PDA

View Full Version : Flexible Magic System



Chronologist
2014-01-10, 03:21 PM
So, I'm working on a point-based tabletop system using a pretty simple core system - roll 3d6, add a single modifier, and take the result. Higher rolls are better, obviously, and the bell curve of the 3d6 means that small modifiers go a long way.

Anyway, one element of the system is the Potency mechanic, which I'd like some help with. Essentially, the idea is that you have a Potency value, which does two things:

1) You add it to all of your rolls for Freeform Magic
2) It determines how powerful your Focused Magic abilities are

You buy individual broad concepts for Freeform magic - for example, you might choose Fire, which would let you manipulate fire, create it, destroy it, maybe even communicate with it or give it commands. Freeform magic takes time, and it's not really something you can easily do in combat without a chance of being disrupted. The more difficult the magic you're trying to do, the longer it takes and the higher the difficulty. You can also choose to up the difficulty to speed up the casting process a little, or reduce the difficulty in return for taking exponentially more time with the ritual.

Focused Magics are specific, focused abilities like healing wounds, removing poisons, teleporting, and so forth. They're generally less powerful than Freeform magic but they can be done quickly in combat and aren't subject to 'failure' outside of attack rolls. They come in two varieties - Major Foci (which take up your 'attack' action in combat and have an instant, flashy effect), and Minor Foci (which only take a quick action to use and have weaker, passive effects). Minor Foci temporarily reduce your effective Potency while they're active, so if you've got Potency 3 and two 1-point Minor Foci up, your Potency bonus is 1. This prevents characters from loading themselves or their allies up with buffs all the time, as their 'casting' suffers.

Finally, Mana is a resource that temporarily improves your effective Potency for one Scene, or until you use a Major Foci or Freeform Magic, whichever comes first. You can't increase your Potency by more than a certain amount with Mana, and it's a daily resource. In addition, failing at Freeform Magic can drain you of a lot of Mana, so it's sometimes wiser to spend the Mana in advance rather than risk being drained out.

So, a quick example:
Freeform Magic (Fire): Control fire, speak to it, make it bigger or smaller, give it simple instructions to carry out immediately. Roll 3d6 + Potency versus the Difficulty to succeed.
Major Focus (Fire): Lob a blast of flame at your opponent, dealing an additional 1d6 damage, + 1d6 for every 3 Potency you have
Minor Focus (Fire): Gain Resist Fire 2 for every Potency you invest in this ability, to a maximum of 5 Potency.

For reference, Potency is significantly more expensive than Foci, which are more expensive than Mana. It's the 'supernatural' category of upgrades you can purchase, alongside Combat (attack / damage / defenses / health) and Expertise (skills / assets / qualities / stamina). Players can choose to ignore supernatural abilities, should they wish, and the other systems in the game allow them to be quite useful and competent even if they do so (removing the concept of caster supremacy, and making magic users more 'utility' characters).

So, what are your thoughts? Constructive criticism would be most welcome, and I'd be happy to answer any of your questions.

Just to Browse
2014-01-10, 03:51 PM
Boiling this down:
You have a stat called Potency. You use it for spells.
You get vague categories of skills called Freeform Magic. When attempting a skill, you try to convince the DM that it falls under your Freeform Magic, then he eyeballs a DC and time frame and you roll 3d6+Potency. Doing things faster means a higher DC.
You get abilities called Major Foci that you can use at-will as an attack, and scales off your Potency.
You get abilities called Minor Foci that give you buffs but reduce your Potency score as long as they're active.
You get a daily resource called Mana that you can spend to get temporary Potency (up to a cap). This temporary Potency lasts until you use Major Foci or Freeform Magic, and failing a skill check with Freeform Magic drains it regardless of whether you spent the resource.
Everything in the game is point-buy, so you can focus on whatever you want.

What this will do.
Potency and Mana are two more stats to track. I am apprehensive already.
Freeform Magic is what one could call Magical Tea Party, because the DM decides basically everything a player can do with it. You can have this, but it's dangerous for inexperienced DMs and can cause huge differences gameplay.
Major Foci being at-will attacks is fine, be aware of spamming.
If Minor Foci reduce your Potency and Major Foci scale to your Potency, players are encouraged to go all defense or all offense.
Mana is just... why? You have a system that encourages rocket launcher tag and the 15-minute workday, and discourages doing anything out of combat.
NO. DO NOT PUT BONUS STATS ON THE SAME POINT-BUY SYSTEM AS ABILITIES. BAD BAD BAD.

This would derive great benefit by tying magic directly to some current stat(s), correlating freeform magic to other MTP skills and major/minor foci to other standard attacks and defenses, and by eliminating mana.

And please please please do not tie access to abilities to the same XP system that controls how high your stats are.

JBPuffin
2014-01-10, 04:09 PM
...Okay, let's start with the obvious: it's better to have magic-exclusive stats than to have them tie to already existing ones in some cases (i.e. you don't have to be smart/wise/charming to blow stuff up). Moving on...

Mana probably shouldn't be in this system; it simply doesn't fit to have it as anything but some sort of item effect.

The point about choosing between offense and defense is a good one, although another might be that there's no real dichotomy between those who specialize in an element and those who don't (Free - Fire, M - Fire, m - Fire vs Free - Space, M - Electricity, m - petrification, for example). This is probably somewhat intentional, but I thought I'd point it out.

Oh, and that whole "don't tie stats and abilities to the same point-buy"...well, it depends on what stats can be bought, and for how much. If done in a way similar to, say, FUDGE (clearly separate categories, each with different costs and effects on gameplay), then it could be perfectly fine.

Is the entire system posted somewhere else? I'd like to take a gander at the whole thing, to make judging this easier.

Chronologist
2014-01-10, 04:14 PM
Boiling this down:
You have a stat called Potency. You use it for spells.
You get vague categories of skills called Freeform Magic. When attempting a skill, you try to convince the DM that it falls under your Freeform Magic, then he eyeballs a DC and time frame and you roll 3d6+Potency. Doing things faster means a higher DC.
You get abilities called Major Foci that you can use at-will as an attack, and scales off your Potency.
You get abilities called Minor Foci that give you buffs but reduce your Potency score as long as they're active.
You get a daily resource called Mana that you can spend to get temporary Potency (up to a cap). This temporary Potency lasts until you use Major Foci or Freeform Magic, and failing a skill check with Freeform Magic drains it regardless of whether you spent the resource.
Everything in the game is point-buy, so you can focus on whatever you want.


Yep, pretty much, only there are written guidelines for how to calculate the DC of Freeform Magic. Things like duration, range, number of targets, and obviously the actual effects of the magic can be determined by a short, handy table, no more than half a page at most.



What this will do.
Potency and Mana are two more stats to track. I am apprehensive already.
Freeform Magic is what one could call Magical Tea Party, because the DM decides basically everything a player can do with it. You can have this, but it's dangerous for inexperienced DMs and can cause huge differences gameplay.
Major Foci being at-will attacks is fine, be aware of spamming.
If Minor Foci reduce your Potency and Major Foci scale to your Potency, players are encouraged to go all defense or all offense.
Mana is just... why? You have a system that encourages rocket launcher tag and the 15-minute workday, and discourages doing anything out of combat.
NO. DO NOT PUT BONUS STATS ON THE SAME POINT-BUY SYSTEM AS ABILITIES. BAD BAD BAD.

This would derive great benefit by tying magic directly to some current stat(s), correlating freeform magic to other MTP skills and major/minor foci to other standard attacks and defenses, and by eliminating mana.

And please please please do not tie access to abilities to the same XP system that controls how high your stats are.

1) The game doesn't use stats like Strength, Dexterity, etc. Between Health, Stamina, and Mana those are the only 'pools' to keep track off, and Mana is optional. You can, in fact, play this game with Health as the only variable attribute (Stamina can be replaced with a static value instead).

2) No, the player announces their intent and the DM checks the table. For example, a player says "I want to use my mastery of Ice to make a sword of clear, solid ice that lasts as long as I hold it". The DM looks down, sees it's Personal range (0), single or no target (0), and continuous, meaning the player loses a Minor action while he's wielding it (1). The effect's a 'realistic physical creation with no special properties', so (1). Adding that 2 to the base of 5 means it's Difficulty 7. Not as simple as having a spell written in front of you, but infinitely more flexible and it encourages players to go into detail as to what they're doing.

3) Major Foci are designed to be used more or less whenever you want. Who am I to say a wizard cant lob a ball of fire every turn when the fighter swings his sword every turn? If the wizard has enough Potency to do it without Mana, good for him - and I'd look forward to seeing what happens when he faces a fire resistant creature.

4) That's a fair point. I think players will also choose to take a mix of the two, sacrificing a little Potency in return for some nice passive abilities. When you're fighting a red dragon, laying Fire Resistance on the party and saving enough Potency / spending Mana for Ice magic may be more effective than just doing one or the other. If Minor Foci didn't reduce Potency, there'd be no reason not to have at least one on all the time.

5) You can't spend more than a few Mana a turn. If you have so little Mana that you run out in a single fight, that's your problem. Characters who focus on daily resources will always have problems when they run out of said resource. Unless you make every resource based on a per-encounter setup, players will want to leave and recoup those resources, no matter how low they might be. I once ran a d20 game where I filled up everyone's HP between fights and all powers were encounter-based, and they STILL left the dungeon over and over to recharge their daily Magic Item uses and get more consumable magic items.

6) Define 'bonus stats' and 'abilities'. If you mean strength and dexterity, those aren't in this game.

Thanks for the critique, though I'd appreciate some clarifications to your points, and I hope you grasp my counterpoints as well.

Chronologist
2014-01-10, 04:24 PM
...Okay, let's start with the obvious: it's better to have magic-exclusive stats than to have them tie to already existing ones in some cases (i.e. you don't have to be smart/wise/charming to blow stuff up). Moving on...


Exactly. Potency is an independent 'attribute' that's not dependent on anything else. You can roleplay a thick-headed, oafish barbarian with spirit magic if you want.



Mana probably shouldn't be in this system; it simply doesn't fit to have it as anything but some sort of item effect.


Potency is your continuous magical power. It's how much you can channel safely at any given time without tiring yourself out. Mana is a pool representing how deep your reserves go when you DO push yourself and draw more power than you're comfortable with.



The point about choosing between offense and defense is a good one, although another might be that there's no real dichotomy between those who specialize in an element and those who don't (Free - Fire, M - Fire, m - Fire vs Free - Space, M - Electricity, m - petrification, for example). This is probably somewhat intentional, but I thought I'd point it out.


Having access to a Freeform Magic of a similar type may be a prerequisite, or it may not. After all, some mages may have talent tossing lightning bolts, but lack the focus to do any grand, sustained magic. Similarly, some mages may be excellent diviners or practitioners of ritual magic, but be unable to weave a quick battle charm when pressed. Overall I'm taking a more open approach - if you want to be a Freeform teleporter with battle lightning and defense against petrification charms, be my guest! Other DMs might restrict your access (which is where classes and magical traditions come into play, optional rules of course).



Oh, and that whole "don't tie stats and abilities to the same point-buy"...well, it depends on what stats can be bought, and for how much. If done in a way similar to, say, FUDGE (clearly separate categories, each with different costs and effects on gameplay), then it could be perfectly fine.


Points come from the same pool, but there's a hard cap of what percentage of your points you can spend on a given category. If you're a magic user of any kind, the cap's 50% for all three categories. If you're not a mage, it's 65% for the remaining two categories, but you can't take magical abilities (and if you do, you have to re-work your points somewhat to balance yourself out). It functions essentially like Anima: Beyond Fantasy, only there aren't any Attributes like Strength or Agility, just points to build your character's attack bonus, defensive bonuses, skills, etc.



Is the entire system posted somewhere else? I'd like to take a gander at the whole thing, to make judging this easier.

I'm working on it now, but am looking to upload it as soon as magic is complete and I finish the monster manual. The good thing is, monsters by and large function quite differently from players, so there's nothing to track with them other than Health.

Thanks for the reply! I hope I answered your questions to your liking.

Chronologist
2014-01-12, 09:47 AM
So, reviewing the nature of Freeform and Focused Magic has me inclined to create a list of both of them, and to perhaps link some kinds of Freeform Magic to their Focused counterparts (i.e. the page with Freeform Fire would also have 3-5 Focused abilities relating to Fire magic).

I already have a list of 60 Freeform magic styles, and for many of them 3-4 Focused Magic options.

I'm also attempting to set a base 'value' in terms of how expensive certain abilities are. So far, I'm balancing them in three major ways:

1) How difficult would that kind of magic be in your average campaign, or in relation to other kinds of magic? For example, teleportation is obviously harder to perform than, say, flight simply because teleportation can do so much more, or achieve those distances instantaneously. In the same vein, transforming a chuck of metal into a sword (transmutation) would be easier than just creating a sword out of nothing (creation), and turning a wooden sword into a steel one (alchemy) might be somewhere in between.

2) How powerful in that kind of magic in general (in terms of game mechanics)? Teleportation and flight are both quite useful abilities, especially at lower levels, so making them cost more Potency to use would mean low-level characters would have to spend Mana to use them (meaning they'd have a finite number of uses per day). However, as useful as it might be, you probably can't change the tide of battle with an extra sword like you could being able to fly or teleport, so those transmutation/creation/alchemy powers would have a relatively low Potency cost.

For this category, consider mind-control and summoning abilities. These powers can seriously swing a battle in either direction, especially in a 1-on-1 scenario. They both entail a number of additional benefits - aside from just making your new ally attack, you can make them trigger traps, flee, carry equipment, or even jump off of a cliff, depending on the level of control you have.

As such, the magic available to players will steer clear of 'win' button magic or magic that's simply too flexible or powerful, with a priority on more narrow (but useful) types of magic. In addition, a system of checks and balances will be set up to roughly determine how much things like freeform magic help or hinder characters, so it isn't just up to the DM's Fiat.

More to come when I have a free moment, but I'd love questions and comments in the mean time.

JBPuffin
2014-01-12, 10:13 AM
More to come means a third balance, right?

I like the Freeform-Focus linking; it's like a school of magic with branches, although in this case the schools are pretty specific to start with.

I'll wait for later to comment more; as of right now, I'm eager to see the list...:smallsmile:

Chronologist
2014-01-12, 11:30 AM
Yes, I'm working on the third method of balance at the moment, it's a bit trickier than the other two.

Yes, that's sort of the idea with the Freeform / Focused divide. I want players to have concrete rules for what their quick, fast spellslinging is capable of, but I also want to give the option for more broad experimentation within their magical schools of choice.

Take something like, say, Harry Potter (not the best example, but it'll do). In quick life-or-death combat situations, the characters tend to revert to basic defense and attack spells (Reducto, Expelliarmus, Protego, Sectumsempra). When they're given more time to work their magic, they're able to pull off a lot more interesting and diverse kinds of spells. In addition, incredibly powerful spellcasters might be able to (at the cost of quite a bit of Mana and requiring a LOT of Potency) cast a Freeform spell fast enough to be useful in a combat situation. For an example of that, look at Voldemort and Dumbledore's duel in Book 5.

How Freeform Magic would work at that point is fairly simple - it's established with a Power value based on the success of the spellcasting check (plus the inherent Difficulty of the check itself), and it establishes a statement. For example, conjuring a wall of fire might be "Anything that passes through this wall of fire will be incinerated". Any character that walked through that wall would, therefore, be incinerated, with the effectiveness again based on the Power value of the spell in question. Characters with certain special qualities or with counter-magic (Water or Ice would work quite nicely, Air or Earth would be trickier) could remove or ignore the Wall of Fire, depending on how high the Potency of their ability is.

That, however, starts to tie into the skill and quality system, which I'm not 100% ready to show at this point. Regardless, it's going to make both counter-magic and character qualities a viable response.

JBPuffin
2014-01-12, 12:04 PM
...the Harry Potter comparison makes it even better. :smallbiggrin:

I wish more games used Freeform magic as, at least, an option for the guys who hate Vancian pre-structured spells. Put the two together, though, and things start to get really, really awesome.

Using Harry Potter, though, train a particular move long enough and you can cast it faster; could someone under this system, then, turn something they previously used as Freeform (wall of fire, i.e) and make it a Major Focus (with, perhaps, less power for the trade of at-will use)?

As for Skills and Qualities, invoke Qualities to assist with skill use; if someone's got a "Thick Hide" for armor and wants to walk through fire unharmed (an Endurance-type skill), said person could say "Well, my Thick Hide absorbs some of the flames as I simply walk through, mostly unharmed." It works for FATE-based games, for sure, so maybe it can work here...

Chronologist
2014-01-12, 02:00 PM
My thoughts exactly. Freeform magic alone makes the system very loose, while Focused magic precludes a lot of the interesting uses of magic (unless you have a million different individual spells, which as D&D 3.5 illustrated is NOT really a viable way to go. For the record, I own Spell Compendium and it's STILL not really a good solution to the problem. You need to provide some of both if you want to cover all forms of magic while still giving concrete rules for the round-to-round use.

I'm working on a system by which you can improve specific 'moves' using Freeform Magic, but it's an advanced option for higher-level characters (who have a substantial amount of potency already).

The Quality system's not exactly like FATE, it's a different kind of system with different applications. Explaining any more would take a while, and it's still in flux.

Just to Browse
2014-01-12, 11:52 PM
Yep, pretty much, only there are written guidelines for how to calculate the DC of Freeform Magic. Things like duration, range, number of targets, and obviously the actual effects of the magic can be determined by a short, handy table, no more than half a page at most.I encourage you to post such a table. My guess is that it will be broken and/or not nearly comprehensive enough.


1) The game doesn't use stats like Strength, Dexterity, etc. Between Health, Stamina, and Mana those are the only 'pools' to keep track off, and Mana is optional. You can, in fact, play this game with Health as the only variable attribute (Stamina can be replaced with a static value instead).If your game has any stat like to-hit or AC or any kind of HP or token or variable bonus, that is a stat that will require accounting. This system adds 2 on its own, and can multiply the number of variables by up to 300%. That is why I am apprehensive.

I can't comment further on your quantum system until I see it.


2) No, the player announces their intent and the DM checks the table. For example, a player says "I want to use my mastery of Ice to make a sword of clear, solid ice that lasts as long as I hold it". The DM looks down, sees it's Personal range (0), single or no target (0), and continuous, meaning the player loses a Minor action while he's wielding it (1). The effect's a 'realistic physical creation with no special properties', so (1). Adding that 2 to the base of 5 means it's Difficulty 7. Not as simple as having a spell written in front of you, but infinitely more flexible and it encourages players to go into detail as to what they're doing.And now the player wants that sword to radiate ice. Or he wants something to cut through stone. Or wants to make a foundation for a collapsing tunnel. Or wants to freeze the ice in the tunnel and make it collapse. Or wants to freeze the bottom of a lake. Or wants to extend an icy sensor to test the depth of a lake. And so on and so forth. Your table isn't going to cover things in nearly enough breadth, and the DM will be forced to make things up to cover the holes in the rules. Accept that or write something else.


4) That's a fair point. I think players will also choose to take a mix of the two, sacrificing a little Potency in return for some nice passive abilities. When you're fighting a red dragon, laying Fire Resistance on the party and saving enough Potency / spending Mana for Ice magic may be more effective than just doing one or the other. If Minor Foci didn't reduce Potency, there'd be no reason not to have at least one on all the time.Of course there can be reasons not to have Minor Foci. You could write in some sort of action restriction, mana cost or cap, access limitation, combo requirement, or even added weaknesses. The Potency reduction will just make it likely that anyone who invests in defense will not have level-appropriate offense, and so it's better to turtle up and tank or go all out.

If defenses scaled logarithmically, you could be able to do it. But abilities like your FR example will likely not encourage players to spread defense in with their offense.


5) You can't spend more than a few Mana a turn. If you have so little Mana that you run out in a single fight, that's your problem. Characters who focus on daily resources will always have problems when they run out of said resource. Unless you make every resource based on a per-encounter setup, players will want to leave and recoup those resources, no matter how low they might be. I once ran a d20 game where I filled up everyone's HP between fights and all powers were encounter-based, and they STILL left the dungeon over and over to recharge their daily Magic Item uses and get more consumable magic items.It doesn't matter when they run out, the point is that they run out. Your example only proves my point--characters get a disproportional advantage with their mana/consumables/items, and they use that advantage until it runs out and stop adventuring till they get the advantage back. That's why the 15-minute workday is bad, and that's why you shouldn't grant a system explicitly encouraging it.

And you absolutely don't need to make everything per-encounter: You can require resource investment (MoI essentia), one-shot action costs (CArc warlock and ToB stances), constant action costs (minor foci), passive re-selectable abilities (ToM vestiges), charge-up attacks (assassin), abilities that require exploiting vulnerabilities (sneak attack, sudden strike, dream eater in Pokemon), truly passive abilities, and you can run multiple abilities off a single per-encounter resource or all abilities off their own per-encounter resource. Thinking that daily/encounter/at-will are the only resource schemes is the tunnel vision that led to 4e.


6) Define 'bonus stats' and 'abilities'. If you mean strength and dexterity, those aren't in this game."Bonus Stat" = "Increase to Any Numerical Component". "Ability" = "The ability to do something special". Increases to mana, potency, and health (bonus stats) should not be on the same XP system as Major Foci, Minor Foci, or Freeform Magic (abilities)

Chronologist
2014-01-13, 06:47 AM
I encourage you to post such a table. My guess is that it will be broken and/or not nearly comprehensive enough.

I appreciate your assumption that I will fail before even seeing a preliminary version of my work. Your confidence in my inability astounds me. :smallannoyed:


If your game has any stat like to-hit or AC or any kind of HP or token or variable bonus, that is a stat that will require accounting. This system adds 2 on its own, and can multiply the number of variables by up to 300%. That is why I am apprehensive.

I can't comment further on your quantum system until I see it.

D&D 3.5 has 6 stats, 3 kinds of AC, 3 saves, Hit points, 30+ skills, individual attack and damage calculations based on weapons, spell slots, save DC, racial abilities, and who knows what else I'm forgetting. White Wolf games have 9 stats, 15+ skills, a complex health and morality tracker, dozens of advantages and supernatural abilities, and more depending on the individual sub-system. My system is far less complex than these in terms of book-keeping, and you are under no obligation to review it, seeing as how I have not posted it (and it is not the intent of this thread).


And now the player wants that sword to radiate ice. Or he wants something to cut through stone. Or wants to make a foundation for a collapsing tunnel. Or wants to freeze the ice in the tunnel and make it collapse. Or wants to freeze the bottom of a lake. Or wants to extend an icy sensor to test the depth of a lake. And so on and so forth. Your table isn't going to cover things in nearly enough breadth, and the DM will be forced to make things up to cover the holes in the rules. Accept that or write something else.

There will never be a rule for everything, because no simulation can every be perfect. I do not pretend to think I can write a table that can include every eventuality, but I can certainly cover the most obvious and direct uses of magic, with some notes on how relatively powerful or useful those kinds of magic are.

You criticize Freeform Magic for it being too Ad Hoc by the DM, then you criticize any notion of concrete rules being placed on it. If you just don't like the concept of it, say so and focus on something else that you think you can improve.


Of course there can be reasons not to have Minor Foci. You could write in some sort of action restriction, mana cost or cap, access limitation, combo requirement, or even added weaknesses. The Potency reduction will just make it likely that anyone who invests in defense will not have level-appropriate offense, and so it's better to turtle up and tank or go all out.

If defenses scaled logarithmically, you could be able to do it. But abilities like your FR example will likely not encourage players to spread defense in with their offense.

Certainly, going all-out with Major Foci or investing the majority of your Potency in Minor Foci can both be a useful approach in certain situations, but they are by no means the only viable options. Again, my Fire Resistance example. When you need to both protect your party from the dragon's flames AND hit it with ice magic to weaken it, you can't afford to just focus on one or the other. A game where your two options are 'glass cannon' or 'tank' is not a fun one, and that's now what the Foci system will encourage.


It doesn't matter when they run out, the point is that they run out. Your example only proves my point--characters get a disproportional advantage with their mana/consumables/items, and they use that advantage until it runs out and stop adventuring till they get the advantage back. That's why the 15-minute workday is bad, and that's why you shouldn't grant a system explicitly encouraging it.

And you absolutely don't need to make everything per-encounter: You can require resource investment (MoI essentia), one-shot action costs (CArc warlock and ToB stances), constant action costs (minor foci), passive re-selectable abilities (ToM vestiges), charge-up attacks (assassin), abilities that require exploiting vulnerabilities (sneak attack, sudden strike, dream eater in Pokemon), truly passive abilities, and you can run multiple abilities off a single per-encounter resource or all abilities off their own per-encounter resource. Thinking that daily/encounter/at-will are the only resource schemes is the tunnel vision that led to 4e.

Full stop. I don't encourage the five-minute work day, nor did I at any point state that I did. What I said was that any resource that cannot be recouped on a scene-by-scene basis would by its very existence create an enticement for players to rest or disengage from the action to recover it.

My game will have daily resources, because without them characters approach every encounter with the same level of force, be it a group of wandering goblins or the final boss.

You're right - not everything has to be encounter-based. They can also be at-will, like all of your examples you list. The only distinction between an at-will and an encounter ability is how often they can be used in a given encounter. Also, if you run the aforementioned at-will abilities off of an encounter resource, they become encounter-based abilities by definition. How can you not see that? :smalleek:


"Bonus Stat" = "Increase to Any Numerical Component". "Ability" = "The ability to do something special". Increases to mana, potency, and health (bonus stats) should not be on the same XP system as Major Foci, Minor Foci, or Freeform Magic (abilities)

Many, many systems do this implicitly or explicitly. You have D&D, where Wizards trade attack bonus (numerical component) for spell slots (the ability to do something special), and just look at Battle Sorcerers from Unearthed Arcana - they lose a few spell slots and spells known (special abilities) for higher hit points and attack bonus (numerical component). Characters are not assumed to have an equivalent balance of the two, and there are clear trades between one group and the other that can be made.

White Wolf games do this as well with their point-buy system - look at Exalted for a clear example of the 'monetization' of health levels ala Ox Body. Or, if you don't like those, check out things like the Dresden Files RPG, Savage Worlds, Mutants and Masterminds, Anima: Beyond Fantasy, BESM, and more. Every single one of these systems allows you to advance both 'numerical components' and 'abilities' from the same pool of points or experience. You may disagree with their approach, but these are successful games and their advancement systems work.

avr
2014-01-13, 07:25 AM
Ars Magica has some very different assumptions, but it also has something very similar to your free form magic. Have you taken a look at it?

I'd like to see the system. As complex as it sounds, I'm sure there's stuff broken in it, but that's true of almost anything worthwhile and new. It doesn't mean it can't work.

Chronologist
2014-01-13, 08:16 AM
Ars Magica has some very different assumptions, but it also has something very similar to your free form magic. Have you taken a look at it?

I have Ars Magicka 5th Edition, and I just skimmed through the magic section. The assumptions as to how magic is constructed (combining a Verb and a Noun, like Create Fire, or Transform Earth) are interesting, but I in particular like the idea of Limits, general specifications on what magic can and cannot do. In particular, I'd consider having several interchangeable limits that could be added or removed from a campaign in advance by the GM; for example some GMs might prohibit healing magic, or mind-affecting abilities, or simply enforce a penalty that makes them harder to use. Overall I would have liked to have seen more baselines for Ars Magicka's spellcasting, but it's an interesting comparison. Thanks for bringing it to my attention.


I'd like to see the system. As complex as it sounds, I'm sure there's stuff broken in it, but that's true of almost anything worthwhile and new. It doesn't mean it can't work.

I'm still fine-tuning some elements of the system, mainly the notion of 'Assets' or 'Advantages'. When you have a point-buy system, it's sometimes very easy for characters to focus on either vertical or lateral growth, while ignoring the other. Some games mitigate this by having a scaling cost for upgrading certain abilities the character has (usually in that they cost more the higher they go), but I'm trying to make this game accessible to younger audiences, so a flat value per +1 is my only option.

Essentially I'm looking for interesting ways to encourage a mixture of specialization and versatility in each character; no one should feel so spread out that they're useless, but by the same token no-one should be overwhelmingly skilled at any one thing. It's an issue that several of my favorite game systems (including Anima: Beyond Fantasy) struggle with.

Just to Browse
2014-01-13, 12:05 PM
I appreciate your assumption that I will fail before even seeing a preliminary version of my work. Your confidence in my inability astounds me. :smallannoyed:If you told me you could build the empire state building with a half-page blueprint, I would have a similar outlook. But please post it, because I'm willing to be wrong.


D&D 3.5 has 6 stats, 3 kinds of AC, 3 saves, Hit points, 30+ skills, individual attack and damage calculations based on weapons, spell slots, save DC, racial abilities, and who knows what else I'm forgetting. White Wolf games have 9 stats, 15+ skills, a complex health and morality tracker, dozens of advantages and supernatural abilities, and more depending on the individual sub-system. My system is far less complex than these in terms of book-keeping, and you are under no obligation to review it, seeing as how I have not posted it (and it is not the intent of this thread).Saying that your system is less complicated than an overcomplicated system does not mean your system isn't complicated. Adding 2 in-flux stats for a single alternate power source is generally too much, which is why I'm apprehensive. If the written game system is so minimalist that adding 2 stats is OK and/or the magic subsystem is one of only few, then this could work out. But since I can't see your system, I can't tell you if the subsystem is a good idea.


There will never be a rule for everything, because no simulation can every be perfect. I do not pretend to think I can write a table that can include every eventuality, but I can certainly cover the most obvious and direct uses of magic, with some notes on how relatively powerful or useful those kinds of magic are.

You criticize Freeform Magic for it being too Ad Hoc by the DM, then you criticize any notion of concrete rules being placed on it. If you just don't like the concept of it, say so and focus on something else that you think you can improve.Let me address these together, because I think you're missing my point: My point is that allowing magic to only be limited by someone's imagination (with effects only scaling in difficulty, not possibility) means that writing "generic" magic rules will do either or both of the following:
The rules will be open to abuse.
The rules will not cover or give advice for some important action
Skill check DCs have this problem, Ars Magica has this problem, and Dungeon World has this problem. Having seen the precedent set, I'm doubtful that you will be able to do what the many designers before you have not. All I've been saying up until now was this, because I wanted you to know the problem before I started spouting solutions.


Certainly, going all-out with Major Foci or investing the majority of your Potency in Minor Foci can both be a useful approach in certain situations, but they are by no means the only viable options. Again, my Fire Resistance example. When you need to both protect your party from the dragon's flames AND hit it with ice magic to weaken it, you can't afford to just focus on one or the other. A game where your two options are 'glass cannon' or 'tank' is not a fun one, and that's now what the Foci system will encourage.Except the foci system is explicitly encouraging Cannon/Tank gaming, by weakining your offense in lieu of boosting defense. When facing the dragon, the most optimal use of power is to have one guy use his Fire Shield and then the rest of the party wails on the dragon with their own spells, especially because learning Fire Shield means using character resources.


Full stop. I don't encourage the five-minute work day, nor did I at any point state that I did. What I said was that any resource that cannot be recouped on a scene-by-scene basis would by its very existence create an enticement for players to rest or disengage from the action to recover it.

My game will have daily resources, because without them characters approach every encounter with the same level of force, be it a group of wandering goblins or the final boss. These two paragraphs literally contradict each other. Bolded for emphasis. If you have daily resources, you are in danger of encouraging the 15-minute workday. If you have floating daily resources that drop when taking damage and are used to fuel all of your other abilities, you encourage the 15-minute workday.

Either back up your ideology and reinvent/remove mana, or accept the 15-minute workday.


You're right - not everything has to be encounter-based. They can also be at-will, like all of your examples you list. The only distinction between an at-will and an encounter ability is how often they can be used in a given encounter. Also, if you run the aforementioned at-will abilities off of an encounter resource, they become encounter-based abilities by definition. How can you not see that? :smalleek:I think you forgot the context of that discussion. I'll post your quote here:


Unless you make every resource based on a per-encounter setup, players will want to leave and recoup those resources, no matter how low they might be.
Players totally will not leave to recoup when their abilities are at-will, and my examples show how they don't even need to be bored with at-will powers.


Many, many systems do this implicitly or explicitly. You have D&D, where Wizards trade attack bonus (numerical component) for spell slots (the ability to do something special), and just look at Battle Sorcerers from Unearthed Arcana - they lose a few spell slots and spells known (special abilities) for higher hit points and attack bonus (numerical component). Characters are not assumed to have an equivalent balance of the two, and there are clear trades between one group and the other that can be made.

White Wolf games do this as well with their point-buy system - look at Exalted for a clear example of the 'monetization' of health levels ala Ox Body. Or, if you don't like those, check out things like the Dresden Files RPG, Savage Worlds, Mutants and Masterminds, Anima: Beyond Fantasy, BESM, and more. Every single one of these systems allows you to advance both 'numerical components' and 'abilities' from the same pool of points or experience. You may disagree with their approach, but these are successful games and their advancement systems work.Not good reasoning. (https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/bandwagon) Those games could be successful because of hardcore fanbases, or great advertising, or other parts of the rules being good. As a counterexample, Exalted gives mechanical incentives for rape (http://www.somethingawful.com/dungeons-and-dragons/burn-down-whitewolf/1/) and is a "successful game", so does that mean it's a good idea to put rape in games?

From a PC standpoint, putting both abilities and stats on the same XP track is a bad idea. It encourages effective PCs to pick up minimal abilities to stay competent, and then boost their numbers. It makes boring characters effective and interesting characters weak. It discourages flexibility, and encourages dumpster-diving. Worst of all, it's likely to house tons of trap options.

Chronologist
2014-01-13, 03:06 PM
(sighs) I will address your concerns as best I can, Just to Browse. I will try to do so in a non-confrontational way. I ask that you do the same if you wish to continue contributing your thoughts here.

1) I'm not ready to post the table for the Freeform guidelines, and I'm not claiming anything as grandiose as you imply. It's just a simple freeform magic system.

2) If you can't give constructive criticism regarding the Freeform Magic system, then you are not obligated to. I'm not forcing you to do anything here. I asked for advice, and you gave it freely.

3) Freeform magic is indeed something that a lot of designers have struggled with. I don't presume to be better than any of them, but I'm going to give it the best I've got. You don't have to have faith in me, but you also don't have to go out of your way to tell me I'm doomed to failure. It's just not productive.

4) I'm going to work on balancing Minor Foci, and how they interact with Potency. They will absolutely be reducing your effective Potency for Freeform Magic and Major Foci. How Major Foci interact with Potency is still being determined; some may scale with higher Potency, others may simply require a minimum Potency to be used.

5) This is not going to devolve into a discussion on the five or fifteen minute work day. Every game has resources that are spent, depleted, or lost in some way over the course of play. Players will want to regain those lost resources, because it is always better to be at 100% than it is to be at 40% or even 90%, and that's the last I'll say on that topic here.

6) You can have enormous variety with non-depleting resources, yes, but depleting resources will always exist in some fashion, in my game and in others. Even if that resource is simply 'the ability to take actions', it's still something that can be lost and regained in some way.

7) As to your final statement, bringing an issue like rape into a discussion about spellcasting mechanics is offensive and completely uncalled for. I endorse no such activity in my ruleset, and neither do any of the mechanics that I have presented. You may as well ask why I'm breathing air - after all, Hitler breathed air too, and Stalin.

Just to Browse
2014-01-13, 04:08 PM
1) I'm not ready to post the table for the Freeform guidelines, and I'm not claiming anything as grandiose as you imply. It's just a simple freeform magic system.If you don't post it, then please do not use it to dismiss concerns about the system. My original point was that Freeform Magic will be heavily MTP and/or rules will be abusable, and unless you can show me wrong you should not say your table fixes that.


2) If you can't give constructive criticism regarding the Freeform Magic system, then you are not obligated to. I'm not forcing you to do anything here. I asked for advice, and you gave it freely.I have yet to not constructively criticize the system. This entire conversation has been you trying to disprove my initial criticism, which was constructive because it was intended to make you aware of a problem.


3) Freeform magic is indeed something that a lot of designers have struggled with. I don't presume to be better than any of them, but I'm going to give it the best I've got. You don't have to have faith in me, but you also don't have to go out of your way to tell me I'm doomed to failure. It's just not productive.You asked for criticism. My criticism is that you're tackling something very difficult, when you could easily resort of other alternatives. Getting mad when someone criticizes your work after you have asked them to criticize it is not mature, and super annoying.


4) I'm going to work on balancing Minor Foci, and how they interact with Potency. They will absolutely be reducing your effective Potency for Freeform Magic and Major Foci. How Major Foci interact with Potency is still being determined; some may scale with higher Potency, others may simply require a minimum Potency to be used.That's fine, as long as you realize the implications: The system encourages all-or-nothing investment, and if you don't want that then you should design around it.


5) This is not going to devolve into a discussion on the five or fifteen minute work day. Every game has resources that are spent, depleted, or lost in some way over the course of play. Players will want to regain those lost resources, because it is always better to be at 100% than it is to be at 40% or even 90%, and that's the last I'll say on that topic here.When a per-day resource does not give you a ridiculous advantage in every single possible encounter, it does not encourage the 15-minute workday as much. For example, animate dead, clairaudience, or water breathing 1/day are fine, because they are strong utility abilities and the latter has a use duration.


6) You can have enormous variety with non-depleting resources, yes, but depleting resources will always exist in some fashion, in my game and in others. Even if that resource is simply 'the ability to take actions', it's still something that can be lost and regained in some way.This was never my contention. My point is that your mana resource encourages the 15-minute workday, and that there is a large pool of alternatives to draw from.


7) As to your final statement, bringing an issue like rape into a discussion about spellcasting mechanics is offensive and completely uncalled for. I endorse no such activity in my ruleset, and neither do any of the mechanics that I have presented. You may as well ask why I'm breathing air - after all, Hitler breathed air too, and Stalin.Yes, that's why it was a counterpoint. You literally said "Certain games do X. Those games are successful. Therefore X is good."

Your point uses X = XP-Buys-Everything, my counterpoint uses X = Rape. Both are invalid, which is why mine was a counterexample.

Chronologist
2014-01-13, 05:21 PM
If you don't post it, then please do not use it to dismiss concerns about the system. My original point was that Freeform Magic will be heavily MTP and/or rules will be abusable, and unless you can show me wrong you should not say your table fixes that.

I'm asking if people like the concept - I can handle the execution just fine.


I have yet to not constructively criticize the system. This entire conversation has been you trying to disprove my initial criticism, which was constructive because it was intended to make you aware of a problem.

You have yet to constructively criticize. Your statements have been nothing but critical of my abilities as a designer, and insulting to boot. I am now aware of the issues you have raised, you need not repeat yourself for my benefit.


You asked for criticism. My criticism is that you're tackling something very difficult, when you could easily resort of other alternatives. Getting mad when someone criticizes your work after you have asked them to criticize it is not mature, and super annoying.

The alternatives you have presented are unacceptable, and I've responded with legitimate reasons as to why they are unacceptable. I'm not angry because of your presented solutions, I'm angry because of your tone and the complete lack of respect you have for me. You assume I'll fail, exaggerate my statements, and bring rape into the discussion for no reason than to somehow associate my design intent with it. It's more than immature - it's downright trolling.


That's fine, as long as you realize the implications: The system encourages all-or-nothing investment, and if you don't want that then you should design around it.

Fine. You've made your point - I don't agree, but you've voiced it and I've listened and considered it.


When a per-day resource does not give you a ridiculous advantage in every single possible encounter, it does not encourage the 15-minute workday as much. For example, animate dead, clairaudience, or water breathing 1/day are fine, because they are strong utility abilities and the latter has a use duration.

Those are all level 3 spells. Nothing prevents a player from choosing Fireball 3/day instead. Also, where is this 'ridiculous' advantage coming from? A 1-round increase to your Potency at the cost of some Mana is useful, but definitely wouldn't break the game. I'm not going into 5-min workday.


This was never my contention. My point is that your mana resource encourages the 15-minute workday, and that there is a large pool of alternatives to draw from.

A variety of different, interesting at-will abilities is certainly interesting. It is not, however, a replacement for daily resources, and while I may consider having those in the game, there WILL be daily resources that will be managed. At a bare minimum, Health points for each character. Spellcasters can choose to have Mana - or not - at their leisure, and hopefully will not find themselves at a disadvantage because of their decision. Finding that balancing point is why I am not uploading more of the system at this time.


Yes, that's why it was a counterpoint. You literally said "Certain games do X. Those games are successful. Therefore X is good."

Your point uses X = XP-Buys-Everything, my counterpoint uses X = Rape. Both are invalid, which is why mine was a counterexample.

I'm not even going to delve into how crazy this is. Past performance is most certainly a method of predicting future success - I hope I don't have to cite examples of this for you to realize this.

Please don't bring rape into a discussion like this. It's insulting and I don't care if you were trying to make a point.

I will not respond to future comments unless you treat me with respect and present constructive criticism. I am not here to argue, nor am I here to be trolled.

Just to Browse
2014-01-13, 05:47 PM
{{scrubbed}}

Chronologist
2014-01-18, 09:55 AM
I'm still working on this. Currently, my idea is to do the following:

1) Every brand of Freeform Magic comes with a number of Knacks. These are specific things you can do as effectively no action, without requiring a Potency check. For example, knowing Fire would let you create a small ball of fire that created light like a candle, or light a small held object (like a torch or the fuse to a stick of dynamite). Each Freeform magic type would give, oh, about 3 Knacks in total.

2) Each type of Freeform Magic would also list five simple and direct uses, with a set Difficulty and benefit/result. These would generally be your go-to list of what your character can do, and you could easily fill out a chart on your character sheet to list what you're capable of doing.

3) The Difficulty of Freeform Magic assumes three things: your magic has one target (or targets yourself), it can target an adjacent creature or object (or yourself or an object you're holding/wearing), and its effective Power (determining how effective it is at bypassing / breaking other forms of magic) is 1.

4) You can raise the above assumptions by increasing the Difficulty, using a very handy table, like the one below. You pay for each increase individually.

{table=head] DC Increase | Targets | Range | Power
0 | 1 | Adjacent | 1
1 | 2 | Reach | 2
3 | 3 | Close | 3
6 | 5 | Medium | 4
10 | 8 | Long | 5
[/table]

Adjacent is anything directly next to your character; Reach is 3 spaces, Close is 6, Medium is 10 spaces, and Long is 15. Note that this does not denote, say, the distance that a Teleportation effect might move you, it's the range of the Freeform Spell itself.

Base Difficulty before increases should be between 7 and 15, with some going above 15 if they're complex or powerful effects. Some kinds of magic, like Elemental abilities, are easy to use and thus have lower Difficulties, but are by and large not quite as versatile or effective as other disciplines. Others, like Mind Control Magic or Planar Magic, are powerful and hard to use off the bat, making them very difficult to use if you're low level. However, since all are available to everyone regardless of level, it would be possible to play a low-level character harnessing powerful magic - it would just tax their Potency and Mana to their limits, and they wouldn't be able to improve it using the above table as easily.

So, thoughts?