Topic: Magic system
Started by: strange
Started on: 3/24/2006
Board: First Thoughts
On 3/24/2006 at 5:01am, strange wrote:
Magic system
First of all - greetings to everyone ;)
I have no wide experience in game design, however that doesn't cancel that some special system is required - even more, I'm in need of a system that will support my own fantasy/adventure/high-magic setting.
Initially that setting was done for d20 system with many homerules, but now it is necessary to improve almost every rule, so I began to think about creating maybe not a full system, but even some parts of it would be great. And now the most actual problem for me is the problem with magic. So i'd like to talk about it - and if I've chosen the wrong forum for it - please, forgive me my mistake ;)
____________________________________________
Well, in the beginning i'd like to make a brief description, even an outline of the magic powers of my setting.
The pure magic energy not only saturates my imaginary world ;), but serves as a basis for the universe. There are 5 spheres of magic energy: of Air, of Fire, of Earth, of Aether and of Spirit. It is not the elemental division, despite the spheres's titles.
I can define more exactly if it is needed. So that is in essence the "arcane" energy.
There are no any deities in a usual meaning of the word, that's why there is no any "divine" energy. Every present deity in it's past was either the priest of some natural forces (mostly of spheres of magic energy above), better called a shaman, or - later - the powerful magician. I do not want to go into any historical details (it will take too much time), but an actual situation is as shown above.
Therefore there are three primary types of pure magic energy "users". These are sorcerers and various witches, people with innate exceptional ability for spellcasting; essentially wizards, people, who has smaller native talent but who can conceive the principles of operation with magic energy; and creatures with spell-like or supernatural abilities.
Sorcerers feel the magic energy as something blurred and inconsecutive, they use it intuitively, and sometimes even cannot explain their actions or describe the requisite conditions for casting the spell. They can't comprehend magic laws or logic, so they can only use their own powers - or as everyone else - use the scrolls with written spells. Unlike ordinary people, sorcerers and witches can memorize a spell they used even once - but if they didn't cast it by themselves - they cannot keep it in mind.
Wizards are earnest about magic energy, they study magic as a science, so the can manipulate with magic energy of their own will, design spells and magic effects. They can use each sphere of magic energy separately or combine them for creating some new spells.
And creatures with spell-like or supernatural abilities are not an "ultimate consumers" of magic energy. They're just a carriers of magic energy and they cannot change their abilities.
Clerics and priests are the same as wizards, but their education lies in a study of limited number of spells "from" their deity and their amenity of magic energy is restricted by the sphere/spheres chosen, personified or represented by their deity.
_________________________________
So, the heart of the problem is the mechanics of the system. A choice between spellpoints system and memorise system. At present moment I am inclined to think that wizards should construct new spells or use already constructed - and use spellpoints, which quantity depends on wizard's abilities and skills; sorcerers shoud use memorize system as in DnD rules + they should be able to learn new spells; and clergy should use both systems.
I'm really in need of a constructive remarks or questions, that can set me thinking about some defects or shortcomings.
Thanks in advance,
yours faithfully
J
On 3/24/2006 at 7:10am, Jinx wrote:
Re: Magic system
I used to do this a lot - I'd have a neat world that wouldn't quite fit the rules I wanted to use and schemed and schemed to twist those rules to be closer to the world I envisioned. Quite often it'd be the magic system that was different, as they're the least generic part of many common game systems.
Honestly, as you've put it, it sounds like you wouldn't need to change much from D&D at all. The path of least resistance would probably be to leave Clerics as they are and invent a few new domains, slow down the Wizard's spell progression a little but let them get bonus metamagic feats, and keep Sorcerers as they are.
However, before I could offer more than the most general advice, I'd need to know what you are looking for in this system. First, do you want to use it with d20 and/or D&D3.5? Or is this the starting point for a completely new system? Second, what are your priorities for this system? Is it more important to model that world's magic or have neat character-class fiddly bits? In my experience, changing from memorization to spellpoints to whatever doesn't change the feel of a world's magic very much. If you really want it to be flavorful you may have to go waaay out of the usual D&D tropes.
On 3/24/2006 at 8:14am, strange wrote:
RE: Re: Magic system
Jinx wrote: First, do you want to use it with d20 and/or D&D3.5? Or is this the starting point for a completely new system?
Well, for now - it is just another "improvement" for... unrecognizable because of homerules d20 system, but I don't think that THIS can be a starting point ;)
Maybe later I'll change something else, and little by little the system will come to a completly different than d20 (well, even now it's somewhere on a half-way to that situation). Even now I have a fairly different combat rules, skills (and ability) system, and I've practically destroyed class system. "Wizard" or "cleric" in this text is no more than an occupation, that can be easily changed (well, depends on abilities, skills and logic - f.e. what for the faithful priest can abandon his opportunity to serve his patron?).
So it is even now actually NOT d20 or any D&D. But it is not the separate system, of course.
Jinx wrote: Second, what are your priorities for this system? Is it more important to model that world's magic or have neat character-class fiddly bits? In my experience, changing from memorization to spellpoints to whatever doesn't change the feel of a world's magic very much. If you really want it to be flavorful you may have to go waaay out of the usual D&D tropes.
It is more important to model the world's magic, of course. But my goal doesn't include obligatory removal from d20 or any other system. I just want it to fit my requirements - nothing more. And now it doesn't fit at all - so i'd like to change it, reasoning from my settings reality. And of course I want it to be "flavorful" - if you can advise me something concrete - your advice will be very much appreciated.
On 3/24/2006 at 1:03pm, Jinx wrote:
RE: Re: Magic system
Well, if you're sticking with d20 or whatever, you could try to come up with some guidelines. If you've ever seen HERO 5th Edition, that's the kind of thing I'm talking about - break down spells into their components and figure out how many spell levels, or spell points, or whatever, each component is worth. I believe there's some talk about how this works in the base D&D3.5 books, though I'm not certain. For instance, the Fireball spell is 3rd level. It does Caster Levelxd6 damage up to 10d6 in a 30' radius, with a Reflex save.
Doing caster level x d6 damage = 1 spell level, capped out at 3d6 per spell point in the spell.
20' radius area of effect with Reflex Save = 1 spell level
Additional 10' area of effect = 1 spell level each
Obviously, these are approximations, but now you've got a modular spell system and can put these things together. For 3 spell levels, you get a spell which does Caster Level x d6 damage in a 30' radius up to 9d6 damage at caster level 9. But this way, for 4 spell levels, you can get a fireball that does the same effect up to 12d6 damage in a 45' radius. You'd have to put a cap on how many spell levels low-level characters could use in one spell, otherwise you'll have that 2nd-level wizard with a grand total of 5 spell levels for the day hucking one spell with all his might that does a bajillion points of damage with no save. But it does allow for on-the-fly spell creation, which seems to be something you're looking for.
Personally, I would toss the whole D&D magic system and try something more potentially evocative, but it sounds like magic is, in this world, supposed to be just a source of energy and power, a potentially useful tool. Thus, a pretty clinical and straightforward system would fit best. If there's more to it than that, then you might want to try something more weird and flavorful - but honestly, I think that either the method above, or just using the straight magic rules from d20, would work fine.
On 3/24/2006 at 1:49pm, charles wrote:
RE: Re: Magic system
hi strange! welcome to the Forge.
Ok, you have 3 kinds of magic--intuitive, study-based, and specific innate abilities. Let me know if I made a mistake with these. For now, I'll assume that's where you're at. Now to my thoughts. First of all I should tell you that my bias is to simplify your rules as much as humanly possible without sacrificing what your game's all about. So take everything I say with that in mind.
strange wrote:
So, the heart of the problem is the mechanics of the system. A choice between spellpoints system and memorise system.
I think you should probably choose one of these only, then try to find a way to give your 3 kinds of magic-user a different look and feel within that system.
The thing here is that what you're really trying to do with any magic system is limit the magic that a given character can use. The two apporaches you mention are the ways D&D have chosen, and they may be exactly what you need, but there are others as well. Here's a few thoughts on it.
The memorise approach.
I class this kind of magic system as tactically-oriented. It's all about choosing the right selection of spells for your character, both the overall arsenal you have available to choose from, and the specific spells you're going to need for the job at hand.
How well suited this is to your game will depend in part on what you want your players inspiration to be when they play. If they're all D&D players, they're going to be familiar with it & accept it without question. On the other hand, if they want to play the kind of magic-users they've read about in books or seen in movies, they may not find it so good a fit. How many fictional magicians or wizards seem to use magic like this--charge up with spells like loading differrent kinds of bullets in the clip, then shooting off one of the other until they've got none left? The only place this ever happens is in the Dying Earth stories by Jack Vance, written about 50 years ago, & in D&D, who borrowed the idea lock stock & barrel. Its actually quite counter to pretty much any other fictional magic I've ever read about. THink of hte way magic is used in fairy stories, movies, and books that you've read or seen. Note that I'm not saying that its "unrealistic". This is (1) fantasy and (2) magic, so any talk of realism is pointless and boring. You have no need to make either your fantasy or your magic "realistic". You just got to make it fun & work in your setting & rule-set. So if the memorise-system works for you then go to it.
One of the big advantages to this system is that it can be a lot simpler to play than giving players another set of points to track during play. Once they load up the spells at the start of the "day", they just aim and fire, and when it's gone, it's gone.
The spell-points approach.
This can be more flexible than the memorise system, but also more fiddly. It really depends how you implement it. If I was going to go with a spell-pt system, I'd try real hard to tie it into some existing point structure, rather than give the players a whole other set of points. Like tie it to hitpoints, for example. One way to look at doing this might be that instead of having fixed spell-point costs with a growing pool of spell points as the magic-user advanced, you could make the spells less expensive to cast as the magic-user got better. For example, having spells use up a proportion of hitpoints rather than an actual amount (eg 1/4, 1/2, 3/4 etc). That way, having low hitpoints (ie, most D&D magic-users) wouldn't create a problem. Maybe this won't work in your system (at least not in this simple way) but you get the idea.
Other approaches
A third approach is to give magic a cost that isn't based on either spell points or memorised lists.
Making magic a skill is one way, with a success roll. You could have this determine "how well" the spell does, but this can easily make magic chancy and unreliable--perhaps what you want, perhaps not. There's also a danger of whiffs, where magic (like low-level fighters) simply doesn't work very often. THis is something I'd recommend you avoid. A way around that is to have magic that always works, just like a memorised spell, but the magic-user has to roll to see what it costs. Maybe this is hitpoints as above, or maybe it's the spell going wrong in some way.
You can give also magic costs without making a roll. For example, the time magic takes to cast can be a powerful limit on magic use. Also, think of fairy stories or books about magicians & magic: what kind of costs did their magic have? A lot of them (fairy stories in particular) are way more colorful than "gee I've cast this spell, now I'm really tired" or "now I can't remember it anymore". It's all about things the character has to do or mustn't do, promising their soul or first-born child or crazy stuff like not stepping on their own shadow, or never saying no to anyone who invites them to eat. Is this any use in your game? Maybe or maybe not, but either way it can get you thinking in very interesting directions.
Hope this all helps.
cheers, charles
On 3/24/2006 at 5:44pm, Tommi Brander wrote:
RE: Re: Magic system
On 3/25/2006 at 3:05pm, Selene Tan wrote:
RE: Re: Magic system
Welcome to the Forge, J!
I totally understand the search for more appropriate mechanics. Years ago I came up with the idea of a high-magic setting where magic was life energy, and I'm still working on a system for it. ;) (Yeah, I changed my mind a lot.)
Anyway, there are a lot more mechanics for magic than spellpoints and memorization, and some of them may provide inspiration for your own mechanic. But before we start in-depth discussion of the pros and cons, I'd like to know a bit more about your goals for the game and setting. You've said you want something to "fit your requirements", but I'm afraid I'm still a bit fuzzy about what your requirements are.
1) What is your game about?
2) What about the setting makes you most excited about playing in it?
3) What do you envision the characters doing?
3a) How is this affected by the high magic setting and sphere divisions?
4) In your ideal setup, will all of the PCs be magic users? Some of the PCs? Only a few? None of them? (Don't tell me, "But my game has to support all of those possibilities because people will expect it!" I want your ideal. And besides, there are lots of games where all PCs are magic users, so don't feel limited by what you think people expect.)
5) Describe some events that would occur in an ideal game for you. e.g., combat with a big boss (and combat how? hardcore tactics? not so tactical but more showing off how cool magic is? something else?); a stunning revelation about a character (PC or NPC? What role did the players have in the revelation?); etc.
On 3/26/2006 at 6:13am, strange wrote:
RE: Re: Magic system
2 Jinx: 10x a lot)
Personally, I would toss the whole D&D magic system and try something more potentially evocative
What exactly? Well, at least some examples, m?
it sounds like magic is, in this world, supposed to be just a source of energy and power
I've started to think, that I do not have any experience at all. What else can magic serve as, except these properties of it?
2 charles: I'm concordant with you in many respects.
The thing here is that what you're really trying to do with any magic system is limit the magic that a given character can use.
Well... I'm not so sure, really. It's a moot point I think. First of all I'd like to systematize magic for my own accommodation, then - to reduce it to a logical order for better understanding of the events, occur or occured in the world.
THink of hte way magic is used in fairy stories, movies, and books that you've read or seen.
Frankly speaking, that was one of the causes, that had forced me to write the post. In addition to listed above, I'd like to find or create such system, in which context even any magic operation can be based and logically explained. I do not want to depend on rituals, spells or smth.
You have no need to make either your fantasy or your magic "realistic".
But it's so attractive) Well, talking seriously - I want it to be not realistic, but logical and "realistic" for that world, not this.
I'd try real hard to tie it into some existing point structure, rather than give the players a whole other set of points.
Of course. Exactly. If i'm going to use SP, then i'll introduce some new rules about "mana pool" and I'll try to tie it to some "magic tiredness", which increasing should limit the spellcasting ability up to total impossibility to cast anything.
Another cost can be related with the HP - or endurance.
Thanks for your observation)
2 Tommi Brander: I knew that text - and dearly adore it)
2 Selene Tan:
1) What is your game about?
Hmmm... Hard to tell - do you mean the genre or what?
2) What about the setting makes you most excited about playing in it?
Not me. My players) And I really don't know what is it - maybe an atmosphere or a style (different in different lands), maybe the NPC, maybe smth else - I really do not know. As for me - I just like to create new and new details)
3) What do you envision the characters doing?
Everything. The main custom and feature og my games is the freedom of PC. They can do whatever they want to. Of course, I give them some quest, but there are infinite aggregate of methods of solution for the problem. They just need to turn on their imagimation)
Partly this is the reason, why I'm in such a need of comletely elaborate design)
3a) How is this affected by the high magic setting and sphere divisions?
I don't think, that there is any tie. Spheres are just a specificity of the setting's cosmogony, high magic is needed for the history and economics, and to support some technological progress (not all), and to underline some differences between elves and humans or between different nations, and to explain the religion specificites, and to... well, quite for big amount of things.
4) In your ideal setup, will all of the PCs be magic users? Some of the PCs?
Some of them. Because there are many other interesting things besides magic, so my ideal game has to affect every. At least more than two))
5) Describe some events that would occur in an ideal game for you
I really cannot do this. There's too many possibilities for the plot evolution, so i cannot describe such thing. Well, I can say what events do NOT attract me at all. The big boss combat is one of them. I even can say, that combat is not so usual. It it pretty rare probably. I like social or political problems more. And saving the whole world, of course))
On 3/27/2006 at 12:57pm, Jinx wrote:
RE: Re: Magic system
Well, magic as a sort of morally-neutral, ambient power source is a very modern concept which has permeated a lot of popular fantasy. It basically substitutes 'magic' for 'science that only a few people can do'. But look at some alternatives:
- In most overtly magical systems practiced in the real world, magic is a matter of ritual and overtly supernatural beings. From the Key of Solomon to Taoist mysticism, magic is about calling on personified otherworldly forces and compelling them through ritual and sacrifice to do your will.
- In R.E. Howard's Conan the Barbarian stories and most sword-and-sorcery stories, magic is nearly always a creepy bad thing which Man Was Not Meant To Know, the knowledge and practice of which twists a person from any sane and normal path to a weird combination of the debauched and the inhumanly ascetic.
- In a lot of religions (fantasy or otherwise), magic comes only from a societally-accepted conduit from a higher power, or a morally reprehensible lower power.
The thing about magic-as-power-source is that it generally lacks a moral punch all of its own. It becomes more of a tool and less of a living thing. That's cool if you want to use it like D&D does, as a tactical option, but if you want the nature of magic to be an important facet of your gameworld you're going to have to make it meaningful to the lives of the characters as more than just a source of power.
(Apologies for the many things I've glossed over or gotten wrong here, for those who care.)
It sounds to me like what you're really interested in is having the players explore your world. That's cool, then. If that's the case you might want to come up with some really detailed rules about how and when these spheres of magic interact. Ars Magica is pretty neat for that kind of system.
On 3/27/2006 at 2:07pm, MatrixGamer wrote:
RE: Re: Magic system
I'll throw out a Game Design like question.
What do you want to accomplish in your game by the magic system?
We can create neat little systems and tack them all together but if they do not combine to create a coherent vision then the whole thing falls apart.
Ron Edwards talks about games in The Big Model (it's in the glossary). I view them as machines. Each action, players or GM do is a Point of Contact. Think of that like a moving part. The more moving parts, the greater the friction, the bigger chance of the machine breaking. Also if the parts do not work well together it would be like a car with wheels going off in all directions. It might drive but not very well or very fast.
Taking a bigger view of what you want out of a game is what GNS theory is all about. Some people want gripping stories, some want truthful simulation, others want a game they can win at.
Chris Engle
On 3/27/2006 at 10:51pm, Selene Tan wrote:
RE: Re: Magic system
Hey J, I'm a bit confused about your answer to my question "What are you most excited about ?". You say
Not me. My players) And I really don't know what is it - maybe an atmosphere or a style (different in different lands), maybe the NPC, maybe smth else - I really do not know. As for me - I just like to create new and new details)
To me this sounds like you don't really care about the setting, you're just doing it because your players want it and you'd rather do something else. Am I misunderstanding you?
I also asked you some things about what you wanted players to do in the game, how you wanted sessions to go, that kind of thing. Try answering the questions in this form: "If you were playing your game, what is the most fun thing you can imagine doing?" You've mentioned a preference for social and moral problems, rather than straight combat/tactics--what are some examples of problems that you find interesting? How might magic tie into them?
You mentioned wanting to save the world--from what? A black-and-white-morality Big Evil? A somewhat grayer "evil person with redeeming characteristics"? Someone with good intentions who might almost be a hero if viewed in the right light? Something else?
Also,
it sounds like magic is, in this world, supposed to be just a source of energy and power
I've started to think, that I do not have any experience at all. What else can magic serve as, except these properties of it?
Basically, magic can be just a tool, or it can also be a way to make a statement. It's the difference between "I have a +5 sword" and "I have Excalibur". One of the statements carries with it a lot of implication and significance. (Which is what Jinx explains more of.)
Chris' "What do you want to accomplish in your game by the magic system?" is what I was getting at with my questions, just in a more roundabout way. I often find it easier to think of more specific things, like I asked you for, and then assemble them into a big picture.