I know you're charming me

[David Scott]

15 hours ago, lordabdul said:

Unless @David Scott left out parts of his game, it sounds like he did option 1 here.

16 hours ago, David Scott said:

If everyone in the game understands that everyone uses all the advantages, then the players have to use other methods to their advantage.

In my games, everyone assumes that magic will always be used if available. Why have an advantage and not use it (unless of course the rules prevent it).

The basic assumptions are (if available):

• Magic is always used (Rune, spirit, sorcery and prepare in advance if possible). Never name it.
• Everyone augments skills with skill / passion / rune

 

[Bill the barbarian]

4 hours ago, David Scott said:

In my games, everyone assumes that magic will always be used if available. Why have an advantage and not use it (unless of course the rules prevent it).

The basic assumptions are (if available):

• Magic is always used (Rune, spirit, sorcery and prepare in advance if possible). Never name it.
• Everyone augments skills with skill / passion / rune

Thanks David Scott, that is precisely what I interpret as well. Not having magics up is the equivalent of fighting with a hand behind one’s back .Works well enough for the old cartoon character, Snagglepuss, not so much for Naimless. Flame On!

Cheers

[Lordabdul]

10 hours ago, David Scott said:

In my games, everyone assumes that magic will always be used if available. Why have an advantage and not use it (unless of course the rules prevent it).

Sure, but the thread's topic is whether magic is "visible" when cast -- not whether players are aware that everybody has and is using magic (which should be obvious from character creation by virtue of every character getting magic).  I'm aware that everybody (well, almost everybody) is wearing underwear, but (most of the time) I can't see it.  So if the thread was about underwear, the answer here might be "nope, you are usually unable to see if someone is wearing underwear, but you can rely on strong reasonable assumptions that they do". Other GMs however (using option 2 or 3 in my post) would effectively say "not only can you assume that they are wearing underwear, but in fact they are wearing their underwear above their pants and you can see these are some sorts of boxers"[1].

It's possible that a GM doesn't narrate magical effects unless asked about it, on the same level as not narrating what armour/weapon/facial hair an NPC has until asked about it: "A bunch of Greydogs are charging you"... "What do they look like?"... "Most have breaded beards, and clan tattoos over their arms and torsoes. Three of them have a crazy look and frothing at the mouth."... "What about their gear?"... "Most have axes and shields. Two have swords which are glowing blue.".   And to be clear, there are many ways to go about it (which I tried to list), and none of them is better or worse (there's no wrong-fun).  I was just curious about specifically David's game, which seemed to indeed not associate any visible component to the casting of Charisma (or at least no consciously visible component[2]).

[1] Please someone start a thread on what underwear people use in different Gloranthan cultures  

[2] I could imagine that a GM foregoes narrating visual components because Gloranthan people internalize most of it from a young age, and don't really "notice" it anymore.

Edited August 20, 2020 by lordabdul

[soltakss]

1 hour ago, lordabdul said:

[1] Please someone start a thread on what underwear people use in different Gloranthan cultures  

Your wish is my command.

 

[PhilHibbs]

On 8/15/2020 at 7:42 PM, Rodney Dangerduck said:

But please note that her bonus was +10% without the Charisma spell.  So the net gain to her Communications skills from the Charisma spell is +20%.

On 8/17/2020 at 1:42 PM, David Scott said:

I keep modifiers and skills separate precisely for this reason. 

I have an online spreadsheet precisely for this reason. The smaller numbers are "including temporary enhancements", i.e. in this case CHA 21 doubled with Charisma, plus Glamour.

 

[Runeblogger]

On 8/20/2020 at 9:08 PM, lordabdul said:

Sure, but the thread's topic is whether magic is "visible" when cast -- not whether players are aware that everybody has and is using magic (which should be obvious from character creation by virtue of every character getting magic). 

What about this? Certain magic or spells are visible only if it is cool for the story or if they help achieve their general goal. So for example, Bladesharp being visible makes your enemies fear you, so yes, it is visible. Is the runespell Charisma visible? Of course its effects are, but only if you know that person well enough beforehand. But since it would be counter productive for Charisma to be visible as a cast spell, let's say it is not. You only notice that the person you have just met and are interacting with is good at words and/or at charming. But you don't notice any spell on her/him unless you use detection magic.

Edited August 25, 2020 by Runeblogger

[PhilHibbs]

15 hours ago, Runeblogger said:

Is the runespell Charisma visible? Of course its effects are, but only if you know that person well enough beforehand. But since it would be counter productive for Charisma to be visible as a cast spell, let's say it is not. You only notice that the person you have just met and are interacting with is good at words and/or at charming. But you don't notice any spell on her/him unless you use detection magic.

If you discard the notion that magic is somehow different to not-magic, that it's tantamount to "cheating", then this "problem" goes away.

[Jeff]

19 hours ago, Runeblogger said:

What about this? Certain magic or spells are visible only if it is cool for the story or if they help achieve their general goal. So for example, Bladesharp being visible makes your enemies fear you, so yes, it is visible. Is the runespell Charisma visible? Of course its effects are, but only if you know that person well enough beforehand. But since it would be counter productive for Charisma to be visible as a cast spell, let's say it is not. You only notice that the person you have just met and are interacting with is good at words and/or at charming. But you don't notice any spell on her/him unless you use detection magic.

If you read the Shahnahmeh, leaders and rulers are often described as having "farr" - literally meaning something like "king's glory" it is a magical property like Glamour or Charisma. It is sometimes described as a halo of light or fire, and displaying "Farr" is often enough to prove that you are the righteous and proper leader, while lack of it can be disastrous.

[PhilHibbs]

[Roko Joko]

I added some background notes to the first post:

Earlier discussions:
  * Do spells have a visual component? . brp.org  2019
  * Spell Manifestations . brp.org 2018
  * bargaining chips . HeroQuest RPG list, Greg, Feb 5, 2004
Text in rule books about magic visibility:
  *  RQG 248 and 315, HQG 146, S:KoH 82, HQ2 (HQCR) 111, HQ1 (HQ:RiG) 98, HW (HW:RiG) 163.

Edited August 27, 2020 by Roko Joko