A bunch of stuff concerning magic

So, as I was reading the rules on magic, I spotted a few things that could use some improvement. Most are minor stuff, but there is a major one. I am going to list the issues I see here, and for each I will suggest a possible solution.

1) Learning spells. The way the magic template is made, it looks like, upon creating my magic, I am expected to create ALL the spells that come with it, even those that I cannot yet learn because of my rank (like, I start at D rank, but when I make my magic I create even the S-rank spells for it). Which begs the question: once all the spells connected to one magic are made, how do we actually learn them?

Possible solution:

2) Perks. Both the magic regulations and the magic template make it clear that each magic is supposed to have perks, but explanations on what actually these perks can be, or what limitations there are on them, are scarce. In particular, the section concerning Slayer magic gives a generic explanation of the usual Slayer stuff (eat your element, get motion sick etc), and then stat that "you get these perks". It is not clear if those are all you can get, if you can add more of your creation when you make your specific Slayer magic, or even if those count as perks of a specific rank. In short: all info the current rules have on perks are kinda vague.

Possible solution:

3) Spells, and this is the major issue I see. The way the rules are worded now, it sounds like each spell of a specific rank can have a maximum damage output, a maximum range and a maximum AoE. Like for example, a D-rank spell can have a power of 1, a range of 15 m, and a AoE of 15m radius. What you probably didn't realize when writing these rules is, by wording them this way, you are basically stating that, for all spells of D rank, it is MANDATORY to ALWAYS have a power of 1 AND a range of 15 m AND an AoE of 15 m radius. In other words, with the rules worded this way all D rank spells in this site, regardless of the magic they are derived to, will be perfectly identical to one another. Why, you ask? Simple: because the way the rules you are worded, making a spell that has anything more than those characteristics is forbidden, but making a spell that has anything LESS than those characteristics is foolish (you are effectively weakening your own spell without gaining anything in return). Basically, while you are giving people a strict reason why they cannot have more (it is forbidden), you are not giving them any reason for wanting to have less, so they will all inevitably go for the maximum allowed.

Possible solution:

4) Spells that remain active over time (thus requiring a maintainance cost), spells that buff your abilities, spells that debuff your opponent's abilities. There are no rules whatsoever concerning all these.

Possible solution:

I also noticed that, in the magic regulation, at some point stats are mentioned. However there are currently no rules concerning stats whatsoever. I assume this means you are still making them, so allow me to give you a suggestion: make sure that people cannot max out ALL stats. Enforce specific restrictions to make sure that a player is encouraged to pursue this or that build, but cannot achieve 9001 in EVERYTHING. Otherwise, we will be back to the situation I have described for the spells: if you don't give people reasons for wanting less than the maximum, everyone will gun for the maximum. Which will result in characters all identical to one another, using spells all identical to one another. I actually have a good system in mind for this (a Disgaea-esque "aptitude system"), but I will detail it in another post if you are interested.

Well, this is all. It is 2 AM and I still have a fever: if you staffers don't find these suggestions of mine to be useful, I will be very displeased ;-;

Like Kyoto, I'll reply to this via bullet points so it's easier to read ^^

1. If there were any confusions about the magic template, I shall look over and fix the wording. We only look at the spells of your rank. We don't require more. As Kyoto mentioned, we have the spell templates of rank there for those who start at a higher rank.
1.25. As per how you 'learn' them, we do not have training requirements of the starter spells here. Our logic is if you have already obtained your magic, you have already learned the limits of what you can do when you reach your rank. You can do threads that you can 'train' your spells, but it won't affect them at all. Just would give it In-Character plot.
1.5. Now, for when we allow spell slots to be purchased, we may be looking into the training of them seeing as these are 'extra' spells ones could have learned at any given time.
1.75. So, instead of EXP, you are proposing a new set of currency? Once that would be obtainable through some sort of quest in order to use for spell slots, training word count reduction/potential elimination, etc?

2. Perks, we still need to work on them more in depth. We apologize for the lack of information but the site did open a week and a half ago so we're pretty much just focusing on the broad aspect of it all in order to later focus on the technical things. We will add in the rules later and will ask for you to be patient with us. You can see the updates HERE so that you'll know when things have been added in and updated ^^

3. We give the members the liberty of making the ranges however they want as long as it is within the limits placed upon each rank. I'll look over the rules to see where the confusion lies and hopefully sort it out there.

4. Like that of perks, we are currently working on the larger aspect of the rules before focusing on the more technical things. Again, I would like to ask you for your patience as we hammer through all the rules ^^;

5. As per stats, where? o.o I transferred rules from my other site so... we missed it lol. Can you link me to where it mentions stats cause... *crosses them out vigorously* no stats here! XD

6. "Well, this is all. It is 2 AM and I still have a fever: if you staffers don't find these suggestions of mine to be useful, I will be very displeased ;-;" Awwww *hugs* hope ya feel better and I hope this answered your points. And that you for posting this up ^-^

Ok so, let's proceed in order:

1) The reference to stats is in this topic where, at one point, it says: "Spell Damage: Most spells cause damage. The exact damage done is calculated by the difference between your own and the opponent's Arcane and Resistance Stats". Although if I may, having stats not as a way of making precise, Pokemon-esque (or D&D-esque, if you prefer) calculations, but as a mere way of, you know, having a reference so that people wouldn't powerplay (if your opponent's Atk is higher than your Def, you don't describe yourself as blocking all of their attacks effortlessly) MIGHT be a good idea. This is ultimately your decision tho, I won't complain if you decide to go without stats... But it's an option that could be considered. I used a system based on such a concept a while back, in a RP I was hosting in a forum I'm part of: copy-pasting the system so that you guys can have a look at it would take two seconds.

2) You shouldn't be so quick to say "that is not going to change ant that's final", as you yourself said this place is still in alpha state. Since, as a former RP host myself, I know some problems WILL arise (simply because they always do in forum roleplays), I think it would be wiser to tweak the rules in preparation for them now, than finding yourself facing them when the site is in full activity. In other words: changing things now that the whole site is a WIP is easy, trying to change them once the site is in full swing (and the inevitable issues start manifesting) might prove difficult and problematic. With this being said...

3) NVM I'M DUMB IGNORE THIS POINT. Please move along onto the next one, which is the most important one :/

4) I can only repeat: the way rules on spell creation are currently worded, all spells of the same rank will end up being perfectly identical to one another, all with the same damage, range and AoE. Descriptions and/or mother magic have absolutely nothing to do with this: you have HP in this site. Meaning, you calculate exactly how much damage is dealt by one spell. If all spells have the same power, the same range and the same AoE, they will end up making people lose the same amount of HP, making the description largely irrelevant: what's the difference between a fireball, a fiery punch and a fire pillar? If they are all of the same rank, they will all deal the exact same damage anyway, so why bother with the description? Also because in this site there are no stats, meaning that there are no further calculations to alter the damage: you are hit by a spell whose power is X, you lose X HP. Sure, there are still elemental affinities to factor in... But that still means that all Fire (or Water, or Lightning, or...) spells of the same rank will be all functionally identical to one another: in other words, a fireball is the exact same fireball no matter if made by Dragon/God/Devil Slayer Magic, by Molding Magic, by Holder Magic, or by God knows what. Which kills the point of having different kinds of magic.
And make no mistake about it: this WILL happen. People WILL behave the way I am describing, and they WILL create their spells with the reasoning I have detailed in mind. It is one of the golden rules of internet competitiveness, as well as the reason why online Pokemon simulator have tiers, online fighting games have banlists, and so on: if you don't give people a reason for wanting less than the maximum, they WILL, inevitably and unfailingly, go for the maximum allowed. And why shouldn't they? Why should they make a spell that is strictly melee (thus limiting their own ability to hit enemies), if they can have up to 15 m of range (and that is just for D rank!) completely for free?
If Pokemon Showdown didn't have tiers and banlists, everyone would be using teams of six Mega Rayquaza. And if a different system is not enforced here, everyone will be making spells with the maximum damage AND the maximum range AND the maximum AoE allowed per rank. Which, mind you, also kills the point of having more than one spell per rank: what's the point in having two offensive D-rank spells, if both are going to deal the exact same damage and have the exact same range and AoE? To keep up the Pokemon analogy, it's like having both Headbutt and Slash on the same Pokemon: same type, same base power, same accuracy. They are functionally the same move, so what's the point in carrying both?
It might not seem that big of an issue now: after all there are so few users! As long as each of them has a different kind of magic, everything will be fine, right? But if you want to ensure the long-term success of your roleplay, you need to think about what will happen when this place has 20, then 50, then 100 active users. And more and more spells all identical to one another start to pop up. It is better to tweak the rules now, than to try to do something about the dying diversity when it's too late: in my previous post I suggested a possible solution, there might also be other ones to consider, but please let's discuss this point. Do not dismiss it so easily.

5) Oh and since I mentioned HP: the first edition of D&D had the same rules, concerning death, that this place has. You have a fixed amount of HP, you hit 0 you die, no ifs and no buts. It was the first rule they changed upon making version 2 and now, 4 versions later, they have never looked back. Why do you think is that? And keep in mind that here the situation is even worse than in first edition D&D because, the way the rules on fixed spell damage currently work, a mage beyond S rank could in theory go around one-shotting D-rank people to death, and they wouldn't be able to do a damn thing about it. You can say all you want that it will be a long time before someone goes beyond S rank, and that those who will probably won't be jerks... But the rules of a roleplay should not be made banking on the good behaviour of people. The rules of a roleplay should be made assuming that people are arrogant jerks (because, specially on the internet, that's exactly what they are), they should be made to address the worst case scenarios and to guarantee, in all circumstances (including in the very likely circumstance that internet people turn out to be arrogant jerks), a roleplaying experience as serene and satisfying as possible for players of all skills and ranks. So yeah, there at the very least need to be very strict rules as to when death is enabled and when it isn't (like, in PvP players must agree on it beforehand, in missions it depends on the rank of the job, in events it is responsibility of the staff to explicitly state if it is or if it isn't, and one cannot randomly show up in other people's threads and start killing them out of the blue), but even so, the "0 HP lol you are dead" rule might need to be tweaked. Again, that's the first thing second edition D&D did, there musthave been a damn good reason.

EDIT: thanks to Remix for clarifying the "buy + WC training" bit in the chat, I had gotten that part completely wrong. Removed the related point as it was no longer relevant.

... And I just now saw that, in the shop, there is the option to purchase new spells with jewels. Now I'm confused @.@

Kyoto 'Baal' Dev wrote:As for people behaving like you, first I've seen in all my years honestly, especially from a non-staff or development.

I am absolutely, positively shocked, to the point of being at a loss of words, by this line, and in general by your reaction to what was supposed to be a genuine attempt at helping you, at making this place better and better. Was it so wrong, for a mere user like me, to desire to be of help?

If I were to say more, I would end up stirring the very kind of drama that I hate to see in communities, so I will end it here. If this is how you react to an offer of help, I can only pray for you to never actually need any.

Kyoto 'Baal' Dev wrote:See the thing about words they can be interpreted in different ways. What I was saying as long as I have been running, playing, developing games I've never had someone behave like so. Never said it was good or bad.

I could retort that as long as I have been living, I've never had someone refuse help so steadfastly, but seriously, I don't see the point in this. It is evident that you and I can never see eye to eye on these matters, and as you are the admin here, this puts me in a position where, no matter what I say or do, I end up being the one in the wrong.

This being the case, I shall not press the matter any further. You staffers will decide how to tackle these issues if at all. I can only repeat what I said earlier: I will pray for you to never actually need help.