New OOTS products from CafePress
New OOTS t-shirts, ornaments, mugs, bags, and more
Results 1 to 13 of 13
  1. - Top - End - #1
    Firbolg in the Playground
    Join Date
    Oct 2011

    Default Magic Systems that encourage diversity

    Recent threads about Vancian casting have me wondering: how much diversity do various magic systems out there actually encourage in practice?

    I can think of two different things out might be valuable to measure: build diversity, and play diversity.

    Let's look at MtG as an example.

    The vast library of spells allows for nearly limitless build variety. And, in casual games, that variety shows. However, in top tier competitive games, the metagame usually limits players to only a few valid builds.

    MtG makes up for this with various formats, like draft and sealed, where you are all but forced to play with otherwise unplayable, suboptimal "trap" options. Formats like Commander or 2-headed giant where the relative values of certain cards change. And formats like community deck, where the deck's builder can sculpt the metagame.

    In play, some decks are very… formulaic. Probably most are. They play one specific way, with little variance. The randomization via shuffling of the deck has some effect, but, depending on the deck, it's often just "works or doesn't" rather than any significant amount of "works differently".

    So, back to RPGs - what various RPG magic systems are there, and how much diversity do they encourage, in build and in play?

    I'm guessing, at a minimum, we'll want to look at D&D (3e, 2e, maybe others), WoD Mage, GURPS, Ars Magica, ShadowRun… what else? I'll probably throw Marvel facerip and Mutants and Masterminds into the mix. Any other games whose systems of magic should be considered?

  2. - Top - End - #2
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    Daemon

    Join Date
    Oct 2014

    Default Re: Magic Systems that encourage diversity

    Divinity: Original Sin series has magic that can be impacted by combo effects. Poison + Fire produces an explosion. Air + Water makes electrified ground. Fire + Water produces steam clouds. There are many interactions like this based on elements and they can be applied by mundane means through enchanted arrows and grenades.

    Dragon Age likewise had spell combo effects such as Crushing Prison + Forcefield which mimics the answer to what is better, an unstoppable force or an immovable object. The result being a colossal explosion that affects everyone in area around the target except for the target.

    Basically, spell combos encourage diversity, even in MtG.
    Trolls will be blocked. Petrification works far better than fire and acid.

  3. - Top - End - #3
    Firbolg in the Playground
    Join Date
    Oct 2011

    Default Re: Magic Systems that encourage diversity

    So, let's look at 2e vs 3e D&D.

    Similarities

    2e and 3e both have Vancian casting as their primary magic system. Both have mana based alternatives for Vancian casting. Both have vast libraries of published spells, and allow casters to research their own spells. Both have Wizards which have the option to lose access to whole swaths of spells by "specializing" in one of the 8 basic "schools" of magic, and Clerics with the capability to have mildly differentiated spell access depending upon their faith. By default, clerics in both systems have automatic full access to all their spells. Both have alternate "magic" systems that don't use Vancian magic at all (ie, psionics).

    Differences

    2e also has various Wizard specialties for things like each of the 4 classic elements, thought, wild magic, etc. 2e has multiple mana systems to 3e's one. 3e has more alternate magic classes, and more unique, distinct systems for those classes. 3e gives Wizards limited automatic spell acquisition, plus the option to purchase additional spells in shops, while 2e Wizards were mostly limited to random spell access from loot, and spell research of unique custom spells. 2e Wizards were further limited by "maximum spells known" and their chance to fail to learn spells. 2e Wizards had their "opposition schools" (which school(s) they lost access to when specializing) predetermined; 3e specialists get to choose their opposition schools.

    Builds

    2e had a lot more variety in builds. This should be rather obvious, given that what spells you had access to was largely random. It was much more like building a MtG deck in a Limited environment (like sealed), but then some people wrote their own cards to augment their deck.

    With mandated opposition schools, specialists played very differently from one another (as opposed to 3e specialists, who all ban Evocation).

    In 3e, most of the most broken options are right in core. Thus, in high-op play, "how many books you have read" has limited impact on your final caster. As this was not the case in 2e, there was more variety even in high-op in 2e than in 3e.

    Both have a large variety of possible builds, and a large variety of viable builds, with 3e narrowing much faster on the "likely" and "high-op" builds. 2e, however, arguably had the drawback of seeing a few more "not viable" builds in play than 3e.

    In play

    Eh, I'll come back for this later.

  4. - Top - End - #4
    Firbolg in the Playground
     
    Man_Over_Game's Avatar

    Join Date
    Aug 2018
    Location
    Between SEA and PDX.
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Magic Systems that encourage diversity

    Quote Originally Posted by Quertus View Post
    Let's look at MtG as an example.

    The vast library of spells allows for nearly limitless build variety. And, in casual games, that variety shows. However, in top tier competitive games, the metagame usually limits players to only a few valid builds.

    MtG makes up for this with various formats, like draft and sealed, where you are all but forced to play with otherwise unplayable, suboptimal "trap" options. Formats like Commander or 2-headed giant where the relative values of certain cards change. And formats like community deck, where the deck's builder can sculpt the metagame.

    In play, some decks are very… formulaic. Probably most are. They play one specific way, with little variance. The randomization via shuffling of the deck has some effect, but, depending on the deck, it's often just "works or doesn't" rather than any significant amount of "works differently".
    Amechra (another Playgrounder) and I talked about this in great depth, and it's one of the reasons I don't like MtG despite playing it for years, but MtG's always valued the concept of denial as an important mechanic. In MtG, the most powerful mechanics are not ones that necessarily enable the owner, but remove options from the opponent. Things like:
    • Trample
    • Flying
    • Hexproof
    • Shroud
    • Indestructible
    • First Strike


    Compared to some more interactive mechanics that simply change your opponent's decision-making process, such as:
    • Monarch
    • Menace
    • Reach
    • Echo
    • Rampage




    Most of the powerful cards that people'd regularly use are almost always in the first group of keywords, while most in the second you wouldn't see much of outside of niche or low-budget decks. Note that Menace is weaker than Intimidate, Rampage is weaker than Trample, etc.

    Problem is, the more denial you have, the fewer decisions you're allowed to make. As a result, the better you get at MtG, the less "game" there is to play past the deck-building stage, as the game centers around denying your opponent his chances to play the game. But Denial is almost always going to be the most powerful choice, which cuts down on diversity. If you had to choose between "Enemy is bad at attacking" and "Enemy cannot attack", the denial is almost always better, regardless of how expensive it is, because you know it'll never be too weak. But on the other hand, an effect that said "the target's damage is halved", and you have 10 HP, and they deal 30 damage, having that power won't matter. Having Denial is more powerful, but it also means that you can't have any real balance. You can have different powers that say "The target deals 25%-50%-75%" less damage, but you can't have any real diversity on "The target deals 100% less damage". You can't really control how effective Denial can be, and players will always pick the most powerful choices (as they want to play their best). The winning solution is to never introduce hard denial, at least not in a way that's guaranteed to be beneficial for the caster (more on that later).

    DnD and other tactical games follow the same trend. Spells like Invisibility, Fly, and Wall of Force wouldn't be as well-known if they were fair. If the most powerful spells in DnD had the range of Touch/5ft, Wizards and other casters probably wouldn't be as highly regarded in the DnD series. Not because they'd be weaker than anyone else, but because they'd be fair.

    Back to MtG, when it comes to effects like Monarch, these can definitely have a bias for their originator but their inclusion actually adds more decision-making for both sides of the board. It makes the game less predictable, with more decisions on both sides. It's more fun.



    That's the trick behind good mechanics:
    Don't have effects that say "Target can't do X", but instead have "Target is worse at doing X". Now X is just a worse choice, but still a choice, and one that the target may actually decide is worthwhile. You made certain actions less efficient, which really just makes his decisions more difficult, rather than more limited.
    Or when it comes to power benefits, don't have "I usually do Y, but this effect makes me do Y better", but instead have "I usually do Y, but this effect lets me sacrifice Z to do Y better", since that weakness is giving more options for your opponent since he's guaranteed to lose if you're allowed to keep using Y. It also becomes an active choice for the user to decide when exactly is it a good time to sacrifice Z for Y, allowing the player to make calls based on what's happening right now instead of what happened during the character-building stage.

    Unfortunately, finding a tabletop RPG that takes the "boardgame" element a bit more seriously is pretty hard, although I'm really looking forward to any responses that address both of our concerns.
    Last edited by Man_Over_Game; 2020-07-29 at 07:20 PM.
    Quote Originally Posted by KOLE View Post
    MOG, design a darn RPG system. Seriously, the amount of ideas I’ve gleaned from your posts has been valuable. You’re a gem of the community here.

    5th Edition Homebrewery
    Prestige Options, changing primary attributes to open a world of new multiclassing.
    Adrenaline Surge, fitting Short Rests into combat to fix bosses/Short Rest Classes.
    Pain, using Exhaustion to make tactical martial combatants.
    Fate Sorcery, lucky winner of the 5e D&D Subclass Contest VII!

  5. - Top - End - #5
    Dwarf in the Playground
     
    AssassinGuy

    Join Date
    Aug 2019

    Default Re: Magic Systems that encourage diversity

    It's definitely an interesting idea. You brought up Mage, and I can speak to that (more Awakening than Ascension but I can do some of that too since the diversity potential is similar in each).

    In both versions of Mage (and all editions therein), build potential is... really vast. The games by default* have 9-10 spheres of magic (called Spheres in Ascension, Arcana in Awakening), which govern the different aspects of reality the mage can affect - time, the mind, elemental/physical forces, and so on. Each such magical sphere has different things it can affect at different levels - the specifics vary between games and even editions, but generally having a higher rating in a given Sphere-cana can let you do more. In Ascension, each dot comes with one to three effects that are the essence of that dot's capabilities, while Awakening's core books give sample spells outright. However, mages (and players) can create additional effects using these as guides. Further, they can combine effects from different types of magic to create something greater. There are common uses, like using Space/Correspondence to inflict an effect at a distance, but also true blendings, such as turning yourself into fire or even achieving some form of limited immortality. Thus, the build potential is limited only by imagination and the ST going "okay, that's probably too much" (and more the former...).

    Play potential can be... less diverse than you'd expect given the freedom, but it depends. Both games have systems in place for using practiced or memorized effects rather than making one up on the fly, with the mechanics being more robust in Awakening. These effects may not vary mechanically from a suggested effect, but often have a benefit added for using the practiced trick - in Awakening 2e, Rotes allow you to add dots in a specified skill to the roll for the effect and gain extra "reach" to customize the spell with - more on that in a moment - while Praxes can get an exceptional success - and thus bonus effects - with fewer successes). Thus, there's benefits in using recurring spells, especially common buffs. However, the fact is that the spell suitable to a situation can change moment to moment, and thus there are plenty of times where you will pull a spell off the list that you haven't memorized, or that you come up with a unique effect. It also depends on the size of the group - a group with more mages will usually see the mages prefer to specialize in their Arcana and preferred styles of using powers, while a smaller group will likely see more generalists. However, even a low ranking in a single Arcanum can lead to a WIDE variety of spells, and spells tend to be fairly flexible, so even recasting the same spell can lead to different actual effects in a situation. And the fact that you CAN cast any of those spells means that while your play style may lead to a fairly stable set of effects, it's not like a Magic deck where every game with the same character will absolutely go in a similar fashion. Many buffs or precasts will be the same, but on the fly spells could change.

    Awakening also has something called Reach - a mechanic that allows customization of a spell. Reach has several effects that are "generic" across spells - for example, using one reach allows you to take the casting of the spell from "ritual" length (minutes or hours) to casting in a round, change to the more advanced table for spell duration or area, or make it harder to dispel. In addition, most spells in 2e have benefits that can be purchased with Reach, adding or altering the effects. A mage gets free Reach based on the level of the spell compared to the level of mastery you have in the appropriate Arcanum (you have one plus the difference between your Arcanum and the level of the spell), but you can use as much reach as you want - but more Reach risks Paradox, the backlash of uncontrolled magic (your Reach exceeds your grasp - a very intentional turn of the phrase). This is how play can really vary - the same spell not only could target different people or objects, but be a very different spell. That said, the unique effects also trimmed down the spell list a LOT from 1e, so it's not necessarily a true expansion of the build potential, but it does make things very different..

    *This doesn't get into Mage's alternate systems, such as lesser spheres or the Dark Ages "archaic sorcery" using pillars - this generally changes only the count of total "areas" of magic, though, and rearranges where effects go, and in the case of Archaic sorcery can limit the kinds of magic you are capable of but still leave a ton of potential.

    -

    That said, there is something to be said for systems that are highly focused IF that is the intent. You can see this when you look at systems where a small set of "effects" is the only possible powerset normally available to a character, but they can twist those powers in useful ways. You see this in a lot of Brandon Sanderson's works, where characters sometimes only have a limited set of powers or even just ONE power, but become masters of what they have and do things well beyond. You can also see this with Iroh's philosophy in Avatar - firebending controls fire, but through studying the other styles, Iroh developed techniques that could expand the power of fire.

  6. - Top - End - #6
    Firbolg in the Playground
    Join Date
    Dec 2010

    Default Re: Magic Systems that encourage diversity

    I'm going to second superhero genre. If every character's basis for power is fixed and incompatible with every other character's basis for power, things end up being pretty diverse by necessity. In Limit Break I saw almost no overlap between what the different PCs could do, even though everyone had a broad power - one character could transmute liquids into any kind of fantasy potion they could imagine; one literally had a pocket universe that they could move through to teleport or kidnap targets (and later, bits of targets) into, or push their universe into the world to suppress local effects; one had a broad-ranging ability to edit language-based information and to impose truth on it (either forcing the universe to take the statement as true, forcing only true statements to remain, etc) ; and the last had the ability to cause humanity's collective sunconscious to manifest as a localized spirit world that could be interacted with or used to form minions.

    Another diverse system was one from a GM I played with that had something they called 'stellar magic' which had around 50 themes, and you could spend XP to gain access to ranks of each theme. The system had quadratic payoffs for specialization, but also a sort of soft cap system that varied theme by theme, people went deep rather than super broad, but generally still had access to multiple lesser themes. I had a travel and summoning subtheme and deep investment into Spirit; another player went all-in on Hell; another player had Power, Water, and a navigation/divination subtheme and a Wealth subtheme; another player had Inspiration and Beauty; another went all in on Time; etc.

    I suppose one thing I've noticed is that it's a lot easier to get diversity in a system which players are new to than a system that players have spent a lot of time playing/optimizing. Even in systems that don't go out of their way to break down into siloed themes, people having first contact with the system will tend to make very different decisions from each-other and avoid each-others' decisions intentionally, while people coming back to a system after they know what the broken stuff is/etc will tend to consolidate on that stuff. If we all did stellar magic again, I think there would be themes people wouldn't bother with and certain ones that everyone would pick up having seen others figuring out how to get utility from one-rank dips. The group would definitely have one person pick up Power and go all-in on it, since that lets you turn 1-rank dips that other people have taken into a rank 3 or 4 investment, etc.
    Last edited by NichG; 2020-07-29 at 07:05 PM.

  7. - Top - End - #7
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    RangerGuy

    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Craig, Co
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Magic Systems that encourage diversity

    While I have not played it, and it is outside my budget for now, I feel like I should mention Invisible Sun by Monte Cook. It has been described as a love child between Mage the Ascension and Chronicles of Amber, but it has like 5 different magic systems, including Vancian magic. And since your magic is defined by your worldview, any given character can only have one type.
    Spoiler
    Show


    Warforged Upgrades
    Blade Lord Vestige
    Soulforged PrC
    Transformers RPG Now Updated as PDFs on Google Drive.

  8. - Top - End - #8
    Firbolg in the Playground
    Join Date
    Oct 2011

    Default Re: Magic Systems that encourage diversity

    Well, these are certainly completely different directions than I was prepared to have this conversation from. So, I guess I'll quickly respond to what little I can understand at a glance.

    On specificity

    Let's say MtG keyworded "deals 1 damage to you during your upkeep" as "wanderlust".

    A creature with "protection from permanents with wanderlust" would be more valuable than a creature with "protection from cards named Juzam Djinn". And I doubt a card that read, "counter target spell with wanderlust" would see play in standard.

    However, a 3/3 shadow with wanderlust, or an aura that gave wanderlust and "5,T: target player gains control of this creature" might see play.

    I think that the issue is the specific nature of the ability, combined with it being reactive. Reach does nothing if your opponent doesn't have flying; "protection from wanderlust" does nothing if your opponent doesn't have wanderlust.

    Consider a creature, "thief of crowns". Give it flash and "when this enters the battlefield, until end of turn, whenever a player would become the monarch, you become the monarch instead". Now imagine instead if it stole an equipment. Or an artifact of up to some converted mana cost. Or allowed you to transfer a Loyalty counter from one Planeswalker to another. Now imagine instead of our gave you your choice of doing any one of those. A more broadly-applicable card is much more likely to see play in more decks (at least until you reach high-op tournament play).

    D&D can get away with highly-specific reactive spells in a way that MtG can't. Most D&D reactive spells have one or more of several attributes: they belong to classes who get access to all spells; they can be reversed to be offensive spells; they are multipurpose (and often long-lasting) buff spells; they aren't needed "today".

    Of course, good buffs and an infinite sideboard of specific reactions feeds into a strange long-game sameyness.

    Imagine if, instead of "Stone to Flesh", there were a dozen or more different answers to petrification, and none of them were specific to petrification. You could transfer their (still-living) mind to a premade clone. You could reverse time on their body (a specific amount of time). You could animate their petrified form (and all that entails). Their mind could remote-pilot other forms (at limited range, requiring you to lug the statue around). etc etc etc. Each of these spells would have more applications than simply undoing petrification, and having all of them in the game would lead to more variety than 3e's "a cure for each ailment" system

    -----

    On WoD Mage

    I had forgotten about Dark Ages pillars system, and the sheer variety that lends itself to (as you aren't limited to just your starting 4 pillars). I wasn't even aware nWoD *had* a 2nd edition.

    Also, my experiences with the "mother may I" system, where I couldn't even pull off rotes straight out of the book, may limit my ability to fairly evaluate the system.

  9. - Top - End - #9
    Firbolg in the Playground
     
    Man_Over_Game's Avatar

    Join Date
    Aug 2018
    Location
    Between SEA and PDX.
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Magic Systems that encourage diversity

    Ah, so what you're looking for is something that offers very broad conditions that are regularly referenced or use common sense.

    For a mechanical example, a system that binds the effect "Stunned" with the keyword "Stone". The target is "Stunned" so long as they suffer from "stone", but anything that manipulates or bypasses "stone" (which may be listed as a physical property, bypassed by anything that's not physical), could work.

    For a thematic example, having someone drink a potion couldn't work (because...they can't drink it), but a dust that turns earth into flesh (for consumption or something) would.

    I can definitely say that Mutants and Masterminds comes to mind. It's a fairly fluid and fun system, if you aren't looking for a chess-combat board game.
    Quote Originally Posted by KOLE View Post
    MOG, design a darn RPG system. Seriously, the amount of ideas I’ve gleaned from your posts has been valuable. You’re a gem of the community here.

    5th Edition Homebrewery
    Prestige Options, changing primary attributes to open a world of new multiclassing.
    Adrenaline Surge, fitting Short Rests into combat to fix bosses/Short Rest Classes.
    Pain, using Exhaustion to make tactical martial combatants.
    Fate Sorcery, lucky winner of the 5e D&D Subclass Contest VII!

  10. - Top - End - #10
    Dwarf in the Playground
     
    AssassinGuy

    Join Date
    Aug 2019

    Default Re: Magic Systems that encourage diversity

    Quote Originally Posted by lightningcat View Post
    While I have not played it, and it is outside my budget for now, I feel like I should mention Invisible Sun by Monte Cook. It has been described as a love child between Mage the Ascension and Chronicles of Amber, but it has like 5 different magic systems, including Vancian magic. And since your magic is defined by your worldview, any given character can only have one type.
    Having played it, I can speak to it. Kind of unsure why I forgot about it actually.

    The trick with Invisible Sun is that there are four Orders, plus Apostates, but there's also other generic magics. Any Vislae (in game term) can potentially learn a spell or ritual that can do a given task, but the Order's focus on a type of magic allows them to achieve something greater or with more ease.

    I play a Goetic, which is an order focused on summoning. I have spells that I know and can perform. Others could learn effects that conjure servitors (a willless automaton or elemental manifestation), or could learn rituals to call upon beings from other realms, but only a Goetic (normally) can conjure a being in seconds or minutes. Further, we can choose the general "kind" of being we want to call upon from any of the Suns/worlds, as long as it is a spirit, and have 13 effects we can negotiate for; each type of being will respond better to requests of a certain type. Thus, in a negotiation, a Goetic who is of the rank to know all 13 tasks can potentially ask for anything if they know the being to ask; the section on the task types is extremely short for the amount I can ask for. However, negotiations (and summoning) take time, so I can't call a being in a fight and expect it to turn the tide - I need to call upon one earlier and be prepared for it.

    The Weavers are more like MtA mages - they create spells out of thin air and on the go. The systems for them involve having a set of "threads" - a set number of keywords that are associated with effects and concepts. Creating a new spell involves comparing what each word can and cannot do and combining them, then consulting the effects tables to determine the level of power from that combination.

    That brings me to the Effects Table. One of the four core books is all about the magic in the game. While the game comes with a few hundred premade spells of all sorts, the Effects Tables are basically a flexibility toolkit, listing the level of magic needed to, say, do a certain amount of damage, teleport a certain distance, etc. The effects listed are fairly general and generalizable - I haven't looked at it in a bit, but from what I recall, the game is fairly agnostic on what shape a given effect takes - damage doesn't have to be from a particular shape, binding a foe could be petrification or freezing or literal binding, freeing from bindings could similarly look to anything. The trick is, unless you're a weaver, a premade spell usually has a specific thing it can do; you have to create new spells to create new effects.

    (As for the other orders: the Vances, their advantage isn't in focusing on a special kind of magic - their own spells are very similar in design to the general spells. THEIR unique advantage is in the resource management - they have a grid for their mind's capacity, and the Vancian spells they learn take up space on that grid. When they cast a spell off the grid, they don't spend resources to cast it, but rather spend the resources to HOLD it in their mind. This allows them to cast those spells one final time if they lack the resources, meaning a Vance in a fight with another Vislae will usually have an ace up their sleeve when the other person thinks they're out of resources. Makers are able to make magical objects on their own, so like Goetics, their abilities most often depend on preparation - they can't spontaneously pull out new resources, though they do get tricks to make some lesser ones in rapid time, but if they have time to make the objects they can do so and use them freely as long as the object has power. Apostates don't belong to orders, but get a build-your-own suite of abilities they can pick up, as well as incentive to invent new spells and experiment with effects).

  11. - Top - End - #11
    Firbolg in the Playground
    Join Date
    Oct 2011

    Default Re: Magic Systems that encourage diversity

    OK, back to my descriptions.

    In play, 2e vs 3e

    Both run the gamut, from characters who cast different spells every round, to ones who have tried and true methods. IME, 3e promotes less variety, with abilities like "searing spell" that say "yes, your fire can burn things that are immune to fire" (or things that let you mind control, sneak attack, whatever, despite your target normally being "immune"), so you don't have to be more than a 1-trick pony. 3e also has a common PO optimal tactic of "know foe's weak save, cast SoD/SoL targeting that save"; 2e has much more variety of PO tactics. 2e Wild Magic also produces much more variety than its 3e counterpart.

    2e loses to 3e in terms of the casters' turns being samey because of the caster spending a lot more time doing nothing, from being unable to cast by taking damage or running out of spells, or from psions failing their rolls to activate their powers.

    I would expect 2e to also lose of the variety front because of custom spells - if you've made "kami's lacquer prison", you're gonna want to use it, and spread your fame. Curiously, that's not what i saw in play - Wizards would still cast plenty of fireballs and flight spells, *or* research plenty of different spells.

    Maybe later I'll compare, say, D&D to WoD Mage.

  12. - Top - End - #12
    Ogre in the Playground
    Join Date
    Feb 2015

    Default Re: Magic Systems that encourage diversity

    Quote Originally Posted by Quertus View Post
    Recent threads about Vancian casting have me wondering: how much diversity do various magic systems out there actually encourage in practice?

    I can think of two different things out might be valuable to measure: build diversity, and play diversity.
    Every system that has vuild diversity has good and bad options, even if designers heavily try to avoid it. One can try to fix them with errata or new editions.

    MtG has those as well. And they use rotation instead of new editions. And they bring specific counters to the previous set in most new sets. And they have banlists. And it is still far from perfect. An RPG can't really reach the same level of balancing.

    So play diversity would be lower - if people really did play the most powerful options all the time. But that is rarely what happens. More often players choose options in a power range where the system works well, some kind of sweet spot.


    If you want diverse spellcasters, you want a system, where learning different kinds of magic does cost ressouces, maybe more that it is worth because of redundancies. Systems where you pay for schools or spells like skills work fine. Ars Magica, Mage, Splittermond, TDE Myranor, Ilaris and many others go this way and it works fine. Personally i like best if not each spell is a skill but each schol/theme is a skill so that you get thematically focussed spellcasters, not spellcasters who cherrypick from all spells in existence.


    Not really interested in D&D2 vs. D&D3, they are pretty much the same anyway.

  13. - Top - End - #13
    Firbolg in the Playground
    Join Date
    Oct 2011

    Default Re: Magic Systems that encourage diversity

    Quote Originally Posted by Satinavian View Post
    Every system that has vuild diversity has good and bad options, even if designers heavily try to avoid it. One can try to fix them with errata or new editions.

    MtG has those as well. And they use rotation instead of new editions. And they bring specific counters to the previous set in most new sets. And they have banlists. And it is still far from perfect. An RPG can't really reach the same level of balancing.

    So play diversity would be lower - if people really did play the most powerful options all the time. But that is rarely what happens. More often players choose options in a power range where the system works well, some kind of sweet spot.


    If you want diverse spellcasters, you want a system, where learning different kinds of magic does cost ressouces, maybe more that it is worth because of redundancies. Systems where you pay for schools or spells like skills work fine. Ars Magica, Mage, Splittermond, TDE Myranor, Ilaris and many others go this way and it works fine. Personally i like best if not each spell is a skill but each schol/theme is a skill so that you get thematically focussed spellcasters, not spellcasters who cherrypick from all spells in existence.


    Not really interested in D&D2 vs. D&D3, they are pretty much the same anyway.
    There are definite differences in "magician" play diversity between 2e and 3e. Now, perhaps those differences pale in comparison to, say, between D&D and WoD, M&M, or Exalted "magicians", but I haven't made it that far yet.

    But MtG? It's a great example of "very few cards are playable at optimal tournament levels", yet most cards see play at a casual level. Heck, because I play for fun (with still more than my fair share of wins), I've brought things like Cosmic Larva to a tournament.

    At the level of "playing for fun" where most MtG cards are playable, most RPG options are also playable… maybe. Warhammer psykers will make the walls bleed before summoning demons that eat the whole party, and some systems will have casters sitting there for round after round doing nothing, not really playing the game. But, otherwise, there's probably few systems where you'll decide you need to throw out the bulk of the options as "unplayable". One level of every class (or, in this case, every "magical" class)? Yeah, a Wizard 1 / Sorcerer 1 / Cleric 1 / Healer 1 / Warlock 1 / True Namer 1 / Binder 1 / Incarnate 1 / Beguiler 1 / War Mage 1 / … probably isn't terribly playable. But I suspect most RPGs start with most content playable at low op. It's more a question of *how quickly* that narrows as you move towards high-op, I suspect.

    -----

    WoD vs D&D, I may be biased because of the GM's I've had.

    Build diversity

    WoD has 9 (or 15ish) playable groups ("traditions" and "conventions"), with different outlooks on magic, different techniques alter reality (from prayer to martial arts to hypertech). Although these serve as your class equivalent, it's entirely fluff, as they all have access to the same 9 spheres of magic, and can use those spheres to perform the same effects… if they can justify them. The new WoD has 10 spheres for 5 groups. Dark Ages offers much greater variety, with an unlimited number of spheres called "pillars" - if you can convince someone to teach you, as each group only has 4 spheres associated with it.

    On paper, it would sound like a "Forces Life" mage build would seem very different from a "Spirit Time Matter" mage build. But, IME, since it's a "what they have now" rather than their potential (which are all identical), it doesn't feel as diverse as the difference between a War Mage and a Beguiler.

    In play

    A Forces Prime mage can create a Fireball. You'd think that would make him play differently than other mages. However, one of the principles of Mage is that there's more than one way to skin a cat. So a matter Mage could turn the air to hydrogen & oxygen, and pull a Roy Mustang. An Entropy mage could "oops, gas leak" out a Fireball. And, since they all want a Coincidence to make muggles believe there's nothing to see here, in play, whether it's kung fu fighters, hedonists, clone cyborgs, or new age crystal wavers, it's gas leaks all around.

    And, because it's risky, magic is usually considered a last resort.

    So, despite so much potential, Mage plays very samey.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •