>From: "Mark Galeotti" <mark_at_...>
>This may just be when the magic fails � perhaps the hero shimmers and
>wavers, but ultimately stays visible, letting viewers know that he tried to
>conceal himself magically � or it could be that the target is unable fully
>to understand it. Maybe the liar's eyes widen hypnotically or his voice
>acquires a strange resonance, but so long as the victim fails to resist,
>none of this registers."
I think this is sort of the key thing. Basically there's a chance that failure means detection?
Looking at a mundane ability like pickpocketing, the goal of an attempt to get something includes within it not being caught. On a failure, the narrator decides which parts of the goal were failed. Perhaps you get the item, but the person notices you doing it. Or you don't get the item, but you don't get detected, either (perhaps no good chance presents itself).
Same thing with magic, it seems to me. If you get a marginal failure, perhaps they didn't notice the eyes, but didn't get tricked, either - you get away with the attempt this time. On a major failure, probably you fail to charm them and they do notice.
Given this, the visible effect could be small or intermittent. For example, if you have a spell that you cast to enchant a blade, you could say that on a success that the enchantment didn't glow or anything, just did it's job. On a failure, maybe the fact of the blade's enchantment becomes apparent from a shower of sparks that it gives off (because of poor control of the spell) when the blades collide. Or like the example given of the invisibility spell that wavers a bit in the middle of using it. In fact, in that way a marginal failure might be being detected using invisibility magic, but not caught ("They're in here somewhere. Search the place and listen for footfalls!")
Thanks, everyone for the feedback.
Mike
Powered by hypermail