The Forge Archives

This is the kind of thread I never know whether to put here or in RPG theory. I want to discuss some issues relating to RPG magic systems in a general way. It's a mechanical discussion, and it is for some of my so-called design work, but it's not in the context of a particular game system.

Anyway: the question I want to ask is, how can you create fun, tactical, gamelike challenges for using magic in RPGs?

Some preliminary context for the question. For most of my life until I discovered the internet, I didn't like the D&D magic system. There was (a) the issue of the non-flexibility of individual spells and (b) the fact that I had some bullshit idea in my head about how magic 'really worked' which involved mana point/fatigue systems and so forth. This idea is surprisingly common despite being utterly groundless.

Then I got into a debate with a guy named Kobold Curry Chef about this and he immediately pointed out that these factors actually are, from a certain point of view, a virtue. Mana point/fatigue systems rob the 'game' aspect of D&D of one of its important challenges. Namely, spells in traditional D&D and for wizards in 3e bring about a resource allocation problem: you have to guess what you need and use what you have judiciously. There's a lesser version of this challenge in straight mana/fatigue systems, but it's very, very attenuated, and if you're planning on running 'dungeon'-type adventures one kind of challenge is greatly decreased if you don't have to worry about whether to take an extra Knock or an extra Fireball.

OK. So. There are many good magic systems out there that let you go for as much as you want (free-form, or no power limit, or both) but make some sort of cost (aging, demonic entanglement, potential for suicidal fumbles vastly increased). These systems challenge you in different ways. If you go for too much, or roll badly, or both, there will be bad consequences: the rules let you do anything, or a lot anyway, but put in a self-limiting 'balance mechanism'. So here there's a challenge to think creatively and describe things well, and not to call up what you can't put down, and that sort of thing.

This makes a kind of game out of magic, and does have the virtue that real-world creativity (in finding the minimum amount of spell-force to get the job done) is rewarded by in-game efficacy (assuming the job gets done), which can facilitate competition through magic use. So that's a second option.

A third option is the kind of system where you buy the components for making spells separately and then make spells out of them. The challenge here I suppose would be twofold: resource allocation for components and then creative construction for spells themselves.

But what I'm trying to ask for in this thread is other options, new stuff. Is there some way to make a game out of using magic with new tradeoffs? What are other techniques that have been tried for this? Besides resource allocation, minimal force problems, and building spells out of components in non-obvious ways problems, what other ways have people explored to really make a game out of magic use in RPGs?

(My reading of the forums is that this fits in RPG Theory - I'm sure if I'm right, it'll be moved eventually.)

Besides resource allocation, minimal force and build your own I've also seen TIME as a factor.

As an example, Burning Wheel lists a number of syllables for each of its spells (and, in the advanced version, the components of the build-your-own).  Syllables, of course, translate into how long it takes to cast.  But then there's the option to take MORE time to cast, in exchange for either (a) making the spell easier to cast, OR (b) making the spell take less of a toll on the body (since in Burning Wheel, casting spells does take a toll on the body).

This could possibly fall under either resource allocation or minimal force, but I think it deserves a category of its own.

Could the requirement of certain behaviors, which may be awkward or disadvantageous in many situations, count as a category? The earliest example is probably the "somatic components" of D&D spells. More recently, the postmodern magic of Unknown Armies seems to be the most explicit connection between behavior and magical power. In UA, the only way to gain the magical resource is to perform actions and avoid taboos of whatever magical school you practice. This weird behavior tends to make characters weird loners, apart from the mainstream public, but has little mechanical effect besides how it pertains to the magical resource.

I've had an idea about mana pools for sometime now (not sure if this has been done before).  The majority of game systems make the character the sole resource pool for the magic.  What if, depending on the magic "school" it was about "tapping" into different kinds of magic pools.  Such as trees in the forest, demons, the earth (like in The Magic Goes Away series), etc..  The mechanics for this would dictate attributes associated to the character's skill in drawing and holding magic, how long they can hold magic and the probabilities/risks for drawing too much or holding mana too long.  I can envision a dice pool mechanic ... dice = mana and using the dice to roll for effect / consequences.

Also, I've been thinking that magic could have moral consequences. like in The Song of Ice and Fire books.  Could be linked to meta game spiritual attributes.

Another cool idea was this KARMA idea ... http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=8242&highlight=

There is the rock-paper-scissors approach that appears in certain games; I make explicit use of this in Refreshing Rain, and it appears in Mage: The Ascension to an extent.

We've discussed this in some depth (in a thread I don't remember the name of); the point is that your tactical options are significantly different depending upon your opposition (With Mind, you can tell a teleporting Correspondence mage "That building has moved several feet to the left", but he can in turn send your Forces fireballs sailing harmlessly away by redirecting them with cat-sized portals).

Mage is a poor example of this, because with creativity you can break the dominance pattern, but it's significant enough that I thought it would be a useful one.

Well, I'm not convinced of the game value of the D&D memorize method.  Perhaps if the spells are secretly written out in some spellbook that players cannot subsequently edit (so they can't cheat) but DMs are not privy to (so they can't simply design encounters around what the player didn't take), there comes an element of mano-a-mano outguessing but really I think its sort of of the "are you the sort of man who'd put the poison in his own glass" variety, which like RPS is really just a guessing game in the end.

I find the second type of magic system, that of free form creativity but try to avoid getting burned to be much more interesting of a challenge to do well.

But in terms of new ideas of spheres to compete in, the only one I can really think of that doesn't fall into one of your broader categories is trying to use the magic without being caught (in the manner of being a salem witch who can get away with practicing without being burned).  Mage had an element something like this with Paradox.  Even that is of limited game value, however, as the obvious solution (don't use it) is the most boring one, and the second most obvious solution (kill the people who try to stop you) simply circumvents the issue all together.

Really the most comprehensive magic game would be to encorporate a game of Magic:TG into the RPG itself, with deck building and subsequent resource management issues.

Quote from: Valamir
But in terms of new ideas of spheres to compete in, the only one I can really think of that doesn't fall into one of your broader categories is trying to use the magic without being caught (in the manner of being a salem witch who can get away with practicing without being burned).  Mage had an element something like this with Paradox.  Even that is of limited game value, however, as the obvious solution (don't use it) is the most boring one, and the second most obvious solution (kill the people who try to stop you) simply circumvents the issue all together.

Well, it depends who is catching you.  Paradox in Mage was the result of the Universe "catching" you, so it is not as prone to the issues that you bring up.  In Mage, essentially, wild uses of magic earned you Paradox more easily than subtle "coincidental" effects.  This tended to encourage player creativity in coming up with useful effects that stayed within the bounds of "coincidence".  Of course, if necessary, the mage could still pull out a fireball and beat someone over the head with it....

Interestingly, Nobilis has a different take on this.  While Noble miracles aren't magic per se, they do run the risk of disrupting normal reality.  Doing this tends to annoy Lord Entropy, and is essentially "illegal" within the game setting.  So, if you are too flagrant, then Lord Entropy sends his minions for you.  However, this does not have to fall into the "Kill those that oppose me" category that you mention, simply because it would be comparable to resisting arrest; a PC that attempts this will become outcast quickly.  After all, Lord Entropy is the Law.  Now, there's no system reason to avoid being caught, but an incautious Noble can get himself into a lot of trouble.  That being said, since I tend to agree with Chris Kubasik's call for PC "trouble magnets", I don't think that this is a bad thing.

Quote
Really the most comprehensive magic game would be to encorporate a game of Magic:TG into the RPG itself, with deck building and subsequent resource management issues.

I would play an RPG like this.  As a matter of fact, I originally began to play Magic because I had long desired to make or find a game of duelling wizards.

Seth Ben-Ezra
Great Wolf

This is a hard and interesting question.

Valamir: I think maybe you've been away from serious D&D playing gamists for too long. The ethos here is that the DM comes to the table with a prepared adventure (which is supposed to be designed to handle any player creativity up front - but what the DM forgets, the attitude is 'my bad'. A recent example: I ran Lord of the Iron Fortress and the final fort was protected against everything but Shadow Walk. My player, who did not know the mod, had that spell because he liked it. So: he got to bust the dungeon and get by everything. That's how it goes) which he doesn't tweak during play, the players get some preliminary info, and then select their spells based on what they think will get them through it best based on that info. If they cheat, you either take them out to the woodshed and beat them up, kill their characters, or just don't invite them back. So that is a legitimate resource allocation challenge of exactly the type you're skeptical about: the DM is supposed to think of everything in advance, and the players are supposed to manage and/or bust it.

OK, so it's not really that great a system in lots of other ways. I like the MtG idea. That's the kind of thing I'm looking for, though: other ways to make a really challenging 'game' out of the whole magic thing in fantasy RPGing.

Quote from: UmberhulkI've had an idea about mana pools for sometime now (not sure if this has been done before).  The majority of game systems make the character the sole resource pool for the magic.  What if, depending on the magic "school" it was about "tapping" into different kinds of magic pools.  Such as trees in the forest, demons, the earth (like in The Magic Goes Away series), etc..  

I wrote a small augmentation to Mage: the Ascension's magic rules a long time ago. It seemed that in Revised Edition, they tried to emphasize the importance of resonance, but did so very poorly. I can't tell you why now, it's been years since I read the book.

I did basically what you describe here. I changed the resonances  into five-dot temporary/permanent traits. At character creation, folks distribute their resonance dots to reflect their magical nature. They can spend ticks of Temporary Resonance to act as quintessence. They earn ticks by performing non-magical actions befitting the resonance. They can never have more ticks of a resonance than they have dots in it.

Anyway, just thought I'd throw that out there.

The most fun with magic I ever had was playing freeform with no game to the magic at all. Instead, like most other abilities in RPGs, it was simply something the characters could do. The enjoyment came from conflict, problem solving and character interaction.

I guess what I'm saying is this: why make a game of magic at all?

Hey MrJack -

Interestingly, my experience coincides with yours, in that the game I had the most fun with magic in was also nearly completely freeform. The magic was more or less driven by the way it was narrated.

But different people have different kinds of fun, and it was sort of surprising for me at least to realize that there are relatively few interesting 'games' that have been made out of magic use in fantasy RPGs, despite all the other kinds of innovations we've seen in magic rules over the years.

I spend a lot of my time playing with a Gamist bent still, and it would be interesting to have a system that facilitated a really different type of resource allocation or puzzle challenge (or whatever) in play, as opposed to the types we're more familiar with. Magic systems that facilitate and reward player creativity are cool too, and I wouldn't mind an aspect of that with the 'game' part, but I'm still looking to make a new kind of game out of magic. So that's the reason for the thread.

Ok, I understand.

I think it depends on what kind of game your writing in a game where most everyone has magic I think there's good potential for a heavily tactical spell-counterspell dueling system (think TROS combat but done for magic).

QuoteValamir: I think maybe you've been away from serious D&D playing gamists for too long. The ethos here is that the DM comes to the table with a prepared adventure (which is supposed to be designed to handle any player creativity up front - but what the DM forgets, the attitude is 'my bad'.

I remember those days.  I just don't see that as a particularly good design.  I guess its a form of Gamism as far as the step on up between two players -- with the one being able to say "in your face" to the other.  But I don't really see it as much of a strategic challenge being overcome.  Just a lucky guess.  I suppose there's an element of "last time we got trapped on the wrong side of a crevase, so I'll be sure to take Fly this time" but the challenge there seems no more compelling than packing ones suitcase for a vacation and remembering to bring the sunscreen.  <shrug> perhaps its just me that doesn't find that very interesting or stimulating.


But back to your question.  What are your criteria for a "really challenging 'game'"?

Actually playing a game of MtG as part of an RPG sounds really cumbersome to me.  But it's also a great spark.

I'm imagining a much quicker to resolve card game that ends up fitting between the "memorize your spells in advance" and the "I have mana that I can work with in these ways" models.  

Each card represents a kind of magical component: a gesture, a word of power, a material, a famed occult relic or whatever.  There are a whole slew of general cards that anyone can access when building their deck for the day (or whatever), or maybe certain schools of magic have access only to a subset of these cards.  And there are or could be unique cards that represent special powers, gifts, artifacts or whatever that can only exist in the deck of a certain player.

Each card lists either the types of cards that can trump them or the types of cards that they trump.  Then when a magical task is taken up, players take turns playing cards until one can't trump the other.  This easily lends itself to the prototypical magical duel, but it's a little harder to figure out how casting a "teleport" spell would be handled.  Maybe the GM plays a deck for the environment?  Maybe a certain combination of cards has to be discarded from the deck?

As the germ of an idea, this allows for multiple layers of complexity in implementation.  Do cards have point values in addition to type?  Are there multiple dimensions of trump? (i.e. might a card representing the power word FIRE be trumped either by water or a "louder" power word?)  How many different "food chains" are intermingling and crossing over in the deck?  Are there cards that can't be trumped?  Is the duel simply played until one player can't play a "better" card or is it played in rounds where the number of captured cards or hands is what matters?

Now that I've gotten to the end of this idea it's reminding me of the Doris and Frank card game Frank's Zoo.

Chris

Quote from: CalithenaSome preliminary context for the question. For most of my life until I discovered the internet, I didn't like the D&D magic system. There was (a) the issue of the non-flexibility of individual spells and (b) the fact that I had some bullshit idea in my head about how magic 'really worked' which involved mana point/fatigue systems and so forth. This idea is surprisingly common despite being utterly groundless.
A third option is the kind of system where you buy the components for making spells separately and then make spells out of them. The challenge here I suppose would be twofold: resource allocation for components and then creative construction for spells themselves.

@ For D&D i started rewriting the spells as "Variable Yield".  Where any caster can cast any spell, the effectiveness of the spell is determined by the Caster Level (C) and Spell Level (S).  So you can cast a 1st Level Fireball, or 9th Level Magic Missle.  The number of spells you can cast a day, does not change, you still get X 1st,  Y 2nd and Z 3rd.  Further variance is achived with add-ons.  These change the way a spell works in some minor way, but cost SLs.  For instance, using a 5th level slot, one could cast a spell at 3rd Level (S3) and have two add-ons.

@ Why Bother? Because it makes sense that if you put less power into a spell that it is less effective, likewise with more power.  And it makes sense that over the course of hundred, perhaps thousands of years that mages would put their own spin on a spell.  Think of it as the base spell is like Linux, and then the other versions of that spell are things like Knoppix, Red Hat and Phlak.  The base code is the same, but each programmer has added this or taken away that.  If magic is will changing reality, then by will magic itself can be changed.

@ It would be fun in the story because a player might meet other mages and offer to trade modifications on the spells.  "Hey, i've got a version of fireball that covers twice the volume but at half the power." "Cool, i'll teach you my famous Air Walk that lets you walk upside down!"  Players can try to develop their own mods and after a while they become famous for it, or better yet, infamous!

An Excerpt from my document.....


:::::
The spell descriptions are written to be as complete as what you?d find in the PG.  I have ?corrected? the equations so they actually work mathematically.  The PG might say 100 + 10/Level, they mean one hundred feet plus 10 feet per caster level.  What they wrote really says is 100 plus ten divided by caster level.  The correct way to write this is 100 + (10 * C), where C is the caster level.  The asterisk  * is recognized as multiplication, a slash / as division, use the order of operations you learned in junior high to do the calculation.  

C = Caster Lever, where you see the C, input the caster level
S = Spell Level, where you see the S, input the spell level

Spell Options are variations on a spell, most of them require that the spell take up a slot a few levels higher than the Spell level.  Don?t let this confuse you, choosing a spell option does not change the Spell Level or the S you use in formulas.  If Acid Fog is cast as a 3rd level spell and the caster takes the 3d6 Damage option, it does NOT become a 6th level spell!  It is still 3rd level, but it requires that the caster use up a 6th level spell slot.  If the caster does not have a 6th level slot availible for that day, they cannot cast that version of the spell.

Minimal: This is the weakest verision of the spell you can cast, Caster Level 1, Spell Level 1.
Nominal: This is the C and S given in the PG
Maximal: This is the 9th level version of the spell cast by a 20th level caster

These entries show the gamut of a spell?s power.  It is kinda fun to see a 20th level Grease spell or 1st level Delayed Blast Fireball calculated.


Acid Fog

Components: V, S, M, DF
Casting Time: 1 Action
Range: Medium (100 +  (10 * C))
Effect: Creates a sphere of acidic gas
Duration: Rounds = C
Saving Throw: None
Spell Resistance: Yes

Acid Fog creates a speherical volume of acidic gas that grows from the target point and doubles in volume each round until it either fills the availible space or reaches its maximum size.  The maximum diameter is (C * S)/2.  The cloud starts at a diameter equal to the caster level, and continues doubling in volume.  If it hits a wall it will not continue to expand in that direction, it may seep through a key hole or between slats of wood.  This seepage is incidental.  For instance if the caster were to center the spell in a one room cottage and then close the door, in a few rounds the cottage would be full of acrid air.  The fog will not appear on the other side of the walls of the cottage within the maximum diameter, aside from what a slight daft may pull through.  The expansion of the fog creates no force, because the spell is turning the air into the acid fog, it is not pushing acidic air away from the target point.  The diameter would expand past a low fence, but not a stone wall.  Anything or anyone within the fog takes 2d6 points of acid damage.  They also suffer a vision penalty, all sight related checks are at +5 DC.  Sadistic DM?s may want consider what happens to the eyes of a creature exposed to acidic fog.  The Fog remains for a number of rounds equal to the caster level, but no more that the spell level.  Strong winds or rain can destroy the fog or at least lessen its effect, this is subject to the DM?s interpretation.

Spell Options
+ 3 levels ? Does 3d6 damage
+ 2 Levels - Weaken and Expand to 1d6 ? Double the  maximum diameter, initial diameter and expansion rate is the same
+ 3 Levels ? Reaches maximum volume in one round
+ 2 Levels ? Sight related checks are at + (5 + C) DC.
+ 1 Level ? Alkaline Fog, the fog is not acidic but base, but is otherwise the same, Alkaline Fog and Acid Fog cancel each other
+ 2 Levels ? Neutralizing Fog, this fog is harmless but provides protection against Acid Fog, Alkaline Fog and acid or poison gas breath weapons.  For each round of the spell?s duration, those within the fog who take damage from such a breath weapon have that damage reduced by 2d6 (or 1d5 or 3d6 if the caster uses the damage variant).
+ 2 Levels ? The fog can be shaped into any shape the caster imagines. Thus it could be made into a ring ten feet high and ten feet thick to make a protective region.  The caster must make a concentration check (DC 15) to mainain the shape.  Once a check fails the fog will return to a more natural shape.  The caster must be able to see the shape of the fog, thus it cannot be sent winding down a hallway around the corner.
Delayed: +2 Levels ? The Fog does not appear until a number of minutes equal to the caster level (though it could be set for less).  Thus Hallimorton the Mean could cast the spell on the well in the center of the village and then leave the scene, ten minutes later the well is surrounded by acidic air

Minimal ? C 1, S 1: Range ? 101 Feet, Diameter ? Six inches
Nominal ? C10, S 6: Range ? 200 Feet, Diameter ? 30 Feet
Maximal ? C 20, S 9: Range ? 300 Feet, Diameter ? 90 feet, 381,632 cubic feet
:::::

@ So you ask "what would a 1st Level Wish spell cast by a 1st Level Mage?".  Well, as far as i'm concerned ALL spells are Wishes.  But a 1st/1st wish would be "i wish that a small bolt of energy would hit that goblin" (magic missle).  If "i wish that goblin would die", the goblin might fall aSLEEP.