Revised Distillation

[luke]

I'm thick into revising the spells for the new CB. I've come up with some tweaks to the Abstraction process

First, if creating a spell for immediate distillation (ie, not for use on the fly), round mathematically and keep all fractions as you go.

If you are doing a first distillation on Anima Ob 5 and Presence Origin Ob 2, the distilled ob would be Ob 3.5.

Second, Count zero obstacles spells as zero, not as one.

And try out these new Distillation phrases:

Cap: All abstractions are open-ended (^) spells. Using the Cap distiller allows the player to remove the ^ and reduce the casting obstacle by one. Be sure to describe the spell effect of capped spells.

Minoris Sigil: If a spell has a minor effect given its facets -- Delirium Tremens as opposed to Emperor's Hand, for example -- reduce the casting obstacle by one. This is subject to Peer Review.

Majoris Sigil: If, in Peer Review, the other players and GM find that a spell has a huge, ridiculous or overblown effect, they may add up to +2 Ob and can multiply the casting syllables/actions from x10-x100.

Extension: By lengthening the spell, the mage makes it easier to parse difficult magical sentences. -1 Ob for x5 syllables/actions

Compression: By shortening the spell, the mage increases its difficulty -- a sorcerer must intuit many parts of the incantation himself. -50% of syllables/actions for +1 Ob. (You always subtract the percentage from the current syllables/actions and round up any fractions. So a 10 action spell could be reduced to 5 actions for +1 Ob, then to 2.5/3 actions for another +1 Ob. Then to 1.5/2 for another +1 Ob, then to 1 action for another +1 Ob -- +4 Ob total. )

try these out for me when creating new spells.
they've been working fairly well for me.
-L

[Thor Olavsrud]

Excellent. I'm glad to see these finally written down. ::sigh::

I guess I'll go back and refigure the spells I posted here when I have the time.

[Kublai]

Yay, cool! :D

I would like to see obstacle variation for effect, I would. So instead of all Fire spells doing the same damage, I would like to see lesser damage have a lesser obstacle. I've always liked such variation in the BW spell list and I think it'd be a shame to lose such character.

Lesser Effect: By increasing the "Add" of a spell, you can decrease the Obstacle. So, instead of one success equalling one power, you make it two successes equal one power and thus the obstacle is reduced by one. Increasing the spell Add to 3 would give you a -2 Obstacle benefit.

Greater Effect: One success equalling 2 power would be +2 Obstacle. One success equalling 3 power would be +4 power.

[Thor Olavsrud]

b]Lesser Effect:[/b] By increasing the "Add" of a spell, you can decrease the Obstacle. So, instead of one success equalling one power, you make it two successes equal one power and thus the obstacle is reduced by one. Increasing the spell Add to 3 would give you a -2 Obstacle benefit.

Greater Effect: One success equalling 2 power would be +2 Obstacle. One success equalling 3 power would be +4 power.

Handled nicely by the Minoris and Majoris Sigils, no?

[luke]

Yay, cool! :D

Lesser Effect: By increasing the "Add" of a spell, you can decrease the Obstacle. So, instead of one success equalling one power, you make it two successes equal one power and thus the obstacle is reduced by one. Increasing the spell Add to 3 would give you a -2 Obstacle benefit.

This is just one iteration of the Minoris sigil.

Greater Effect: One success equalling 2 power would be +2 Obstacle. One success equalling 3 power would be +4 power.

This one I don't know about. I don't think we need to make spells any more powerful than they already are. But I think this could be handled by the Majoris sigil and a little Player/GM peer review love.

-L

[Kublai]

The Greater Effect suggestion merely takes spells such as White Fire and Rain of Fire as precedent and makes them possible using the new Abstractions. I think it should be harder to make something more powerful than to make it less powerful.

Even if these are just iterations, they would make excellent examples. I do prefer that such clear cut mechanics are included and that it is not left up to peer review. Nothing else in magic is peer review, so why start now?

Also, I am thinking my specific mechanics would relate only to the Destroyer facet.

[luke]

More thoughts on revised distillation:

Each Element or Impetus facet combination nets one effect that is achieved when the spell meets its base obstacle.

Taking multiple elements or impeti but taking only one effect qualifies the spell for the Minoris sigil.

Taking additional effects beyond what is provided by the Element/Impetus combos invokes the Majoris sigil at at least +1 Ob.

more to come.
-L

[luke]

Good stuff is coming from revising the spells.

Mechanical effects of Impeti:

Influence Impetus: triggers a test in the Element (or with the Element) where there wouldn't be one before. Like Fear.

Enhance Impetus: Adds dice to an ability or adds strength or quality to an extant material. Cannot add material or ability that would not previously exist in the Element. Also, in Anima abstractions, Enhance can extend senses into other viable realms -- like the Sense spell -- instead of adding dice.

Control: Can drastically change an Element. Introduces a new shape or quality, can grant a completely new ability where their was none before. Control can cause immobile Elements to move, or mobile elements to be still.

Tax: Adds obstacle as a minoris effect, decreases dice as its primary effect. Anima obstacle is equal to the target stat.

Destroy: Destroyer Impetus always functions either on the DoF for damage. When Destroy is added to an abstraction, the player must decide whether he is destroying the element of the spell or destroying something else with the element of the spell.

Mar's Glare is a "destroy that element" spell. Firebreath is a "destroy with element (fire)" spell. Havoc's Hand is a "destroy that element" spell.

The DoF adds the element's Power to the Will of the caster. Extra successes can be allocated to increase the Mark result. The DoF is then rolled to determine the final actual damage.

Natural Effect:
The final Natural Effect chart is forthcoming, but this is the scale used to judge the damage of Breath of Wind, Wave and the effects of Mage Light. The Natural Effect facet allows the spell to use the caster's extra successes to channel and focus the natural forces of nature. At the lower end, the effects are minor -- sometimes even pleasant! At the upper end of the scale -- 10 successes over obstacle -- effects are devastating. Nature takes over and ravages beyond the control of mortal men.

When used with Control, Natural Effect has a side-effect to the standard spell effect. Depending on the spell concept, successes over the obstacle can be used to force the character to make a Natural Defenses test at an obstacle equal to the successes over the spell obstacle. Basically, a Breath of Wind with Control acts like a Throw for people, while Destroying Breath of Wind would do damage on the DoF.

hm.
-L

[eruditus]

Nothing else in magic is peer review, so why start now?


Dude that slope is too f'in slippery. I completely trust Luke's mad game design skillz, however it takes more than a coupla years and I prayer to give the players carte blanche when making up spells. Not in a system like this.

[eruditus]

So does all this mean Abstarction is going in the revision?

[eruditus]

Good stuff is coming from revising the spells.

Mechanical effects of Impeti:

-L

This is cool stuff that may come out as too complicated to the readers who are not prepared for it.

Although some parts are inevidable I see people saying "well, its a cool game but I switched out the magic system for Ars magica cause the other one was too complex (read "I had to learn something.").

All I am saying is that I hope for the revision that you keep the magic rules to:
- explain Gifted
- explain how spells are cast (obs, syllables an effects)
- list resource requirements.
- list of spells with ob, syllables, and description but not distillation.

Anything else should be in a book where folk WANT to read more about magic...liek the magic burner.

[Kevin]

Well, I admit I'd like to see it. But then I'd like to see Nigromancy rules too. :wink:

More seriously, including this material would have the advantage of requiring that less in the way of spells be included. Whichever way it goes, though, I like the idea of working out what the rules for Revised Abstraction will look like and using that to derive the spells in the basic game. It means less revision later to Obstacles, which can only be a good thing.

[Thor Olavsrud]

Abstractions will remain on the Web site and will only be released in print in the Magic Burner. However, all the spells in the Revision can now be built legally using the Abstraction system.

[eruditus]

Abstractions will remain on the Web site and will only be released in print in the Magic Burner. However, all the spells in the Revision can now be built legally using the Abstraction system.

Good, good, good.

That's all I meant. I just didn't want to see abstraction and distillation rules floating about the revision. It would really limit the audience.