Rune based spell

8 views
Skip to first unread message

Warren Cheung

unread,
Nov 17, 1998, 3:00:00 AM11/17/98
to
Kind of similar, but instead of completely replacing the old spellbook
system, why not complement it with the runes. You learn spells from
spellbooks, but you can use runes to modify them....

Currently, I've got 3 "sigils" "working" in SLASH'EM - Sigil of
Tempest, Control and Discharge. The sigils (think of it as rune with a
differnt name ;B) are invoked as a special ability, and they last a
short period of time. When they're active, they modify the spells
being cast - eg. normal "beam spells" cast when the sigil of tempest is
in effect causes it to turn into a storm. As well, mix and match
works to a limited degree - control + tempest lets you specify where to
place the center of the storm, etc...

Anyone have other ideas? What are good rune/modifiers - the more
generic, the better. Should all modifiers work with all spells, or...

There are lots of variations on this theme...anyone have other ideas?
--
WACko

Homepage:
http://wac.cjb.net or http://wac.home.ml.org

SLASH'EM (Game Indev):
http://slashem.cjb.net or http://slashem.home.ml.org

Greg Wooledge

unread,
Nov 18, 1998, 3:00:00 AM11/18/98
to
darkgod (dark...@infonie.fr) wrote:

>An idea from .... Adam bolt ? I think. I've found it on ... don't
>remenber ! :)

>Instead of spellbooks magic utilises runes. There are two distinct types
>of rune - base runes and secondary runes. Base runes are further
>subdivided into light and dark runes. Light base runes are runes like
>Truth (Identify spells) Knowledge (Probing) Healing, Control
>(possession)
>and so on. The dark base runes are attack runes. These include elemental
>runes (including "sub-elements" to give 8 elementals), a mana rune
>(pure damage), and others like Holding (paralyse) and Force (throws back
>enemies) and also Disintigration. The secondary runes are then added
>to your spell to give it form. They consist of Arrow (bolt spell), Cloud
>(Ball spell), Eye (LOS spell), Sword (Casts on weapon - temp branding)
>and Shield (gives you an aura).

This is reminiscent of the magic system in Dungeon Master (and
its sequels). In that game, you compose spells by clicking "runes"
from four different rows of six. The top row has runes which select
the power level of the spell (which determines mana cost, chance of
failure, and of course effectiveness). The next row contains elemental
runes which define the basic spell realm (air, earth, water, fire, void,
antimatter). The third and fourth rows contain modifier runes, which are
fairly abstract. You don't have to pick four runes for all spells --
some very useful spells need only two or three. Part of the challenge
of the game is to discover the formulas for the various spells; some can
be easily discovered by trial and error, and there are scrolls in the
game which contain (almost?) all the formulas, if you can find them....
(Of course, this is a traditional CRPG, so the formulas are the same
every time. Once you the player know them, your characters can use them,
even if they haven't discovered the proper scrolls in that instance of
the game.)

It also resembles the Ultima Underworld games, though not quite as
closely. In those games, you create spells by selecting runes which
correspond to letters of the alphabet (I believe it's ripped off from
Tolkien's elven rune alphabet). Each rune also has some fixed meaning
such as "Great" or "Flight" or "Negation". When combined in one of the
proper (predefined) sequences, a valid spell results. When combined in
any other sequence, the power is wasted (as with Dungeon Master).

>(m)agic
>
>Select base:
>(a) Light
>(b) Dark
>
>(b)
>
>Select base rune:
>(a) Fire
>(b) Poison
>(c) Holding
>
>(b)

I think that dividing this into Light/Dark is unnecessary. It also seems
arbitrary -- why is Holding considered "Dark", for example? I would
try to conceptualize a bit more and the consolidate all the base runes
into one list. For example, is "Holding" a physiological paralysis or a
mental inhibition? If the former, then it could belong to some sort of
"Somatic" realm; if the latter, then "Psionic". (Or choose your own
names -- "Body" and "Mind" will do as well, and are simpler. ;-)

>Select Secondary rune:
>(a) Cloud
>(b) Sword
>(c) Shield
>
>(c)

This is pretty good as is. But if you're limited to only two runes per
spell, you'll quickly run out of possibilities. Consider: "Water" and
"Shield". These two by themselves would make... a wall of water? Doesn't
make a lot of sense, since it would just collapse into a large puddle.
But if you combined "Water", "Shield" and "Object", you might get a spell
which rustproofs a single inventory object. On the other hand, "Water",
"Shield" and "Self" might give a spell which allows the caster to breathe
water temporarily (shielding oneself from the harmful effects of water).

Also remember to use abstractions as much as possible. For example, you
could have "Earth" and "Shake" for Earthquake, but Shake won't combine
with much else (Body and Mind, perhaps, but what would you do with, say,
Fire and Shake?). A better Earthquake might be constructed with "Earth"
and "Power Surge". You could then combine "Water" and "Power Surge" for
a tidal wave effect; or "Fire" and "Power Surge" for a large fireball;
or "Mind" and "Power Surge" for the basis of a series of spells which
either augment the caster or attack nearby creatures, depending on other
secondary runes.

>Select mana (0-87):
>
>20

This is nice. Dungeon Master allows six power levels. So does Wizardry
(at least Wizardry VI and VII). ADOM has at least one wand which prompts
you for a mana expenditure.

How would you scale the effects? Would doubling the mana expenditure
double the effect? Or would it use a steeper curve?

At a first guess, I'd think that the effect should be proportional to
the square of the power, modified by random factors and by the caster's
skill level (with that realm/spell, or simply experience level if you
want to wimp out).

>Your "starting" kit would be a light or dark base rune (depending on
>your alignment) and the arrow rune. To cast heal self,
>you would select heal,arrow, amount of mana and then when asked for
>target select 5.

Using "Arrow" for a healing spell seems unintuitive somehow. I'd prefer
to have a "Self" rune, as I mentioned above. Single-target attack spells
might use an "Other" rune, while directional attack spells might have a
"Ray" rune (or perhaps "Arrow" if you want to negate the possibility
of beaming). Spells which affect an area around the caster might use
a "Sphere" rune (though "Self" could perhaps be used in some cases).
Don't forget "Cone", for realistic breath attacks.

OK, some of these may not make perfect sense. It's something that should
require quite a bit more thought before being implemented.

Of course, this has nothing at all to do with Angband, so I'm
cross-posting to r.g.r.development.

--
"Daddy, why do those people have to | Greg Wooledge
use Microsoft Windows?" | wool...@kellnet.com
"Don't stare, son; it's not polite." | http://www.kellnet.com/wooledge/

Jeff Lait

unread,
Nov 18, 1998, 3:00:00 AM11/18/98
to
In article <slrn7548oo....@phoenix.local>,

Greg Wooledge <wool...@kellnet.com> wrote:
>
>This is reminiscent of the magic system in Dungeon Master (and
>its sequels). In that game, you compose spells by clicking "runes"
>from four different rows of six. The top row has runes which select
>the power level of the spell (which determines mana cost, chance of
>failure, and of course effectiveness). The next row contains elemental
>runes which define the basic spell realm (air, earth, water, fire, void,
>antimatter). The third and fourth rows contain modifier runes, which are
>fairly abstract. You don't have to pick four runes for all spells --
>some very useful spells need only two or three. Part of the challenge
>of the game is to discover the formulas for the various spells; some can
>be easily discovered by trial and error, and there are scrolls in the
>game which contain (almost?) all the formulas, if you can find them....

I've always liked the logic behind this sort of system.
Unfortunately, it always falls apart because...

>(Of course, this is a traditional CRPG, so the formulas are the same
>every time. Once you the player know them, your characters can use them,
>even if they haven't discovered the proper scrolls in that instance of
>the game.)

Someone finds all the "real" formulas, and publishes them.
Further, its hard to get a grammar where you can express ideas in
the way everyone else finds logical. In Dungeon Master, I believe
Open Door used a power and the void runes, something rather arbitrary
IMO.
Ideally, you want a system where EVERY rune combination does
something, or at least a sufficiently large fraction that one can
make up spells by reasoning out the meaning of runes. Unfortunately,
if you have enough runes to be able to express it, you have a LOT
of spells to write. In dungeon master, that's 6^4. Fortunately,
a fair number can be consolidated (the power level, for example)
but still it is no easy task.


>
>It also resembles the Ultima Underworld games, though not quite as
>closely. In those games, you create spells by selecting runes which
>correspond to letters of the alphabet (I believe it's ripped off from
>Tolkien's elven rune alphabet). Each rune also has some fixed meaning
>such as "Great" or "Flight" or "Negation". When combined in one of the
>proper (predefined) sequences, a valid spell results. When combined in
>any other sequence, the power is wasted (as with Dungeon Master).

Ultima Underworlds magic system is straight from the regular
Ultimas. Looking at the Ultima with runes (IV-VII, Online, both
UnderWorlds) one sees the problems - many of the same spells are
used, but often with different names. (actually, the mainline
games also used reagents, which further inhibitted trial and
error)
I do think Dungeon Masters system is much superior for
an exploratory system than Ultimas. For one, there isn't the
question of "Which order do they go in". OTOH, if you don't
want people using spells till the find them, Ultimas system
is better.
The Runes are from Tolkiens Dwarven rune alphabet, as described
in the Hobbit. They are all Teutonic in origin, I believe. While
they do correspond to letters of the alphabet, they also correspond
to the Word of Power associated with that letter. Any Ultima Online
related site will have some link into what these all are.


--
- Jeff Lait (SOL)


darkgod

unread,
Nov 18, 1998, 3:00:00 AM11/18/98
to
> Kind of similar, but instead of completely replacing the old spellbook
> system, why not complement it with the runes. You learn spells from
> spellbooks, but you can use runes to modify them....

Not remplacing just additing a new class which use the runes instead of the
spellbooks.

Greg Wooledge

unread,
Nov 19, 1998, 3:00:00 AM11/19/98
to
Jeff Lait (jml...@undergrad.math.uwaterloo.ca) wrote:

>Further, its hard to get a grammar where you can express ideas in
>the way everyone else finds logical. In Dungeon Master, I believe
>Open Door used a power and the void runes, something rather arbitrary
>IMO.

The Open Door spell was "Zo", the rune of antimatter. ("Des", the rune
of void/desolation, was not useful by itself, IIRC.)

>something, or at least a sufficiently large fraction that one can
>make up spells by reasoning out the meaning of runes. Unfortunately,
>if you have enough runes to be able to express it, you have a LOT
>of spells to write. In dungeon master, that's 6^4.

Actually, it's 6^1 + 6^2 + 6^3 (= 258). Remember, spells can be
constructed with 1, 2 or 3 runes (and the power level doesn't count).
But your point is taken -- it's a pretty big effort. ;-)

There are two directions you can go with this:

1) Most rune combinations should yield valid spells. This means that
you need to have very few runes, and write up lots of spells. The
downfall (other than the work) is that a lot of combinations may
seem arbitrary, simply because you've had to consolidate different
semantics into each rune in order to decrease the sheer number of
combinations.

2) Only a few rune combinations should yield valid spells. This means
writing up fewer spells, and lets you have a larger number of runes
with more specific meanings, rather than a few all-purpose ones.
One downfall is that the player will have a tougher time deriving the
valid spell combinations. (Then again, this may not be a drawback
depending on how you want the game to be played.) Another is that
there are more runes for the player to worry about. If you're
putting them all on the screen to be clicked, then that takes up
a lot more screen space, or requires scrolling through them (Blech!).
Even putting aside user interface issues, it means that the player
has to remember a lot more.

Personally, if I were going to do this, I'd go with the first way,
and bite the proverbial bullet and write up a hundred or more spells.
But I can safely say that since I'm not actually doing it. :-)

Chris Reuter

unread,
Nov 19, 1998, 3:00:00 AM11/19/98
to
In article <F2MMy...@undergrad.math.uwaterloo.ca>,

Jeff Lait <jml...@undergrad.math.uwaterloo.ca> wrote:
>In article <slrn7548oo....@phoenix.local>,
>Greg Wooledge <wool...@kellnet.com> wrote:
>>
>>This is reminiscent of the magic system in Dungeon Master (and
>>its sequels). In that game, you compose spells by clicking "runes"
>>from four different rows of six. The top row has runes which select
>>the power level of the spell (which determines mana cost, chance of
>>failure, and of course effectiveness). The next row contains elemental
>>runes which define the basic spell realm (air, earth, water, fire, void,
>>antimatter). The third and fourth rows contain modifier runes, which are
>>fairly abstract. You don't have to pick four runes for all spells --
>>some very useful spells need only two or three. Part of the challenge
>>of the game is to discover the formulas for the various spells; some can
>>be easily discovered by trial and error, and there are scrolls in the
>>game which contain (almost?) all the formulas, if you can find them....

This looks like a really neat system.

> I've always liked the logic behind this sort of system.
>Unfortunately, it always falls apart because...
>

>>(Of course, this is a traditional CRPG, so the formulas are the same
>>every time. Once you the player know them, your characters can use them,
>>even if they haven't discovered the proper scrolls in that instance of
>>the game.)
>

> Someone finds all the "real" formulas, and publishes them.

The trivial fix for that is to scramble the meanings of the runes at
the start of the game. In a graphical roguelike, that would mean
mapping tiles to functionality. In a pure text-based, you might want
to use randomly-generated words instead of runes:

"You say, 'Achte blech ugoob.' A fireball hits the orcs."


>Further, its hard to get a grammar where you can express ideas in
>the way everyone else finds logical. In Dungeon Master, I believe
>Open Door used a power and the void runes, something rather arbitrary
>IMO.

> Ideally, you want a system where EVERY rune combination does

>something, or at least a sufficiently large fraction that one can
>make up spells by reasoning out the meaning of runes. Unfortunately,
>if you have enough runes to be able to express it, you have a LOT

>of spells to write. In dungeon master, that's 6^4. Fortunately,
>a fair number can be consolidated (the power level, for example)
>but still it is no easy task.

I think it could be done reasonably well. Consider a spell as a tuple
of

(element, mode, distribution, strength)

where element is the type of effect (e.g. fire, cold, pure magic,
etc.), mode defines how it is applied (e.g. attack, defend, charge,
enchant, etc.), distribution defines how its target(s) are selected
(e.g. beam, ball, moving wall, just on self, etc.) and strength
defines whether you're trying to bludgeon or finesse the target.

(Yes, I realize that this particular scheme isn't orthogonal--I'm just
using it to demonstrate the basic idea.)

For example,

(force, attack, beam, bludgeon) -- force bolt
(force, attack, beam, finesse) -- knock
(fire, enchant, self, finesse) -- convey fire-resistance.

And so on.

This way, you don't need to code all possible combination. Instead,
you just write code to apply effect "element" in mode "mode" to the
places determined by "distribution" with parameter "strength". All
combinations are possible, though not necessarily useful (but that
just makes things more interesting). Assign one possible value for
one position in the tuple to each rune or word and you've got your
magical language.

You could easily give magic users a magical edge by letting them have
"good" or "bad" feelings about particular spells before they cast
them. Casting completely invalid spells could do random things and
consume mana, making experimentation dangerous but not too much so.

--Chris

Topi Ylinen

unread,
Nov 19, 1998, 3:00:00 AM11/19/98
to
In article <slrn7548oo....@phoenix.local>,
Greg Wooledge <wool...@kellnet.com> wrote:

>It also resembles the Ultima Underworld games, though not quite as
>closely. In those games, you create spells by selecting runes which
>correspond to letters of the alphabet (I believe it's ripped off from
>Tolkien's elven rune alphabet).

I think this is a fairly unfair way of putting it, since neither Tolkien
nor Garriott actually made the runic alphabet, both borrowed the old Norse
runic alphabet. They had a common source, Tolkien was simply first to use
it.

Using your argumentation, one would also have to agree that Tolkien
"ripped off" the Master Ring from Wagner's Ring.

--
<Topi Ylinen = f1t...@kielo.uta.fi>
**************************************************************
* One Ring to rule them all, One Ring to find them, *
* One Ring to bring them all and in the darkness bind them. *
**************************************************************
"STOP WATCH BATTLES
Each turn in Star Fleet Battles works out to one-thirtieth of a second. During
this time, a ship can maneuver, fire all weapons, and send out a boarding
party." (MURPHY'S RULES)

Peter Knutsen

unread,
Nov 19, 1998, 3:00:00 AM11/19/98
to

Why not make the game accept all valid combinatins (i.e. all
combinatins that makes sense) ? Then the player can design his
own set of spells.


> It also resembles the Ultima Underworld games, though not quite as
> closely. In those games, you create spells by selecting runes which
> correspond to letters of the alphabet (I believe it's ripped off from
> Tolkien's elven rune alphabet). Each rune also has some fixed meaning
> such as "Great" or "Flight" or "Negation". When combined in one of the
> proper (predefined) sequences, a valid spell results. When combined in
> any other sequence, the power is wasted (as with Dungeon Master).

Is there any reason why only a subset of the sensible rune
combinations should work?
Okay, I can see the neat thing, the player has to discover which
"spells" works and which are nonsense, in a system where 85%
(a guesstimation) rune combinations actually does produce a spell
would lack this feel, since the player can quickly learn which
combinatins are nonsense.



> >(m)agic
> >
> >Select base:
> >(a) Light
> >(b) Dark
> >
> >(b)
> >
> >Select base rune:
> >(a) Fire
> >(b) Poison
> >(c) Holding
> >
> >(b)
>
> I think that dividing this into Light/Dark is unnecessary. It also seems
> arbitrary -- why is Holding considered "Dark", for example? I would

My guess is that he divides magic into beneficial (light) and
damage-causing (dark). Holding is then some kind of stun attack
(my first guess was that it was some kind of "create
extradimensional space" effect).

> try to conceptualize a bit more and the consolidate all the base runes
> into one list. For example, is "Holding" a physiological paralysis or a
> mental inhibition? If the former, then it could belong to some sort of
> "Somatic" realm; if the latter, then "Psionic". (Or choose your own
> names -- "Body" and "Mind" will do as well, and are simpler. ;-)
>
> >Select Secondary rune:
> >(a) Cloud
> >(b) Sword
> >(c) Shield
> >
> >(c)
>
> This is pretty good as is. But if you're limited to only two runes per
> spell, you'll quickly run out of possibilities. Consider: "Water" and
> "Shield". These two by themselves would make... a wall of water? Doesn't
> make a lot of sense, since it would just collapse into a large puddle.
> But if you combined "Water", "Shield" and "Object", you might get a spell
> which rustproofs a single inventory object. On the other hand, "Water",
> "Shield" and "Self" might give a spell which allows the caster to breathe
> water temporarily (shielding oneself from the harmful effects of water).

The Quest paper&pencil RPG has 4 elemental spell lists, which are
quite similair apart from using different elements, and each elemental
spell list has a shield spell, including water, so you can have
a water shield (it can create either a shield of water or ice,
because Quest previously had both a Water and an Ice spell list,
but the Ice list was merged with Water) which makes you

[ Peter loads the "Quest Players Handbook, a 1.72 MB RTF file -
heck, he decides to copy and paste the descriptions of the
four elemental shield spells ]

DoM 2) Air Shield
CT: 1 Round R: Self D: 10 Rounds ST: None
This Spell creates a swirling zone of air around the Mage. The Mage adds
+4 to his or her DR against missiles and +2 DR against melee attacks.
Also, the Mage takes half damage from electrical or air attacks. The
Mage may have only one type of Elemental Shield on his or her person at
a time.


DoM 2) Armor of Earth
CT: 1 Round R: Self D: 10 Rounds ST: None
This Spell coats the caster with a layer of stone that in no way impedes
the caster's movement, adds +2 to damage absorption to all areas of the
caster's body, and halves any damage incurred from earth-based attacks.
The armor gained is considered normal and not magical. The Mage may have
only one type of Elemental Shield on his or her person at a time.


DoM 2) Fire Shield
CT: 1 Round R: Self D: 10 Rounds ST: None
Upon casting this Spell, the Mage is coated with a shimmering "body
suit" of fire. The Mage adds +1 to his or her DR against all types of
attacks, and anyone striking the Mage in melee with a weapon three and
one half feet in length, or shorter (the length of a broadsword), will
take a D6-1 worth of damage to the limb used in the attack, non-magical
armor values halved. The Mage also halves all fire and water-based
damage. The Mage may have only one type of Elemental Shield on his or
her person at a time.


DoM 2) Water/Ice Shield
CT: 1 Round R: Self D: 10 Rounds ST: None
Upon casting this Spell, the Mage is coated with a film of ever-shifting
water. The Mage adds +1 to his or her DR and damage absorption. While
the Spell is running, the Mage may breath normally underwater, and will
only sustain ˝ damage from fire and water-based attacks. By using an
Blow (see Spell Casting), the Mage may convert the water shield into a
ice shield. When this is done, the Mage is instead covered with a layer
of ice which adds +2 to his or her armor absorption and halves damage
from fire and water-based attacks. In addition, all creatures within 3
feet of the Mage take 1d6-3 of damage, with only magical damage
absorption as protection, to a body part randomly determined by a roll
on the +5 column of the Melee/Missile table. Creatures attacking the
Mage should take damage to attacking limbs. The Mage may have only one
type of Elemental Shield on his or her person at a time.


DR works as "Armor Class" in most roguelike games, it makes you harder
to hit. "Damage Absorbtion" reduces the damage you take from all
attacks.

Just to give an example of spells that aren't 100% vanilla.


> Also remember to use abstractions as much as possible. For example, you
> could have "Earth" and "Shake" for Earthquake, but Shake won't combine
> with much else (Body and Mind, perhaps, but what would you do with, say,
> Fire and Shake?). A better Earthquake might be constructed with "Earth"
> and "Power Surge". You could then combine "Water" and "Power Surge" for
> a tidal wave effect; or "Fire" and "Power Surge" for a large fireball;
> or "Mind" and "Power Surge" for the basis of a series of spells which
> either augment the caster or attack nearby creatures, depending on other
> secondary runes.

Yes, this would make a larger proportion of rune combinatins into
valid spells.



> >Select mana (0-87):
> >
> >20
>
> This is nice. Dungeon Master allows six power levels. So does Wizardry
> (at least Wizardry VI and VII). ADOM has at least one wand which prompts
> you for a mana expenditure.

A couple of years ago when I (with less skill than now) was trying to
design my own paper&pencil RPG system, I toyed with the idea of
limiting characters with regard to how much mana they could put
into a simple spell. Basically the system should allow the
spell caster to select how much mana he or she wanted to put
into the spell, but every person should have a limit, so a
person with a "mana power limit" of 1 could only cast very weak
spells (but could very well have a large mana storage, and
thus be able to cast many spells) while an Archmage could have
a "mana power limit of 5" and be able to cast very powerful
spells.



> How would you scale the effects? Would doubling the mana expenditure
> double the effect? Or would it use a steeper curve?
>
> At a first guess, I'd think that the effect should be proportional to
> the square of the power, modified by random factors and by the caster's
> skill level (with that realm/spell, or simply experience level if you
> want to wimp out).

It should also reduce the cast chance as the player invests more
mana in a spell.
Alternately, there could be two aspects where you can boost
with more mana (I do this in my Multiclass p&p RPG)

More power (each Spell Point invested increases the power
(almost proportinally but with a slight increased return) but
reduces the cast chance with 1 (skill rolls are 3d6, lower
or equal to skill)
Casting ease (each Spell Point invested increases the cast
chance by 1, max cast chance allowed are 17)

These two can be combined, and it is common for a Mage (or
other spellcaster) to spend "blocks of 2 extra SP, one on
power, one on ease" (1 ease point negates the casting
chance penalty of 1 power point)

Such a system is incompitable with a "mana power limit"
(power in the physic's sense) and Multiclass does not have
mpl's.



> >Your "starting" kit would be a light or dark base rune (depending on
> >your alignment) and the arrow rune. To cast heal self,
> >you would select heal,arrow, amount of mana and then when asked for
> >target select 5.
>
> Using "Arrow" for a healing spell seems unintuitive somehow. I'd prefer

Maybe the player wants to heal somebody other than himself?

> to have a "Self" rune, as I mentioned above. Single-target attack spells
> might use an "Other" rune, while directional attack spells might have a
> "Ray" rune (or perhaps "Arrow" if you want to negate the possibility
> of beaming). Spells which affect an area around the caster might use
> a "Sphere" rune (though "Self" could perhaps be used in some cases).
> Don't forget "Cone", for realistic breath attacks.
>
> OK, some of these may not make perfect sense. It's something that should
> require quite a bit more thought before being implemented.

That's what this newsgroup is for (and as an aside to Laurence W., I
think we should use a system like this for Opes - re: my earlier
suggestion to let the player design his or her own spelle if
possible)

> Of course, this has nothing at all to do with Angband, so I'm
> cross-posting to r.g.r.development.


Peter Knutsen

Greg Wooledge

unread,
Nov 20, 1998, 3:00:00 AM11/20/98
to
Peter Knutsen (pe...@knutsen.dk) wrote:

>Greg Wooledge wrote:

>> darkgod (dark...@infonie.fr) wrote:

>> >Select base:
>> >(a) Light
>> >(b) Dark
>> >
>> >(b)
>> >
>> >Select base rune:
>> >(a) Fire
>> >(b) Poison
>> >(c) Holding

>> I think that dividing this into Light/Dark is unnecessary. It also seems


>> arbitrary -- why is Holding considered "Dark", for example? I would

>My guess is that he divides magic into beneficial (light) and
>damage-causing (dark). Holding is then some kind of stun attack
>(my first guess was that it was some kind of "create
>extradimensional space" effect).

OK, I forgot to mention my other objection. Making some of the "base"
(primary/elemental) runes be considered "Dark" (Evil) doesn't make sense
to me, simply because these are tools -- the Darkness (Evilness) of a
spell is in its application, or at least in its form, not in its basis.
Example: Fire Shield. This is most likely a defensive spell, but it
probably relies on the rune of Fire. Another example: Cure Poison.
This is clearly a beneficial/healing spell, but it probably involves
the Poison rune.

Bill Hamilton

unread,
Nov 24, 1998, 3:00:00 AM11/24/98
to
>In article <slrn7548oo....@phoenix.local>,
>Greg Wooledge <wool...@kellnet.com> wrote:
>>
>>This is reminiscent of the magic system in Dungeon Master (and
>>its sequels). In that game, you compose spells by clicking "runes"
>>from four different rows of six. The top row has runes which select
>>the power level of the spell (which determines mana cost, chance of
>>failure, and of course effectiveness). The next row contains elemental
>>runes which define the basic spell realm (air, earth, water, fire, void,
>>antimatter). The third and fourth rows contain modifier runes, which are
>>fairly abstract. You don't have to pick four runes for all spells --
>>some very useful spells need only two or three. Part of the challenge
>>of the game is to discover the formulas for the various spells; some can
>>be easily discovered by trial and error, and there are scrolls in the
>>game which contain (almost?) all the formulas, if you can find them....
>
> I've always liked the logic behind this sort of system.
>Unfortunately, it always falls apart because...
>
>>(Of course, this is a traditional CRPG, so the formulas are the same
>>every time. Once you the player know them, your characters can use them,
>>even if they haven't discovered the proper scrolls in that instance of
>>the game.)
>
> Someone finds all the "real" formulas, and publishes them.

Well, how about this? What if the mapping of the various 'power words'
changed randomly from game to game? In other words, what if the various
words mapped to different letters. Perhaps 'Fire' would be 'd' in one
game, 'p' in another, etc. You could even publish all the word combinations
for spells, but the list wouldn't help the player until he/she figured out
what the letters were in that particular game.


-Seeker
see...@ksu.edu

Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages