Special Effects System Manipulation in Masterbook
>From [email protected] Jul 11 22:32:45 1996
Date: Wed, 10 Jul 1996 05:41:23 -0500
From: David Wood
Reply to: [email protected]
To: Multiple recipients of list
Subject: [MASTERBOOK:88] The SFX System
In message <[email protected]> writes:
> Dwayne writes:
>
> > How about some sort of rules for a *decent* special effects system - each
> > sourcebook seems to have redefined it somewhat - bloodshadows gets around
> > of
> > the fact of casting *simple* type spells and practically killing yourself
> > by
> > adding the spell side-effect list - necroscope abandons the backlash
> > alltogether....
>
> What's saddest about that is that WEG thinks that redefining the SFX
> rules (and the Advantages and Compensations too) for every gamebook
> is a benefit, not a drawback. The idea that a core set of rules should
> be more or less consistent seems to escape them.
MasterBook's SFX system suffers somewhat from the author, an engineer who opted
for more accuracy and detail than playability. That's why special effects are
best created on a spreadsheet.
Every world's take on the SFX system is slightly different because each world is
slightly different. And they do have a core set of rules -- they just change
specific rules for specific game worlds. Admittedly, some game worlds change
more rules than others...
-David
This message brought to you by the Chesapeake FreeNet:
Telnet by NCSA Telnet. Mail by POPMail. Domain Name Server by RONCO.
>From [email protected] Jul 11 22:32:58 1996
Date: Wed, 10 Jul 1996 16:17:58 -0500
From: Dwayne Carnachan
Reply to: [email protected]
To: Multiple recipients of list
Subject: [MASTERBOOK:91] Re: The SFX System
At 05:41 AM 7/10/96 -0500, you wrote:
>MasterBook's SFX system suffers somewhat from the author, an engineer who
opted
>for more accuracy and detail than playability. That's why special effects are
>best created on a spreadsheet.
hmmmm i didnt think special effects as they stand that difficult to cobble
something together - the main thing i hate is the *horrible* amounts of
backlash you can take trying to build some types of special effects (i admit
though if you know the system well enough you can build some quite powerful
*booster* type spells)
>Every world's take on the SFX system is slightly different because each
world >is
>slightly different. And they do have a core set of rules -- they just change
>specific rules for specific game worlds. Admittedly, some game worlds change
>more rules than others...
>
Yes but it does tend to make it more difficult if you are trying to design
your own game world or adapt another - (i'm just too damn lazy to want to do
that sort of work myself) :)
===================================================================
Dwayne Carnachan
Social Sciences Computer Support
The University Of Waikato
ext 6013
"Face it, if everything worked I'd be out of a job" :-)
>From [email protected] Jul 11 22:33:11 1996
Date: Wed, 10 Jul 1996 17:16:10 -0500
From: [email protected]
Reply to: [email protected]
To: Multiple recipients of list
Subject: [MASTERBOOK:93] SFX
> How about some sort of rules for a *decent* special effects system - each
> sourcebook seems to have redefined it somewhat - bloodshadows gets around of
> the fact of casting *simple* type spells and practically killing yourself by
> adding the spell side-effect list - necroscope abandons the backlash
> alltogether....
Actually, I like this approach...a core set of rules, then making changes as fits your
particular campaign and genre. While I do find the SFX rules cumbersome from time to
time, I have found that I have pretty much been able to create just about any effect;
what has helped has been the ability to refer to some of the other source books and see
how they did something. As far as the SFX rules go, I think that each GM needs to try
and remain consistent with how they interpret the SFX, and what they will and will not
allow. In my fantasy campaign, I made some guidlines to be followed, and stuck to them,
so that even though, SFX from my game might not work in anothers', they were balanced as
far as my campaign whent. I do think though, that while the SFX system is good, it is
too "combat" oriented, and more information could have been provided for more "mundane"
or "non combat" SFX.
> (personally i did kinda like the torg magic system and its miracle system -
> apart from its complexity)
I vvery much like the TORG system, especially the miracle system, and, sadly, have found
it very difficult to implement under the SFX system. So much so, that for my fantasy
campaign, I just used the TORG Clerics sourcebook. Worked like a charm!
G. Anderson/The Stranger
>From [email protected] Jul 11 22:33:27 1996
Date: Wed, 10 Jul 1996 22:02:00 -0500
From: David Wood
Reply to: [email protected]
To: Multiple recipients of list
Subject: [MASTERBOOK:95] SFX & Scaling Factors
Here are three ways to mediate the ease or difficulty of special effects within
a campaign environment. The first I hallucinated, and the other two are
intentional suggestions for house rules that I'd like to see tested in
Masterbook, even if I CAN'T find a regular gaming group to run it for. Say, is
there anyone on this list on Maryland's eastern shore?
1. SFX Total Modifier (Added): Take a look at the SFX Design Sheet, on page 143
of the main book. Look at the line just above Effect. In case you're at work,
here's what it says:
"SFX Total (Add previous line to new points unless otherwise indicated.)"
When I read that, I took it to mean that there could have been a box above
the Effect line to specify the relative ease or difficulty of making an effect
work. If the effect is easier, subtract points at the start to lower the
Difficulty Number and Feedback Value. If the effect is harder, add points at the
start.
In a fantasy campaign, for instance, everyone uses magic. If you think
effects ought to be easier, you could subtract a few points at the start of the
equation, and that would reduce the number of points that would eventually be
divided up between Difficulty Number and Feedback. Technology is harder, so add
a few points. In this way, you could express a campaign-wide preference for some
effects or others.
Turns out it was really just an instruction for filling out the damned
sheet. But it sure sounded like a nice way to make effects easier or harder...
2. SFX Total Modifier (Multiplied): After either the Optional Elements phase or
the Difficulty & Feedback phase, you could multiply the SFX point total by a set
amount (from 0.5 to 2) to account for the ease or difficulty of the effect.
Easier effects get a number less than one. Harder effects get a number greater
than one.
3. MasterBook will be Simulated By ...TORG???: If the DNs & FVs of your players'
designs are consistently too high, and you want them to have those effects, do
what TORG does: rather than stack Feedback on Difficulty, just set them side by
side. It does mean, however, that people will only take any sizeable feedback
when they totally bollix a roll, and created spells will become awfully powerful
-- problems that TORG had originally, as I recall. And that's why they changed
it for MasterBook.
4. Don't Design Easier, Design Smarter: Maybe we're just not using quite the
right design philosophy?
You know, by talking all about this stuff, I think I've come up with a new
exercise... I'll cover that in my next posting, just to make sure everyone sees
it.
-David
This message brought to you by the Chesapeake FreeNet:
Telnet by NCSA Telnet. Mail by POPMail. Domain Name Server by RONCO.
>From [email protected] Jul 11 22:33:39 1996
Date: Wed, 10 Jul 1996 22:43:01 -0500
From: Dwayne Carnachan
Reply to: [email protected]
To: Multiple recipients of list
Subject: [MASTERBOOK:96] Re: SFX & Scaling Factors
>3. MasterBook will be Simulated By ...TORG???: If the DNs & FVs of your
players'
>designs are consistently too high, and you want them to have those effects, do
>what TORG does: rather than stack Feedback on Difficulty, just set them
side by
>side. It does mean, however, that people will only take any sizeable feedback
>when they totally bollix a roll, and created spells will become awfully
powerful
>-- problems that TORG had originally, as I recall. And that's why they changed
>it for MasterBook.
sorry - but i dont really understand what you mean by this? set them side by
side? (gee it has been soooooo long since i have payed either system - does
it show) :)
===================================================================
Dwayne Carnachan
Social Sciences Computer Support
The University Of Waikato
ext 6013
"Face it, if everything worked I'd be out of a job" :-)
>From [email protected] Jul 11 22:33:56 1996
Date: Thu, 11 Jul 1996 08:28:40 -0500
From: David Wood
Reply to: [email protected]
To: Multiple recipients of list
Subject: [MASTERBOOK:100] Re: SFX & Scaling Factors
In message <[email protected]> writes:
> >3. MasterBook will be Simulated By ...TORG???: If the DNs & FVs of
> >your players' designs are consistently too high, and you want them
> >to have those effects, do what TORG does: rather than stack Feedback
> >on Difficulty, just set them side by side. It does mean, however,
> >that people will only take any sizeable feedback when they totally
> >bollix a roll, and created spells will become awfully powerful --
> >problems that TORG had originally, as I recall. And that's why they
> >changed it for MasterBook.
>
> sorry - but i dont really understand what you mean by this? set them side by
> side? (gee it has been soooooo long since i have payed either system - does
> it show) :)
I know what that's like, trust me...
In Masterbook, someone casting a spell / using an effect generates a skill
total, and that total is first applied to Difficulty Number. Any points left
over are then applied against Feedback Value. So it's possible that, when the
caster meets the DN exactly, he takes full feedback.
In TORG, someone casting a spell generates a skill total, and that total is
applied to Difficulty Number and Feedback Value *simultaneously*. The only way
the caster will get full feedback from casting a spell is if he rolls zero
result points. At that point, it's very unlikely that the spell will work.
I prefer (ever so slightly) Masterbook's convention, for two reasons:
1. I've seen how an Aylish spellcaster can run roughshod over it. Spellcasters
in TORG are on the average twice as effective as effects users in Masterbook.
>From the GM's perspective, this can be either a good or a bad thing, depending
on how many MUs are in the party.
2. One of the main reasons for switching from a D20 to 2D10 in Masterbook was to
put a bell curve on the die rolls used to generate skill totals. In this policy
of humanizing and normalizing the system, effects should be a bit weaker so the
normal folk have a chance to succeed against the big bad effect abuser.
There are other points, but they are even more dogmatic.
-David
This message brought to you by the Chesapeake FreeNet:
Telnet by NCSA Telnet. Mail by POPMail. Domain Name Server by RONCO.
>From [email protected] Jul 11 22:34:19 1996
Date: Thu, 11 Jul 1996 15:49:23 -0500
From: Dwayne Carnachan
Reply to: [email protected]
To: Multiple recipients of list
Subject: [MASTERBOOK:102] Re: SFX & Scaling Factors
At 08:28 AM 7/11/96 -0500, you wrote:
>In Masterbook, someone casting a spell / using an effect generates a skill
>total, and that total is first applied to Difficulty Number. Any points left
>over are then applied against Feedback Value. So it's possible that, when the
>caster meets the DN exactly, he takes full feedback.
>
>In TORG, someone casting a spell generates a skill total, and that total is
>applied to Difficulty Number and Feedback Value *simultaneously*. The only way
>the caster will get full feedback from casting a spell is if he rolls zero
>result points. At that point, it's very unlikely that the spell will work.
ahhhhh its all coming back to me now!!!! hmmm wont the caster take full
feeback is he actually generates negative result points (such that it
reduces his total to nothing).
>I prefer (ever so slightly) Masterbook's convention, for two reasons:
>
>1. I've seen how an Aylish spellcaster can run roughshod over it. Spellcasters
>in TORG are on the average twice as effective as effects users in Masterbook.
>>From the GM's perspective, this can be either a good or a bad thing,
depending
>on how many MUs are in the party.
>
>2. One of the main reasons for switching from a D20 to 2D10 in Masterbook
was to
>put a bell curve on the die rolls used to generate skill totals. In this
policy
>of humanizing and normalizing the system, effects should be a bit weaker so
the
>normal folk have a chance to succeed against the big bad effect abuser.
>
i realised that Torg's system can be abused - but i find that masterbook in
order to try and create a *decent* damage type spell it can practically kill
the spellcaster - i suppose you can tailor it if you do want a world where
magic is commonish - but hey i'm too lazy :) - but with masterbook i also
created a spell which could enhance your attributes (using the
multi-attribute rule) - and had very minimal feedback - i looked over the
spell and thought "gee this could get out of hand"
i guess i would like a system that is not as complicated as Torg - and yet
more detailed than masterbook (whine whine whine) :)
Has anyone actually created a "fantasy" world for one of their campaigns - i
always wondered why this sort of setting was never put out (hmmm
bloodshadows doesnt really count) - as it is always quite popular......
===================================================================
Dwayne Carnachan
Social Sciences Computer Support
The University Of Waikato
ext 6013
"Face it, if everything worked I'd be out of a job" :-)
>From [email protected] Jul 11 22:47:11 1996
Date: Thu, 11 Jul 1996 23:36:36 -0500
From: P McGraw
Reply to: [email protected]
To: Multiple recipients of list
Subject: [MASTERBOOK:106] Fantsy setting Was: SFX & Scaling Factors
Dwayne Carnachan wrote:
>Has anyone actually created a "fantasy" world for one of their campaigns - i
>always wondered why this sort of setting was never put out (hmmm
>bloodshadows doesnt really count) - as it is always quite popular......
Check out "The World of Aden". It is a fantasy game based on the
Thunderlance computer games. The setting is early gunpowder tech,
horror-type monsters, with some interesting magic twists.
I am still reading it and I like it some but I reserve final judgement
for now.
_____________________________________________________________
P McGraw
St. Louis, MO
[email protected]
_____________________________________________________________
Date: Fri, 12 Jul 1996 04:25:02 -0500
From: Jim Ogle
Subject: [MASTERBOOK:108] Re: SFX & Scaling Factors
P. Engebos writes:
> On Thu, 11 Jul 1996, David Wood wrote:
> > In Masterbook, someone casting a spell / using an effect generates a skill
> > total, and that total is first applied to Difficulty Number. Any points
> > left over are then applied against Feedback Value. So it's possible that,
> > when the caster meets the DN exactly, he takes full feedback.
> Actually this may not be true. I have always thought that the
> definition on page 137 was correct. It said that you compare feed back
> to the players Mind when determining damage. I think that the notes on
> the next page under using SFX was a typo, and that all the later works
> were based on this typo. When we run it this way, the spell casters can
> work small magic fairly often, but often take a few stun points and a K
> or an O resesult (2-4 points damage). ON their big spells they start
> hurting. Its a lot closer to TORG (which is why a like it probably) and
> it keeps the mages in line.
I'm fairly certain that this was discussed when the list first started
up on buddha but after doing a quick search of what's in the archives
I can't find any mention of it, the discussion must have been back when
the list was on monsta (whose archives are lost to the mists of time, sigh.)
As I recall WEG did give a rule clarification somewhere, either in a
product or maybe on GEnie but I'm no longer on GEnie and I don't have
any MB products that deal with magic so I can't go looking for it.
My shoddy memory wants me to say that they said you do compare Feedback
to Mind rather than as straight damage but don't quote me on that. 8-)
Kansas Jim ([email protected])
Date: Fri, 12 Jul 1996 06:34:20 -0500
From: David Wood
Subject: [MASTERBOOK:109] Re: SFX & Scaling Factors
In message <[email protected]> writes:
> P. Engebos writes:
>
> > On Thu, 11 Jul 1996, David Wood wrote:
[rules brainfart deleted]
> > Actually this may not be true. I have always thought that the
> > definition on page 137 was correct. It said that you compare feed back
> > to the players Mind when determining damage. I think that the notes on
> > the next page under using SFX was a typo, and that all the later works
> > were based on this typo. When we run it this way, the spell casters can
> > work small magic fairly often, but often take a few stun points and a K
> > or an O resesult (2-4 points damage). ON their big spells they start
> > hurting. Its a lot closer to TORG (which is why a like it probably) and
> > it keeps the mages in line.
>
> I'm fairly certain that this was discussed when the list first started
> up on buddha but after doing a quick search of what's in the archives
> I can't find any mention of it, the discussion must have been back when
> the list was on monsta (whose archives are lost to the mists of time, sigh.)
>
> As I recall WEG did give a rule clarification somewhere, either in a
> product or maybe on GEnie but I'm no longer on GEnie and I don't have
> any MB products that deal with magic so I can't go looking for it.
>
> My shoddy memory wants me to say that they said you do compare Feedback
> to Mind rather than as straight damage but don't quote me on that. 8-)
To all this, I can only say: D'oh!
I found the reference on page 138:"The feedback value is measured against the
caster's Mind attribute and read as damage on the Damage Column."
Do'h! D'oh!! And I say again: D'oh!
This changes a few things -- it means the caster can handle another nine points
of Feedback on the average safely. That can come in very handy.
And yes, the rules are conflicted in the Using Special Effects description.
Looks like I try calling WEG today, just to be a bastard...
-David
This message brought to you by the Chesapeake FreeNet:
Telnet by NCSA Telnet. Mail by POPMail. Domain Name Server by RONCO.
Date: Sat, 13 Jul 1996 12:32:47 -0500
From: [email protected]
Subject: [MASTERBOOK:111] Re: SFX
> hmmm the TORG Clerics sourcebook? I havent heard of that one? Does it change
> the faith/focus system very much?
No, it does not, it just expands on it, and puts all of the miracles for the different
chosms in one place. It does add a few rules for acquisition of miracles, to make it a
bit more balanced against mages. Each miracle gets an acquisition difficulty, usually
about 5 more than the casting difficulty. When the priest sees the miracle, if he makes
a focus roll against the acquistion difficulty, he gets the miracle.
G. Anderson/The Stranger
Date: Sat, 13 Jul 1996 12:33:23 -0500
From: [email protected]
Subject: [MASTERBOOK:112] Magic System
> Has anyone actually created a "fantasy" world for one of their campaigns - i
> always wondered why this sort of setting was never put out (hmmm
> bloodshadows doesnt really count) - as it is always quite popular......
I have, but the problem is, it is a LOT of work, and time is, of course, never
plentiful, so the work goes on, very slowly.
Unfortunately, WEG hasn't put out enough #generic# type material, such as a bestiary.
Such things would save me lots of work. I do have a complete weapons list, containing
about 100+ weapons. I have also redone the crossbows and bows a bit, to be more
historically accurate. Monsters is what has been killing me, and I haven't really
gotten anywhere with them. Also, spells, but the way I hand;ed that was to use the Torg
Clerics systems for miracles, and to let the mage players design their own special
effects, but with the following rules:
1. The spell has to be charged, into the caster. Only one charge.
2. For each charge of the same spell the caster has already "in him" he gets a +1 to
the dificulty of casting the spell.
3. Usually, a spell should have at least one of incantations, gestures, or components.
I have found that this system lets a mage use a higher casting time to reduce feedback,
and also forces them to prepare in advance. In addition, the plus one to the difficulty
keeps them from having too much power stored up, but "pre-casting" reduces the effects
of feedback to a degree, by allowing them to take it "before" they are in a dangerous
sistuation.
G. Anderson/The Stranger
Date: Mon, 15 Jul 1996 18:05:11 -0500
From: Dwayne Carnachan
Subject: [MASTERBOOK:116] Re: SFX & Scaling Factors
Ummm not wanting to burst everyones bubble about comparing to mind (which i
also noted and will probably use as well) - BUT i think that was a typo -
not the other way round - especially if you look in the bloodshadows
rulebook it has a specific example with casting a spell and the caster takes
the feedback damage less the result points..... which is why they have
implemented the spell feedback chart - which converts wounds to rolls on the
chart.....
i have pretty much decided for a fantasy type setting i would probably use
the bloodshadows magic system (a simplified torg system) - with the feedback
being compared to mind (a la torg - not use the spell feedback chart from
bloodshadows) - and use the torg miracles system (with faith and focus) -
rather than generate miracles via the masterbook system....
but like someone else posted - there is a big lack of monsters and stuff
available as well in terms of background material (does anyone have any
conversion notes for any systems)?
Dwayne Carnachan
Date: Tue, 16 Jul 1996 05:51:24 -0500
From: David Wood
Subject: [MASTERBOOK:117] Re: SFX & Scaling Factors
In message <[email protected]> writes:
>
> Ummm not wanting to burst everyones bubble about comparing to mind (which i
> also noted and will probably use as well) - BUT i think that was a typo -
> not the other way round - especially if you look in the bloodshadows
> rulebook it has a specific example with casting a spell and the caster takes
> the feedback damage less the result points..... which is why they have
> implemented the spell feedback chart - which converts wounds to rolls on the
> chart.....
Lessee...
"The feedback value is measured against the caster's Mind attribute and read as
damage on the Damage Column." (MB 138)
"Now subtract the result points for the skill total from the feedback value. Any
trmaining feedback is read as damage on the Damage Column." (MB 139)
I love consistency... And it doesn't help that the one example they have of a
spell being cast involves a generated total greater than DN PLUS FV...
"7. If the Feedback Value is positive, read it as result points on the 'Damage'
column of the Success Chart." (BS 99) The example following supports the
preceding calculation.
Damn.
It's almost enough to drive me back to GURPS. Really. (Also given a recent call
to West End, where Eric (???) told me that Masterbook is being dropped
completely for support of D6. Any further worldbooks will be written for just
D6, and will probably receive crap advertising so nobody will buy them either.)
> but like someone else posted - there is a big lack of monsters and stuff
> available as well in terms of background material (does anyone have any
> conversion notes for any systems)?
There is a published sourcebook called The Unnaturals, which is very nearly a
bestiary of Unnatural Bloodshadows-style races. There are also some big, nasty,
toothy creatures. Failing that, you could try light conversion from other
sources, like Shadowrun's Paranormal Animals of North America. (Conversion is
left as an exercise to the reader.)
-David
Date: Tue, 16 Jul 1996 12:02:11 -0500
From: Jim Ogle
Subject: [MASTERBOOK:118] Re: SFX & Scaling Factors
Dwayne writes:
> Ummm not wanting to burst everyones bubble about comparing to mind (which i
> also noted and will probably use as well) - BUT i think that was a typo -
> not the other way round - especially if you look in the bloodshadows
> rulebook it has a specific example with casting a spell and the caster takes
> the feedback damage less the result points..... which is why they have
> implemented the spell feedback chart - which converts wounds to rolls on the
> chart.....
I was thinking that BS supported that interpretation but I don't have
a copy of my own so couldn't check. You'd think they might have
realized that a SFX system which is inheriently lethal to the person
using the effect might need something a bit more fundamental than
tweaking on the gamebook level....
After the experiment with the healing spell design though I have to
wonder if it might not be necessary to modify the SFX design system to
account for the differences that would arise from resisting Feedback
with Mind, that ten point or so difference can be quite significant!
Just look at the Effect Values we had in the healing spells, 30 and 45
are pretty excessive numbers and we were able to get that down to the
point a minor magician could cast those spells with little to no
serious feedback damage.
Kansas Jim ([email protected])