Basic Fantasy RPG Forums

I've never really put this into words, but when it comes to supplements, I prefer each supplement to be either "prescriptive" or "constructive."

A "prescriptive" supplement should provide, at most, one way to do things. It should be possible to use the supplement in its entirety without wrecking your game.

A "constructive" supplement should provide materials and advice for DIY changes to your game. Any supplement that provides more than one way to do things is constructive.

When a supplement is prescriptive, it can contain many more or less unrelated rules; if constructive, it should focus on the one thing its constructing.

When I created Combat Options, and accepted Thief Options, they were both prescriptive. You don't have to use all of either, but you can, and if you do, you haven't broken anything. This is why I'm so resistant to adding alternatives to Combat Options... I want that supplement to stay prescriptive. The proposed Criticals and Fumbles supplement is constructive, and it's perfect in its way because all it does is provide options for the criticals and fumbles mechanic. I would resist absolutely combining them.

Why does this matter?

I can start a game, and say, "I'm using Combat Options, Thief Options, Gnomes and Half Humans" and I don't have to say more. If I choose to omit some features, that's a few extra words. If I want to use a constructive supplement, I have to say a lot more about how I'm using it, but if I'm using one I'm ready for that.

My main problem with Magic-User Options is that it's constructive. I had envisioned releasing a prescriptive Magic-User Options supplement of my own design, but I procrastinated too long... my fault.

Smoot, I agree with your assessments 99%. The magic bolt power is an exception. Adding spells (even spells of levels not previously in existence) is not a "change" as you have said. Different weapon proficiencies are, as are different armor options. But the magic bolt power is something the rules have never had, so they definitely are a change.

Changes aren't "bad" but they do change the nature, the very feel, of the game, and thus must be evaluated on that basis. Fictional wizards can and do run out of magical options, especially in more classic stories; this is the model I had in mind when I put the game together, and I dare say the model the original authors of the first RPGs were working with.

Sir Bedivere wrote:

Solomoriah wrote:3) The section about inscribing spells is incorrect, in that inscribing a spell in a book is NOT the same as creating a scroll. A spell in a spellbook is the caster's notes about how to cast it; a scroll is a magically charged item containing the power of a spell activated by reading the words. You can't cast a spell by reading it out of the book.

Looking back at the rules, I think the reason I got the wrong idea is that it costs the MU 500gp / lvl of spell to write the spell into the spellbook, and the same to make a magical scroll. I assumed the process and materials were the same.

If the spellbook is just notes, I can't imagine why it would cost more than ink and quills to write the spell into the book.

This is a good question. In my last non-BFRPG game, it was much cheaper to scribe a spell in a book. But it's traditional that doing so be expensive.

Using a spellbook page as a scroll is, as I've said, a theory that I ran into in a 1E game years ago. It's not supported anywhere in print in those rules, though. One thing stands out as a reason why it shouldn't work.

Reversed spells: You can get a scroll with darkness on it, and if you do, you can't use it to cast light. Get light in your spellbook, and you can use it to prepare darkness.

Solomoriah wrote:Smoot, I agree with your assessments 99%. The magic bolt power is an exception. Adding spells (even spells of levels not previously in existence) is not a "change" as you have said. Different weapon proficiencies are, as are different armor options. But the magic bolt power is something the rules have never had, so they definitely are a change.

Changes aren't "bad" but they do change the nature, the very feel, of the game, and thus must be evaluated on that basis. Fictional wizards can and do run out of magical options, especially in more classic stories; this is the model I had in mind when I put the game together, and I dare say the model the original authors of the first RPGs were working with.

Yes, you are quite right that such an arcane bolt would be a substantial "change" from the (as you have called it) the coverage target. It does change the 'feel' of the game substantially from its precursors. My point was more of the "it does not modify or invalidate the 'core' rules by its inclusion" in more of the mechanics sense.

But yes, I agree completely with your assessments. This also speaks to my slowly acquired opinion that the BFRPG game does not need a compilation of upgrades or advanced game (beyond what somebody might individually put together as their own house rules). Better to have each supplement as a relatively small piece or small collection of options... each topic as its own little "plug-in" for the core rules with few or little additional dependencies on other such works. Best to just have loads of such options for the Game Master to browse through "ala carte" style to build their personal version of the game.

Thanks, guys. This actually makes a lot of sense; I can see a different perspective on it now. I don't have time to write much, so I'll come back this evening.

Solomoriah, I actually do provide 4 somewhat prescriptive sets of options in an appendix, but I think I'll edit them to be fully prescriptive. For the third revision, all you'll have to say is something like "We're using the Minimal Change rules in the MU Options supplement."

Gotta go. Happy Friday!

PS I have r3 about ready, but it just cleans things up and updates the supplements list. I'm already planning r4, which will be a more significant overhaul.

If we could think of a good title, splitting this in the same way as the Cleric Options and Specialty Priests might be a good idea.

We could always give Arcane Bolt a save instead of an attack roll. I think I tried that once in a different game. That would bring it more into line with how other magical attacks work.

Or (but this is probably even less desirable because it's a substantial change) I've heard of some takes on Magic Missile, from the very earliest days, lasting for one 10-minute turn instead of a single shot, allowing the caster to fire off a missile (with a save) once per round.

Prescriptive = Bolt-On.. I think you nailed the reason why I use some supplements and not others.

Bear in mind that I did not intend to threadjack with the addition of an Arcane Bolt, just illustrating my point of view with examples. But as FYI, the version I utilize has been used successfully to give an MU a bit of flair (but does not really give much/any power), by giving them something to do in between 'real' spell casting. A dagger is a better attack form (damage wise with the same range) but the bolt has the small perk of having INT based bonus to attack.

After a couple of levels, the use of this ability drops off, as better & more spells are available as well as magical items and better weaponry come to bear.

I do realize that my house rules need to add in some phrase that says something to the effect of "the mage must have free hands and ability to speak (as per spell rules) in order to produce the bolt".

dymondy2k wrote:Prescriptive = Bolt-On.. I think you nailed the reason why I use some supplements and not others.

Elaborate, please.

A thought just occurred to me...

A magic bolt is, well, magic, right?

So it hits monsters affected by magic weapons?