mccolm@ucla-cs.UUCP (04/23/85)
A lot has been said about magic and material components recently, so I thought I would chip in with a different point of view. Ask yourself the following question: "Why does a wizard bother with material components, anyway?" Certainly not just to please the referee. By nature, an FRP game should not have any incredibly difficult or time-consuming process (such as recording, or even worse collecting material components) out of gratuitous power trips by the referee. It's true that material components can go a long way to limiting the use of magic. This is how it should be. But if this is true, it should be because the magic requires the use of the components. Why does magic require material components? No matter what explanation you have, it boils down to this: The spell power, or at least some part of it, derives from the natural properties of the component. Ever wonder why the component for Fireballs includes sulpher? It's because it's appropriate. In other words, the sulpher has a metaphysical likeness to the effect of the spell. But then there's Clerics and Druids, who use items of their religion, which are not consumed by the spell (for the most part). These are not properly material components at all, but talismans, a topic largely ignored in most game systems. Because of this, I have in my own magic system instituted a system of material components and talismans that profoundly affect the spells with which they are used. The basic idea is that using a material component makes it easier to achieve the desired effect, and makes more powerful effects possible than would be possible without them. I use a manna point system, so the material components merely make the spell's manna cost lower. But, since some people do not use manna cost systems for perfectly good reasons, a material component (or lack of one) could be taken as altering the effect of the spell by changing the caster's effective level of casting. So, it takes quite a powerful magician to cast a given spell without the component, while a wimp with the required component does just as well. I don't have any idea what the schedules would be, but take a cue from the Druid's list of what happens if they use holly berries instead of Greater Mistletoe. Next, if one particular component is just right, shouldn't other, more or less related components be usable, though not as good? I like this idea, because people get inventive about the materials they're going to use. Keep in mind that the spell that needs Black Dragon Blood will still work with cheap acid, but the penalties of the substitution will be severe, and Baking Soda would be worse than nothing at all. Also, it takes a lot of pressure off the referee when it comes to making up the material component for the spell a player has researched. The ideal component can be really nasty and hard to get, but don't feel bad. It'll still work with lemon juice if you're not too particular that it now does 1/8th your level in dice, instead of 2*level. Of course, use of a really bad component can cause spell failure, misfire, backfire, and other really fun things. About talismans, this topic is largely ignored by most rule systems, and I'm trying to put it into mine, but basically, a magician is trying to accentuate the effects and power of a spell through using a magic, holy (to the caster), historically valuable, or metaphysically significant object as an assistance in casting the spell. What effects this has on the talisman I shudder to think, but the spell should be a bit, or a lot, stronger, or weaker, depending on the nature of the talisman used. I'm using essentially the same mechanism as that for material components, which may get me into a lot of problems, but I'll find out in a hurry. Final note: while the above proceeds from an idea that I like quite a bit, it takes a LOT of work to get it up and running. If you intend to do this, take note. No-one said it would be easy. But I think the appeal of a material component system based on accentuating the power of spells has much to say for it, and I think most players will gleefully flock to the bat caves to dig for guano, knowing that their ability to blow away those who don't frequent the caves will be greatly improved. -Eric
rcb@rti-sel.UUCP (Random) (04/24/85)
In reference to your discussion of talismans, how about this logic. Talismans do not add to the spell's power because they are not consumed. However they do allow modification of the spell according to their nature. The best example of this that I could think of is a talisman for casting a fireball. The talisman would have the effect of a lens (and might be made of a glass lens, quartz lens, diamond lens) and let the user either concentrate the blast or expand it. The damage done would of course be increased or decreased respectively. Imagine a 5th level mage using a fireball on one single nasty and concentrating it to 1/10th the area (the nasty's head) with 10 times the effect. Of course for the radical power of 10 times modification, the lens would have to be made of something really esoteric and expensive. Random Research Triangle Institute ...!mcnc!rti-sel!rcb In article <4950@ucla-cs.ARPA> mccolm@ucla-cs.UUCP writes: > >Because of this, I have in my own magic system instituted a system of material >components and talismans that profoundly affect the spells with which they are >used. The basic idea is that using a material component makes it easier to >achieve the desired effect, and makes more powerful effects possible than >would be possible without them. > ... > >About talismans, this topic is largely ignored by most rule systems, and I'm >trying to put it into mine, but basically, a magician is trying to accentuate >the effects and power of a spell through using a magic, holy (to the caster), >historically valuable, or metaphysically significant object as an assistance >in casting the spell. What effects this has on the talisman I shudder to >think, but the spell should be a bit, or a lot, stronger, or weaker, depending >on the nature of the talisman used. I'm using essentially the same mechanism >as that for material components, which may get me into a lot of problems, >but I'll find out in a hurry.
jagardner@watmath.UUCP (Jim Gardner) (04/25/85)
In article <4950@ucla-cs.ARPA> mccolm@ucla-cs.UUCP writes: >Why does magic require material components? No matter what explanation you >have, it boils down to this: The spell power, or at least some part of it, >derives from the natural properties of the component. Actually, this is just one explanation of material components, a sort of "scientific" one. There are others. For example, suppose that ALL magic is performed by pacts with otherworldly spirits. Reference: in Black Easter, by James Blish, all magic is performed by demons or angels. The demons do not want to do magic things for anyone (nor do the angels); but they are bound by a covenant with God (in this book) that if someone performs a particular ritual EXACTLY right, they must do what they're asked. The transfer to a fantasy campaign is obvious. Unless you perform the spell with precisely correct components, the spell agents are free to ignore you. No substitutes are accepted. (When Asmodeus says he wants a human sacrifice, you don't kill no sheep, fool!!) As another, suppose that all magic actually proceeds from innate mental powers in the spell-caster (psychic powers of one type or another). The spell rituals are actually so much mumbo-jumbo intended to free one's mind from mental blocks that stifle the power. You have been told by magic teachers that a particular ritual will have a particular effect, and your mind has been trained to give that particular effect in response to the ritual. If you KNOW that you are using shoddy materials, then you will have poorer results because you aren't fooling yourself as well. (This raises the interesting possibility of what happens when someone tricks you into believing that you have genuine Black Dragon blood when it's really only cheap acid. In this model of magic, the spell should still work...and you'll keep casting spells successfully until you begin to have reason to doubt that something is wrong.) I think either of these theories would be an interesting basis for a magic system. The first is close to many campaigns: you get it exactly right or it doesn't work. The second would be prone to abuse by the players: Player1 : Hey, MU, here's some (wink, wink) red dragon blood. Player2 : Amazing that you just happened (wink, wink) to have that. Let's cast a spell. But I think a creative GM could squash this stuff fairly fast. For example, if the MU ever finds out that his teammates gratuitously lie to him about material components they produce, he could turn paranoid and distrust ALL material components. The MU's powers would be vastly weakened by this distrust and he would be virtually useless until his faith was restored (using material components he was sure of). By the way, I love these pseudo-science discussions of magic. I think net.games.frp is the place for them, and a subsection for net.games.frp.physics is unnecessary. I haven't heard anyone complain that they don't want to read this stuff. Jim Gardner, University of Waterloo
faustus@ucbcad.UUCP (04/27/85)
> As another, suppose that all magic actually proceeds from innate mental > powers in the spell-caster (psychic powers of one type or another). > The spell rituals are actually so much mumbo-jumbo intended to free one's > mind from mental blocks that stifle the power. You have been told by > magic teachers that a particular ritual will have a particular effect, > and your mind has been trained to give that particular effect in response > to the ritual. If you KNOW that you are using shoddy materials, then > you will have poorer results because you aren't fooling yourself as well. > (This raises the interesting possibility of what happens when someone > tricks you into believing that you have genuine Black Dragon blood when > it's really only cheap acid. In this model of magic, the spell should > still work...and you'll keep casting spells successfully until you begin > to have reason to doubt that something is wrong.) But if material components are just a way to help you free your mind, etc, then probably a lot of magic users would be finding better ways (especially the more "enlightened" ones) and doing without them. If Magic School A teaches MU's how to cast a fireball by using diamond dust, and Magic School B can teach you how to do it with dirt, which will be more popular? > Player1 : Hey, MU, here's some (wink, wink) red dragon blood. > Player2 : Amazing that you just happened (wink, wink) to have > that. Let's cast a spell. > But I think a creative GM could squash this stuff fairly fast. For > example, if the MU ever finds out that his teammates gratuitously > lie to him about material components they produce, he could turn paranoid > and distrust ALL material components. The MU's powers would be vastly > weakened by this distrust and he would be virtually useless until his > faith was restored (using material components he was sure of). I think he would probably thank his comrades for saving him all that time and money by fooling him, and probably try very hard to believe them in the future whenever they give him suspicious stuff... It probably wouldn't work that well, but it wouldn't be because he had bad stuff, it would be because he didn't believe in it... Wayne