Ritual Magic Variant Rules

peter

Distinguished
Mar 29, 2004
3,226
0
20,780
0
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.gurps (More info?)

Has anyone played with the Ritual Magic rules in a campaign? It looks
like that they would be easier for the GM since you focus on a few core
skills instead of a separate skill for each spell. This would also give
the spell caster more flexibility and greater access to spells, even
ones that he or she have not practiced using yet. I would think that
this makes more sense also as far as experimenting with new spells.

How does this alter the point cost for spell casters? Is it about the
same point cost as using the "per spell" rules?

I think that this also allows for more emphasis on alternate magic
systems such as rune magic and religious magic.
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.gurps (More info?)

Peter wrote:

> Has anyone played with the Ritual Magic rules in a campaign?

Yes.

> It looks like that they would be easier for the GM since you focus on
> a few core skills instead of a separate skill for each spell.

No. First because it's easier to make a mistake when calculating the
numbers, and second because effects can be improvised, which means that
the GM ends up judging many effect without preparation.

> This would also give the spell caster more flexibility and greater
> access to spells, even ones that he or she have not practiced using yet.
> I would think that this makes more sense also as far as experimenting
> with new spells.

That depends on the basis of magic in your world.

> How does this alter the point cost for spell casters? Is it about the
> same point cost as using the "per spell" rules?

It's difficult to say since there isn't a real correspondence in magical
effects between the two systems. Generally though, mages will be about
equal in effectiveness, but quite different in personality.

Jefferson
http://www.picotech.net/~jeff_wilson63/rpg/
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.gurps (More info?)

On Fri, 26 Nov 2004 21:27:10 GMT, Peter <peterobregozo@comcast.net>
wrote:

>Has anyone played with the Ritual Magic rules in a campaign? It looks
>like that they would be easier for the GM since you focus on a few core
>skills instead of a separate skill for each spell.

How's that easier for the GM?
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.gurps (More info?)

Peter wrote:
> Has anyone played with the Ritual Magic rules in a campaign? It looks
> like that they would be easier for the GM since you focus on a few core

On the contrary, it makes it much harder for the GM to force
his stories down the player's throats.

> skills instead of a separate skill for each spell. This would also give
> the spell caster more flexibility and greater access to spells, even

Yup.

> ones that he or she have not practiced using yet. I would think that
> this makes more sense also as far as experimenting with new spells.
[...]

Yes, sure looks that way.

--
Peter Knutsen
sagatafl.org
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.gurps (More info?)

On Sat, 27 Nov 2004 00:37:29 +0100, Peter Knutsen
<peter@sagatafl.invalid> wrote:

>
>Peter wrote:
>> Has anyone played with the Ritual Magic rules in a campaign? It looks
>> like that they would be easier for the GM since you focus on a few core
>
>On the contrary, it makes it much harder for the GM to force
>his stories down the player's throats.

Or to put another way, to know what the PC's capabilities are so that
the GM is less likely to find that his challenges are total walkovers.
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.gurps (More info?)

David Johnston wrote:
> <peter@sagatafl.invalid> wrote:
>>Peter wrote:
>>>Has anyone played with the Ritual Magic rules in a campaign? It looks
>>>like that they would be easier for the GM since you focus on a few core
>>
>>On the contrary, it makes it much harder for the GM to force
>>his stories down the player's throats.
>
> Or to put another way, to know what the PC's capabilities are so that
> the GM is less likely to find that his challenges are total walkovers.

You're overlooking the GM's ability or inability to
excercise an extreme degree of control over the advancement
of the player's characters.

--
Peter Knutsen
sagatafl.org
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.gurps (More info?)

On Sat, 27 Nov 2004 15:35:20 +0100, Peter Knutsen
<peter@sagatafl.invalid> wrote:

>
>David Johnston wrote:
>> <peter@sagatafl.invalid> wrote:
>>>Peter wrote:
>>>>Has anyone played with the Ritual Magic rules in a campaign? It looks
>>>>like that they would be easier for the GM since you focus on a few core
>>>
>>>On the contrary, it makes it much harder for the GM to force
>>>his stories down the player's throats.
>>
>> Or to put another way, to know what the PC's capabilities are so that
>> the GM is less likely to find that his challenges are total walkovers.
>
>You're overlooking the GM's ability or inability to
>excercise an extreme degree of control over the advancement
>of the player's characters.

Why would a GM do such a thing?

--
Rob Kelk <http://robkelk.ottawa-anime.org/> robkelk -at- jksrv -dot- com
"And really, you think people who watch Japanese cartoons would be a
little more understanding of the seemingly odd hobbies of other fringe
groups." - Chris "Blade" McNeil on rec.arts.anime.misc, 20 Jan 2004
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.gurps (More info?)

Rob Kelk wrote:
>>You're overlooking the GM's ability or inability to
>>excercise an extreme degree of control over the advancement
>>of the player's characters.
>
>
> Why would a GM do such a thing?

IME, some GMs like a very static world. They have very defined roles
for the PCs, and have a hard time dealing with a PC who strays from
their GM preplanned path.

Those are usually the same GMs who see themselves as more an author
than a referee. They also tend to have a hard time retaining players.
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.gurps (More info?)

In our last thrilling episode, Peter <peterobregozo@comcast.net> was
pushed over the cliffs of rec.games.frp.gurps on Fri, 26 Nov 2004
21:27:10 GMT by Zoog, minion of Zathar. As he fell, he screamed:

>Has anyone played with the Ritual Magic rules in a campaign? It looks
>like that they would be easier for the GM since you focus on a few core
>skills instead of a separate skill for each spell. This would also give
>the spell caster more flexibility and greater access to spells, even
>ones that he or she have not practiced using yet. I would think that
>this makes more sense also as far as experimenting with new spells.

I used it in a Tim Powers based Swashbucklers game.

It made it a bit harder for me since each incident of magic was
slightly different, based on the desired effect, the amount of ritual
used, and the exact cicumstances.

Since that group was more into role-play than roll-play, nobody minded
the extra time for magical effects.

The main effect was that most magic was done prior to actual
adventuring. Making charms and fetishes to ward off nasties, brewing
potions and the like.. all things that required time and effort for
the ritual.

The mages in the game had a couple of effects each that they could
cast quickly, and these were banishing and protection spells.

>How does this alter the point cost for spell casters? Is it about the
>same point cost as using the "per spell" rules?

The point costs came out about the same, but the mages were more
versatile, being able to buy more "real" skills since they didn't need
to load up on spells.

>I think that this also allows for more emphasis on alternate magic
>systems such as rune magic and religious magic.

I've always been leery of piling a bunch of different magical systems
into a game world. It's like saying there's a bunch of different
physics. IMGW, all magic was spiritual, with the church contacting a
"better class" of spirits. Since demons were sneaky fellows, the
official position of the churches was that magic was evil, and you
only found it openly used in the New World.
--

Douglas E. Berry Do the OBVIOUS thing to send e-mail
Atheist #2147, Atheist Vet #5

"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as
when they do it from religious conviction."
Blaise Pascal (1623-1662), Pense'es, #894.
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.gurps (More info?)

On Sat, 27 Nov 2004 15:35:20 +0100, Peter Knutsen
<peter@sagatafl.invalid> wrote:

>
>David Johnston wrote:
>> <peter@sagatafl.invalid> wrote:
>>>Peter wrote:
>>>>Has anyone played with the Ritual Magic rules in a campaign? It looks
>>>>like that they would be easier for the GM since you focus on a few core
>>>
>>>On the contrary, it makes it much harder for the GM to force
>>>his stories down the player's throats.
>>
>> Or to put another way, to know what the PC's capabilities are so that
>> the GM is less likely to find that his challenges are total walkovers.
>
>You're overlooking the GM's ability or inability to
>excercise an extreme degree of control over the advancement
>of the player's characters.

Since it isn't relevant, why can't I overlook it?
 

peter

Distinguished
Mar 29, 2004
3,226
0
20,780
0
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.gurps (More info?)

David Johnston wrote:

>On Fri, 26 Nov 2004 21:27:10 GMT, Peter <peterobregozo@comcast.net>
>wrote:
>
>
>
>>Has anyone played with the Ritual Magic rules in a campaign? It looks
>>like that they would be easier for the GM since you focus on a few core
>>skills instead of a separate skill for each spell.
>>
>>
>
>How's that easier for the GM?
>
>
Instead of focusing on hundreds of different spells, they become grouped
into a dozen or so colleges. I agree that makes it harder to predict
what the spell caster can do, but pay in mind that it is much harder to
improvise a spell effect than to use a practiced technique that you have
a few character points invested into. So most likely a spell caster
would have a number of techniques that he or she would use over
improvised spells.
 

peter

Distinguished
Mar 29, 2004
3,226
0
20,780
0
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.gurps (More info?)

Peter Knutsen wrote:

>
> David Johnston wrote:
>
>> <peter@sagatafl.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>> Peter wrote:
>>>
>>>> Has anyone played with the Ritual Magic rules in a campaign? It
>>>> looks like that they would be easier for the GM since you focus on
>>>> a few core
>>>
>>>
>>> On the contrary, it makes it much harder for the GM to force his
>>> stories down the player's throats.
>>
>>
>> Or to put another way, to know what the PC's capabilities are so that
>> the GM is less likely to find that his challenges are total walkovers.
>
>
> You're overlooking the GM's ability or inability to excercise an
> extreme degree of control over the advancement of the player's
> characters.
>
You two know each other?
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.gurps (More info?)

Rob Kelk <robkelk@deadspam.com> abagooba zoink larblortch
news:4mihq0p7dqcfop2lv9u514i32t8dh6ld50@4ax.com:

> On Sat, 27 Nov 2004 15:35:20 +0100, Peter Knutsen
> <peter@sagatafl.invalid> wrote:

>>You're overlooking the GM's ability or inability to
>>excercise an extreme degree of control over the advancement
>>of the player's characters.
>
> Why would a GM do such a thing?
>

Easy: Because the GM in question is a neurotic power-tripper who loves
lording it over the players in his inevitably short-lived campaigns.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY