On 24 May 2004 at 22:02, flynnkd2 wrote:
> You are suffering from "rigid definitions syndrome", this is a
> mental condition inflicted by various tightly defined RPG's
> (humour). HQ requires a lateral mind shift, and it took me some time to do
> that... in fact there are still areas where I have yet to make the
> shift...
Oh, HQ is all about that, especially in constructing contests as conflicts, which is why at first I thought this really had more to do with contest framing than with the whole "14 is the world's resistance to magic" thing.
> Flickering Blade can be used to do anything your players can
> imagine. So yes it can be cast on your sword to make it better,
> either by making it flicker with lightning, or to make it flicker in and
> out of reality... cast by two different people it may do different things.
> What it does in this augment mode doesnt matter really. However the
> magic can be used 'actively', all by itself, as a direct attack on an
> enemy... you conjure a flickering blade into existence and attack with it.
> The skill of that attack is based on your magic ability with that magic,
> augmented by your sword skill (and any other combat related skill).
True, and I never argued against that. I think it has reached the point where you are all the ones who aren't thinking laterally enough. (humour) You keep assuming that because I say "it isn't cast on the opponent" I'm implying that you wouldn't use that rating to attack. Nothing could be further from the truth. Of COURSE if you use it to attack, you roll with it. That's how the system works.
What I was trying to deal with was how on one level Magic is resisted by the world at 14, but people get to resist with whatever mundane ability that applies. In other words, why is that it doesn't matter how tall a tree is when you use Jump over Tree, but it DOES matter how tall a human is when you use "Jump over foe". Why can I have a spell called "Blight Plant" and whatever plant I use it on will resist with 14, no matter what abilities the plant has, but if I use "Sicken Enemy" they can resist with a "Healthy" trait.
So my first instinct was to notice, after RRs explanation of the way magic works, to intuit that what is happening is that the resistance of the world to magic appearing is 14, and because conflicts are almost never against that when sentients are involved, but rather the conflict is about how the magic is used in light of another conflict, the other resistance is applicable in light of that.
Except that this doesn't seem to hold up, so now I've decided in light of re-reading the book, that the whole thing hinges on sentience.
> One of your players may decide he wishes to use Leaping Shield to
> make an opponents shield "leap" away from him, that would be a
> direct magical attack with the spell, and the opponent might defend
> with either combat skills or with a magic defence.
Except that you would almost never use it like that and roll for it. You would be in a fight, and it would be used, which means it wasn't "can I make the shield leap", but rather "Do I defeat my foe" which is the conflict. Thus the resistance in question.
> Decapitate Foe, which is a Humakt magic, CAN be used at range, but
> it is just another attack, it doesnt decapitate the foe in an
> extended contest unless they are reduced to -35 AP, but it will naw
> away at their neck in the mean time. OR it can be used as an
> augment, especially effective againast foes who can only be killed
> by decapitation.
See, this kind of thing is the kind of thing that becomes problematic in my first vision of it. Beings have to be able to resist something like Decapitate Foe with something, or otherwise I roll to beat 14 and someone's head falls off. Obviously, this gets into the "pompus naming" problem, as well.
In my first iteration of my understanding, what you are actually doing is giving yourself the ability to decapitate your foe, you aren't just willing his head off.
> Dont restrict yourself to the first (or second) idea that pops into
> your head when your read a spell heading. It is just a heading, not
> a definition of the spell, your players and your imagination provide the
> definitions... and as it is magic, these may change.
Totally understood. But there is also a strong thread in the rules saying that the magic narrowly does exactly what the name of the magic says it does. After all, Jump over Tree doesn't let you Jump over a wall, or an antelope, although it might let you jump over someone named Tree.
LC
Powered by hypermail