2019-01-23 Magic Words

I just read @linkskywalker’s blog post, Magic Words suck. Here’s Magic in the Moment.

I was immediately reminded of “Four-by-Five” Magic System for the Fudge RPG by Steffan O’Sullivan. In the four-by-five system you have four actions (enhance, diminish, communicate/sense, and control) and five realms (body, mind, spirit, energy, matter) and every spell is a combination of these two.

I was also reminded of Das Schwarze Ague Professional: Schwertmeister Set 1. There, you had 18 rune stones (18 words), each with a different value, and three places to put them: one for the medium that carries the magic (multiplier 1), one for the way of the magic (multiplier 4), and one for the target of the magic (multiplier 2). The example they gave was a spell that gave you a free critical attack using the runes Sight (2) as the medium (×2), Fight (5) as the way (×4), and Body (4) as the target (×1) for a total cost of 4+20+4 = 28 “astral” points (manna cost).

As you can see, here’s the first problem I find in these more free form magic rules: they result in free form results which you then need to interpret again and again. Or you can start writing them down, meaning that you will end up with a suggested list of spells of various power levels. You will simply give magic users more flexibility. Do they need more flexibility? I don’t think so. Also note that Link Skywalker started the discussion by comparing fighters and magic users, saying that “from this perspective Magic Users are the first example of unnecessary complexity creeping into the game’s rules.” I don’t know. I’d ask: how short can you make the rules? Short rules are a proxy for easy rules in my mind.

The second problem I had was when I tried a simpler variant of the above where I wanted to use some sort of rune-based or kanji-based magic. This time I had an actual player interested in using it and he picked the Air rune. And he flew around in some long jumps, gliding through the air. And that was it. I felt that he hadn’t taken advantage of the flexibilities given, couldn’t think of creative uses in a pinch, and I concluded that perhaps the system was too free form. Creativity needs some constraints.

Link Skywalker has a solution for all of this. He also provides a list of words (like the runes I mentioned above). He has some suggestions for things that might increase the difficulty. And most importantly:

After successfully casting a spell, Magic Users may record the spell for later use. Each recorded spell may be used once per day without a casting roll. These still count as successful spells for the purposes of determining the base target number. Magic Users may know a maximum of one recorded spell per level. At any time they may forget a recorded spell if they wish to replace it with a new one.

It might work. But then again, a referee might also simply sit down and start writing ten or twenty spells, and then players and referees simply add to the list. You know I like D&D-as-oral-history and this kind of writing and forgetting and remembering has potential. Perhaps that’s simply what Gary Gygax and his players did way back when.

It’s something we all should do for our campaigns. As for myself, I’m trying to do something similar by simply writing up two dozen magic users and elves for my campaign setting, including their spells, for all to use: Spellcasters. It’s based on what I can remember of the spells I like, and it’s new stuff that fits the Vancian magic system as used in classic D&D. I’m excited!



A similar post, where spells are broken down into components that cost points, by John Mettraux: Thread Weaving.

– 2021-02-11 08:38 UTC

Related: 2012-01-24 Changing Gameplay Over Time.

people propose a change to the D&D magic system; they want to make all the spells are available from the start. This is how spells work in HARP: more powerful variants just cost more power points – my second level mage, for example, has haste and fly as his two spells. Using the above observation, I must assume that these proposals remove the distinct modes of play I like so much. Any player character might have the necessary spells right from the start. As far as I’m concerned – and this is where the value judgement comes in – these proposals are taking away something I liked. What are they going to give me instead? If the answer is “more flexibility” for my character, then I feel that this change isn’t worth it.

– Alex 2021-02-11 10:34 UTC

Please make sure you contribute only your own work, or work licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License. Note: in order to facilitate peer review and fight vandalism, we will store your IP number for a number of days. See Privacy Policy for more information. See Info for text formatting rules. You can edit the comment page if you need to fix typos. You can subscribe to new comments by email without leaving a comment.

To save this page you must answer this question:

Just say HELLO