[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: (TFT) Healing spells in TFT.
At 04:16 PM 9/9/03 -0700, Charles Gadda wrote:
> The nature of magic is to be somewhat mysterious, nebulous, and fickle.
> whole argument could be fairly dismissed by the GM on such grounds.
Utterly wrong! At least in TFT - excluding the current healing discussion
and a few other minor areas - TFT magic is quite the opposite of
"mysterious, nebulous, and fickle!" It is pretty well structured and to a
large extent obeys a certain underlying set of laws and logic. Were this not
so, an IQ 8 wizard should be able to randomly cast 20 die Wizard Wrath bolts
around - since all is random and capricious. But canon TFT certainly does
not allow for that - and even D&D follows *some* degree of logic. The only
system I know of that would even approach this contention is an optional
rules proposal for GURPS that allowed players to use cantrips and improvise
magic on the spot (with GM moderated results) - very fluid and freeflowing
but requiring a LOT of roleplaying experience all around to make it even
remotely workable. Going back to TFT *Nothing* supports such a claim at
least in an intentional overarching sense. Therefore, within the logic of
the system as presented magic is not fickle, and behaves within certain
norms. Further, the logical implications of the Revival spell show that
healing MUST exist in canon TFT, like it or not.
You seem to misunderstand me. I didn't mean that AW lacked logic and
balance to the existing spells. My point is that the magic spells that are
available in a fantasy world are for the author/GM to decide. The actual
techniques and principles of most spellcasting and researching are not
described in AW. Different GM's may or may not agree that sub-abilities of
spells should be easily researchable (or already known) as spells.
The evidence of the existing spell/potion/item lists seems to me to weigh
against such a principle. The first paragraph of "Inventing New Spells"
says, "... most of the obvious spells have already been worked out for
centuries." The spell list in AW is about 125 spells, and they aren't even
organized by type or prerequisites except minimum IQ level and some spells
that are so close they are just better versions of the same spell (Stone
So, no, the GM may not "fairly dismiss" *anything* on such grounds, for they
are a foundation of quicksand. Using such an argument is really GM fiat
complete with "you can't have it Nyah Nyah!"
Although I too much prefer logical game worlds, I'd tend to say the
opposite about a GM's rights to say what does and doesn't exist in their
worlds, unless the player characters can prove or demonstrate otherwise
during play. The GM can always say there are technical magical obstacles to
developing any unknown magical abilities, which are beyond the scope of
play and beyond the comprehension of non-wizards (which would include all
of the players, and most or all of their characters).
It seems much more dangerous to me to have players arguing GM's into
including abilities they want, if the GM has already designed a world
around a certain set of abilities.
But didn't I say that healing was not required more than a moment ago? Ah,
yes - the obvious solution, for those who simply cannot stand the idea for
reasons I cannot at all fathom, is to eliminate the Revival spell! This
instantly plugs the logic hole! Yes, this is fiat as well, but it can be
much more easily justified since it does not impose any sort of logic hole,
and in fact eliminates a couple.
It seems to me that the Revival spell probably involves calling on some
very great powers (for example, underworld spirits with specialized powers
relating to death and health) which could have the listed effects, and not
a mastery of all of the component effects and all their sub-details by the
wizard himself. Few wizards are physickers, and medieval physickers
probably don't have enough physiological knowledge to tell a wizard how to
heal flesh - they just know what herbs and techniques to use to assist
natural healing somewhat. The absence of a healing spell seems to me a
natural and logical clue towards that interpretation, not the converse you
see. Two different ways of looking at the same data - each equally valid,
it seems to me.
Post to the entire list by writing to email@example.com.
Unsubscribe by mailing to firstname.lastname@example.org with the message body