While I could hack together a magic system that "works," I want... no, I need to make a system that makes sense to me. I'm probably not the only one that feels this way about their games. Anyways, I have several points I want to visit in this conversation.

1. Spells are going to be rated for their "magnitude." IE "That's a magnitude 3 spell." Essentially, the wizards in my world realize that certain spells simply take more effort and skill and have rated them. I don't think magnitude fits the world, though.

2. Spells are built from several "parts." For example, a spell that does fire damage and is a bolt would have the "Fire part" and the "Bolt part." I just can't think of a good word for the spell pieces though. I mean, what's smaller than a spell? A note is to a song as a ____ is to a spell.

3. Spells are draining or something. There has to be some *constraint* to spells, as they make a bigger "boom" than anybody else. However, I can't put my finger on this one, yet. I'm gunna think about this one a bit and post again tomorrow.

I'll have a go at part 2, since that was the bit that intrigued me most about the post.

David wrote:
2. Spells are built from several "parts." For example, a spell that does fire damage and is a bolt would have the "Fire part" and the "Bolt part." I just can't think of a good word for the spell pieces though. I mean, what's smaller than a spell? A note is to a song as a ____ is to a spell.

Hi David_

David wrote:
2. Spells are built from several "parts." For example, a spell that does fire damage and is a bolt would have the "Fire part" and the "Bolt part." I just can't think of a good word for the spell pieces though. I mean, what's smaller than a spell? A note is to a song as a ____ is to a spell.

Hey again David,

David wrote:
1. Spells are going to be rated for their "magnitude." IE "That's a magnitude 3 spell." Essentially, the wizards in my world realize that certain spells simply take more effort and skill and have rated them. I don't think magnitude fits the world, though.

David wrote:
2. Spells are built from several "parts." For example, a spell that does fire damage and is a bolt would have the "Fire part" and the "Bolt part." I just can't think of a good word for the spell pieces though. I mean, what's smaller than a spell? A note is to a song as a ____ is to a spell.

Hi!
  Here's what I think:
1) I guess the answer to this depends on how magic or how steampunky you wanna go... If you want the magic side, You could borrow terms from masonry (i.e., Levels, tiers, rungs, circles) or if you wanna get into the discovery of the new world of science angle you can give it a name like the Richter Scale. Name it after the guy who invented it, like that spell is a 3.2 on the Hermes Scale?

2) There's been some great suggestions. I guess it depends on how magic is evoked that matters to this. For instance, if Magic is a ritual, Passage, Verse or similar might be appropriate. If magic is a law of nature, then maybe Component or Element might make more sense.
3) Especially in the realm of SteamPunk, I don't think it will be necesary to limit magic. I mean a soldier in a steam punk setting will have access to TNT, Gatling guns, tanks and potentially much more. A Scientist will have access to awesome machines as well as radioactive materials, nerve agents and more. So, I don't think there is a need to limit it...

  Bear in mind that I like magic in game systems and have certain things I want to see in them (mostly that it is not limited too much, I feel like the desire to "balance" magic forces some designers to actually make magic near worthless).
  Also, this is a great move on your part, the names of spells and hjow they work, really add a lot of color to the background and setting (IMHO).
  Good luck man!

Before I respond to anybody specific, let me get into the setting of my game. On the continent game play takes place, there has been a long established Aristocratic society. This Aristocratic society has long been wary of magic because of a king that was harmed by magic when young, and later in life essentially vindicated the society from magic. (Don't you love when you can use multiple definitions of the same word, heh) Of course, they developed steam-punk technology because of this. Also, the society found how to extract (unwillingly) magical energies from those born with the talents.

Later, a benevolant society of high magic appeared. Initially, the first society attempted to attack them and chase them off, but were unable to match the mages on equal ground. They came to accept them, but each society continued their traditions with little crossover. A third society has begun infiltrating the other two. This third society is bent on dominating all and are actually the reason the 2nd society appeared. They had conquered their homeland, and the refugees fled.

Anyways, part of my point is that magic remains somewhat independent of the steampunk. Not entirely, though. There is an entire school of magic, mechanism, that deals with it. Dindenver,
I actually was thinking components for the name of the "pieces." I wanted to see if I got any other suggestions with a bit more flavor.
Contracycle,
thanks for pointing me towards "theobabble." I hadn't thought of using that before, I'm going to look into that.
Ken,
Yeah, I use "thesuarus.com" and merriam webster online rather extensively. They have their limitations though, I'd never have found "aetheric constants" in there :P. I like the idea of just coming up with names for each level of spells. Now that I think about it, I remember first picking up D&D and hearing "cantrips" and thought to myself "Why didn't they name all the spell levels?"

Ok, as for the reason spells need to be limited. What I want from play is a variance of spell powers from mages. I want a mage to cast a couple "magic missiles" and for him to save his "fireball" for something spectacular. I want a mage to do something like (spell magnitude) "4, 1, 1, 2, 4" or "1, 1, 3, 1, 7!"  I've already decided that mages can use their lowest level stuff infinitely, a mage never runs out of magic missiles or "create water"s or dancing lights. The thing is, I'm trying to figure out a way to motivate people to use a variety of stuff in combat depending on the situation.  One of my ideas behind magic has always been that stress makes them want to cast bigger spells, because under normal conditions, they wouldn't want to try that stuff.

Have you ever checked out Ars Magica? It's got that kind of "components" system you're describing, so looking at it might help you refine what it is you want out of your system. The 4th edition can be downloaded for free.

Hi!
  I made a pretty decent magic system for my game. You may want to check it out. The one thing to bear in mind with "component" is that you have to fight preconceived notions of spell components from DnD'ers and it has a "sterile" quality to it. That might end up damping the feel if your magic users are not intended to be stodgey bookworm types...
  Anyways, I made my magic unlimited casting and skill roll based. This, combined with luck did produce similar results to what you are talking about. Mages sized up their enemies and used the spell that they could make the skill roll with. And used luck to pump up those skill rolls and cast bigger spells when the chips were down, good times. I never did regret unlimited spells. Even when one player went nuts and summoned 720 suits of armor in about 2 hours, that was OK, because that was fun for them.
  As far as a system that adds risk to casting spells, maybe have each spell force a consciousness save throw (modified by the lvl of the spell)? I did this with one of my other "magic" systems. Worked OK, but I saw a lot less risks being taken. Although it was amazing when one player used a big spell and got the effect off then fell unconscious!

David, what kind of feedback are you looking for here? The only direct question I see there is #2 (and I'd suggest incantations, or form/function, or something more Latinate).

Rereading your second post I see the question about motivating people to use a variety of spells. Maybe in a given conflict your next spell must always be of a higher magnitude than the one before it.

I think you can do some fun things in this game with magic-as-steam. I once heard an NPR story on the use of steam heat in old NYC apartment buildings where the guy described using steam as the equivalent of flooring the gas pedal and controlling your speed with the brake. That's very fun for magic. Opening the door to magic releases a hissing flood into the world and the longer you use it the less able you are to shut it down.

Something that might be very fun would be to make stopping the use of magic be a struggle.

I like Robert's idea--and it even helps with your desire to encourage use of a variety of magic. Perhaps it's actually *hardest* to do the low-level stuff--you have to attenuate the flood to the max--while it's *easiest* to do the nuke-level stuff. Temper that with a cost based on how much you channel, and you get a nice balance (IMO):

High-power is easy to accomplish/control, but the "burn" is significant.
Low-power magic is harder to accomplish/control, but the "burn" is minimal.

So you'll have some stat like "throttle" which is the mage's ability to reign in the torrent and control or tune specific effects, and it will be opposed by something like "mana" which is burned out in proportion to the power level output of the magic. Failure to control (i.e. throttle stuck open) can result in madness, death, and even area-of-effect outpourings (explosion, psyche residue, AOE insanity effects, persistent external effects like radiation).

Neat! Got my vote....
David

Developing that idea a bit further, perhaps fine-control things are harder and enormous, boomy things are easier. Maybe you should be able to do more if you damage yourself, getting "steam burned" by the throughput.

Robert wrote: Developing that idea a bit further, perhaps fine-control things are harder and enormous, boomy things are easier.

Maybe you should be able to do more if you damage yourself, getting "steam burned" by the throughput.

I definitely like the idea of magic being out of control. Open a crack and break the dam. Question is how do I put this into mechanical terms?  I mean, I'd like to put it into escalating terms, each spell takes more effort because of the mental and physical drain. I'd also like it to be somewhat random, but a simple mechanic. I'm thinking something like this....

*paragraph deleted and retyped and deleted again*

Ok, here's a thought.  In my game, you roll a d10+skill to see if you succeed. Magic is a versus roll, so you roll magic, they roll defense.  What if spells were rated 1-5 on difficulty. If you roll the spell difficulty or less, on the d10, you lose 1d6 of "focus." Players have 1-5 concentration starting, plus more as they level.  After you lose all your concentration, you start taking damage.

*alternatively*

If a player rolls a 1 on a spell, they lose 1d6 "focus" per difficulty of the spell. Hmm, maybe adroit instead of focus?

Personally, you lost me at "roll." I have been imagining more of a resource management conflict, with no randomness. Where I'd accept randomness is in the results of loss of Control--chaos resides behind the veil through which mages reach for Power.

SO... mechanics. First, we have general capability: how adept is the mage? This would be the base resource--something like "Mana" or "Mojo." A spell begins at "full effect" but each point of Mojo provides either (a) an lower "level of effect" (Power) or (b) an additional aspect of Nuance (targeting, multi-targeting, AOE, special effects, specific damage or effect types).

Opposing this Mojo investment is another investment: Control. Thus, a mage could be high Mojo, low Control, or vice versa, or some balance in between (it's all in how the player "builds" their stats, using a third currency: Experience). Now, the "wild shit" starts to happen if a mage sets up a spell where their Mojo investment is not offset by their Control investment: every excess Mojo will result in some unplanned effect (and here's where a succinct chart and a die roll could come into play). The gist of out-of-Control magic is that one or more of the Nuances "looses target" or "expands target" or otherwise gets disregarded OR the power level shifts back toward full power. Which? Roll the die.

Then, the burn sets in, and additional Control can offset it, if available. Say that, oh, half the Mojo investment--so the mage takes a point of Burn for every 2 Mojo spent that isn't offset by more investment of Control points.

So... an example:
After a protracted battle and chase, Remulus is down to 8 Mojo and 5 Control.

He casts a spell in which he wants to Incapacitate (rather than Destroy) a single target.

Well, the base power of a "damaging" spell is to Destroy... so he pays 3 Mojo to step down from that, through Kill and Maim, to Incapacitate.

Further, the base area of a spell is, say, one "hex"--but the target is holding an ally hostage, as a human shield. Thus, he must invest 2 more Mojo to step that down from one hex, to one target and all it touches, to just one target.

So Remulus has spent 5 Mojo and he must offset that with all 5 of his Control to keep the spell reined in. But that means he'll sustain 3 Burn (2.5 rounds up)! This is, presumably, bad--maybe it steps up the same damage scale as above, which only has, say, six steps from Healthy to Destroyed--thus, he's going to go from Healthy, through Hurt and Wounded, to Incapacitated: a "push," a self-sacrifice, a "trade" of damage.

Decisions, decisions. He decides he can't handle being Incapacitated at the moment--perhaps there are other dangers about--so he decides to drop 2 Control from the spell, to offset Burn. But this means that, now, he's -2 on the Control he needs, though at least the spell will only Hurt him.

GM tosses a die, checks the chart, and discovers that the Area of the spell is out of control, for BOTH the deficient Control points! Oh, dear... the whole hex is now Incapacitated, including the hostage. Well... maybe it's for the best: that hostage won't be that useful to the other villains, if it has to be carried to be a human shield, right? (But what will the repercussions of using magic on an innocent victim be, in such a society, hmmm?)

Now, that seems like a lot of fiddly for one spell, but a decent chart on the character sheet will make it trivial to calculate: Remulus would just be putting beads down, like those Cingular bars on the TV commercials, to "dial down" each component of the applicable spell. Run out of beads? Just shift a few until you are happy or (least-unhappy) about the resultant spell, and let her rip (i.e. tell the GM the spell setup and Control shortage and/or Burn, if any).

---

A few last thoughts for this post:

This concept of magic should consider entropy to be the King of Physics (which it is). Thus, magic which encourages entropy is "full on" when begun, while magic which resists it is the opposite (a trickle, when begun). THis makes it so that things like magical healing or magical constructs aren't actually too cheap, which they would be if "full on torrent" when begun. The weakest mage would be able to just open to the flood and, voila, their target is healed to full (nay, to the prime of health, in their full flush of youth!) or their magical construct is impervious and perfect.

Hmmm... maybe magic needs two "faces," to accommodate that: Control the Torrent versus Control the Buildup. That second, creative aspect would be more of a "what am I willing to pay for this, now" consideration than a "how can I dial this down to an appropriate level of effect and target without burning myself to ashes?"

Of course, you could throw in an Insanity metric to prevent the munchkin "who cares about the hostage; set phasers to annihilate!!!" Each point of Insanity could, say, be a Nuance that the GM gets to assign or a Control point that the GM can deny to the mage.

Anyway... I am now in full brainstorm mode, trying to fit the above resource metrics into a variety of general situations when I don't even know if it's going to be worth the effort (i.e. if you're committed to rolling dice and target numbers and spell lists). I just like the feel of "wild, custom, nuanced" magic rather than some rote "fire and pay" mechanic. I guess Mage has affected my thoughts on RPG magic more than I guessed, along with Hero-esque points-buying and risk versus reward application of limitations to powers (to save costs).

HTH;
David

David,
In some ways, I think we've come up with very similar things.  Essentially, you're saying that a mage has to determine the "difficulty" to control the spell. (IE, something like 1-5)  Now, since we're driving with the breaks, a difficult spell would be something like "unlock lock" and an easy spell would be "blow up the door." In yours, you had "mojo" whereas, I had "skill." Mine doesn't decrease, but that's lets ignore that for the moment. Ok, than you have the pool of "control", which I called focus.

In mine, when you roll, you only have a chance of losing control. That chance is greater for harder spells. This sort of simulates the GM rolling to see what goes wrong. If you lose control of the spell, first you lose your control pool. After that, something bad happens. To keep things simple, I just had the mage lose HP.  However, I like the idea of the spell going wild instead. I'm going to steal that. *yoink* :)

As for spell lists, the *initial* magic I was creating was wizards, stodgy bookworm types. I figured that they have spells they learned from a common knowledge. That's part of the reason I have spell lists. But to give it flexibility, I'm adding spell components and custom made spells from multiple components. This is for people who don't have that great of an imagination for spells.

The second magic system I was making is for "sorcerers" or natural spell casters. These guys are going to have no spell list and pure flexibility on their magical abilities. But this system will come easy after I have the first one down.