I believe point 3 was in reference to base complexity (Lore+Specialization+Focus). At least, that's a problem that I see with high end rituals. Once you're already dropping 20 or 30 or 40 shifts worth of declarations/maneuvers/consequences/etc, those 6 or 7 shifts that you likely started with just don't seem all that meaningful anymore, comparatively.
Exactly what I meant.
Ideally, really big rituals would mostly be for people who've invested heavily in Thaumaturgical power. But by the RAW, that is not so.
Ah, I understand. And I concur, that is a bit strange. If you want to have thaumaturgy experts like that, this is absolutely going to need some reworking. On the other hand, there is quite a bit to say for 8+ shift skill replacement rituals without prep.
Harry himself states, that a big part of rituals are the props, because they act as a reminder of a mental construct, so you don't have to keep it in your head. They free your mind to be able to focus on something else, making it easier to gather up the energy needed to power your spell.
The rest of Haru's post demonstrates the problems I was talking about very nicely.
First of all, he recommends instituting a couple of house rules that makes sacrifices less powerful. They happen to be more or less the same house rules that I'd recommend.
I don't really see them as houserules as such. For example, nowhere in the RAW does it say you can double(triple, quadruple, etc.)-dip on your consequences taken to power up a spell. Yes, it explicitly states the "20 shifts per dead body" thing, which is incredibly broken for powering a spell, but on the other hand it will push the wizard over the edge for good, no matter what he is using the spell for. That should definitely have an impact on the game, either it makes the character incompatible with the rest of the group (a warlock with a KotC), or it shifts the focus of the game, making it darker, maybe entering a "what's right vs. what's necessary" debate. If that isn't something the table wants to, then that should be discussed in a situation like this.
I think this problem occurs, when the table is on the "GM vs players" mindset. In my experience, that usually leads to the players playing it safe and nuke things from as far away and as hard as they possibly can. That is not the kind of game I like to run, because it tends to get dull real fast.
Then he explains that time constraints should be important, backing up my point that there should actually be time constraints.
I think we mean a different thing, when we say time constraints. You are saying, that the ritual itself, the gathering of power, actually casting the spell should take up a fixed amount of time. I am saying, that the preparation is a much bigger part of that, both supported by the RAW and the novels. You can let your characters do a few declarations to have a handful of aspects for their ritual, or you can make them work their asses off for them. Instead of letting them buy a bunch of aspects at walmart, you can say "You know, you get a few candles and chalk and whatnot, but for a ritual that big, they won't be that useful. That's one 'cheap ritual equipment' aspect, nothing more."
Then he gets sidetracked by my poor wording. Sorry about that, Haru.
The thing is, I don't see the problem you guys seem to be having, because I haven't run into it yet. At the moment I'm trying to understand it, which is bound to carry with it quite a few misconceptions and misunderstandings, so no harm done.
Then he explains that, by the RAW, you can't really have a story where Wizards cast rituals unopposed. Which is a real shame, since unopposed rituals make good stories and are a staple of the novels. Because magic is, in theory, difficult enough that the process of casting it is a good story in itself.
Not really what I'm saying. On the contrary, I talked about the Earlking summoning twice, and it is a very good example of an unopposed ritual. But that happens at the "speed of plot", I don't see the need of putting up a time constraint there. Depending on the rules proposed in this thread, it would have taken Harry weeks to perform this ritual, if he would have been able to do so at all. I just don't see the ritual itself all that interesting. It is everything around it, that makes it interesting. Look at it. Harry talks a whole lot about preparing the spell, putting down the barbed wire ring, the items he has chosen to represent himself and the earlking, the energies of the day fading away and the night coming in all wild and untamed, those are all great declarations and maneuvers that help to reach the high complexity he needs. All of that takes up way more pages than when he is actually gathering up the energy for the spell.
What I meant with what I said is, that if you are not opposed, nothing is going to stop you from casting the spell. You can take your time and play it safe. There is no need to know how much time casting the spell is going to take. 5 minutes, 20 minutes, 2 hours, is it really going to make a difference, if you are not working against a clock? On the other hand, if you are working against the clock, you can easily do that with one of the
The whole point of a balanced game is to prevent the GM from needing to whack things into shape with his limitless power, after all.
Yes, but the more open a system is, the more the balance relies upon the open discussion between the involved parties. A system like D&D, where every possible spell is listed in the books, and there is nothing besides that is a way to balance a magic system without involving the GM. A spell can do what is listed in its writeup, and that is that, there is nothing to argue. For both sides, actually, if a GM doesn't like a spell, there is little he can do beside the ban hammer.
Maybe this is the core of the issue I have with a limit on thaumaturgy, whatever way that would be.
PS:
Yes.
No.
So they do other stuff instead. More useful stuff.
As long as they want to do a city-leveling-ritual but don't go through with it, I again don't see the problem. I've joked about a lot of nonsense actions in my time as a player. If they really want to push something like this, then it is going to be come a problem, absolutely.
I know I'm nagging on this, but would you mind providing an actual example of this happening? At the moment I imagine something like this:
GM: So you hear about this vampire nest in New Orleans
P1: Nah, I'd like to go and destroy Baltimore with a giant ritual, who's game?
P2: I'm in.
P3: Yeah, let's do that!
Which is very odd, and I can't imagine it happening quite like this, that's why I'm asking.
Blowing up a city with a big ritual is like beating someone to death with the Mona Lisa; impractical and a horrible waste of potential.
Thaumaturgy can do essentially anything. Killing people is a pretty lame way to use it.
That is a great picture. And a statement I agree with. Which is another part of my argument. I would say we are playing this game (or any game) to have fun. If a part of the game is lame, then why would you even use it? This goes back to my argument above. If you are playing with a "GM vs. Players" mindset, the players are going to feel the need to take the safest, not the coolest or most interesting route. Now I'm not saying that that is what you want to do, but talking about something like this is a rare case on the tables I've played, and I myself have been burned pretty good when trying to put the rule of cool to use as a player.
TL;DR:A free magic system like this needs discussion between GM and Player as part of the balance. Big rituals can be a way to play it safe, if the players feel the need to do so ("GM vs. Players" mentality). Discussion, not arbitrary caps should determine the limit of rituals.
If something up there is incoherent or incomplete, I have overlooked it. I've been jumping back and forth a bit while writing.
