This is a spinoff from a post on RPG.Net. RPG.Net being down, I thought I'd take it over here.

Anyway, the game I've been focusing on for a while is ready to playtest, and I've been working on this little thing for a few days while the group compares schedules and finds a time to meet. The idea of the game is that characters are the sorcerous equivalent of smallsword-toting picaroons: they travel about, land themselves in trouble, and frequently get into duels.

Basics:

The dueling system revolves around the constructive and destryctive cycles of the elements:

WOOD fuels FIRE creates EARTH bears METAL holds WATER nourishes WOOD

WOOD pierces EARTH  traps WATER douses FIRE melts METAL cuts WOOD

Each spell is given an element. Spells are exchanged in a back and forth pattern: I cast, you cast, I cast, you cast, and so on and so forth until someone surrenders, gets knocked unconscious, or is in some other way incapacitated. You always have the choice of giving up your next spell in order to attempt a counterspell or raise a shield against incoming magic. You also have the option of creating an Aegis, a spell that creates a more durative magical defense that will protect you longer than a couple of seconds.

Trumps:

Counterspells are trumped by the element that they create, but trump the element they destroy. (A Wood counter has no effect against Fire attacks, but beats Earth attacks with no roll.)

Shields are trumped by the element that destroyes them, but trump the element that creates them. (A Wood shield has no effect against Metal attacks, but beats Water attacks with no roll.)

An Aegis is trumped the element that destroyes them, but trumps the element that they destroy. (A Wood aegis has no effect against Metal attacks, but beats Earth attacks with no roll.)

If there's no trump, then the two sorcerers roll off.

Strategy:

If you cast spells in creative sequence (IE, if the element of your spell for this round is created by the element of your spell for last round), you get a sizable bonus on your roll. You may not cast spells in destructive sequence (IE, the element of your spell for this round may not be the one that is destroyed by the element of your spell from last round).

With a small investment of resources, characters will be albe to use an unlimited number of weak spells for the duration of a scene. Stronger spells require resources to be spent whenever they are cast, so you will only be able to play your best cards a couple times in a duel.

Offensive spells can either directly harm the enemy, drain their stats (making it harder for them to cast spells, resist your spells, and brawl), or change the conditions of the playing field, so to speak.

Competent duelists will probably know 12 to 15 spells, mostly from the school that trained them, a handful from other schools, and one or two aces that they've created themselves. You can always a identify a spell being cast if you know it yourself; identifying other spells requires a roll that increases in difficulty with spell power. Identifying custom spells is particularly hard.

You can win duels just by being a more potent sorcerer than the enemy. However, you can win even when the opponent is many times stronger than you if you can figure out what's in their their repertoire, then cast a custom spell that they can't identify (and thus won't know how to trump) or lead them into a trap where their only defense that can stand up to your offense is prohibited via destructive sequence.

Character Advancement:

New spells would be learned by identifying them as they're being cast. Each time you identify a spell, it gets easier to recognize it when you see it in the future. If you ever get the difficulty down to 0, then you may learn the next time you see it cast by spending an experience point and casting it yourself. There would also be an option of learning spells by study, and experience points could also be used to buy up your stats to give you more raw power. Players will also be encouraged to create unique custom spells for their characters.

What I Want From This Game:

I want it to be all about learning how to win at duels. Almost pure gamism. The goal is to get into fights, find out how fights work, form a strategy, apply it, find the weakensses in your strategy, decide what new tactics and spells you need to fix the strategy, implement those tactics, learn those spells, see how the new strategy works, find its weaknesses, repeat ad nauseum until you are the most powerful sorcerer in the land.

It's all about the learning curve. The game is the learning curve.

Do you think this system offers enough complexity to meet these goals? How would you suggest I add to or alter the system to meet them more adequately?

Thanks,
--Jeff

Jeff,

I like the idea of encouraging players to find optimal strategies to beat the combat system. It reminds me of my days playing Vampire LARPs, when we kept trying to work out the optimal strategy for Rock-Paper-Scissors.

One question, which is best explained with an example. Let's say you cast first and raise a Metal shield. Isn't my best option against a Metal shield always to a cast a Fire spell - thereby trumping your shield? Why would I use any other sort of spell?

And, on a wider note, why should a player ever choose to raise a shield, given that every shield has such an obvious weakness? Wouldn't my best option to be to use my turn to attack instead?

Stop me if I'm missing something here...

Hey Jeff,

At first read, this sounds like it should be made into a card game, not an RPG. You say it's pure gamism, and what little you say about the background is really just a frame for getting into duels, right? Winning duels is what you play for.

I like the system of trumps/counters etc, and the two different cycles. I'm assuming you'll have an easy-to-read chart for these cycles? Not everything in the cycles is intuitively easy to remember - wood creates fire, for example, I get mixed up so that fire destroys wood.

I find it hard to say more without playtest. However, the game does remind me a little of Charles the Bald with its scissors/paper/stone mechanics. If you're going to make this more of a narrative game, I suggest having the spells and combinations give certain restrictions to narration - for example, when you cast a Metal spell, your narration should be cold and without any feeling; Earth spells are narrated with short sentences and words; Fire is emotional and colorful language, etc.

Graham,

Shields and counterspells are used in reaction to the enemy's spells: when you use one, you give up your next spell for a defense against incoming magic. But yes, if you are able to trump an enemy's Aegis with an offensive spell, or can trump their offense with a counter or shield, go for it! However, there are a few things that complicate the matter:

• You may not know a spell capable of trumping the enemy's
• destructive cycle may prevent you from casting a spell that trumps the enemy's
• If you fail to identify the enemy's spell, you will not know how to trump it

Also, say that you have a Wood Aegis, and know they have a fairly weak Metal attack that allows for natural defenses. You know their style favors shields over counterspells, so you raise that aegis to lure them into casting that metal spell. You just soak up their metal spell's damage, and then hit them with a powerful Water spell that can only be resisted with magic. Now, a Wood shield would trump a Water attack... but they just cast a Metal attack, so they CAN NOT cast a wood spell this turn, as that would be destructive sequence. Furthermore, you cast in constructive sequence, so you get a bonus to your spell.

Viola. Strategy.

*

Matt,

Here is a link to a diagram of the elemental cycles from Shreyas Sampt's game Refreshing Rain. I plan to have something like it on the character sheet. (Blame China for the confusing nature of the cycles, I didn't make 'em up.)

It's definitely going to be an rpg, and not a card game, and it's defnitely not going to be a Nar rpg. (For an example of a more narrativist game that uses the Chinese cycles of the elements, check out Pagoda, linked to in my signature.) Yes, the duels will be the centerpieces of the game... but no more so than boutes of killing monsters and taking their stuff are the centerpieces of sessions of D&D.

I'm a bit disturbed that the mechanic is so readily likened to scissor-papers-stone, as that little thing has no strategy to it at all (in fact, the best and when I say best I mean mathematical best strategy is to choose between the three randomly), and I want strategy to be one of the deciding factors of a duel.

Thanks for the interest, guys!
Jeff

Hi Jeff,

My first thought was also "card game", but I can see the RP elements upon reflection.  Learning the styles and arsenals of other sorcerers would be crucial to having an edge in a duel, so there could be lots of espionage and intrigue and covering of ones own tracks.  This presupposes that duels are not generally lethal, I suppose. 

When you say "spells", what are you thinking of?  Will there be an established canon, built using established rules?  What's the currency in play?

--Jason

Hi Jason,

Good questions!

Yes, there will be an established list of spells: the setting includes numerous schools of magic, each focusing on one of the elements and a particular style of dueling. Every school will have a list of 8 or 9 spells that they teach, including three to five in their favored element and at least one in every other. Each spell consists of a superfluously fancy Jack Vance-style name; a declaration of the spell's element; whether the spell's effect is to create an Aegis, raise a Shield, Counterspell, Harm the enemy, Impede the enemy (reduce their dice pools), or Alter the playing field; a description that includes all the fiddly bits that differentiate it from similar spells; and a cost in Energy.

Which brings us to your question on currencies: there are a couple in play. First and foremost, each wizard only knows a limited number of spells, most likely all 8 or 9 from their school, half a handful of basic techniques from other schools, and one or two aces that they've created themselves, custom made. In a more immediate, tactical sense, there are four resources of note:

1) Time. You can only cast one spell per round. If you use it for a shield or countersepll, you won't have a chance to launch an offense of your own.

2) Willpower. Each character will have 4-6 points. Willpower can be used to gain a bonus on any roll. More importantly, it can be used to pay a spell's Energy cost. Most spells cost 1 point of Energy, but each school teaches a couple that cost 2 or 3. This cost must be paid every time the spell is cast. For a 1 wp investment, you can lower the Energy cost of all your spells for the scene by 1. After that, you need to spend Willpower on a one for one basis to pay the remainder of a spell's Energy cost.

3) Hit points. Wizards will have 20 to 40 hp, depending upon how they set their priorities in character creation. At 5 hp, you start taking a penalty on physical actions, and will probably want to surrender if your enemy isn't equally roughed up. At 0 hp, you are unconscious, and have lost the duel. Harm spells deal base damage equal to the sorcerer's base Casting dice pool (usually 4 to 6), plus 2 to 6 points of bonus damage per extra success on the Casting roll. If you are out of Willpower, you can pay for your spells by taking damage (probably along the ligns of 1d6 per point of Energy).

4) Your dice pools. You have six dice pools, one each rated at 2, 4, 5, and 6, and two rated at 3. They are Presence (for resisting mind bending magic), Perception (for getting in the first spell and figuring out enemies' custom spells), Strength (for determines hit points and resisting some sickening or binding spells), Skill (for dodging blasts and engaging in physical combat, which may or may not be an element of a duel), Casting (for powering your spells), and Knowledge (for identifying common spells). Impede spells tend to reduce dice pools; if Casting, Presence, or Strength drops to 0, you've lost the duel.

There will indeed be an 'established canon' of spells, but they follow relatively strict patterns: All counterspells tend to work the same way. All Aegis spells work in similar ways, but some are only effective agaisnt certain types of spells, some cancel successes while others reduce the enemy's casting dice pool, and they weaken at different rates. All shield spells are basically the same, but some only work against certain offenses. All Harm spells are basically the same, but they vary in their bonus damage, whether armor is applicable against them, and what dice pool, if any, is allowed as a natural defense against them. Alter spells are a bit less uniform, but you can get a sense for them. All Impede spells work along similar principals, but drain different dice pools.

Energy 2 spells tend to be less limited and pack more kick than Energy 1 spells. (For instance, an Energy 1 Shield might only work against Harm spells, while an Energy 2 Shield would work against all spells and probably have some other minor perk, besides.) Energy 3 spells win the duel for you, or at the very least give you a huge advantage.

However: characters are not only encouraged, but required to develop custom spells. It's not hard: Pick an Element. Pick an Effect. Pick an Energy cost. Assign limitations or special bonuses based on that Energy cost. You're done. This gives every character a bit of their own flavor, and makes each new opponent a unique challenge. Also, custom spells are hard as hell to identify, so there's a good chance that the enemy won't know how to trump them. It's acceptable to have a unique version of a spell that is identical to one taught by a school, just to get that added stealth factor.

Lastly, a question to you all. I just considered the possibility of counterspelling an enemy's shield. As in, you attack with the Fire Harm spell Coruscating Ribbons of Crimson. They give up their next spell to respond with an Earth Shield, Floating Prism Refraction, which will trump your assault. Should you be able to give up your next spell to attempt to Counterspell their Shield? If I take this option, the trump relation will be Shields trump Counterspells of the element that creates them, but are trumped by Counterspells of the element they create. If I implement this rule it will make Counterspells objectively better than Shields, but that's not necessarily a bad thing as most casters will end up knowing a Shield or two through their school, anyway, and will just have to live with it and learn how to use them.

So, do you think that adding such a rule would create an unnecessary imbalance of power or add further tactical depth?

Thanks again,
Jeff

Just out of interest, how does a character cheat in the duel? Is there a system for it?

What happens when multiple duelists decide to gang up on a single duelist?

Do you need to participate in a duel to increase your ability to recognise a spell cast in the duel?

Are counterspells learned spells in the same way as shields? if so I think being able to counter shields wouldn't be a problem. If they don't require you to know the spell, then I'd say they sound rather overpowering.

Ah, having played Examplar and read your explanation, this makes more sense.  I know this has nothing to do with Exemplar, but it helps to see this in light of your design interests and priorities. 

One thought - why not have shield and counterspell (or whatever too-similar/unbalancing spells you have in the arsenal) behave differently against magic and mundane?  So one is vitally useful in a duel but useless against some dude with a shortsword.  If the game is intended to have roleplaying outside the duelling arena, this becomes important and an interesting decision to make.

I'd definitely make sure that the trumping mechanic cannot lead to a feedback loop of negating effects. 

Hi Gordon,

I guess you'd only be able to cheat if the duel had certain ground rules. I mean, If one wizard sneaks up on another and starts blasting away with Harm spells trying to kill the other guy, anything goes; in a more formal situation, with two young nobles duking it out in certamen for sport and bragging rights, there might be some provisions in place: do not draw arms, do not step outside of the circumscribed area, don't cause any property damage that you can't pay for, don't kill the other guy.

If more than two wizards are involved in the duel (it'd be more a pitched battle, anyway), not much changes, really... just act in order of most Perception successes scored to least. Counterspells can be used to shatter magic aimed at an ally, so they've got the advantage there, but I'd rule that Shields protect you for the entire round. A sorcerous melee will have a totally different dynamic when compared to a one on one duel, I think: with multiple opponents to contend with, it will be much harder to set traps. It'll probably be difficult to even find an opening to attack, unless you've got multiple Aegis spells up and running.

I'm not sure exactly what you mean in the third line: are you talking about increasing your ability to recognize spells in general, or increasing your ability to recognize some individual, specific spell being used by the enemy?

Counterspells, like other spells, must indeed be learned. You don't, however, need to know the spell that you're attempting to shatter.

*

Jason,

I really like the idea of making Shield spells applicable in martial conflict. Consider it yoinked: a Counterspell is more versatile against a sorcerer, but a Shield will prevent you from being crushed by a collapsing cathedral or run through by some jerk with a spear. :^)

I don't think that trumps can create a feedback loop. Once one of the spells has been shattered, there's no lingering negative effect to keep dragging things down.

Later,
Jeff

First off I am thrilled to death to hear of a game like this even being considered, especially with the elegance I feel it has been gifted with.

A question: Have you considered the impact of multiple spells cast in a single round? I'm not sure what it would do to the gameplay, perhaps overly complicating it, but it allows for some interesting results with counterspells, sheilds, and aegis. 3 spells per turn (or any number I suppose, 3 is just one Im familiar with from other settings) allows for creative cycling Within Turn.
A byproduct of this is also the addition of an action-per-turn resource, as it were, that can be affected by spells and damage.

Please keep on keeping on, this is one of the most promising and interesting ideas I have seen in a long time.

I could see this game working in a very interesting way, with players designing spells made of the various elements and then casting them to unleash magical power which would (1) be used at some point to cause magical effects (rays, jets, walls, wards, and so forth) and (2) produce and destroy magical energy in accordance with the creative and destructive cycles.

Imagine that spells are defined in terms of the # of dice of each element they contain, and that casting a spell means that you place dice of “magical potential” into a “sphere” representing the relevant element.  Then as the magical duel progressed, you'd have each sorceror deciding whether to siphon off magical energy to create spell effects or letting the cycles of creation and destruction continue.

Let's say I have three spells: 
— Flaming Sword (Fire 2D, Metal 1D).
— Wall of Wood (Wood 4D).
— Gust of Wind (Water 2D, Earth 1D).

And let's say you have three spells:
— Hypnotic Gyrations (Fire 3D)
— Serenity (Water 2D, Wood 2D)
— Ironmonger (Metal 3D).

Creation Rule:  2 Dice in a sphere produce 1 Die in the affected sphere.
Destruction Rule:  1 Die in a sphere cancels out 1 Die in the affected sphere and is itself canceled.

0.  The duel begins.  We secretly pick what spells we're going to begin casting (maybe we have “spell cards” that we put face down onto the table..  I decide to cast Wall of Wood; you decide to cast Hypnotic Gyrations.
1.  We're both casting.
2.  We're both casting.
3.  I'm casting.  Your spell goes off, because your 3D of spell requires 3 “pulses” of casting time.  You turn over your spell card to reveal “  You put 3 Dice into your side of the Fire Sphere.  You use the Creation rule and produce 1 Die in Earth.  You lay down Ironmonger, face down:  it will go off in Pulse 6.
4.  My spell goes off.  You're casting.  I put 4 Dice into my side of the Wood Sphere.  I use the Creation rule and produce 2 Fire on my side.  You use the Creation rule and produce another Die in Earth.  I decide to produce a Spell Effect:  “Fiery Protection!” I say, and take my 2 Fire dice and roll them.  I get a 7; now any Fire-Effect spell you try to use against me has its effectiveness reduced by 7.
5.  We're both casting.  I lay Flaming Sword face down; it will go off in pulse 8.  I use 2 Wood to destroy 2 of your Earth, so you have none, but I only have 2 Wood left.  You produce 1 Earth.

and so forth. 

Bill

Hi Jux,

Jux wrote:
A question: Have you considered the impact of multiple spells cast in a single round? I'm not sure what it would do to the gameplay, perhaps overly complicating it, but it allows for some interesting results with counterspells, sheilds, and aegis. 3 spells per turn (or any number I suppose, 3 is just one Im familiar with from other settings) allows for creative cycling Within Turn.

A byproduct of this is also the addition of an action-per-turn resource, as it were, that can be affected by spells and damage.

This is probably the most impressive element system I've ever seen. I like it a lot. I also love Bills idea.

Anyways, what about injuries or "statuses" caused by elements? Would they be handled similarly?
Like, a burn for example would be fire based.

Hi FzGhoul,

FzGhouL wrote:
This is probably the most impressive element system I've ever seen. I like it a lot. I also love Bills idea.

Anyways, what about injuries or "statuses" caused by elements? Would they be handled similarly?
Like, a burn for example would be fire based.

Jeph, I was recently (as in, a month or two ago) inspired by an RPGnet post about a wizard duel game, and I had a little mechanic for casting magic I came up with, but no spells or further magic ideas or rules.  Here's the basics, in case you want some inspiration.

Wizards have the following stats:

Channeling
Skill
Mana
Influence

Roll as many d6s as you wish.
Each 1 is a success.  Each success grants you one point of Focus to spend on the current spell.
Each 6 is a point of backlash.

You can ignore a number of 6s equal to your channeling score.
Each level of skill you have increases the success number by one (so, +1 skill makes 1s and 2s successes).

Focus can be spent to activate magical effects for the current spell only.

Backlash can cause a number of effects as well, including damage, lowered Skill or Channeling scores, and reduced Mana.

Mana can be used to re-roll dice.  You regain Mana in a particular way, such as communing with nature, praying to a god, brutal sacrifice of virgins, or the like.  You know, normal magical-type stuff.

It seems like you already had a system in mind for this, but hey, you never know what people might get inspired by, right?  The least I could do is share the wealth.  I might have to share that Element thing... ;)

Ok, I noticed just after posting that Influence doesn't mean anything. I have no idea what I was thinking.  How embarassing, for everyone to see...

Since I am posting further explanations, "Focus" would be analogous to your Energy needed to cast spells and the extra successes needed to increase a spell's effect.  For example, if I ended up with 5 Focus points for my roll to cast Vitae Curdling Transmutation, I would spend 2 for the spell (right?) and then 3 for extra effectiveness.

In reponse to the specific concern of the system being enough to handle all eventualities:
- Should height (the archer on the wall) effect range substantively?
- is movement altered by conditions: swimming, ice..etc.

Otherwise it seems like on the scale encounters ought be happening, this would be more than adequite and as you noted as a second concern, shouldnt interfere with action.

would ask something else, but am crashing at the moment.
still elated.

Jeph wrote:
Lastly, a question to you all. I just considered the possibility of counterspelling an enemy's shield. As in, you attack with the Fire Harm spell Coruscating Ribbons of Crimson. They give up their next spell to respond with an Earth Shield, Floating Prism Refraction, which will trump your assault. Should you be able to give up your next spell to attempt to Counterspell their Shield? If I take this option, the trump relation will be Shields trump Counterspells of the element that creates them, but are trumped by Counterspells of the element they create. If I implement this rule it will make Counterspells objectively better than Shields, but that's not necessarily a bad thing as most casters will end up knowing a Shield or two through their school, anyway, and will just have to live with it and learn how to use them.

Bill_White wrote: (...) Then as the magical duel progressed, you'd have each sorceror deciding whether to siphon off magical energy to create spell effects or letting the cycles of creation and destruction continue. (...)

Jux wrote:
In reponse to the specific concern of the system being enough to handle all eventualities:
- Should height (the archer on the wall) effect range substantively?
- is movement altered by conditions: swimming, ice..etc.

Shreyas wrote:
An interesting detail about this is that you may not use the trumping counter against the trumping shield, because you're always prohibited by destructive cycle; I'm not sure whether you took this into account when you say that it makes Counterspells objectively superior; it certainly reduces their superiority somewhat. The situation with Aegises is different, though, as Liquid Mirror of Uncertainty, a Water Aegis, will draw an Earth counter like Radiance of Planet-Taming Crown, which gets a bonus from creative cycle (Does this matter when trumps are involved? I think it should.). That puts Aegises in an ugly place

Jeph wrote: I'm not sure what you mean, though, when you say that when an Aegis draws a trumping Counter, the Counter gets a bonus from the creative cycle. Could you elaborate?

Shreyas wrote:

Bill_White wrote: (...) Then as the magical duel progressed, you'd have each sorceror deciding whether to siphon off magical energy to create spell effects or letting the cycles of creation and destruction continue. (...)

This is beautiful. May I use it sometime in the future?