Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[louismoo]

I do like the idea of magic in dwarf fortress, but with the amount of detail the game goes into with other things, magic in my opinion is just to big to be implemented in such a style that it fits in with the game. There would have to be loads of different skills for each type of magic and I think time developing the game should be spent on improving implemented stuff, bug-fixing and implementing already planned things. Not that I'm saying that nothing new should ever be planned or added, just that I think magic is too big and time consuming to be put in anytime soon or even in a long time.

[Soadreqm]

If a fireball hits you it is hot and made of fire. If a "Kill you with a fire effect" spell hits you, you take X Fire damage and die.

One is balanced simply because the implications of a fireball are handled with realism and not given an arbitrary effect (If you moved your hand through a fire fast enough you could even get away with not getting burned, an actual fireball isn't as powerful as videogames would make you think). While the second is abstracted for simplicity (Fireball does X Damage)

I see. That's not a problem unique to magic, though. In something like Dungeons and Dragons, everything is abstracted like that. A dagger does 1d4 damage. A masterwork dagger does 1d4+1 damage. In the real world, a dagger cuts you. DF is pretty good at this, generally. It's not necessarily the least bit balanced, though, just because it's realistic. Real world has many things that could be loosely categorized as fireballs, and most of those are pretty nasty. Something basic like a Molotov cocktail, for instance, has no blast radius to speak of, but keeps burning for a while after exploding, and produces toxic gases that become a problem if you use them in confines spaces. Back in World War II, they could take out tanks if you hit the cooling grills so the burning fluids could seep inside. Then you have napalm, white phosphorus, high explosives and ultimately nuclear weapons.

I would certainly prefer magic fireballs that make some kind of sense over the D&D fireballs, but making sense does not mean that they're not overpowered.

It is simple, if you want to put limitations on magic it should be because you want to present magic a certain way. Magic itself can be adjusted to balance itself. If you already have limitations that stem naturally from the way magic is used in the setting then that limitation can also be adjusted and compared.

I mean you are aware you are doing it too right "Just live with horribly unbalanced magic?" may I add, why is it unbalanced? Why does it have to be unbalanced? Why is it that the only way to balance this magic is to add artificial unrelated effects that ape logic without actually being logical?

In this instance, the magic is unbalanced because I am talking of a hypothetical scenario in which the magic is unbalanced. That's really the only interesting one, in my opinion. If magic is balanced already, it isn't really necessary to do anything to it.

What do you mean by adjusting "magic itself"? What else would you adjust? Changing the world to fit your magic system, making swords and bows arbitrarily more or less powerful to scale with fireballs, sounds like a really ass-backwards way of doing things, and I haven't really seen anyone suggesting that.

When someone suggested a while back that mages not be able to use weapons or wear armor because he wanted wizards to be the wizards in his stories I rejected it on the grounds of being artificial and that its idea couldn't be supported by its internal logic (as well I stated that this is based upon wizards in fiction who tend not to use armor and weapons either because they are noncombatants, they don't need it, or it isn't useful). That if he wanted to suggest such a system that it needed to stem naturally from the simulation or rather from what magic essentially was.

Yeah, that sounds pretty silly. I didn't know that someone was saying that. Must have missed it.

And by 'Unbalanced magic that must be balanced" I mean I am against the idea that ALL magic is unbalanced magic that must be balanced through extra systems. My belief is that magic can be balanced internally within itself and thus the scope of discussion must include how magic itself is balanced rather then how affecting those who practitioners magic balances it. Thus conversations can escape "How can we stop wizards from being good at magic and combat so they aren't unstoppable" and actually present the idea of "How much should a spell change the tide of combat? How does this affect the narrative and simulation?"

Are people even saying that, though? I don't know if you're referring to some specific post here, but my posistion is that tossing D&D fireballs would just be boring. Been there, seen that, got the burns. Magic should be SPECIAL because SPECIAL magic is more interesting. Thus, beating up dragons, performing obscure rituals, invoking evil death gods, magic not being too flashy, aura of mystery surrounding everything.

I do like the idea of magic in dwarf fortress, but with the amount of detail the game goes into with other things, magic in my opinion is just to big to be implemented in such a style that it fits in with the game. There would have to be loads of different skills for each type of magic and I think time developing the game should be spent on improving implemented stuff, bug-fixing and implementing already planned things. Not that I'm saying that nothing new should ever be planned or added, just that I think magic is too big and time consuming to be put in anytime soon or even in a long time.

Haha! Yeah. Magic is definitely in the "eventually" column of development. Back in the old dev pages, it was listed as a post-Version One goal, along with things like a proper graphical UI meaning that Toady would get right on to it as soon as the game was otherwise finished. I think it's still fun to argue about it.

[Neonivek]

but my posistion is that tossing D&D fireballs would just be boring

I don't know this would be the game where it would be the most interesting... as it is the only game that handles wounds.

As for other things, because there are tons of magic threads, I sort of keep them all in my head as one huge thread. As for the idea of THIS thread: It has the same old "Magic is so good it should blow you up at random chance" problem in that... why would you attempt alchemy?

[Matoro]

Also, remember how the battle system of DF works. How would actually magic beams or fire balls work? Would they be something physical, like "you toss !!fire ball!! to the bandit, fracturing the lower left hand bone through +giant sperm whale glove+", or more like syndromes "you make arcanic gesture! bandit is melting!"? As it has been pointed out, magic really doesen't fit to DF's way to handles fights, because every attack makes physical damage instead of just abstract "hp". I see this as the largest problem with "flashy" magic in DF.

[Neonivek]

As it has been pointed out, magic really doesen't fit to DF's way to handles fights, because every attack makes physical damage instead of just abstract "hp". I see this as the largest problem with "flashy" magic in DF

And yet that is what makes it work the best.

Heck Fireballs are already in Dwarf Fortress (in a very powerful form, but then again those have a lot of concussion energy behind them)

Since it means that these magical balls of fire are actual physical entities or attacks in a similar way arrows are.

[Timeless Bob]

Learn the Rune of Fire from a slab somewhere and become a "pyromancer"
Use "X", need: a small obsidian rock (consumed), inscribe the Rune of Fire, Create: Runestone(Flame)
"T"hrow the Runestone at your target.  Wherever the runestone hits, spawn a tile of magma.

There.  A simple fireball using in-game mechanics we already have.  The need to have a small obsidian rock limits the use of the runestone to the number of small rocks of a specific type in your backpack which are either a few so they don't affect your agility much or a lot and your agility takes a pretty big hit.  Also, obsidian doesn't occur everywhere, so you'd have to go to a volcano or other such region first to get them, which becomes a questing element in and of itself.  Since the obsidian rock is consumed in the reaction, and the tile of magma makes retrieving the runestone pretty darn difficult, each stone is a one-use and eventually you'll have to go get more "small obsidian stone"s, which can make a pyromancer hoard his last few stones if the journey to go get more is dangerous or just really long, which produces strife to overcome, ie: a narrative.

[Gargomaxthalus]

but my posistion is that tossing D&D fireballs would just be boring

I don't know this would be the game where it would be the most interesting... as it is the only game that handles wounds.

As for other things, because there are tons of magic threads, I sort of keep them all in my head as one huge thread. As for the idea of THIS thread: It has the same old "Magic is so good it should blow you up at random chance" problem in that... why would you attempt alchemy?

Well since this is a simulation, then when it comes to alchemy specifically, you can't get around the fact that it is inherently dangerous. Alchemists work with with mercury, lead, sulfur, arsenic, acids etc. Alchemists even ingest this shit trying to create potions of immorality and what not. Stuff like alchemists fire, oil of impact etc. in D&D is extremely dangerous to all involved. You of course also need to think about the literature that has grown from D&D. There are many cases of organic magical systems in literature where the power is inherently dangerous and must be handled with care or else it will horribly backfire. The balancing of magic in DF should be a matter of how much you are willing to risk for power. The HFS is a perfect example. If you get greedy with the adamantine before your ready for the show to begin, your screwed.

That's a ll a bit of a mess, sorry. But I'm in a hurry, PIZZA!!!!!!!!

[Neonivek]

Alchemists work with with mercury, lead, sulfur, arsenic, acids etc

Mercury, Lead, Sulfur, Arsenic, and many acids can all be safely handled.

The chemicals and experiments that cannot, shouldn't be worked on by an amateur.

[assasin]

Mercury, Lead, Sulfur, Arsenic, and many acids can all be safely handled.

The chemicals and experiments that cannot, shouldn't be worked on by an amateur.

Arguing against the example instead of the main point seems like a waste of time to me. Just because someone picks a bad example doesn't mean he doesn't have a point. Of course it also doesn't mean he does. And also, I can think of a number of historical examples where mercury was not handled safely. I've heard [not sure I believe it but...] ancient [ie one or two centuries ago] hatmakers created the term "mad as a hatter" by rubbing quicksilver into the felt or something. And I'm sure the ancient romans used lead cooking pots.


Okay time to stop derailing the thread.

Well since this is a simulation, then when it comes to alchemy specifically, you can't get around the fact that it is inherently dangerous. Alchemists work with with mercury, lead, sulfur, arsenic, acids etc. Alchemists even ingest this shit trying to create potions of immorality and what not. Stuff like alchemists fire, oil of impact etc. in D&D is extremely dangerous to all involved. You of course also need to think about the literature that has grown from D&D. There are many cases of organic magical systems in literature where the power is inherently dangerous and must be handled with care or else it will horribly backfire. The balancing of magic in DF should be a matter of how much you are willing to risk for power. The HFS is a perfect example. If you get greedy with the adamantine before your ready for the show to begin, your screwed.

I  agree. As long as its logical enough that a player would be able to make an informed decision on whether to do something or not. You know that if you're not careful with adamantine you have a chance of FUN. You know that if you send a naked recruit solo against fifty goblins he'd have a ninety nine percent of death. It shouldn;'t be like each time you perform a ritual you'd be forced to cross your fingers and hope that nothing too bad would happen. There could be some randomisation in, but at the end of the day it should be that every act of magic has a price. Not every porice should icncldue a random chance of failiure, but if they do you should be able to prepeare  for it and if you can't and the faiiure is bad you'd either only accept the chance of failiure in emergencies or you'd not use t the spell or make the potion or whatever. And if you decide the price of failiure is something you can handle than that's your choice. But again I'll say that not everything should have more than a one or two percent chance of failure. The ones that do could be using potions dealing with highly unstable ingredients or somonning powerful demons. Other prices can nclude sacrifing sapients or atom smashing a thousand units of candy or whatever or having a one hundred percent chance of causing something bad to happen or whatever.

[Neonivek]

Arguing against the example instead of the main point seems like a waste of time to me

" you can't get around the fact that it is inherently dangerous"

" Alchemists even ingest this shit trying to create potions of immorality and what not"

"in D&D is extremely dangerous to all involved"

"are many cases of organic magical systems in literature where the power is inherently dangerous and must be handled with care or else it will horribly backfire."

When his example is indicative of this thinking and serves as the corner stone example. I go after the example.

[Soadreqm]

Alchemists work with with mercury, lead, sulfur, arsenic, acids etc

Mercury, Lead, Sulfur, Arsenic, and many acids can all be safely handled.
The chemicals and experiments that cannot, shouldn't be worked on by an amateur.

Are you arguing that alchemy was NOT extremely dangerous? I find that somewhat difficult to believe. I don't have any examples in mind for alchemists who blew themselves up, but then again I can't really name any alchemists at all. Plenty of modern chemists have died in accidents, though. Were they better with lab safety in the distant past, or did their lack of knowledge of how their reagents worked protect the alchemists somehow?

Also, "can be safely handled" is not very reassuring. It is possible to safely handle virtually anything. Hydrofluoric acid can be safe to work with, as long as you're careful. With proper precautions taken, plutonium-241 is quite harmless. Or for a different example, tigers are entirely safe to handle, provided you know what you're doing and don't do anything stupid. This does not mean that there are no risks associated with messing around with them. I guess that's what you meant with "shouldn't be worked on by an amateur", although I'm not convinced that that is a reasonable assumption to make with pseudo-medieval alchemy.

[Timeless Bob]

Benjamin Franklin was an alchemist.  The whole kite and key thing was part of his alchemical experiments, because he was trying to bottle "energized aethers" in a jar as a type of ball lightning.  I'm not making this up, it's part of public record.  He wanted to use the "energised aethers" to power some of his other experiments, many of which involved potions containing "red mercury" (the stuff often found in old thermometers.)  Alchemists commonly used all of their senses to test their various concoctions, including taste.  When a small clipping of his hair was examined in a thermal spectrometer, it was found to contain high levels of mercury, (which is why he had that huge bald patch - slow arsenic and mercury poisoning.) Isaac Newton was another - in the absence of our understanding of the world, it was the alchemists who stood at the bleeding edge of science in those days and often their experiments led to horrible deaths.

Also, the Romans used lead pipes for their plumbing - it was easy to form lead and it didn't grow mold.  The roman centurions used silver flasks because silver was thought to bring purity to water, but it was because the silver changed the ph of all bacteria and water parasites into self-bursting.  Collodial silver pellets are used for the same thing today.

[Neonivek]

Also, the Romans used lead pipes for their plumbing - it was easy to form lead and it didn't grow mold

The thing is that lead is excellent for pipes the problem is that over time the break down of lead...

Are you arguing that alchemy was NOT extremely dangerous

I am arguing that adding sulfur to water doesn't blow you up. I am asking only for people to remember that there were safe avenues for chemistry.

[Soadreqm]

Are you arguing that alchemy was NOT extremely dangerous

I am arguing that adding sulfur to water doesn't blow you up. I am asking only for people to remember that there were safe avenues for chemistry.

The problem there is that you don't know what the safe avenues are until you've tried. Alchemists had way less prior experience to build on than modern chemists. These days, you can just look at how many outer electrons two elements have, and make predictions about how they're going to react without even trying. And if someone else had tried the experiment before, he's definitely published the results, and his papers should clearly outline exactly what he did and how violent the explosions were. Not so before chemistry became a science. Alchemists didn't know about electrons, so they were limited to wild guessing to determine the outcome of a reaction. They still had works written by other alchemists, of course, but before the printing press, books were expensive and difficult to find. And a lot of alchemists wrote in vague spiritual metaphors. And some of the alchemists were using the chemicals as a metaphor for a personal journey to spiritual enlightenment or whatever. The scientific method really made everything better.

On the flipside, they didn't have access to some of the more dangerous things modern chemists get killed by, because they were too difficult to make. Elemental fluorine, for instance.

Applying this to fantasy alchemy, I guess it all comes back to availability again. If alchemy is commonplace, they've probably worked out a lot of the kinks, and established a whole bunch of safe things you can do. You can still get yourself killed by being careless and not washing your beakers properly, but that's your own fault and not alchemy's. And research on the CUTTING EDGE, doing experiments no one has ever done before, is still incredibly risky. By contrast, if alchemy is only practiced by a few crazy people living alone in the wilderness, all research is cutting edge all the time.