[Atgxtg]

Originally Posted by Enpeze

IMO alone the word "blast" (if you mean the same than me with it) and magic in one sentence is not what I would want to experience acutally in a game. Many ago I used to play such games where it was usual and important that you magically "blast" enemies away and where poeple rolled with the eyes if you didnt use the magic properly. Magic was considered more as a tool to have fun and to solve adventure plots and not as a (sometimes dangerous) mystical path. But this style of play has changed considerably the last 10 years and for me (and my players) its now a slower but and more satisfying experience. Maybe its one the reasons why I prefer to play in a alternative historical setting with rare (but sometimes powerful) magic and dont care for Glorantha where everybody and his dog has his low magic.

I get your point. One thing that bothered me about that game that you referred to, but didn;t name eariler was that it didn't have sorcerers, wizards, shamen and enchanters, it had magic-users.

Originally Posted by Enpeze

As I said before, if you like to play with more number crunching and use magic as a tool then I have no problem and its fine for me if you and your group like it this way. I wanted just point out that there are other playing styles out there which consider magic as something different.

Yes. I am aware that there are different styles of play, and actually use them. But since this thread is about spellcasting tactics,so that is the style we are going with here. Even with a more mystical approach, tactics are used. For instance in SB using one type of elemental to counter another, or frying someone with a bound salamander,
In fact, one of my SB groups used their heads to kill a powerful sorcerer. They got themselves hired, fetched him the sacrifice he needed to conduct the summoning, and then attacked him while he was summoning a demon and was distracted. They kept the dog as a pet.



Personally, I don;t see direct damage offensive magic as being counter to the genre, as such spells have appeared in fiction. One of my personal favorite Magic Systems is the one Kim Eastland worked up for the old Marvel Super Heroes RPG. Despite being written for a Superhero RPG, those rules have a more arcane feeling than the magic system for most RPGs.

Another favorite were the rules in Pendragon, back when magic was the domain of the GM. Even 4th edition Pendragon, with the possibility of PC mages has a more arcane feel to it. than most other magic systems.

Originally Posted by Enpeze

Could be, but treating magic like any mundane skill is making it even more mechanical.

THe gent rid of the mundane skill %. I view magic as something arcane, but I feel that as a wizard progressess in skill he also progresses in knowledge. A guy with summoning at 97% has a pretty good idea of what he is doing.

Take a look at Elric. When Elric uses magic, he usualy as a idea of what he is dealing with and the risks involved. That is one reason why re rarely works magic. HE typically does so only as a last resort, or if upset to the point where he doesn't care. But magic isn't much of a mystery in the YK.

Originally Posted by Enpeze

Demon arms race to stay in the game? Does this mean that people without demons lack the motivation to play their role after one player has his first demon? A strange view which, if true, I dont understand. It seems that you are very concerned about maintaning a somewhat mystical balance between the personal might of the individual players. I guess you would never like to play a servant of a noble or a beggar with SB1 rules. For me roleplaying is playing a role in an open story and not comparing the correct balance of stats between the players.

No, it means people without demons lack the firepower to resist those whith demons. It is's a player balance thing, it is an adventure balance thing. If the group is fighting an NPC sorcerer, then they arescrewed if he has demons (and elementals) and they don't. The demon rules in SB1 are so Tunnels & Trolls inspired (an RPG that makes magic more of a mundane tool than any. "Take that You Fiend!") to yield T&T results. The side with the higher point value wins.

If there is one PC wit demons, then he will wade through nomal foes.

Note that once you got to the latter edtions of SB, this got toned down, but SB, epeciallSB1 with sorcerors stating off with skill percentages much higher thna other characters.

Originally Posted by Enpeze

Yes you are right, but only if you play in the YK setting which I dont. So the SB5 NPCs are just a nice read for me but nothing more.

But that is the core setting for the RPG. If you run a variant setting the i a different matte, but can't expect everyone else to judge the system based upon hat you did in your own campaign.

I consider SB o be a failure. It was supposed to portray the word of Elric, but has to handout magic items in a D&D fashion to to balance out. That isn't how the characters are in the Moorcock stories.

Originally Posted by Enpeze

I think I once read through the 2nd ed. rules which where not good.

Funny, I liked AM 2nd edition.

Originally Posted by Enpeze

If you consider only the things a sorcerer can DO in a game and the final result of his magic then maybe you are right if you say that a sorcerer in SB is overpowered. But I see also the path he has to walk to get this considerable might. His personal risks are high and he has to put more energy and thoughts to gain his power than maybe a warrior. So in my POV it evens out. Requirements (min POW 16) initial investment and maintaining the personal power level is higher for a sorcerer, but reward is (sometimes) sweeter.

The POW requirement is non issue. It doesn't affect play. It just determines if a player can start off as a sorcerer, or more rarely, learn sorcerer during play. Since POW gain is a product of POW vs POW tests, non sorcerers typically don't change in POW, so the 16 isn't putting any stress on te PC.

His personal risks really are not any higher than that of any other adventuer in the game. He can have his mind warped, his bodty warped, he can die, get eaten,or have his soul devoured. It's not like the demons exclude non-sorcerers from their attention. Summoning is like playing around a hornets nest. Mess up and you get stung, but so will anyone else in the area.


Maintaining a higher POW level is also a non issue. It's not like anyone has anything else to spend POW on. So it's not like sorcerers are missing out of the other uses of POW so they can summon.

Originally Posted by Enpeze

BTW: there is not a mandatory "sorcerer-slot" in my games. They are not classical "party" games where one has to be "the thief" and another "the fighter". Before I begin to play (mostly mini-campaigns) I try to filter out which type of professions could be involved in the setting environment. Eg. I once played a landsknecht-campaign where the players where members of a larger mercenary unit in a kind of thirty years war. Another mini-campaign was about assassins in a medieval urban environment and so on. Sorcerers PCs do sometimes happen but are rather rare.

I don't play with many mandatory slots either, although certain campaigns may require them. I bet there were "soldier"-slots in your landsknecth campaign. If I were running a game like Thieves Guild, I'd expect to have at least one thief in the group.

As for you sorcerers being mostly NPC spellcasters, that sort of takes out the whole "the risks balance the rewards" Argument. If he is an NPC he is essentially a game tool for the GM to use to advance the storyline. What I'm saying is, if such a character sends a demon or two after a group, ala Theleb K'aarna, said group is screwed unless they have their own mage.

Originally Posted by Enpeze

I guess of the part the reason why my players sometimes want to play it, is that they think it could be a roleplaying challenge and interesting alternative to other professions. i am sure none of them wants to play a sorcerer only because he can theoretically have more power than the other players.

Quite a role-playing challenge, what with thier running off to run solos. Roleplaying is a group experience.

Originally Posted by Enpeze

Well as mentioned above I dont play SB, I use just the wonderful rules for a homebrewn setting which resembles an alternative historical world. Other games I play are the old ICE Cyberpunk, Gurps traveller (with BRP rules of course) and CoC. And what do you play beside RQ and D&D?

[/quote]

The SB1 rules aren't so wonderful. They failed to recreate the world of the Young Kindoms, and instead created a RQ-T&T hybrid. Now SB5, without the battlemagic add ons (or at least limited them to those character who seemed to have such abilities in the books) is a different story.

As for what I play: RQ, Pendragon, Spirit of th Century, L5R, Traveler (preferable Megatraveler), 2300, Harmaster (Gold), James Bond 007, Time Lords, CORPS, Doctor Who RPG, Timelord RPG, HERO, GURPS, FASA Star Trek, UG Star Trek, Decipher Star Trek, Mrvel Super Heroes, Marvel Super Heroes (SAGA),Ars Magica, Castlel Frankenstein, Boot Hill and a bunch of others. M full list is comperable to Drohem's if not longer.