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

[hal]

Ok, now that I've got a better "Spell Prerequisite Count" table to work off of, the next phase of investigating the Spell invention rules begins.

For now, I'm going to pretend that I've got a player character in someone's gae world (and any who read this can take on the role of a GM and state your responses as you see fit, or simply ask questions of your own, or respond to the responses. :)

The idea here is to make certain that I myself, understand the rules as presented in GURPS MAGIC for 4e and GURPS BASIC SET. At the time GURPS MAGIC for 4e was published, they would have had to stand on their own two feet (so to speak). The reason I state this ahead of time is simple enough:

After future publications came out, optional rules, alternative rules etc - only muddy the waters further. Either the Spell invention rules work - or they don't. One disturbing thing I came across involved the need for player characters to spend character points before they can "learn the spell". Problem is...

If the character THINKS they have a viable spell hammered out due to a critical failure in their conceptualization roll, they will be investing a character point into a spell that will NEVER work. :(

So, here is the background world. In the beginning, all spells with a Spell Prerequisite count of 12 or less have already been invented. Anything with a Spell prerequsite count of 13 or higher - have not. Since magic items increase the Spell Prerequisite count by an additional 13. This would imply that even magic items for spells with a prerequisite count of 0 can't have their magic items invented, because that takes the Prerequisite count to13. For that then, we'll just have to handwave that SOME of the magic items for low spell prerequisite counts have been invented by dint of pure perseverance and genius inventers right?

So, we want to invent Remove Curse. This has a spell prerequisite count of 13. COOL right? The original author was kind enough to spell out the specifics of that spell - in a write up that per the rules on inventing spells, has to be done. This "Mage" of mine, has Thuamatology at 16, and a few spells (not important at the moment) that meet all the prerequisites necessary to research Remove Curse. We'll also assume my character has a fully stocked enchanted workshop capable of handling a prerequisite count 13 spell research project. (We're keeping this as simple as possible right?)

So, let's call my mage Magus (original huh?). Magus spends one full day trying to conceptualize the spell in question. He already has some meta-spells already, so he doesn't suffer a -5 penalty due to not having any spells of the college he's researching. He's not in a low mana zone, so he doesn't suffer that -5 penalty either. His only modifiers for conceptualization of the spell is -13 due to the spell requisite count.

Day 1: Magus spends the day inventing and the GM rolls a 9. Skill 16-13 leaves a modified skill roll of a 3 on 3d6. Nothing happens, Magus doesn't think he has anything that will work.

Day 2: Magus spends a day inventing and the GM rolls a 12. Fortunately, this is not 10 higher than what is needed to succeed, so it isn't a critical failure.

Day 3: Magus gets his bit of expected bad luck, and rolls a 14. This is 10+ higher than the skill required to succeed, and consequently is deemed to be a crit failure.

So - looking at the rules for inventions we have this:

"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."

Next step in this case is the prototype development.

But we have to look at the rules for spell invention in GURPS MAGIC, which says this:

"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."

So Magus THINKS he has a viable incantation - but the GM knows it will never work. Does Magus have to invest a character point in the spell before he can actually TRY to cast the spell per what is written on page 15 of GURPS MAGIC? The wording seems to imply that he does, because...

"(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."

So, if Magus has say, 40 critical failures on his conceptualization rolls, he has to invest 40 character points in the spell that automatically will not work? If by some miracle, Magus actually gets a roll of a 3 on 3d6, he will have to pay a final 1 point for a spell - and then go to the prototype phase?

Inquiring minds want to know.

[KarlKost]

RAW yes, that would be exactly it. Which is why I always hated those rules.

I never use standard magic system, but if I did, I would simply use modular abilities. Boom, one point "spent" to "learn" the spell.

Except it's just a temporary memorization from modular ability.

As for the Invention rules, they are a bit too restrictive. Not just for Magic. Im unsure how realistic they are, and instead of thinking on them as the fundamental laws of physics that govern all societal advances, I see them more as narrative tools for pesky players insisting on gadgeteering their way out of things. Meaning: stop reading so much into it, and stop mixing lore with game mechanics.

Those rules are for the munchikins to munchikin away their way, without getting completely out of hand.

Realistically, someone with Thaumatology 21-25 would show once upon a time - if ever. However, your power hungry players will have that as casually as possible. Even more. That's why those invention rules are so hard, because they are made with munchikin players in mind, not with the average or even realistic exceptional inventor.

For example, Da Vinci was incredible. Despite that, he never truly managed to invent a functional flying machine or a functional tank.

Gurps player characters however, CAN make gadgeteers capable of doing so for TL 4 - even less.

[Plane]

Originally Posted by hal

So Magus THINKS he has a viable incantation - but the GM knows it will never work. Does Magus have to invest a character point in the spell before he can actually TRY to cast the spell per what is written on page 15 of GURPS MAGIC?

He doesn't personally need to, sounds like he might get his assistant to do it.

Other options w/ the right advantages might be using Modular Abilities or Wild Talent to temporarily gain access to the invented spell, that way the 1 skill point's worth you have in it is not a permanent loss if the spell is a flub.

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.

One of the pluses here w/ Spell Defaults is you can partially offset the prereq penalty if you know some of those prereqs.

[hal]

OK, two people have weighed in on "yes, 1 character point has to be expended on the new "Spell".

Since we're theorizing no assistants in this exercise, that means that Magus now has to spend a character point on a spell that will never work (per the rules of a crit failure on the concept roll). Let's move on.

Magus, falsely believing he has a functional approach to casting a spell, now moves on to the next phase.

"The Prototype roll is a roll against the new spell itself"

1 point in a spell, gives us a skill of 13 in a non-functional Remove Curse Spell. The spell has to be cast ceremonially per the rules. Because Magus doesn't have any assistants whose skill level in Thaumatology is 20+ (see invention rules where you get a bonus of +1 per assistant with a skill 20+ in the skill required), we're going strictly by the rules as presented for Ceremonial casting. Because Magnus wants VERY much for his prototype phase to be successful, he plans on using multiple assistants as the prototype spell casting is effectively the same as ceremonial spell casting and enchanting. Problem is, at 13, this is not enough to qualify as having a 15 or higher skill to cast the spell ceremonially.

On the presumption that we can avoid this problem from the start as an exception to the basic rules of Ceremonial casting (See box on page 12 of GURPS MAGIC) - we'll use the rule that one can utilize extra energy for skill. At +100%, our researcher gains a +4 bonus. For 200% energy, a +5 bonus.

Since Remove Curse is a 20 energy spell, our spell caster, spending 3x the normal energy, requires 60 energy to cast. Going to 80 energy will give him an additonal bonus, as would going to 100 energy. So, let's lpan on 100 energy being spent. Net effect is: +7 for an energy cost of 100.

Now for the next part...

"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."

Magnus gains a +7 bonus to his skill 13, for an adjusted skill of 20. The penalties for conceptulaization is -11 for the prerequisite count, his modified skill goes to a 9. Fortunately for Magus, as long as he spends the extra energy for his people while ceremonially casting the spell with an adjusted 9 - only normal crit failures are crit failures. After trying to cast this spell for 5 days in a row and the spell not succeeding once in removing a curse. He sadly concludes he is on the wrong path and returns to the drawing board.

Agreed that the rules as written have been followed? the issue identified here is whether or not a skill 13 mage can lead a ceremonial spell cast attempt?

[KarlKost]

I guess the problem here is the conceptualization of what is a "character point". And a problem I see with many rules advocates that on many occasions will favor game mechanics over realism, or interpretation of reality.

What does 1CP represents in terms of the reality of the game? Is it some kind of divine enlightnement that occurs to people after some significant events in their lives?

Character points represent study of repetitive activities. A guitar player has plenty of CPs "spent" on the guitar skill. A professional sniper has CPs spent on Rifles. A engineer has CP spent on engineering skill.

How did they got those points? Was it by killing orcs in forgotten dungeons? No, they did it by repetitive activity. The guitar player by playing over and over, the sniper by constantly shooting and the engineer by constantly reading and studying.

Even if you do "nothing" of your life except watch Youtube, you are STILL learning something and therefore "gaining" points into SOMETHING. Even if it's just "Current Affairs (Celebrities' Gossipies)".

Now, some people are naturally better at somethings than others - that's represented by Attributes, Talents and Advantages/Disadvantages. While some people simply spend more time and dedication to reach comparable levels.

Gurps even has rules for improving by study instead of just bonus points.

This means that your mage in question is not "wasting character points" - he is wasting his time. That's not uncommon in science and technology, where instead of going sonewhere you're just wasting your time with a dead end.

Thus, the mage is NOT "wasting" 1CP, but instead he is not GAINING 1CP in some other trait. Like if he were home cooking, he could be improving his cooking skill in that same amount of time.

Again, I understand your efforts on understanding and improving the mechanics and it's commendable, but I honestly think you're too rigid with it.

By the way, imo this has always been a typo error. It makes no sense to ask for a 1CP at the concept stage. I my mind, Im absolutely sure that the writter wanted to say that you spend the point after the PROTOTYPE.

[Donny Brook]

In the beginning, all spells with a Spell Prerequisite count of 12 or less have already been invented

How do you determine this?

[Plane]

Originally Posted by hal

If the character THINKS they have a viable spell hammered out due to a critical failure in their conceptualization roll

Where can I find this bit about thinking you have a workable concept on a crit fail?

I don't see that on M15. It's a neat idea which seems similar to how Knowledge spells work so I'd be for implementing it, but not sure if it's RAW.

[Pursuivant]

To defend the crummy RAW, consider that 1 CP is considered to be 200 hours of study, etc. under a teacher or 400 hours of self-study.

A critical failure which results in 5-10 weeks of wasted effort doesn't seem quite as bad as losing 1 CP, although they are equivalent.

Once the inventor finally succeeds, he has a unique, extremely potent defensive spell, possibly giving him the equivalent of an Unusual Background (Inventor and sole user of Remove Curse) that he can use to gain fame and fortune. In a way, the lost CP are "losing bets" on the way to gaining a unique ability.

Whether intentional or not, you're also handicapping your inventor by not hunting for relevant bonuses. A mage doing cutting edge magical research is going to be looking for all the help they can get.

Look at the basic rules for Inventions (p. B475). The mage's player can get a +1 or +2 bonus for an "especially clear or clever" description of their invention. A description like, "A permanent version of Suspend Spell which specifically cancels the following spells . . ." seems clear enough, if not particularly clever.

On top of that, the GM can give a +1 to +5 bonus "if the item is a variant on an existing one." That means that, if spells such as Suspend Spell or Suspend Magic are known, the mage is essentially creating a stronger, longer lasting version of those spells. If Dispel Magic is known, then the mage is just creating a stronger version of that spell.

This means that an inventor might get a bonus of up to +7 for good description and creating a variant of an existing spell.

-13 + 7 = -6 which isn't as formidable a skill penalty.

The GM might also allow an additional +2 bonus for Very Fine-Quality equipment. There's no rule against Equipment bonuses assisting Invention rolls, although no equipment for Thaumatology is provided in the Basic Set or Magic.

Another potential source of bonuses is the Bless spell, which might be divinely granted bypassing the usual prerequisite count. Again, no rules against it helping with Inventions. If the GM allows it, that's another +1 to +3 modifier in the mage's favor.

That gives an extra bonus of up to +5, bringing the total penalty to -1, making it a relatively trivial task to research even complex spells.

Finally, there's no rule that says that Luck can't be used to influence Invention rolls. Any good player will definitely use their Luck for such an important roll as the invention concept.

[hal]

Originally Posted by Pursuivant

To defend the crummy RAW, consider that 1 CP is considered to be 200 hours of study, etc. under a teacher or 400 hours of self-study.

A critical failure which results in 5-10 weeks of wasted effort doesn't seem quite as bad as losing 1 CP, although they are equivalent.

Once the inventor finally succeeds, he has a unique, extremely potent defensive spell, possibly giving him the equivalent of an Unusual Background (Inventor and sole user of Remove Curse) that he can use to gain fame and fortune. In a way, the lost CP are "losing bets" on the way to gaining a unique ability.

Whether intentional or not, you're also handicapping your inventor by not hunting for relevant bonuses. A mage doing cutting edge magical research is going to be looking for all the help they can get.

Look at the basic rules for Inventions (p. B475). The mage's player can get a +1 or +2 bonus for an "especially clear or clever" description of their invention. A description like, "A permanent version of Suspend Spell which specifically cancels the following spells . . ." seems clear enough, if not particularly clever.

On top of that, the GM can give a +1 to +5 bonus "if the item is a variant on an existing one." That means that, if spells such as Suspend Spell or Suspend Magic are known, the mage is essentially creating a stronger, longer lasting version of those spells. If Dispel Magic is known, then the mage is just creating a stronger version of that spell.

This means that an inventor might get a bonus of up to +7 for good description and creating a variant of an existing spell.

-13 + 7 = -6 which isn't as formidable a skill penalty.

The GM might also allow an additional +2 bonus for Very Fine-Quality equipment. There's no rule against Equipment bonuses assisting Invention rolls, although no equipment for Thaumatology is provided in the Basic Set or Magic.

Another potential source of bonuses is the Bless spell, which might be divinely granted bypassing the usual prerequisite count. Again, no rules against it helping with Inventions. If the GM allows it, that's another +1 to +3 modifier in the mage's favor.

That gives an extra bonus of up to +5, bringing the total penalty to -1, making it a relatively trivial task to research even complex spells.

Finally, there's no rule that says that Luck can't be used to influence Invention rolls. Any good player will definitely use their Luck for such an important roll as the invention concept.

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.

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

Hal

[hal]

Originally Posted by Plane

Where can I find this bit about thinking you have a workable concept on a crit fail?

I don't see that on M15. It's a neat idea which seems similar to how Knowledge spells work so I'd be for implementing it, but not sure if it's RAW.

"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.