help with magic?

[madelf]

Greetings to all!
I'm new here (my first post). I've noticed some familiar names from RPGnet, so some of you may recognize me from there.
Anyway, to get to the point...
I am in the process of trying to develop my own roleplaying game, based on a world I've been writing about, and using for a AD&D campaign. I am heartily sick of AD&D, so I decided to try and do my own thing. With some help I've  got the outline of a pretty decent task resolution and combat sytem, but I'm still stumped on one aspect of the game. The magic system. Maybe someone here can suggest some possibilities?

Some background on the game... The setting is sort of a pseudo-victorian fantasy world. With magic and 19th century level technology existing side by side. The game has no classes or levels, it's point-based.

For my magic system, I want to get as far away from D&D as possible. I don't want long lists of spells, no memorization, and I want components and guestures and all that to be optional. I want spells to be created and cast "on the fly" without spell lists, and without bringing the game to a screeching halt. I also want magic to be dangerous as hell, especially when mixed with technology.
I've got a long-winded description of how I want magic to work & it's probably the best way to explain it, so bear with me, this may get long...

Magic is common. Everyone knows it exists. Anyone with the proper knowledge can wield it. Anyone can cast a spell, but few dare. Magic is risky and dangerous. The practitioners of magic are those willing to take the risk and brave the danger. For those who survive, and persevere,  the rewards can be great.
   A spell takes energy. The energy to power a spell can come from several sources. The source for at least a portion must be the personal energy of the caster. This is why extensive spell casting, or very powerful spells tend to leave the practitioner weak and exhausted. The caster can power the spell using only his or her own energy reserves, but this is risky. Many practitioners of magic have been severely weakened and even killed by attempting to cast spells in this manner. This is especially dangerous if something goes wrong during the casting of the spell as that same personal energy must be used to try and buffer the backlash of magical energy.
   More commonly a magician or wizard will utilize objects or elements sometimes referred to as components to provide part of the energy to fuel the spell. Like fuel these items are consumed during the casting. The value of these items  has a great deal to do with the power they provide for the spell. This does not necessarily mean monetary value, though some assume so. In actual practice, a wandering hedge wizard who sacrifices the copper  bracelet that is the last reminder of a lost love to power his spell is likely to gain a great deal more power from it than a wealthy mage sacrificing a chest full of gold. The value is relative to the caster. The greater the sacrifice the caster makes, the more energy he will generate to power the spell. But beware, for generating more power than the spell requires can be dangerous as well. Excess magical energy must be burned off carefully (or held, in the case of some truly strong willed mages) or it can backlash and injure the caster, or others near him.
   (It probably should be noted that there are certain practitioners who dabble with the sacrifice of living beings. Be it an animal or, for the truly depraved, a human sacrifice, this sort of blood magic is quite powerful. It is theorized that although the being that is sacrificed may have little personal value to the caster, the "cosmic" value of that being's life force can create a great deal of energy. However the use of such energy will quickly stain the soul of one who practices such dark arts. One considering the gains of traveling down this path, and is unconcerned with the state of his soul, should also consider that most societies rightly frown on this sort of thing.)
   The danger of magical backlash is one reason why so many practitioners use a focus. Wands, staffs, rings, bracelets, almost any item, if properly prepared, can act as an energy sink to both store excess power for later use, and buffer the caster against backlash from excess energy generation. They also may serve, along with ritual actions, incantations, the marking of runes, etc as a means to guide and control the energy to properly execute the desired spell. Though many mages will spend small fortunes creating artistic and impressive looking wands and such, there is really no reason that it must look like anything fancy. Strength and durability are more useful traits in a focus than how pretty is.  On the other hand, as noted above, many mages are show-offs. Also there are some who insist that the level of detail and the amount of work involved in the creation of the focus have a great deal to do with it's potential.
   The actual casting of a spell is influenced most by skill. The more skillful a practitioner, the more they are able to wield a spell by their force of will. The more willpower, and the greater the skill of the caster, the less he is bound by the use of  ritual, runes, sacrifice, and use of a focus. As a rule, the less antics a practitioner goes through to cast a spell the more powerful he probably is. Truly powerful mages may cast spells without so much as blinking as they warp reality by sheer force of will. Such powerful practitioners are few, and likely more tired after such an act than they would ever admit.
   
Okay (those of you who stuck around for all that), does anyone have any idea how to implement something like this, while keeping it fairly streamlined and fast moving? The closest thing I've seen is the spell creation system Hero Games used for Fantasy Hero back when. They had a list of effects with modifiers that could be used to make the spell cost fewer points to buy (much like they did the super powers for Champions). Something like that could probably meet the basic flexibility part of my magic concept, but the problem is that system was incredibly slow and cumbersome. Action would definitely ground to a halt for an extended period to create a spell on the spot with that system.
Any other ideas?

[talysman]

if you wanted to be really fast and loose about the magic system, consider this: magic can mostly be a "special effect". for example, you probably have a stealth skill, a thrown weapons skill, a lockpicking skill, and so on ... or you have a way to impliment those actions, at the very least.

so why not have a "magic" skill, which allows you to do anything any other skill does, but at an added cost of energy and a potential for backfire?

for 1 energy point (however you handle this,) you can do anything that you could do with a mundane skill, except that the description is "magical". ex: "you brush your fingers on the lock and mutter the words of opening, and hear a satisfying click."

for more energy, you can eliminate restrictions on normal skills: opening the lock without touching it (but still being close enough to touch it) might cost 2 energy points, opening it from a distance might cost 3 points, or 4 points if you can't see the lock... and so on, with point costs for different added effects (area effect, extended duration...)

that's more or less what I'm doing in one of my games.

for added detail, you can require spell casters to specify the magical forces they are using (Fire, Earth, Spirit, Chaos, Life, and so on.) this only has three effects, only two of which are based in the mechanics:

[list=1]
[*] it affects the description of the spell. this is pure color.
[*] there can be different rituals, tools, foci, or what have you that, if used in the spell, reduces the backfire effect.
[*] the specific backfire effect, when it occurs, is influenced by the forces used.
[/list:o]

not much more I could say, since any further suggestions would have to be integrated into the rest of your system.

[madelf]

Y'know I kind of like that.
It's not at all what I had in mind, & it changes the whole tone of magic, but I think it might just be for the better.
There are certain elements relating to skills in my game that would make this interesting as well.
Now I must ponder...

Thanks!

[simon_hibbs]

One problem here is that I have no idea how your general resolution mechanics work.

I'll assume you're using a target number system, such as D20 - roll dice + ability to beat a target number, although other difficulty level type mechanics could be adapted.

First of all you make a magic skill check against a target number representing the complexity of the magical effect. This has little to do with how much magic power the spell requires. Roll skill + characetristic bonus + dice (for example).

If you beat the target number, record how much you beat it by as a +/- modifier.

Next make a magic power roll, something like Magic Power Ability + Bonus + dice. If you have magic points stored in a wand, crystal, whatever you can choose to spend points from this reservoir and add them as a bonus (deducting them from the storage item) before roling the dice.

After you have rolled the magic power roll you can use the +/- modifier from the magic skill roll to adjust the final total up or down. Idealy you want to adjust the total to exctly the target number. If you get a total above the target number you succeeded but any excess points escape as 'wild magic' that can ahve pseudo-random effects. If your modified total is below the target number, you failed to cast the spell and may suffer some exhaustion penalties from over-exertion in future. If you got the target number dead-on, then the spell goes off perfectly.

Obviously if yor general resolution mechanic is different you might want to adapt this to it. I hope the general idea is of some use though.


Simon Hibbs

[contracycle]

A question.  A lot of this sounds to me like fairly standard-adventuring-RPG-magic.  We have some good but standard symbolic value stuff, a risk of dramatic failure, and prerequisites for magic falling off with skill.

In other words, it sounds like just about every fantasy magic system I've read.  Its all very balanced; it has implicit progression and efficiencies of scale and foreshadfowing of evilguy magic.  If its really just a mechanic you want, nearly anything will do.*

But my question is: is there something particular this system is meant to do?  Is there some role that magic plays in the game world that is important?  Are there moral consequences, or is the political landscape influenced by the Big Fish, or what?

Lastly:

Also there are some who insist that the level of detail and the amount of work involved in the creation of the focus have a great deal to do with it's potential.

Well, does it or doesn't it?  If these instructions are to be used as play aids, ther player must know whether that is, or is not, a wise investment of their resources.

* Edit: in fact with these specifications I would point you to TROS

[Kester Pelagius]

Greetings,

For my magic system, I want to get as far away from D&D as possible. I don't want long lists of spells, no memorization, and I want components and guestures and all that to be optional. I want spells to be created and cast "on the fly" without spell lists, and without bringing the game to a screeching halt. I also want magic to be dangerous as hell, especially when mixed with technology.
I've got a long-winded description of how I want magic to work & it's probably the best way to explain it, so bear with me, this may get long...

Magic should be relatively easy to do, if you have a resolution system already in place.

Do you?

If not, then based on what you've described. . .

Magic is common. Everyone knows it exists.
<...>  A spell takes energy. The energy to power a spell can come from several sources.

The two easiest approaches here would be either a spell point system or using a static set of numerical values (think skill system) that are used to achieve certain set affects.  But, as you said you would prefer to get as far away from the xD&D system as possible I'll assume that the best system to suit your needs is going to be of the spell point system type, or at the very least something that is a bit more dynamic.

Now, without knowing more about your game's Focus, Style, or design Goals I'd have to suggest doing some research online using whatever search engine you prefer.  There is some information out there, and not a few dynamic spell systems (the "Mage to Mage" combat system comes to mind) out there that may provide you with some insights into possible ways of developing your magic system.

In the meantime there are several decent articles available at the following links:

John Kim's Design Page

And this section from Fantasy Worldbuilding Questions at sfwa.org.


Guidelines for creating magic-systems for RPGs

But, from your outline, you already have delineated the basic cause and effects you wish to achieve.  My suggestion, after reading a bit about other systems, would be to see how you can mould the system rules you are developing around these basic premises.

In the meantime, hope the links help.


Kind Regards,

Kester Pelagius

[madelf]

One problem here is that I have no idea how your general resolution mechanics work.

Sorry, new at this getting advice thing...
My basic task resolution in a nut-shell:
Roll the number of dice you have in your skill (magic in this case) and roll under your corresponding attribute (Psyche) as a target number. The number of sucesses you get vs the difficulty of the action determines the outcome.

If its really just a mechanic you want, nearly anything will do

I've never seen a system that didn't have either lists of specific spells, or very clunky spell building mechanics. Admittedly my experience is limited.
I think I'm looking for a non-clunky spell building mechanic, just don't know where to look.

But my question is: is there something particular this system is meant to do?

Preferably be much more "realistic" & believable than say... D&D.

Is there some role that magic plays in the game world that is important?

Magic is pervasive, it influences all things. It makes the fantasy world different than ours. Other than that, not really.

Well, does it or doesn't it? If these instructions are to be used as play aids, ther player must know whether that is, or is not, a wise investment of their resources.

Clarity lacking: the magic description I posted is taken from the "background flavor" section and reflects common knowledge. (The average person wouldn't neccessarily know the answer to that) The actual hard facts would be in the magic rules..which aren't written yet.

In the meantime, hope the links help

.
They should, thank you.

And thanks for all the other suggestions as well. Looks like I'm off to do more research.

[Mike Holmes]

I think Jonathan's method, nailed down, would serve well. What is it about other systems that make them "unrealistic" to you?

I've never seen a system that didn't have either lists of specific spells, or very clunky spell building mechanics. Admittedly my experience is limited.
I think I'm looking for a non-clunky spell building mechanic, just don't know where to look.

Check out Hero Wars, or, better, the new edition, Hero Quest for a system that does very much what you're looking for.

Mike

[madelf]

What is it about other systems that make them "unrealistic" to you?

I think there are two things that bother me about the maic systems I've played, or run.

One is that it always seems like the "big gun". It's geared so that doing big flashy damage is more the focus, rather than doing interesting things. I'd like to see magic work on a more day-to-day level if possible. For instance in D&D, it's just as hard to start a campfire as it is to hit your foe with a magical bolt that never misses. Other magic systems I've seen. (Which, I'll grant aren't that many) seem to be the same way. Many also don't take potential failure into account, either you can do it or you can't. There's no wondering if what you're about to try is going to work, or fizzle, or backlash and burn you. I'd like to find a way to make magic more....I don't know, I'm blanking on the right words...flexible, subtle and definitely unstable.
I think the skill-based method suggested above has the potential to do that.

The other thing I don't like is memorizing spellbooks. That's not a matter of realism so much as style. I'd like a system that's a little more intuitive, where a character can use his spellcasting knowledge to create the spell he needs at the moment, right on the spot. Again I think the skill-based idea would work well for that.

[Ron Edwards]

Hi Calvin,

I think it might help to pull a bit back and out from the D&D perspective.

Somewhat harshly, forget D&D. Just pretend it's .... gone. Now think about magic in a role-playing game, and ask, from the ground up, what should this be like? Not in terms of in-game-world physics and energy, but rather, in terms of how to play, by real people.

If your current system seems to be working well for you in this regard, then great! If it still seems a little hitchy or clunky or not-quite-right, tell us how.

I also recommend reading and playing the following games: Castle Falkenstein (original system, not GURPS or d20), Orkworld, The Pool, Unknown Armies, Everway, and most especially Hero Wars (soon to be republished as Hero Quest).

Best,
Ron

[M. J. Young]

One is that it always seems like the "big gun". It's geared so that doing big flashy damage is more the focus, rather than doing interesting things. I'd like to see magic work on a more day-to-day level if possible. For instance in D&D, it's just as hard to start a campfire as it is to hit your foe with a magical bolt that never misses. Other magic systems I've seen. (Which, I'll grant aren't that many) seem to be the same way. Many also don't take potential failure into account, either you can do it or you can't. There's no wondering if what you're about to try is going to work, or fizzle, or backlash and burn you. I'd like to find a way to make magic more....I don't know, I'm blanking on the right words...flexible, subtle and definitely unstable.

I have not mentioned Multiverser because I think it may have something of that "complicated spell construction" idea you're trying to avoid. However, it does address the concerns you raise here:

[*]The magic skill construction system places the amount invested in the skill (time, personal sacrifice, limitations on use) against the amount gained (power output, if you like). This balancing act gives a probability of success adjustment, so that skills in which you invest more or get less are more likely to work, and thus "easier". Lighting a campfire is a lot easier than roasting an army, and more player characters can light campfires than roast armies in my experience.[*]As with any other kind of skill use, success is only automatic if the sum of all modifiers for skill and situation cause the probability of success to reach or exceed 100%. Even then, you frequently have to roll for relative success results--it's not just whether it worked, but how well, every time you use the skill. Probability of success can also drop below zero, but you still have to roll for relative failure, which is described as a continuum between "missed it by that much" and "botch"--just like any other sort of skill or action in the game.[/list:u]

I'd like to see magic work on a more day-to-day level if possible

I'd like to find a way to make magic more...unstable.

Unstable magic means reason to avoid its use except in the most extreme circumstances; day-to-day use means reliability (unless there are no reliable alternatives).

Why do D&D mages carry a parcel of powerful spells, and nothing mundane? The answer is plain: mundane effects can be achieved by other means, and the system limits magic use by limiting the number of the spells that can be used. If I can carry two fireballs that might destroy a lot of enemies I can't face without magic, or one spell that will get me out of a hole without a rope and one that will produce enough water to drink for the day, I'll carry a rope and a waterskin and two fireball spells.

Compare that to the psionics system that is used in OAD&D or AD&D2. Although they're not the same, they do have a common aspect: the psionically enabled individual has a variety of skills he can use, and a pool of points from which to empower them. He can do whatever is on that list, but when the points are gone he can't do any of them. The result? Players tend to reserve their points for serious situations and use the skills that will save them at those moments.

Compare that to the Multiverser system: magic (and psionics) is limited by probability of success and chance to botch. That is, you can use as many "spells" as you want. Those that are "easy" have a low chance of failure and a correspondingly low chance to botch, so you tend to use those easy skills rather freely. Meanwhile, unless you (rather superstitiously but perhaps commonly) believe that you can use up the good rolls, you know that the number of times you use those little skills makes no difference to your ability to use the big ones; and you know you're taking a chance when you do use them. So whether or not you use the big ones is a decision still made from need, but using the little ones is also a decision made from need, without reference to how much magic you're allowed to do in the game before you "run out".

Multiverser has no spell books, no memorizing, and allows players to invent magic skills on the spot. I think you'll find, though, that a system which allows characters to invent skills as they need them requires a bit of complexity and a slowing of action at that moment. To modify the fire example, if the player wants to light a campfire or if he wants to fry the tenth Roman Legion, you (seem to) want your system to provide both of those as possibilities, but you want the campfire thing to be something easy and safe and the brimstone attack to be difficult and dangerous, and you want there to be a logical continuum between the two (that is, frying one person should be easier than roasting the entire army, burning a house tougher than lighting a pipe). That means you need some complexity in the system which will provide for that, and it means that at the moment the player "creates" the use of the power you've got to work out the casting cost--whether it's in probability of success through the resolution system or expenditure of resources in your empowering system or some other means of making the simple things easy and the difficult things dangerous.

You could instead follow the lead of Alyria and reduce all such abilities to color. Let outcome resolution be based on character attributes, roll to see who gets the advantage, and then narrate how by including the creation of new magic if needed; but this doesn't sound like it fits your conception at all.

I hope this helps.

--M. J. Young

[greyorm]

Before I begin, I wanted to say Welcome to the Forge!

Here are some ideas that popped through my head while perusing your statements.

I don't want long lists of spells, no memorization, and I want components and guestures and all that to be optional.
I want spells to be created and cast "on the fly" without spell lists, and without bringing the game to a screeching halt.
I also want magic to be dangerous as hell, especially when mixed with technology.

First, you've got an excellent (and by that, I mean coherent) set of rules and ideas to work from to test any system you develop, and to start development from.

One question: dangerous to whom? The caster or the affected (or both)? (your statement doesn't really say) And dangerous how? In the case of the caster, might it kill him, or leave him an insane, gibbering nutcase, or either...etc.

A magician or wizard will utilize objects or elements sometimes referred to as components to provide part of the energy to fuel the spell
Component items are consumed during the casting.
The value of components has a great deal to do with the power they provide for the spell...The value is relative to the caster.

My advice for this is to give each item the wizard owns a "personal value" rating. This rating would be used to determine how powerful the resulting magic is when that item is utilized as a component in spell-casting.

Since overuse of personal energy is what burns you out or even kills you, you can use the item to avoid backlash of up to that of the item's PV. If the item has more PV than you need to avoid the backlash, the item is still consumed.

Extensive spell casting, or very powerful spells tend to leave the practitioner weak and exhausted.
Personal energy must be used to try and buffer the backlash of magical energy if something goes wrong during the casting of the spell.

Use the caster's Stamina or Willpower or similar score (or combination thereof) as a pool of points that can be lost through the use of magic. I say can be because rules that require saving throws of a sort to avoid the effect would be a good idea.

So, if you backlash, and can't sink enough of it to avoid the backlash (or want to reduce a BIG backlash), you can use your stamina or will or whatnot to burn off the backlash.

Generating more power than the spell requires is dangerous. Excess magical energy must be burned off carefully or held, or it will backlash and injure the caster or others near him.
Wands, staffs, rings, bracelets, almost any item, if properly prepared, can act as an energy sink to both store excess power for later use, and buffer the caster against backlash from excess energy generation.
Ritual items also may serve, along with ritual actions, incantations, the marking of runes, etc as a means to guide and control the energy to properly execute the desired spell.
There is no reason a ritual item must look like anything fancy. Strength and durability are more useful traits in a focus than how pretty is.

Question: if the energy being used is your own personal energy anyways, how is overdrawing that energy dangerous...by which I mean dangerous as a backlash, not in dangerous as in "Gods, I'm tired! <thunk, snore>" And why would one want to "sink" this excess energy away, since it is one's own energy?

On to the suggestions: when the check to see if the spell is successful is made, if the character rolls over the amount necessary to be successful, they have created excess energy. This can be stored in certain prepared ritual items. The strength/durability of the material functions as the amount of excess energy that can be stored in the item.

If the caster rolls below what is necessary for the spell to be cast successfully, they can deplete these excess energy stores from their prepared ritual items up to the amount required by the spell.

The use of rituals and items also gives the caster a bonus to their roll based on (for example) the length of the ritual, the magickal correspondences of the items used, and so forth. This allows the caster to increase or decrease (their choice) their roll by one point per energy guide used.

This has the side effect of evening-out the caster's spells, allowing him to boost severely under-rolled spells, and deplete severely over-rolled spells, but usually leaves the caster with a few points that will need to be sunk into prepared items.

The actual casting of a spell is influenced most by skill.
The more willpower, and the greater the skill of the caster, the less he is bound by the use of  ritual, runes, sacrifice, and use of a focus.

Skill also provides a modifier to the roll, in whichever direction the character wishes.

The "cosmic" value of that being's life force can create a great deal of energy. However the use of such energy will quickly stain the soul of one who practices such dark arts.

Cool idea, but you'll have to back it up with some sort of "black magic" or "stain" score that has some other mechanical effect on the character (perhaps socially, or perhaps in the presence of (good) priests and their spellcraft, or something similar).

On the other hand, as noted above, many mages are show-offs.

Biggest question here is "Why?"
Is there any mechanical reason for mages to be show-offs? If not, this should be supported by the rules. In order for players to cooperate most effectively in portraying their characters, there must be a viable mechanical payoff for the player to do so.

Ok, I hope that all made sense. Just ask about anything that isn't clear and I will attempt to make it so.

(BTW, your post doesn't really belong in RPG Theory, but Indie Game Design, but as I'm sure a moderator will move it over as appropriate.)

[madelf]

I think it might help to pull a bit back and out from the D&D perspective.

Sorry about all the D&D references. It's just that it's the system I'm most familiar with. I've gotten many years of enjoyment out of it, and expect to get many more. But one of the main reasons I'm trying to put together a new system is to specifically be different from what I most often play. After all, if I wanted to make my game feel like D&D, I'd just use d20. So that's the reason for all the references.

If your current system seems to be working well for you in this regard, then great! If it still seems a little hitchy or clunky or not-quite-right, tell us how.

It's really only hitchy in the sense that I don't have a working system for magic yet. :)

so that skills in which you invest more or get less are more likely to work, and thus "easier".

My task resolution has this concept built in to it, so I definitely want to include that in the magic as well.

Unstable magic means reason to avoid its use except in the most extreme circumstances; day-to-day use means reliability (unless there are no reliable alternatives).

The way I was using day-to-day wasn't intended to mean reliable. Magic in my world concept is not reliable. It is however, very common and accessible. Just not particularly safe unless you're very careful,
By day-to-day I meant more... I don't know how to explain it...mundane, or subtle maybe. I don't think the flashy big-budget special effects movie style of magic is necessary, or appropriate for my world. That's what I was trying to get at.

I'll carry a rope and a waterskin and two fireball spells.

Ah, but what if you didn't have fireball spells? Would that maybe make you think about creative and interesting ways to use spells that weren't so earth-shaking?

if the player wants to light a campfire or if he wants to fry the tenth Roman Legion, you (seem to) want your system to provide both of those as possibilities

Frying the tenth Roman Legion doesn't even need to be a possiblity. Even a mage of immense power shouldn't be able to take down more than the front line.  But the general gist of your statement is pretty much what I had in mind, yes.

That means you need some complexity in the system which will provide for that

Some complexity is acceptable. Of course the simplest system is going to be one with designated spells. But I insist on maintaining my delusion that the system I'm looking for can be done smoothly. My combat sytem, for instance, is more elaborate than some I've seen, but is not really complex in the carrying out of combat. It doesn't slow things down.
So I don't need dead simple, I just need something streamlined enough to not disrupt play.

Sounds like I need to get a look at this Multiverser.

One question: dangerous to whom? The caster or the affected (or both)? (your statement doesn't really say) And dangerous how? In the case of the caster, might it kill him, or leave him an insane, gibbering nutcase, or either...etc.

I'm not entirely sure on this one yet. I'm thinking it would be dangerous primarily to the caster, but it might depend on the nature of the spell as well. But it is dangerous by causing damage. Either by accidently draining the energy of the caster, or by backlash of magical energy (the burn). The type of failure might be determined by where you failed. Botch your "raise power" roll and you didn't gather energy from around you like you thought and you power that nasty spell off your own health. Botch the "control" roll and you get a spell that goes off wrong and backlashes raw energy through your system. yes, either one could potentially kill if it was a powerful enough spell, and it went horribly wrong. But this stuff isn't set in stone yet, just some of my ideas.

My advice for this is to give each item the wizard owns a "personal value" rating. This rating would be used to determine how powerful the resulting magic is when that item is utilized as a component in spell-casting.
Since overuse of personal energy is what burns you out or even kills you, you can use the item to avoid backlash of up to that of the item's PV. If the item has more PV than you need to avoid the backlash, the item is still consumed.

This is excellent. It reflects what I had in mind perfectly.

Use the caster's Stamina or Willpower or similar score (or combination thereof) as a pool of points that can be lost through the use of magic. I say can be because rules that require saving throws of a sort to avoid the effect would be a good idea.
So, if you backlash, and can't sink enough of it to avoid the backlash (or want to reduce a BIG backlash), you can use your stamina or will or whatnot to burn off the backlash.

Also very good. Maybe the save could be an attribute roll to see how well you "shrug off" the backlash. If you don't make the roll, you take the burn.

Question: if the energy being used is your own personal energy anyways, how is overdrawing that energy dangerous...by which I mean dangerous as a backlash, not in dangerous as in "Gods, I'm tired! <thunk, snore>" And why would one want to "sink" this excess energy away, since it is one's own energy?

Magic energy can be obtained in two ways.
Drawn off the caster's personal energy (by drawing too much you can get tired, conk out, or even die, depending on how much more you draw than your capacity). I think I may want an option in the rules for a spell to "go wild" drawing more power than it's supposed to. This would enhance the risj of using personal energy. But using personal energy is quicker, so that's why caster's do it.
The other way is to take the extra time neccessary to gather energy from the world around you. This energy must be channeled through your body.
But if you gather all this energy, and then botch the spell, you take the hit from that unused energy. If you go over the energy you can tough it through, then you may be in trouble. This is where a focus is helpful. If you are casting the spell through a focus, then it takes the hit. If the focus can hold up to that amount of energy, then it can hold it for future use. Even if it can't hold it, at least the staff bursts into flame instead of the wizard.

On to the suggestions: when the check to see if the spell is successful is made, if the character rolls over the amount necessary to be successful, they have created excess energy. This can be stored in certain prepared ritual items. The strength/durability of the material functions as the amount of excess energy that can be stored in the item.
If the caster rolls below what is necessary for the spell to be cast successfully, they can deplete these excess energy stores from their prepared ritual items up to the amount required by the spell.
The use of rituals and items also gives the caster a bonus to their roll based on (for example) the length of the ritual, the magickal correspondences of the items used, and so forth. This allows the caster to increase or decrease (their choice) their roll by one point per energy guide used.
This has the side effect of evening-out the caster's spells, allowing him to boost severely under-rolled spells, and deplete severely over-rolled spells, but usually leaves the caster with a few points that will need to be sunk into prepared items.
Skill also provides a modifier to the roll, in whichever direction the character wishes.

These would all be very good additions to the concept.

Cool idea, but you'll have to back it up with some sort of "black magic" or "stain" score that has some other mechanical effect on the character (perhaps socially, or perhaps in the presence of (good) priests and their spellcraft, or something similar).

Good point. I'll have to think on that, to come up with something suitibly horrible.

Biggest question here is "Why?"
Is there any mechanical reason for mages to be show-offs? If not, this should be supported by the rules. In order for players to cooperate most effectively in portraying their characters, there must be a viable mechanical payoff for the player to do so.

My initial thought was that magic would tend to attract show-offs, by it's nature. As I get more deep into thought on this whole thing, I'm beginning to come up with a better reason.
If magic in my world is not as all-powerful as it is in some, and mages aren't teleporting all over the place and throwing fireballs around, then there's actually a very good reason for mages to be show-offs. They need to be. They need to appear as impressive as possible in order to "wow the locals" and insure that they are properly feared and respected. When anyone can pull out a revolver and shoot you, you'll want to seem as mysterious and powerful as possible, so maybe they won't dare go for that gun.

Ok, I hope that all made sense. Just ask about anything that isn't clear and I will attempt to make it so.

It's great. All the suggestions, and even the questions are really helping me to clarify how I want this thing to work.
Thanks again to everybody for the input.

(BTW, your post doesn't really belong in RPG Theory, but Indie Game Design, but as I'm sure a moderator will move it over as appropriate.)

Oops, sorry.
I'm new here & just learning the ropes. So I'm not trying to be an idiot, it just comes naturally.My apologies.

[John Kim]

Magic in my world concept is not reliable. It is however, very common and accessible. Just not particularly safe unless you're very careful,
By day-to-day I meant more... I don't know how to explain it...mundane, or subtle maybe. I don't think the flashy big-budget special effects movie style of magic is necessary, or appropriate for my world.
...
Magic energy can be obtained in two ways.  Drawn off the caster's personal energy (by drawing too much you can get tired, conk out, or even die, depending on how much more you draw than your capacity). I think I may want an option in the rules for a spell to "go wild" drawing more power than it's supposed to.  

OK, this isn't what you are looking for, but I thought I would comment.  I have an extended essay where I argue that the problem with most RPG magic systems -- at least for me -- is not the mechanics of how it is implemented, but rather in the underlying concepts.  Magic is conceived of as scientific: i.e. the rational manipulation of impersonal, morally-neutral energy.  This might not be true for you, but I thought I would toss it out as an idea.  The essay is online at
http://www.darkshire.org/~jhkim/rpg/magic/

[Ron Edwards]

Hi there,

Another useful reference might these discussions from the old Sorcerer mailing list archives:
Magic systems
Magic systems 2

Best,
Ron