Magic Mechanics

[chuckro]

So, I was musing on magic system mechanics for various roleplaying systems, and I figured I'd put this out there: Of the following, which do you prefer as a GM or as a player? Why?

1) Spells per day, typically that need to be memorized ahead and are expended when cast.

2) Spell-slot or spell-points systems, where each spell uses up a certain amount of MP or a slot that you regain when you rest. (A variation on this is spell-fatigue, where you don't get a MP limit, but casting tires your character and give you penalties to other rolls.)

3) Backlash systems (Paradox, primarily), where you have theoretically limitless magic, but risk backlash from using it/using it too much/using it in certain ways.

4) Percent-failure systems, where you again have theoretically limitless magic, but have to roll to succeed in using it and/or have a fixed percent-failure chance.

The follow-up/related question is whether you prefer free-form magic or a set spell list. And I'm not going to p[ost my opinions until I get a few responses, so as not to bias my sample.

Comments

[gaudium-et-spes.livejournal.com]

No question that leaving more up to the GM can make for better storytelling. It's just frustrating to a player who's character can be capable of radically different things, depending on who the GM is. Warriors in any system know exactly what they can accomplish. Why should casters be any different?

[chuckro.livejournal.com]

Because it's magic.

I think some of this problem comes from the fact that you can base melee combat on what's "realistic", which makes judgement calls easier. Magic, not being realistic, is more subject to specific feelings about what it "should" be. Some people like high fantasy, some like dark fantasy; some thing magic should be subtle, others think it should be showy. Which doesn't solve the problem, of course, but explains it a bit.

[gaudium-et-spes.livejournal.com]

That's a fair response. The GM is entitled to ascribe a "feel" to his magic system. However, the rules are written by the manufacturer, and more importantly the powers are balanced, with a particular "feel" in mind. If the GM's "feel' is sufficiently different, then (s)he should be sure to rebalance the magic system to make sure players don't become superpowerful/useless because they picked the right/wrong powers.

My favorite example of this is from mage. Correspondence 2 (or is it 3) and Forces 1 will let you teleport electricity, say. This can allow you to do cute things like "fix" a short in a device (cute and useful, but not imbalancing). Or it can allow you to teleport sunlight from the other side of the globe and fry vampires at will (you can even make the light appear from your flashlight so it's coincidental). Whether or not your GM allows the second behavior has a drastic influence on the balance of the game.

-Chris

[chuckro.livejournal.com]

Or it can allow you to teleport sunlight from the other side of the globe and fry vampires at will (you can even make the light appear from your flashlight so it's coincidental).

...I would never have even thought of that. Damn.

But you're quite right. I suspect the solution (or, at least, a mitigating factor) is for players in that instance to come up with a list of "sample rotes" in the level of things they'd try, and have the GM give opinions on them. Wouldn't totally solve the problem, but it would put everyone on the same page.