I am working on a Midieval Era game and the magic system is based entirely on alchemy. Various alchemical potions give consumers the ability to fly, to maintain a fire aura, walk on water, become invisible, etc...

The system dictates a simple (Attribute + Skill = #d6) mechanic; Attributes and Skills on a scale of 0 to 6. A combined number anywhere from 1-12.

Alchemy works in the following fashion: Whatever your Attribute + Skill equals, that is how many ingredients you can use for your alchemical potion. So an alchemist with 3 can use 3 ingredients, where another with 10 can use 10 ingredients- simple.

I plan on composing a mass variety of ingredients to use (mercury, griffins feather, pheonix ashes, sulpher, etc...) so there will be many many many many possible potions to be created.

My question is: Would the game be better served if each possible alchemical potion was already pre-defined and given system mechanics for it... or should each ingredient have certain "vauge" properties and the players decide what their potion does.

Kepp in mind, there will probably be over 1,000 possible combinations. A pre-defined list might encompass all major (and most minor) conceivable abilities.

I would think the ideal thing for this would be a list of effects, and some mechanics for how to combine effects. You might have a relatively arbitrary (or programmatic) set of additional traits, perhaps related to Earth-Air-Fire-Water, that mark the various ingredients. These would then have combinatory effects. For example, a Fire plus a Water would have an aggregate negative effect, while a Fire plus an Air would have an aggregate drying effect. You might look at ArsMagica for an example of such things.

As a side note, I'm not sure why you call this alchemy. It sounds thus far just like people are brewing up a list of magical ingredients and making it turn into powers. What makes this (a) medieval, and especially (b) alchemical?

I'm concerned that such a system gives more power to someone with a high attribute than with a high skill, making high attributes worth more.

Frex, a character with an attribute of 5 and an alchemy skill of 2 is automatically better at alchemy than a character with a 3 attribute and an alchemy skill of 5.

Is this intentional? And if so, what is the actual use of skills in this game?

My question is: Would the game be better served if each possible alchemical potion was already pre-defined and given system mechanics for it... or should each ingredient have certain "vauge" properties and the players decide what their potion does.

As a side note, I'm not sure why you call this alchemy. It sounds thus far just like people are brewing up a list of magical ingredients and making it turn into powers. What makes this (a) medieval, and especially (b) alchemical?

Frex, a character with an attribute of 5 and an alchemy skill of 2 is automatically better at alchemy than a character with a 3 attribute and an alchemy skill of 5.

Is this intentional? And if so, what is the actual use of skills in this game?

Does it reward player power?

What do you perceive as the benefits to play of one method or the other?

Seems to me a happy medium would be appropriate. Provide the list of possible ingredients and their properties, and also provide a list of a moderate number of potions as examples, with guidelines for creating your own potions.

This sounds cool, BTW. Good luck!

There are many books available that will list in great detail a system of correspondencies and what the purported properties of various plants, stones, animal parts, etc are. I would highly recommend checking a couple out to serve as a basis for your list of ingredients. A handful of made up "Gryphon's tooth" ingredients will add an interesting flavor, but I wouldn't try making up everything. Especially not when much of that work is done already.

Also I'd recommend grabbing a copy of Fantasy Wargaming by Bruce Galloway (its several decades out of print but still available from online used book purveyors relatively cheaply). That game had a magic system that worked largely as you describe with a system of correspondencies based on the zodiac. If one was making a making a particular wand to cast a particular kind of spell one would search the table and decide to make a wand of hornbeam, set with 7 rings of copper, bathed in lambsblood on the summer soltice; because hornbeam, copper, the number 7, lambs, and the summer soltice were all correspondencies of the particular spell you wanted the wand for.

Hi Gwen,

I suggest losing the whole idea of Attribute and Skills as separate things. You can go one of two ways:

1. Attributes only, but include a "concept" phrase or even Attribute that indicates the characters' areas of expertise in general terms.

Sorcerer does this: Stamina, Will, Lore, and Cover, in which Cover is anything technical and non-sorcerous, usually defined in terms of a job or social role. No skills listed at all. Other games that do this include Amber and (in a slightly different way) Over the Edge.

2. Skills/abilities only, but include physical or personality attributes as options.

Hero Wars does this: a long list of abilities like "Greatsword" or "Relationship: troll buddy," or "Strong." Other games like this include Zero and Castle Falkenstein.

Many people are horrified at the very idea of either option, but this is usually habits/assumptions in reaction, not critical thinking or actual play. In practice, for most games, no detail or possibility is lost from play, contrary to expectations.

Best,
Ron

Ron's totally right here - using both Attributes and Skills, especially to represent nearly the same thing, might not work so well for you.

In my current game, I've been having a lot of the same problems, which I described as "concrete magic or dynamic magic?" You can read the solutions I came up with here.

2. Skills/abilities only...

I believe Aurora is a skills-only game. I recall being quite pleasantly surprised by this detail when reading the quickstart rules.

Paul

Paul Czege wrote: I believe Aurora is a skills-only game. I recall being quite pleasantly surprised by this detail when reading the quickstart rules.

Two things.

First, I fail to see how the "Attribute/Skill vs. Skill Only" argument is a significant factor in Gwen's question. Not trying to be stand-offish here, just wanting to know why it has come up.

Second (and maybe this should be moved to a separate thread), what's the problem with having an Attribute/Skill dichotomy? Are there no cases in which it is preferable to make the distinction between the two? Seems a bit unlikely to me. However, this is a common theme here, and I'm interested in why.

If everything is pre-established, then there isn't going to be a debate between the GM and players on what abilities potions can do and what effects they have on game play. Essentially, they players might abuse this creation power.

Gwen wrote: Which would you rather participate in with a game? Would you rather thumb through a book looking at thousands of potions to see what you could possibly make, or would you rather sit down and mull over system mechanics to make sure the potion you invented fits within the boundaries of the game?

Ethan Greer wrote:

First, I fail to see how the "Attribute/Skill vs. Skill Only" argument is a significant factor in Gwen's question.

Second (and maybe this should be moved to a separate thread), what's the problem with having an Attribute/Skill dichotomy? Are there no cases in which it is preferable to make the distinction between the two? Seems a bit unlikely to me. However, this is a common theme here, and I'm interested in why.

Gwen wrote: Maybe I didn't explain it correctly, but I'm not following your math. Frex (Quin:5 + Alchemy:2) has a combined ability of 7. "Other character" (Quin:3 + Alchemy:5) has a combined ability of 8. Frex is not automatically better.

The game is "cinematic," for lack of a better turn. It rewards drama (getting your character involved in a deep storyline), creative combat tactics (encouraging non hack-and-slash combat), humor, clever social deception, etc...

Essentially, they players might abuse this creation power.

Which would you rather participate in with a game? Would you rather thumb through a book looking at thousands of potions to see what you could possibly make, or would you rather sit down and mull over system mechanics to make sure the potion you invented fits within the boundaries of the game?

Hi Ethan,

Couple questions, so a couple of answers.

1) Despite the thread title, Gwen's wrestling with two issues, not just one - she specifically asked how to deal with a perceived flaw in her Attribute/Skill setup. One solution to the problem she cited is to have Attributes or Skills but not both. It's on-topic and helping with something she asked about.

There are many threads to check out regarding this topic in a wider sense than her question, so take a peek through thread titles or perhaps one of us will post some links for you.

2) You've mis-read the posts a bit, I'm afraid. No one is saying that Attribute & Skill systems are "plain wrong, don't do them." Some games which use the concept very well include Little Fears, Swashbuckler, The Riddle of Steel, and Arrowflight. However, none of them add Attribute and Skill together to get a target number, but use a combination of dice-pool and target number instead. If you're interested in more thoughts on this matter, we can take it to RPG Theory.

Gwen, this is your thread - are the comments helpin' any? Would you prefer to stay more with the open/listed magic issue, or are both topics OK by you?

Best,
Ron

Gwen wrote:
I plan on composing a mass variety of ingredients to use (mercury, griffins feather, pheonix ashes, sulpher, etc...) so there will be many many many many possible potions to be created.

My question is: Would the game be better served if each possible alchemical potion was already pre-defined and given system mechanics for it... or should each ingredient have certain "vauge" properties and the players decide what their potion does.

Gwen wrote: Which would you rather participate in with a game? Would you rather thumb through a book looking at thousands of potions to see what you could possibly make, or would you rather sit down and mull over system mechanics to make sure the potion you invented fits within the boundaries of the game?

Well, originally I don't see why a simple "Atrribute + Skills" mechanic should be changed just so it is not "Attribute + Skills." Since there is no way to proove or disproove that this is a better/as good/worse mechanic than any other, why such a staunch debate to shut it out?

Greyorm has a very good point that someone with a higher Attribute is at an advantage, because they have a larger number to be used in tandem with all skills related to said attribute. But, since it is increasingly more expensive to raise Attributes and comparitivly inexpensive to simply raise skills, that is where the balance lies.

This game is not intended to be realistic. There is a race of lions who live like bees who make blue honey. One of the cities exists inside the belly of an elderly Griphon. This is almost a dream-like world with floating cities and steam powered sentient locomotives.

Therefore, there isn't much reaslism in the dice mechanics. Lengthly charts deciphering the statistical odds of Attribute:3 and Skill:5 are not the focus. Characters perform very heroic, very strange, very powerful feats to accomplish their goals. Their defeats are equally as harrowing, as strange, and as permanent.

The mechanics are designed to leave characters bruised, battered, and broken. Steam powered replacements are soon installed where arms once were; special transformation potions give characters a braid of vines where an arm once was.

Characters are the hero... and considered to always succeed in any reasonable task. The dice are rolled to ensure one thing: they do not fail miserably. Even if they fail miserably, the most often will survive. However, they will take on a very strange injury which might make them wish they were dead.

And, really, even if they die, they keep playing as a decaying corpse until they find someone to fix them.

So the mechanic isn't really a big focus, therefore, not worthy of much debate.

The comments do help, however. It seems that a fair amount feel that a list of ingredients with vauge potential powers would be the best and then players could construct their own potions from that list.

I do appreciate everyone's input!

Clehrich, Ron, thanks for setting me straight.

In regard to the matter at hand: Looking back again at Gwen's original post - why not, instead of making the number of ingredients allowed dependent on Attribute+Skill, make the number of ingredients be dictated by Skill alone? So, that character with a low attribute/high skill could make more elaborate potions than the character with high attribute/low skill. They'd both have the same target number, but the guy with more skill would have an advantage.

Gwen three things:

1) I am not one of the camp who generally gives warning re: attributes + skills. I don't buy the arguement that when added together they are "broken" or any of that. So I don't have any intrinsic bias against such a system.

2) I think the world you just described sounds wonderful. What a unique and interesting place to adventure.

3) Given number 2...why would you possibly want a well used standard attribute + skill game mechanic in a setting about dream like wonder. I am a huge fan of making the mechanic match your setting, and this mechanic given your description above sticks out like a sore thumb to me.

I suggest you check out the game Otherkind to get a sense of some non traditional dice mechanics that help capture the feeling of the kind of setting you're looking for. I can't imagine wanting to play in a setting of transformed vines and sentient steam engines using such a standard non colorful type of mechanic.

Gwen wrote: Well, originally I don't see why a simple "Atrribute + Skills" mechanic should be changed just so it is not "Attribute + Skills." Since there is no way to proove or disproove that this is a better/as good/worse mechanic than any other, why such a staunch debate to shut it out?

Gwen, I’m responding to the other question you posted: Whether or not to use pre-defined potions. My vote goes to the pre-defined potions. Here are my reasons.

1. Pre-defined potions will be much easier to balance. You can assign a cost based on game effect and not have to worry about unexpected combinations of potions running amok. This also works the other way. Sometimes interesting potions might end up being too expensive just because the system they are designed in.

2. You can have a more “magic is strange and doesn’t make sense” feel with pre-defined potions because you won’t be constrained to a specific system. This seems to lend well to your dream like world. I can imagine much more interesting descriptions of the potions if you let your imagination dictate their creation process, rather than a specific game system.

3. Potion creation rules might turn into a mini-game and detract from the role-playing game that you are designing.

When you described your world I immediately thought of the cakes and mushrooms in Alice in Wonderland. I was wondering if you thought about using more than just potions for your magic (such as cakes, mushrooms, etc). Perhaps some ingredients are magical because they were watered my some alchemical concoction or have been passed through the digestive system of some magical creature.

Potions could also be balanced based on their size, taste, side-effects, or other factors. A powerful potion might be very large and thus take time to drink. Characters would have to make some sort of constitution check to funnel the potion down quickly. I have introduced “poor-men’s” healing potions into a game I ran. They healed you, but tasted like slugs and made you nauseous. This resulted in a potion that could not be used in combat type situations and had a bit of interest.

If you want to introduce a potion making system with fewer game balance headaches then you could have the pre-defined potions be a little cheaper than the freeform ones. The pre-defined potions have had many of the top alchemists working on their refinement for centuries after all, right? This way you know that potions that players create won’t be all to powerful and when you see a freeform potion that you like you can get your NPC alchemists to work on refining it and knock its cost down a little.

I have often thought about potions myself and think that they could be much more interesting than they currently are in many Fantasy games. I certainly look forward to a game that uses potions as the center of magic.

Ooh, I get to cite Mike's Standard Rant #4, the one that's so far been less frequently useful.

Basically it points out the trouble that one can get into if using a point based chargen system with a Skill/Attribute system. There are lots of solutions, however, some better than others. Gwen, you may well have already adopted one or more of these solutions. In which case the only argument against flat adding attribute/skill systems is that some people find the effects of attributes to be overstated. But that's simply a matter of esthetics, of course.

So you're system may be fine. All depends on chargen, esthetics and what the focus of the game is about.

Mike

While I wholeheartedly agree that some non-conventional dice mechanics would certain fit into the super-mario-ish setting I have proposed, I had attempted several times to make such a mechanic, but failed to pull it off successfully.

Originally, I figured the inclusion of different sided dice would work well with the helter-skeltered world, dice ranging from d4 to d20 make for very difficult mechanics. I subscribe to the "static target number" for task resolution and that more dice are rolled for high skills, less dice are rolled for low skills (something along the vein of 7th Seas.)

However, a static target number is difficult to establish between a d4 and a d20. In the d4, d6, d8, d10, d12, d20 chain of command, d8 and d10 lie in the middle. So what should be the static target number?

4-5? Four is half of a d8 and 5 is half of a d10. This means someone with an average skill would roll a d8 or a d10 and succeed half of the time.

This idea works fine on the low end- a d4 still has a 25% chance to roll a 4 -but the high end gets way out of whack. A d12 would succeed nearly 2/3 of the time, and a d20 over 3/4 of the time.

The target number could be raised or lowered depending on the difficulty of the task, but raising the target number by even 1 or 2 makes it 5-6 or 6-7.

Now, someone with a d6 skill (below average) will hardly ever succeed! Sure, a below average skill would mean it would be difficult to succeed, but the static target number of 6-7 represents an average task. I know plenty of below average drivers who drive every day and never crash.

Basically, what I'm driving at, is I am able to sit down and create a simple, organized system. I can make up an interesting setting, but as for a non-trad dice mechanic- I don't have much practice, much success and I feel a poorly developed mechanic would hurt the game more than a boring one.

To list or not to list?

You're kind of fighting the impossible to answer question. I'll put game balance issues aside for a moment, because I think you can balance any approach.

A freeform or 'creation system with examples' approach empowers the players to be creative (I would classify these as different approaches, but I don't think you want pure freeform no matter what, so I lumped them together). However, the system has to be more broad. Which normally leads to attacks doing X damage and shields providing X defense, where X is based of some character trait or a roll. You will also be requiring people to be creative, which is harder for some than others (sometimes people will just say 'uh...I dunno what's it supposed to do?'). You lose detail, but gain flexibility. Creation systems also tend to be boring to read in my opinion. The visuals are intentionally stripped out of the ability descriptions (so the players can be free to create them) and they are often very number heavy. I know they weren't written by the same people, but contrast the power system in Hero versus the spell lists of Unknown Armies (as extreme examples of a 'dry'/'not dry' read) .

A lengthy list of potions ensures you get the proper color in the game. It also means you can give every potion a unique system, with as much detail as you desire. You'll also be giving the player a list to shop with, which I think is sort of fun. However, you cannot possibly account for all effects. You'll be limitting the players to what's in the book. You'll gain detail, but lose flexibility. This sort of thing I think is generally more fun to read, because more color can be infused into the text. However, lists tend to be longer; which means they take more time to read, and it takes more time to locate them in the book in the middle of game.

I wish I had the answer, but I also wish I could teleport. For your game a creation system sounds a little more inline with your goals...maybe.

Abuse?

Gwen wrote: Characters are the hero... and considered to always succeed in any reasonable task. The dice are rolled to ensure one thing: they do not fail miserably. Even if they fail miserably, the most often will survive. However, they will take on a very strange injury which might make them wish they were dead.

Gwen wrote: Originally, I figured the inclusion of different sided dice would work well with the helter-skeltered world, dice ranging from d4 to d20 make for very difficult mechanics. I subscribe to the "static target number" for task resolution and that more dice are rolled for high skills, less dice are rolled for low skills (something along the vein of 7th Seas.)

I might also (humbly) suggest something like Pollies. It doesn't have an attribute/skill system, but it sounds like the dice mechanic could be suitable for what you're going for...

I had originally considered Pollies before and I don't remember why I had decided against it.

I will definitely give it another look and I might change my mind.

Andrew- your idea about d100 - d4 witha target number of 1 is interesting. I will try to expound on that idea and see what I can come up with. Thanks!