Aysle Sourcebook Q&A Thread

Zackzenobi
Posts: 883
Joined: Sun Feb 19, 2017 11:52 am

Re: Aysle Sourcebook Q&A Thread

Postby Zackzenobi » Fri Aug 02, 2019 11:03 pm

Rabbitball wrote:
TorgHacker wrote:
I think it should have been added, but that was a space removal. Feel free to submit it as an error. If there is enough interest, I might be convinced to detail some of those things that were edited out.


Is that what happened to the entry for Denmark? I'm definitely submitting that as an error. :D

Fuzzy
Posts: 123
Joined: Fri Jul 28, 2017 8:39 pm

Re: Aysle Sourcebook Q&A Thread

Postby Fuzzy » Sun Aug 04, 2019 7:26 pm

It appears that there is a subtable for special armors (circlet, vestments, etc.), but there is no way to actually get to that subtable.

I take it the resemblance to D&D 2nd edition is nor mere accident btw. :)

GeniusCodeMonkey
Posts: 402
Joined: Wed May 09, 2018 2:35 am

Re: Aysle Sourcebook Q&A Thread

Postby GeniusCodeMonkey » Mon Aug 05, 2019 10:10 am

I'm not sure if it's mentioned, but the necromancer perk doesn't list Spellcaster as a prerequisite.
Question everything.
Politeness costs nothing.

GeniusCodeMonkey
Posts: 402
Joined: Wed May 09, 2018 2:35 am

Re: Aysle Sourcebook Q&A Thread

Postby GeniusCodeMonkey » Mon Aug 05, 2019 10:13 am

I'm not sure if you want corrections on 'voice' but "Aysle is the kind of cosm where the call to adventure sounds from every dark hole in the ground..." sounds conversational ('m not sure if it's meant to); wouldn't "Aysle is a cosm where the call to adventure sounds from every dark hole in the ground..." sound better?
Question everything.
Politeness costs nothing.

GeniusCodeMonkey
Posts: 402
Joined: Wed May 09, 2018 2:35 am

Re: Aysle Sourcebook Q&A Thread

Postby GeniusCodeMonkey » Mon Aug 05, 2019 10:37 am

"However, unlike Core Earth science, there is little predictive quality to magic. A Core Earth scientist may conclude reliably that silicon dioxide will have similar chemical structure and chemical properties to carbon dioxide, but replacing the elemental fire of fireball with elemental ice will not necessarily produce an iceball, or even a waterball. The only way to know is to do it yourself or research what others have done."

The fact you can research what other have done, means that it is predictable.

Unpredictability of magic in a Magic Axiom 24 cosm does not make sense. At Axiom 22 "Improvised magic become possible", without some understanding or prediction on what you would be casting you would be killing yourself and others in gruel-some ways more times than not.

"Like science, magic has become predictable to those who have studied it. Just as a Core Earth scientist may conclude reliably that silicon dioxide will have similar chemical structure and chemical properties to carbon dioxide. With study and research replacing the elemental fire of fireball with elemental ice will produce an iceball, or even a waterball, creating a new spell. Researching what others have created can quicken the process."

The word count is the same. It still means people need to learn a new spell and can't change principles on the fly (which I think is the intent of the original paragraph).
Question everything.
Politeness costs nothing.

Istrian
Posts: 119
Joined: Wed May 01, 2019 7:18 am
Location: Cyberpapacy (Paris)

Re: Aysle Sourcebook Q&A Thread

Postby Istrian » Mon Aug 05, 2019 10:54 am

GeniusCodeMonkey wrote:"However, unlike Core Earth science, there is little predictive quality to magic. A Core Earth scientist may conclude reliably that silicon dioxide will have similar chemical structure and chemical properties to carbon dioxide, but replacing the elemental fire of fireball with elemental ice will not necessarily produce an iceball, or even a waterball. The only way to know is to do it yourself or research what others have done."

The fact you can research what other have done, means that it is predictable.

Unpredictability of magic in a Magic Axiom 24 cosm does not make sense. At Axiom 22 "Improvised magic become possible", without some understanding or prediction on what you would be casting you would be killing yourself and others in gruel-some ways more times than not.

"Like science, magic has become predictable to those who have studied it. Just as a Core Earth scientist may conclude reliably that silicon dioxide will have similar chemical structure and chemical properties to carbon dioxide. With study and research replacing the elemental fire of fireball with elemental ice will produce an iceball, or even a waterball, creating a new spell. Researching what others have created can quicken the process."

The word count is the same. It still means people need to learn a new spell and can't change principles on the fly (which I think is the intent of the original paragraph).


I am guessing the idea is that if, for example, you want to turn a fireball spell into an iceball spell, it doesn't work - period. If you want an iceball spell you have to research it either from scratch or from what other people have done in the field of Applied Destructive Cryothurgy (but works in Applied Destructive Pyrothurgy are useless in this). You can't just replace the word "fire" in the incantation with "ice". The comparison with chemistry is that in chemistry you can (sometimes, in theory) replace a part of a formula with another and get what you expect (because some molecular structures are as common, say, to organic compounds as "ball" is common to "fireball" and "iceball").

GeniusCodeMonkey
Posts: 402
Joined: Wed May 09, 2018 2:35 am

Re: Aysle Sourcebook Q&A Thread

Postby GeniusCodeMonkey » Mon Aug 05, 2019 11:25 am

Istrian wrote:
GeniusCodeMonkey wrote:"However, unlike Core Earth science, there is little predictive quality to magic. A Core Earth scientist may conclude reliably that silicon dioxide will have similar chemical structure and chemical properties to carbon dioxide, but replacing the elemental fire of fireball with elemental ice will not necessarily produce an iceball, or even a waterball. The only way to know is to do it yourself or research what others have done."

The fact you can research what other have done, means that it is predictable.

Unpredictability of magic in a Magic Axiom 24 cosm does not make sense. At Axiom 22 "Improvised magic become possible", without some understanding or prediction on what you would be casting you would be killing yourself and others in gruel-some ways more times than not.

"Like science, magic has become predictable to those who have studied it. Just as a Core Earth scientist may conclude reliably that silicon dioxide will have similar chemical structure and chemical properties to carbon dioxide. With study and research replacing the elemental fire of fireball with elemental ice will produce an iceball, or even a waterball, creating a new spell. Researching what others have created can quicken the process."

The word count is the same. It still means people need to learn a new spell and can't change principles on the fly (which I think is the intent of the original paragraph).


I am guessing the idea is that if, for example, you want to turn a fireball spell into an iceball spell, it doesn't work - period. If you want an iceball spell you have to research it either from scratch or from what other people have done in the field of Applied Destructive Cryothurgy (but works in Applied Destructive Pyrothurgy are useless in this). You can't just replace the word "fire" in the incantation with "ice". The comparison with chemistry is that in chemistry you can (sometimes, in theory) replace a part of a formula with another and get what you expect (because some molecular structures are as common, say, to organic compounds as "ball" is common to "fireball" and "iceball").


I think you're missing the point (or I maybe). I believe this text is only there to stop people saying 'I know fireball, and I know the cantrip for creating ice cubes, so I'm going to combine them on the fly to produce and iceball'. With Improvised Magic available at axiom 22, then, in theory, this is possible; but we don't want the headache of creating rules for this... so what I'm trying to say it that; yes you can replace ice in the fireball spell, but it's not something that can be done on the fly and it does produce a new spell that must be learnt.

Also with the text stating that there 'is little predictive quality to magic'; it kind of makes magic schools pointless as magic wouldn't be predictable enough to teach.
Question everything.
Politeness costs nothing.

Wakshani
Posts: 329
Joined: Wed Jul 12, 2017 9:53 pm

Re: Aysle Sourcebook Q&A Thread

Postby Wakshani » Mon Aug 05, 2019 11:35 am

On the one hand, knowing two forms like that (Fireball and Icecubes) with the ability to do improv magic (Axiom 22) should, in fact, allow you to cast both "Iceball" and "Firecubes" (But why would you?!) and it'd make sense... that's just how improv works.

And I was gonna compare it to jazz.

Then I got giggles thinking about a magical jazz band.

THEN I went "Jazz magicians!"

And now I want to do up a whole Jazz Magician perk tree for this.

Like, "Elemental Jazz" Add one spell to your casting list which must have an elemental component. Choose one elemental component (Fire, Ice, etc) … when casting a spell with an elemental component, you may replace the elemental type with this component. (Thus, if you choose "Ice", then any spell you cast which has an elemental component may replace that component with "Ice".)

You could do one of these for each aspect of magic, with the ones with more powerful options being higher on the tree.

"Elemental Jazz Master" (Requires beta clearance) (Requires Elemental Jazz) When you cast a spell with an elemental component, you may replace the named elemental aspect with any elemental aspect. Thus, a "Fireball" can be "Lightning Ball" or "Ice Ball" etc.





Jazz Magician. Hehehehehehehe.

GeniusCodeMonkey
Posts: 402
Joined: Wed May 09, 2018 2:35 am

Re: Aysle Sourcebook Q&A Thread

Postby GeniusCodeMonkey » Mon Aug 05, 2019 11:46 am

Wakshani wrote:On the one hand, knowing two forms like that (Fireball and Icecubes) with the ability to do improv magic (Axiom 22) should, in fact, allow you to cast both "Iceball" and "Firecubes" (But why would you?!) and it'd make sense... that's just how improv works.

And I was gonna compare it to jazz.

Then I got giggles thinking about a magical jazz band.

THEN I went "Jazz magicians!"

And now I want to do up a whole Jazz Magician perk tree for this.

Like, "Elemental Jazz" Add one spell to your casting list which must have an elemental component. Choose one elemental component (Fire, Ice, etc) … when casting a spell with an elemental component, you may replace the elemental type with this component. (Thus, if you choose "Ice", then any spell you cast which has an elemental component may replace that component with "Ice".)

You could do one of these for each aspect of magic, with the ones with more powerful options being higher on the tree.

"Elemental Jazz Master" (Requires beta clearance) (Requires Elemental Jazz) When you cast a spell with an elemental component, you may replace the named elemental aspect with any elemental aspect. Thus, a "Fireball" can be "Lightning Ball" or "Ice Ball" etc.





Jazz Magician. Hehehehehehehe.


In all seriousness, you could have something like we have for the Nile Ray power; where knowing the 'Elemental Mage' Perk allows you to swap out any element with another with set bonuses etc. Fire = ignore armour, but a -2 damage. Ice = normal damage but immobilized on an Outstanding success etc.

The problem with this is that you would need to have defined all the knowledges of spells at the start of the project so you could switch things out (and this wouldn't be available until Axiom 22; so only Aysle); and I'm not sure what you would do for substituting Death/Life/Time/Truth etc.

Deathball sounds like an awesome spell BTW.
Last edited by GeniusCodeMonkey on Mon Aug 05, 2019 11:57 am, edited 1 time in total.
Question everything.
Politeness costs nothing.

Wakshani
Posts: 329
Joined: Wed Jul 12, 2017 9:53 pm

Re: Aysle Sourcebook Q&A Thread

Postby Wakshani » Mon Aug 05, 2019 11:54 am

Yeah, you'd need to get under the hood a bit.

Perhaps something for a Practical Grimoire down the line? A dedicated E-book for those who want to hack spells? Not big enough for a full book but with enough limited appeal to make it worth creating.

More than the Beta Primer, more like the Ruins of the Living Land.

Just a thought.

(And now I'm curious to see what the spell version of John Coltrain's "Giant Steps" is as "the most dangerous spell in Jazz magic".)


Return to “Rules Questions (TORG)”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 29 guests