Limiting spells [The original spell book thread]

Messages are moved here (should anyone ever want to see them again) once they are no longer applicable to the current version (e.g. suggestions that have been implemented or bugs that have been fixed).

Moderator: George Gilbert

Forum rules
Please read the Forum rules and policies before posting.
User avatar
George Gilbert
Dungeon Master
Posts: 3022
Joined: Mon Sep 25, 2000 11:04 am
Location: London, England
Contact:

Limiting spells [The original spell book thread]

Post by George Gilbert »

OK - this is a combination of two posts really, but just to reiterate:

To lay the cards out straight away I'm very keen on limiting the spell casting abilities of the party in RTC such that parties should not be able to cast a spell until they have found the scroll telling them about its existence. In my opinion this is how DM should have been and moreover will allow for new dungeons to be designed without certain scrolls in them (i.e. you could have a dungeon where no fireballs were allowed simply by not including a fireball scroll).

There is an obvious problem with this when it comes to portability of characters from one game into another as by the criteria I've mentioned above, characters would have to un-learn a spell when they entered so-and-sos dungeon; which doesn't really fit in with the whole idea of portability! The obvious solution is to require that the party is *carrying* the relevant scroll to be able to cast any given spell (I wouldn't go so far as to say they had to have it in their hands at the time, as that would really kill off the gameplay). When porting from dungeon to dungeon, designers can then just strip out any "offending" scrolls to leave the characters where they want them.

As this might end up being a bit of a killer in terms of space in the parties backpack (there are about 30 scrolls in DM alone) a new "chest-like" (but light) object could be created especially to hold scrolls (only) or something. Alternatively such an object could be left out forcing the party to decide which scrolls are worth keeping and which ones can be discarded...

Additionally (say for the purposes of CSB) another new object (the complete spell book) could exist so that a party only need carry one object (which could be placed near the start of the dungeon, or pre-given to them for CSB) and have all the spells to hand.

This is my current thinking about spells/portability but realise that it might be contary to some peoples beliefs as it goes far beyond what DM does. Unless there's wild disagreement (or someone comes up with a better idea) I'll probably implement spells and stuff along these lines. Speak now or forever hold your wotsit...
Last edited by George Gilbert on Fri May 12, 2006 11:56 am, edited 2 times in total.
User avatar
cowsmanaut
Moo Master
Posts: 4378
Joined: Fri Jun 30, 2000 12:53 am
Location: canada

I pretty much agree..

Post by cowsmanaut »

I've always thought it a bit ill thought out for replay value.. I mean once you know all the spells it's no where near as hard to get through and your magic and preist levels rocket upwards.

I However opted for a slightly different take since I figure that a person with knowledge of magic and the runes would be able come to their own conclusions.. I mean I found more than one spell by playing around with sequences that made sence to me. the poison spell for instance the symbols were very intuitive and so I tried it and it worked.

Someone in this 'world' had to come up with the spells in the first place right.. I mean from the perspective of storyline and game world you need to explain somethings to make it more immersive..

Anyway, my Idea which I think I posted already once was that a rune would not be known to the player untill found.

This approach limits things in different ways and is more broad where the narrowing of specific spells is more precise. However there is one advantage to this method in that since power symbols are runes themselves you could limit spell power in this way. It also can make more sence in someways for instance keeping from the player a symbol like Ven would prevent them from creating anything related to poison.. they would not know the nature of it and so could neither protect from it or use it to their advantage.

The manner in which this could be done is to simply grey out the sybols that have not yet been found.

Conversion to a new map though is still an issue and really there is no real way around it. I think the best way would simply to explain that the memories of the characters are wiped clean.. this allows them to grow in levels if they are already too high to do so otherwise and will easily explain why they have to find agin the symbols of magic.

After all what is the nature of chaos if not to change all the rules as if there were none to begin with? Once you think you know it bang he's switched the tables again.. :)

Just my thoughts..
User avatar
Gambit37
Should eat more pies
Posts: 13714
Joined: Wed May 31, 2000 1:57 pm
Location: Location, Location
Contact:

Not sure about this one

Post by Gambit37 »

This is a strange one indeed.

I can see the arguments for limiting spell casting ability, in the ways that both George and Drake suggest, and I guess in some ways these are good ideas.

The real problem is that arguably most players of RTC and any derivatives already have the knowledge of all the spells as they will most likely have played DM and CSB. Limiting the spell casting ability of the party is one thing, but deliberately disallowing spells that the player already knows I think is ultimately going to prove frustrating.

I think the issue isn't whether or not to limit spell casting, but really, what audience is RTC being aimed at? Players entirely new to DM and it's world? Die hard DM gamers who know every little detail inside and out?

If RTC is aimed at the former, then the entire manual needs to be included with the game, otherwise it's all pointless, and with that there are copyright issues (as if there aren't already with all the existing stuff being used, but I digress). If RTC is aimed at the die hard DM gamer, then significantly changing the game mechanics of something as fundamental as spell casting is seriously going to piss a lot of people off.

However, having said that, perhaps this is one of those things that further proves that RTC can't be all things to all people. If RTC is seen purely as a clone, then the spell mechanics should remain as they were in DM. I do however like the idea that user built dungeons could have a slightly different methodology, and perhaps this is where George's and/or Drakes ideas could be implemented? The idea of not allowing players to cast a spell until they are carrying the scroll is a very good one, and it puts the onus on the player to decide which spells are important, rather than the Dungeon Designer forcing limits on the player. It does mean though that players would never be able to discover spells by experimenting with the runes - which would also be the problem if Drake's idea of limiting rune availability was used.

I'm not sure about erasing champions memories before they enter a new dungeon. It's an easy way to explain the limitations imposed on the party, sure, but it kills the feeling that you're developing a set of characters, and I thought the whole point of this was to allow you to use your champions from one dungeon to the next? And we can use Chaos' as an excuse only for so long - surely, there will be new dungeons designed that don't feature Chaos at all... so where does that fit in? And again, clearing your champions memories is one thing - clearing that of the player is something else entirely, and quite simply the two don't work together...

Well, I'm no closer to making a good suggestion on this one. I guess I'll have to go and think about it some more! :wink:
User avatar
amaprotu
Adept
Posts: 211
Joined: Thu Jan 25, 2001 9:47 pm
Location: California, USA
Contact:

Re: Not sure about this one

Post by amaprotu »

I like both Georges and DRakes ideas.

Drake:
How would the party discover runes? Is the rune known once they read a scroll with that rune on it? If so when are power runes learned (since they don't exist on any current scrolls)? Another possibility if this is the path chosen I think is for runes to be revealed to the caster based on his skill, as you gain wizard levels more wizardly runes become available etc. The rune method does have the downside (upside?) of not being able to limit the spells available in a dungeon.

George:
I really do like your idea best I think. The chest like item should be a Journal. I think it would be really cool if there were two journals, a priest and a wizard one, and each could only hold that type of spell. Whichever method you implement I think it would be best if there was a flag in the ini file to choose DM style magic or RTC style.

Gambit:
Rather than frustrating (ok that too) it would be a challenge to complete a dungeon that didn't have the fireball spell, as long as the dungeon was designed with that in mind. Spell limiting would also allow the creation of fighter dungeons, where no scrolls / runes were there to use, which could be interesting.

Portability:
Scaling of monster stats at the begining sounds like the best option to me, however there should be a max limit. If there is no max limit the party could reach full potential half way through the dungeon and be unable to complete it due to the difficulty of the rest of the maze. For spell portability/contamination: with George's spell method characters could be striped of unwanted spell scrolls when entering the new dungeon. The only other way I can see to stop spell contamination is for a list of spells with on/off flags to be somewhere in the .rtc files, or something similar.

- Amaprotu
- Amaprotu
User avatar
George Gilbert
Dungeon Master
Posts: 3022
Joined: Mon Sep 25, 2000 11:04 am
Location: London, England
Contact:

Re: Not sure about this one

Post by George Gilbert »

I'm very reluctant to put something like this in as an option to be flagged in or out of an ini file. The basic reason is that it changes the game play. When someone designs a dungeon, they should know what characters (in terms of ability) are going to be running about in it. There's no point in designing a dungeon in which fireballs aren't meant to be used, but then someone can just change a flag in the ini file and then use them...

I'm quite happy putting flags in for stuff that makes no difference to the mechanics of the game (mostly graphics stuff), but something as fundamental as this has to be either in or out, and not an option (to the user that is, the whole point is that it's an option to the designer!)
User avatar
cowsmanaut
Moo Master
Posts: 4378
Joined: Fri Jun 30, 2000 12:53 am
Location: canada

wow.. big issue.. hmmm..

Post by cowsmanaut »

well just to clear up a few points on my idea..

1. the characters could learn runes from seeing them.. anywhere on a wall or scroll or magic item (like an engraved sword) and learn the rune. It would be up to the Map Creator ((MC) heh..)to determine when they would show up.

2.There can be experimentation Gambit.. you needn't read the spell to learn it.. just know the symbols
say for instance you find ee ful and ir.. you know how to cast magic torch but not a fire ball.. well you have the symbols just try them.. see what I mean you could find all the runes before finding all the spells..

3.My method as I said is more broad.. it limits a specific kind of magic rather than a specific spell.. fire magic for FUL poison for VEN life for VI.. etc.

no on to other points..

There is a difference between Character knowledge and player knowledge. Anyone who likes RPG's should know that. If you are taking on the part of and adventurer you should be willing to except that characters limits. I mean jumping ahead into any spell is more or less like cheating. I mean the first time you play through the game you don't know them..

IF you can't accept a character and his limits as well as his benefits then why not simply base him off of your own skills.. therefore he can not do magic.. uhm how good are with a sword.. how much pain can you take before you black out.. sounds pretty dumb huh? You are leapinginto someone elses skin for a little while and escaping your life. If this guy never saw a FUL rune before let alone a fire ball spell then why should he be able to just straight off cast it?

anyway that's just my point of view..
User avatar
Zyx
DSA Master
Posts: 2592
Joined: Mon Jun 05, 2000 1:53 pm
Location: in the mind
Contact:

from a rune partisan

Post by Zyx »

As in Ultima Underground, a way to limit the spells available is by limiting the runes present in the dungeon: each rune would be a stone. Once the stone is lifted and put in the spell bar, it enables the corresponding rune for casting.
This way knowing the combinations is independent of being able to cast them.
Experimentation and scrolls would permit discovering new spells.
For the porting, the party would need to find again the runes.
For DM and CSB, characters start will all the runes already owned.
(As a alternative, we could put the matching runes next to every scroll about spells)
User avatar
amaprotu
Adept
Posts: 211
Joined: Thu Jan 25, 2001 9:47 pm
Location: California, USA
Contact:

Re: from a rune partisan

Post by amaprotu »

You are absolutly correct on that George about the spell with a DM mode or RTC mode in the ini file. I do not know how hard such a flag is to implement, but maybe one could be in the .rtc files? This way if someone edits those they are editing the dungeon and changing the dynamic of it anyways. However I realize the spell system is a major system and implementing two versions of it is probably not pheasable, just thought I'd ask anyways. After all you did make the magic map! =)

- Amaprotu
- Amaprotu
User avatar
beowuuf
Archmastiff
Posts: 20687
Joined: Sat Sep 16, 2000 2:00 pm
Location: Basingstoke, UK

Re: Spells and Portability

Post by beowuuf »

I too like some of George's and Drake's ideas. How about combinig them this way.

Spells are defined for each dungeon in a seperate .init file (a default DM/CSB is provided). They use a language basis like amaprotu suggested, in that you define the spell as runes, any objects needed, effects generated (hard coded into rtc), and also a 'common sense' bit - can this spell be cast normally through experimenting or do you need to see it written down too. The end then has all the runes available in the game, whether characters can start with them, or need a certain level to gain them, or need to find them - and maybe a common sense bit too...
When a game is started, a new file is created - in this each rune the party has is given, each spell is written fully and the common sense bits are set. This file is the one the game will use to write to (using the .ini file fror reference only) and this is the one that is portable. As new runes are discoverd or gained, they are added to this file, and as spell scrolls are discovered the common sense bit is enabled if it was off, so the spells can be cast.
When a party is ported, this party file is compared to the new dungeon .ini file. Any spells that don't match are disabled, and better yet any 'copies' of spells that are different (using the same symbols for diferent meaning) are disabled too but not deleted. The new spells from the dungeon, and their states, are then added. Any spells that aren't common sense but the party know shouldn't be altered.

The ethos behind this? I think that magic in DM seems to be a case of calling upon influences in the world. So, is it not logical that to do this you should know not only how to ask them (runes) but also what you are asking them to do (rune knowledge, spell knowledge). In this way you must know the symbols as Drake suggested before you can cast, and if a spell is not concidered 'common sense' then a scroll must be found, more to george's liking (plus why not have spell symbol and menaing seperate things that both have to be discovered before the rune is 'active').
And then I think the influences themselves should come into play. Maybe they hold different sways in variious parts. Perhaps in an underwater dungeon FUL isn't thought of as fire at all as it holds little sway, and is concidered more energy. The .ini file for this maybe allows starting parties to know it, while it deletes (or sets the common sense bit to 0) in expereinced parties, as suddenly they don't know how to use this rune, and need to find a scroll description on it! Fireball becomes disabled, and has to be relearned in this area of the world as a light spell or magic missile. It would explain why suddely certain spells disappear from a characters grasp, or are uncastable in the dungeon used.

Just a thought, in this way a continuing party party becomes more than it's stats, it also becomes more expereinced in knowledge too, much more valuable (heh, anyone can get master levels in a dungeon, but you need to play lots of dungeons to get all the spells and variations on runes) which would make you want to keep them, or maybe try different parties if they could only gain different knowledge from scratch.

I think this would be more flexible. Dungeon designers have more power to alter thier dungeons without having to worry about other parties (and portability should still an option only, i think), allowing spells without having to bother whether they have been done already, and whether it is ruining the ethos of the game.
Personally I might allow fireball in a spell file for continuity but in a no fireball dungeon make it against common sense and include no scroll, hoping everyone would respect the challenge and not bring in a ported party right away..only for fun later. *hehe, or just redefine fireball and have it become too powerful in my dungeon...it explodes instantly in a 9 square block, inflicting massive caster damage...)
Was unable to (permenantly) kill off ian_scho (Haynuus), Ameena, oh_brother (Westian), money (Falkor), raixel (Petal) and Lord_Bones (Aurek) in the DM D&D game Time's Champions!

CONGRATULATIONS TO THOSE WHO MADE THE GAME WHAT IT WAS - GREAT!
User avatar
amaprotu
Adept
Posts: 211
Joined: Thu Jan 25, 2001 9:47 pm
Location: California, USA
Contact:

Re: Spells and Portability

Post by amaprotu »

George had you mentioned before the idea of limiting the dungeons characters could be ported from? Or was I halucinating? Either way its a good idea I think, would basically solve the spell contamination problem.

This brings me to another question: will .rtc files be password protected in any way, or can anyone who knows how to make a map open them up? I can see ups and downs to both methods (speed problems with encrypting/decrypting on run, modifying premade dungeons would be difficult, time to implement). Well I have convinced myself its not a good idea as soon as I wrote it, any other comments on it?

- Amaprotu
- Amaprotu
User avatar
cowsmanaut
Moo Master
Posts: 4378
Joined: Fri Jun 30, 2000 12:53 am
Location: canada

common sense.. yeah right.. (j/k)

Post by cowsmanaut »

The thing about common sense is that you need a group of people who say .. yeah that's obvious. Which is not really happening here..

I mean I know what you are kind of getting at.. you could know the spell for the magic torch and possibly extrapelate (sp?) the uses of it when you find the flight rune that it could make a fireball.. however the magical light spell wouldn't be a likley discovery just because you know the magic torch spell..

however there are a lot of spells and different ideas of what makes sence and what doesn't. There is also the need to program in the complex bit of code that determines this interconnectivity of spells adn runes and character levels and 'common sense'.. not exactly and easy task.

Anyway, I like my method better simply because I felt I was rather clever when I figured out spells on my own.. and I feel that if you know the runes and speak them out loud in the correct order, then that seems to be all that is needed once you've learned them .. it doesn't make sense to me that it would work only after you read it on paper.. However if you don't even know the rune, then you cannot speak it to begin with. That's just my veiw of it though..

However, I'd be happy just doing it your way George .. After all it is your engine.
User avatar
beowuuf
Archmastiff
Posts: 20687
Joined: Sat Sep 16, 2000 2:00 pm
Location: Basingstoke, UK

Re: Spells and Portability

Post by beowuuf »

lol, we could call it certainty instead?
and i think you half misunderstood - there is no interconnectivity, more a one off creative choice for the designer...backed up by the 'fudge factor' or 'oh, the elements need 100% certainty in invoking, you weren't thinking about the right things when casting, etc. Simply, it was a small flag to stop you finding things from experimenting, that only activates when you find the scroll. The 'common sense' bit for runes would be different, it's a way to suddenly block runes that were known befroe..thewir meaning is altered in the people around, or the symbol must be invoked differently so suddenly what you know is wrong...i don';t know, it was just a thought : ) The thing i imagine would be odd would be to compare old spells to new the characvters knew...ah well

Finding a scroll for magic torch means nothing...it wouldn't suddenly let realise how to cast fireball too...once you know the runes, you know everything you should, they are the main limit...so if the spells are limited by the 'common sense' bit it means that each is a special case in casting..you need to hop around on one foot wjile feeling very foolish, feel sorry for the monster as you whack a giant fireball at them while reciting the national amnthem...whatever reason, so you don't need a complex system of interdependancy.
Was unable to (permenantly) kill off ian_scho (Haynuus), Ameena, oh_brother (Westian), money (Falkor), raixel (Petal) and Lord_Bones (Aurek) in the DM D&D game Time's Champions!

CONGRATULATIONS TO THOSE WHO MADE THE GAME WHAT IT WAS - GREAT!
User avatar
George Gilbert
Dungeon Master
Posts: 3022
Joined: Mon Sep 25, 2000 11:04 am
Location: London, England
Contact:

Re: Spells and Portability

Post by George Gilbert »

OK - how about this.

Each scroll can contain zero or more runes on it. The party may only cast spells for which they have all the runes but they need not necessarily have been told about the existence of a spell which contains those runes. This allows for experimentation but can be used to contain what spells can be cast from the outset. There are some obvious illogical consequences for this, but I think we have to live with some (e.g knowing the lighting (OhKathRa) and open door spells (Zo) will allow you to cast ZoKathRa without having to have found the ZoKathRa spell).

To allow for portability, runes must be carried by the party to count (this way they can be stripped from the party if deemed necessary by whoever is creating the dungeon).
User avatar
cowsmanaut
Moo Master
Posts: 4378
Joined: Fri Jun 30, 2000 12:53 am
Location: canada

sounds good to me..

Post by cowsmanaut »

I think it's the nicest way for both newbies and veterans.. For a veteran they may feel held backby this addition so making it rune dependant means that finding a certain rune can open the door to so many of the spells they know so it's a greater 'relief' for them. New casters can have fun finding new runes and wondering what wild new spells await them..

I vote yes... (obviously)
User avatar
amaprotu
Adept
Posts: 211
Joined: Thu Jan 25, 2001 9:47 pm
Location: California, USA
Contact:

Re: sounds good to me..

Post by amaprotu »

This sounds like the best option, and acting as if votes count for anything, it gets my vote.

Am I correct to assume that the rune nature of this will be invisible? ie I will only be collecting scrolls not scrolls and runes or something? Also will the runes in the casting box be shaded or blacked out entirely before you discover the rune? I would like them blacked out entirely, if you don't know it you shouldn't evenknow of its existance.

Have you decided on how the spells will be held? I hope the tomb/journel whatever holds more spells than a chest would.

- Amaprotu
- Amaprotu
User avatar
George Gilbert
Dungeon Master
Posts: 3022
Joined: Mon Sep 25, 2000 11:04 am
Location: London, England
Contact:

Re: sounds good to me..

Post by George Gilbert »

I added in the rune thing last night, and it works quite well...

Each scroll has certain runes printed on it - when you're carrying the scroll those runes are active and can be cast, when your not, then you can't. Runes which you don't have appear in a dark bluey grey colour RGB(0,74,74) so you can tell they're missing, but I can change this to black if that's what people prefer.

A seperate scroll-holder / spell book item *isn't* implemented as on reflection the requirement only to carry runes about (rather than complete spells) means that you don't have to carry that many scrolls with you.

I have to say that it does change the gameplay somewhat, which people may or may not like. Scrolls transform from being irrelevant objects to being the most vital thing you can find - I found myself running about the Dungeon gagging to find the next scroll to get some useful runes...personally I think it's better this way, but be warned - it is different.
User avatar
beowuuf
Archmastiff
Posts: 20687
Joined: Sat Sep 16, 2000 2:00 pm
Location: Basingstoke, UK

Re: Spells and Portability

Post by beowuuf »

lol, as long as it's good different then what's too complain about! i'm definately bouncing about all the changes compared to DM that will make it stand out : )

exceeept for one liiiiittle suggestion...how exactly does the rune scroll holding work? would it be possible, say to hold a sword of ZO and know the rune as long as the party had this sword?

Further, would it be possible to stand on a pressure pad that gives the party a rune as long as they are on it? thinking: having a 'ful' room with the rune on the walls...while in this room the party can cast ful (as they can see the rune, represented by the pad)...once they leave, they can't...

ok, i'm done with the ignorable suggestions, the new spellcasting restrictions sound great! i like the faded runes since everyone knows them anyway, but can this be a user defined opption easily enough?
Was unable to (permenantly) kill off ian_scho (Haynuus), Ameena, oh_brother (Westian), money (Falkor), raixel (Petal) and Lord_Bones (Aurek) in the DM D&D game Time's Champions!

CONGRATULATIONS TO THOSE WHO MADE THE GAME WHAT IT WAS - GREAT!
User avatar
George Gilbert
Dungeon Master
Posts: 3022
Joined: Mon Sep 25, 2000 11:04 am
Location: London, England
Contact:

Re: Spells and Portability

Post by George Gilbert »

Erm, currently only scrolls can hold runes, but I don't see why other objects can't (in principle) have them. Doing it by the dungeon (whether that be on the wall / floor or whatever) I'm not too keen on though as it would be a pain to code.
User avatar
beowuuf
Archmastiff
Posts: 20687
Joined: Sat Sep 16, 2000 2:00 pm
Location: Basingstoke, UK

Re: Spells and Portability

Post by beowuuf »

wow, quick reply! eh, the dungeon thing was an ignorable suggestion...the system sounds cool though so look forward to playing a dungeon with it now : )
Was unable to (permenantly) kill off ian_scho (Haynuus), Ameena, oh_brother (Westian), money (Falkor), raixel (Petal) and Lord_Bones (Aurek) in the DM D&D game Time's Champions!

CONGRATULATIONS TO THOSE WHO MADE THE GAME WHAT IT WAS - GREAT!
User avatar
cowsmanaut
Moo Master
Posts: 4378
Joined: Fri Jun 30, 2000 12:53 am
Location: canada

erm.. sorry.. I have to.

Post by cowsmanaut »

I seemed to have missed something.. however this thing about needing to be in possesion of scrolls doesn't make sense to me. Learning them yeah, but thinking on it.. if you see it and then speak it and then lose the scroll.. why should you forget it?

I can see needing a rune pouch to contain specific runes as the objects are needed to key the spell.. but a bunch of scrolls hmm It think that if this is the choice then a spell book should absolutely be implimented.. or a magical scroll that you can find that inscribes each rune as it is found..

this way you could necessitate carrying around scrolls untill this book/magic scroll was found.

The reason I find needing to carry the scrolls around a bad idea is that space in your backpack is precious.. if you need to carry about all these scrolls then you can't carry much food or flasks and so on.. there is a lot that we end up filling out packs with.. what happens when someone dies.. you need to carry some of their stuff too or risk taking them back to this point where they already died and leaving them naked to boot! or what happens if the person who is carrying th scrolls dies for that matter? you gotta run but not before rummaging through for every scroll you've found containg any of the 24 runes.. It just has big potential to be a big hassle..

I like the book Idea..sliding the pages in one by one as you find them.. so I'd go for that.. but hey. whatever. :)
User avatar
MadMunky
Adept
Posts: 212
Joined: Mon Sep 27, 1999 3:06 pm
Contact:

SpellBook

Post by MadMunky »

Maybe a spellbook would be the best way! then people could change what spells are on the pages and then when you find a new scroll the spell can be writen into the book!
User avatar
beowuuf
Archmastiff
Posts: 20687
Joined: Sat Sep 16, 2000 2:00 pm
Location: Basingstoke, UK

Re: Spells and Portability

Post by beowuuf »

I didn't read the not implemeting of a carrier. Eh, the spellbook would be a pain as how would you suddenly lose pages from it? And surely only if the designer has a rune a scroll of such will the space thing become an issue (weights normally a bigger one...).

Umm, how easy would it be to redifine the 'size' of scrolls to one below anything else - and create a scroll sack/pouch with 20 - 30 slots, but it only accomodates items of this new size. Maybe you could include rings, wands and coins too, and that's about it. So you can carry scrolls easily if you find this sack (so designers being evil and having one scroll per rune better make sure it's included somewhere close!) and it's still pretty much as george has got it now...
Was unable to (permenantly) kill off ian_scho (Haynuus), Ameena, oh_brother (Westian), money (Falkor), raixel (Petal) and Lord_Bones (Aurek) in the DM D&D game Time's Champions!

CONGRATULATIONS TO THOSE WHO MADE THE GAME WHAT IT WAS - GREAT!
User avatar
amaprotu
Adept
Posts: 211
Joined: Thu Jan 25, 2001 9:47 pm
Location: California, USA
Contact:

Re: Spells and Portability

Post by amaprotu »

Drake mentioned an idea, in passing it seemed, that I really liked. That is having a magic scroll. This scroll would show all the found runes, as you find an learn more, then more runes are added to this scroll. The advantages I see to this are
1) Its easy to see which runes you have before wasting the mana to find you don't have the third rune needed.

2) Removal of runes for importing characters would be easiest I think, instead of searching for and removing all scrolls with the unwanted runes on them you remove the runes from scroll.

3) Less cumbersome, only one scroll, no containers no multitudes of scrolls etc.

4) It makes sense, when you learn a rune you write it down.

5) Might be easier to implement objects and or wall/pressure pad runes. For instance if the party steps on a pressure pad right infront of a rune on the wall the pad could add that rune to scroll

I am trying to think of downsides to this and all I can come up with is that I don't know how hard a 'variable scroll' is to impliment, I can't imagine much harder than a magic map though.

- Amaprotu

heh this is working its way to the longest thread yet. =)
- Amaprotu
User avatar
cowsmanaut
Moo Master
Posts: 4378
Joined: Fri Jun 30, 2000 12:53 am
Location: canada

Re: Spells and Portability

Post by cowsmanaut »

Well the issues as *I* see them are this.

1. Knowing and using spells before you should be
2. using up empty slots for scrolls
3. transfer of seasoned characters into a new dungeon

Now the decision has been made to limit it to the knowledge of Runes.. we find them and then we know them but not before.

Using of the empty slots.. I was not talking about Weight.. I was talking about empty slots that could be filled with food and water and healing potions or whatever things that you need in those areas of a dungeon where there may be no food or no water.. or you can't sleep or not much.. places where you WILL die if you don't have space to stock up those needed items! If you have to carry a bunch of scrolls you may as well be as good as dead. The other issue with it is as I said if you drop them all when that caracter diesor some of them if you've spread them between characters you need to pick them up again.. what if you drop a scroll containg vi?? or ful? no healing? no light.. do you have any torches left?? It's very easy to get very screwed cery fast!

Portability, not removing single runes.. but remove the whole bloody book/scroll. You are probably gonna strip the buggers of all their other items since many of them may not exist in the new dungeon. :) Why let them keep the book/scroll?

I propose that items that are created can have runes attatched to them so that when you find an item which is not a scroll but is engraved with a symbol of magic you can still learn the symbol/rune . Things like stones, swords, shields, and armour, etc..

I also don't think there should be a way of removing a page or rune from this book/scroll within the dungeon. that would simply be irritating. I mean how and when would you find it again.. and when and why was it taken. When you've worked that hard to collect all of them and then just have them romoved by something no matter the reason .. I would get pissed.

Perhaps I'm the only one feels that way though? Would anyone like being stripped of a rune you may have had for a while or may have just found? I dunno makes me feel like I wouldn't be in controll .. the game would choose what I could and couldn't do at any given time no matter my abilities before that moment or my struggles to get that ability.. It may be harsh to say but I think that the moment that happened to me, unless the dungeon had some really good redeeming qualities, I would stop playing it right there..

Ok.. Drake... shutting up. :wink:
User avatar
amaprotu
Adept
Posts: 211
Joined: Thu Jan 25, 2001 9:47 pm
Location: California, USA
Contact:

Re: Spells and Portability

Post by amaprotu »

If items can have runes, those runes should not be made available, I believe, until the item has been inspected. If that is possible. It kinda depends on your interpretation but if you are learning the rune then you need to look at it first. On the other hand if the rune iteself is what is magical and gives you the ability to cast spells with that rune the merely holding the item would be enough.

The more I think about it themore I like the idea of a scroll with the runes and their names aranged as they are on the last page of the DM manual. Runes only appear when you learn them, and you don't need to carry around the spell scroll after you read it.

I agree with drake that it would not be good to allow runes to be taken away from you in the middle of a dungeon. However for portability, it seems people want to be able to limit the spells/runes available in dungeons and still allow characters to be imported. If this is the case then the 'rune scroll' could be striped of runes on entry.

This way seems to me to be less messy than however many dozen scrolls and a chest like item to hold them etc.

Whatever your implementation George I look forward to seeing the next release....

- Amaprotu
- Amaprotu
User avatar
Zyx
DSA Master
Posts: 2592
Joined: Mon Jun 05, 2000 1:53 pm
Location: in the mind
Contact:

another drop of water

Post by Zyx »

I don't think it would be very handy for the wizards to be always checking in their backpack if they know the runes they need for the spell.
It would be much simplier to use the rune pannel on the right side. Unknown runes would be disabled.
When you find a scroll and read it, its runes are definitively enabled.
This would solve also the space problem.
Each dungeon should specify which runes are already known (or owned) by the party.
User avatar
cowsmanaut
Moo Master
Posts: 4378
Joined: Fri Jun 30, 2000 12:53 am
Location: canada

I'm sometimes not very clear.. :)

Post by cowsmanaut »

**The only *REAL* purpose of the magic scroll or Tome would be to give a physical attribute to the runes you have found.. giving justification to why you no longer can cast any of those runes when entering a new dungeon.**

Obviously the easiest way would be to use the spell cast area.. simply blacking out the ones you don't know.. This is being done anyway. However, how does one justify the clearing of it when entering a new dungeon?

If you need to have a copy written down of those runes you know in a book or a special scroll then if you remove that scroll they lose their runes. Now to again clarify The book or scroll I reffer to is one that contains *ALL* the runes you have found to that point. they are added to it the moment you find them. You do not need to go checking through your backpack to look at the symbols before you casta spell.. you only need them to be written in there. And the book needs to be in your possesion.

I hope that explains it a bit better.
User avatar
amaprotu
Adept
Posts: 211
Joined: Thu Jan 25, 2001 9:47 pm
Location: California, USA
Contact:

Re: I'm sometimes not very clear.. :)

Post by amaprotu »

Yes I agree with drake and think Zyx mmissinterpreted. The scoll with al lthe symbols or tomb full of scrolls is in addition to having the runes in the spell panel blocked out. I mean if the runes aresn't somewhere in the spell book or on the scroll then they do not appear on the spell thing on the right.

- Amaprotu
- Amaprotu
User avatar
Gambit37
Should eat more pies
Posts: 13714
Joined: Wed May 31, 2000 1:57 pm
Location: Location, Location
Contact:

I've been thinking about this a lot

Post by Gambit37 »

Well, I have thought about this a lot and have realised that many of the suggestions that have been made simply break the fluidity and ease of use of the DM interface, and in my opinion shouldn't be implemented.

The only system that sits well with me, and the only one that really makes any sense is a combination of ideas put forward by several of you in the thread above. This is what I think:

<b> 1 ) All runes should always be available.</b>
It doesn't make sense to limit this in any shape or form. The original Dungeon Master game had the entire Magick rune set available from the start. This implies that any Wizard worth his salt would already have knowledge of the runes, even if they didn't have the ability to cast spells that used them. Limiting rune access severely restricts playability in my view, especially for long term players of DM. Limiting power runes is even worse and takes a substantial amount of control away from the player.

<b> 2 ) Spells can only be cast once they have been learnt</b>
I think that a spell should not be castable until the equivalent scroll or Magick object is found that shows the runes necessary to cast a spell. This was what George's original idea was. It should not be necessary for the object to be retained for the spell to be cast - simply seeing the runes is enough for the Wizard to learn the spell. It doesn't make sense to me that the scroll must be held for the wizard to know a spell - that kind of implies that all wizards are instantly forgetful, which is clearly the opposite of what they are meant to be! If the Wizard tries to cast a spell before the relevant scroll has been found then the player should receive a warning like "So and so does not yet have full knowledge of this spell." You could also allow for player experimentation in this way... players could experiment with runes and if they chance upon a combination that produces an effect, then that new spell is flagged as 'learnt' and is available for use. Perhaps spells discovered this way could have a message 'So and so has discovered a new spell!" This would really add to the element of discovery, and be very rewarding for the player.

<b> 3 ) Spell book</b>
A spell book object could be handy, but would not be essential. The way I see this working is that all spells are displayed in the spell book, but only those that have been discovered will be highlighted. Everything else is ghosted out. This way, the player has an indication of the spells available and they get a sense of satisfaction finding a new spell, as the spell book fills up. Holding the spell book in itself should not be necessary to cast the spells (see 2 above). Clearly the spell book would have to use words to show the spells - showing runes would give the whole game away - or perhaps runes could be displayed next to the spells' common name once it has been learnt. Spells would also be highlighted if the spell was discovered by chance. The only thing I'm not sure about is whether the spell book should be an actual object that can be picked up (and lost!), or if minor changes the interface should be made so that it's a permanent feature - like the eye or mouth icon?

<b> 4 ) Portability and Dungeon Design</b>
This really is the thing that has confused the whole issue, and these are my thoughts. I think that it should be up to the Dungeon Designer to decide which spells are available initially to players when they start a dungeon. The available spells would be specified in the editor program, and then held in the RTC file, and the game engine would automatically read this information and 'bind' it to the spell book object. When the player finds the spell book (which should normally be right at the start of the dungeon and assuming it's not part of the interface) they can see at a glance which spells are available for immediate use. Perhaps it may be possible to use three colours of text in the spell book: spells that have not yet been found, spells that HAVE been found, and spells that aren't available in that particular dungeon.


So that's what I think. I'm not taking credit for any of this, as most of it's been discussed by everyone in other shapes and forms. To me, this is the only logical way of adressing all the issues in a simple form that does not significantly change the game interface and does not limit the player from playing however they want to. They can still learn spells by trying, they can find new spells in the dungeon on scrolls or objects (and don't need to carry them), and if a dungeon designer wishes to disable spells on a dungeon-by-dungeon basis, then that's up to them. Isn't that what everyone wants?
User avatar
amaprotu
Adept
Posts: 211
Joined: Thu Jan 25, 2001 9:47 pm
Location: California, USA
Contact:

Re: I've been thinking about this a lot

Post by amaprotu »

I agree with most aspects of Gambits post except for one thing. I do not think in such a system that it should be possible to experimentally learn spells. At this stage of the games life (ie its resurection) all spells are either known or easily found. Then again if the system is to allow the integration of a new spell system without changing the way the old game works then this makes sense.

I would like for there to be a percentage chance of the spell not being 'discovered' even if the caster is of appropriate skill and has sufficient mana and the spell would normaly have cast. I would think since the spell is unknown there should be an extra 50% chance for it to fail. Basically I mean when you cast a spell it does all the checks to see if the spell is cast and its power etc. and then assumming it would be a successful cast it is checked to see if the spell is in the book as 'known'. If it is not then there should be a 1-4 roll, if its a 3-4 (50%) its cast, if it is a 4 (25%) it is 'discovered' and added to the book.

For this system to really be effective in future dungeons it would be nice to be able to define new rune combinations for the spells so that they really do have to be discovered. Maybe the first page or two of this book could give (one or two word) descriptions of the runes, so they could be redifined by the map maker.

However books are not in DM and thus would have to be made from scratch. As this would be the case for any book / multipage scroll needed to implement this idea I think the best way would be, as Gambit mentioned, an addition to the interface. Perhaps a book icon of some kind?

Downsides:
1) To my understanding George has already implemented a rune based system.

2) There was large support for a rune based system.

3) George has already implemented a rune based system.

4) George said he like playing in his rune based system.

I see possibilities in both methods. And the above four points must be taken into consideration with the Gambit's idea.

- Amaprotu
- Amaprotu
Post Reply