New design notes - Sorcery!

[Jeff]

If you have mastered the Fire Rune it is a good one to get. Might be worth it if you have mastered the Air or Earth Rune (although it is REALLY expensive to cast then). Totally useless if you have only mastered Water, Darkness, or Moon, since you can't cast it.

[Mugen]

2 minutes ago, Jeff said:

If you have mastered the Fire Rune it is a good one to get. Might be worth it if you have mastered the Air or Earth Rune (although it is REALLY expensive to cast then). Totally useless if you have only mastered Water, Darkness, or Moon, since you can't cast it.

Doesn't that make Fire rune a very desirable second rune to master for anyone ?

[Jeff]

It could. But so is the Spirit Rune (let's you defend against spirits, identify otherworld entities, etc), so is Water (if you plan on sailing - which most Western cultures do), so is Darkness, and hey, so is Moon. So is Death, Fertility, Disorder, Harmony, Truth, Illusion, Movement, and Stasis. So is Man, Plant, and Beast, for that matter, depending on your magical tradition. And you need Techniques as well.

The point is that sorcerers have to make trade-offs. And their magic is really expensive - so frex, let's say you blow 6 additional magic points to Enhance INT (meaning it costs 8 points), hurrah you have 3 extra points of Free INT for the next minute (5 melee rounds). So you now want to immediately cast that big spell? OK, not enough time to use any ceremonial augments, so I sure hope you have lots of Runic correspondences set up. And so on.

[jongjom]

3 hours ago, Atgxtg said:

Instead of a +dx% cast bonus, maybe those bonuses could be changed to POW doubling. Like say 1 point POW doubling, but if the sorcerer has two or three such goodies it doubles the first two or three POW points spent. That would keep the bonuses useful, easy to play, but not all that powerful. 

A bit like a Magic Crystal from RQ2. I could live with that!

[smiorgan]

42 minutes ago, Jeff said:

Yes, if a starting sorcerer is willing to blow all their magic points for one spell that they have likely a mediocre chance to cast, I am fine with that. And since sorcery has half the base duration of spirit magic (1 minute), a sorcerer wanting to prep beforehand really needs to spend a bunch of points on duration (it takes 10 additional magic points for a spell to last all day),

No I was suggesting something more radical: distinguishing between preparing and casting. Duration would start at casting time. Preparing would only commit the magic point in advance.

That's a radical change, of course. Sorcerer would rather be the big spell guy, and would have always to prepare spells in advance. But, nevermind...

51 minutes ago, Jeff said:

Do I want a powerful spell?

Do I want a long duration spell?

Do I want a long range spell (default range is only 10m)?

Choices concerning power, duration and range are fun. They were already in RQ3, but I guess the new system makes their handling simpler. I must confess my memory of RQ3 sorcery is hazy and it gets mixed up with MRQ sorcery. The technique + rune thing hinted at another level of flexibility, but it's not really there. I was just running wild thinking of a semi-freeform system.

  

[Runeblogger]

In order to make skill level more relevant to the effects of the spell, you could decide that some points of FREE-INT are granted to the character at certain skill levels. For example: 1-50% skill gives you nothing, 51-60% gives you +1 Free-INT, 61-70 gives you +2, 71-80% +3, and so on. This way, William the Magus with 110% skill in his favourite spell would certainly be more threatening than Billy the starting Wizard with his 40%. 

It would also be interesting for skill level and casting time to be linked, so starting sorcerers take a long time to cast a spell, while high magus can cast the same spell in two seconds because they are so used to do it.

Just a couple of ideas. 

[Mugen]

19 minutes ago, Jeff said:

It could. But so is the Spirit Rune (let's you defend against spirits, identify otherworld entities, etc), so is Water (if you plan on sailing - which most Western cultures do), so is Darkness, and hey, so is Moon. So is Death, Fertility, Disorder, Harmony, Truth, Illusion, Movement, and Stasis. So is Man, Plant, and Beast, for that matter, depending on your magical tradition. And you need Techniques as well.

The point is that sorcerers have to make trade-offs. And their magic is really expensive - so frex, let's say you blow 6 additional magic points to Enhance INT (meaning it costs 8 points), hurrah you have 3 extra points of Free INT for the next minute (5 melee rounds). So you now want to immediately cast that big spell? OK, not enough time to use any ceremonial augments, so I sure hope you have lots of Runic correspondences set up. And so on.

Fact is, it's really a matter of how long you can make your spells last. If you can make it last for weeks or months, it's completely worth the cost to have it constantly re-cast on you. 

I guess It could be possible to cast the spells in cascade, reaching maximum possible INT first (I guess there's a cap) then casting it again to reach months or years in duration. Providing you have an absurdly high amount of mana available...

[jongjom]

It would be great to actually have a go with the new rules to see how they work out in practice.

I like the idea of the big impact of the day/season/holy time etc. Maybe RQ should come with an evocative calendar with a counter of some kind to indicate which day / week / season it is and the bonus you can get.

The new sorcerer being able to fire off powerful spells sounds a bit like the new guy with the arbalest: a lot of the time comical, occasionally kicks arse. But then if spell Fumbles exist firing off a 'nuke' that wipes out one of your own party would again quickly remind everyone of the value of skill.

[Jeff]

4 minutes ago, jongjom said:

It would be great to actually have a go with the new rules to see how they work out in practice.

I like the idea of the big impact of the day/season/holy time etc. Maybe RQ should come with an evocative calendar with a counter of some kind to indicate which day / week / season it is and the bonus you can get.

The new sorcerer being able to fire off powerful spells sounds a bit like the new guy with the arbalest: a lot of the time comical, occasionally kicks arse. But then if spell Fumbles exist firing off a 'nuke' that wipes out one of your own party would again quickly remind everyone of the value of skill.

Yep. That's pretty much it completely. I see a lot suggestions trying to correct a "problem" that is in practice self-correcting.

[Roko Joko]

9 hours ago, Stormwalker said:

I'm surprised that each spell is a separate skill - becoming proficient in several spells becomes a potentially lengthy endeavour in terms of character advancement. One of the trends I've liked ... is the move towards skill grouping...

Runes and Techniques also seem something of an oddity... Grouping spell casting ability under something like the lowest % of its specified runes would lessen the impact of skill proliferation....

I'm not even sure I'd have Techniques as a thing...

MGWV 

If desired, yeah!  And if more than one skill was involved, you could say the PC gets an experience check in the skill of their choice.  Very similar to what Jeff described, but with slightly fewer skills (and fewer still if you omit technique skills) and the look-and-feel you describe.  

[Pentallion]

9 hours ago, deleriad said:

tl;dr.

For what it's worth, my personal preference is that the power of a spell is based on the skill of the caster not on access to Magic Points.

Obviously, you SHOULD have read.  Access to magic points doesn't have anything to do with the power of a spell, only how many castings of a spell a wizard can afford.  The power of a spell is limited to the casters Free INT, not magic points.

But since that's been reiterated ad nauseum in this thread already, perhaps you should take the time to actually read it.

[Pentallion]

9 hours ago, TrippyHippy said:

How is it a feature?

As a DM I am so fed up with searching for a spell description because no one remembers instead of being called Tap CON it's called Shrivel.  I have to go through every letter of the alphabet while the game stalls just because you or someone else can't take the time to give your spells flowery names yourselves?

 

Descriptive is better.

[MOB]

7 hours ago, styopa said:

I understand the need for this descriptively, but as an esthetic I've always far preferred more evocative names for what would be IRL amazing, wondrous things to see.

I'm sure in the world, Gloranthans have all sorts of evocative names for their spells (Biturian Varosh, Zero of Nochet etc's use of the prosaic names comes across as pretty clunky to read, but you could put that down to translation). I'm sure each culture has their own name for "Speedart", "Fireblade" etc. But the utilitarian God Learner designations are more useful for quick and easy comprehension from a game mechanics perpsective.

[Mugen]

11 minutes ago, Pentallion said:

Obviously, you SHOULD have read.  Access to magic points doesn't have anything to do with the power of a spell, only how many castings of a spell a wizard can afford.  The power of a spell is limited to the casters Free INT, not magic points.

But since that's been reiterated ad nauseum in this thread already, perhaps you should take the time to actually read it.

How rude...

Given the long history of Deleriad with RuneQuest, I think he perfectly understands how this system is supposed to work...

[Pentallion]

4 minutes ago, Mugen said:

How rude...

Given the long history of Deleriad with RuneQuest, I think he perfectly understands how this system is supposed to work...

You left out the tl;dr portion of his quote.  How interesting that you manipulated our conversation before declaring me rude for pointing out that if he himself admits he didn't read it, then perhaps he should.

And no, just because he has a long history with RuneQuest doesn't mean he perfectly understands when his very words proclaim he doesn't. 

btw, I wasn't trying to be rude.  But if people don't take the time to read, then THEY are being rude, not me for pointing it out.

[deleriad]

4 minutes ago, Pentallion said:

You left out the tl;dr portion of his quote.  How interesting that you manipulated our conversation before declaring me rude for pointing out that if he himself admits he didn't read it, then perhaps he should.

And no, just because he has a long history with RuneQuest doesn't mean he perfectly understands when his very words proclaim he doesn't. 

btw, I wasn't trying to be rude.  But if people don't take the time to read, then THEY are being rude, not me for pointing it out.

Hey! the tl;dr is a summary of my argument. i.e. if you don't want to read my long-winded explanation of why I didn't like what I was reading then here's my summary. 

I believe I have a pretty good understanding of what has been presented of the new system. Free INT is the cap on the number of MPs you can put in a spell; spell's strength is based on number of MPs. I happen not to like that model. It divorces effect of spell from skill of user. It treats magic as a machine gun with MPs as ammo. As long as you point it in the right direction you're ok. I prefer effect to scale with skill. However, appearances notwithstanding, I don't actually expect Chaosium to pander to my every whim. 

[Stormwalker]

11 hours ago, deleriad said:

Just to reduce the strength of any fire runes around here there are judgement calls and preferences in the sorcery outlined mentioned that I personally don't like but it doesn't mean they are in any way "broken."

I think you failed that "separate fire rune spell" roll there ...    

[Mugen]

1 hour ago, Pentallion said:

How interesting that you manipulated our conversation before declaring me rude for pointing out that if he himself admits he didn't read it, then perhaps he should

I made no manipulation in my previous post (I do, in this one, but only to highlight the part of your message I'm answering). I just hit "quote" and the forum only kept your last answer, as it does by default.

Edited August 26, 2016 by Mugen

[Sayerson]

Just wanted to weigh in on a few earlier posts. As to spell naming convention, just pointing out - something along the lines of 'Alkazar's Itinerant inversion' is a lot to write on a character sheet when  'haste' or 'mobility' would describe the spell, just as well. Also would be helpful during game sessions.

Player - "In the grim moments of battle, between foes, um.. I ready 'Jarret's Incandescent Obfuscation' to delay the enemy's approach"

Gm - "Right. Fred readies extinguish. Just say extinguish Fred."

Player - "fine... extinguish"

Edited August 27, 2016 by Sayerson
font size correction

[TrippyHippy]

1 hour ago, Pentallion said:

As a DM I am so fed up with searching for a spell description because no one remembers instead of being called Tap CON it's called Shrivel.  I have to go through every letter of the alphabet while the game stalls just because you or someone else can't take the time to give your spells flowery names yourselves?

 

Descriptive is better.

If you are a new player, it makes little difference to your ability to learn spells in the alphabetical order provided. If you are a more experienced player, it just means you need to unlearn what you have learned a bit.

Moreover, if the spells are organised into verb/noun categories you don't need to worry about how individual spells are named and organised - just search for the verb/noun category and read the spells under it (with perhaps a spell index at the back). Ars Magica has lots of spells with flowery names - and nobody struggles with book referencing in that game. 

Quote

I'm sure in the world, Gloranthans have all sorts of evocative names for their spells (Biturian Varosh, Zero of Nochet etc's use of the prosaic names comes across as pretty clunky to read, but you could put that down to translation). I'm sure each culture has their own name for "Speedart", "Fireblade" etc. But the utilitarian God Learner designations are more useful for quick and easy comprehension from a game mechanics perpsective.

If you organise spells into verb/noun categories you already have the prosaic descriptions as per God Learners. 

 

Edited August 26, 2016 by TrippyHippy

[Mankcam]

I personally don't mind how the spell powers are capped, just as long as some mechanic is in place. Basing it on the skill is a good idea, but also basing it on the Free INT is just as good, and I'm happy with that as well.

I would prefer a more arcane sounding term than Free INT if possible, as that feels exceptionally bland to me, but the concept itself works.

After 30yrs + of involvement with BRP systems, I know I would prefer modifiers to be meaningful, and I think even if RQ is a granular system it still needs to have less fiddlly modifiers. Whilst I am very happy that the flat modifier approach has won over variable dice %, I feel that +/- 5% modifiers are just too nit-picky.

I have preferred the broader modifiers like in MRQ/RQ6, OQ/Renaissance, and even the Bonus/Penalty Dice from CoC 7E. If RQ is going to be more granular, then I think that modifiers should always be at least +/- 10%, otherwise there's not much point. So I really hope this is considered before final publication.

In regards to bland spell titles, I am all for it. They are functional, and quite useful in that respect.

However what may be nice in CRQ4 if each Spell also has some example colourful names and trappings for different versions of the Spell. This would reinforce that the spells are known quite differently in-game setting to what is written in the rule book, and some of the HQ spell names could be used for consistency. This goes for all magic, not just Sorcery. For example, a Heal spell could also have a few example titles such as Chalarna Arroy's Touch, Spirit of Orlanth, Rousing Song of Donander, Recuperation Formulae of Xemela, etc etc.

I have always felt that Sorcery would be the perfect spot for some approach to free-form magic casting in Glorantha. I would not want it overused, but I think the idea works for this kind of magic, especially after the Second Age when God Learner scholarship studied everything down to core elements, including magic. It just feels like something they would of developed.

It would not supplant that the primary way to perform this magic is through formulaic rote spell casting, but it would be a nice secondary approach to magic that the other forms of magic are unable to do.

Free-form magic would have to be more difficult to perform, perhaps much more magically draining ( normal MP cost x3 perhaps?), but the structure of Rune + Technique cries out to be used for free-form magic as well as rote spell casting.

This would certainly make Sorcery very interesting, and I strongly feel that this will really end up being a missed opportunity if it isn't considered. 

All in all I think I am quite interested in the CRQ4 Sorcery rules. It feels like RQ3 Sorcery as a core, but with better bells and whistles. Building in the Runes is a great idea, as is runic elements such as location, time of day, etc that feels quite arcane. Many of us already had house rules for things like that, but it's good that these elements are now officially built into the system.

I am not totally sold on how Techniques are presented, but a least they are there, as this is a move to present CRQ4 Sorcery as being somewhat consistent with HQ Sorcery, which sounds reasonable considering it is the same setting.

The difficulty with all this is reinterpreting RQ3 Sorcery through what has evolved to be Gloranthan Sorcery as described in HQ Glorantha and the G2G. I think it must be a tough job for Jeff actually.

So far, so good...

 

Edited August 27, 2016 by Mankcam

[styopa]

2 hours ago, deleriad said:

Hey! the tl;dr is a summary of my argument. i.e. if you don't want to read my long-winded explanation of why I didn't like what I was reading then here's my summary. 

I believe I have a pretty good understanding of what has been presented of the new system. Free INT is the cap on the number of MPs you can put in a spell; spell's strength is based on number of MPs. I happen not to like that model. It divorces effect of spell from skill of user. It treats magic as a machine gun with MPs as ammo. As long as you point it in the right direction you're ok. I prefer effect to scale with skill. However, appearances notwithstanding, I don't actually expect Chaosium to pander to my every whim. 

Let's not forget, this is a rules system like any other.  Is there any game out there that isn't immediately houseruled to some degree?

I'm delighted if we get a robust, thorough set of rules that generally seem to balance.  I have no doubt that I'll have several pages of homerules that better reflect what I (and hopefully my players) expect from the game world.  After all, YGMV,

[jajagappa]

3 hours ago, Mankcam said:

what may be nice in CRQ4 if each Spell also has some example colourful names and trappings for different versions of the Spell

While I enjoy the flavor of colorful names from an in-game perspective (and certainly encourage such in my games if a player wants to go that route), a standard list of common spells (spirit, rune, or sorcery) is far easier to remember and work with (and same goes for magic crystals).  Basic name, describe what it does and needs in order to work.  Embellish as you wish in your game.

[Jeff]

13 hours ago, smiorgan said:

Choices concerning power, duration and range are fun. They were already in RQ3, but I guess the new system makes their handling simpler. I must confess my memory of RQ3 sorcery is hazy and it gets mixed up with MRQ sorcery. The technique + rune thing hinted at another level of flexibility, but it's not really there. I was just running wild thinking of a semi-freeform system.

  

Semi-freeform in use does not model how I see Gloranthan sorcerers actually work. They aren't "winging it" - they use extraordinarily complex formula, like giant mathematical formulae. An individual sorcerer can develop new formula (and not just choose from a spell list), but it takes time and research.

In some cases, I get the feeling people are proposing favorite rules mechanics - in a vacuum - rather than think about what the sorcery rules are trying to model.

[Jeff]

As an aside, please keep in mind that the sorcery rules presented in the core RQ book is not intended to cover the breadth of sorcerous options - heck, it presents sorcery from the perspective of how it might appear in a Dragon Pass-centric campaign (it discusses Aeolianism, Lhankor Mhy, Lunar sorcery, and a very brief overview of Malkionism (primarily Rokari). The goal was to present a robust framework of sorcery that can be expanded in future supplements.