Re: Olympia: opinions on magical research

From: Bill.Viggers@comp.vuw.ac.nz (Bill Viggers)

Date: Fri, 01 May 1992 03:01:03 +0000

In article <1992Apr30.192355.8382@cbfsb.cb.att.com>, skrenta@cbnewsg.att.com (Rich Skrenta) writes:
|> hauck@cs.washington.edu (Scott Hauck) writes:
|> > My suggestion and others sort of fall into the category of skills that
|> > eanr you spells, but the spells need to be learned in a specific order.
|> > Well, this is exactly how normal skills currently work.  So, axe the
|> > idea of learning skills and then spells, and just make the spells be
|> > the USE command for a skill.
|>
|> This was choice #1 in my original post.
|>
|> It makes things sane and regular, but I like the flavor that the
|> random research imparts, and the extra difficulty because you must
|> go through two levels of learning.

Sane? Regular? pahh.  I like the current system (given the proviso that
	you can direct your research in some way).

And remember, its not just two layers of training, its also the gathering
	of the components, and spending years casting the spells.

|>
|> > One thing I'd add though is a "practice" order.  The idea is that the first
|> > time a spell is cast, there's a 25% it fails (often spectacularly).
|>
|> This is a fun idea, but it means that each spell implementation is
|> three times as much work.
|>
|> It's not clear here how your "practice" order differs from the two-tiered
|> system where you must study the spell in order to use it.  You're just
|> calling study by a different name, and changing the result of failure.

There are two differences:
	1: You use the material component (major downer for a certain snake spell)
	2: You never *know* that your spell will work.

I'd prefer the system to remain the same.  Currently there is a distict
	bias towards not casting any spells you know (due to time), so you don't
	get people just firing off spells for the fun of it (okay, once, but
	back in my fog summoning days, I didn't realise how *long* it took).

As for the subject of 'battle magic' that was not ment to indicate
	flying fire balls, more the general haste/slow/heal? magic spells that
	already exist.  I was looking for a catagory and battle seemed to be
	the best general description.

I do like the idea of material componets for spells.  It means even us
	powerful people have reasons to go out and do things :->

>< M >< [537]

References

Re: Olympia: opinions on magical research
skrenta@cbnewsg.att.com (Rich Skrenta)
Thu, 30 Apr 1992 19:23:55 +0000
Re: Olympia: opinions on magical research
hauck@cs.washington.edu (Scott Hauck)
Thu, 30 Apr 1992 18:50:57 +0000

Referenced By

Re: Olympia: opinions on magical research
skrenta@cbnewsg.att.com (Rich Skrenta)
Thu, 30 Apr 1992 19:23:55 +0000
Re: Olympia: opinions on magical research
hauck@cs.washington.edu (Scott Hauck)
Thu, 30 Apr 1992 18:50:57 +0000