GURPS MAGIC: Day in the life of a spell inventor...

[hal]

Originally Posted by Donny Brook

How do you determine this?

This is function of the Game world designer saying "We're in a game world in which not all spells in GURPS MAGIC have been invented and/or recorded."

It is a way to test the rules for inventing new spells using actual GURPS MAGIC spells.

It should be noted that the material on how many requisites there are for some of the spells are inaccurate. I was so hoping that the data in GURPS THAUMATOLOGY was better than the material in GURPS MAGIC. I find one without even trying - that is wrong in GURPS THAUMATOLOGY darn it.

The whole point is to actively PLAYTEST the rules as written. I don't mean to be hard on the original playtesters for this material, but it looks as though this was slipped in without playtesting, or the time was so short that no one actively had time to playtest the rules and find out where it works and where it breaks.

[hal]

Originally Posted by Plane

M202's "Spell Defaults" rule might be another path here, though only for spells in a college you already know at least 1 spell in. Using this doesn't require investing a character point to try out a spell, though it does take double the energy+time and there's a prerequisite penalty similar to invention.

while this may be a way out of the problem posed by the original rules, it should be noted that the rule you reference is an alternate magic rule (ie, not the rules as provided for in the RAW) or can be used as an optional rule.

I'm not saying it should be forbidden per se, but I am saying that if the Inventions rules will not work without the rule you pointe dout on page 202, then something is seriously wrong with the invention rules. :(

[KarlKost]

Originally Posted by hal

Hi Pursuivant,
While you can argue the case that the +5 bonus should apply, I think myself, it is a major stretch. A spell like Summon Mammal is a primary spell. A spell like Summon Fox would be a variant of the spell, might be worthy of costing less energy or what have you. Variants of a specific spell are pretty much the SAME as the original spell - but are subcatgories of them.

REMOVE CURSE on the other hand, is a major spell such that it doesn't even require the other spells you spoke of, as requisites. Instead, it falls into the category of requiring spells from 15 different colleges.

(CRAP! Per GURPS THAUMATOLOGY, the prerequisite count is listed as 11, whereas, the SPELL FLOWCHART PDF says 1 spell from 15 colleges. This makes the true Spell Prerequisite count as 15, not 11. **sigh**)

In any event - the +1 or +2 bonus from the original rules for mechanical devices translates how into GURPS precisely? Clear how? Precise how? Frankly, that looks like a modiier that does not apply to spell inventions. But, even if we agree to disagree and allow it - what differentiates that bonus being given to one "inventor" but not another? An IQ saving roll? A complimentary skill being used that on a success, grants a +1 bonus, and a crit success granting a +2? While in theory - that fits the rules as they are now - that does not fit the rules for when GURPS MAGIC was first published. These rules as written have to be independent of ANYTHING that came after, and work only with the rules as presented in GURPS MAGIC when it was first published.

Now the bad news here is this...

Each attempt at invetion is based on the time frame of 1 day. The conceptualization takes one day. The implementation of the concept - takes one day.


Hal

I'd say that, if you already have all the prereqs of a spell, you are elective for the +5 bonus, irregardles of wether or not that is "any 15 spells". If you have the prereqs, you already have a pretty good understanding of the spell you're trying to make.

Originally Posted by hal

One could in theory, invent a spell in only one day. In theory. ;)

No you cant. You can have a concept in a day. To have a spell you still need to finish the prototype.

In very very literal game terms, the 1CP you'll spend is basically the 1CP you'll gain from the study time you spend trying to make the spell. If it's a useless critical failure, the 1CP you "gain" is wasted in a useless "cursed spell". You wasted your time.

[KarlKost]

Originally Posted by hal

"On a success, proceed to the next step. On a failure, the inventor makes no breakthrough but may try again the next day at no additional penalty. On a critical failure, the inventor comes up with a “flawed theory” that looks good but that will never work in practice – go on to the next step, but note that it is doomed to failure."

This can be found on page 473 GURPS BASIC SET: CAMPAIGNS, directly above the paragraph titled "Prototype".


Doomed to failure is a function of "Hey, this SHOULD work, I'd bet my life on it" kind of certainty, despite being wrong.

You just said above that you wasnt sure that the rules about general inventions applied to Spells Inventions, and either or not those additional bonuses should be allowed.

You need to decide, either you add the rules from B.473 or you do not.

[KarlKost]

Originally Posted by Gurps Magic p. 15

Use the New Inventions rules on p. B473 to devise a new spell. The required skill for designing new spells is Thaumatology (p. B225). Most spells do not have TL modifiers, but Technological spells may. Spells also do not have Complexity ratings. There is no final “product” for a spell, so there is no production stage for the development of spells. The process begins when the
researcher describes the spell he wishes to develop. The GM then writes the spell up in the standard format, including class, college, energy cost, casting time, duration, and prerequisites. He may decide that the intended spell has prerequisites, which must be learned or invented before research on the intended spell can even begin.
The Concept roll is made against Thaumatology, instead of a Complexity modifier; subtract the prerequisite count for the new spell (p. 6). Apply a -5
penalty for any spell in a college in which the researcher knows no spells. Apply a -5 penalty in a low-mana zone.
Once the Concept phase has produced a viable incantation, the researcher (or an assistant) must invest a character point in learning the new spell. At that point, a prototype may be developed. A magical workshop is
The Prototype roll is a roll against the new spell itself, cast ceremonially (this can be done alone; the process is
similar to enchantment). The normal Prototype bonuses for qualified assistants apply, though the ceremonial magic penalties for assistants typically offset them. Apply any modifiers from the Concept stage that apply. A critical failure on the Prototype roll is like any
other critical failure on a spell; roll on the Critical Spell Failure table (p. 7). Each attempt takes a full day.
A successful Prototype spell may have bugs, but they are rarely tested. A major bug is indistinguishable from a
normal critical failure, so bugs are typically left to surface at some later date.
Established spells have had any bugs worked out by generations of wizards, but new spells may be unexpected trouble waiting to happen.
The process used to enchant a new spell into an item is a separate invention from the spell itself. An enchantment process is actually even harder than the original spell, because the enchantment also has Enchant as a prerequisite, increasing its effective prerequisite count by 13! Experimental enchanters are a dogged bunch.

So, what is a VALID incantation? Is a critical failure a "valid" incantation?

[KarlKost]

Originally Posted by Gurps Basic p.473

(...)
Before starting, the player must describe to the GM what he wants to invent and how he thinks it will work.
This will help the GM determine the skills and equipment required, the cost and time involved, and the difficulty of the task. If the player’s description is especially clear or clever, the GM should give +1 or +2 to all invention-related skill rolls.

Originally Posted by Gurps Basic p.473

First, the GM decides on the “invention skill” needed for the task, based on the player’s description of the invention. The inventor must know this skill to have any chance of success. Armor, vehicles, weapons, etc. require the relevant Engineer specialty. Other inventions might call for different skills: Alchemy for magic potions, Bioengineering for biotechnology, Computer Programming for software, Thaumatology for magic
spells, and so on.

So clearly those rules are to apply to inventing spells too, except on the changes noted on Gurps Magic which are on the post above. This means that the bonus of +1 to +2 are fully apliable to spells too.

Originally Posted by Gurps Basic p.473

Modifiers: (...)
+5 if you have a working model you’re trying to copy, or +2 if the device already exists but you don’t have a model; +1 to +5 if the item is a variant on a existing one; -5 if the basic technology is totally new to the campaign (regardless of TL); -5 if the device is one TL above the inventor’s TL.

Those however are still NOT all possible multipliers:

Increased time (x30) +5
Autohypnosys +2
Complementary Skills +4

Overall, it's possible to accumulate a total bonus of +18

Modifiers from spells:
An item enchanted with the Wisdom Spell: that does NOT add to spells - but adds to Thaumatology, which is the roll for the Concept. Up to +5 to IQ
Bless: Up to +3.

That's another +8, for a total of +26 possible bonuses to roll for the Concept.

Luck Spell: the Luck can NOT be used for spells - however, it CAN be used for the Concept roll, because the Concept roll is NOT a spell. So, have the GM roll 3 times and pick the highest one.

[hal]

Originally Posted by KarlKost

So clearly those rules are to apply to inventing spells too, except on the changes noted on Gurps Magic which are on the post above. This means that the bonus of +1 to +2 are fully apliable to spells too.




Those however are still NOT all possible multipliers:

Increased time (x30) +5
Autohypnosys +2
Complementary Skills +4

Overall, it's possible to accumulate a total bonus of +18

Modifiers from spells:
An item enchanted with the Wisdom Spell: that does NOT add to spells - but adds to Thaumatology, which is the roll for the Concept. Up to +5 to IQ
Bless: Up to +3.

That's another +8, for a total of +26 possible bonuses to roll for the Concept.

Luck Spell: the Luck can NOT be used for spells - however, it CAN be used for the Concept roll, because the Concept roll is NOT a spell. So, have the GM roll 3 times and pick the highest one.

Because spell research is ritual magic, you can't use time use rules.

[hal]

Originally Posted by KarlKost

So, what is a VALID incantation? Is a critical failure a "valid" incantation?

There are two possibilities - one is a successful concept roll, the other, due to a crit failure, is thought to be a valid approach, but is doomed to failure. The specific wording for a crit failure states to skip to next step, only that the next step is doomed to failure.

[hal]

Originally Posted by KarlKost

You just said above that you wasnt sure that the rules about general inventions applied to Spells Inventions, and either or not those additional bonuses should be allowed.

You need to decide, either you add the rules from B.473 or you do not.

Where the invention rules exist as the framework and the sections in GURPS MAGIC get woven in, you as the reader are being forced to do the work that should have been done by the author. Anything you can not attribute to magical invention, because it refers to ordinary invention processes, potentially need to be treated as excess verbiage to be excised.

This is why I'm looking for others to say "hey, your interpretation falls short". Because I tend to be closed mouthed about who I talk to regarding rules, be aware that if I go against my original stance on the rules (such as using time use modifiers), it is because someone I trust pointed out the rules and convinced me why those rules can't be used. If you want, fell free to ask Kromm, but I suspect that because he didn't edit the book (Andrew Backyard did) and that he's the line editor, he will likely say what I'm saying here: time use and ceremonial casting are mutually exclusive - they both can't be used together.

[hal]

Originally Posted by KarlKost

No you cant. You can have a concept in a day. To have a spell you still need to finish the prototype.

The specific that I based my comment (in theory) was this:

"The Prototype roll is a roll against the new spell itself, cast ceremonially (this can be done alone; the process is similar to enchantment). The normal Prototype bonuses for qualified assistants apply, though the ceremonial magic penalties for assistants typically offset them. Apply any modifiers from the Concept stage that apply. A critical failure on the Prototype roll is like any other critical failure on a spell; roll on the Critical Spell Failure table (p. 7). Each attempt takes a full day."

As I mentioned in a recently posted "Prior post" - that GURPS MAGIC forces te reader to - on their own, merge an existing rule framework with the concepts outlined in a book - is simply lazy on the author's part. The entirety of the process should have been spelled out by the author so that there could be zero chance of misinterpretation on the reader's part.

Keep in mind that I am trying to do the utmost in allowing others to read what I'm reading and say "This is as valid an approach as what you're taking, and this is my read that is the opposite of yours". As I've mentioned before, I'm not a fan of THESE rules and will not use them. I'm only going through them with an eye towards making sure of the grounds that I'm standing on before I make a fool of myself in the forums by saying "X" when the rules are "Y" (so to speak).

What made me look at these rules more closely is simply this:

With the horrendously HIGH penalties incurred in the spell prerequisite count table, without a corresponding offset to those penalties, certain things just cannot exist without being either handwaved away, or done by GM Fiat as "Oh, the GODS gave us this, or the Elves gave us that, or some immortal provided it."

Because magic item creation research (that gets subsumed into the spell knowledge/skill itself) requires research with a further -13 prerequisite count penalty - those spells with say, a -20 penalty are really -20 for the first phase of the research, and then -33 for the second phase. If the magic item creation process produces two types of magic items - is that two magic item research attempts - one for each type, or is it one magic item research that produces BOTH item types?

By saying "All this was done in the past, and that Modern Magical theory and core knowledge has already done this" is an attempt to dodge the issue. That is why I stated up front - that we're going to run this thought experiment or play test in a universe where all of this has not yet fully happened. We're in a universe where only those spells and magic items whose Spell prerequisite count is 12 or less have been invented by past inventors, and that the current spell research that is going on, is being done to bring into existence, those spells whose prerequisite count of 13 and higher - can be made to exist ONLY by following the rules for spell inventions as given in three books (GURPS BASIC SET CHARACTERS, GURPS BASIC SET CAMPAIGNS, and GURPS MAGIC).

This way, there can be no argument about spell write up, because the spells that exist in the book are official write ups. There can be no issue with the spell prerequisite count (other than errors that were not caught - but thanks to the rules on how those counts were made are specific and clear, those errors can be corrected and even entered as errata) - because the material is official.

All that remains is to follow the rules as written, step by step and see where the rules conflict, are too vague, or outright do not work.

What troubles me is this...

Years ago Chivalry and Sorcery's second edition supplement on table top miniatures combat rules - had one glaring omission that no one ever seemed to talk about until I started to try and play a table top miniatures rules game. That is when I discovered an entire table of combat results was missing. Decades after the game system had moved on to fourth edition, I was just now discovering the omission and no one had ever commented on it?!

Same here. That we are just now (and by we, I mean myself and all readers who are participating in any threads on Spell Prerequisite count along with spell invention rules) looking at this with extra scrutiny, boggles my mind. It tells me that no one has ever needed the rules for spell invention, or they quietly saw the flaws, fixed them with house rules, and moved on (my bet is on the latter personally).

The sad part is? The spell invention rules for GURPS MAGIC 2nd edition do NOT run into this problem. All spells listed in GURPS MAGIC 2nd edition can be researched according to the rules and guidelines put forth in that book. All of the spells in GURPS GRIMOIRE likewise, could be invented by those rules. The fact that the spells themselves predate the publication of GURPS MAGIC for 4e should have made people playtesting the newer invention rules look at it closely with an eye towards backwards compatibility.

Again, let me reiterate:

It is easier to criticize than it is to create. I don't know what went on behind the scenes when the book GURPS MAGIC was originally published. Perhaps the powers that be mandated that the product MUST be out by a given day regardless of the state of playtesting. Maybe the playtest group was too small and the work to be reviewed was too large for the planned publication date. I SERIOUSLY doubt that anyone would have deliberately screwed up or wanted a flawed product, and frankly, it was over a DECADE ago possibly two. It is technically water under the bridge - the trick now is to identify the issues, then come to a conclusion on how to FIX it and move forward for those who want it.

A sergeant should not bring a problem to the plate of his lieutenant without also providing said lieutenant with a possible solution. Those of you who provide such potential solutions - are helping future GM's who want to run the invention rules as written for their players, read this thread, and then say "Hey, I can use that".

Even if I say "not permissible by the rules as written" be aware that you're actively trying to FIX the issue. My thrust in this is to make certain that the rules as written work (or not) and present a final conclusions post. I will even modify the first post of the thread to go to post number NN and find the final conclusions section or something to that effect.

Thank you ALL who are participating in this... (it really does help)