Do spells have a visual component (when they don't obviously have one)?

[Shiningbrow]

10 hours ago, Bill the barbarian said:

Okay, I am getting extremely tired of coming to 

Do spells have a visual component (when they don't obviously have one)?

only to find we are not talking about spells, we are talking about 

Blah, Blah Blah, charisma, Blah, Blah Blah charisma. 

Could we possibly let this thread go back to its original poster and his original topic "Spells" and perhaps create a new thread about "charisma"... so those of us who never want to read another word on this topic as long as they game can avoid the thread For the sake of all the gods. please!

I know it's frustrating Bill. There is a certain logic behind it though... and it does directly related to the thread.

Charisma (and Lie and Clever Tongue, Glamour) can all be used on/against friends and allies in an attempt to 'manipulate' them to get them to do what you want.

Bladesharp having a visual aspect mostly doesn't matter (except for aesthetics, and occasionally stealth rolls).

 

And that's all I'm going to say on the C-word matter.

I don't think spells like Disrupt, Demoralize or Befuddle should have a visual component... but that's very much my idea. Seeing someone casting - absolutely. Not knowing what they're casting, and at who/what makes the game more interesting. (ie, have they just upped their defences? Have they upped their offence? Have they just tried to summon something? Did their spell succeed or not? Why is Bill hanging back and not attacking like the rest of us?)

[Shiningbrow]

11 hours ago, lordabdul said:

 

I suppose the priestess wouldn't do that just because of the economics of Rune Magic points.

Just FYI - Ernalda has a minor Holy Day every week - Clayday. So, that economy isn't too significant.

[Jeff]

38 minutes ago, Shiningbrow said:

I know it's frustrating Bill. There is a certain logic behind it though... and it does directly related to the thread.

Charisma (and Lie and Clever Tongue, Glamour) can all be used on/against friends and allies in an attempt to 'manipulate' them to get them to do what you want.

Bladesharp having a visual aspect mostly doesn't matter (except for aesthetics, and occasionally stealth rolls).

 

And that's all I'm going to say on the C-word matter.

I don't think spells like Disrupt, Demoralize or Befuddle should have a visual component... but that's very much my idea. Seeing someone casting - absolutely. Not knowing what they're casting, and at who/what makes the game more interesting. (ie, have they just upped their defences? Have they upped their offence? Have they just tried to summon something? Did their spell succeed or not? Why is Bill hanging back and not attacking like the rest of us?)

And this is why descriptions of the visual and audible aspects of the spells are NOT given except in rare cases. 

[Shiningbrow]

5 minutes ago, Jeff said:

And this is why descriptions of the visual and audible aspects of the spells are NOT given except in rare cases. 

TBH, I"m not sure how to interpret this... Other than maybe "YGMV - so GM decides (in consultation with the players)"

[Bill the barbarian]

1 hour ago, Shiningbrow said:

TBH, I"m not sure how to interpret this... Other than maybe "YGMV - so GM decides (in consultation with the players)"

That seems to be the ticket, Shiningbrown and as you noted always remember the players!

As to frustrated, barbarian exploded—all better now!

[svensson]

4 hours ago, Bill the barbarian said:

That seems to be the ticket, Shiningbrown and as you noted always remember the players!

As to frustrated, barbarian exploded—all better now!

Bill, I'm glad it's all better.

But I do think it's fair to point out that the vast majority of answer were 'YES, spells have a visual component. Here's why....' What I mean to say is that nobody had lost sight of the OP's original question. If there is one place on Terra-Funda for all us old grogs to spool out all of our ritualistic reasonings and mythical mumblings, this is the place.