Re: (TFT) The philosophy of writing Tightly defined spell effects

[Stan <srydzews@ix.netcom.com>]

> 1) Is TFT magic too predictable / mechanical?

I think the descriptions of most TFT spells are pretty appropriate.  Most of them are part of the combat system, and as the combat system is very 'crunchy', it seems reasonable to expect that the combat spells would be likewise.  

But it's a question of scope.  For spells whose effects are outside of the combat system, and especially any as far-reaching and variable as any sort of Control Weather spell would have to be, how could they really be nailed down to the level that 'Trip' is?  But I don't think that just because they can't be nailed down to that level doesn't mean the game shouldn't have them.  


> 2) In what ways would it be best to make it 
> more flexible?

I think that to introduce a generally more 'wild and wooly' sort of magic, your approach, creating an entirely new/foreign area of magical endeavor, is an excellent one.  Really, so long as the GM is upfront about it with the players from the outset, any 'new' spell, including ones the PC's research, could reasonably be expected to be less predictable than the old standards (yes, even ones that are for use in combat).


> 5) Are there any points that relate to the
> questions that I've raised that I've not addressed?

I think the same sort of philosophical issue you raise also applies, perhaps even more so, to the talents. The Spy and Merchant talents, for instance, have always seemed to me ridiculously over-specific in their descriptions.  
=====
Post to the entire list by writing to tft@brainiac.com.
Unsubscribe by mailing to majordomo@brainiac.com with the message body
"unsubscribe tft"