Hi this is the first cut on magic for my fantasy bronze age system.

http://www.geocities.com/stevenmathers/MAGIC.zip

I am unhappy with it for several reasons:

1)  its too mechanical.  each type of magic revolves around a 'magic user' who does something nifty which results in 'magic happening' fairly instantaneously.  i.e. you point the wand or say the mumbo-jumbo, and ZAP, something happens.

2) each style is too similar to each other style.  Both in terms of the mechanics (not sure if this is good or bad), but defiantely also the feel.  (as in each has the concept of 'a magic user who quickly makes magic happen' and also in terms of the type of effects that the magic can have.  i.e. there doesnt seem to be much qualitative difference between the effects generated by a sorceror as opposed to those generated by a shaman or divine magic user.

3) magic items.  what, can any type of magic user just make a 'magic item' that allows joe schmoe to produce magical effects similar to those that the magic user might have created?  have I played to much nethack?  do I really want 'wands of lighting' in this game?  What IS a magic item, anyway? 

I think all my problems stem from my own cultural expectations of magic and magic users.  its all very gandalf or harry potter, with a different name and rationale for each type of magic.

Things I want to address:

a)  sorcery is about knowledge, skill and power, but divine magic and shamanism is about relationships between the 'magic user' and the supernatural entity that 'does' the magic
b)  that each type of magic is qualatitvely different in terms of what can be accomplished and how it can be accomplished
c)  that magic items are not (genericly) portable substitute magicusers for non-magic user characters.  i.e. no generic wands of lightning

heres some random ideas I kind of like.  what do you think?

* shamistic magic is very much personal magic which can only affect a designated target.  The 'magic' occurs by the spirit 'inhabiting' the target.  therefore such effects as a fireball is not possible.  The idea is that the intrinsic nature of the spirit (the type of spirit) manifests in the target, perhaps giving the target abilities or aspects from it.  i.e. a deer spirit inhabiting the target allows speed and stamina, or a disease spirit causing sickness, etc...

* divine magic can be widely varried in power, as it depends on the devine entity's presence when the magic is invoked.  i.e. a preist of a 'god of winds' will get naff results on a still day, whereas at the height of a hurricane, his results will be awesome.  divine magic is invoked through prayer such that the 'magic user' brings himself and his requirements to the notice of his deity.  therefore if successful, the presence of the deity may result in 'side effects' as well as the intended effect.  such as a wind arising from nowhere when the priest invokes the wind god to carry his words on the wind to a distant target.

* divine magic items and shamanistic magic items are not magical in the sense that they contain magic spells which can be triggered by a user, but rather they are communication devices that enable the user to 'contact' the divine being or spirit they are associated with.  As such, they arent neccessarilly of any use to characters who dont have a relationship with that entity.  although it is possible to 'feel' the power of the connection?

* the process of executing divine magic or spirit magic is the process of contacting the entity in quesiton and asking it to do something.  As such, the 'magic items' listed above can help.  although with divine magic, I think the available scale of effect might be more powerful depending on the scale of the asking.  If 100 acolytes get together around a magic item (shrine or sacred location) and sacrifice 10 goats and pray all night, obviously they are going to get a lot more 'noticed' by their deity than one guy kind of asking for a favour...  So with divine magic you have the possibility to up the scale of the asking in return for upping the scale of the intended effect.  A mechanism that wont be availble for shamanism and sorcery

How do you feel about kicking out the whole set of DND fantasy magic conventions, and making your setting's sense of magic correspond to how we think magic was viewed in the Bronze Age?

You could check out what Wikipedia has to say on subjects like Zorastrianism, Greek Philosophy, Greek Polytheism, The Hundred Schools of Thought (in China), I-Ching, and etc to get a feel for all that, if you haven't already.

Religion and magic always seem to be bound together before the modern era, so you might want to tackle it from that side.

And recognize that you do not *have* to have magic, at least overt magic, in a work of fantasy. (I hope.)

Definately check out the Key of Solomon: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Key_of_Solomon

There's also the direct question of what you're pointing out in terms of the distinction between hermetic magic (a mage controlling principles for an intended effect) and shamanistic magic (a shaman propitiating the spirits, who are doing the real work).  What you're talking about there is the difference between a power that is in the character's control and a power that the character can only influence.

You can mirror that by removing the power from the player's control.  Have somebody else be in charge of what happens when they invoke the spirits.  Maybe the GM, maybe another player ... all sorts of ways you can distribute it.

Thoughts?

John Kim has a series of essays on Magic in Roleplaying that you might want to look at. The first, one, Breaking out of Scientific Magic, has a good summary of the features that make a system feel mechanical and modern.

One good point that he makes is the integration of moral character into magic. I know that for a long time, alchemists believed that in order to make something as pure as the Philosopher's Stone, they themselves had to be completely pure. If it failed, it was their fault for not being pure enough, rather than a flaw in the theories or process.

Sempiternity wrote:
How do you feel about kicking out the whole set of DND fantasy magic conventions, and making your setting's sense of magic correspond to how we think magic was viewed in the Bronze Age?

You could check out what Wikipedia has to say on subjects like Zorastrianism, Greek Philosophy, Greek Polytheism, The Hundred Schools of Thought (in China), I-Ching, and etc to get a feel for all that, if you haven't already.

Religion and magic always seem to be bound together before the modern era, so you might want to tackle it from that side.

And recognize that you do not *have* to have magic, at least overt magic, in a work of fantasy. (I hope.)

Selene wrote:
John Kim has a series of essays on Magic in Roleplaying that you might want to look at. The first, one, Breaking out of Scientific Magic, has a good summary of the features that make a system feel mechanical and modern.

One good point that he makes is the integration of moral character into magic. I know that for a long time, alchemists believed that in order to make something as pure as the Philosopher's Stone, they themselves had to be completely pure. If it failed, it was their fault for not being pure enough, rather than a flaw in the theories or process.

Actually, further on the idea of morality...  the system has a morality Pesonality Trait that is defined in terms of the morals of the society the character comes from.

I suppose that should be seperate from the characters relationship to a deity.  For instance you could have devout devil worshipper form todays society who drowns kittens and steals hubcaps.  By our societies standards his morals are low, but his 'faith' is high.

conversely you could have the preist who has fallen out with his deity but still adheres to the morals of the socity he lives in.  religious leaders are often required to have a different standard of morals from the rest of socitey - no drinking, sex, etc...

so in other words, the characters morality trait (as defined by this system) and the characters reltionship with their deity (favour stat) should be kept seperate.

I don't know if this will help you, as you seem to be going in a different direction, but one thing I've done in systems where magic item creation is fairly free form (mostly Changeling: The Dreaming) is create magic items with limits. Some items I can remember off the top of my head include a pen that couldn't write the truth and a sword that once drawn couldn't put away until blood was drawn.

What function do you want magic to have in your game world?

The kinds of things that you can actually do with magic will influence how those societies hang together and make sense.  If you simply design a set of magical causes and effects, then these may undercut some other desired element of the setting.  So I think the thing to do is determine how magic "fits", and then figure out mechanisms to implement that fit.

Anna wrote:
I don't know if this will help you, as you seem to be going in a different direction, but one thing I've done in systems where magic item creation is fairly free form (mostly Changeling: The Dreaming) is create magic items with limits. Some items I can remember off the top of my head include a pen that couldn't write the truth and a sword that once drawn couldn't put away until blood was drawn.

contracycle wrote:
What function do you want magic to have in your game world?

The kinds of things that you can actually do with magic will influence how those societies hang together and make sense.  If you simply design a set of magical causes and effects, then these may undercut some other desired element of the setting.  So I think the thing to do is determine how magic "fits", and then figure out mechanisms to implement that fit.

Hey Steve. (It's Steve, right?)

My question's kind of a complement of Gareth's:

Do you envision magic to be primarily a tool for the PCs to use, a hazard for the PCs to deal with, or a neutral but atmospheric feature of the setting?

Please don't dash back with "all three." Please imagine some people playing your game, having their characters do something - how does magic figure in your vision of play?

-Vincent

Hi!
  Another way to dissect this issue is to ask practical questions:
1) What do peasants want from a Magic User?
2) What do craftsmen want from a Magic User?
3) What do soldiers want from a Magic User?
4) What do nobles want from a Magic User?
5) How do Magic User's make thier money? (I mean they have to eat don;t they?)
6) Do Magic Users really distinguish themselves from other Magic Users? If so, why?
7) Is the Magic of different Magic Users really different? If so, why?
  Forget about the rules, and just answer these in reference to the setting. Then come back and make rules that match.

lumpley wrote:
Hey Steve. (It's Steve, right?)

My question's kind of a complement of Gareth's:

Do you envision magic to be primarily a tool for the PCs to use, a hazard for the PCs to deal with, or a neutral but atmospheric feature of the setting?

Please don't dash back with "all three." Please imagine some people playing your game, having their characters do something - how does magic figure in your vision of play?

-Vincent

dindenver wrote:
Hi!
  Another way to dissect this issue is to ask practical questions:
1) What do peasants want from a Magic User?
2) What do craftsmen want from a Magic User?
3) What do soldiers want from a Magic User?
4) What do nobles want from a Magic User?
5) How do Magic User's make thier money? (I mean they have to eat don;t they?)
6) Do Magic Users really distinguish themselves from other Magic Users? If so, why?
7) Is the Magic of different Magic Users really different? If so, why?
  Forget about the rules, and just answer these in reference to the setting. Then come back and make rules that match.

Stefoid, you are going to have make some decisions on the above questions.  Saying its the route you are going down does not help, but these are only indicative of POSSIBLE routes.  You still have not told use what role you WANT magic to play in your GAME; instead we have discussed the game setting and Real World analogues.  But, form follows funciton, so we must determine what funciton magic is to fill in your game before we can address methods of implementation or metaphysical rationales.  So far, the most concrete statement you ahve made is this: "I think it is most likely that PCs will be opposed to any sorceror they come across, unless of course the scenario is one where the PCs are associated with sorcerous magic themselves."

From that we can deduce that magic is not intended as a PC power, is that fair?

First decide what role magic will have in game.
Next decide how magic will work (there can be multiple methods) as far as rules are considered.
Then, how does it work in game fiction.

We can't be of much help before you answer to the first one.

stefoid wrote:

lumpley wrote:
Do you envision magic to be primarily a tool for the PCs to use, a hazard for the PCs to deal with, or a neutral but atmospheric feature of the setting?

so i would say mostly a) for barbarian culture characters and mostly c) for civilized characters

I can see barbarian characters specifically benefitting from magic in their endevours, either from the help of a shaman character, or by specifically enlisting the aid of spirits themselves through spiritual quests and ordeals.

I can see civilized characters benefitting from magic via obtaining devine magical items, or by participating in religious ceremonies.

I think it is most likely that PCs will be opposed to any sorceror they come across, unless of course the scenario is one where the PCs are associated with sorcerous magic themselves.

For inspiration.

stefoid wrote: Thats where I got the three main concepts from :  divine magic, shamanism and sorcery.  These were recognized styles of magic in ancient times.  I am trying to find out more details of ancient magic but its hard work.  Im slowly building my library at home with various sources.

contracycle wrote:
Stefoid, you are going to have make some decisions on the above questions.  Saying its the route you are going down does not help, but these are only indicative of POSSIBLE routes.  You still have not told use what role you WANT magic to play in your GAME; instead we have discussed the game setting and Real World analogues.  But, form follows funciton, so we must determine what funciton magic is to fill in your game before we can address methods of implementation or metaphysical rationales.  So far, the most concrete statement you ahve made is this: "I think it is most likely that PCs will be opposed to any sorceror they come across, unless of course the scenario is one where the PCs are associated with sorcerous magic themselves."

From that we can deduce that magic is not intended as a PC power, is that fair?

Tommi wrote:
For inspiration.

I am curious what source(s) you have read that have given you this idea. I ask, as having studied the occult and ancient religions (and cultures) for the past decade-and-a-half, I know the tropes of D&D fantasy, where wizards are the atheistic students of impersonal arcane forces and priests interact with otherworldly entities and focus upon morality and moral strictures (and where shamans are spiritual intermediaries who talk with and become possessed by a variety of different non-corporeal entities) are non-existant in the historical practice of magic.

Historically, "sorcerers" were of the priest-class, as only the priest caste was able to learn and study such things -- were required to, in fact, as their duties required the regular performance of magical rituals. Mainly this was because only the priests were allowed (or taught) to read and thus have access to all the recorded secrets of the ages [sup][1][/sup]. As well as because (even well past the Bronze Age) priests were the mathematicians, the astronomers, and the law-keepers -- they WERE the educated intelligentsia of society. They built the foundations of the practices that became medieval occultism and (in time) science.

[sup][1][/sup] This is particularly true in the age we are discussing regarding your game -- if, as it seems, you wish to at least somewhat accurately portray the Bronze Age -- the act of reading and writing itself was seen as magical and mysterious. Written words held great power, and reading itself was a sorcerous act.

You should realize in the historical practice of magic, sorcerers called upon the gods and spirits to help enact the magic for them; that all the signs and sigils and glyphs magicians use are tied to supernatural forces: gods and spirits and other sorts of entities. Even alchemy, arguably the most "scientific" magical practice, requires great spiritual work and devotion.

Also, when talking about magic, realize that everything in the practice of sorcery/magic is hinged upon the divine/supernatural world, and this applies to modern occult traditions as well. In real magical traditions, as in historical magical traditions, there is no seperation between magic as a divine force and magic as a "natural" force, because there was no seperation between these two things: the divine forces are the natural forces. There is no strange old man muttering over mathematical formulae to cause changes to reality through some sort of pseudo-science, without even a nod to the gods and spirits...because those formulae, with or without math, nearly all invoke and refer to supernatural/divine entities!

Simply put: there was no "sorcerer" and "priest", no difference between "magic" and "divine magic": they were one and the same. (Even shamanism was simply a different cultural tradition of such!)

I'm point all this out as you are calling the game "Bronze Age" and intending it to be Bronze Age fantasy [sup][2][/sup]. If that is the focus of the game play, to recreate the Bronze Age via gaming, then whether or not you want to model this is something you will strongly need to consider in the design of your game. Would doing so meet your goals for play? How historically accurate are you attempting to be, and where do you feel it best to sacrifice historical accuracy for game play? Thus, do you see it as necessary for some game reason to keep these practices seperate, and create, for your setting, an artificial division between them that does not exist in the historical practice?

Which, of course, is simply the question everyone else is asking: "What is supposed to be happening in this game? What is its focus (and how does magic tie into that)?"

[sup][2][/sup] Of course, which Bronze Age is also a question. Celtic? Egyptian? Babylonian? Have you reviewed how these cultures viewed enchanted items and magical trinkets to see if they match with your design goals for play?

Lumpley asks some very good questions, Steve. I urge you to answer.

Joshua wrote:
Lumpley asks some very good questions, Steve. I urge you to answer.

lumpley wrote:

stefoid wrote:

lumpley wrote:
Do you envision magic to be primarily a tool for the PCs to use, a hazard for the PCs to deal with, or a neutral but atmospheric feature of the setting?

so i would say mostly a) for barbarian culture characters and mostly c) for civilized characters

I can see barbarian characters specifically benefitting from magic in their endevours, either from the help of a shaman character, or by specifically enlisting the aid of spirits themselves through spiritual quests and ordeals.

I can see civilized characters benefitting from magic via obtaining devine magical items, or by participating in religious ceremonies.

I think it is most likely that PCs will be opposed to any sorceror they come across, unless of course the scenario is one where the PCs are associated with sorcerous magic themselves.

Awesome! Good answers.

Next question:

You say "benefitting in their endeavors." What will their endeavors be, generally? In your game, what do the PCs do?

Just like "all three" was a bad answer, "whatever they want" is a bad answer. Imagine some people playing your game, having their characters do things - what is it they're having their characters do?

-Vincent

hmm, we're back to this.  The best answer I could come up with in another thread on the general rules is that my game is 'about' the bronze age setting.  My thang is to build up these really detailed cultures that capture the imaginations of the players.  Help the players get into the role of being a barbarian sheep herder or a comopolitan city-dweller in the decrepit capital of the old empire.  You know: roleplaying !!  Whatever the players have their character do will depend on whatever scenario the GM cooks up.  In general that involves resolving problems they are faced with.  Achieving goals set by the GM. 

I dont have any one idea about 'what the characters do', like in some of these other games where the characters are required to be variations of a specific type or do specific things.

Characters in my game struggle to balance their day to day lives with the harsh calamities of war. The game is about exploring the world around you, which is both dangerous and constantly changing.

joepub wrote:

hmm, we're back to this.  The best answer I could come up with in another thread on the general rules is that my game is 'about' the bronze age setting.  My thang is to build up these really detailed cultures that capture the imaginations of the players.  Help the players get into the role of being a barbarian sheep herder or a comopolitan city-dweller in the decrepit capital of the old empire.  You know: roleplaying !!  Whatever the players have their character do will depend on whatever scenario the GM cooks up.  In general that involves resolving problems they are faced with.  Achieving goals set by the GM. 

I dont have any one idea about 'what the characters do', like in some of these other games where the characters are required to be variations of a specific type or do specific things.

Can someone link the thread which gives the 3 questions with sample answers for Sorcerer, DitV, and... Universalis, I think? (I just can never find that thread, my apologies.)

Stefoid, you describe setting and possibilities really well.
I am excited about THOSE.

but what these guys are asking is more about premise, intent, etc.
This isn't about limiting player choice, this is about guiding the tone and game.

To give you an example of what an answer to this question might be:

Characters in my game struggle to balance their day to day lives with the harsh calamities of war. The game is about exploring the world around you, which is both dangerous and constantly changing.

This EXAMPLE outlines that the game might be about experiencing culture, experiencing war, and exploring your world.
Experience and exploration seem key in this game, as does the dangers and wars.

You say above:

I thought I did.  the answer is it depends on the scenario.

Hey Steve.

I think you're doing fine. We want to help, we want you to realize your vision and we want to play your game. We're trying to find out what your vision is - not because we don't believe you have one, just because we can't see it yet. It's in your head, not ours.

Also, remember that my goal here is to help you figure out how you want your magic rules to work, specifically. My questions are leading to that, don't get distracted.

stefoid wrote:
so what is it?  age of recovery?  age of expansion?  age of political consolidation (there are a lot factions)?, or just sheep herding barbarians having shenanigans  amongst themselves, which was the subject of my first scenario I playtested?

contracycle wrote:
You say above:

I thought I did.   the answer is it depends on the scenario.

So lets approach it like this: what kind of scenarios are suitable in your world?  What kind of scenarios would you expect, or prefer, GM's to construct?  What kind of scenarios would allow the players to get the most out of your world?  To see the interesting and unique things that make this setting special?

For example, Legend of the Five Rings, while being fairly conventional in most respects, has as a suggested mode of play "the magistrate game", in which the PC's are Imperial Magistrates.  As such, they have reasons to go to interesting places, deal with important plots, and interact with powerful people, all of which provides good opportunities for the Exploration of the pseudo-Japanese setting.  It even remarks upon the fact that the setting does have wandering, violent opportunists like the conventional adventuring party, but that here they are referred to as "bandits" and hunted down and killed.  Further, the assumption is that all characters will be Samurai, and as such necessarily deal with issues of honour and face - rather like the game example given above of "the calamities of war", it is presumed that such issues of honour and face are unavoidable and a necessary part of "the PC condition".

In so doing L5R provides quite a lot of direction for how to build scenarios at the table.  It is not just a description of the world dropped in front of the players.  It provides information on what kind of people make good PC's, and what kind of activities those PC's are likely to engage in - court intrigue, duelling, investigation, etc. - and what kind of issues make good plots.

I hope that helps illustrate the question of "what do the players do".  Even if you don't adopt the magistrate game in L5R, simply knowing the PC's are going to be Samurai helps everyone understand where game play is likely to go, how to select suitable characters and skills, etc.

lumpley wrote:
Hey Steve.

I think you're doing fine. We want to help, we want you to realize your vision and we want to play your game. We're trying to find out what your vision is - not because we don't believe you have one, just because we can't see it yet. It's in your head, not ours.

Also, remember that my goal here is to help you figure out how you want your magic rules to work, specifically. My questions are leading to that, don't get distracted.

stefoid wrote:
so what is it?  age of recovery?  age of expansion?  age of political consolidation (there are a lot factions)?, or just sheep herding barbarians having shenanigans  amongst themselves, which was the subject of my first scenario I playtested?

These are good answers.

Okay, so what you have here is:

a) The PCs rebuild civilization, expand civilization, consolidate political power (around them-personal-selves, presumably), and jockey for power and resources (that's how I read your "shenanigans," please correct me if I'm wrong), all in a mish-mash.

b) Magic is a tool they use to help them accomplish these things.

Sound right?

So now confirm for me the kinds of things that'll oppose them in their endeavors. I'm just brainstorming based on my sense of what you're going for:
-rival factions
-sorcerers
-corrupt city officials
-the entrenched despotic ruling castes
-barbarian tribes
-undead warriors
-corrupt priests
-tyrants and warlords

That kind of thing, yes?

Confirm that I'm on the right track and then I'll ask my next question.

-Vincent

Steve, you have to either model every single interaction you could possibly have, or you have to model the parts of conflict that you care about. How does magic work in the kind of conflict you want to have?

I'd like it if you could give us an example. A real-life example would be best, but a hypothetical one would be good, too. Give a couple of examples, if you want to show different kinds of conflict.

Joshua, Ill get onto that soon.

In the meantime, if anyone is interested in a 'potted' history of the setting, I have put it here:

www.geocities.com/stevenmathers/SETTING.zip

This isnt how it will be presented to the players.  This is just me writing to myself.  The players will read about the different cultures and have to assimilate a world view from what each culture thinks about the world.

Joshua wrote:
Steve, you have to either model every single interaction you could possibly have, or you have to model the parts of conflict that you care about. How does magic work in the kind of conflict you want to have?

I'd like it if you could give us an example. A real-life example would be best, but a hypothetical one would be good, too. Give a couple of examples, if you want to show different kinds of conflict.

on theistic magic

the worshipper, whether preist or acolyte or just plain believer has a relationship with their chosen deity.  Their title doesnt neccessarilly reflect the strength of that relationship, but often does.  By relationship, i dont mean that the worshipper and the deity communicate on an everyday level, but rather it represents the strength of the connection btween the man and the god.  The man can call on the god and can feel the god to be close to him when this is successful.  his god is 'with' him.

this process can be initiated by a number of means - some means are more effective than others - certain rituals, ceremonies, and simply more numbers of worshippers all doing it at once is more effective.  This is the real difference between a preist and an ignorant believer, even if they both have a strong relationship with their deity - the priest has the knowledge required to perform the rituals and the mundane clout to gather the many worshippers and lead them in worship, so his results are generally going to be more impressive, than the single devout believer in personal prayer.

Another factor which figures in the effectiveness of any theistic magic is the fact that the deity might be more or less present in a certain time or place of its own accord, and efforts to work divine magic are going to be more or less effective accordingly.  example is calling on the god of the winds during a still day comapred to during a hurricane.  certain times and places will be sacred to certain deities.  again, the religious heirarcy are going to have this knowledge which may or may not be public information, depending on the nature of the deity - secret cults and so on are secret, after all.

Having drawn on their conenction with their deity, the worshipper may then ask for magic to be worked on their behalf.  The god cannot do just anything - it can only affect that which is under its domain.  a god of wind can only do 'windy' type things.  Certain powerful gods may have more than one aspect - that is, more than one domain that they can work in.  The god must be closer or 'more present' to do more powerful miracles.  This will have side effects other than the intended miracle.  For instance if a preist calls on the god of the winds to carry his words to far away destnation, then a wind will arise from nowhere, a side efect of the deities presence.  the more powerful the effect, the more powerful the side effect.

Lastly, ceremonies and ritual can be used to bless an item to make it sacred to the deity.  This is not really any different in concept to asking the deity to perform any other kind of miracle.  just as aspects of the deity are more or less present in the world at large, (depending on its own domain of influence), they are specifically very much present in a blessed item.  the item then takes on certain specified properties that are within the deities domain of influence.  one of these properties might simply be to assist in worship/communication with the god itself, to make the process easier -- A sacred space can be made, (blessing a temple or alter), or religious symbol .  But other effects could be made inherent in the item as well.  A sword made sacred to the god of death would be particularly lethal, for instance.  a cup blessed by the god of wine and song might bestow hallucinegenic properties on any wine poured from it.  such effects are 'always on' .  the magical effect is inherent in the item.  No effect that has to be initiated can be 'stored' in a sacred item.  A sacred item is fairly useless to a non-believer because he has no relationship with the deity to draw apon.

The scale of thesitic magic can vary from the minor to the very very powerful, in direct correspondance to the effort and success of the worship that goes into it.  An example of the minor might be a quickly mumbled prayer and request for aid or luck before performing a task - this is modelled by 'tapping a favour point'  in order to get a 1L bonus on a roll, or to bump up a failed roll.  At the other end of the scale is massive ritual conducted by many worshippers during at a sacred time at a sacred place.  Such a thing could be expected to help crops grow well all year, or prevent a volcano from errupting, etc...

Hey Steve.

I'm going to continue with the questions, okay?

Here's a name for my next question: arenas of conflict.

Here on this side of the line are the PCs, trying to expand civilization (in this for-example case). Here on the other side of the line is a barbarian clan, trying to keep 'em from expanding.

Is the line political, like the PCs are trying to win an alliance from the clan matriarch? Is it mercantile, like the PCs are trying to enforce trade tariffs on the clan? Is it war (small-scale, in this case, but you can imagine whole massed armies in other cases)? Is it sexual, like the PCs are trying to father their blood into the clan? Is it cultural, like the PCs are trying to teach the clan to read and write? Is it religious, like the PCs are trying to convert the clan away from their heathen superstitions?

Might it be any of those, or are there some you don't care about?

Answer that, and then...

Whatever arenas of conflict you're going to have in your game, both the PCs and the NPCs need to have resources that make them competitive in those arenas. For some arenas, but not most, things like body strength and how fast you can run and how skilled a harper you - the stuff you usually find on a character sheet - will matter. For other arenas, you'll need to put a whole different kind of stuff on the character sheets: who the character's related to by blood, how many men the character can call upon, what reputation preceeds the character, things like that.

For each arena of conflict you're going to support in your game, what resources might the PCs have that make them competitive? Just brainstorm me three or four for each arena you choose.

After that, THEN we can talk about magic.

-Vincent

Hi Lumpley, in case you werent aware of it, this thread is about the general rules.  As you can see, I spent a lot of time discussing the 'aboutness' of the game.

http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=18496.0

but you can see Ive modelled other things besides magic and favour in the basic rules.  there is stuff on stats, skills, personalities, persuasion, favour and combat.  granted it needs simplfying and ironing out in a few places.

but as to your question: two things.  1st is that it kind of depends on which barbarian culture we are talking about.  I really like the idea of the civilized inhabitants seeing themselves as a haven of relative saftey amidst a world of dangerous unknowns.  This is kind of ancient greek in that respect... the greeks considered themselves as the only civilized people, and all the rest are barbarians who are no doubt stupid, dangerous and do horrible things like eat each other and sacrifice their children to terrible gods.  However this is tempered somewhat by the exact barbarian culture we are talking about.  Some are more familliar and hence less demonized to the civilized folk than others.

2nd is that I think all of your scenarios have merit.  My question to you is why would I the designer of the game want to encourage the players to choose one type of scenario predominantly over the other?

Nah, the other thread's a mess.

stefoid wrote:
My question to you is why would I the designer of the game want to encourage the players to choose one type of scenario predominantly over the other?

stefoid wrote: My question to you is why would I the designer of the game want to encourage the players to choose one type of scenario predominantly over the other?

stefoid wrote:
My question to you is why would I the designer of the game want to encourage the players to choose one type of scenario predominantly over the other?

Why would you? You would if it better served your vision to do so. If it didn't, you wouldn't. I don't have any kind of "choose one! CHOOSE!" agenda.

Choose 'em all then. Brainstorm me some resources.

If you're going "dude, Vincent, wade through the other thread, you'll see it's all there already" - then cool. Then my next question:

In your game, is magic a resource or an arena of conflict?

-Vincent

stefoid wrote:
the potted summary is I have a game with 7 stats and any number of skills that are mostly associated with those stats. pretty standard fare, really. The stat caps the associated skill such that the skill cant be three or more levels higher than the stat. So a weedy guy isnt going to be an unarmed combat monster or the vague guy with crappy concentration isnt going to make an arch-sorceror.

As for resources if I understand how you use the term, you got favour points, mental points and body points that get run down when you do certain things- if you call on a spirit or god or you want to bump a dud roll, or you execute a signature move in combat, you tap your favour points, if you do some funky sorcery or drink a bottle of whiskey you tap your mental points and if you get damaged or real tired you tap your body points.

OK, Ill play along, but surely a lot of the resources you are have given as examples are situational, rather than something that a game designer can address.  So im not sure where youre going with this.

Cool, let's back up, talk about resouces.

You can think of the stuff on the character sheet as tools the PCs can bring to bear on problems. For instance, a problem: the barbarian queen has her men tie the PC to a tree and leave him for the wolves. What resources can the PC bring to bear, what tools can he use? A bodily strength stat, a hidden knife, a contortions skill, an alliance with the field mice, a friend hiding nearby, the fact that the queen's secretly in love with him, the fact that the queen's son is secretly in love with him, kinship with wolves - see how each of those might be useful to have?

So a problem in the political arena: the PCs are trying to negotiate a political alliance, but the barbarian queen thinks (rightly) that the alliance will undermine her authority. What resources can the PCs bring to bear on the problem, what tools might they have at their disposal? This is all bluffing, got-you-over-a-barrel, appealing to honor, rhetoric, idealism vs. pragmatism, flattery, "you and I, we're men of the world," back-room deals, shows of force, genuine compromise, keeping and breaking promises kind of stuff, wicked cool stuff. What resources might the PCs have to back up that kind of action?

I'll brainstorm a few: their blood ties to the queen, the hostage they're holding, their leader's commanding presence, the army encamped nearby. Now you add a few things to my list.

Next a problem in the sexual arena: the PCs (all men) are trying to fuck lots and lots of women in the barbarian tribe, so that 9 months from now they'll have blood-sway over the tribe, but the barbarian queen (naturally) doesn't want them to. What resources can they bring to bear? Their stealth, their good looks, their willingness to commit rape, what? List me a few.

And so on. Pose a problem in the mercantile arena, the cultural arena, the war arena, the religious arena - what tools do the PCs have at hand? What makes them competitive in that arena when they go up against the wealth, tradition, army, and shamanistic power of the barbarian queen?

List some things for me, just off the top of your head, I don't care if they're stats, skills or what. Then we can talk about magic, which is what we really want to do here!

oh, I should add that vaious talents/flaws (another standard concept) use up or give extra creation points.  Stuff that comes under this category is just about anything relating to the character that the GM or player wants, such as good and bad relationships with individuals or groups, wealth, reputations, being indebted or having favurs to call on...anything.

I wish you could edit posts.  I forgot.  intuition...  noticing human cues to work out emotions, lies, motivations etc..  awareness is a 'noticing physical stuff not readilly apparent' skill

Well...

Maybe that's enough to work with. If it's not, we'll hit a dead end in a couple of posts and we'll have to come back to it. That's fine.

So. For your game, do you want magic to be a) a tool you can bring to bear in any arena of conflict; b) a tool you can bring to bear in only certain arenas of conflict, like the political arena or the war arena; or c) an arena of conflict all its own?

(a) might look like this:

SHAMANIC MAGIC
In the political arena:
- DEER backs uncompromising positions, strongly backs avoiding confrontation, and is vulnerable to threats.
- BEAR strongly backs compromise enforced by strength of arms, and is vulnerable to flattery.
- WOLF backs alliance, strongly backs loyalty and royalty, and is vulnerable to treachery.
etc.

In the sexual arena:
- DEER backs flirtation and coyness of all kinds, strongly backs playing hard-to-get, and is vulnerable to Cassanovas.
- BEAR backs sex for fun, strongly backs family devotion, and is vulnerable to infidelity.
- WOLF backs arranged marriages, strongly backs marriage to cement alliances of power, and is vulnerable to lovelessness.
etc.

In the war arena:
- DEER strongly backs stealth, deception, and refusal to engage, and is vulnerable to flanking and cornering.
- BEAR backs shows of force, strongly backs cutting your losses, and is vulnerable to provocation.
- WOLF backs all kinds of direct assaults, strongly backs hit-and-run, and is vulnerable to poor morale.
etc.

And you'd continue on for each of the arenas of conflict.

You'd mechanically define "backs," "strongly backs," and "is vulnerable to" - like when I've invoked a spirit into myself, maybe I get +4 when I do things the spirit backs, +8 when I do things the spirit strongly backs, and my enemies gets +6 when they do to me things the spirit's vulnerable to.

Then you'd go on to theistic magic and sorcery. There, instead of spirits backing things, you could have wholly different rules. Maybe for theistic magic it's all a matter of making sacrifices to particular gods:

THEISTIC MAGIC
In the political arena:
-Sacrifice a bull to Polla for three +2 bonuses, to apply as you see fit to future political action.
In the martial arena:
-Pledge your child into military service for a +3 bonus to every military action you take.
-Pledge one third of the spoils to the temple of Miches for a +2 bonus to every action you take in the battle.
In the sexual arena:
-Sacrifice 3 doves to Aes to reroll on the conception probability chart.
etc.

And then again for sorcery: in the political arena, what does sorcery give you? In the martial arena, what does sorcery give you? In the sexual arena etc.?

(b) would look the same, except that for each kind of magic you'd choose some of the arenas of conflict and leave others out. Like maybe:
Shamanic magic is good in the sexual, war, and cultural arenas, but not the mercantile, political or religious.
Theistic magic is good in the cultural, political, mercantile and religious arenas.
Sorcery is good in the sexual, war, and religious arenas.
Or whatever suits your vision.

(c) looks entirely different. I'm not going to describe it yet; I'm not sure you've got what I'm talking about when I say "arenas of conflict," and if you don't, it'll just be noise.

So are (a) and (b) making sense to you?

It'll help you A LOT, by the way, if you let go your misperception that situational resources aren't the game designer's job.

-Vincent

Maybe that's enough to work with. If it's not, we'll hit a dead end in a couple of posts and we'll have to come back to it. That's fine.

So. For your game, do you want magic to be a) a tool you can bring to bear in any arena of conflict; b) a tool you can bring to bear in only certain arenas of conflict, like the political arena or the war arena; or c) an arena of conflict all its own?

(a) might look like this:

(b) would look the same, except that for each kind of magic you'd choose some of the arenas of conflict and leave others out. Like maybe:
Shamanic magic is good in the sexual, war, and cultural arenas, but not the mercantile, political or religious. 
Theistic magic is good in the cultural, political, mercantile and religious arenas.
Sorcery is good in the sexual, war, and religious arenas.
Or whatever suits your vision.

(c) looks entirely different. I'm not going to describe it yet; I'm not sure you've got what I'm talking about when I say "arenas of conflict," and if you don't, it'll just be noise.

So are (a) and (b) making sense to you?

It'll help you A LOT, by the way, if you let go your misperception that situational resources aren't the game designer's job.

Having "gods of" is generally a bad idea. Have gods that did something, that were children of something, fought with something, loved something, etc. That is how it was.

what, can I just roll up a character that has this  up hi sleeve?

stefoid wrote:
take 'the queen is in love with the character'  from an ealier post.  Are you suggesting that 'love of the queen' be something that the game can grant the character without the character going through the situational process fo trying to win the love of the queen?  what, can I just roll up a character that has this  up hi sleeve?

Im looking at it from the point of view that the ancients used gods and spirits and demons as a way to explain the world. Therefore Im looking at a very literal interpretation of what the domain of a diety or spirit is. The god of winds does wind. thats it.

So Spirits and deities each have their own spheres of influence, so in that respect, I guess I could simply categorize those, and whatever arena the player can find them helpful in, then thats great. [my emphasis]

there will be many different types of gods so the arenas that they influence will be fairly broad I imagine. I havent got time to sit down and work out all the domains that they will cover, but your point is that I should think about what domains I want magic to be able to cover before I do that.

Just to give a concrete example of what Vincent is talking about here:

More to the point, though, "the queen is in love with me" has to have rules-supported significance, which makes it your job as the designer of the rules.

Steve, I still don't understand what magic is for in your game.

Game rules are there to give kick to the words people say that determine what's real in the game. How do your rules, magic included, give punch to what the players are doing?

Give an example of play. I really don't understand.

Having "gods of" is generally a bad idea. Have gods that did something, that were children of something, fought with something, loved something, etc. That is how it was.

what, can I just roll up a character that has this  up hi sleeve?

How is it different from the character having an artifact of great power, or Herculean strength?

Hi!
  Again, I feel like we are talking about a critical time in the overall arch of human history. And that there was, in fact, a lot of magic involved in peoples everyday life.
  I don't want to put you on the defensive, but I think minimizing player's access to magic is counter to your premise of a fairly realistic/faithful depiction of the Bronze Age.
  In order to put it in perspective, maybe think of it as a tool. For instance, if I said "There should be a spell that you can cast to burn a house down" Your gut reaction might be to say no. That effect is too dramatic and too powerful for what you can do without magic. But in fact, you can burn a house down with a torch...
  Also, you can adapt the power levels by guiding magic's impact on people's daily life. for instance, Weather, Agriculture, Healing, Love/Emotions, Luck/Grace and Divination. These are the areas where a magically adept character would be most advised to study.
Example
Sorcery - Character's domain is Weather and Agriculture
Shamanism - Healing and Emotions
Thurgey - Divination and Luck
  As you can see these powers have real impact on the game world, but don't give these characters a huge combat advantage...
  It's just an idea. But I think in order for you to be satisfied, you need to ignore the rules ramifications for a moment and define what magic is in this world (regardless of what it is for you). How do Peasants relate to that, how do Nobles relate to it?
  A tool, you can use to get an idea of what I mean is, to be Objective. Describe what Magic means to a Medieval chinese Peasant. Describe what Magic means to a Voodoo witch Doctor. Describe what Magic means to a Native American Shaman. Then Describe what Magic means to a Bronze Age peasant. Then Describe what Magic means to a Bronze Age noble. If you do all these steps, in this order, then you might be in the right frame of mind to look at Magic objectively, define what it is and then, you can make rules that match that definition.
  I understand your concerns, you want to avoid making a D&D clone, you want to make a game that your Western Audience can relate too and you don't want Magic to take center stage or unbalance your game. But you have to realize that it is an appropriate element of your proposed setting, so take a step back from those other concerns and try and craft a set of rules that makes sense. Then you can just tweak them to become what you need it to be.
  I know this post is kind of long, but I hope it helps push you in the right direction...

stefoid wrote:
take 'the queen is in love with the character'  from an ealier post.  Are you suggesting that 'love of the queen' be something that the game can grant the character without the character going through the situational process fo trying to win the love of the queen?  what, can I just roll up a character that has this  up hi sleeve?

Sure. Why not?

More to the point, though, "the queen is in love with me" has to have rules-supported significance, which makes it your job as the designer of the rules

I wish I thought you'd be receptive to me suggesting some rpgs for you to read and play. Your approach to design is pretty underinformed.

Im looking at it from the point of view that the ancients used gods and spirits and demons as a way to explain the world. Therefore Im looking at a very literal interpretation of what the domain of a diety or spirit is. The god of winds does wind. thats it.

So Spirits and deities each have their own spheres of influence, so in that respect, I guess I could simply categorize those, and whatever arena the player can find them helpful in, then thats great. [my emphasis]

How do we know, as players and GM of your game, how helpful the player can legitimately find, say, wind powers in a political conflict? For instance, say that you're a player and I'm the GM, and you say "I use my wind powers to smash the barbarian queen's flagship on the rocks, and I tell her that if she doesn't marry my son I'll do her whole fleet that way." As GM, how much sway do I give your character's threat? We're rolling dice to see if you break her will - how big a modifier on the roll is your use of wind magic?

As designer, you need to answer that question, for every possible case. "For every possible case" just means that you need to answer the question in principle. Here's a well-known and artful example, using die pools: every success you roll in your wind magic roll gives you a bonus die to your roll to break her will. The principle is: if one roll follows on the success of another, each success in the first roll gives you a bonus die in the second.

there will be many different types of gods so the arenas that they influence will be fairly broad I imagine. I havent got time to sit down and work out all the domains that they will cover, but your point is that I should think about what domains I want magic to be able to cover before I do that.

Not domains. The question you need to answer is about arenas of conflict, not domains.

If that distinction doesn't make sense to you - if you're like, "domains, arenas, what's the diff?" - you need to let me know.

dindenver wrote:
Hi!
  Again, I feel like we are talking about a critical time in the overall arch of human history. And that there was, in fact, a lot of magic involved in peoples everyday life.
  I don't want to put you on the defensive, but I think minimizing player's access to magic is counter to your premise of a fairly realistic/faithful depiction of the Bronze Age.
  In order to put it in perspective, maybe think of it as a tool. For instance, if I said "There should be a spell that you can cast to burn a house down" Your gut reaction might be to say no. That effect is too dramatic and too powerful for what you can do without magic. But in fact, you can burn a house down with a torch...
  Also, you can adapt the power levels by guiding magic's impact on people's daily life. for instance, Weather, Agriculture, Healing, Love/Emotions, Luck/Grace and Divination. These are the areas where a magically adept character would be most advised to study.
Example
Sorcery - Character's domain is Weather and Agriculture
Shamanism - Healing and Emotions
Thurgey - Divination and Luck
  As you can see these powers have real impact on the game world, but don't give these characters a huge combat advantage...
  It's just an idea. But I think in order for you to be satisfied, you need to ignore the rules ramifications for a moment and define what magic is in this world (regardless of what it is for you). How do Peasants relate to that, how do Nobles relate to it?
  A tool, you can use to get an idea of what I mean is, to be Objective. Describe what Magic means to a Medieval chinese Peasant. Describe what Magic means to a Voodoo witch Doctor. Describe what Magic means to a Native American Shaman. Then Describe what Magic means to a Bronze Age peasant. Then Describe what Magic means to a Bronze Age noble. If you do all these steps, in this order, then you might be in the right frame of mind to look at Magic objectively, define what it is and then, you can make rules that match that definition.
  I understand your concerns, you want to avoid making a D&D clone, you want to make a game that your Western Audience can relate too and you don't want Magic to take center stage or unbalance your game. But you have to realize that it is an appropriate element of your proposed setting, so take a step back from those other concerns and try and craft a set of rules that makes sense. Then you can just tweak them to become what you need it to be.
  I know this post is kind of long, but I hope it helps push you in the right direction...

Calithena wrote:
Just to give a concrete example of what Vincent is talking about here:

More to the point, though, "the queen is in love with me" has to have rules-supported significance, which makes it your job as the designer of the rules.

Characters in the game I'm working on have Connections on their character sheet: these are people who are significant to the character. Putting a connection on your character sheet has two mechanical effects. The first is, a card for that character goes into the World Deck, from which adventure elements are drawn, so you're guaranteed that sooner or later the people you care about will get into the game. (Queen Lyrania is in love with me; I'm in love with Jyslin Rainsong, a minstrel from Sarmis; my crippled uncle comes to me for money; that sort of thing are your connections list. When their cards come up, they'll be in the adventure in some important way.)

The second effect is that if, during an adventure, you elect to preserve a connection instead of achieving an adventure goal, you get the experience either way. With someone you care about the standard scenario here is "the evil priest has my lady love strapped to the table, if I rescue her the temple will be awakened and I probably won't get the gold: what do I do?" Either choice gets you the adventure experience if you are successful (leaving her and getting the gold successfully or rescuing her and fleeing with the gold forever out of your grasp). With enemy connections, the choices are reversed: e.g. letting Nefario live even though it means you won't be able to save the village would get you experience either way. If you kill Nefario you have to save the village to complete your adventure goal, but if you let him go you're set either way and the adventure plays out to the point where you get experience either way.

This is pretty straightforward stuff which is why I thought I'd share it: it doesn't really take much to take these things into account once you start thinking "how do I want these choices to matter to people playing my game". The trick is to see why you'd want to include rules like this at all. Now, if I wanted to do more, I'd have rules for the GM on what it means to get these elements into the adventure in an important way: that would in one way make my design better if I could figure that out. But you don't have to solve all the problems in every game; it's just that the more of them you solve the more reliable a play-experience your game will tend to provide.

Joshua wrote:
Steve, I still don't understand what magic is for in your game.

Game rules are there to give kick to the words people say that determine what's real in the game. How do your rules, magic included, give punch to what the players are doing?

Give an example of play. I really don't understand.

stefoid,

What's the game designer doing?

The players (including the GM, if any) are sitting down to do one or more of the following: make a story, explore an imaginary world through a kind of shared daydreaming, achieve some imaginary goals in a satisfyingly effective manner, and maybe some other stuff.

The game designer is there to help them.

If you have a traditional GM, there are a whole host of responsibilities that come up for that person. Some people like taking all this on; others don't; some do it well; others don't. Any tools you can provide to help that person do his or her thing enhance the game experience for that person and so, insofar as it is a group thing, for everyone.

Calithena wrote:
stefoid,

What's the game designer doing?

The players (including the GM, if any) are sitting down to do one or more of the following: make a story, explore an imaginary world through a kind of shared daydreaming, achieve some imaginary goals in a satisfyingly effective manner, and maybe some other stuff.

The game designer is there to help them.

If you have a traditional GM, there are a whole host of responsibilities that come up for that person. Some people like taking all this on; others don't; some do it well; others don't. Any tools you can provide to help that person do his or her thing enhance the game experience for that person and so, insofar as it is a group thing, for everyone.

stefoid wrote: hey.  for me its not really the point of: can a house be burned down with magic?  the answer is it can.  Whats been bugging me is the idea that a character can point his finger at the house and intone some mumbo jumbo and have the house instantly burst into flames.  I havent decided yet whether that kind of thing will be possible.  Im leaning away from it.

stefoid wrote: hey.  for me its not really the point of: can a house be burned down with magic?  the answer is it can.  Whats been bugging me is the idea that a character can point his finger at the house and intone some mumbo jumbo and have the house instantly burst into flames.  I havent decided yet whether that kind of thing will be possible.  Im leaning away from it.

How do the players use this to effect their goals? The fiction of the situation is secondary than how the players use magic (or anything else) to make things happen that matter to a story.

This is something big in your design that you have not confronted: does burning down the house successfully aid me in achieving my goals?

A Task Resolution system such as this uses the rules to no effect whatsoever in answering that question.

To paraphrase from Vincent's website:

Conflict resolution: The player declares that she wants to kill the cultists inside the house. The player succeeds in burning down the house to do it. The cultists are killed.

Task resolution: The player declares that she wants to kill the cultists in side the house. The player succeeds in burning down the house. Are the cultists killed? Who knows?

Your rules don't say. Your solution is "The GM makes it up." You're putting the onus of game design on the GM.

The problems you're confronting are not unique to your game, but they've been effectively confronted by other games. You really should read them.

stefoid wrote: Im not sure how to answer that.  I mean, I know you dont want me to come up with a table that indexes varying strengths of fireball and house construction materials vs. probability of occupant death ratios.

I cant think of any reasonable answer to that other than the GM thinks its either more fun for the some of the cultists to escape for whatever reason, or he doesnt, so they all burn.

OK, to summarise, I have a proposed 'task resolution system', and I think its the GMs job to decide whether task resolved = conflict resolved.   You say thats a problem.  I dont understand why you say that, because I dont see conflict resolution as game design, I see it as game play.

Whats obvious to me now, is that pretty much most of the people who have been trying to help me are firmly into this narativist style of roleplaying which I have never experienced and never heard of until coming here.  I am firmly into dreaming/gaming.

If I am to become enlightened ;) which game should I buy and get my other heathen friends playing?  sorceror I suppose?

stefoid wrote:

what, can I just roll up a character that has this  up hi sleeve?

How is it different from the character having an artifact of great power, or Herculean strength?

Id say that it isnt too different to having an unique artificat of great power.  There is only one 'sword of the heavens' , just as there is only one barbarian queen.  I dont see why that type of boon should be built into the character.  Those types of things should be stuff that characters work towards achieving - winning the love of the barbarian queen, obtaining the sword.  If you were talking about a 'sword of OKishness'  or 'the love of a good woman', then sure, build them into your character.

Tommi wrote:

Well, that kind of exploded randomly.

I want to talk to Steve more about arenas of conflict. I'm pretty sure that understanding what's a conflict and what's a resource you can bring to bear in the conflict will let him solve his design problems.

So, Steve. I read this:

Whats been bugging me is the idea that a character can point his finger at the house and intone some mumbo jumbo and have the house instantly burst into flames.  I havent decided yet whether that kind of thing will be possible.  Im leaning away from it.  What I am leaning more toward is that huge effects need to be invoked in special ways, via lengthy ritual, or with the aid of magic props, or in favourable circumstances.  Lets say the character spent half an hour hiding behind the tree chanting in order to effect the cooking fire flaring intensely and catching the thatch on fire?  to obtain the desired effect here is a combination of a small ritual with a slightly favourable circumstance - there is already a fire present, so to some extent, the god of fire already is present in this house.  But the magic user needs to make the deity more present...  Like Lumpley says, this type of stuff needs to be quantified.

for instance the god of wind affects winds.  directly.  it seems fairly obvious that this has major utility in the area of war - smash the boat, destroy the crops,disrupt the archers, blow sand in the face of the gaurds, etc...  And I can understand the need to quantify that.  In your example above, it effects the political arena - indirectly.  Im not specifying how powerful the wind is, im specifying how threatening it seems.  The number of variables involved in that calculation make it impossible to quantify in anything but the most general terms.

Oh and I need to say, especially don't get distracted by Gamism vs. Narrativism vs. Simulationism. At this stage of discussion and design, those three are so irrelevant I can't even blink.

-Vincent

Steve,

Just a quick note that I do have a reply for you that I'm sitting on vis-a-vis the cultural history of sorcerers/priests, a short reading list, etc. I'm sitting on it, however, because I think this conversation with Vincent should take precedence to that discussion. When it's done, I can either post here or fire it off in private e-mail. I just did not want you to wonder why I have not yet replied.

lumpley wrote:
Oh and I need to say, especially don't get distracted by Gamism vs. Narrativism vs. Simulationism. At this stage of discussion and design, those three are so irrelevant I can't even blink.

-Vincent

greyorm wrote:
Steve,

Just a quick note that I do have a reply for you that I'm sitting on vis-a-vis the cultural history of sorcerers/priests, a short reading list, etc. I'm sitting on it, however, because I think this conversation with Vincent should take precedence to that discussion. When it's done, I can either post here or fire it off in private e-mail. I just did not want you to wonder why I have not yet replied.

lumpley wrote:
examples deleted.

Of the three, which act of magic was the most successful?

Steve! Stop thinking about quantifying the force = mass x acceleration of magic. Every act of magic will have a) special effects and b) real consequences. Right now all you're looking at is the special effects - but it's the real consequences that you need to attend to.

-Vincent

stefoid wrote:
your examples are outside my experience. I undersand them, but I dont think that way. in either of those cases what would occur in a typical game among my groups is that the GM would say, OK, test your relationship with the god of winds to see if he's with you on this, and Id roll and it would be some degree of success or other which would indicate that my plan had a good or terrible chance of working.

a) We would never assume that the wind was powerful enough and just decide one way or the other that the end result was achieved or not... b) we would test that the wind was powerful enough and use the result of that to modify the test of whether the end result was achieved.

Oh man, Steve, you've seized on the most pointless nothing in my post.

Okay, look. Go back and reread the three cases, and insert die rolls wherever you want them.

a) We would never assume that the wind was powerful enough and just decide one way or the other that the end result was achieved or not... b) we would test that the wind was powerful enough and use the result of that to modify the test of whether the end result was achieved.

Yeah, my group too.

In your group, would "end result" mean "the ship gets smashed on the rocks" or "the queen marries the son"?

stefoid wrote:
OK, lets just break down your example how I imagine it, so that I can get my head around it. 

1) test how successful I am at creating a wind big enough to blow the ship onto the rocks
2) use the result of this test to validate and perhaps modify the next test which is:
3) test to see if the queen is intimidated enough by the display  to give in

To my way of thinking, Id probably use the success or otherwise of 1) as the green light to even consider 3).  Otherwise I dont have the stakes on my side enough
even to warrant an intimidation test as you have described.

stefoid wrote:
OK, lets just break down your example how I imagine it, so that I can get my head around it. 

1) test how successful I am at creating a wind big enough to blow the ship onto the rocks
2) use the result of this test to validate and perhaps modify the next test which is:
3) test to see if the queen is intimidated enough by the display  to give in
.

Okay, but consider doing it another way:

1) test to see if the queen is intimidated enough by the display to give in
2) use the result of this test to decide whether I am creating a wind big enough to blow the ship onto the rocks

In the real world, only the way you described would make sense, because cause and effect only flows forward.  But moments in fiction don't have to be arranged that way.  They're more like a jigsaw puzzle.  Yes, you can start at the left side and work relentlessly toward the right.  But you can, equally well, start at the right side and work back toward the left, or start putting together little chunks and then link them later, or any number of other ways of assembling the fiction.

You can, if you choose, decide whether the magic helps first and decide how it helps later.  Vincent's given you several prime examples of how to do that.  I particularly liked #3, but I'm a sucker for the idea of a hero hated by the Gods, who wins out because of that hatred.

stefoid wrote: Yeah, so this reason not to proceed using the way that makes sense must be pretty good.

lumpley wrote: I say, "let's figure out how powerful the wind is -"

And you say, "dude that isn't the point."

stefoid wrote: Yeah, so this reason not to proceed using the way that makes sense must be pretty good.

I think it's pretty good, yeah.  It lets you actually deal with what the players want, rather than getting all tangled talking about stuff that's only a means to an end.  Check out this quote from Vincent's examples:

lumpley wrote: I say, "let's figure out how powerful the wind is -"

And you say, "dude that isn't the point."

What's happening right there is that two people are skipping the completely trivial stuff (how hard the wind blows) and getting straight to the stuff that the player actually cares about (whether the queen submits).

Now you're thinking of this in terms of skipping steps, because the player goal is something that (coincidentally) could be accomplished by a task roll (in this case an intimidation check).  But let's say, for instance, that you (the player) want the queen's marriage to your characters son to produce an heir.  That's not even something that your guy has a hand in (God, I hope).  But it's what you as a player want to have happen.

If the only way things you (the player) can ever roll for are the things your character does then you will never, ever, have any direct ability to achieve that goal.  Instead, you're going to go through some ridiculous rigamorale, like using your Alchemy skill to brew a potion to improve the potency of the prince, only to find that the problem isn't his potency but the fact that the queen views him as a mere boy and doesn't respond to him sexually, so then you've got to... agggh!  My mind revolts at the sheer boredom of even thinking about it.  The whole thing is just silly, overwrought, bedroom farce
You're playing a great and powerful barbarian king (or whatever).  Why on earth shouldn't you, as the player, simply get to say "I will apply my influence with the Lord of the Dead to assure the birth of a strong, masculine, son within the year.  Thus my bloodline will be assured!".

And then the GM can deal with what's important to her, rather than the trivial details of sperm count and sexual positions.  She can say "Fine, but the Lord of Death will only work this boon through you.  He offers you, however, an illusion that will convince the young bride that you are her intended groom, so that you may bed her."  "Works for me," you reply as a player, and the deal is done.

This technique is about more than skipping steps in a chain of causation.  It's about giving you a direct line to the players, rather than fumbling around, trying to influence the players by effecting their characters.  That exchange is all about what the people at the table want.  Isn't that more fun than the stuff that nobody wants to deal with, but that they incorrectly assume they need to do in order to have any chance of ever getting to the stuff they actually do want?

stefoid wrote:
Im really not trying to be tedious, but isnt your lord of death  connection "something my guy has a hand in ".  you said he had no way of influencing the err, outcome, but then clearly he does after all. 

Joshua wrote:

Tommi wrote: Too powerful to start with. But gaining access to them later is fine. Having a powerful item grants bonuses to what the item is good at. What does having a powerful contact give?

This is nonsense, Tommi. Arthur started precisely with Excalibur (according to one telling, at least). Culchullain's Gae Bolga was his signature weapon throughout his story.

There's no reason to have to earn the fun stuff with a currency of unfun.

stefoid wrote:
well thats your assumption I suppose.  what if the whole scene is really cool and the player gets off on his character doing awesome stuff?

stefoid wrote: what if the whole scene is really cool and the player gets off on his character doing awesome stuff?

Speaking of Vincent, here's some reading.
If doing the cool stuff is very important to the game, let the players do it. Do not specify the kinds of effects they can achieve and do not specify what they need to do to get it.

An example: Dur is the ruler of Underworld (where the dead go). Blah blah about how he relates to other deities. He has given people back to the realm of the living, but always at great personal cost. [Hero], for example, sacrificed his child to get his loved one back. There are rumours of Dur taking people down early if sufficient bribes are paid.

A player wants his character to bring back his mother who was a powerful shaman. Let the player tell the great cost. Let the player describe the rituals. After determining if this works, let the player describe the exact events. This way, players can contribute to the coolness of it all.
Better yet, let all the players decide if the ritual works based on the coolness. Each player has, say, 2 tokens for this purpose. When someone does a ritual, players can give the tokens if the visual images conveyed are cool. Roll d6, result is equal to or lesser than the number of tokens received, and it succeeds.
This is but an example, mind. Let character abilities have influence, for example. Use the standard resolution system of the game.

Tommi's idea is good. Listen to it.

I wouldn't have it be a success/fail roll, but whatever. I think you roll the die, look at the result, if it's high enough to do what you need, great. If it's not, do some awesome ritual that gets the other people around the table excited enough to give you props and then use them to mod the die roll (or count them as simultaneous rerolls, or whatever). Then you've got the tokens to give to other players. That way, you want to give away those tokens — you can't use them on yourself, just to prop up others.

Joshua wrote:
I wouldn't have it be a success/fail roll, but whatever. I think you roll the die, look at the result, if it's high enough to do what you need, great. If it's not, do some awesome ritual that gets the other people around the table excited enough to give you props and then use them to mod the die roll (or count them as simultaneous rerolls, or whatever). Then you've got the tokens to give to other players. That way, you want to give away those tokens — you can't use them on yourself, just to prop up others.

Steve, take Contracycle's answer to heart.

stefoid wrote:
ok, I can understand that. instead of rolling my god connection vs. a target number, then using the results of that, I roll my god connection directly against the queens reistance to intimidaiton.

there must be a reason why that is better that isnt just 'you cut out an intermediate step that way'?

...

yeah, so this reason not to proceed using the way that makes sense must be pretty good.

Also if the interest is the act of magic and all the cool colour, then again we can probably ignore things like the strength of the wind, and instead deal with something like the amount of effort the wind god can be bothered to put into the appeal, or the kind of bargain the character can strike.  So maybe you say, the PC goes to a windy hilltop and invokes the pesence of the wind god, with a bunch of special effects.  Because what we are interested in is the Coolness, it would be a good idea to make the invocation and the special effects automatic, rather than a task to be rolled for, a property of the PC, part of what makes them a PC.  And it would not be Cool if it just didn't work.  But to stop them doing it all the time, they have to be ritually purified or something etc. 

OK, so then the basic act of magic is to purify yourself, go to your hill, invoke the god, whereon the GM gives it some special effects, wind spirits and so forth.  The resolution then resolves around some kind of bargain or negotiation process, and that is what you then need to build, and which we can discuss.  Starting from the player desire for the actual act of magic to be Cool, we have determined something about how the act of play might go, and from there, what the mechanics have to serve.  Some sort of bargaining system, for which a randomised roll would be appropriate.  Or perhaps, the characters trade acts of worship and dedications for such services, and the resolution determines the cost they have to pay, either from credit or required in the future.  Anyway, this whole process would take up a fair bit of spotlight time, and so should probably definitional to the character, or a major resource, something to be considered for character creation.

So there are a couple of approaches just proceeding from the idea that you want the act itself to be interesting in play, rather than originating in the worlds logic.  Even the second scenario, in which the question of whether you have a trapped spirit powerful enough to do the job might arise, it need not be resolved by rolling for it - it could be determined by the value of the captured spirit as a character asset. 

So this is what is meant by insert rolls where you want them.  If what matters in the game is whether the queen is influenced, you design the system to answer that question - you don't need to start and end with physical determinism and causality.  If  what matters in the game is the character's relationship to a god, then you design the system to answer that question, and again physical determinism is unnecessary.  If what matters is the economy of the characters stock of assets, you answer that question. 

Speaking of Vincent, here's some reading.
If doing the cool stuff is very important to the game, let the players do it. Do not specify the kinds of effects they can achieve and do not specify what they need to do to get it.

An example: Dur is the ruler of Underworld (where the dead go). Blah blah about how he relates to other deities. He has given people back to the realm of the living, but always at great personal cost. [Hero], for example, sacrificed his child to get his loved one back. There are rumours of Dur taking people down early if sufficient bribes are paid.

A player wants his character to bring back his mother who was a powerful shaman. Let the player tell the great cost. Let the player describe the rituals. After determining if this works, let the player describe the exact events. This way, players can contribute to the coolness of it all.
Better yet, let all the players decide if the ritual works based on the coolness. Each player has, say, 2 tokens for this purpose. When someone does a ritual, players can give the tokens if the visual images conveyed are cool. Roll d6, result is equal to or lesser than the number of tokens received, and it succeeds.
This is but an example, mind. Let character abilities have influence, for example. Use the standard resolution system of the game.

Well then that can be a valid player goal.  This tells us something about what the player rather than the character wants.  So now we can propose, perhaps, that this should be a fairly long scene, rather than something that can be reduced to remarking "I do the ritual".  So probably we don't want this to be resolved by a single roll, as that would be over very quickly.  Again, conflict resolution is better than task resolution for this purpose.

stefoid wrote:
if sometimes the same task is important and sometimes it needs to be skipped...  do I as a designer really want to tell the players which tasks are important and which ones arent? 

stefoid wrote:

Well then that can be a valid player goal.  This tells us something about what the player rather than the character wants.  So now we can propose, perhaps, that this should be a fairly long scene, rather than something that can be reduced to remarking "I do the ritual".  So probably we don't want this to be resolved by a single roll, as that would be over very quickly.  Again, conflict resolution is better than task resolution for this purpose.

I think this is the crux of the matter as I understand it.  I think the term task vs conflict resolution  maybe whats throwing me.

example: remember the daze.....(its all getting hazy)

GM: so what are you doing now?
P1:  well, obviously we have to get to the town, in order to stop the barbarian queen marrying the son of the evil preist
GM: OK, so your on horseback, that'll take 3 days.  So who is on watch on the first night....?
P1: CANT WE JUST GET TO THE FRICKEN TOWN ALLREADY?!?!

(unhaze)

sometimes its the journey or the process thats important.  often its not.  how can you as a game designer decide?

you cant its infinitely variable depending on situation.  when is a task just a task that we can skip over, and when is the task something that we shouldnt skip over -- when its the 'conflict'?  isnt that entirely subjective?

if sometimes the same task is important and sometimes it needs to be skipped...  do I as a designer really want to tell the players which tasks are important and which ones arent? 

TonyLB wrote:

stefoid wrote:
if sometimes the same task is important and sometimes it needs to be skipped...  do I as a designer really want to tell the players which tasks are important and which ones arent? 

No, you want to create rules where the players tell you.

That's what we've been talking about.  Have we still not managed to communicate that in a way that you can turn over in your mind, and make use of?

if sometimes the same task is important and sometimes it needs to be skipped...  do I as a designer really want to tell the players which tasks are important and which ones arent? 

No, the players want to say that, and you want to write rules that give them the ability.

ok, now we are on the same page.

Get yerself a copy of Dogs in the Vineyard. Vincent's not saying so because he's polite, but it answers these questions.

stefoid wrote:

TonyLB wrote:

stefoid wrote:
if sometimes the same task is important and sometimes it needs to be skipped...  do I as a designer really want to tell the players which tasks are important and which ones arent? 

No, you want to create rules where the players tell you.

That's what we've been talking about.  Have we still not managed to communicate that in a way that you can turn over in your mind, and make use of?

well, Ive been concentrating on a system that players use to resolve tasks.  Ive given no thought to whether those tasks might be steps in a process towards resolving a conflict or not.  It didnt even occur to me to think about that.  Then people have been saying, "no, that is too fine a granularity for the resolution system, nobody wants that"   which confused the hell out of me. 

now that youve backed off a bit and said well "yeah, you can actually choose where you want your granularity to be, but make sure you think about it first"  you are making 100% sense. 

I hope no one minds me jumping in here, but i think i can say something clearly. (for once)

The big lesson for me is this: You do not *want* a task resolution system - and this is why: resolving a task only tells you whether you have done something or not, but resolving a conflict will tell you whether you have got what you want, or not.

Does that make sense? (and am i using the terms a'right?)

Sempiternity wrote:
I hope no one minds me jumping in here, but i think i can say something clearly. (for once)

The big lesson for me is this: You do not *want* a task resolution system - and this is why: resolving a task only tells you whether you have done something or not, but resolving a conflict will tell you whether you have got what you want, or not.

Does that make sense? (and am i using the terms a'right?)

Hi!
  As far as Task vs Conflict Rez, this is what I see:
Task
- Stakes are unknown/inconsistant Extremely difficult rolls may have little/no reward, easy rolls might have large rewards, etc.
- Shallower learning curve (Typically models reality to a point and many players are familiar with this mechanic)
- Risk<>Reward. Many times there will be risk with no reward and reward with no risk.
- Granularity issues. Too many Steps between start and end can cause zaney results and discourage some players. Too few steps may abstract results, create almost arbitrary results and discourage other players
- Ambiguity. What a player can and can't do can be hard to define. GMs may be flustered judging situations that they are not familiar with

Conflict:
Stakes are known. Players usually set stakes before rolling in most CR systems
Learning curve. Pre-roll narration, stakes setting, resolution and narration are all things most players need to learn to take advantage of what CR has to offer
Design challenge. The game has to define and use attributes effectively to allow this system to shine
Possible "broken" mechanic. some systems get stuck doing "follow-up" conflicts. These sort of break the concept of setting stakes and resolving the conflict in one interaction.
Randomness. You really have to design around the "one good roll or one bad roll will decide it all" potential weakness

  In the end, I don't think one is better than the other, you just have to pick the right tool for what your game is about...

greyorm wrote:
Steve,

Just a quick note that I do have a reply for you that I'm sitting on vis-a-vis the cultural history of sorcerers/priests, a short reading list, etc. I'm sitting on it, however, because I think this conversation with Vincent should take precedence to that discussion. When it's done, I can either post here or fire it off in private e-mail. I just did not want you to wonder why I have not yet replied.

stefoid wrote: Im aware that the ancients had the concept of a sorceror as a practioner of magic, but thats as far as my studies have yet taken me.

This is suprising to me.  You say preists and sorcerors were one and the same.  I have to admit that for some reason I asociated the term sorceror with practioners of magic who did so to benefit themselves (so usually what you might term 'bad magic' whereas a preist is someone who works 'good magic' on behalf of the community.  Is that a fair historical statement or did I just make that up?

I also assumed that sorcerers were not associated withdivine worship as such, or if they were it wasnt the source of their sorcerous powers.

this challenges the assumption that sorcerors work magic on their own behalf.  What was the notion of demons in relation to gods and spirits?  were they clearly differentiated enities in the minds of the ancients?  did demons have any magical power?

Being a different cultural tradition is more than enough reason for me to make the distinction between theistic and shamanistic magic.

This is definately a fantasy setting.  I dont want to model the bronze age exactly, I just want to steal its most romantic bits.  so definately in the 'gameplay first' camp.

Could you give me some of the sources you are familiar with?

I have run across the term "sorcerer" referenced in only a few sources as a practitioner of magic apart from priests. It seems to mainly appears in certain tales and stories as a sort of monster, rather than as an actual cultural occupation or a particular person. I am as yet uncertain whether or not this is modern reinterpretation of the source materials (because in most cases I have not seen the original stories that the author derived their opinion from).

Given some thought on the subject, I would argue that "sorcerer" is often the term given to the priests of foreign gods.

Take note of the Finnish peoples and the Lapps in this instance: the whole people, every Finn, is referred to as a "sorcerer" -- a worker of magic -- by those outside the group, and numerous stories and superstitions abound about not messing with a Finn because it will bring you ill-luck, and sailors buying wind for their sails from Finns.
(There are, in fact, numerous sayings about Finns and magic: "Trying to hex a Finn is like trying to drown a fish." and something along the lines of "Finns are wizards, they have darkness in their blood." and so forth.)
However, if you would have asked a Finn or a Lapp, their magic is based on the worship and veneration of their deities and its use is nothing more or less than the use of the sacred/divine knowledge given to them by the gods and spirits. In fact, Finnish magic is shamanic in nature.

this challenges the assumption that sorcerors work magic on their own behalf.  What was the notion of demons in relation to gods and spirits?  were they clearly differentiated enities in the minds of the ancients?  did demons have any magical power?

Not necessarily.

Some bronze age cultures had no real concept of "demons"...not "demons" that granted magical powers, at any rate; the conflation of magical power and evil demons is very much a Judeo-Christian concept, which would thus obviously not exist during the time period being discussed.

However, the point I definitely want to make clear is that, depending on the culture we are talking about, and the period of its development, gods and demons had very little difference between them. They were, more or less, one and the same. Particularly in discussing the religious history of the ancient Middle East, as I understand it, some demons gained more social power and became the main gods, gaining more positive, human-friendly aspects in the process as well.

Fair enough. Then realize instead is that while "sorcerer" and "priest" may be different aspects of the same thing. I would suggest, perhaps, not making magic "divine" or "arcane". That is, magic is not different in its practice (except as culture demands), but is instead "communal" and "personal" -- without making one "type" good and one bad, one "selfish" and one "selfless".

In fact, a quick study of magic in the ancient world will reveal that many commoners practiced magic as well, crafting charms and talismans against evil spirits, or to please the gods, bringing themselves fortune, protection, etc.

Could you give me some of the sources you are familiar with?

If you can get your hands on it, try to find Frazer's "The Golden Bough" -- not the one volume abriged edition, but the fourteen volume treatsie on the subject of magic. Ah, good, it is in the public domain: here. It's huge, but it is foundational to later studies, even if much of it is outdated at this point. Start on that.

stefoid wrote:

Speaking of Vincent, here's some reading.
If doing the cool stuff is very important to the game, let the players do it. Do not specify the kinds of effects they can achieve and do not specify what they need to do to get it.

I agree there is a fine line between giving players enough information to provide an imaginative hook, and giving them too much information so there is no mystery about it - its like if the movie shows you the monster, it becomes unscary.  youve got to hint at the monster.  so for plausibility's sake, or authenticity or whatever, I think the players need some guidance as to the extent of effect they can achieve and the extent of the effort required to get there.

just on your example, for me, its getting too meta-gamey at this point.  the fact that I (the player) think my own effort is cool should be enough, without other people voting on it - to use an analogy, for me that takes it from being a drama whoe to more like a reality TV show.

I agree there is a fine line between giving players enough information to provide an imaginative hook, and giving them too much information so there is no mystery about it - its like if the movie shows you the monster, it becomes unscary.  youve got to hint at the monster.  so for plausibility's sake, or authenticity or whatever, I think the players need some guidance as to the extent of effect they can achieve and the extent of the effort required to get there.

Of course, nothing wrong with guidance.
All this talk about mystery confuses me; what is the mystery?

just on your example, for me, its getting too meta-gamey at this point.  the fact that I (the player) think my own effort is cool should be enough, without other people voting on it - to use an analogy, for me that takes it from being a drama whoe to more like a reality TV show.

If you find it cool, the others will, too. Excitement tends to infect other people.
Oh, and specify what you mean by metagamey, please. It is not very exact term.

I'd like to suggest - I'm not a moderator here, just a guy making a suggestion - that we've given Steve a ton of stuff to work with and sift through, and maybe it's time for us to let him work and sift.

This is a self-serving suggestion! What I want is for Steve to make some new magic rules and post them, or else to work on some new magic rules and post about the problems he's having. It seems like time for that to me.

-Vincent

yeah, i feel a lot better about magic as a concept in the game now, and thanks to everone for offering system advice - ill come back in a few months to tell you how its been going

Don't wait that long! Hang around. Discuss Actual Play.

You're part of the Forge community now.

Joshua wrote:
Don't wait that long! Hang around. Discuss Actual Play.

You're part of the Forge community now.

Tell about other games you've played and are currently playing. That's as informative, if not more so, as a playtest of your own design.