Thaumaturgy, duration, and multiple entities / results...

[UmbraLux]

Split off from this thread. 

Well thanks for the feedback, and I'll stop derailing this thread now. Might start up a new one to pow-wow about the duration thing, though.

Done. 

There is a section of the book which encourages FATE-point-light casters to use multiple copies of the same Maneuver, but it does not specify each had to be treated as a separate spell for purposes of duration. My read on Thaumaturgy is that you package up the shifts of effect and THEN start adding shifts for duration. That said, to make each Aspect "sticky" you still need to add a shift: I think that is in keeping with the rules.

Honestly don't think we'll come to any conclusion, the book simply doesn't seem to have covered it.  However, here are a couple things to consider:

• There's a significant difference between one aspect with multiple free tags and multiple aspects.  Multiple aspects can be used for a single, extremely strong, action.  A single aspect can't.  There's also a big difference in what the GM or other players can invoke or compel against the caster.
• Each aspect is an "attribute".  An individual attribute which may be used either singly or in conjunction with others.
• Existing maneuver spells all seem to create one and only one aspect.  (At least I couldn't find any examples showing otherwise.) 
• Not sure about others, but I wouldn't allow a half dozen individual* imps (or whatever) to be summoned while paying for duration only once and being used individually.

*A swarm of imps used only as a single entity (swarm) is a different story.

If we were to charge shifts to add duration for each element of a ritual, that ritual could become ridiculously difficult to counterspell or undo. Though that could be an advantage for a warlock looking to make a spell or ritual harder to counter: that is an interesting and potentially drama-worthy element.

Not each "element" but each individual entity.  Attributes, individuals, etc.  As for being difficult to counterspell, they're just as difficult to cast.  So I don't see that as an issue.  However, you could allow each entity to be dispelled separately if it's a concern.  That would actually make such complex spells easier to break down...which makes sense to me.  Have to consider it...

-----

Metagame considerations:

• From a balance point of view, casters in general and thaumaturgists in particular have enough power.  No need to make it even easier for them to overshadow others.
• From a thematic / narrative point of view, each individual attribute or separate entity should stand on it's own. 
• From a magical system point of view, it shouldn't be significantly easier to create / summon multiple attributes or entities in a single spell than to summon them with a series of separate spells.

.
.
.
So, I prefer to pay duration individually for each attribute or entity.    8)

[sinker]

Something I just noticed while looking over the book:

Because temporary aspects from maneuvers
are transient, these sorts of spells tend to be
very carefully timed or triggered so the aspect
or effect manifests when it’s needed (e.g., “I’ll
arrange it so he Can’t Think Straight right
at the moment he steps on stage”). For a more
lasting effect, it’s time to look at contests and
conflicts.

This makes me wonder if duration is even applicable for the aspects. Not to say that duration isn't applicable to the spell, but that the aspects themselves are transitory regardless of spell duration.

Further thoughts on this particular paragraph?

[UmbraLux]

Well, book spell examples do create aspects with lasting effects.  Dreamless Sleep (6-10 hours), Entropy Curse (one scene to generations*), and the Scent Suppression (several hours) potion to name three.

*Entropy Curse even discusses varying the shifts of power to vary the duration.

Edit:  It's worth noting that same section of text goes on to suggest chaining "two or more maneuvers together in the same spell".  Sadly, it doesn't mention how that effects duration.

[Sanctaphrax]

I oppose your viewpoint.

As I understand it, duration represents the duration of the spell as a whole.

I don't really see any balance problems with this, beyond the normal thaumaturgy shenanigans.

[sinker]

I don't know, the more I think about it, the more I'm not sure applying the duration to the spell rather than the aspect makes any difference whatsoever, or if it does make a difference perhaps it's not one for the best. For example one could create a situation where the spell is triggered multiple times to create multiple aspects.

[UmbraLux]

I oppose your viewpoint.

As I understand it, duration represents the duration of the spell as a whole.

Any reasoning for this?  Not that simple opposition isn't ok, it just doesn't leave room for discussion.

I don't know, the more I think about it, the more I'm not sure applying the duration to the spell rather than the aspect makes any difference whatsoever, or if it does make a difference perhaps it's not one for the best. For example one could create a situation where the spell is triggered multiple times to create multiple aspects.

By triggered, do you mean cast?  If not, I don't understand what you're saying.

In any case, I'm not talking about changing the mechanics of spellcasting - so can't whatever you mean by "triggered multiple times" already be done?

[Sanctaphrax]

No special reason.

It just seems to me that the rules are the way I read them.

I suppose I could be wrong, though.

Anyway, there's not much of a debate to be had here from my perspective.

Although I do think that the system should encourage single large rituals rather than multiple small ones for these things. We could debate that, at least.

[sinker]

By triggered, do you mean cast?  If not, I don't understand what you're saying.

In any case, I'm not talking about changing the mechanics of spellcasting - so can't whatever you mean by "triggered multiple times" already be done?

My read on the above paragraph was that one could cast a spell that had a duration, but would apply an aspect only when triggered (with the example being a spell that doesn't apply an aspect immediately, but instead "at the moment he steps on stage"). If that was the case one could cast a spell that applied say, a positive aspect "When someone steps through this door" and then send an army though the door. That's an extreme of course, but those are negative implications of looking at thaumaturgy maneuvers in such a way.

[UmbraLux]

My read on the above paragraph was that one could cast a spell that had a duration, but would apply an aspect only when triggered (with the example being a spell that doesn't apply an aspect immediately, but instead "at the moment he steps on stage"). If that was the case one could cast a spell that applied say, a positive aspect "When someone steps through this door" and then send an army though the door. That's an extreme of course, but those are negative implications of looking at thaumaturgy maneuvers in such a way.

I'm not sure I read it the same way but, taking the trigger as you've described, why would the spell go off more than once?  Well, unless you added shifts of power to cover multiple castings (which is kind of what I was getting at with my original conclusion - you have to pay for each instance).

As a side note, I'm not sure I'd buy in to such simple triggers.  It seems to me the text was saying you had to time completing / casting the spell with when you wanted it to occur.  Not that you could set easy trigger criteria. 

-----

I tend to approach casting in general and thaumaturgy in particular critically.  They're powerful enough!  No need to interpret text in the most generous way possible.  (Not addressed at you, Sinker...just a comment on thaumaturgy as a whole.)  Thaumaturgy is far less problematic when approached skeptically.  Not perfect by any means, just less likely to be broken unintentionally.

[sinker]

I tend to approach casting in general and thaumaturgy in particular critically.  They're powerful enough!  No need to interpret text in the most generous way possible.  (Not addressed at you, Sinker...just a comment on thaumaturgy as a whole.)  Thaumaturgy is far less problematic when approached skeptically.  Not perfect by any means, just less likely to be broken unintentionally.

This is something I agree with. I simply read that paragraph and said "Wait a minute, that has some interesting implications as far as duration for thaumaturgy maneuvers." So I thought I'd share. Not really something I'd allow per se.

[UmbraLux]

Yeah, triggers are interesting...if potentially problematic.     I'm tempted to say "allow them but charge for them".  But, more realistically, it'd be a case by case decision.  Or, at least I can't think of an easy method of systematizing different trigger costs...particularly if you add in the complication of triggering either effect or spell...since the two aren't necessarily the same. 

[benign]

I'm not sure if the more generous interpretation of duration cost in thaumaturgy (i.e. you pay once for an entire spell) actually makes thaumaturgy significantly more powerful than it already is. Even assuming that you have to pay for each aspect's duration independently, you could just split the ritual into multiple smaller rituals, thus establishing 6 taggable aspects (or whatever) on your character as the result of 6 small rituals instead of one big one. Each of these small rituals has a complexity of 8, needing about 2 declarations or other means to make up the deficit for your standard wizard, which in most cases is trivially easy to get. Depending on your group's interpretation of how long rituals take, 6 of these may even take up less time than one big ritual with a complexity of 23 (the complexity you get if you only apply the shifts-for-duration once)!

In other words, I think the core problem is that thaumaturgy opens up some abusive options regarding long duration maneuvers for aspects, not that one or the other method of calculating the shifts needed to enhance the duration is to blame.

I have given some thought to that, and I have some ideas to mitigate the damage done. First, you could rule that setting up aspects in a prior scene means that they are not available to tag in a subsequent scene; because you waited until a later scene to make use of them, they have to be invoked with a fate point as normal. If you specifically want to have your aspects be taggable, you can essentially use your ritual to place aspects in a sort of storage, to be released later at your command. This option does not require any shifts beyond the normal duration shifts, and allows you to release them at the moment of your choice. The trade-off is that you must spend an action (supplementary, maybe?) to release the stored aspect, and you may only release one at a time. This prevents the worst abuse of the thaumaturgy system while still allowing it to be very useful in the right circumstances.

Thoughts?

[zenten]

I think a lot of this is solved by not allowing you to break up the thaumaturgy in seperate castings.  So you can do all the complex chained stuff you want, but you'll have to pull off a high complexity ritual to do it.

[UmbraLux]

I'm not sure if the more generous interpretation of duration cost in thaumaturgy (i.e. you pay once for an entire spell) actually makes thaumaturgy significantly more powerful than it already is.

I tend to think 48 shifts vs 23 is a big difference.    But you do have a point, this is only one aspect of thaumaturgy.  That is why I recommend approaching the entire thaumaturgy system critically.

Even assuming that you have to pay for each aspect's duration independently, you could just split the ritual into multiple smaller rituals, thus establishing 6 taggable aspects (or whatever) on your character as the result of 6 small rituals instead of one big one. Each of these small rituals has a complexity of 8, needing about 2 declarations or other means to make up the deficit for your standard wizard, which in most cases is trivially easy to get. Depending on your group's interpretation of how long rituals take, 6 of these may even take up less time than one big ritual with a complexity of 23 (the complexity you get if you only apply the shifts-for-duration once)!

Do note the inherent limitations called out on YS261.  Specifically, the requirement for a symbolic link to "anchor the purpose of the spell to the ritual".  Perhaps it's personal, but I discourage using the same aspect repeatedly.

More importantly, I don't believe you can split the spell up.  You can't cast a landmine separately from a ward, why would you allow stacking aspects separately?

In other words, I think the core problem is that thaumaturgy opens up some abusive options regarding long duration maneuvers for aspects, not that one or the other method of calculating the shifts needed to enhance the duration is to blame.

While I think it is certainly possible to abuse thaumaturgy, it takes either intention on the abuser's part or inattention on the group's / reviewer's part. 

I have given some thought to that, and I have some ideas to mitigate the damage done. First, you could rule that setting up aspects in a prior scene means that they are not available to tag in a subsequent scene; because you waited until a later scene to make use of them, they have to be invoked with a fate point as normal. If you specifically want to have your aspects be taggable, you can essentially use your ritual to place aspects in a sort of storage, to be released later at your command. This option does not require any shifts beyond the normal duration shifts, and allows you to release them at the moment of your choice. The trade-off is that you must spend an action (supplementary, maybe?) to release the stored aspect, and you may only release one at a time. This prevents the worst abuse of the thaumaturgy system while still allowing it to be very useful in the right circumstances.

Thoughts?

The issue with this is how it extends to the system as a whole.  You're either treating aspects differently based on how they were created or you're also not allowing tags of assessments, consequences, and other aspects outside of a scene.  I'd rather keep the fundamental mechanics the same across the board. 

[sinker]

It also seems counter to the intent of the developers. By definition a ritual maneuver is likely going to be in a different scene as the tag, since the pace of thaumaturgy is slightly different than conflict. And since casting several maneuvers to make use of the tags is actually something the developers suggest (in the paragraph after the one I quoted on YS265) I just don't like trying to neuter it that way.