Quote:

Original post by Platinum_Dragon In my perspective, I would say that each element should be an axis and having its own dimension. It such case, you will have a unique point for each spell in a hyperspace, and that each spell only has one point. The circle to me is only a projective representation that is not correct. If you have spells with multiple elements, you will end up with multiple dots, so would it be better to have a shape to represent spells instead of dots, where the boundary would be a integer intervals away from center alond the lines. But a realistic representation can only occur with a hyperspace of multiple dimension. In two dimension, round equal distant from a point is a circle In three dimension, round equal distant from a point is a sphere . . . In multiple dimension, round equal distant form a point is a hypersphere To clarify view elements as axis of dimensions, let's for instance there are only three elements: Fire, Water, Wind. Let Fire be the x-axis, Water be y-axis, Wind be z-axis. Then Fire and Water becomes xy-plane, Water and Wind becoms yz-plane, and Fire and Wind becomes the xz-plane. The combination of all three elements will lie within the first octant (assuming we are using non-negative numbers) without reaching the three planes. We can then expand this theory and can therefore find that each spell has a unique position within the hyperspace of all elements.

Conceptually, the system is a 12 dimension space as you described. The 2D graph I came up with was an attempt to display the information in a palatable manner. I think a change of terminology might get rid of the confusion. Each dot represents a spell effect, located somewhere along the axis of it's magic type. A spell is represented by a group of dots.

Quote:

Original post by Platinum_Dragon Note: Chess is not hard to master compare to Go. Go is even easier to learn than Chess. The only Go mastered is the 6x6 and smaller boards. Even the 7x7 board is too complicated for supercomputers for a few more decades. Note: Go boards are divided based on the line that divides the board into half. This perimeter line defines the level of abstraction. When you find this line you will understand why they keep talking about the 3rd [territory] line and 4th [influence] line in the 19x19 board. The Number of the territory line is the level of abstraction, and so a 19x19 board is a level 3 abstraction, which we call "Strategy." The level 2 abstraction is called "Tactics," and the level 1 abstraction is call "Skirmish." The level 4 abstraction has not yet have a name.

I used the Chess example because that is the sort of system I hope to achieve. In essence, magic will be a chess game with a larger number of pieces. You use these pieces together to create advantageous tactical situations, like a pin or fork.

It would be interesting to make a magic system that uses the Go model of light tactics but heavy strategy. I'm just not sure how to do that in a combat oriented RPG whose gameplay is tactical by its very nature.

I would say the light tactic and heavy strategy would be the string of spells that work well one after another, and that players will in some way find out the ideal string of spells that work well in a specific order (strategy) versus using a strong spell, and then thinking of just another spell. The one who sees further and knows what spell to do next is the one thinking of strategy. But to implement that, you will have to have a separate down time for each spell. That way, players can use other spells while waiting for a spell in downtime, thus enforce strategic thinking.

first of all GREAT IDEA! I absolutely think this game would be amazing in concept.

The idea of synthesizing the spells seems cool to me. Allow the gamer to be able to create their very own unique customized spell that has a certain, specific affect on enemies.

Just my 2 cents, take it for what its worth :P

There is something I really dislike with all magic systems: where does magic come from? how do you learn spells?

Typically, by doing spells in school A, you increase your proficiency in that school, which in turn teaches you a new spell in that school.
Where does the new spell come from? How does casting a fireball 100 times allow you to learn how to cast lava, for example?
It doesn't. It's just nonsense. The only thing casting 100 times some spell does is making you better at that spell, i.e. it's done faster and requires less concentration.

I believe it would make more sense if spells were obtained by mixing ingredients, or flows or magic or whatever, in specific ways. Basically, spells should be nothing but recipes. Whether you can use the recipe depends on whether you can handle mixing all those ingredients (magic flows or whatever) at once.

Quote:

Original post by Brok_Homz first of all GREAT IDEA! I absolutely think this game would be amazing in concept. The idea of synthesizing the spells seems cool to me. Allow the gamer to be able to create their very own unique customized spell that has a certain, specific affect on enemies. Just my 2 cents, take it for what its worth :P

Thanks :)

Quote:

Original post by loufoque I believe it would make more sense if spells were obtained by mixing ingredients, or flows or magic or whatever, in specific ways. Basically, spells should be nothing but recipes. Whether you can use the recipe depends on whether you can handle mixing all those ingredients (magic flows or whatever) at once.

My plan was to use the old cliche of spells as knowledge, where the player learns new spells by finding spellbooks or learning from the Wise Old Wizard. But your post gave me some ideas...

Following the theme of discovery, spells could learned by experimenting or observing. Experiments would take the form of combining certain items like you described. Learning a magic effect from observations would happen in various sensible ways. For example, if the player casts a fire spell at a corpse, he might notice that the heat from the fire dries it up, and thus learn the Dehydrate spell effect.

The exciting part is that my item system can handle these sorts of behaviors, so implementing an experiment/observation method of learning spells is as easy as writing down the behavior combinations.

I'm not sure if it's worth the trouble, but I could extend the observation learning method even further. The player could learn spells by observing enemies cast them, seeing magical traps, or visiting magical places.

Another idea I had was that the player could learn spells by eating magical creatures - eat the black dragon's heart, learn the acid spell. But this doesn't seem to fit in very well.

Observation and even more experimentation are indeed the right ways to learn spells in my opinion.

Experimenting may be hard to implement, though.

You could be more realistic and have scientific explanation of certain spells. Fireball has been describe with the need of phosphorus to do the spell, but we know in real life that phosphorus is flamable, but their fire is green, so there must be something else that is burning to have the proper color.

Magic is essentially the usage of science without telling the viewers what the heck you are doing, but those whom learn enough chemistry or physics will know how you perform those magic. You can describe almost any spell with scientific facts if you research the phenomenon of chemical reactions [as most spells seem to come from chemical reaction]. I remember a spell that requires dry ice [solid carbon dioxide]. But the important thing is that the observer does not know what you are using, and thus gives the sensation of magic.

Agreed. Plus, spell components provide a good way to limit more powerful spells, and provide a wealth sink for the game's economy.

You might even have components aligned with the different domains of your spells. Combining them allows for more advanced spells with multiple effects. Having "building block" components is a great way to add emergent gameplay.

I intend to require spell components for summoning spells for immersion and balancing purposes - no summoning a zombies unless you have a corpse. The problem I see with requiring them for other spells is that the game turns into an exercise in inventory management. Summons are supposed to be rare, but fireballs and other such spells are not, and carrying around heaps of phosphorous/eye of newt/fairy dust to cast basic spells would just be annoying.

But as usual, the discussion has given me some ideas...

Making spells could require a material component. This would provide a balancing mechanism for spellmaking to prevent players from making too many and too strong spells, at least without some effort. Weak spells would require common materials, and strong spells would require rare materials. There could even be quests built around collecting the unique material components of the strongest spells.

There might be a Chemistry/Alchemy skill which the player could use to have magic without casting spells. Instead of using materials to make a spell, they could be combined into potions that would provide the same effects. There would be the usual healing potions, but also explosive fireball potions, shield potions, and so on. It might give the warrior classes a balancing boost.

Providing a wealth sink would be a nice side effect. I always hate how money eventually becomes worthless in RPGs.