Intention of the Abstarction Rules - What is it limiting?

[eruditus]

What are folk's opinions on what the GMs approach to player created spells should be?

Should a GM allow a player to pack as much effect into the spell as he can get away with and the controlling factor should be "let make the spell manageble for the player to cast by lowering the ob?"

or is it "the world has rules and context and if the player can't manage to effectively circumvent those rules with a reasonable ob then he will either have to reduce effectiveness or handle the really hig ob.


also, you might want to consider that an Ob 12 spell is like drinking a gallon of poison once a month and hoping you puke fast enough to get it out before you die.
-L

I may have misconstrued the intent of this sentance when discussing the Animate Ship spell my player and I worked on, but it seemed like an odd notation as to why the ob is too hi and I should give the player a break. to me that high an ob says "gee, that is awefully dangerous, maybe i should lose some functionality to make it more potable until I can find other means to make the spell more powerful without killing myself."

I am curious what sort of experiences you have had in the GM to player interactions when distilling new spells.

[Kublai]

The only controlling factor I would impress upon a player is his intent. After that, let him do what he wants to. I don't see how a GM has any control over the process itself. If the character has the proper facets, it's his thing, not mine.

If the spell is being created before gameplay begins, that's another matter. Then it's up to both the player and GM to negotiate the effects of the spell using the intent as a logical guide.

Abstracting and distilling is an almost impossible task in play as it is. I say let the character get away with anything within the bounds of the rules. Otherwise, where's the fun in creating a spell that will kill you or open a pit to Hell each time you use it?

[Angaros]

I'm a bit concerned about the no limit approach. Since Single Target seems to affect any one "object" and object can be interpreted to be a ship, it seems a city or a world could be an object as well. Slippery slope argument, I know, but I don't see why there should be a line draw before world if a ship is an object. Maybe it's up to the setting to set limits. The rules appear to work well, but there need to be limits, otherwise you could end up where Nobilis is: having characters doing away with the moon or all things blue.

[eruditus]

The only controlling factor I would impress upon a player is his intent. After that, let him do what he wants to. I don't see how a GM has any control over the process itself. If the character has the proper facets, it's his thing, not mine.

That is the issue. Does he have the right facets? Originally GVK made a spell that was a lower ob and less syllables than Spirit Servant. Even is Spirit Servant did have to be refitted the obs were still too low. Making a veritable crew of skilled laborers controlling a complicated vessel without the caster's supervision should be far more difficult.

It is up to the GM to interpret the rules (especially since abstraction is so vague). A player may say "I want a spell that copies hundreds of magical texts every day." My player may say "earth - control - single target" and the magical print shop does all the work. No one would cast spells of a smaller scope of that's all you had to do. Why hire people when a simple, easy spell does the work or dozens.

Players do not always have the game and the world in their best interest. All they are really concerns with is getting the most bang for their buck and that means lower obstacles as much as possible. Its up to the GM to temper that, no?

[eruditus]

I'm a bit concerned about the no limit approach. Since Single Target seems to affect any one "object" and object can be interpreted to be a ship, it seems a city or a world could be an object as well. Slippery slope argument, I know, but I don't see why there should be a line draw before world if a ship is an object. Maybe it's up to the setting to set limits. The rules appear to work well, but there need to be limits, otherwise you could end up where Nobilis is: having characters doing away with the moon or all things blue.

My point exactly. So for the same ob as Spirit Servant (maybe one or two ob more) you end up with "my castle runs itself without people so its citizenry can persue luxury and academia."

Everyone WOULD be sorcerers then. no one in that sort of world would ever not persue magic. you certainly wouldn't persue any life og manual labor because it would no longer exist.

The GM has to be the lithmus test for "what will this mean to the world." Not that he should make those decisions too weighty, but such things have certainly ruined games. you destroy suspension of disbelief when things get out of hand. Its one thing to have a world changing event - fine its magic, its dramatic, etc. That's good. But when magic so changes the subtle way of life of your average joe schmoe for the better do to simple mechanics then you begin to question basic principles of the world.