Okay!

Once I have managed to get past this, I will really have no excuse to not finish and begin playtesting the hell out of my game. The magic system and character generation are the two major mental blockages that have stymied my efforts for years. I'm so stoked about the idea of being past this that I am stalling getting started on it. So let's begin!

As I stated in the Spellcasting thread a Spell built should have the following stats:

Fireball
Effect: 5 damage with fire effects
Range: single target, LOS
Duration: instantaneous
Force: 5F
Casting Time: 2 rounds
Drain: 4

My previous struggles with this have involved the following components:

Power Level: How strong the effect is
Duration: How long the spell lasts
Volume/Area: The area of effect of the spell
Range: How far away the spell can target
Complexity: How difficult it is to form the spell

Obviously, Power Level is expressed in the Effect. Volume/Area and Range are expressed in Range. Duration is Duration. Complexity isn't obviously expressed anywhere.

The "costs" of casting a spell are Force, Drain and Casting Time. All of the 5 components should interact in such a way that they can be combined into those three costs.

The old, overly simplistic system was very easy, and to my mind, quite boring. Force = Casting Time = Drain. Likewise equal was Power Level. So a Force 5 fireball took 5 rounds to cast, required 5F Force, and had a Drain of 5. I loathed it, despite its ease. Casting a Power 5 fireball shouldn't be the same as summoning a Power 5 fire elemental. So I added complexity. A fire elemental was pretty damned complex, where as a fireball was fairly simple. Suddenly, things are getting weird. I set Power and Complexity as two stats with a maximum of 5, so they could add up to a maximum 10 Force, the highest Force attribute a player can have. All of a sudden, my potential spell mightiness just got nerfed! Another idea on the scrap heap.

So here's where I'm at right now.

By default, Power and Complexity somehow combine into Force. Somehow.
By default, Volume/Area, Range and Duration combine into Drain.
By default, Casting Time is affected by.. something.
Theoretically, you can increase any of these to lower others.

As you can see, that's not much of a system.

To toss in a few more bits and parts, these are the general categories of spells I want to be able to cast:

(Simple elemental spells involving single elements, or mixes of two of the 4 primary elements)
-  Transformations: transforming one thing into another, usually turning something into an element
-  Manipulations: Moving or shaping an element or combined element
-  Infusions: Adding an elemental quality to an object (blade of fire!)
-  Invocations: Adding a simple elemental quality to a person or being (fists of fire? Water-breathing!)
-  Summoning: Calling up an elemental spirit
-  Evocations: Calling up a raw element

(Void elemental spells, involving the mixture of one of the 4 primary elements with Void)
-  Switches: changing the “polarity” of an existing energy (life to death, thought to madness, destruction to energy)
-  Transmutations: Changing a quality that falls within one polarity of a combination
-  Infusions: Adding a complex quality to an object (does not include flesh) (making a wand of healing, etc.)
-  Invocations: Adding a complex elemental quality to a person or being (healing, decay spells, mind control)
-  Summoning: Calling up a conceptual spirit (a spirit of empathy, or death)

So our Fireball spell above would be an Evocation/Manipulation spell, for example.

That's enough information to start with, I think. I hope I've made my goals and my problems clear. I'm going to let this stew overnight, and go to bed.

Lance wrote:
So here's where I'm at right now.

By default, Power and Complexity somehow combine into Force. Somehow.
By default, Volume/Area, Range and Duration combine into Drain.
By default, Casting Time is affected by.. something.

I don't know how your master system works, so this might not fit at all, but how about something like this?

By default, Power and Complexity somehow combine into Force. Somehow.

Force = Casting Time = Drain

Suddenly, things are getting weird. I set Power and Complexity as two stats with a maximum of 5, so they could add up to a maximum 10 Force, the highest Force attribute a player can have.

All of a sudden, my potential spell mightiness just got nerfed! Another idea on the scrap heap.

Force = Casting Time + Drain

By default, Volume/Area, Range and Duration combine into Drain.

Simon,

Just a quick clarification: Force 10 should be seen as a soft maximum for spellbuilding. I say soft because there will be times that you will be able to cast a more powerful spell, but those are advanced rules. For the purposes of coming up with a system, no spell should ever have more than Force 10, because then it could not be cast by a person.

Bear with me. Didn't get much sleep last night.

So if I make Force a direct addition of any two stats, then those stats must be limited to 5 each, or some uneven combination adding up to 10.

The original concept has always been intended to include spells with a power level up to 10. It only seems fair that Complexity should have an equally free range (though really, what's fair? it's not like these concepts are people whose feelings might be hurt...)

How about you let players choose this?  If I have plenty of time, I'll spend it to drain less.  If I want to cast a fire elemental, and I want to cast it now, I can spend extra mana.

Is this going to be a framework that your players use, or one that you are using to make a list of spell effects?

You know you could have power + complexity = force and just say that force can't excede 10, that way you could have complexity 9/power 1, complexity 1/power 9, or any other combination.

Damnit. I wanted to let this steep overnight, and overnight my internet decides to disappear for 12+ hours.

I also just realized that David C, not Simon C, was the previous commenter who I was replying to. I feel like a dick, now.

7s,

The problem with that is that highly complex spell is by necessity weak, and a strong spell is by necessity simple. There's no way I could cast a strong, complex spell. In some systems, that'd be an acceptable trade off, but I want flexibility that allows for both, hence the addition of the other costs (drain and casting time)

As I read and re-read this thread and the other, I find that Brian's simple idea for dealing with Complexity and Casting time might be the key I need. If it's ever occurred to me, I don't recall. If it hasn't, I can't imagine how, as it's so very simple and fairly obvious.

By that token, someone should be able to basically rapid-fire simple spells, assuming they're willing and able to deal with the Drain.

So how simple is simple? I'm thinking that the type of spell should factor heavily into Complexity.

(Simple elemental spells involving single elements, or mixes of two of the 4 primary elements)
-  Transformations: transforming one thing into another, usually turning something into an element
-  Manipulations: Moving or shaping an element or combined element
-  Infusions: Adding an elemental quality to an object (blade of fire!)
-  Invocations: Adding a simple elemental quality to a person or being (fists of fire? Water-breathing!)
-  Summoning: Calling up an elemental spirit
-  Evocations: Calling up a raw element

(Void elemental spells, involving the mixture of one of the 4 primary elements with Void)
-  Switches: changing the “polarity” of an existing energy (life to death, thought to madness, destruction to energy)
-  Transmutations: Changing a quality that falls within one polarity of a combination
-  Infusions: Adding a complex quality to an object (does not include flesh) (making a wand of healing, etc.)
-  Invocations: Adding a complex elemental quality to a person or being (healing, decay spells, mind control)
-  Summoning: Calling up a conceptual spirit (a spirit of empathy, or death)

I would think complexity would be based on how powerful the spell is, for game balance reasons. It tends to match up with how complicated that spell actually would be, too. For example, your torchlight spell is low complexity (easy to do and not powerful), a fireball is medium complexity (harder than torchlight, more powerful as well) a fire elemental high complexity (a thinking being is harder than an explosion, more powerful than the explosion.

What I was driving at earlier, Lance, was that I think you're making this more complicated than it needs to be. I'm not sure if I didn't explain myself clearly, or if there's some blurry idea in your head trying to break out. 

David (got it right this time)

I actually wasn't sure what you were driving at, to be honest. Some of your comments appeared to be misinterpretations of what I said, others appeared to contradict what you'd already said. Instead of addressing all of your points individually, I addressed the ones that stood out to me, and tried to clarify what I'd said for the rest.

I definitely see what you're saying, but I don't think you're thinking it through all the way. An elemental is going to be complex no matter how you slice it.. But a little Force 1 fire sprite should be as possible as a massively powerful Force 10 elemental. Fireballs are also meant to be cast in varying Forces, from a Force 1 singe to a Force 10 conflagration. Some spells, you're right, probably won't have a wide variety of Forces... Torchlight, for example may not need (or it may not be safe!) to have a Force 10 variant.

Are we speaking on the same wavelength now, or is there still static?

(Simon for real this time)

So I guess my question is the same as in the other thread.  What do you want putting a spell together to feel like? What decisions is the player going to make?

At the moment, it sounds like there's a tradeoff between power and complexity, but I'm not sure what the mechanical implications of that are.  Why would you want a Fire Elemental over a Fireball? What does a complex spell give you that a simple one doesn't?

On to a few specific things:

I don't know if this fits with the rest of your system, but a fun way of combining Power and Complexity into Force could be by having Force be a dice pool, where power is the size of the dice, and Complexity is the number of dice in the pool.  That might work for Drain if it doesn't work for Force.

I really like the descriptions of the different types of spell.  But what reason would you have to use one over the other? What does the player base their decision on?

Simon (for real this time):

Last question first:

But what reason would you have to use one over the other? What does the player base their decision on?

So I guess my question is the same as in the other thread.  What do you want putting a spell together to feel like? What decisions is the player going to make?

So it's a risk/reward decision? That seems cool.

Here's what I don't understand at the moment:

Power and Complexity go into Force. and Duration, Area and Range go into Drain, right? So does that mean that Force doesn't contribute to Drain?

It sounds to me like you need a system where Complexity, Power, Duration, Areas and Range all add together to create a difficulty score for Drain.  Does that seem right?  The question is just how each part contributes?

Simon,

I'm strongly considering detaching Complexity from Force and attaching it to casting time.

Also, I don't really see Complexity going into Drain. Power, Duration, Area and Range, definitely.

Drain, remember, is a damage rating that the spell does to the caster. Mana is a way to minimize that damage, mechanically.

Damage has two components: Rating and level. Rating is how many points of attributes are reduced by the damage. Level is for how long.

Negligible is short term, fading even during a single conflict. Subduing fades over the course of hours. Lethal heals over the course of weeks, and Critical converts a small part (1/5th) of Lethal damage into permanent damage. I'm figuring most spell drain will be, by default, Subduing damage.

(my internet has gone down in the middle of writing this post. Great... If the post is overly long, it's because I got to keep typing for a while before the internet came back up.)

I want certain things to shift the damage level, but this should be a fairly big deal. Mostly, I want the drain rating to be affected.

As a for instance, let's start with the base drain rating being Power/2 (round down). This would make a Force 5 Fireball drain 2. Probably range self, area point and duration flash wouldn't raise the drain any. Fireball requires range beyond self though. Touch is also pretty much out, so let's go with bowshot. If we assume 1 drain per level of range, that brings drain up by 2 to 4. Duration and area don't need to change.

Coincidentally, this is almost precisely the spell I created for an example.

Fireball
Force: 5F
Effect: L(ethal)5 damage w/ fire effects
Range: Bowshot
Area: Point
Duration: Flash
Drain: S(ubduing)4
Casting Time: 2 (assuming casting time is equal to complexity)

Let's try to build another spell, Silverwind, and see what happens.

Complexity: It requires an Invocation, because we're adding the ability to see air to a person. That's obviously a minimum of 1 complexity. Maybe 2? We'll go with 2, until we can come up with a formalized system. We're going off of "feels good" for now. So complexity 2 means casting time of 2 rounds.

Range: self. Easy. No addition to drain.
Duration: Hm. Let's make it sustained. In this case, I'm thinking that you'll periodically make new drain tests, so it shouldn't add to drain, should it?
Area: Interesting question. Do we consider the area to be the person it affects? Or the range he can see? I'm gonna go with the range he can see, 'cause that feels good. LOS obviously, which is certainly much farther than you can shoot a bow. I'll call it... 4 drain.
Power: We'll give it a Power 2, meaning it's numerical effect is +2, and drain is now base 1. Let's see what we've got, shall we?

Silverwind
Force: 2A
Effect: You can see the air as a silvery shimmer, allowing you to see air currents and movements
Range: Self
Area: LOS
Duration: Sustained
Drain: S5
Casting Time: 2

Not bad. Maybe we can up the casting time to reduce the drain, some, as 5 points of drain is moderately nasty for such a simple spell. Unless the drain is reduced, you're looking at 5 hours to recover all your losses. Of course, outside of combat, 2 passes is negligible, so upping it won't do much to you. This is a balance issue I'll have to play with to make it work.

Overall, I think I might have it. There are still a lot of little details to work out, but the basic system seems to be there.

It sounds like you've put the cart before the horse and decided on less essential things like terminology than you have on the more important, conceptual ideas. You've already come up with a slew of mechanical keywords, but (correct me if I'm wrong) you don't seem to have more than a vague idea of how they relate to each other.

I would take a step back and consider your spellcasting system in a more conceptual way. Don't throw out your ideas, because they're not bad, but instead of thinking within the concrete terms that you've made, think in more general terms and let the numbers come later. You can force numbers to work around a system, but you can't force a system to work around numbers. Like Simon said, what should casting a spell feel like?

That is not a fluffy "fiction-based" question. You can answer that question with even the number-crunchiest games.

Once you've thought a little about how spellcasting should feel, try and work out a much simpler mechanical system that achieves a basic form of what you're trying to achieve.

So let's say you're trying to get this "recipe-based" system where players take core spells and then modify them freely based on the strategic needs of the situation. It sounds like you've already attempted this, but I think you should keep at it. Don't worry about whether the system is insufficient for what you ultimately want to achieve. The idea is that you try and tease out compelling mechanical ideas that you want to incorporate into your larger game.

In short, ignore the fire elementals and complicated spells like that. Don't try and work out a system that incorporates all of your preconceived mechanical keywords. Try and work out a basic system that lets you cast fireballs, lightning bolts, and other basic spells in a way that's essentially satisfying to you. Maybe in the end you'll find that you don't even need "drain." Maybe you don't need "complexity." Maybe some of these ideas will manifest in other ways. Step away from the keywords you've developed. Those ideas will still be present, but right now I think they are hindering your progression because you're devoted to them in a way that I do not think you need to be.

So, in other words, look at what you are trying to achieve conceptually, and then build as simple a mechanical framework as you can that allows you to do these things.

To me, here are the concepts that I feel like you're trying to achieve. I may be off-base, but that's not really the point. You can adapt this for your own needs:

• Players take basic spells, i.e. fireball, and then modify them based on their strategic needs
• Players should be able to achieve stronger or faster versions of the same spell in a simple way
• Players should be able to add elemental effects to a spell, i.e. a fireball with lightning properties, for strategic effects

Once you build a simple framework that lets you do this with some basic spells and numbers, I think you'll have a much easier time building back up to the level of complexity you want.

I hope this doesn't sound too critical. I am working on a spellcasting system right now and I know how tough it can be :)

Hello Gee,

I gotta say I had a brow lifted reading through your entire post. I don't know where you're getting your impression from. The terms are just terms. I actually dislike a lot of them, but they'll do for now. The vagueness of many of the things I've said in this thread are because I'm NOT mentioning all the things I've considered, then discarded because they didn't do what I wanted.

The concepts, on the other hand, I've done a lot of thinking about. I've tried various other systems, but none of them have done what I want. What I don't want is to come up with lists of spells. I did that. Some of them were pretty damned cool, like the Silverwind spell. What I want is a system where I can conceptualize a spell, then go through and the spell ends up coming out pretty much like I thought it would.

To me, here are the concepts that I feel like you're trying to achieve. I may be off-base, but that's not really the point. You can adapt this for your own needs:

1. Players take basic spells, i.e. fireball, and then modify them based on their strategic needs
2. Players should be able to achieve stronger or faster versions of the same spell in a simple way
3. Players should be able to add elemental effects to a spell, i.e. a fireball with lightning properties, for strategic effects

3. Oh, no, no, no! It's a fireball, why in the world would I want it to have a lightning effect? It will have FIRE effects. Things like igniting clothing. These things won't be basic parts of the spell, they'll be elemental effects that can be added.

Also, something I intend to institute a bit later in the process is that you'll be able to purchase elemental effects with margin of success on your casting roll. Fire might allow you to ignite things, where lightning might allow you to ignore metal armor. So there will be reasons to cast a particular spell over a similar spell.

A system that allows me to cast fireballs et al. was what I had originally. Fireballs, lightning bolts, etc. are EASY. I want a system that's robust and flexible, which is why I created something different. I want a system that allows fireballs, lightning enchantments on swords, shields of crystal, and abruptly raised bulwarks of stone. I want a system that allows me to create the spell I conceptualized when I was just making lists of spells... One where you can call lightning down on yourself and vanish, then reappear where lightning strikes next.

Sorry if I came off kind of abrasive, but your basic assumption is that I haven't put a lot of thought into the concepts. That's way, way off.

At this point, a generalized critique isn't helpful to me. Even if you're absolutely certain my entire system is ass, even if you're right, you're gonna have to explain why you think so, rather than tell me that I should go back to formula.

Gee,

It occurs to me that you are working with less than full context. This is partially by design: I'm trying to present my problems in limited bites, in order to focus on the specific things I need. It's also partially due to necessity: No one should have to read my whole system doc before being able to offer advice. I don't know if you've read the other thread, (though you mention having seen it) but it's a helpful piece, if not actually necessary. 

Not requiring people to read everything I've written about Mage Blade obviously puts limits on how useful advice can be. On the other hand I've got a pretty good grasp of how my mind works, and all of the half-informed suggestions here have been productive for me, if only because it helps me to think about why those suggestions wouldn't work. Sometimes, my first instinct is to dismiss the idea out of hand, because I'd already considered it, or because it was too simple. But if I address it and explain to them why I'm rejecting the idea, I might find that it could work after all.

What I am saying is that it would be helpful if you came up with a simplistic spellcasting system that fundamentally does what you want it to do, even if it's imperfect and doesn't do everything you want it to do.

That post is very helpful, thanks. Again, sorry if I came off badly. I was just trying to get something specific to work with.

As an exercise, let me try writing up a "bulwark of stone" spell to see if I can work it out.

1. Concept: calling a large body of stone to block people, provide a shield, etc.
2. Evocation (to summon the rock) + Manipulation (to shape it)
3. Complexity: 2 (evo + manip)
4. Base Drain: 9 (range: touch 1 + dur: empowered 5 + volume: large object 3)

I'm a little confused at this point, though. Do I need to give it a Force, like you did with the shield? If so, how much? If I give it very little, will the stone be fragile and easily destroyed?

Lance, have you read Luke Crane's Magic Burner? Your ideas seem very, very similar to the writeup of Abstractions (building spells for Sorcery). The main, broad strokes differences are:

a) the rest of the system is different
b) each selection of something from one of your categories contributes a difficulty and a casting time increment to the final spell
c) in Burning Wheel spells have a chance of failure, and you roll to cast and to resist "drain" with different pools but against the same difficulty

Guy,

I actually just got a look at it today, along with Ars Magica 4th.

I see some strong similarities in what I'm working on with both systems. I plan to dig deep into both of them and steal liberally where applicable.

Gee,

Yeah, you'll need to give it a Power rating, which will determine its Force. If it's a low power rating, the stone will be fairly fragile, yes.

I'm beginning to see that Drain stacks up rather fast. You've got a minimum Drain 9 for your spell, if you cast it at Force 1. I may want to tweak some numbers around, and think about a fix. For now though, I appreciate your input. I'm going to bed, as I have a very early morning ahead of me.

Thanks!

It looks like you're at the point where you just need to define the scope of magic (in explanatory text), and then work with the math until it does what you want at all levels.

You have the four elements, but what does each affect? Can I shapechange with magic? Can I control somebody's mind? Can I make undead zombies that obey my will? And if I can, what elements are those spells made of?

Complexity is built out of the way the magic is shaped, and Force is there for any mechanical number the spell needs. And everything else adds numbers to the Drain rating. Cool.

I'm not seeing what "Power" is (step 5 and 5a) -- is it just the Force rating?

Does Casting Time always start at the same number, or do the various elements of a spell add numbers to that as well?

If I decide to increase Casting Time, what parts of the spell can I change? Can I increase the effective Force of a spell, above the stat points I have allocated for it? Can I increase the Complexity, so Complexity+Force is greater than 10? Is that still an issue? Or does Casting Time just reduce Drain?

If I increase Casting Time, does it go up in regular increments (+3 rounds, x4 rounds) or does it increase by stages (rounds, minutes, hours, days, months, years)? Can I do both?

You might also consider again having Range, Duration, etc. add points to the Complexity, and have Drain = Complexity+Force, minus added Casting Time. (So all the elements except Force and Casting Time add together to make the final Complexity, with or without fancy division, before equaling the Drain, which is then mitigated by Casting Time).

It might also (depending on your preferences) be a good idea to weight complexity less than power. 

Consider D&D, where there are a lot of interesting spells, but they barely get used because there are some that are just more powerful.  I think it's a good idea to encourage complex spells (which require creative and interesting uses) over powerful spells (which you just fire and forget).  I'm not so likely to summon a fire elemental (which I have to command, and find ways to use), if I can just fire off a fireball that is more dangerous for the same cost.

Simon,

If you notice, complexity pretty much adds just to casting time. So spells when time matters (say, in combat) are more likely to be those fire-and-forget spells, where your more complex spells will tend to be used outside of combat. This is basically as intended, though it's one thing I definitely want to tweak.

Johnstone,

5 elements. Void is less commonly used (and never used alone), but no less important.

Shapechange: Yes. Into what?
Mind control: Air/Void
Zombies: Earth/Void

Power is the numerical effect of the spell. I've not just scrapped it and made it the same as Force (again) because I'm thinking that some of the way to take the stress off of drain is to shift some of the effect to Force. So Force will be a combination of the Power rating, and some of the scope (range, area/volume, duration). I haven't decided how to do it, but I'm thinking I need to.

Casting time needs to get a bit of a kick in the pants too, I think. Having quick-cast combat spells is good. Having it be easy to be quick-cast isn't quite so good.

You might also consider again having Range, Duration, etc. add points to the Complexity, and have Drain = Complexity+Force, minus added Casting Time. (So all the elements except Force and Casting Time add together to make the final Complexity, with or without fancy division, before equaling the Drain, which is then mitigated by Casting Time).

This is sounding good Lance.

What do you still need help with?

Simon,

I think I may actually be good, for now. Obviously there are details that need to be worked out, but I believe I can handle them. I think at this point any further discussion may simply be my innate desire to discuss things. I'm not saying that nothing productive could come out of it, but the initial problem which prompted me to post has been largely resolved. As we've been carrying on this conversation, I've been working on other chapters of the full text, and carrying on independent discussions of the setting. This stuff we've been talking about in these two threads will form the core of a fairly extensive magic chapter, which I will probably begin writing soon.

I don't want to make promises that I may not keep, but I've made more progress on this project in the last few months than I have in years. My next couple of months or so should leave me time to finish a large part of the remaining work. After that, my main focus will be on redeployment back to the U.S. and settling back into life and getting to know my wife and son all over again. By some time next year, however, it would be reasonable to expect to hear something definitive about Mage Blade. Not publishing yet.. God, no. But a playtest document, almost certainly.