Magic System: Definitive or Open-Ended?

[Ron Edwards]

Hi Ethan,

Couple questions, so a couple of answers.

1) Despite the thread title, Gwen's wrestling with two issues, not just one - she specifically asked how to deal with a perceived flaw in her Attribute/Skill setup. One solution to the problem she cited is to have Attributes or Skills but not both. It's on-topic and helping with something she asked about.

There are many threads to check out regarding this topic in a wider sense than her question, so take a peek through thread titles or perhaps one of us will post some links for you.

2) You've mis-read the posts a bit, I'm afraid. No one is saying that Attribute & Skill systems are "plain wrong, don't do them." Some games which use the concept very well include Little Fears, Swashbuckler, The Riddle of Steel, and Arrowflight. However, none of them add Attribute and Skill together to get a target number, but use a combination of dice-pool and target number instead. If you're interested in more thoughts on this matter, we can take it to RPG Theory.

Gwen, this is your thread - are the comments helpin' any? Would you prefer to stay more with the open/listed magic issue, or are both topics OK by you?

Best,
Ron

[contracycle]

I plan on composing a mass variety of ingredients to use (mercury, griffins feather, pheonix ashes, sulpher, etc...) so there will be many many many many possible potions to be created.

My question is:  Would the game be better served if each possible alchemical potion was already pre-defined and given system mechanics for it... or should each ingredient have certain "vauge" properties and the players decide what their potion does.

I'd be inclined to recommend "vague".  Adopt the "enigmatic reference" idea from HW, so that the nature of the ingredient is such a reference, Pheonix Ashes.  You already have a system for how many ingredients can be incorporated, if the the ingredients were rated against a Potency scale you;d have two sets of inputs to decide what the specific intended effect was.

Equally, you could construct the system, as per alchemy, not purely on the combination of ingredients but in part through the alchemical processes.  Precipitation, combustion, etc.  Thus which ingredient you add in which sequence may have an influence on final outcome.  Seeing as you are free from physics, and can use inherently magical materials, you might be able to create/prefigure a large number of possible actions by establishing a "recipe" of ingredients and process.

[M. J. Young]

Which would you rather participate in with a game?  Would you rather thumb through a book looking at thousands of potions to see what you could possibly make, or would you rather sit down and mull over system mechanics to make sure the potion you invented fits within the boundaries of the game?

I'm going to try to broaden your thinking by rejecting the dichotomy. Let me suggest a system that might achieve what you want with less reference material in the game book for the list approach and less trouble for everyone than the construction approach.

Player announces he wants to make a potion, and he wants the potion to do X. The system provides general guidelines by which the referee can determine how difficult it is to do X. For example, potions which give offensive power have difficulty A if they increase probable attack potential this much, B if they exceed this but not that, and C above that; defensive potions similarly rated; tactical, general purpose, and other kinds of potions general categorized for difficulty. The referee states the difficulty of creating that potion. The dice are rolled.

If the difficulty is achieved or exceeded the potion is created; then either use a relative success system (reading the dice as rolled) or roll again to determine how successful it is. A less successful potion requires more ingredients, and probably ingredients that are harder or more dangerous or more expensive (probably the same thing from different perspectives) to acquire. An extremely successful potion would only require a couple of ingredients that the character has available.

Using this guideline, select potion ingredients as appropriate for color.

The system isn't as subject to the abuse you fear from players working the ingredients; you don't have to list scads of potions; and you've got player flexibility to invent potions that do what they specifically want.

Now, maybe this doesn't fit your system, but at least it should help you consider that you're not caught between A and B--there are probably a dozen other ways it could be done, none subject to the problems you're attempting to avoid.

Footnote: on the attributes and skills thing, there are a few people on these boards who tend to jump on that as a problem as soon as they see it, without asking critical questions. For example, does the value of the skill have effects which the value of the attribute does not? For example, in Multiverser, attribute+skill will (with a few other numbers) determine your chance to hit, and a character with incredible strength may have the same chance to hit as a well-trained swordsman; but number of attacks is based on skill only, so the swordsman will be quicker and hit more often. There are far more variables in most skill applications than your chance of success; if those variables are tied to one score or the other, independent of the success roll, it distinguishes the scores and gives them individual importance. Certainly if the only reason you're doing it that was is that's how these things are done, don't be locked into that; but if you've got other ideas about why the attribute+skill mechanic matters in your game, don't abandon it just because it raises a ruckus around here sometimes.

Hope this helps.

--M. J. Young

[Gwen]

Well, originally I don't see why a simple "Atrribute + Skills" mechanic should be changed just so it is not "Attribute + Skills."  Since there is no way to proove or disproove that this is a better/as good/worse mechanic than any other, why such a staunch debate to shut it out?

Greyorm has a very good point that someone with a higher Attribute is at an advantage, because they have a larger number to be used in tandem with all skills related to said attribute.  But, since it is increasingly more expensive to raise Attributes and comparitivly inexpensive to simply raise skills, that is where the balance lies.

This game is not intended to be realistic.  There is a race of lions who live like bees who make blue honey.  One of the cities exists inside the belly of an elderly Griphon.  This is almost a dream-like world with floating cities and steam powered sentient locomotives.

Therefore, there isn't much reaslism in the dice mechanics.  Lengthly charts deciphering the statistical odds of Attribute:3 and Skill:5 are not the focus.  Characters perform very heroic, very strange, very powerful feats to accomplish their goals.  Their defeats are equally as harrowing, as strange, and as permanent.

The mechanics are designed to leave characters bruised, battered, and broken.  Steam powered replacements are soon installed where arms once were; special transformation potions give characters a braid of vines where an arm once was.

Characters are the hero... and considered to always succeed in any reasonable task.  The dice are rolled to ensure one thing: they do not fail miserably.  Even if they fail miserably, the most often will survive.  However, they will take on a very strange injury which might make them wish they were dead.

And, really, even if they die, they keep playing as a decaying corpse until they find someone to fix them.

So the mechanic isn't really a big focus, therefore, not worthy of much debate.

The comments do help, however.  It seems that a fair amount feel that a list of ingredients with vauge potential powers would be the best and then players could construct their own potions from that list.

I do appreciate everyone's input!

[ethan_greer]

Clehrich, Ron, thanks for setting me straight.

In regard to the matter at hand: Looking back again at Gwen's original post - why not, instead of making the number of ingredients allowed dependent on Attribute+Skill, make the number of ingredients be dictated by Skill alone?  So, that character with a low attribute/high skill could make more elaborate potions than the character with high attribute/low skill.  They'd both have the same target number, but the guy with more skill would have an advantage.

[Valamir]

Gwen three things:

1) I am not one of the camp who generally gives warning re: attributes + skills. I don't buy the arguement that when added together they are "broken" or any of that.  So I don't have any intrinsic bias against such a system.

2) I think the world you just described sounds wonderful.  What a unique and interesting place to adventure.

3) Given number 2...why would you possibly want a well used standard attribute + skill game mechanic in a setting about dream like wonder.  I am a huge fan of making the mechanic match your setting, and this mechanic given your description above sticks out like a sore thumb to me.

I suggest you check out the game Otherkind to get a sense of some non traditional dice mechanics that help capture the feeling of the kind of setting you're looking for.  I can't imagine wanting to play in a setting of transformed vines and sentient steam engines using such a standard non colorful type of mechanic.

[greyorm]

Well, originally I don't see why a simple "Atrribute + Skills" mechanic should be changed just so it is not "Attribute + Skills."  Since there is no way to proove or disproove that this is a better/as good/worse mechanic than any other, why such a staunch debate to shut it out?

I should note, I'm not against it being done or against its use: pointing out a problem doesn't mean one is against something, after all. As I stated, I was wondering why you had chosen such a system, if there was a reason to put such heavy focus on the attributes. You've answered that question.

Balancing the two by making skills much cheaper and easier to purchase seems a workable solution to balance problems, and MJ's suggestion about having ranks of skill influence more than simply the die-roll (ie: added benefits) would go a long way towards clearing up my remaining edginess about such a system.

Also, definitely pay attention to both Gareth (contracycle) and MJ's posts: good ideas there for doing what it sounds like you would like with the alchemy system. Setting the potency of a potion as measured by the effect it has system-wise/mechanically as seperate from the desired effect would go a long way to curb any abuse you're worried about!

Finally, Ralph (Valamir) has a good point: with the world you've described, I think the system should contain more color than the standard Attribute + Skill method you have...something that really speaks to the heroism and dream-like nature of the setting.

However, to understand where Ralph is coming from, and why I support the same, you might wish to read the short essay "System Does Matter" by Ron Edwards.

I look foward to seeing more about your game!

[Fletcher]

Gwen, I'm responding to the other question you posted: Whether or not to use pre-defined potions. My vote goes to the pre-defined potions. Here are my reasons.

1. Pre-defined potions will be much easier to balance. You can assign a cost based on game effect and not have to worry about unexpected combinations of potions running amok. This also works the other way. Sometimes interesting potions might end up being too expensive just because the system they are designed in.

2. You can have a more "magic is strange and doesn't make sense" feel with pre-defined potions because you won't be constrained to a specific system. This seems to lend well to your dream like world. I can imagine much more interesting descriptions of the potions if you let your imagination dictate their creation process, rather than a specific game system.

3. Potion creation rules might turn into a mini-game and detract from the role-playing game that you are designing.

When you described your world I immediately thought of the cakes and mushrooms in Alice in Wonderland. I was wondering if you thought about using more than just potions for your magic (such as cakes, mushrooms, etc). Perhaps some ingredients are magical because they were watered my some alchemical concoction or have been passed through the digestive system of some magical creature.

Potions could also be balanced based on their size, taste, side-effects, or other factors. A powerful potion might be very large and thus take time to drink. Characters would have to make some sort of constitution check to funnel the potion down quickly. I have introduced "poor-men's" healing potions into a game I ran. They healed you, but tasted like slugs and made you nauseous. This resulted in a potion that could not be used in combat type situations and had a bit of interest.

If you want to introduce a potion making system with fewer game balance headaches then you could have the pre-defined potions be a little cheaper than the freeform ones. The pre-defined potions have had many of the top alchemists working on their refinement for centuries after all, right? This way you know that potions that players create won't be all to powerful and when you see a freeform potion that you like you can get your NPC alchemists to work on refining it and knock its cost down a little.

I have often thought about potions myself and think that they could be much more interesting than they currently are in many Fantasy games. I certainly look forward to a game that uses potions as the center of magic.

[Mike Holmes]

Ooh, I get to cite Mike's Standard Rant #4, the one that's so far been less frequently useful.

Basically it points out the trouble that one can get into if using a point based chargen system with a Skill/Attribute system. There are lots of solutions, however, some better than others. Gwen, you may well have already adopted one or more of these solutions. In which case the only argument against flat adding attribute/skill systems is that some people find the effects of attributes to be overstated. But that's simply a matter of esthetics, of course.

So you're system may be fine. All depends on chargen, esthetics and what the focus of the game is about.

Mike

[Gwen]

While I wholeheartedly agree that some non-conventional dice mechanics would certain fit into the super-mario-ish setting I have proposed, I had attempted several times to make such a mechanic, but failed to pull it off successfully.

Originally, I figured the inclusion of different sided dice would work well with the helter-skeltered world, dice ranging from d4 to d20 make for very difficult mechanics.  I subscribe to the "static target number" for task resolution and that more dice are rolled for high skills, less dice are rolled for low skills (something along the vein of 7th Seas.)

However, a static target number is difficult to establish between a d4 and a d20.  In the d4, d6, d8, d10, d12, d20 chain of command, d8 and d10 lie in the middle.  So what should be the static target number?

4-5?  Four is half of a d8 and 5 is half of a d10.  This means someone with an average skill would roll a d8 or a d10 and succeed half of the time.

This idea works fine on the low end- a d4 still has a 25% chance to roll a 4 -but the high end gets way out of whack.  A d12 would succeed nearly 2/3 of the time, and a d20 over 3/4 of the time.

The target number could be raised or lowered depending on the difficulty of the task, but raising the target number by even 1 or 2 makes it 5-6 or 6-7.

Now, someone with a d6 skill (below average) will hardly ever succeed!  Sure, a below average skill would mean it would be difficult to succeed, but the static target number of 6-7 represents an average task.  I know plenty of below average drivers who drive every day and never crash.

Basically, what I'm driving at, is I am able to sit down and create a simple, organized system.  I can make up an interesting setting, but as for a non-trad dice mechanic- I don't have much practice, much success and I feel a poorly developed mechanic would hurt the game more than a boring one.

[Jason Lee]

To list or not to list?

You're kind of fighting the impossible to answer question.  I'll put game balance issues aside for a moment, because I think you can balance any approach.

A freeform or 'creation system with examples' approach empowers the players to be creative (I would classify these as different approaches, but I don't think you want pure freeform no matter what, so I lumped them together).  However, the system has to be more broad.  Which normally leads to attacks doing X damage and shields providing X defense, where X is based of some character trait or a roll.  You will also be requiring people to be creative, which is harder for some than others (sometimes people will just say 'uh...I dunno what's it supposed to do?').  You lose detail, but gain flexibility.  Creation systems also tend to be boring to read in my opinion.  The visuals are intentionally stripped out of the ability descriptions (so the players can be free to create them) and they are often very number heavy.  I know they weren't written by the same people, but contrast the power system in Hero versus the spell lists of Unknown Armies (as extreme examples of a 'dry'/'not dry' read) .

A lengthy list of potions ensures you get the proper color in the game.  It also means you can give every potion a unique system, with as much detail as you desire.  You'll also be giving the player a list to shop with, which I think is sort of fun.  However, you cannot possibly account for all effects.  You'll be limitting the players to what's in the book.  You'll gain detail, but lose flexibility.  This sort of thing I think is generally more fun to read, because more color can be infused into the text.  However, lists tend to be longer; which means they take more time to read, and it takes more time to locate them in the book in the middle of game.

I wish I had the answer, but I also wish I could teleport.  For your game a creation system sounds a little more inline with your goals...maybe.

Abuse?

Characters are the hero... and considered to always succeed in any reasonable task.  The dice are rolled to ensure one thing: they do not fail miserably.  Even if they fail miserably, the most often will survive.  However, they will take on a very strange injury which might make them wish they were dead.

This one comment makes me think the whole abuse issue is moot.  If they are going to succeed most of the time anyway, don't worry about abusing the system.  Sounds like you've already choosen to put a lot of trust in the players, stick with it.  It'll turn the idea of restrictions to prohibit abuse, into guidelines for character power.

Stat + Skill?

The comment also makes me think the dice system should be very simple.  If you're only concerned with rolling to see if the character pooches it big time you'll probably want super low search and handling time.  I personally like Stat + Skill, but just having Skill will reduce search time.

This:
GM: "roll Stealth"
Player: "plus Dex?"
GM "yeah"
<roll>
Player: "14"

Becomes:
GM: "roll Stealth"
<roll>
Player "14"

It's just less words you have to devote to discussing the system mechanics mid game; even if you always remember to say "roll Dex plus Stealth" (I've never seen a GM actually remember to do this every time).

Fancy dice?

If I'm right about your desires stick with 1 die too.  Everyone can just hold on to their d6 incase they have to roll.  Instead of having to figure out how many of which die they need, and then get a hold of them.

Using Stat + Skill as ingredient cap?

You could just allow anyone to mix as much together as they like, but make it more risky the more they mix.  Have them roll their Alchemy against a difficulty based on how many ingredients they choose to include.  If they fail the roll the potion explodes, evaporates and gives them a third eye, comes to life as an angry Alchemy golem, or whatever.

BTW

Cool game, good luck.

[Andrew Martin]

Originally, I figured the inclusion of different sided dice would work well with the helter-skeltered world, dice ranging from d4 to d20 make for very difficult mechanics.  I subscribe to the "static target number" for task resolution and that more dice are rolled for high skills, less dice are rolled for low skills (something along the vein of 7th Seas.)

How about using D100, D20, D12, D10, D8, D6, D4 (for increasingly higher skill) with a target number of "1"? The closer the player gets to "1", the better the character does. A result of "1" is exactly the effect the player desired of the character. A higher number on the dice is the number of minor complications the character suffers from in order to get success, or the player can choose to delay the success until the next roll.

If the task is particularly hard, lower the target number to zero or negative one.

This is loosely based on Vince's "Chalk Outlines" along with my Swift system, and will be a part of the next version of my S combat system.

[ethan_greer]

I might also (humbly) suggest something like Pollies.  It doesn't have an attribute/skill system, but it sounds like the dice mechanic could be suitable for what you're going for...

[Gwen]

I had originally considered Pollies before and I don't remember why I had decided against it.

I will definitely give it another look and I might change my mind.

Andrew- your idea about d100 - d4 witha target number of 1 is interesting.  I will try to expound on that idea and see what I can come up with.  Thanks!