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

[jethrien.livejournal.com]

My least favorite is the first one - I hate stuff that limits flexibility. I hate having to choose spells to memorize ahead of time - it means in practice that you never take the interesting fun spells (like Tasha's Uncontrollable Hideous Laughter) because the chances of using them are so slim. You end up with a possible list of a hundred interesting spells, can only learn a few of them, and then end up just loading up on Magic Missile and Fireball pretty much every game. I also get kind of irritated, especially at lower levels, at how few spells you get. It makes sense for world balancing, but in actual playing results in casting something nifty for the first few rounds and then singing a happy song because there's nothing else to do. Or worse, singing a happy song at the beginning because you're afraid to use up your good spells, and then not needing them in the end.

I like the free-form paradox-inhibited option best, as everyone knows, but I'm content with any of the last three options. They've got advantages and disadvantages. I think the ability for a spell to fizzle on its own (not because of spell resistance, which tends to just be annoying) is very helpful for the DM, and keeps players from getting too uppity. I just hate the feeling that more creative spells might be useful, but I can only practically take the boring old workhorses because otherwise all I'll have to face the horde of monsters is a Polymorph Self.

[gaudium-et-spes.livejournal.com]

I usually prefer the flexibility of (2) (aka D&D sorcerers), though (1) has it's benefits as well. The problem with (3) is that it's totally up to the GM on how strictly that's enforced, which leads to very different game balance, depending on the GM.

-Chris

[ivy03.livejournal.com]

I prefer backlash, of course. I hate spells per day systems like D&D because I feel like I'm trying to mind read the GM for what I'll need. I always end up with not the right thing or something cool but useless. I like free-form magic, but I think I could go for a set spell list in a limitless magic setting. Depends of course on how cool the spells are.

Plus, both the spells and the paradox are fun for me, so there's no bad.

[cubby-t-bear.livejournal.com]

Some hybrid mix of 2 and 3 (limited number of spell slots, flexibility in choosing which ones to cast at casting time, but possibility of backlash) fits best with my mental construct of fantasy magic, I suppose.

I've grown used to (1) after many many years of D&D. It dramatically weakens wizards at lower levels because of too few spell slots carrying situationally useful spells, but starting around 7th level or so, it gives immense flexibility and customizability. A massive variety of highly detailed, specific spell effects can be a pain to cope with, but it also allows you precise control over the type of effect you want to achieve.

In other words, I find (1) a lot like computer programming :) You have to pick which libraries to load, and you have to spend a lot of time with the references, but that gives you concrete, detailed, and extremely precise power to apply. Fantasy magic tends not to be like that in fiction, however :)

[edgehopper.livejournal.com]

I prefer (2), particularly the spell points version (hence my obsession with D&D Psionics lately, and my choice of Domain Spontaneity for Aetrius's last feat). It's much more fun to play a flexible character. Backlash is a neat idea, but I don't like the way it acts in a typical WoD/Mage game for the same reason Chris noted--enforcement is too much at the GM's whim. Similarly, it often feels like the effectiveness of magic is completely at the GM's whim in a Mage game (wait, he can summon a demon from the 9th circle of hell, and I can't make my bullets explode on impact?) At least with set spell lists you know what you can do.

Note, by the way, that Meri's abilities actually provide some combination of (2) and (3), thanks to Reckless Dweomer.

[chuckro.livejournal.com]

This is a very good point. On one hand, leaving magic effects basically up to GM fiat can lead to much more creative solutions to problems and much more of a "group storytelling" experience. But it can lead to players feeling gipped because their magic isn't as effective as they think it should be; and requires the GM to leave a lot of fluidity to his plot. It's frustrating to try to railroad D&D players, but it can be done. Mage players? Ain't happening at all.

Mage (and World of Darkness in general) pretty much requires the players to accept that their characters are going to get totally shafted from time to time, and they have to play along with that. Which makes it an ideal game to play with writers who like to tortue their characters, like Jethrien or Ivy03; or actors, who typically value story and character reaction over all else. It's a lousy game to play with people who "play to win."

[chuckro.livejournal.com]

Good points, bad example: Polymorph Self will turn you into any number of splatbook-described hideously-overpowered forms. War troll? Chain devil? The wizard will be a blender for the purpose of this combat...

[chuckro.livejournal.com]

Given that your style of play is self-discribed as "I do whatever is the most fun", this is not surprising.

[chuckro.livejournal.com]

D&D magic, in practice, emulates fantasy fiction very poorly. If nothing else, there really isn't a system for "And then the spell went horribly wrong and turned us all into pigs." (Well, unless you're a wild mage, but even then, you need to deliberately invoke it.)

It's not surprising that I'm not the greatest at picking spells. I'm a crap programmer, too.

[jethrien.livejournal.com]

Ok, true. Sorry, I'm actually having trouble remembering some of the less generic spells right now, given that I never used them. You know what I mean, though - you find yourself needing "kill stuff" spells, and you've got some carefully calibrated spell that would be exceedingly useful in a handful of situations, but will not actually keep monsters from eating your head.

[chuckro.livejournal.com]

There are actually more defined rules for how effective Mage magick is supposed to be, we just tend not to use them. There are charts and everything that determine the number of success needed, and how that translates into range, duration, damage, etc.

Next time we play WoD, play a werewolf or vampire instead of a mage. Gifts and Disciplines have much more set and defined effects than sphere magic. They're less flexible, but also less determined by GM fiat.

What it really boils down to, though, is that World of Darkness is a storytelling system, and actively encourages abandoning rules in favor of story and roleplay whenever possible. D&D puts the rules framework first, and you fit the story within it. Which you prefer is, obviously, a matter of preference.

[edgehopper.livejournal.com]

See my cleric's memorization of Banishment or Zone of Truth for a better example. Or the frequent taking of spells that work on all living creatures, only to get into a fight with undead.

[jethrien.livejournal.com]

Exactly. And the DM can't really tell you, because that would ruin the plot, but you have to pick spells with no hint of what would be useful.

And this is why I probably will never play anything but spontaneous casters again for D&D magic users.

[gaudium-et-spes.livejournal.com]

In D&D at least, this is what Scribe Scroll is for. For all of those "wow that's pretty cool, but I probably won't need it spells" keep 'em as a scroll instead. Take Knock for instance. Every wizard should have a scroll of Knock lying around.

-Chris

[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.

[cubby-t-bear.livejournal.com]

There is such a system, but only for idiots who try magic beyond their reach (see, e.g., scroll mishaps). So it's possible for the sorceror's apprentice, but not the sage sorceror who knows when he's playing with a spell above his level :)

[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

[bigscary.livejournal.com]

I tend to like 4, with a dash of 3 (Unknown Armies ahoy!). However, for D&D however, I tend to like the two systems currently in existence (I hate the attempts to graft MP systems onto D&D -- see Psionics), and have been itching to try a combination thereof in a game: You have sorcerer-like spells per day, allocated within schools.

Ex: For a given level, you have N spells per day. At the start of the day you allocate within your schools (x illusions, y evocations... z divinations, where x+y...+z=N), but otherwise cast as a sorcerer ("spells known" would be small but not limited, just expensive/hard to expand. Specialists, here, would have the ability to convert freely into their school.

[bigscary.livejournal.com]

To be more precise, UA also has a healthy dose of (2) for adept magick -- though it depends on the adept. Skinners don't really store charges (though it's still arguably (2) if they're slowly killing themselves), and Entropomancers are basically doubling-down on (3).

[chuckro.livejournal.com]

My sorceror in a current D&D campaign has been doing that with spells I think a awesome but wouldn't use regularly. I have yet to use a single one of them.

Honestly, all I want is someone with a Fort save low enough that Baleful Polymorph would work on them...

[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.

[chuckro.livejournal.com]

Have you seen the Arcana Unearthed system? It fuses sorceror and wizard--basically, every spell is "in your spellbook", and every morning, you "ready" the equivalent of a sorceror's spell list. Then you spontaneously cast from that list.

I feel like there's still too much prep time involved in that, but it adds a lot more flexibility and your system remined me of it.