Hey all,

Two things I could really use your help on, because I keep coming up against a wall.

- Damage

I've talked about it before, and that helped a lot, but I'm having issues with assigning threshold values. Help would be appreciated! Here's the basics:

first factor: Offense's Power (= number of successes) - Obstacle (the difficulty assigned based on additional difficulty factors like cover) - Defense's Power

second factor: Offense's weapon damage base + deadliness - Defense's armor

Multiply the factors, and compare them to wound thresholds, which are based on Size (like FUDGE scale) modified by STR.

Example:

Jonas swings his club (Dmg=STR, +0 Deadliness) at the Black Meg (Tough Skin +2), getting 4 power. Meg dodges with 2 Power.
1st: 4 - 0 - 2 = 2
2nd: 4 (Jonas' STR) +0 - 2 (Meg's tough skin) = 2
Damage is 4, which equates to a ??? wound.

I cannot figure out how to establish the threshholds. Average anything (STR, skill, weapon damage) is 3. Average Power is 2 (for a Hand of 3), and average deadliness is +1 (if present - it accounts for armor piercing bullets or sharp swords).

Size can vary from -20 up to infinity (theoretically; general use maximum is around 20 or so). STR of 3 or 4 has no modifier, 1-2 provides a -1 to Size, and every 2 (or 3?) higher adds +1 (e.g. STR 9 adds 3 to Size) for purposes of wound thresholds only.

- Magic

Here, my problem is depth of description, and what is needed for a complete system. Here's a basic run-through in terms of wortcunning:

Each character who wields magic has a technique, representing their knowledge and skill in the technique (for wortcunning (magical herbalism), that includes which herbs provide what effects, how to combine them, what the main rituals are, etc.).

Each character's techniue also has a number of other factors: default casting time, size of weave (# of motes held at a time), rate of weave (how fast Motes can be combined into a spell), Blind, Gather, and Deliberate rates of Mote acquisition (need better names, but basically they are different kinds of Draw, showing how many Motes can be drawn per default time unit), and a Replace rate (how fast Motes return to the Caern).

A spell begins with drawing motes and using their Colors to create effects (red causes size and mass related effects, and cyan causes motion effects, for example). Say Jonas has Gather rates of 1/2-3/2-0 (defaults), meaning he can blindly gather a mote per Time Unit, or 3 per 2 TU, and connot find a particular Color on purpose at all. He wants to create a door into the Otherworld, a RCX weave. His default TU is 1/2 hour, so he Blindly draws the first Mote, cyan. Second TU, he draws amber, 3rd, red, 4th magenta. He can combine threads of blue (from the magenta), red and green (from amber) to create a clear, thus casting his spell in 2 hours (4 motes per TU of a half hour).

Wortcunning uses motes of energy from herbs, so his technique does not have a replace rate (requires components instead of using the mage's own energies). Jonas spends Luck to power/weave the spell, draws on his Wortcunning skill to see if he weaves everything properly (obstacle is # of motes in weave - 3, in this case), and on success creates a door whcih will allow one being to travel, and which will be open only long enough for that person to walk through. Other colors added would extend the duration of the spell, and let more people go through.

Questions/help:
- should I include a Draw to determine if he weaves the threads together properly to get the clear mote?
- how to qualify 7 factors of the spell? Duration, targets, distance are obvious, but what other 4? I need to be able to associate each color with some aspect of the spell, in addition to overall effects.
- is this way too complicated?
- anything obvious I'm missing, or other comments?

Aidan

- is this way too complicated?

I have to agree with Mike on this one, taalyn. After the simplicity of your basic draw system, this seems a tad bit more complicated.

You want 7 different factors for magic to follow in line with your 7 colors, correct?

Why not one type of magic draw of seven types of magic, each color representing that specific type of magic? Like say one's magic draw is based off of one's Corona. The specific magic skill is based on the specific color, shows the mastery in that type of magic, and the color of stone for succcesses you want to pull.

I do like the ideas of draw rates versus spontaneous use of motes, internal versus external, materials versus self. This uses some dynamics left flat in other systems.

I'm just not certain there needs to be 7 different input/output factors for spells. I can see the possibilities of doing so - each magic user would have their own specific strengths and weaknesses, and it would make magical combat very interesting as different factors came into play. I guess it needs to be more straight forward for me.

Do you have a list for what colors equal what magical factor, and/or what colors equal what type of magic? Lists always make things easier for me to visualize.

It could be that my head is working too slow today. You know I am a big fan of your system so far.

Mike:

The game is about the Hidden Reality: fairies and giants and werewolves and the spirits of motorcycles. The players are humans coming to terms with this fact, and working out how to keep a cautious balance between the forces out there and humanity, and trying to figure out how to clue the rest of the race in on the fact.

I'm trying to keep an ongoing relationship between the system and the setting explanation. For example, you draw motes of various colors because every action taken requires certain colors to do, in the Gameworld. I'm playing with the idea that mechanic and setting can support each other - talking about the mechanic in game does not detract from the experience. At least, that's what I'm hoping for.

So, the details I'm providing are partially there because they fit what "really" happens. Based on what MJ says, I think I've underexplained a piece, so I'll give it another go in a bit.

I think I've got another question to answer, but a friend is having a melt-down, so I'll have to get back to it in a while.

Aidan

Back now...

Mike, looking again, I think I did answer all your questions, but hopefully my reply to MJ will explain what's going on in greater detail.

MJ:

The problem with having only 7 kinds of magic, one per color, is how to deal with spells which involve more than one type? If red spells are damage, say, and blue ones are speed, what do I do if I've got a spell like Poison, that speeds up damage, or a "flick the stone" that creates a speeding stone, like a bullet?

As far as input factors, I'm afraid I didn't explain them very well. It's not that each spell MUST have every factor, it's just that these are important factors which can be modified. Say you have a standard spell that affects X square feet, but you need a bigger area of effect. Another mote of y color, and you've expanded the area. To get the flickstone to go farther, another z mote will do it.

The point of having these is sort of a gameplay issue - powerful magics are harder, more draining to cast. Gandlaf doesn't throw fireballs around all that often, and if magic in the "real" world worked like that, we'd be seeing it a lot more often. There are other issues involved (the power of consensual reality, for example, called the Lex), but basically I want power to equate to danger.

Since you ask:

Red: body, mass, size, endurance, growth, replicate, defense
Amber: influence, communication, ward, charm, control, manipulation
Green: mind, telepathy, enchant, connection to collective unconscious
Cyan: motion, speed, levitation, destruction, transport, displacement
Blue: soul, change, empower, spirit, heal, shape, transform, warp
Magenta: illusion, divination, clairvoyance, conceal, hide, create, reveal
Clear: link, energy, dispel, release, delay, meld, animate, metamagic

These should be pretty transparently connected with the traits and skill groups:

Red: strength and stamina, athletic skills
Amber: charisma, social
Green: intelligence, knowledge
Cyan: dexterity, precision
Blue: will, spiritual
Magenta: perception, artistic
Clear: empathy, magical

On Combat:

I am going to look through the notes you PMed me, MJ, but one of the thoughts I'm having is that the combat/wound thing IS way too complicated. I'm thinking hard about simply having damage remove motes from the caern. Once /any/ color reaches 0, death (or one of many other things) happens, as the balance of the Colors fails. This would allow for physical damage (in red), but also spiritual, social, etc... As motes lessen, tasks in that color become more and more difficult to accomplish - there aren't as many motes to draw. The worry is that tracking where you are mote-wise will be complicated, but it would probably still be easier than what I've got so far.

Aidan

Let me go ahead and voice my support of the mote-removal idea. I really like this. It's maximally elegant, I think. You could pretty easily keep track of what's going on, I would think, by just keeping piles of your removed stones next to a list of the numbers for your maxima. When a pile matches its number, you have a collapse of that color.
You could also have a very simple mechanic where successes remove motes, just like that. No thinking, just "Take three green."

If you want to really strongly limit magic, in this system you could just have spells pull motes out of your bag just like offensive actions do, but maybe put them in another pile and allow them to be put back in a different manner. While all your motes of a color are tied up in magic and damage, you can't use that color efficiently, but unless they're all in damage, you don't suffer a disaster.

Is this too complicated isn't a question that we can really answer, but I strongly feel that unless your game is about the magic, the 7 inputs route is going to get you in trouble, particularly if you intend magic to be low-key. Running your game, I'd probably go MathiasJack's route, with a system like this:
There are seven kinds of magic. You can learn multiple kinds of magic; this will make you more flexible and reliable (as I'll explain later), but only if you really push up your skill in at least one will you be able to do massive things.
Your highest skill determines the size of your Draw.
Each skill limits the successes you can claim on a magic action for motes of that color, and for each color but your strongest, you have to claim fewer successes for that than some other color. For each success you want to claim, you have to describe how you incorporate that style of magic. So, with a lot of low skills, you're basically guaranteed a weak success as long as you draw your strong color, but you won't necessarily be able to predict how, and it's hard to simultaneously invest in a lot of skills, and raise one high enough to get a strong draw.

I'm taking your advocacy of mote-removal to heart, and working out how to figure out damage and such. More on that when I figure it out.

On magic, here's what won't let me sleep:

When a technique is created, lots of little things are defined: whether the caster supplies the motes, or they come from elsewhere, if there are particular things required by the technique or not (e.g. herbs, gestures, voice, singing, astrological configurations, and so on), and other important factors as I figure them out. Each color also has value associated with the technique, starting at defaults of 10. For every mote in the technique, the player has 7 more motes to modify these values and various other defaults. Modifying other values depends on what they measure (a mote added to caster-supplied techniques means the character replces motes faster), and when used to modify the color values, reduces them by a like number. Spend 3 motes, and you've reduced the "cost" (activation cost) of red from 10 to 7.

{I used 10 as a nice high number, and 7 both because it is the number of colors, and because the average caern starts producing maximum possible successes, including all targets and all adjacents, at 12 motes drawn. 70 (10 per color, 7 colors) / 12 = approx. 7. Thus, once a hand is at 12, all activation costs for colors could theoretically be at 1. Additional motes would start to add. If a cost was at 1, and another mote was spent for that color, it would provide 2 for 1 mote spent, then 3 per 1, then 4, then 5... These numbers can change}

When you cast a spell, you draw on your technique. Say Jonas has Wortcunning X5 (5 motes drawn, focus: clear). He draws his 5 and gets red, amber, 2 greens, and a clear. That's a power of 3 (2 for the clear, 1 for the red). He now uses this power, perhaps multiplied by another number as part of the technique, to 'buy' motes. If the activation costs of red, cyan, and clear are 3,6,and 1, and his technique gives him a multiplier of 3, he could /almost/ cast the gate spell mentioned above:

3 power * 3 multiplier = 9 motes. 3 for 1 red, 6 for 1 cyan, and he's spent it all. He only needs 1 more! Crud!

He pays Luck (different from Boons, which are more like Luck in other games; Luck is another name for Ki or Mana in Aisling) before the draw, one mote per mote in the intended spell. He can spend additional luck to add more motes to his final total, after multiplying. So he spends 3 to begin the process of casting (for the 3 motes in the spell, RCX), and then another 3 (for example) to add 1 additonal mote, allowing him to activate the last mote color needed. Since Luck keeps us alive, after a certain point this gets really dangerous.

This is less complicated in game play, though a bit complicated at creation. Still, it adds a lot of depth and distinctiveness to the magic, while still preventing lots of world changing spells. And magic now still depends, basically, on a single simple draw on the technique.

Whaddaya think?

Aidan

The game is about the Hidden Reality: fairies and giants and werewolves and the spirits of motorcycles. The players are humans coming to terms with this fact, and working out how to keep a cautious balance between the forces out there and humanity, and trying to figure out how to clue the rest of the race in on the fact.

Mike Holmes wrote:
Note when explaining the game that not once do you mention combat. I thought I'd given you Mike's Standard Rant #3 already. Oops, I see that was Four I hit you with. Remember to take the red pill, Neo.

Now, I'm not saying that your magic and regular resolution need be identical. In fact the stuff about investing motes really sounds cool. But I'd leave it at that sort of level. What personal investment does the character have to make to get the results he want's magically. That's what the system should ask. Not how many Megajoules of ionized carbon can be created given 7200 seconds casting time.

Just how I see it. This game has real potential. Don't mess it up by falling into the trap of assuming that it has to be like every other RPG out there. I'm not saying make it simple, either. I'm saying make it complicated only where it really counts.

taalyn wrote:
If you look carefully, the only real special combat rule is determining damage. And now that I'm moving to a simple mote-removal, it gets simpler. I was conscious of the fact that combat was not a central issue (though it could be important as a result of conflicts between various Otherworldly factions and such), and had decided that "combat" wasn't going to be detailed enough to merit a chapter of its own.

Ah, so you've read Authentic Thaumaturgy too! :^D

If I understand you right, you're saying to leave things at mote activation (what I came up with last night), but not to get more complicated than that. If I detail levels of investment, that's still within the same level of detail, right? I mean, if I say that red motes do X, Y, and Z, and also increase number of targets, and then note that 1 red could be used for these sorts of effects, 2 for those, and 3 motes for that yonder, that's not increasing the logical level. It's merely detail and guidelines within the same level. I think.

I pretty much agree with everything Mike has had to say about the system, and I believe that all his points are in line with the vision you already have, taalyn.

As I already stated, I like the the element of drawing motes from different sources (internal, ingredients, and/or external/ambient). I guess what stuck in my craw the most when reading what you have for the magic system, if I read it correctly (and if I didn't, then this is how it intuitively came off to me since I read it in about 30 seconds - I'm at work), is that you make a draw of motes to represent a power which is multipled to figure out how many motes you have to work with in casting the spell. That can't be right is it?

The other thing is rate. Rates bug me, and I know this is a personal fetish. I keep them to a minimum in my games if possible. Rates though are a great way to limit the amount of power a caster can use all at once, especially in "fast" casting. Even if no one else but taalyn might understand my personal reference to my game, FLaW, I am going to give an example of rates. You can only "cast" rituals or instant charms. Rituals are prolonged pains in the @$$ where you have to "collect" stones (motes in my game) to accomplish. "Collection" is done more by action rather than time. Instant charms are limited to exactly what stones you can draw right then and there, based off the stat's current rating (Luck in my game), all in one go.

Anyways though are my two "motes" on magic. Still thinking on combat, and my quick break is up.

Oh, and I also second a narrated in game use of magic, maybe two different types and two different ways that characters would go through to accomplish what they will.

MathiasJack wrote: I pretty much agree with everything Mike has had to say about the system, and I believe that all his points are in line with the vision you already have, taalyn.

As I already stated, I like the the element of drawing motes from different sources (internal, ingredients, and/or external/ambient). I guess what stuck in my craw the most when reading what you have for the magic system, if I read it correctly (and if I didn't, then this is how it intuitively came off to me since I read it in about 30 seconds - I'm at work), is that you make a draw of motes to represent a power which is multipled to figure out how many motes you have to work with in casting the spell. That can't be right is it?

The other thing is rate. Rates bug me, and I know this is a personal fetish. I keep them to a minimum in my games if possible. Rates though are a great way to limit the amount of power a caster can use all at once, especially in "fast" casting.

Oh, and I also second a narrated in game use of magic, maybe two different types and two different ways that characters would go through to accomplish what they will.

re: simple draw -

on the other hand, I LIKE using rates and gathering motes (the complicated first version) because it mirrors what "actually" happens. It's a case of mechanic supporting the system (which a simple draw doesn't do so much), a goal of mine.

Maybe I can come up with something somewhere between the two...

Aidan

I just hope that the Lex doesn't become something similiar to consensual reality and paradox as in Mage: the Ascension. The philosophical debates that mechanic caused seriously would always clothesline any of the actual story telling or gaming going on.

I like your Eureka moment, the rate determining the multiplier. Unites separate factors into one and is intuitive, which is both good in my book.

{edit: added this following paragraph}

I figured out how to use my two mechanics, both of which I like. Socery uses the activation/multiplier system, Wizardry uses the draw, and Magery uses a little bit of both. In sorcery, you don't draw for motes because ostensibly, you /know/ what kinds of motes you have before you: you're using cinnamon for its red motes, and you won't get other colors. Wizardry uses draw because you are, well, drawing motes from the air. Magery uses a little of both, because you know what you have to work with (your caern), and you draw motes out of yourself, but yuou also have to activate them to have an effect beyond your own body.


On the Lex:

I've detailed some more of the magic, and in the process, I think I addressed your worry, MJ. I don't want it to be a replay of M:tA either.

Sorcery uses objects (herbs, stones, other people) to supply motes. Lex doesn't effect it at all. It is opposed only by the natural resistance of said objects to give up their motes.

Magery uses the caster's own motes. Lex doesn't affect it, and there is no other resistance (assuming the Mage /wants/ to cast the spell!).

Wizardry draws motes from the world at large. Lex is an issue, but only if focused by very strong emotion or disbelief. Since reality is somewhat plastic, the Mage's will is up against that of people who refuse to allow the effect. This isn't a frequent issue, as people are often only disbelieving after the fact!

In the Otherworld, or in regards to Otherworldly beings, Lex is really where it shines. The "stuff" of the Otherworld is highly susceptible to Lex. This is the origin of Otherworldly beings of many sorts in the first place. Even in this world, some beings are still easily affected by Lex, but it's rare to find someone who holds Lex strong enough to make change. Such strength usually only occurs in extremis, when very young, old, or sick.

I would like to hear about the philosophical debates that paradox started, just so I can have a baseline of what NOT to do with it, and potential hazards, if you're willing to share. I'm familiar with Mage, but never played it.

Aidan

Real quick, consensual reality in MtA dictated what the difficulty of casting something was, and the level of backlash in paradox. It sounds like Lex is more of an afterthought of reality rather than a "prethought", and you make other factors determine difficulty anyways. Lex appears in your game to, rather, determine how someone is to see an Otherworld denizen, and how at times that view shapes the Otherworld denizen. It sounds like you are avoiding all the philosophical discussions of paradox in MtA by making Lex a narrative "mechanic" in your game rather than a system mechanic. Nice, I like it.

This is a really unformed thought, but it seems to me that the "Lex" is embodied in the motes that compose the target. That is, magic should just be an attempt to alter the motes in the target in some way. Damaging magic just removes them. But if you want a spell that makes the target bigger, don't you basically lend a red mote to the target?

Are you getting my drift?

This is what I'm talking about when I mean keeping the mechanics all mote oriented. Game effects first, magic description just follows the mechanics.

Mike

Lex only affects Wizardry feits (spells). This is because wizardry uses the caster's own motes to create a resonance affecting ambient motes. I get my own red, cyan, and clear motes to vibrate, and this creates a resonance in motes around me, setting them to vibrating (or whatever), and then when I pour out Luck, the vibrating ambient motes absorb it and create the effect.

Lex is the ability to shape (or be shaped by) reality, and thus affects, in essence, ambient motes. It disturbs the resonance, preventing or twisting a feit. Lex is a side effect of will and belief, created when emotions are at their extremes. Lex explains the grandmother lifting the car off her grandson, or the man who jumped out of the plane without a parachute and received only a sprained ankle. It is the "food" that created the Fae, and when the Compact was broken, it created Breed.

So, you see, it isn't related to magical susceptibility at all. At least, that's all I got from your comment, Mike.

I also think I'm moving backwards from what you suggest. Since one of my main goals is the "mechanics support setting", I start with what I imagine happens in the game (e.g. how motes are manipulated to create feits), and then work out how to represent it in mechanics. Game effects then come from a combination of the two.

Aidan