Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [ironclaw] FWD: IC Magic "quick fix"

Expand Messages
  • ZdeLameter@aol.com
    It ain t broke.
    Message 1 of 7 , Mar 2, 2000
    • 0 Attachment
      It ain't broke.
    • willi064
      ... I m glad to hear it. The system is certain good, with a lot of really great features (like the Adept system, and the Journeyman/ Master advancement
      Message 2 of 7 , Mar 2, 2000
      • 0 Attachment
        >===== Original Message From ironclaw@onelist.com =====
        >From: ZdeLameter@...
        >
        > It ain't broke.

        I'm glad to hear it. The system is certain good, with a lot of
        really great features (like the Adept system, and the Journeyman/
        Master advancement system). It's the first system I've ever looked
        at and gone "WOW, I know exactly what I'd like to use this system
        for!"

        On the other paw, there are aspects of it that I don't particularly
        like, or rather, aspects in the spell lists that I feel could have
        been done better (come on, there's ALWAYS room for improvement!).
        I'm not the only person (apparently) who feels this way. So, when
        "The Admiral" asked me to pass his ideas along, I didn't see any
        reason not to. I'll probably be posting them to my page if I can
        get his permission, as well as some other ideas I have. The magic
        system certainly works well as written. The "quick fix" phrasing the
        Admiral used was likely in reference to his own problems with the
        system, and not indicitive of the quality of the system, or the game,
        as a whole. I post my suggestions (and occasional, those of others),
        on the off chance that someone else has the same feelings I do on the
        subject, and would like the option of doing things a different way.
        Again, I don't expect the rules to change to suit my own tastes, but
        there's nothing that says I can't play the game the way I want to.

        If the subject proves to be inflamatory (and in the past, it really
        hasn't been), I'll stop posting in regards to the Magic System,
        except for specific questions about how the current system works.
        I will continue to update my webpage with alternative methods, for
        anyone who wants to see them.

        Firemane
      • Grey, Rosemary
        ... I think, pretty much, the reason not to is because the Admiral already voiced them himself. Essentially, we have already had this same discussion two or
        Message 3 of 7 , Mar 2, 2000
        • 0 Attachment
          > I'm not the only person (apparently) who feels this way. So, when
          > "The Admiral" asked me to pass his ideas along, I didn't see any
          > reason not to. I'll probably be posting them to my page if I can
          > get his permission, as well as some other ideas I have. The magic
          > system certainly works well as written. The "quick fix" phrasing the
          > Admiral used was likely in reference to his own problems with the
          > system, and not indicitive of the quality of the system, or the game,
          > as a whole. I post my suggestions (and occasional, those of others),
          > on the off chance that someone else has the same feelings I do on the
          > subject, and would like the option of doing things a different way.
          > Again, I don't expect the rules to change to suit my own tastes, but
          > there's nothing that says I can't play the game the way I want to.
          >
          >
          I think, pretty much, the reason not to is because the Admiral already
          voiced them himself. Essentially, we have already had this same discussion
          two or three times already. It has degenerated into a flame war every time.
          Ironclaw's already posted saying the spell lists aren't going to change and
          why, I think maybe in a vain attempt to end the (second) ongoing argument
          once and for all.

          I personally think the discussion has been beaten to death twice, with the
          same points made both times on both sides. If people want to post alternate
          magic lists on their sites, that's cool. If they want to tell us on the
          list that they're there, that's also cool, but I think the whole "the magic
          list is seriously screwed because you have to pay for the spells twice"
          discussion is growing old and tired (again). I'm not trying to be mean or
          anything, but for god's sake could we talk about something else--something
          that actually has something to do with the way Ironclaw IS?

          okay. sorry. I'm done. Maybe I am just losing my patience as I approach
          middle age...
        • Ironclaw Gaming System
          As for Firemane/Admirial s suggestions, when we originally designed the Ironclaw magic system, we had thought about having specific magic points for
          Message 4 of 7 , Mar 2, 2000
          • 0 Attachment
            As for Firemane/Admirial's suggestions, when we originally designed the Ironclaw magic system, we had thought about having "specific" magic points for different spell lists. While some of us liked it, it proved to be lots of record-keeping, and our goal was to keep the math simple, the game quick.

            We have in mind a "maximum complexity threshold", which is the theory that the game can only be as complex as the Game Host can stand it. Otherwise, those rules will be ignored or glossed over, as the Game Host certainly doesn't want to be over-burdened with too much stuff. Or such stuff winds up as fodder for "rules lawyers" to abuse.

            We here at Sanguine are experimenting with how to write a game that appeals to a larger group of role-players. One way of maximizing this appeal is minimizing the complexity and the math. We're Role-Master players -- we don't balk at adding +55 to 89% and spending 15 magic points (which we got from our x2 Mentalism Magic point-multiplier staff). Then again, I used to draw Joe Genero for fun. ^.^ I like math. Most folks don't.

            Firemane is certainly welcome to post his rules-variants here. There's certainly no "one true way" to play ANY role-playing game. And I am curious as to alternative view-points to how to play the game.

            The posts so far have not been inflammatory. I would recommend hearing folks' alternative ideas and critical feedback to other rules here. If you don't like someone else's ideas... then I'd suggest either posting something that questions the rule theory, or most likely not posting anything at all.

            I encourage folks to browse to Firemane's page and to review his variant spells for themselves. If that suits your style of campaign better, you might want to try them. They're not "official", per se, but the basic rule of Ironclaw is "Be fair and be consistent."

            Me, I'm working on more careers, skills, and spells as I write this. ^.^ In fact, I'm still curious how the new "Atavist" powers stack up, as in http://www.ironclaw.gs/Atavisms_for_Playtest.pdf . I know SOME of you out there are playing Atavists. -.o

            -- Jason Holmgren
            Sanguine Productions Ltd.
          • willi064
            ... Ironclaw magic system, we had thought about having specific magic points for different spell lists. While some of us liked it, it proved to be lots of
            Message 5 of 7 , Mar 3, 2000
            • 0 Attachment
              >===== Original Message From ironclaw@onelist.com =====
              >From: "Ironclaw Gaming System" <ironclaw@...>
              >
              >
              >As for Firemane/Admirial's suggestions, when we originally designed the
              Ironclaw magic system, we had thought about having "specific" magic points for
              different spell lists. While some of us liked it, it proved to be lots of
              record-keeping, and
              >our goal was to keep the math simple, the game quick.

              True, and as I said, I don't anticipate that anything I suggest will lead
              to modification of the spell system. Especially not since the book is
              already in print! :)

              >We here at Sanguine are experimenting with how to write a game that appeals
              to a larger group of role-players. One way of maximizing this appeal is
              minimizing the complexity and the math. We're Role-Master players -- we don't
              balk at adding +55 to
              >89% and spending 15 magic points (which we got from our x2 Mentalism Magic
              point-multiplier staff). Then again, I used to draw Joe Genero for fun. ^.^
              I like math. Most folks don't.

              My fault for being an Engineer, I guess. I really (and I mean REALLY) don't
              have any complaints about the over-all system. For a first run, the book is
              astounding.

              >Firemane is certainly welcome to post his rules-variants here. There's
              certainly no "one true way" to play ANY role-playing game. And I am curious
              as to alternative view-points to how to play the game.
              >
              >Me, I'm working on more careers, skills, and spells as I write this. ^.^ In
              fact, I'm still curious how the new "Atavist" powers stack up, as in
              http://www.ironclaw.gs/Atavisms_for_Playtest.pdf . I know SOME of you out
              there are playing Atavists.
              >-.o

              I like a lot of the new Atavist powers, and they specialize for a lot of
              different Races, which is really good.

              The only problem I keep running into is picturing certain races using these
              powers. I just can't imagine being "Stared Down" by a Rabbit Atavist!

              Firemane,
              Actually, I CAN imagine it, it just makes me grin :)
            • ZdeLameter@aol.com
              In a message dated 2000.03.03 08:57:39 Pacific Standard Time, ... Hm... obviously you didn t grow up in the 1970s, exposed to Monty Python and the Holy Grail
              Message 6 of 7 , Mar 3, 2000
              • 0 Attachment
                In a message dated 2000.03.03 08:57:39 Pacific Standard Time,
                willi064@... writes:

                > The only problem I keep running into is picturing certain races using these
                > powers. I just can't imagine being "Stared Down" by a Rabbit Atavist!

                Hm... obviously you didn't grow up in the 1970s, exposed to Monty Python
                and the Holy Grail ("Death awaits, with sharp, pointy teeth! Look a' th'
                BOOONES, mon!") and President Carter's encounter with the famous Swimming
                Attack Rabbit....

                Zeke
              • ZdeLameter@aol.com
                In a message dated 2000.03.03 08:57:39 Pacific Standard Time, ... ...Or the Killer Switchblade Bunnies of WATERSHIP DOWN and BUNNIES & BURROWS.... (You know,
                Message 7 of 7 , Mar 3, 2000
                • 0 Attachment
                  In a message dated 2000.03.03 08:57:39 Pacific Standard Time,
                  willi064@... writes:

                  > The only problem I keep running into is picturing certain races using these
                  > powers. I just can't imagine being "Stared Down" by a Rabbit Atavist!
                  >
                  ...Or the Killer Switchblade Bunnies of WATERSHIP DOWN and BUNNIES &
                  BURROWS....

                  (You know, the '70s had this real thing about wabbits....)

                  And, of course, we've ALL seen Bugs use Stare Down...
                Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.