Spell Creation Problem Thread

>
>From [email protected] Jul 16 18:40:20 1996
Date: Thu, 20 Jun 1996 11:26:31 -0500
From: [email protected]
Reply to: [email protected]
To: Multiple recipients of list 
Subject: [TORG:2199] Problems with spell creation

Well, I did it. It's not to be believed, but I did it.

I'm starting a new Torg campaign, two days before the Living Land
lands in Atlanta (during Olympic Opening Ceremonies) which I
thought would be better than Opening Day in baseball. One of the
characters is a mage (Yeah, a CE mage, he loves mages) and
I needed to make up a few spells for him. For some odd reason,
I decided to use the Aysle spell creation system! Well, as I've 
been working on it, I've come across a few snags.

1) How do you really know what the state path should be?
For example, I made a psychometry spell. The only state 
path that made sense to me was divination/true knowledge, 
mechanism magic, and result of living forces (memories).
But, still, especially seeing the chart for pattern for result of...
and mechanism for result of... it's no real help. True Knowledge
can't be a result ever, according to that! There's no acceptable
pattern!

2) Secondly, from a statistical standpoint, there is no reason 
to use pattern theorems, it seems. Since for each pattern 
theorem, a total is rolled, roll again on 10 and 20, no poss.,
no cards, the average roll is 11 or 12, with a bonus of 0. Does
anyone else think this is wrong? After all, 45% of the time, the
pattern theorem HURTS the spell rather than helps. Sure, you
can reroll, but scrapping everything so far. If you have 4 or 5 
pattern theorems in the spell, it's almost guaranteed that 
something in the spell will be bad. What's wrong with this 
picture?

John Baker


>From [email protected] Jul 16 18:40:27 1996
Date: Thu, 20 Jun 1996 11:48:21 -0500
From: Jim Ogle 
Reply to: [email protected]
To: Multiple recipients of list 
Subject: [TORG:2200] Re: Problems with spell creation

John writes:

> I'm starting a new Torg campaign, two days before the Living Land
> lands in Atlanta (during Olympic Opening Ceremonies) which I

Hmmm, I dread to think what kudzu will be like under Living Land
reality.... 8-)

> characters is a mage (Yeah, a CE mage, he loves mages) and

Are you going to burden him with the funky rules for CE magic in
the Delphi Council Worldbook?  At the very least he'll probably
need a substitution for Conjuration Magic when the character
creates his own spells.

> I needed to make up a few spells for him. For some odd reason,
> I decided to use the Aysle spell creation system! Well, as I've 
> been working on it, I've come across a few snags.

Just a few? 8-)
 
> 1) How do you really know what the state path should be?

The short answer is that there is no one state path that's
right for a spell, the same effect can usually be produced
through a variety of paths (though some effects probably have
fewer paths than others.)

> For example, I made a psychometry spell. The only state 
> path that made sense to me was divination/true knowledge, 
> mechanism magic, and result of living forces (memories).
> But, still, especially seeing the chart for pattern for result of...
> and mechanism for result of... it's no real help. True Knowledge
> can't be a result ever, according to that! There's no acceptable
> pattern!

I'll have to look at the path chart and interactions table myself
before I can offer an alternative but are you using the interaction
chart in the Aysle SB?  It has a few errors in it that were corrected
in Pixaud's, that might affect things.
 
> 2) Secondly, from a statistical standpoint, there is no reason 
> to use pattern theorems, it seems. Since for each pattern 
> theorem, a total is rolled, roll again on 10 and 20, no poss.,

The rules do allow magicians to spend P-Points on the spell design
process (though obviously it could get rather expensive.)

> no cards, the average roll is 11 or 12, with a bonus of 0. Does
> anyone else think this is wrong? After all, 45% of the time, the
> pattern theorem HURTS the spell rather than helps. Sure, you
> can reroll, but scrapping everything so far. If you have 4 or 5 
> pattern theorems in the spell, it's almost guaranteed that 
> something in the spell will be bad. What's wrong with this 
> picture?

I'll have to check on this on well but I think characters can buy skill 
adds in both process and pattern theorems just like an AK, so if you 
have any adds in a pattern theorem using it in a spell will be beneficial
most of the time.

Kansas Jim ([email protected])


>From [email protected] Jul 16 18:40:33 1996
Date: Thu, 20 Jun 1996 12:10:55 -0500
From: Joe Louderback 
Reply to: [email protected]
To: Multiple recipients of list 
Subject: [TORG:2201] Re: Problems with spell creation

John Baker writes

>[munch]
> 2) Secondly, from a statistical standpoint, there is no reason to
> use pattern theorems, it seems. Since for each pattern theorem, a
> total is rolled, roll again on 10 and 20, no poss., no cards, the
> average roll is 11 or 12, with a bonus of 0. Does anyone else think
> this is wrong? 
> [munch]
> [buuuuuuurrrrrrrp!!!!!!!!!!!!  excuse me]

There's actually good reason to use them.  First, you can add the
value of the # of weeks spent on the theorem to the result.  Second,
while on the average you won't get much from the roll (avg ~-0.8 I
think), runs are fairly common.  That is, it's not unlikely for you
to roll two positive bonuses in a row; it's about one in five.

Joe L
> 


>From [email protected] Jul 16 18:40:41 1996
Date: Thu, 20 Jun 1996 13:59:37 -0500
From: [email protected]
Reply to: [email protected]
To: Multiple recipients of list 
Subject: [TORG:2205] Re: Problems with spell creation


>> characters is a mage (Yeah, a CE mage, he loves mages) and
>
>Are you going to burden him with the funky rules for CE magic in
>the Delphi Council Worldbook?  At the very least he'll probably
>need a substitution for Conjuration Magic when the character
>creates his own spells.
>
I'm not having them bother with the sourcebooks and stuff right 
now; I'm handling most of the mechanics. They'll learn the 
mechanics from me throughout the adventures, and then I'll
let them play with the other books... BTW, I expect this guy to 
eventually transform to the Nile or something like that.

(snip)

>> For example, I made a psychometry spell. The only state 
>> path that made sense to me was divination/true knowledge, 
>> mechanism magic, and result of living forces (memories).
>> But, still, especially seeing the chart for pattern for result of...
>> and mechanism for result of... it's no real help. True Knowledge
>> can't be a result ever, according to that! There's no acceptable
>> pattern!
>
>I'll have to look at the path chart and interactions table myself
>before I can offer an alternative but are you using the interaction
>chart in the Aysle SB?  It has a few errors in it that were corrected
>in Pixaud's, that might affect things.
> 
Yeah, I'm using the Aysle SB. I haven't seen Pixaud's anywhere,
so I can't seem to pick one up... (snif) any help here?

>> 2) Secondly, from a statistical standpoint, there is no reason 
>> to use pattern theorems, it seems. Since for each pattern 
>> theorem, a total is rolled, roll again on 10 and 20, no poss.,
>
>The rules do allow magicians to spend P-Points on the spell design
>process (though obviously it could get rather expensive.)
>
Not on the application of theorems. On the spell totals, yes, but not
on theorem applications.

>> no cards, the average roll is 11 or 12, with a bonus of 0. Does
>> anyone else think this is wrong? After all, 45% of the time, the
>> pattern theorem HURTS the spell rather than helps. Sure, you
>> can reroll, but scrapping everything so far. If you have 4 or 5 
>> pattern theorems in the spell, it's almost guaranteed that 
>> something in the spell will be bad. What's wrong with this 
>> picture?
>
>I'll have to check on this on well but I think characters can buy skill 
>adds in both process and pattern theorems just like an AK, so if you 
>have any adds in a pattern theorem using it in a spell will be beneficial
>most of the time.
>
>Kansas Jim ([email protected])
>
I know that adds can be bought in process theorems (of which any 
savvy mage knows they need only one theorem for, another snag)
but I've never seen anything about adds for pattern theorems.

Ready to rewrite the rules again for my own use,
John Baker


>From [email protected] Jul 16 18:40:48 1996
Date: Thu, 20 Jun 1996 16:59:25 -0500
From: Jim Ogle 
Reply to: [email protected]
To: Multiple recipients of list 
Subject: [TORG:2208] Re: Problems with spell creation

I've gone back over the sourcebooks and have some new answers...

> 1) How do you really know what the state path should be?
> For example, I made a psychometry spell. The only state 
> path that made sense to me was divination/true knowledge, 
> mechanism magic, and result of living forces (memories).

I'm not sure True Knowledge would be accurate for psychometry, TK
tells you about the physical essence of an object, not its history.  I
think Time would be more appropriate.  Similarly, psychometry deals
with the history of objects, which unless they happen to be living
beings will not fall under Living Forces but Inanimate Forces instead.
Alternately, I think Time could also be used as the result knowledge
if we consider the spell to be gaining information about time itself
though in that case we've eliminated the need for an object and we
have postcognition, not psychometry.  Maybe Inanimate Forces as the
pattern with Time as the result?

(BTW, the Interaction Chart in the Aysle SB will tell you my State
Paths are bogus but the corrected chart in Pixaud's allows for them.)

> But, still, especially seeing the chart for pattern for result of...
> and mechanism for result of... it's no real help. True Knowledge
> can't be a result ever, according to that! There's no acceptable
> pattern!

But your pattern did not use True Knowledge as the result knowledge so
where's the problem?

> 2) Secondly, from a statistical standpoint, there is no reason 
> to use pattern theorems, it seems. Since for each pattern 

I was incorrect in my earlier post in saying that you can have adds in
pattern theorems, you can only buy adds in process theorems.  But as
someone else posted, you get to add the time value for the number of
weeks spent on each theorem so with enough time spent on a theorem
you'll probably end up with a positive value except on a bad die roll.
And since each theorem takes a minimum of one week you're starting
with a value of 1 right there.

Kansas Jim ([email protected])


>From [email protected] Jul 16 18:40:54 1996
Date: Thu, 20 Jun 1996 17:05:05 -0500
From: Jim Ogle 
Reply to: [email protected]
To: Multiple recipients of list 
Subject: [TORG:2209] Re: Problems with spell creation

John writes:

[I wrote:]

> >Are you going to burden him with the funky rules for CE magic in
> >the Delphi Council Worldbook?  At the very least he'll probably
> >need a substitution for Conjuration Magic when the character
> >creates his own spells.

> I'm not having them bother with the sourcebooks and stuff right 
> now; I'm handling most of the mechanics. They'll learn the 

Well then are you burdening yourself with the funky rules for CE
magic? 

[...]

> Yeah, I'm using the Aysle SB. I haven't seen Pixaud's anywhere,
> so I can't seem to pick one up... (snif) any help here?

On picking up a copy?  About all I can suggest is checking with WEG
and seeing if they have any copies in their warehouse.

As for the interaction chart, I'll try to get that typed up and posted
for the benefit of everyone doesn't have a copy of Pixaud's.

> >The rules do allow magicians to spend P-Points on the spell design
> >process (though obviously it could get rather expensive.)

> Not on the application of theorems. On the spell totals, yes, but not
> on theorem applications.

Whoops, so it is.

And while I'm realizing my errors, the message I just posted had one
in it (proofread dammit! 8-)  One week's worth of work on a pattern
theorme is a value of 0, not 1.


Kansas Jim ([email protected])


>From [email protected] Jul 16 18:41:00 1996
Date: Thu, 20 Jun 1996 20:58:20 -0500
From: John Baker 
Reply to: [email protected]
To: Multiple recipients of list 
Subject: [TORG:2213] Re: Problems with spell creation

Ks. Jim writes:

>I've gone back over the sourcebooks and have some new answers...
>
>I'm not sure True Knowledge would be accurate for psychometry, TK
>tells you about the physical essence of an object, not its history.  I
>think Time would be more appropriate.  Similarly, psychometry deals
>with the history of objects, which unless they happen to be living
>beings will not fall under Living Forces but Inanimate Forces instead.
>Alternately, I think Time could also be used as the result knowledge
>if we consider the spell to be gaining information about time itself
>though in that case we've eliminated the need for an object and we
>have postcognition, not psychometry.  Maybe Inanimate Forces as the
>pattern with Time as the result?
>
>(BTW, the Interaction Chart in the Aysle SB will tell you my State
>Paths are bogus but the corrected chart in Pixaud's allows for them.)
>
This is probably an example of how different knowledges will get you 
different effects, and different power levels for spells. This character
doesn't have Inanimate Forces, but still wanted a psychometry spell.
So, I used True Knowledge instead and was able to come up with a spell,
but a spell that would be harder than an IF spell.

>> But, still, especially seeing the chart for pattern for result of...
>> and mechanism for result of... it's no real help. True Knowledge
>> can't be a result ever, according to that! There's no acceptable
>> pattern!
>
>But your pattern did not use True Knowledge as the result knowledge so
>where's the problem?
>
I was just making a general comment on the troubles of the table.

John Baker


>From [email protected] Jul 16 18:41:06 1996
Date: Fri, 21 Jun 1996 07:10:53 -0500
From: Jim Ogle 
Reply to: [email protected]
To: Multiple recipients of list 
Subject: [TORG:2215] Re: Problems with spell creation

Jamison writes:

> KJ said:
> 
> > Alternately, I think Time could also be used as the result knowledge
> > if we consider the spell to be gaining information about time itself
> > though in that case we've eliminated the need for an object and we
> > have postcognition, not psychometry.  Maybe Inanimate Forces as the
> > pattern with Time as the result?
> 
> Why not have the need for the object arise from the use of a Theorem?
> Specific contagion, or whatever.

That could work too, hadn't thought that far ahead in the process.
I think you'd just want Contagion rather than Specific Contagion,
with Specific I think the spell would only work on one particular
object or type of object.

Kansas Jim ([email protected])


>From [email protected] Jul 16 18:41:12 1996
Date: Fri, 21 Jun 1996 07:13:40 -0500
From: Jim Ogle 
Reply to: [email protected]
To: Multiple recipients of list 
Subject: [TORG:2216] Re: Problems with spell creation

John writes:

[...]

>                                                    ... This character
> doesn't have Inanimate Forces, but still wanted a psychometry spell.
> So, I used True Knowledge instead and was able to come up with a spell,
> but a spell that would be harder than an IF spell.

Out of curiousity, why did he pick an Essence instead of something
more useful (for a beginning mage anyway) like one of the lower AKs?
 
Kansas Jim ([email protected])


>From [email protected] Jul 16 18:41:20 1996
Date: Sat, 22 Jun 1996 13:36:07 -0500
From: Jim Ogle 
Reply to: [email protected]
To: Multiple recipients of list 
Subject: [TORG:2226] Re: Problems with spell creation

John writes:

[...]

> Oh, and to answer an earlier post about CE magic rules, they don't 
> seem convoluted to me at all. His Conjuration Sub. will likely be
> Scholar(Occult), when he starts making spells. Other than that, I

Scholar (occult) seems a little too easy of a substitution but I'm
not familiar enough with hermetic magic to think of a better alternative.

As for him making his own spells, for a pre-invasion CE mage he cannot 
wait and put off spell creation for a later time, at least not if he
wants to start play with any spells.  At Magic axiom 7 it is a contra-
diction to learn spells that someone else has designed, magic is just
too unstable at that low of an axiom for spells to be reliable enough to
be taught to someone else (see description of Magic axiom 8).

Obviously the player can put off spell creation but his character
should begin play with the three available magic skills and his
substitution for Conjuration Magic otherwise there's no way he could
begin play with any spells (outside of being from Haiti, but then
he would probably be a bokor, not a hermetic mage.)

> just remember to tack on +5 Difficulty and Backlash, and be aware
> of erratic failures and successes. That's not bad.

Remember that the +5 is to spells built with Conjuration Magic, not
to all spells used in CE.

Kansas Jim ([email protected])


>From [email protected] Jul 16 18:41:31 1996
Date: Mon, 24 Jun 1996 19:51:30 -0500
From: John Baker 
Reply to: [email protected]
To: Multiple recipients of list 
Subject: [TORG:2247] Re: Problems with spell creation

Ks. Jim writes:

>John writes:
>
>[...]
>
>> Oh, and to answer an earlier post about CE magic rules, they don't 
>> seem convoluted to me at all. His Conjuration Sub. will likely be
>> Scholar(Occult), when he starts making spells. Other than that, I
>
>Scholar (occult) seems a little too easy of a substitution but I'm
>not familiar enough with hermetic magic to think of a better alternative.
>
[...]
>
>> just remember to tack on +5 Difficulty and Backlash, and be aware
>> of erratic failures and successes. That's not bad.
>
>Remember that the +5 is to spells built with Conjuration Magic, not
>to all spells used in CE.
>
>Kansas Jim ([email protected])
>
You know, this post allowed me to come up with the perfect retcon.  The
mage player doesn't know about it yet, so I think it'll work just fine.

A hermetic mage uses knowledge passed down from others in order to make new
spells. Although the spells are spelled out to the mage, the mage still 
has to create them himself. These spells require complex charts and are 
notoriously difficult to create and use, but they are the most intellectually
thought out spells available in Core Earth. The hermetic mage substitutes
Scholar(Occult) for Conjuration in spell creation. The time spent in the 
creation of the spell remains the same, but the spell difficulty and backlash
get the regular +5 penalty that spells using Conjuration normally receive.
Any effect desired is allowed, but only the Arcane Knowledges of Air, Earth,
Fire, Water, Magic, Time, and True Knowledge are acceptable as patterns.
This may lead to some horribly inefficient spells attempts to duplicate the
effect.

You know, I might just change Scholar(Occult) into Science(Occult) with
this thought in mind...

John Baker


>From [email protected] Jul 16 18:41:59 1996
Date: Thu, 20 Jun 1996 21:20:07 -0500
From: Jim Ogle 
Reply to: [email protected]
To: Multiple recipients of list 
Subject: [TORG:2214] Knowledges Interaction Table

This is the corrected information from Pixaud's (p8), I'm not going to
do it in a chart or table format because it's too much of a pain to do
with my cheapo text editor...

Pattern Knowledge: Essences
   Acceptable Mechanisms: any Knowledge except a different Essence
      unless it's Divination Magic which can use any Knowledge
   Acceptable Results: any Knowledge except a different Essence
      unless it's Divination Magic which can use any Knowledge

Pattern Knowledge: Darkness
   Acceptable Mechanisms: Death, True Knowledge, Living Forces,
      Magic, Darkness
   Acceptable Results: Death, True Knowledge, Kindred, Mixed
      Forces, Elements, Darkness

Pattern Knowledge: Light
   Acceptable Mechanisms: Life, True Knowledge, Magic, Mixed
      Forces
   Acceptable Results: LIfe, True Knowledge, Elements, Kindred,
      Mixed Forces, Light

Pattern Knowledge: Magic
   Acceptable Mechanisms: any Knowledge except Kindred and
      Elements
   Acceptable Results: any Knowledge

Pattern Knowledge: Mixed Forces
   Acceptable Mechanisms: any Knowledge except the other Mixed Force
   Acceptable Results: Kindred, Elements, Mixed Forces, Principles,
      Essences (Time and True Knowledge can only be used by Inanimate
      Forces and only for Divination; Death and Life can only be used
      by Living Forces and only for Divination)

Pattern Knowledge: Kindred
   Acceptable Mechanisms: any Knowledge except Kindred and Elements
   Acceptable Results: Kindred, Elements, Light, Darkness, Mixed
      Forces, Essences (for Divination only)

Pattern Knowledge: Elements
   Acceptable Mechanisms: any Knowledge except Kindred and Elements
   Acceptable Results: Kindred, Elements, Magic, Mixed Forces, Light,
      Essences (for Divination only)
-----

Kansas Jim ([email protected])