Magic System: Definitive or Open-Ended?

[Gwen]

I am working on a Midieval Era game and the magic system is based entirely on alchemy.  Various alchemical potions give consumers the ability to fly, to maintain a fire aura, walk on water, become invisible, etc...

The system dictates a simple (Attribute + Skill = #d6) mechanic; Attributes and Skills on a scale of 0 to 6.  A combined number anywhere from 1-12.

Alchemy works in the following fashion:  Whatever your Attribute + Skill equals, that is how many ingredients you can use for your alchemical potion.  So an alchemist with 3 can use 3 ingredients, where another with 10 can use 10 ingredients- simple.

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.

Kepp in mind, there will probably be over 1,000 possible combinations.  A pre-defined list might encompass all major (and most minor) conceivable abilities.

[clehrich]

I would think the ideal thing for this would be a list of effects, and some mechanics for how to combine effects.  You might have a relatively arbitrary (or programmatic) set of additional traits, perhaps related to Earth-Air-Fire-Water, that mark the various ingredients.  These would then have combinatory effects.  For example, a Fire plus a Water would have an aggregate negative effect, while a Fire plus an Air would have an aggregate drying effect.  You might look at ArsMagica for an example of such things.

As a side note, I'm not sure why you call this alchemy.  It sounds thus far just like people are brewing up a list of magical ingredients and making it turn into powers.  What makes this (a) medieval, and especially (b) alchemical?

[greyorm]

I'm concerned that such a system gives more power to someone with a high attribute than with a high skill, making high attributes worth more.

Frex, a character with an attribute of 5 and an alchemy skill of 2 is automatically better at alchemy than a character with a 3 attribute and an alchemy skill of 5.

Is this intentional? And if so, what is the actual use of skills in this game?

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.

That all depends on what your system is trying to achieve. Does it reward player power? Or is it a more traditional-style game?

What do you perceive as the benefits to play of one method or the other?

[Gwen]

As a side note, I'm not sure why you call this alchemy. It sounds thus far just like people are brewing up a list of magical ingredients and making it turn into powers. What makes this (a) medieval, and especially (b) alchemical?

I call it alchemy because that's what it called when you mix magical components into a magical potion.  It doesn't necessarily make it medieval, it just happens to be the magic system I chose for a medieval setting.

Frex, a character with an attribute of 5 and an alchemy skill of 2 is automatically better at alchemy than a character with a 3 attribute and an alchemy skill of 5.

Is this intentional? And if so, what is the actual use of skills in this game?

The attribute linked to Alchemy is "Quin," short for Quintessence.

Maybe I didn't explain it correctly, but I'm not following your math.  Frex (Quin:5 + Alchemy:2) has a combined ability of 7.  "Other character" (Quin:3 + Alchemy:5) has a combined ability of 8.  Frex is not automatically better.

Does it reward player power?

The game is "cinematic," for lack of a better turn.  It rewards drama (getting your character involved in a deep storyline), creative combat tactics (encouraging non hack-and-slash combat), humor, clever social deception, etc...

What do you perceive as the benefits to play of one method or the other?

If everything is pre-established, then there isn't going to be a debate between the GM and players on what abilities potions can do and what effects they have on game play.  Essentially, they players might abuse this creation power.

OTOH, if I make a list of 1,000 potions, players will invariably think of potions I didn't think of.  If I make a list of 100,000 potions, someone will think of potions I didn't think of.

So there are pros and cons to both.

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?

[ethan_greer]

Seems to me a happy medium would be appropriate.  Provide the list of possible ingredients and their properties, and also provide a list of a moderate number of potions as examples, with guidelines for creating your own potions.

This sounds cool, BTW.  Good luck!

[Valamir]

There are many books available that will list in great detail a system of correspondencies and what the purported properties of various plants, stones, animal parts, etc are.  I would highly recommend checking a couple out to serve as a basis for your list of ingredients.  A handful of made up "Gryphon's tooth" ingredients will add an interesting flavor, but I wouldn't try making up everything.  Especially not when much of that work is done already.

Also I'd recommend grabbing a copy of Fantasy Wargaming by Bruce Galloway (its several decades out of print but still available from online used book purveyors relatively cheaply).  That game had a magic system that worked largely as you describe with a system of correspondencies based on the zodiac.  If one was making a making a particular wand to cast a particular kind of spell one would search the table and decide to make a wand of hornbeam, set with 7 rings of copper, bathed in lambsblood on the summer soltice;  because hornbeam, copper, the number 7, lambs, and the summer soltice were all correspondencies of the particular spell you wanted the wand for.

[Ron Edwards]

Hi Gwen,

I suggest losing the whole idea of Attribute and Skills as separate things. You can go one of two ways:

1. Attributes only, but include a "concept" phrase or even Attribute that indicates the characters' areas of expertise in general terms.

Sorcerer does this: Stamina, Will, Lore, and Cover, in which Cover is anything technical and non-sorcerous, usually defined in terms of a job or social role. No skills listed at all. Other games that do this include Amber and (in a slightly different way) Over the Edge.

2. Skills/abilities only, but include physical or personality attributes as options.

Hero Wars does this: a long list of abilities like "Greatsword" or "Relationship: troll buddy," or "Strong." Other games like this include Zero and Castle Falkenstein.

Many people are horrified at the very idea of either option, but this is usually habits/assumptions in reaction, not critical thinking or actual play. In practice, for most games, no detail or possibility is lost from play, contrary to expectations.

Best,
Ron

[Clinton R. Nixon]

Ron's totally right here - using both Attributes and Skills, especially to represent nearly the same thing, might not work so well for you.

In my current game, I've been having a lot of the same problems, which I described as "concrete magic or dynamic magic?" You can read the solutions I came up with here.

[Paul Czege]

2. Skills/abilities only...

I believe Aurora is a skills-only game. I recall being quite pleasantly surprised by this detail when reading the quickstart rules.

Paul

[clehrich]

I believe Aurora is a skills-only game. I recall being quite pleasantly surprised by this detail when reading the quickstart rules.

That's correct.  The nice thing about dropping the attributes/traits concept is that one grades quality by effect, not by what it rests upon.  Thus in Gwen's example, a brilliant alchemist isn't smarter, necessarily, just more expert in his field.  If he's very smart, he may have attained that status more rapidly, but the final effect in terms of the character now is simply a question of age.  That is, we presume that a very young alchemist with very high skills must be brilliant, while a very old alchemist with the same skills might be a little slower.

[ethan_greer]

Two things.

First, I fail to see how the "Attribute/Skill vs. Skill Only" argument is a significant factor in Gwen's question.  Not trying to be stand-offish here, just wanting to know why it has come up.

Second (and maybe this should be moved to a separate thread), what's the problem with having an Attribute/Skill dichotomy?  Are there no cases in which it is preferable to make the distinction between the two?  Seems a bit unlikely to me.  However, this is a common theme here, and I'm interested in why.

[Ben Morgan]

If everything is pre-established, then there isn't going to be a debate between the GM and players on what abilities potions can do and what effects they have on game play. Essentially, they players might abuse this creation power.

There's no such thing as an abuse-proof set of rules. Policing player behavior is not the responsibility of the rules or the game designer, but the individual gaming group. The way I look at it is, if I have to come up with rules to keep my players from cheating, maybe I'm playing with the wrong people (I know that sounds mean, but if you can't trust the people you're playing with, why play with them?). I'm not the first one to say that a good set of rules should allow the players to exercise their creativity, not attempt to hem it in.

I think Ethan's on the right track here. Ars Magica also had something along these lines. There was a list of basic-type spells, but you could also create your own.

-- Ben

[Emily Care]

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'd much rather use principles rather than thumb through lists. Giving examples is good, but list tend to limit the imagination if that's all there is to go on.

Something I like about the ars magica verb/noun (techniques/forms) magic structure is that it is nicely intuitive.  This makes it suited to making up new spells; since the mechanics have a system that's easy to apply, it's enjoyable to make up new effects on the fly.   If convenient, I'd recommend grouping your potion ingredients in ways that help the players recall what may be needed.  This allows the players to not have to disrupt their engagement with the world in order to use the magic system.  

If I was playing your game (based on the little I know about it) I would want to incorporate getting some of the items for spells as plot points.  Might base a campaign on research to find out what would be the right ingredient also.

Is level of effect simply based on number of ingredients?
Will ingredients affect others in the same potion? Having a cost-benefit trade off might be interesting if some ingredients  changed others.  Could simply be annoying of course. :)

Sounds good! Glad to hear about it.

--Emily Care

[clehrich]

Ethan Greer wrote:

First, I fail to see how the "Attribute/Skill vs. Skill Only" argument is a significant factor in Gwen's question.

I think the issue was that Gwen's system has a potion-design score equal to Skill + Attribute.  Raven pointed out that this means someone with a very high attribute is stronger than someone with a very high skill, but either mistyped (since the example given 5+3 vs. 2+5 doesn't add up) or else assumed (but didn't mention) that attribute contributed to skill in some fashion, as is usual.  I don't think Gwen has made this clear in her post, so it's currently kind of a latent thing.

Second (and maybe this should be moved to a separate thread), what's the problem with having an Attribute/Skill dichotomy? Are there no cases in which it is preferable to make the distinction between the two? Seems a bit unlikely to me. However, this is a common theme here, and I'm interested in why.

I, at least, am not saying that one is better than the other.  The question here is whether an alchemist is good at what he does primarily because of skill or talent.  If it's only the final number that matters, why bother distinguishing between skill and attribute (let's recognize here that Gwen hasn't laid out her whole system, only a piece of it, so it may well be that there is a very good reason for this distinction)?  If alchemy is primarily a skill thing, why factor attribute, taken as "how quickly someone learns" or whatever, into the final total?

[greyorm]

Maybe I didn't explain it correctly, but I'm not following your math.  Frex (Quin:5 + Alchemy:2) has a combined ability of 7.  "Other character" (Quin:3 + Alchemy:5) has a combined ability of 8.  Frex is not automatically better.

Sorry about that, let me flesh out the example (BTW, "Frex" is short for "for example"...small quirk of mine).

In this system you have Attributes and you have Skills. Both are mechanically equivalent in terms of the results provided by their rolling; the only difference is that attributes are broad in scope while skills are narrower.

Take two characters: One has taken 5 ranks/points/whatever in Alchemy, another has taken 3 ranks/points/whatever in alchemy. It would be reasonable to assume that the individual with 5 ranks in alchemy is more knowledgeable about Alchemy than the one with only 3 ranks.

However, mechanically, if character One has only 2 points in Quin, and character Two has 5 points in Quin, character Two is functionally better at alchemy, though he isn't nearly as studied in the skill as character One. Even if character One has 3 points in Quin, the fact that he is more studied in alchemy makes no functional difference in the results of the system when he is compared to the less studied character.

One: Quin:2 + Alch:5 = 7
Two: Quin:5 + Alch:3 = 8

Mechanically, this makes Attributes more important to the overall game than Skills are, since Attributes apply to a broader range of abilities than do Skills. If you have a good attribute, you will automatically be much better at a variety of given of tasks without having to buy many skills.

Conceptually, it doesn't make sense why someone who has invested much into a given skill can be easily bested by someone who has not, regardless of their attribute scores. Consider a different scenario: Don Miguel has spent fifteen years training with the best swordsmen in Europe, only to bested by some green farm-lad from the Rhine.

Mechanically, this is Don Miguel racking up a dueling skill, but having it be meaningless to do so because anyone who just happens to have a better attribute is going to whoop him.

Does that seem fair to you? Were I player under such a system, I would feel very cheated: "I have six ranks in duelling! My character has spent fifteen years studying the art of duelling! And you're telling me Hans the Farm Boy is better than me, though he has only one rank in duelling?"

Certainly, that's an extreme example, but in now way improbable.

The game is "cinematic," for lack of a better turn.  It rewards drama (getting your character involved in a deep storyline), creative combat tactics (encouraging non hack-and-slash combat), humor, clever social deception, etc...

Well, that's not quite what I meant by "player power." I mean, does it encourage the player to create things on the fly, by mechanically rewarding the player for doing so? With the GM usually stepping back and saying, "Sure, go right ahead" instead of worrying about the impact?

However, I would be interested in seeing the other mechanics for this game (you could perhaps start a new thread?), specifically how they encourage cinematic resolution, involvement in story and the other items you mention. It sounds very interesting.

Essentially, they players might abuse this creation power.

In what way do you envision the players abusing such a power?
I know that sounds like an odd question, but it might help you quite a bit to answer it specifically and compare that answer against the system design to see if such things would happen, or what you would need to change in order to prevent such from happening.

Though, as Ben points out, there is no such thing as an abuse-proof set of rules. What you really want is the game to define what's allowed or what should be done with the system as opposed to what shouldn't be done with it -- simply, how you envision it working out in actual play.

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'd prefer the former to the latter, but I'd prefer the latter to the former with a change in focus: I wouldn't worry about the potion fitting within the boundaries of the game, as I would assume the system should be set up to curtail any such abuse in the first place.

I personally like some examples along with freedom to create. However, that doesn't mean much, as for every one of me, there's one of someone who prefers the opposite: a structured list of items.

Ultimately, what matters is that your decision support a game's play in the manner you envision the game being played.