First, I apologize for any weird grammar in this post. I've been doing LISP all day, and it's hard for me to even think linearly right now.
The point of the game is to be fun, not to be perfectly mechanically rigorous. Some games are made worse by lack of mechanical rigor (base 3.5e), but I don't think that what's being discussed here is one of them.
I also don't think that making it completely abstract would be a good idea. Players get more creative when they're doing things that they can imagine clearly, and more than a few people have trouble visualizing abstract systems. Using an abstract system alongside the idea of spells as language is also intimidating to new players. Furthermore, making it a full-blown RPG isn't all that difficult; you just need a DM that can handle those edge cases.
Also, mechanical rigor is possible in an RPG version. You can to define the words and their interactions clearly enough to make arguments fun (and we all know that fun is the end goal here) rather than problematic. For example, consider the following definitions and a spell using them:
CREATE
Verb
The sentence causes a noun to come into being or an adjective to be applied to a noun.
BURN
Verb
The sentence causes near-instant nonmechanical damage to the target using a specified noun.
FIRE
Noun
Fire. You know, hot stuff. Being on fire deals (some amount of damage with some conditions).
CREATURE
Noun
Any targetable game entity with hit points.
NEAR
Relation
The sentence affects all nouns within (some short distance) of the specified noun, as well as the noun itself.
I'M POINTING AT
Adjective
The noun in question is being indicated by the speaker of the sentence. This is a matter of intention, not dexterity, so no attack rolls are required.
While the sentence "CREATE FIRE NEAR CREATURE I'M POINTING AT" has a few different interpretations, all of the ones that I can think of end with lots of stuff on fire in a well-defined area that the player has good control over. The results might not be
exactly what the player wants, and they'll definitely spiral out of control if you're in the middle of a forest, but they'll be close enough to the original intention be tolerable.
That, by the way, brings me to my next point: while the system would have plenty of arguments, they'd be
fun arguments. It would be discussing what happens when you cast "BASH WITH DEMIPLANE CREATURES IN DEMIPLANE I'M IN" or "FIVE TIMES CREATE HEAD ON CREATURE I'M POINTING AT". Those kinds of argument are primarily creative in nature, and therefore
fun.
That's another reason to make this a full RPG rather than a board game, by the way. Making this a full RPG with all the trappings would give it a Game Master, and GMs can can stomp on unfun arguments and handle the edge cases that aren't any fun. To use your own example, even though DND4e is full of weird edge cases and wrongness, it's completely playable because the GM can handle it all. Making this a board game would take away the GM, and all of the system's flexibility and fun would vanish with it.
Also been doing some thinking about the rules themselves. I think that it'd probably work as a rules-lite framework with our gigantic spellcasting system dropped into a hole marked "this is where the action resolution system goes.".
Finally, another alternative EBNF I brainstormed up because I was bored.
Code: Select all
phrase = <verb-phrase> <targets-phrase>
verb-phrase = { <command> } <verb> { <relation> <noun-phrase> }
targets-phrase = <noun-phrase> { <relation> <noun-phrase> }
noun-phrase = { <adjective> } <noun>
command = "QUICKLY" | "SLOWLY" | "REPEATEDLY" | ...
verb = "CREATE" | "IMBUE" | "DEFINE" | "BURN" | ...
relation = "ON" | "IN" | "NEAR" | ...
noun = "DOOR" | "FIRE" | "KOBOLDS" | ...
adjective = "BIG" | "LIVING" | "I'M POINTING AT" | ...
This one lets you create sentences like BURN WITH FIRE WITH ACID CREATURES IN CIRCLE NEAR OBJECT I POINT AT, which could be useful.