[Class/Level Fantasy Game] Spell Deck Mechanics

[Sean]

Hi there -

At http://1.myfreebulletinboard.com/calithena-forum-12.html&sid=325f0a890ce28415737f2f10a0411369 I've been trying to get a game out of my system.

I was looking for feedback in particular on the following mechanic. The idea is to have something in the neighborhood of a 'fire & forget' magic system, but instead of spell lists on your character sheet to have a smaller number of spell cards - cards which you can trade to other players, which you find in play, which the players of the game make themselves and submit to the deck in hopes of drawing later, which you might quest for, and so on.

You can find this on my game website but mostly I'm looking for technical criticism of the mechanic itself, so I've posted it below. Does it work? Any obvious problems? Any good ideas for me to consider? Thanks in advance for any help.


The Spell Deck

Submitting Spells – At the beginning of any game session, anyone can submit one or more new spells to the deck. Here are some reasons you might submit a spell:
1. Because you know what kind of magic you want your (or someone else's) character to have and think of a spell you'd like them to be able to cast.
2. Because you think a certain spell is emblematic of or enriches your group's setting in some way.
3. Because you have a cool idea for a magical effect you'd like to see realized in play.

All spells are in one of five places: the deck, a player's hand, the GM's hand, the discard pile, or the dead pile.

Cards in the deck:
-   Cards enter the deck when any player submits them, everyone understands the spell's effect and agrees on the appropriate level for the enchantment, and there is no objection based on identity or similarity to spells in the dead pile.
-   Cards enter the deck from the GMs hand when he
-   Cards leave the deck when a player draws them.

Cards in a player's hand:
-   Cards enter a player's hand when the player's character finds a spell during an adventure or helps defeat an entity which itself has spells. If there are multiple magic-using characters involved they should distribute the spells evenly between them, with ties broken in favor of the player currently carrying fewer spells.
-   Players may also trade cards between them as they see fit, or gift one another with cards.
-   Whenever a player has more cards than his spell limit, he must immediately discard down to his spell limit or below. He may choose which spells to discard.
-   Cards also leave a player's hand when the spell on the card is used up, going to the discard pile.

Cards in the GMs hand:
-   Cards enter the GMs hand each time he takes on playing a new spellcasting entity. He draws as many cards as he needs up to that creature's spell limit if he does not have that many cards in his hand already.
-   When a GM character casts a spell (appropriate to that character's level, etc., just as if the character was a PC), it goes to the discard pile.
-   When a GM character which casts spells is slain by a group of characters, each spell-casting character among them may draw a spell from the GMs hand. If the GMs hand does not contain enough spells for each magic-using character to draw one, all wizards draw before any wizard-warriors, and players with fewer spells currently in their hand draw before players with more spells currently in their hand. (Remember though that after the draw players may trade spells amongst themselves freely before discarding.)

Cards in the discard pile:
-   Cards enter the discard pile by having the spells on them used up, or when players discard them because they are over their spell limit due to spells acquired in play.
-   If any player in the game wishes, a card in the discard pile may be removed from future play. Such cards go to the dead pile and are no longer used in the game.
-   Otherwise, the discard pile is shuffled back into the deck at the end of each session.

Cards in the Dead Pile:
-   Cards enter the dead pile from the discard pile at the end of a session as a result of someone deciding that that spell should no longer be included in the game.
-   If a player submits a spell from the dead pile (or highly similar to a spell in the dead pile) to the deck, the current players in the game must all agree to accept that spell back into the deck.


How Spells Work: Each spell has a specific effect, defined on the card. The default is that spells may be cast once before discarding, can be learned by any wizard or wizard-warrior, and can be cast in any situation, including combat. Any of these can be modified for individual spells.


Advice for adjusting the spell defaults:

Number of Uses: The main reason for adjusting this would be to support a fun concept. For example, a spell called "The Seven Keys of Shazar-Dhum" might be usable to unlock up to seven locks. It's possible to have a spell be permanent until discarded; such spells should generally have some character-modifying or situational drawback, or else a higher-than-normal learning restriction. For example, a spell called "Eyes of the Serpent" might give a character the ability to charm others as often as the player wishes outside of combat, but might also give the character actual serpent's eyes, with changed visual capacity and an obvious sorcerous mark. If drawbacks of a permanent spell (or any spell) are permanent even after the spell is discarded voluntarily, this should be noted in the spell description.

Learning Requirements: Some spells may be learnable by warriors, though these should be quite rare. Such spells will still count towards the spell limit of a wizard or wizard-warrior that learns them. It is not recommended to make any spells off-limits for wizard-warriors.

The more common learning requirements will be based on level. There is no requirement that even the most powerful spells be restricted from any character's use, but if one does wish to restrict them, a good rule of thumb is that a spell which allows the destruction or transformation of an entity of a given scale should require that the user of the spell be the next level up from that scale.

Recall that scales are groups of levels relating to the possible stakes of a character's destiny:

Character Level What's at Stake
1-3 Your own family, local community, small village, etc.
4-7 Populous farm valley, substantial town, etc.
8-11 Large city, barony, etc.
12-15 Kingdom, large duchy or barony, several city-states, etc.
16-19 Empire, continent, large kingdom, several kingdoms, etc.
20 The whole world, the gods, Immortal Power, etc.

Thus a burst of demonic flame that might destroy a small village could be restricted to characters of 4th level or higher; a spell that created a blistering rain of acid that could wipe out a city district (but not the whole city) or devastate a small town or farming valley might require an 8th level caster; a spell that could mentally deceive an entire city as to one's public status could be restricted to a 12th level caster; a spell creating a plague sufficient to infect a whole kingdom could require a 16th level caster; and a spell that lets you summon up a million-soldier necromantic army to conquer an empire, or draw a moon down from the sky and crash it into a planet, could be restricted to 20th level characters. Such restrictions are optional, however: sometimes it can be quite entertaining to put massive power in the hands of a weaker character, for a variety of reasons.

Situational Requirements: Again, these are mostly to support color. A charm meant to protect a character's soul from destruction might be instantly castable in any situation; a complex ritual to summon a malevolent demon might require a day, week, or month of game time. The only other reason to support a situational restriction would be if you felt that the spell should not be used in combat for some reason, or should take multiple combat rounds to complete.

[Sean]

Oh yeah, and these are the max. cards you can hold by class and level - nothing else modifies this number.

Level Wizard-Warrior Wizard
1 1 3
2 1 4
3 2 5
4 3 7
5 3 8
6 4 9
7 5 10
8 5 12
9 6 13
10 7 14
11 7 15
12 8 17
13 9 18
14 9 19
15 10 20
16 11 22
17 11 23
18 12 24
19 13 25
20 13 27

[mutex]

Hello, it sounds like you had a similar inspiration to my "Dungeon of 1,000 Blank White Cards" http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=16885.0.

I don't really see any issues as long as the card descriptions are clear enough, but the real deal is whether your group has a good social contract.

[Sean]

Hi, Mutex!

Yeah, I remember that dungeon of 1000 cards post - that would almost be the 'universalis' version. I want to constrain a lot of the game more tightly than that though.

The puzzle that the spell deck is solving is a way to make magic another locus of group input of the fantastic ('reinforcing the dream') into the game.

I agree with you that there are social contract issues. The most obvious enforcement mechanism of those is that any card in the deck may become available to anyone, so a player who designs a devastating enchantment might find it winding up in the GMs hand. I suppose I have to decide whether I want to regulate things like the "Wand of 1000 Fireballs" in the rules or not though.

I have been toying with the idea of making all artifacts and magical stuff more generally part of the 'spell deck', including magic swords etc., which would probably cause me to change the name to 'enchantment deck' or something of the like. This would fit in with the wish fulfillment aspect of the game too (if you want your hero to have a particular bad-assed enchanted sword, you can submit it to the deck, and hope it doesn't wind up in the hands of your nemesis, etc.).

I also think I want a way for specific spells/enchantments to be accessed as part of the adventure goal mechanism, but that will be an easy enough hack when the time comes - it's just another form of player input (besides Destiny and Connections - Connections also interact with Goals in a way I haven't posted on the site yet which is important to enable certain kinds of player choices). Maybe the thing to do would be to have players take Connections to items they don't have yet, so that they are part of the pool of things to get worked in. Actually, that's a good idea: also a good idea to have 'item' spells/enchantments require Connections for Warriors and possibly all character types rather than taking up spell slots.

Anyway, thanks for the feedback.

[Kesher]

Hey Sean.

Okay, in general, I like this idea a lot.  I'm all about player protagonism and investment these days (well, I guess I always was; I just didn't know it!), and this is a great way to get everyone interested in the magical aspect of things.  Even someone who habitually plays the Gruff Barbarian can have cool ideas for spells!

I would say, however, that the fuzziest aspect is perhaps the most important:  How are spells defined?  The "scope" chart is a great first half, in terms of a litmus test for power, but I would suggest for the other half to make it a requirement that every spell be defined.  Back in the day, after reading an article in one of the early Best of Dragon Magazine collections on Vancian magic, I started making all my magic user players rename the spells they took.  They had to use one of the following formulas:  [somebody's] [adjective] [noun]  or  The [adjective/adverb] [noun/verb] of [someone].  There was some embellishment, but anyhow, the point is that combined with your scope chart, a specific name would help nail down exactly what the spell does.  Plus, then they all sound as fantastically arcane as your example in the text!

As for who gets what spells when, it seems to me that allowing anyone to use any spell, no matter how powerful, might mess with the otherwise gradual progression of characters' ability to affect the world as they rise in level, in connection with their Destiny.  Why not have spell levels?  Something like, a wizard can cast any spell whose level doesn't exceed his own +1, or something?  I remember in the 1st ed. AD&D DM's Guide there was a great image, in a section talking about magic users gaining spells, of mages combing the world, obsessively collecting spells and hoarding them until their erudition caught up with their collection.  This would in no way interfere with players drawing spells randomly; they just might not be able to use some of them right away.

Could a single, devestating spell be a wizard character's Destiny?

Also, when you mention characters gaining spells from defeated foes, I assumed you meant from evil-wizard types; or did you mean from creatures which innately cast spells as well?

Aaron

[mutex]

I am reminded of some fantasy book series where a whole bunch of powerfully magical swords were discovered.  Of course, everybody went to war to collect them all.  Never finished the whole series, but as I gather, if someone collected all the swords, they'd get the whole boodle.

Anyway, the swords were a McGuffin, but they granted real power to the holder.  So, I could see you using artifact versions of your cards to similar effect.

Another Analogue is those words from TSoY (someone help me out here).  The point being that each is unique, and can only be used by one person.  I love that.  It's beautiful.

I think you could do something really similar with your spell cards.

As far as people making overpowered cards, I'd assume the risk of antagonists gaining control of them would be a reasonable limiting factor, along with the social contract, and the general tone of the game.

[Sean]

Good feedback. Thanks, guys.

On the 'spell formulas' thing: that's an interesting creative constraint. Certainly it gets away from the "sleep", "magic missile", "detect evil" colorless model. On the other hand, one might wish e.g. a world of white wizards and elves a la Tolkien where such names are out of place. I'll give it more thought. It's true that more guidelines of some kind may be in order, and as Clinton shows in Donjon and TSoY - and going back I believe to an unpublished system of Ron's called Fantasy For Real - name constraints are a good way to do this.

Mutex, yeah, uniqueness is a big deal. Some may object to an artifact of the system, namely, if you're sitting on the Sleep card say, you also know that no svart alfar wizard is going to throw that spell at you as long as you hold it. Granted, one could put in duplicate cards if one hated this feature, but having each spell be a sort of unique thing in principle - sure, the Immortal Empress of Solara could cast in in theory and probably has, but she isn't going to cast it on you if it's in your hand - seems to me to increase the 'magicalness' of magic, at least a little. Likewise, not knowing what you're going to get most of the time seems to have some benefits as well as drawbacks.

--------------------

Here's an issue I'm struggling with a little now. Characters have Connections and Spells and Equipment. I wanted to make magic items Connections (bad-ass swords, ancient staves, artifacts) or else Spells (potions, scrolls - if a warrior wants to use the potion some witch has to give it to him). But the fact is Item Connections don't seem to me to work the way I want Connections to work (notice how in DitV you can take Relationships to just about anything but a thing...there's a reason for that). Failing that, I could treat them as Spells or Equipment. Treating them as Spells is aesthetically satisfying in some ways, but then I have to give Warriors at least a few spell slots, probably with the understanding that they can only be filled by items, and then we get another way to distinguish things on the cards...sort of not-simple and ugly. So I'm leaning towards magic items being plain old equipment, though I don't like that so well - and I'd also sort of like players to be able to submit magic items to a deck in the same way as spells. So I'm a little stuck on that. I suppose the items could be equipment in terms of game mechanics, but marked with an I or E on the card and still in the spell deck - and then the GM can give them to any of his monsters when he draws them, not just to the wizards - yikes!

--------

Oh yeah, equipment. I hate big long equipment lists just like I hate big long spell lists. Here's what I'm thinking fer equipment rules:

- a character can have a number of personal, character-defining items up to its Charisma score;

- when preparing for a particular adventure, a character can have a number of specific tools obtained for that adventure up to its Intelligence score

- if a character wants to pull a small item out of its ass to deal with a particular situation, and there is space on either the core equipment or the tools list, a Wisdom roll is necessary to have it.

- Finally, some simple upper limit on large items (weapons, armor, etc.) based on Strength and/or Constitution.

Whoo, I'm really behind the 8-ball now. Thanks again, maybe more tonight after work.

[mutex]

Well, if you really want characters to have Connections to their powerful magical items, the items could always be bound to some kind of entity.  For example, Stormbringer in the Elric Saga, or EJ in GrailQuest.  Essentially, the object is an NPC with a very low movement rate :D

[Sean]

I thought of that, but even when the item is a 'Demon', there's a fundamental asymmetry between the intelligent-item-NPC and the relationship-connection-NPC.

If Wulf sacrifices his lover Euphrosynia to slay the dreadwurm, that's a hard but possibly valid decision. If Wulf decides to let the dreadwurm live because he can't imagine life without her, ditto.

If Wulf sacrifices the Tooth of Kraal to slay the dreadwurm, that's a somewhat hard but almost automatically valid decision. If Wulf decides to keep his precious sword because he'd rather have it than destroy the rampaging monster, that's most likely lame in the extreme, and if it's not lame it's because the situation is very nonstandard (some kind of erotic relationship with an intelligent sword, or his dead father's spirit inside the blade, or whatever. Though even in those cases the choice to sacrifice the item is almost always more obvious/straightforward than the choice to sacrifice a flesh-and-blood person).

You can make these kinds of choices about people, social bodies, ethical codes/religions, and places, but (though of course a clever person can always find exceptions) when you make them about things the case degenerates, at least for me.

That said, someone could write a bittersweet RPG about the travails of doomed intelligent swords and the feelings they have for their upright paladin masters, beloved paragons of justice who simply don't fully appreciate there's a person in there with the +5 holy avenging power, and sacrifice the blade for a greater good at an appropriate time. They're out there saving the world and healing the poor and downtrodden, trying to care for everyone, but they just don't notice the loyal blade that serves them with all its heart and devotion except in passing. Call it "Sword Stories". But that's not the RPG I'm trying to write.

Keep the comments coming, though, they're great. You should PM me your real name so I can credit you when the time comes.

[Sean]

Kesher:

As far as power progression goes, the way to address your concern might be just to make the scale rules ironclad. The idea then would be that magic could never effect anything more than the scale you had just left behind, so that there's no 'instant destiny grab' in play. Come to think of it, I think I have to do that.

Could a single, devestating spell be a wizard character's Destiny?

This is a good question and relates to the issue of what wizards do. The wizard in this game is reinterpreted as a hero, essentially, who's got the goal of becoming a sorcerer-king or immortal empress or a Merlin-like immortal counselor to other heroes, or maybe who wants to save the world, or even a village from a nearby dragon, or whatever. Character Destinies are strongly tied into the setting on purpose: you decide that you want to own this kingdom, or carve that barony out, or save this empire (i.e. preserve the status quo, in some sense), or be the deciding factor in an existing war between two powers, etc.

Now, here's the thing. Let's say you want to get that single, devastating spell. You submit it to the deck and hopefully it winds up in your hands, the other players support you in this. (Maybe 'magical research' is a way of drawing a new spell from the deck, spell replenishing.) So in that sense you could have the story 'my wizard rediscovers the Charm of Unbinding, as spoken in the days of eld by the Shadow Titan of Sarmis', but that story by itself won't really be the point of play, and you won't have absolute control over it. The reason you'll need the Charm of Unbinding is because, say, Chaos has twisted part of the world beyond recognition, threatening the parts of the world you've invested in at the point you choose your destiny, and by Unbinding the chaos you return the world to as it was before.

Also, when you mention characters gaining spells from defeated foes, I assumed you meant from evil-wizard types; or did you mean from creatures which innately cast spells as well?

Right, creatures which have spells. Though I do think it's consistent with the design to limit 'free' 'magic' powers in the hands of demons and that sort of thing to the bare minimum necessary to support the concept, and to have a spell draw represent the rest. In other words, if I had (say) a Type I Demon kind of thing from AD&D written up in the monster book, I'd give it natural weapons and flight and maybe some kind of scream power coz its a bird demon, plus maybe 3 spells (meaning that the GM could draw up to 3 cards in his hand if he was below that when the monster came into play). Then if the party killed it each wizard involved could pull one card from the GMs hand as a magical reward. You'd then back-engineer this into play: maybe the demon was wearing a fetish, or the wizard pulls forth its heart and says "ah! The final ingredient for the Five Fires of Zyzzeroth!", that kind of thing.

[Kesher]

Sean,

As far as power progression goes, the way to address your concern might be just to make the scale rules ironclad. The idea then would be that magic could never effect anything more than the scale you had just left behind, so that there's no 'instant destiny grab' in play. Come to think of it, I think I have to do that.

Aha.  That's a much simpler solution than my suggestion!  So, if you pull out a card whose spell-scale level is higher than you can cast, you just need to sit on it, yah?

Let's say you want to get that single, devastating spell. You submit it to the deck and hopefully it winds up in your hands, the other players support you in this. (Maybe 'magical research' is a way of drawing a new spell from the deck, spell replenishing.) So in that sense you could have the story 'my wizard rediscovers the Charm of Unbinding, as spoken in the days of eld by the Shadow Titan of Sarmis', but that story by itself won't really be the point of play, and you won't have absolute control over it. The reason you'll need the Charm of Unbinding is because, say, Chaos has twisted part of the world beyond recognition, threatening the parts of the world you've invested in at the point you choose your destiny, and by Unbinding the chaos you return the world to as it was before.

Okay, I went back and read your Destiny chapter more carefully, and that makes complete sense for what you're doing.  Though, it does bring up an interesting question: Can fulfillment of your Destiny require other items/spells/Contacts/whatever?  Sorta like Arthur not being able to heal the Kingdom (Destiny) without the Grail (item)? 

Then if the party killed it each wizard involved could pull one card from the GMs hand as a magical reward. You'd then back-engineer this into play: maybe the demon was wearing a fetish, or the wizard pulls forth its heart and says "ah! The final ingredient for the Five Fires of Zyzzeroth!", that kind of thing.

Now, that's just a beautiful idea.  I was sitting here wondering "How could that possibly make sense?", and there's the obvious answer!  Very nice!  I like the spell research thing, too; fits smoothly into the existing mechanic.

Aaron