The Campaign Builder's Guild

The Archives => Meta (Archived) => Topic started by: Xeviat on May 04, 2008, 12:48:44 PM

Title: Grammar Casting
Post by: Xeviat on May 04, 2008, 12:48:44 PM
I'm starting this thread for Ra-Tiel. While 3E is about to go the way of the dinosaur, this is still something that could be fun.
Title: Grammar Casting
Post by: Higgs Boson on May 04, 2008, 02:46:53 PM
Maybe have some base words that work like seeds? Like a word that summons fire, but then you add a prefix on it to shoot it at someone.
Title: Grammar Casting
Post by: Stargate525 on May 04, 2008, 03:22:05 PM
I used to have something similar to this for a system of enchanting. You'd have a bunch of if-then clauses... Wouldn't work as well when directly casting... Hmm...
Title: Grammar Casting
Post by: Wensleydale on May 04, 2008, 06:13:11 PM
I was attempting to do something like this and lost interest. However, I'd like to try again, with others?
Title: Grammar Casting
Post by: Xeviat on May 04, 2008, 08:07:24 PM
Well, I think we need to decide if we're trying to write the system for a particular gaming "engine", or if we're trying to write the system on its own and potentially craft a system around it. I'm going to assume "on its own" for now, since any work will be portable into another system.

Seeds is definitely a good way to look at it. I'm thinking of a point value system, with each "word" having a cost. This could be used for a skill based DC casting system, or just for determining a spell's level.

For example: Touch of Fire, Ray of Fire, Blast of Fire, Cone of Fire ... all of these are spells. The first word tells you the delivery method, while the third word tells you the effect. Touch of Fire and Ice, likewise, works as well, with a linked effect. Fire, on its own, would just create fire, and wouldn't be an attack, aside from the general property of fire to destroy what it consumes.
Title: Grammar Casting
Post by: Wensleydale on May 04, 2008, 08:53:44 PM
Yes, this could work. In a standard sentence in most languages, you have a subject, an object, and a verb (I kill you). The subject here though wouldn't be needed unless it was something like a command. So we're left with a verb and an object to work with, in the most simplistic terms - or more probably, a verb, an object and an indirect object (touch, fire, to orc). With different words in just these three categories, we could create a multitude of different effects - Touch, throw (ray), blast, cover (cone or area?). Then... fire, ice, etc.
Title: Grammar Casting
Post by: Stargate525 on May 05, 2008, 12:22:33 AM
Quote from: WensleydaleYes, this could work. In a standard sentence in most languages, you have a subject, an object, and a verb (I kill you). The subject here though wouldn't be needed unless it was something like a command. So we're left with a verb and an object to work with, in the most simplistic terms - or more probably, a verb, an object and an indirect object (touch, fire, to orc). With different words in just these three categories, we could create a multitude of different effects - Touch, throw (ray), blast, cover (cone or area?). Then... fire, ice, etc.
I'd say the subject should be left in. I agree that for most spells a generic you understood word or the specific name of the caster (potentially a very valuable word in a system like this) could be used, but if we leave it in then we can get the command and dominate line of spells, mind-affecting spells of all sorts, and anything that doesn't directly emanate from the caster ('Rocks fall on Bob,' as an example).  
Title: Grammar Casting
Post by: Higgs Boson on May 05, 2008, 12:51:05 AM
Metamagic effects could work like adverbs? Also, maybe it could be skill-based?
Title: Grammar Casting
Post by: Stargate525 on May 05, 2008, 02:04:47 AM
Quote from: Higgs BosonMetamagic effects could work like adverbs? Also, maybe it could be skill-based?
metamagic=adverbs would be a good method. I also like adjectives being used for more precise targeting. For example, you have the word for orc, but you only want to target certain ones. You slap 'moving' onto 'orc' to get only the ones who moved the round before you fired.

I'm personally against skill-based. This would work well as a simple word acquisition system; the more words you have access to, the better you are.
Title: Grammar Casting
Post by: Xeviat on May 05, 2008, 05:12:25 AM
Hmmm, so if I'm reading this correctly, what Stargate is suggesting is a system where casters have to "collect" different "words", possibly in the form of actual magic words or sigils needed to formulate spells. Once you have a word, you can do anything with it.

What, though, would keep a caster from having huge sentences? Would the number of words a caster could use be limited by their level? Perhaps caster level determines how many words you can use, and certain words would have levels themselves? Touch would be a low level word, but Blast or Cone could be higher level words.

I like "Orc catches on fire".
Title: Grammar Casting
Post by: Ra-Tiel on May 05, 2008, 10:13:28 AM
Now, that's what I call enthusiasm. :P

The system the Kaptn described in his previous post above reminds me somehow of the TES games. But that just as a sidenote. ;)

While I really like the "collecting words" approach - as it is nice and simple and very easy to understand - I was actually aiming for something more "technical":
[note]Neither whitespaces nor tabulators working in monospacing makes nerd Ra-Tiel cry. :( :P (And the code tag just looks fugly with the large linespace. :P :P [/note]
[spoiler=Fireball]evocation spell fireball
{
   var area
   {
      area.category = area.burst;
      area.radius = 20ft;
   }
   var range
   {
      range.category = range.long;
   }
   var damage
   {
      damage.type = elemental(fire);
      damage.value = 1d6 * casterlevel;
   }
}
[/spoiler]

[spoiler=Selective sleep]enchantment spell selective sleep
{
   var area
   {
      area.category = area.emanation;
      area.radius = 10ft;
   }
   var range
   {
      range.category = range.short;
   }
   var effect(target)
   {
      if(target.position isIn area)
      {
         if(target.makeWillSave != true)
         {
            target.status = status.unconscious;
         }
      }
   }
   var condition
   {
      if(target.affiliation != caster.ally)
      {
         effect(target);
      }
   }
}
[/spoiler]
Something with which you can describe a spell's effects in a hard, deterministic way. If one could achieve that, one could make almost all spells work off a common "language" and allow a true "freeform" magic without hacks to keep a resemblance of balance on all sides.
Title: Grammar Casting
Post by: Higgs Boson on May 05, 2008, 10:16:43 AM
Now...umm...how would those examples be said?
Title: Grammar Casting
Post by: SDragon on May 05, 2008, 12:59:49 PM
I think he's talking about a kind of technomagic, where the physics of the magic are based on some sort of programming language, and not about a vocal-based magic (as cool as that would be, too).

You could probably go about the same route as the "collecting words" idea, only instead of increasing your vocabulary, you'd be learning new functions, objects, and variables. Get good enough at it, and you could learn how to define your own variables (targets?), and maybe even create your own objects (spells).
Title: Grammar Casting
Post by: Ra-Tiel on May 05, 2008, 01:13:24 PM
Quote from: Sdragon1984I think he's talking about a kind of technomagic, where the physics of the magic are based on some sort of programming language, and not about a vocal-based magic (as cool as that would be, too).
Now that's a really interesting idea. Seriously, I didn't even think about technomancy or something like that. I was just messing around with a different way of describing and formulating spells.

Quote from: Sdragon1984You could probably go about the same route as the "collecting words" idea, only instead of increasing your vocabulary, you'd be learning new functions, objects, and variables. Get good enough at it, and you could learn how to define your own variables (targets?), and maybe even create your own objects (spells).
Which is one of my intents with this "experiment".

The idea is like that:

You can create more complicated spells (objects) before hand, just like when you create a programm. With enough time, almost everything is possible (just think of the enormous worlds created by games like Morrowind or Oblivion, or the amazing graphics abilities of raytracers like PovRAY).

But you can also come up with less powerful effects (scripts) on the fly, just like when you do scripting on a Linux shell or the WSH/PowerShell or in a language like Ruby. You trade complexity and raw power against flexibility and speed of implementation.

I know, for a non-programmer (non-nerd ;) ) it's sort of hard to understand what I'm trying to get at with it. But I think the advantage of having a sort of mathematically correct algorithms and functions that describe a spell's effects instead of a wall'o'text could be quite understandable.

Also, one thing to keep in mind is that this is basically the "mechanics behind" the magic system. In no way would a player who is only interested in using the predefined spells be required to understand and use the system. However, he'd miss out alot, as without understanding the system he wouldn't be able to modify spells or create adhoc effects.
Title: Grammar Casting
Post by: SDragon on May 05, 2008, 01:40:08 PM
Quote from: Ra-TielI know, for a non-programmer (non-nerd ;) ) it's sort of hard to understand what I'm trying to get at with it. But I think the advantage of having a sort of mathematically correct algorithms and functions that describe a spell's effects instead of a wall'o'text could be quite understandable.

I consider myself a non-programmer, with some programming knowledge ;)

Although, if I really wanted to, with some thought, I might be able to manage a text-based, advancement-less RPG in Python. I honestly doubt I could do anything more with my current knowledge, though.
Title: Grammar Casting
Post by: sparkletwist on May 13, 2008, 06:18:59 PM
Being a bit of a nerd myself, I like this idea, though I couldn't help but think that your "fireball" looked more like the source code to some higher level scripting language for an RPG engine, rather than anything a player might use. ;)

However, to actually get that technical, there's a game in there, somewhere. A computer game, I mean-- something like a cross between core war and a "mage duel" (chaos, mtg, etc.)
Title: Grammar Casting
Post by: Eladris on May 14, 2008, 10:23:50 AM
This may be tangential to the discussion -- I'm a bit busy to try and catch up on its origins -- but I've developed something similar to a "language" for magic for a previous game.  It was very setting dependent but I used runes, starting with a base rune representing an element (fire, water, air, shadow, life, death, earth, etc.) and an action rune (ward, enchant, portal, etc.), to describe most of the spells in the PHB.  Players (well, the two magic users in the party) could develop new spells by mixing and matching runes or researching new "adverb" runes.  

It was quite fun and well worth the work if you've got a creative group.
Title: Grammar Casting
Post by: LordVreeg on May 14, 2008, 11:37:17 AM
Quote from: EladrisThis may be tangential to the discussion -- I'm a bit busy to try and catch up on its origins -- but I've developed something similar to a "language" for magic for a previous game.  It was very setting dependent but I used runes, starting with a base rune representing an element (fire, water, air, shadow, life, death, earth, etc.) and an action rune (ward, enchant, portal, etc.), to describe most of the spells in the PHB.  Players (well, the two magic users in the party) could develop new spells by mixing and matching runes or researching new "adverb" runes.  

It was quite fun and well worth the work if you've got a creative group.
That's great.  Runic casting, with the grammar twist.