dad's chainsaw.

Originally Posted by starslayer

Though I notice that this does need the clarification; this is for a PC who makes there static, established, done this multiple times before charms, in there known lab, in there off time, with no time constraints, between adventures, and with no interruptions rather then a more dynamic 'I need to make a new charm in the field' situation.

You can always botch...and botches are bad in RPM. That's why I said 1/3 bonus, you can definitely use it to gain a bonus, but it shouldn't be on a 1:1 basis. That's just asking for trouble.

Originally Posted by starslayer

This would further conflict with your own second statement that versatile does not apply to charm creation- if the creation of a charm requires no creativity, then clearly visualising the route process should be possible.

The way I've always read Versatile is it gives you a bonus on inventing new things or coming up with new ways to do things...in most instances casting a spell is never going to get that bonus unless the GM is restricting spells somehow. Otherwise everyone would take Versatile and claim they're casting it a way each time and get a +1 bonus to all spells for a mere 5 points.

[Anaraxes]

Usually, Visualization doesn't help on invention-type rolls because you can't (by definition) visualize the desired end result and how to get there. If you could, it wouldn't be an invention, but an already known design. Similarly, you can't really Visualize the outcome of divinations or Intelligence Analysis sorts of rolls; you'd have to already know the answer before asking the question.

[vicky_molokh]

Originally Posted by Ghostdancer

1/3 is the typical bonus granted for combat and other hazardous unknown variable situations - thats what I use in my games and it's worked out just fine. Magic's a dangerous game you're safer playing with your dad's chainsaw.

AFAIK the distinction depends on variable, not hazardous.

Originally Posted by B96

You get a +1 bonus to the action
you visualized for every point by
which you succeed – if the circum-
stances correspond almost exactly to
the visualization. If they are not quite
the same, which will almost always be true,
halve the bonus (minimum +1). And if
something is clearly different, divide the
bonus by 3 (no minimum).

[Christopher R. Rice]

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh

AFAIK the distinction depends on variable, not hazardous.

In my mind, those two or more or less synonymous - but you're right. The bonus depends on the variability and I should have said that. I still wouldn't let Visualization add more than a +1 per 3 points of margin, it's too cheap otherwise. And magic is inherently unpredictable, especially RPM where a single critical failure can not only kill the spell but turn it against you. If the GM rules otherwise for his campaign, fantastic, awesome - but buyer beware, he's allowing characters to purchase a trait that costs the same as one level of Magery, except he's giving a straight up bonus to Path rolls that's +1 or better with only a minute of concentration. The problem becomes even more pronounced when you add Reduced Time to require only a second or even as a free action which only adds a mere 14 points. As both a GM and a game designer I'm sticking to my guns here - +1 for every 3 points of margin is not only fair it's generous. If PK or Kromm would like to chime in saying otherwise, that's fine - but I don't think they will. Regardless, folks are still free to rule however for their games, but as I pointed out it's going to make Visualization THE trait to have if it's purchasable.

[Celti]

I see the +1/3 as being because the process is, in a sense, “incomplete” until the charm is used. You know how the prelude goes, but you don't know how the magic is ultimately going to turn out.

If I did allow the full +1/1 bonus, I would do it with the caveat from Telegraphic Attack that “this does not increase your skill for the purposes of critical success”, and further state that it doesn't decrease your chances of critical failure. Even if you get a +10, once you're gathering enough energy to bring your pre-bonus chances of critical failure up, it's just as dangerous.

ETA: In fact, upon a bit of discussion with a fellow GM, I might add that caveat to the +1/3 bonus. Magic is unpredictable.

[Refplace]

Each roll is a random activity.
I would allow the +1/1 bonus though.
You just have to accurately predict how many rolls i will take, how many botches you will have, and finally the effect of each botch. Do that and you IMHO predicted it well enough to get full Visualization bonus.

[Celti]

Originally Posted by Refplace

Each roll is a random activity.
I would allow the +1/1 bonus though.
You just have to accurately predict how many rolls i will take, how many botches you will have, and finally the effect of each botch. Do that and you IMHO predicted it well enough to get full Visualization bonus.

That's kinda difficult when the rolls get the bonus that's dependent on how many rolls it will take, which is why the entire idea of a +1/2 or +1/3 bonus exists. :)