Re: (TFT) Magic: illusions, cities

[Denis DesHarnais <denisdesharnais@gmail.com>]

I like the local spells idea.  It just occurred to me that, once you
abandon real-world physics (or at least keep it at an arms length) and
embrace magic, there's no particular reason why the "universality" of
contemporary science needs to apply.  In other words, what works on
one continent may not work as well or in the same way on another -
i.e. the local version of illusion might have some different features
(or may be nerfed somewhat) compared to the generic version, but may
work more reliably in the locale in which the party is currently
traveling.  I believe Moorecock may have used something like this in
one of the Elric books.

For example, standard illusion spells tend to run amok, out-of-control
of the caster, but the local version, which only creates inanimate
effects, works fine.

On Mon, May 7, 2012 at 12:52 PM, PvK <pvk@oz.net> wrote:
> * I don't think the Illusion spell is overpowered, per se, but I
> have always noticed that it is one of the best spells in the system,
> mainly for the reasons you mention. It depends on the context, though.
>    For example, If your enemies realize or guess that the figure you summoned is an
> illusion, and they have people who would otherwise have nothing
> better to do than disbelieve it, then your wizard just wasted a turn
> and 2 ST.
>    I don't think it is a problem needing balancing unless your
> game or style or opinions feel it is, which it might. In that case,
> it would be up to the person with the opinion to choose what to do
> to rebalance it, since they are balancing their own opinion about it.
>    As for a scout version, it seems to me that is pretty much the
> Image spell that already exists. Removing the see-through-eyes of
> Illusion is an interesting idea for variety.
>
> * I don't think it's necessarily so that there would be a ton of
> spell variants, but if it's interesting to the GM, then he can
> certainly make it so, and it would be appropriate for him to do
> so rather than for there to be an official list of local variants.
> But there are many house rule spells people have made out there
> that start that out.
>  I do very much like the idea of local spell versions, and I
> tend to fit them into my local cultures, which I find much more
> interesting than just having everyone have the same spells available.
>  I also like _limiting_ what spells from the common lists are known
> or available or popular or whatever, by region and community.
>
> * In the real world, magic definitely came before agriculture.
>
>
>
> --- barnswallow@sbcglobal.net wrote:
>
> From: Meg Tapley <barnswallow@sbcglobal.net>
> To: tft@brainiac.com
> Subject: (TFT) Magic: illusions, cities
> Date: Sun, 6 May 2012 23:55:19 -0500
>
> Who thinks that Illusion, at IQ 11 and ST cost 2, is overpowered?
> Sure, it can be disbelieved, but opponents have to lose their action
> while doing so, and can be engaged by illusory figures, meaning that
> illusions can create a huge tactical advantage - not to mention the
> constant use as scouts. Solutions could be bumping the ST cost to 3
> and/or increasing the IQ level.
>
> Another question: Is it better to have lots of specialized spells, or
> a few general ones?  For example, Illusion could be split into
> "Illusory Scout" (you can see through its eyes, but it can't do any
> damage), and "Illusory Opponent" (can do damage, but you can't see
> through its eyes). Or, you could make Stone and Iron Flesh the same
> spell, except that the better version costs more ST/turn.
>
> Regardless of gameplay advantages or disadvantages, from an "in-world
> logic" perspective, there should be lots of specialized spells. Think
> about it: Wizards have been studying magic for hundreds, probably
> thousands of years, and for a lot of that time, the Wizard's Guild has
> been encouraging and rewarding the development of new spells. Spells
> are hard to invent, but not that hard, so there are going to be a lot
> of them, and many will necessarily be pretty specialized.
>
> On the other hand, wizards would also be interested in learning to do
> the greatest possible number of things with a single spell, which
> would lead to generalized spells. There are probably adepts looking
> for the Unified Spell of Everything ("Change Reality") the same way
> physicists are looking for the Unified Theory of Everything...
>
> Also: I got my hands on a copy of "Guns, Germs and Steel", by Jared
> Diamond. I'm probably not the first on the list to stumble across it,
> but for those of you who haven't, it's a pretty cool resource. It
> deals with the question of why some societies developed better
> technology (and nastier germs, and more complex social structures)
> than others. Neat stuff, and useful for worldbuilding.
>
> It occurs to me that magic must have developed after agriculture. In
> order to have a wizard per the TFT system, it seems that you have to
> have a special wizard school, which means a social structure that
> supports that kind of thing, which means a city, which means
> agriculture.
>
> One final item: What's a good name for a long, piecemeal post like
> this one? A shotgun post? Brain dump? J-rant? ;-)
>
> - Meg
> =====
> Post to the entire list by writing to tft@brainiac.com.
> Unsubscribe by mailing to majordomo@brainiac.com with the message body
> "unsubscribe tft"
> =====
> Post to the entire list by writing to tft@brainiac.com.
> Unsubscribe by mailing to majordomo@brainiac.com with the message body
> "unsubscribe tft"
=====
Post to the entire list by writing to tft@brainiac.com.
Unsubscribe by mailing to majordomo@brainiac.com with the message body
"unsubscribe tft"