Magic (Was: Mud code? Oh joy...)
Gnort, God of Chaos
> f) D&D style magic is bad, magic is good. Dark and mysterious
> magic for a dark and mysterious city, right? Powerful and
> dangerous, capable of twisting the very reality of the
> universe, but, at the same time, quite capable of twisting the
> caster as well. No more escalation of attack spells. Each
> spell should be something unique ... an entity to and of
> itself.
Yes!
But how would one go about making a reasonably simple piece of code to
model a world where the magic builds up and distorts like radiation?
Maybe even showing the odd bit of sentience? (All points like the magic in
the Discworld books.)
And maybe even taking into account the concept of mana as used in Larry
Niven's fantasy tales; that is, it's not a replenishable source, making
possible places of the world to become totally barren of magic in any form.
(This would of course mean to let it slowly trickle back. Otherwise we'd soon
have a mud totally without magic :)
Maybe I'm rambling a bit, but I think a realistic (?) approach to magic would
be commendable, if only interesting to us hard-fantasy buffs out there ;)
--
Gnort @ { DikuII | Unicorn | Discworld } gn...@daimi.aau.dk
Matthew J. Newhook
>On rec.games.mud.diku, bai...@ursula.ee.pdx.edu (Scarrow) writes :
>> f) D&D style magic is bad, magic is good. Dark and mysterious
>> itself.
>Yes!
>[and more]
>have a mud totally without magic :)
Well I always pictured magic working as follows: You give some items
special magic effects. These generally become spell components. For
each of these spell components you give certain characteristics. To
create a spell you mix all the components together and poof the spell
happens (or if you wish the magician must use some mental aspects, or
something similar to activate it all). The interesting part is as
follows: Since each component has fixed (or perhaps even variable)
attributes then the number of spells (and effects) is only limited by
the combination and strength of the various attributes. Of course,
some attributes may not mix (such as a fire attribute and a cold
attribute) and may fizzle, or perhaps even cause some completely
dangerous, or bizarre results to happen.
>--
>Gnort @ { DikuII | Unicorn | Discworld } gn...@daimi.aau.dk
Matthew (duncan in some places)
--
Matthew Newhook (mat...@engr.mun.ca) | "...get on with the fascination
Faculty of Engineering and Applied Science | the real relation, the underlying
Memorial University of Newfoundland, Canada | theme" - Limelight, Rush
Jamieson Norrish
(Gnort, God of Chaos) writes:
[Lots deleted.]
Maybe I'm rambling a bit, but I think a realistic (?) approach to
magic would be commendable, if only interesting to us hard-fantasy
buffs out there ;)
I think that in order for magic to be dealt on anything approaching a
realistic and intelligent level, it is necessary to first understand
how it works in terms of the world of the MU*. Then, it should be
incorporated into the core mechanics of the world, as opposed to being
merely a tack-on to the rest of the world. If magic is coded at a low
enough level, it would be possible to allow it to have a much greater
scope than it currently does on most MU*s. For example, it shouldn't
be too hard to allow magic to affect *any* room in certain ways, if
this effect is determined *before* lots of building etc has been done.
This probably isn't much help to people, but I think that planning is
certainly the first and perhaps most vital step in creating a magic
system which is believable and realistic. The key to this is in having
the possibility of magic affecting not just characters, but the whole
world environment - not just in terms of numbers/statistics, but also
from a descriptive point of view too - a blast of energy (to take a
crude example) might cause inflammable objects to burn - and even the
room, if it is also inflammable. Until this sort of thing can be
handled without requiring large amounts of extra code, then magic will
always remain as limited as it does at the moment.
Jamie
David Bennett
>This probably isn't much help to people, but I think that planning is
>certainly the first and perhaps most vital step in creating a magic
>system which is believable and realistic. The key to this is in having
>the possibility of magic affecting not just characters, but the whole
>world environment - not just in terms of numbers/statistics, but also
>from a descriptive point of view too - a blast of energy (to take a
>crude example) might cause inflammable objects to burn - and even the
>room, if it is also inflammable. Until this sort of thing can be
>handled without requiring large amounts of extra code, then magic will
>always remain as limited as it does at the moment.
The trouble is. As you make your mud more flexible and able to handle
more and more things like this, it makes a simple object more and more
of a pain to create. I was thinking about adding materials onto objects
when I first started, so you could make them wooden or metal or so on.
But its very very hard to handle things like mixtures. Which bits burn
and so on. So normaly its much easier to say, ok... its magic fire
burn everything.
Since magic can in theory do just about anything, its very hard to code
for. Another related problem is event types. Take for example your
average person entering a room. Its not just one sort of event
its actually quite a few. There is a sound event, a sight event and
a smell event. Now, if your blind you should still get the other two
right? And if you have very good hearing and are in a neighbouring room
you should get the sound event. This is well and good. But, how do you
meanfully split up the events so that you only get one or two of them?
If you do it as one message for each type, you get a lot of different
messages... Makeing up one message for each type and one message for
each combination is a lot of messages. If you expand this by makeing the
further away from the source you are the message also changes, you start
to have so many messages you can't even begin to write them.
This is just a small example of how out of control such things can get.
You needo to choose a happy medium rather than going all one way or the
other. Since magic is basicly impossible to cater for very easily,
just cater for certain things happening. Like don't cater for magic
fire. Just cater for fire, make your room code flexible enough that
you can do silly things to it with relative ease.
In writing Discworld I have found myself makeing a lot of things too
complicated. If this is the case, people just won't use them. They
even refuse to use some of the less complicated and very neat features,
so what can I say? :)
I have decomplicated some things now, and overly compilcated others :)
definate bonus.
David.
[DDT] Pink fish forever.
--
David Bennett, gu...@uniwa.uwa.oz.au | University Computer Club
Where Pink fish swim backwards. | c/o Guild of Undergraduates
These words I am singing now mean nothing more than meow to an animal - TMBG
Disclaimer: Any spelling mistakes in this article are all entirly my fault. Any grammer errors spotted in this article were put there because I could.
Jamieson Norrish
(David Bennett) writes:
The trouble is. As you make your mud more flexible and able to handle
more and more things like this, it makes a simple object more and more
of a pain to create. I was thinking about adding materials onto objects
when I first started, so you could make them wooden or metal or so on.
But its very very hard to handle things like mixtures. Which bits burn
and so on. So normaly its much easier to say, ok... its magic fire
burn everything.
Part of this is solved by lots of planning before anything is coded;
figure out what you want in the world, and then put it all in
together. The next part of the solution is inheritance and various
other spooky OOP stuff. :) That should eliminate most problems.
Since magic can in theory do just about anything, its very hard to code
for. Another related problem is event types. Take for example your
average person entering a room. Its not just one sort of event
its actually quite a few. There is a sound event, a sight event and
a smell event. Now, if your blind you should still get the other two
right? And if you have very good hearing and are in a neighbouring room
you should get the sound event. This is well and good. But, how do you
meanfully split up the events so that you only get one or two of them?
If you do it as one message for each type, you get a lot of different
messages... Makeing up one message for each type and one message for
each combination is a lot of messages. If you expand this by makeing the
further away from the source you are the message also changes, you start
to have so many messages you can't even begin to write them.
Yes, this is a problem, and I don't have any good solution at the
moment. However, I think that it's worth trying to figure out a
reasonable means of doing this - the advantages, IMHO, must outweigh
the disadvantages in this particular case.
Jamie
Captain M. Thurman
-CoHort
David Bennett
>Well I always pictured magic working as follows: You give some items
>special magic effects. These generally become spell components. For
>each of these spell components you give certain characteristics. To
>create a spell you mix all the components together and poof the spell
>happens (or if you wish the magician must use some mental aspects, or
>something similar to activate it all). The interesting part is as
>follows: Since each component has fixed (or perhaps even variable)
>attributes then the number of spells (and effects) is only limited by
>the combination and strength of the various attributes. Of course,
>some attributes may not mix (such as a fire attribute and a cold
>attribute) and may fizzle, or perhaps even cause some completely
>dangerous, or bizarre results to happen.
We thought of trying to implement a system very similar to this. In fact
Evan (Ember) made up a spell system like this which we used in role
playing at one point. Ember has written something sort of along these
lines for the witches guild at Discworld. However... It is incredibly
complicated. Figureing out just what the effect is going to be
is well. Exremely non trivial. In the role playing situation it was
interesting, and maybe with quite a bit more work would have worked as
well. As it stood, it was too vague... Too hard to determine just
what *was* going to happen. If you can think up a fairly neat method
of handleing mixing two totaly aribtrary things together, without each
one haveing to know about all the possible combinations... Even with
chemistry there are rules. But how many small chem books have you
seen? Want to try and implement chemical equations in a mud?
Magic systems along these lines are nice dreams. But in practice
way to complicated to actually write.
Matthew J. Newhook
>mat...@cs.mun.ca (Matthew J. Newhook) writes:
>>Well I always pictured magic working as follows: You give some items
>>[etc]
>We thought of trying to implement a system very similar to this. In fact
>[etc]
>seen? Want to try and implement chemical equations in a mud?
>Magic systems along these lines are nice dreams. But in practice
>way to complicated to actually write.
Well, it is true that it would take time to write, but it could be
handled in many ways. One relatively simple way is to use n n*n
tables where n is the number of spell components. Each table would
describe the interactions of the spell components. So table 1 would
describe interaction of 1 component, 2 2 components, etc. The obvious
disadvantage of this is that every time you add a new spell effect (not
component) you would have to update all the tables.
>David.
>[DDT] Pink fish forever.
>--
> David Bennett, gu...@uniwa.uwa.oz.au | University Computer Club
> Where Pink fish swim backwards. | c/o Guild of Undergraduates
>These words I am singing now mean nothing more than meow to an animal - TMBG
>Disclaimer: Any spelling mistakes in this article are all entirly my fault. Any grammer errors spotted in this article were put there because I could.
Matthew
Tamber Kelsain
>In article <1nufp8...@uniwa.uwa.edu.au> gu...@uniwa.uwa.edu.au
>(David Bennett) writes:
>
Anyone ever get the feeling that we think very much alike?
*Shivers at the thought*
-T
>Jamie
--
Will Stoltenberg |"The Bible is not my book and Christianity is not my
Ames, Iowa (515) 294-1701| religion. I could never give assent to the long
"Tamber Kelsain" | complicated statements of Christian dogma."
gri...@iastate.edu | - Abraham Lincoln
Michael Jones
: In article <1nufp8...@uniwa.uwa.edu.au> gu...@uniwa.uwa.edu.au
: (David Bennett) writes:
: The trouble is. As you make your mud more flexible and able to handle
: more and more things like this, it makes a simple object more and more
: of a pain to create. I was thinking about adding materials onto objects
: when I first started, so you could make them wooden or metal or so on.
: But its very very hard to handle things like mixtures. Which bits burn
: and so on. So normaly its much easier to say, ok... its magic fire
: burn everything.
: Part of this is solved by lots of planning before anything is coded;
: figure out what you want in the world, and then put it all in
: together. The next part of the solution is inheritance and various
: other spooky OOP stuff. :) That should eliminate most problems.
If you've ever been on a MOO, they use a lot of OOP, and have a decent
method of online creation, handling messages and all....but they also
have a lot of overhead (as is true with most OOP). So unless everyone
has powerful machines, lots of OOP is going to slow down the code a lot.
However, I still feel that OOP would be the way to go for making things
more realistic (in a fantasy sort of way :), and easier to work with
(once the base is written). Plus true online creation would allow some
really neat concepts (as seen on some other muds). For instance, in the
idea someone mentioned of being a farmer/warrior, where you farmed part
of the time, and killed for the rest...you could have a builder/warrior.
You could take part in the creation of new areas, and possibly get paid
for it. You could have a boss (most likely an immortal or a trusted player)
who would oversee the construction of that area. Or possibly mining...etc..
Anyways (I got off the subject of magic...oops :), even with magic (which
I admit...I'm not the most knowledgeable about...I have been more of the
warrior type) you could come up with a basic group of "ingredients" as
your base classes, and create your actual spells using these.
However, to do OOP would require major rewriting of the Diku Code.
--
Mike Jones (aka ByTor/Theonarch)
mgj...@nextsrv.cas.muohio.edu
Henry McDaniel
>Jamieson Norrish (ja...@kauri.vuw.ac.nz) wrote:
>: In article <1nufp8...@uniwa.uwa.edu.au> gu...@uniwa.uwa.edu.au
>: (David Bennett) writes:
>: The trouble is. As you make your mud more flexible and able to handle
>: more and more things like this, it makes a simple object more and more
>: of a pain to create. I was thinking about adding materials onto objects
>If you've ever been on a MOO, they use a lot of OOP, and have a decent [...]
>have a lot of overhead (as is true with most OOP). [...]
>However, I still feel that OOP would be the way to go for making things
>more realistic (in a fantasy sort of way :), and easier to work with
>(once the base is written). Plus true online creation would allow some
>really neat concepts (as seen on some other muds). For instance, in the
>However, to do OOP would require major rewriting of the Diku Code.
>--
>Mike Jones (aka ByTor/Theonarch)
>mgj...@nextsrv.cas.muohio.edu
Well actually you can agument the existing Diku 'driver.' That is the
Diku structures with a 'shadow' data structure of your own. For instance
create a generic object which supports the standard Diku objects, write
your own all purpose functions to handle object list exchanges and slowly
stop using the old Diku. I did just that on my game... but ofcourse
whats the point? Diku does have its limitations, as with anything. There
is a certain 'romantic' quality to Diku which I like.. but I stopped
believing one SHOULD code arround its short commings. If you wish to
go to lots of OOP, build your own server or move onto a different MUD
server.
I don't like any paticular MUD more than any other, but I have realised
(after a year of coding DIKU) that there are other options. For most
standard games DIKU works well... so I hope nobody takes offense.
Speaking of Magic: Why not devise a way mimic 'natural' occurences.
After I coded muds for awhile it would always bother me that there are
no real 'natural' cause and effects in the everday sense. For instance
you may light a torch in a game. What does this do? At best it illuminates
the local room (and the game starts counting down on the torch life.)
In real life the lighting of the torch would start the combustion of materials,
producing heat, AFFECTING the local atmoshphere in various ways.
Now if you apply cause and effect in detail to a MUD you would have your
magic. In short of energy would transfer between objects having various
characteristics, then any object could take on any attributes. And isn't that
what magic is about? So define what sorts of energy there are... how they
best transfer and in what ammounts, decide what states the energy may have
and decide what the intial states shall be. From there players would be
able to use their own knowledge or Magical Formulas to make Majik.
Ok, so you say: "Thats too complicated?" Bahhh.. we're talking simple
numbers, perhaps some bits to allow for multiple energies in one object.
Hows that sound?
-McDaniel of Stellar
Jamieson Norrish
Kelsain) writes:
> [Stuff about neat dreams for muds]
>
> Anyone ever get the feeling that we think very much alike?
>
> *Shivers at the thought*
Dreams? Maybe, although I would hope that people who are working on
them now will show us the reality of them some time in the not too
distant future (I refuse to say RSN :).
As to thinking alike - that just shows that a few of us have good
taste! :)
Jamie
Jamieson Norrish
dion...@stein.u.washington.edu (Captain M. Thurman) writes:
of course, just change the words, and you have no magic, it's all tech.
"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from
magic."
However, in this case, the vital words are "sufficiently advanced" -
one of the great differences between tech and magic for me is the
atmosphere of the two - tech has the air of functionality about it,
that you can see all the steps, and you know what's going to happen
because you can see it working, or because you know the physics. With
magic, on the other hand, you are dealing with something that you
don't know much about, that is powerful in the extreme, yet erratic
(to a greater or lesser extent) and unfathomable.
While in mechanical terms magic and tech may be similar (although I
have the feeling that magic requires slightly more complications and
inventiveness than does tech), in atmosphere they are completely
different, and this is one of the issues that must be addressed by the
designers of magic systems; these systems too often end up being a
mere alternative to a sword, rather than something strange and
wonderful, as, IMHO, it ought to be.
Jamie
rion hall
About magic, and possibly an easy compromise until someone can
come up with an entire system which is better suited to this type of
creation, at least as far as Diku's go. Have a list of modifiers,
which would affect the spell's {duration, saving throws, damage,
affect}. Have each spell, in some way have an attribute which can be
modified. Not the themology I'm about to use it no way should be taken
as a constant, but an example. Based upon an elemental theme (there
are plenty out there), whereas the "flow" of magical forces are
channeled through different elemental interactions. Thus there would
be a lot of possible ways which a spell could get information from
it's surroundings. This would require a lot of numbers... and the
overall effect would be to have a totalled modifier... which would
affect aspects of the spells. Possible modifiers, you ask?
well he's a short list of possible effects...
fire
time function, daylight, +.25 modifier
time function, nighttime, -.25 modifier
time function, year summer, +.10 modifier
time function, year winter, -.10 modifier
room terrain, volcanic (anybody have one of those yet?) +1.00 modifier
room terrain, ice, polar, -1.00 modifier (yes... make 'em fizzle)
power focus, (I don't know... lava lamp?), +50 modifier
air
room terrain, outdoor, +.10 modifier
room terrain, indoors, -.10 modifier
room terrain, air room, +.50 modifier
room terrain, tunnel room, underground, -.50 modifier
weather condition, windy, +.25 modifier
time function, season, fall (or spring, your choice), +.10 modifier
time function, season, spring (or fall, etc...), -.10 modifier
earth
room terrain, land, +.10 modifier
room terrain, sea, air, -.25 modifier
room terrain, underground, mountains, forest, +.25 modifer (on top of above)
time function, season, fall (reapin') spring (plowin') +.10 modifier
water
room terrain, near water, +.10 modifier
room terrain, water, underwater, +.25 modifer
time function, season, winter, +.10 modifier
time function, season, summer, -.10 modifier
weather function, rainin', +.25 modifier
weather function, sunny, no clouds, -.25 modifier
Then you can have Spirit Element, mankind... and areas which have
power foci, places of extreme worship, where the "flow" is strong...
and places where it is weak... this can be converted to different
themes, but I chose elemental, b/c there are several functions to call
information from, which can modify the spell. Weather, time of day,
time of year, room flags, terrain flags, character's natural level
(elves would be good at earth/spirit, dwarves really good at earth,
humans good at spirit, others... well good time to make some original
races... like reptilian ravaaths, who inhabit oceans... etc...), item
which modify the character's natural level... a lot of options already
out there. You can just call from what already exist, and make some
other options which don't. Like new terrain flags which denote a power
foci. Mages/Clerics of one sort, would have a near impossible time
tryin' to cast spells from the other "sphere of influence". This
requires and actual organization of spells in dikus, but it's a basis
from which to alter.
-Rion Hall-
<-- <-- <-- <-- <-- <-- <-- <-- <-- <-- <-- <-- <-- <-- *ri...@wpi.wpi.edu* --->
Life is to cut against the grain, and to stand straight against the flow.
And you might ask why? Cause I feel like it.
And might ask when? Yesterday wasn't soon enough.
And you might finally ask how? Well mes amis, anyway possible.
TO GO BALDLY WHERE TO TOUPEE HAS GONE BEFORE...RIGHT PICARD?
> In article <1o14pd...@shelley.u.washington.edu>
> dion...@stein.u.washington.edu (Captain M. Thurman) writes:
>
> "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from
> magic."
Not true. Technology always has the limitations of comming up with new
technologies to explain and new advances. With repect to magic, it as it is a
mystery to most people, its mystery explains itself. Technology always requires
an answer as to how it works - magic doesn't have this complexity.
>
> However, in this case, the vital words are "sufficiently advanced" -
> one of the great differences between tech and magic for me is the
> atmosphere of the two - tech has the air of functionality about it,
> that you can see all the steps, and you know what's going to happen
> because you can see it working, or because you know the physics. With
> magic, on the other hand, you are dealing with something that you
> don't know much about, that is powerful in the extreme, yet erratic
> (to a greater or lesser extent) and unfathomable.
Magic can be as explainable as technology is. If you consider the standard laws
of conservation of mass then magic is a form of energy, transforming energies
from the user to accomplish any feat. The 'energy' comes from either the caster
or is tapped from the caster himself. An alternative is thatit taps the
elemental planes energy - something similar to tapping solar energy - an
infinite source of power (well...within about the space of a few millenia)
> these systems too often end up being a mere alternative to a sword,
To an extent this is true, but isnt any where battle is the prime aspect of a
game likely to do the same. Technology would then pose the same limitation on
warefare as does magic.
However, to include the 'mystical' component of any magic, one simply has to
refer a few coders to a simple system, similar to AD&D. Copying this system (my
appologies to Garry Gygax) or any other similar well thought out system, will
still retain its mystic components, especially if you keep it removed from your
average 'fighter' class - they'll always have to come back to the mage or
cleric for such advice about things.
It just takes a little pre-thought before you put it to your coders
Mati (Archangel from GUMBImud)
The Sax Guy=
>technologies to explain and new advances. With repect to magic, it as it is a
>mystery to most people, its mystery explains itself. Technology
>always requires an answer as to how it works - magic doesn't have
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
>>
>Magic can be as explainable as technology is. If you consider the
NOW I'm confused!
Scarrow
>mat...@cs.mun.ca (Matthew J. Newhook) writes:
>>Well, it is true that it would take time to write, but it could be
>>handled in many ways. One relatively simple way is to use n n*n
>>tables where n is the number of spell components. Each table would
>>describe the interactions of the spell components. So table 1 would
>>describe interaction of 1 component, 2 2 components, etc. The obvious
>>disadvantage of this is that every time you add a new spell effect (not
>>component) you would have to update all the tables.
>Thats... uhhh... rather a lot of tables...
>We have a 2d array for potions on discworld. Thats bad enough.
My suggestion for a component based system would be to allow the spells to
determine the components rather than vice versa for two reasons. One, the
flexibility of the end results of spells will be unlimited, including
messages, damages, affects, etc. Two, it avoids the storage problems
involved with mixing several components together, when most combinations lead
to nothing. If you want certain effects like explosions to occur on certain
combinations, you might make some sort of special spell that was essentially
a bad mixture. Again, I stress the feel of uniqueness that should be
present. Spells that can only be cast on certain days when the moon is full,
spells that can only be cast when the tongues of crows are salted and roasted
over an open flame. (Sheesh, at this rate I'll have those anti-RPG
fundamentalist christians breathing down my neck as they quote me and claim
that I was suggesting you all do this in reality ... only do it in reality if
you think it'd be fun. *wink*)
--
Shawn L. Baird (Scarrow) | "By all means, take the moral high ground --
bai...@ursula.ee.pdx.edu | all that heavenly backlighting makes you a
-------------------------| much easier target." --Solomon Short
Jamieson Norrish
c903...@cc.newcastle.edu.au (TO GO BALDLY WHERE TO TOUPEE HAS GONE
BEFORE...RIGHT PICARD?) writes:
> "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from
> magic."
Not true. Technology always has the limitations of comming up with
new technologies to explain and new advances. With repect to magic,
it as it is a mystery to most people, its mystery explains itself.
Technology always requires an answer as to how it works - magic
doesn't have this complexity.
As I said immediately after writing that quote, the key words are
"sufficiently advanced" - that is, if the technology is so in advance
of the people using it, they will find it just as bewildering as
someone would find magic, and will likely see it as being magic.
Imagine showing a flashlight to someone living thousands (or even
hundreds!) of years ago.
Magic can be as explainable as technology is. If you consider the
standard laws of conservation of mass then magic is a form of
energy, transforming energies from the user to accomplish any feat.
The 'energy' comes from either the caster or is tapped from the
caster himself. An alternative is thatit taps the elemental planes
energy - something similar to tapping solar energy - an infinite
source of power (well...within about the space of a few millenia)
Of course magic can be explained, if you want it to be. However, I
argue that the greatest aspect of magic is that it is something
strange and unknown, and therefore to be treated somewhat differently
from something like a electric can opener, which is purely functional
and has no aura of mystique attached to it. It is this mystique that
is missing from many current magic systems.
> these systems too often end up being a mere alternative to a sword,
To an extent this is true, but isnt any where battle is the prime
aspect of a game likely to do the same. Technology would then pose
the same limitation on warefare as does magic.
You have struck upon one of the great limitations of most MUDs; they
do not allow for activities other than combat and its related
offspring. Why not break out of this tired mode and allow magic to be
something which adds a new dimension to the game, rather than just a
new weapon - it is pointlessly limiting to define every new
development in terms of the old perspectives.
However, to include the 'mystical' component of any magic, one
simply has to refer a few coders to a simple system, similar to
AD&D. Copying this system (my appologies to Garry Gygax) or any
other similar well thought out system, will still retain its mystic
components, especially if you keep it removed from your average
'fighter' class - they'll always have to come back to the mage or
cleric for such advice about things.
No, I disagree. I think that although well designed and coherent
mechanics are a major part of a good magic system, I do not think this
is where the mystique comes from. It comes from the application of,
and attitude of the players/characters towards, magic. What is needed
primarily in the mechanics is the scope of effect which magic has; it
needs to be able to effect the world - to be able to change objects,
rooms, etc. This does not lend mystique to the system, simply
flexibility. The interface, on the other hand, does allow magic to
become something more than pushing energy around - by having such
things as spell components, rituals, words of power, candlelit
summonings etc, then the players can start to feel what magic is all
about. Not why it works, nor even necessarily how it works, but rather
what to do in order to get a certain effect.
Of course, I am here imposing my own view of "generic" magic - for me
it something strange and unknowable, which is liable to go wrong at
any moment, for any reason, or no reason whatever that is discernable
by the players. Magic for me is not a science in which the mere exeact
duplication and repetition of certain circumstances, words, etc, is
enough to produce exactly the same effect; it's wild, untameable, blah
blah blah... :)
[End almost completely non-MU* related ramble/rant.]
Jamie
Matthew J. Newhook
>My suggestion for a component based system would be to allow the spells to
>determine the components rather than vice versa for two reasons. One, the
>you think it'd be fun. *wink*)
Well, in some ways this is the opposite side of the coin. In my method
the components determine the spell (by some combination of spell effects
that are associated with each component). In your method the spell
determines the needed components. I believe that both methods have
merit, although my method creates more flexibility since all
combinations of spell effects, in varying degrees are possible. With
your method you need a seperate routine for each spell, instead of the
handling being done by the spell effects themselves.
In regards to implementation, when I suggested tables to implement the
combinations and permutations of spell effects, Pinkfish observed that
the tables will be quite large. I agree wholeheatedly with this. In
fact I think that they will also be very hard to maintain and keep
consistant. However, I think that this can be solved by writing the
combinations of spell effects in some sort of meta-language. This meta
language could then be compiled to produce the needed tables, hopefully
solving this problem.
>--
>Shawn L. Baird (Scarrow) | "By all means, take the moral high ground --
>bai...@ursula.ee.pdx.edu | all that heavenly backlighting makes you a
>-------------------------| much easier target." --Solomon Short
Matthew
Jamieson Norrish
dion...@u.washington.edu writes:
well, I could go on and on, but I don't have the time at this moment, so I
won't use a lot of bandwidth, but:
"you can see all the steps" and "because you know the physics" - do you
really see all the steps when, for instance, you step on the gas pedal of
your car, and it goes? Even though I know exactly what's going on, I
don't see it all happening. And not everyone is a mechanic like I was.
Sorry, I should have used more precise language; what I meant was that
the steps in magic are not automatic. With technology, theoretically,
you can follow the rules and always get from A to B. It's an automatic
process, and if you repeat the conditions, you get the same result. I
don't think the same should apply for magic - as I said in some post
or other, doing the same things twice in a row might not produce
anything like the same results. Magic should never be able to be taken
for granted.
"With magic on the other hand, .. you don't know much about" - Gee, in
just about every system I know of, magic users have to spend long hours
studying about magic and it's creation.
Are you talking about MU*s here? Or have you moved to RPGs now?
Jamie
Joern Rennecke
I think an interesting variant of this theme could be to make the spell
components and formulas turing-complete, but hard to program in & with
powerful constructs hard to get in the game. ( sed script are turing
complete too... )
You could then remove all quests requirements and make the only goal
for a player to set his/her own wiz flag.
A nice spin-off would be that you learn a little programming while
fooling around with this kind of magic...
Amylaar
M. Otto, Virtual Prisoner of the VAX
amy...@meolyon.hanse.de (Joern Rennecke) writes:
> I think an interesting variant of this theme could be to make the spell
^^^^^^^^^^
What theme is this? If anyone still has the earlier posts from this thread
in their news spool, I'd appreciate it if they were emailed to me.
> components and formulas turing-complete, but hard to program in & with
> powerful constructs hard to get in the game. ( sed script are turing
> complete too... )
> You could then remove all quests requirements and make the only goal
> for a player to set his/her own wiz flag.
> A nice spin-off would be that you learn a little programming while
> fooling around with this kind of magic...
I missed the start of this thread, so someone else might have already said
this: What you are describing here sounds suspiciously like the plot of
_Wizard's Bane_ by Rick Cook. :)
*** Friday @ various muds
--
__ ____ __ ot...@vaxb.acs.unt.edu
/|/| / / / / / / A virtual prisoner of the VAX // I'm sorry; my karma
/ |. /_/ / / /_/ at The University of North Texas \X/ ran over your dogma
Denton, USA