Flexible Magic - Impossible?

[momothefiddler]

Split off from here.

Context:

I'd be interested to see that too. I have a massive amount of respect for Ars Magica's system (it actually... wait for it... works) and would be interested to see what people here make of it.

I'd be interested to see that too. I have a massive amount of respect for Ars Magica's system (it actually... wait for it... works) and would be interested to see what people here make of it.

You're being a little generous. I've never met two people who think that Spontaneous casting works the same way. The guidelines aren't much use when we get away from simple shit like inflicting damage. Even simple bullshit like "I want to grow a horn out of his head." Is that "Muto" or "Rego?" Keep in mind that horns are made of the same material as fingernails, and it is biologically possible for keratin to start growing in a different place than the ends of your fingers.

Back in I guess it must have been 3rd edition, I would simply routinely take the disadvantage where I was shit at spontaneous magic and had a bunch more fixed spells. Not because spontaneous magic was necessarily a bad deal, but because I just didn't want to have the argument that would inevitably happen if I tried to use the spontaneous magic rules.

-Username17

Why shouldn't an effect be reproducible with different methods, though?

Why shouldn't an effect be reproducible with different methods, though?

Because the different methods determine what your bonus is on the die roll to do it, and you're doing it "spontaneously," so you have to convince your "storyguide" that your preferred (that is, best bonus) method of pulling off an effect is valid in the middle of the action.

The "horns on the head" example is one which I just pulled out of my ass, and the question of whether or not you can use "Rego" to it hinges on whether or not it is "according to nature" for horns to grow there or not. This is not a simple question, because causing a bare stick to blossom and bare fruit right before your eyes in the middle of winter is an example of something that is within nature. And you have to have this discussion of metaphysics and biology in the middle of your action to determine whether you get a relative +2 on the roll or not.

The issue here is that the limits and extent of the various forms are actually totally incoherent and if you want to get at all creative the basic nonsensical nature of it all comes through. It's a problem. One which I personally solved back in the nineties by just giving up spontaneous magic altogether and getting fixed spells instead because they had less arguments and fuckery.

-Username17

"Horns from the head" is a shitty example, but I understand your point. For what it's worth, that's very definitely Muto Corpus Animal.

To be honest, that's not a point I've ever seen become a real problem in play. Even the much vaunted "pink dot" issue is mostly something you hear people whine about online rather than actually see become a serious matter in play. The only issues we've had that have really derailed a game have been:

a) Verditius can be really powerful if the GM wears kid gloves and doesn't play antagonists as being intelligent.

b) The game succumbs to High-Level-itis at high levels (that is, it runs out of credible villains and interesting new things to strive for.)

c) Chaotic Magic. Seriously, that one flaw causes enormous headaches.

I can't remember ever playing with a flexible magic system that didn't have the problems Frank's described above. The problem, I think, is that the premise is that a few fundamental rules and categories can cover all the various interactions. And I'm not saying that's wrong - it seems to be working out pretty well in the real world - but I'm not sure it's really feasible to demand an entire system of magical physics from a game. And yet, without that I'm not sure it can work.

I'm fine with abstraction in general. I swing a sword, I do damage. That dude swings a sword harder and does more damage. The other dude stabs a knife into someone's kidneys and does more damage than stabbing into someone's leg. I suppose there could be people who'd prefer to benefit from stating that it was a one-handed sideways slash vs a two-handed downward thrust or... whatever... but I don't actually care enough to deal with specifics on that level. Dude's dead.

But for magic, that's not sufficient - at least, not for me. Perhaps it's the novelty of it, the seeming potential, or whatever, but if I'm given a magic system I will explore it thoroughly and the only reason I ever refrain from breaking games when I've found out how is because I know other people may not want to play that game. I think I'd have a lot of fun using magic creatively to upset national economies and bootstrap tech and whatever else. I'll still look at it in theory, though. And that's all well and good, until we get to the part where the rulebook or the MC says "no" and I say "why?" and they say "'cuz". Or some other unpredictable arbitrary thing. I almost always see magic as science and so unpredictable whatever grates on me. I am in a Mage game currently and there is no way to guess what the rules are for gathering quintessence at any given time. At this point I'm just like "I want more quintessence, roll for me or something" because it is literally never the same. But if it was, I'm pretty sure I could use that to gain an overwhelming advantage! And then new rules would be made up on the spot to make it not work, and they wouldn't fit in with the previous ones, and it makes me wonder if anything with that much apparent potential has to be capped off by fiat.

Anyway my question is, is it feasible to have a flexible magic system of this sort? I'm leaning toward no. In fact, I'd be kinda surprised if there was one that even managed to be better (as in "more time playing and less time arguing") than MTP. And if that's the case, I'm sad.

[Foxwarrior]

Consider this angle: Making coherent non-MTP rules for flexible magic instead of just writing up a bunch of cool spells is actually quite a lot like making coherent non-MTP rules for combustion reactions and metal properties instead of just writing up a bunch of stat blocks for vehicles.

[momothefiddler]

But GURPS Spaceships is so much fun!
(...And also basically a solo game, so maybe you have a point...)

Anyway, so you're basically agreeing that fixed magic is the way to go?

[Foxwarrior]

Perhaps "trying to convince myself not to get started on this clearly massive project idea" would be a better way to put it.

[Cyberzombie]

Anyway, so you're basically agreeing that fixed magic is the way to go?

All depends on what people find more fun. Some people are okay with flexibility with the drawback of having the GM occasionally say no. Other people want their options set in stone and very clearly defined.

[Ice9]

That's a flexible magic system - just give everyone a VPP and there you go. You'll notice that it's also two large books, which is why I get skeptical at stuff like Paizo's "Words of Power" thing.

So - yes, it's possible. HERO has the potential for unbalanced powers, but it's not difficult to arbitrate like the "growing horns" thing.


However, why I think you may be talking about is a "source-based" system, as opposed to the effect-based system that HERO has. Ie., the difficulty of controlling metal is based off how much metal and how much control, not how useful the end result will be.

That's a lot harder. Mage gave it a try, but:
A) It's not really balanced or without arbitration problems.
B) Even then, they based the dots of some powers on how useful it was, not what would really makes sense by the descriptions given.

I don't know if any game has successfully used fully flexible source-based magic without OOC agreements required. But it would be a cool thing if they did - I love the idea of source-based magic, it's a lot more fun to play around with than effect-based.

[silva]

All depends on what people find more fun. Some people are okay with flexibility with the drawback of having the GM occasionally say no. Other people want their options set in stone and very clearly defined.

This.

[Laertes]

I've only been on this board a few days and I yet still feel dirty agreeing with silva, but yeah, what he said.

I would hold up Ars Magica as being the holy grail of what you can do with a system where players are allowed to crunch all they like, and it happens in-character, but it doesn't end up breaking the setting. Then again, Ars Magica is like Paranoia in that it's a game apart from most others.

In general, magic is always a problem in RPGs because we simultaneously want it to be the following:
a) (fluff) Mysterious and ill defined, capable of great things
b) (crunch) Clear and well defined, with good guidelines and limitations

Until we resolve this contradiction, magic will always be a problem in RPGs.

[whisper]I am ecstatically drunk right now, to the point where almost every character on my keyboard is coming out wrong. Please forgive any breaches of spelling, etiquette, good taste or thermodynamics.[/whisper]

[momothefiddler]

Anyway, so you're basically agreeing that fixed magic is the way to go?

All depends on what people find more fun. Some people are okay with flexibility with the drawback of having the GM occasionally say no. Other people want their options set in stone and very clearly defined.

I have no interest whatsoever in paying character generation resources for something that may or may not work as stated based on the whim of a fickle god.

I'm not sure if that says more about me or about my past MCs, but if flexibility comes at the cost of being arbitrary, I'll sadly move to a fixed system.

---

That's a flexible magic system - just give everyone a VPP and there you go. You'll notice that it's also two large books, which is why I get skeptical at stuff like Paizo's "Words of Power" thing.

So - yes, it's possible. HERO has the potential for unbalanced powers, but it's not difficult to arbitrate like the "growing horns" thing.


However, why I think you may be talking about is a "source-based" system, as opposed to the effect-based system that HERO has. Ie., the difficulty of controlling metal is based off how much metal and how much control, not how useful the end result will be.

Hm. I've never read or played HERO but the way you describe the "effect-based system" it seems like that basic thing would fit well with my expectations, and also make for an absurdly unbalanced and probably short game. But I also think I'd take that over M&M's quite-balanced but rage-inducing "My Rank 15 bouncy ball Blast is better than your sniper rifle bullet because the only part that matters is the Rank of the Blast"

That's a lot harder. Mage gave it a try, but:
A) It's not really balanced or without arbitration problems.
B) Even then, they based the dots of some powers on how useful it was, not what would really makes sense by the descriptions given.

I fucking despise Mage. I play it, because I keep wanting what it pretends to offer and not having anywhere else to get it, but I am consistently disgusted with the result. None of it is defined to any satisfaction, it's all just making shit up and hoping the MC is in a good mood and likes you today.

I don't know if any game has successfully used fully flexible source-based magic without OOC agreements required. But it would be a cool thing if they did - I love the idea of source-based magic, it's a lot more fun to play around with than effect-based.

Yeah. Assuming I understand your distinction, effect-based seems a lot like a... psionics? I dunno. Really what I want is for a magic system to be coherently source-based, so that I can know there are consistent rules and figure them out on my own. Of course, that could only be played once. And I don't know anyone else who'd want to play Scientist! Magic Edition.

Eh. Shoulda figured out what I wanted before starting the thread, but thanks for the prompts there.

[momothefiddler]

I've only been on this board a few days and I yet still feel dirty agreeing with silva, but yeah, what he said.

I would hold up Ars Magica as being the holy grail of what you can do with a system where players are allowed to crunch all they like, and it happens in-character, but it doesn't end up breaking the setting. Then again, Ars Magica is like Paranoia in that it's a game apart from most others.

In general, magic is always a problem in RPGs because we simultaneously want it to be the following:
a) (fluff) Mysterious and ill defined, capable of great things
b) (crunch) Clear and well defined, with good guidelines and limitations

Until we resolve this contradiction, magic will always be a problem in RPGs.

I'd heard that Ars Magica had this sort of system, and I had the opportunity to join a PbP of it, so I took a look at the rules. I don't remember which edition.

I got maybe halfway through before giving up. It's exactly like Mage. You figure out what you want to accomplish, pick your best words, and try to convince the MC that those things are related. And they probably are, because the overlap between words is outrageous.

[Laertes]

And I don't know anyone else who'd want to play Scientist! Magic Edition.

I want to run that game. That is all.

I'd heard that Ars Magica had this sort of system, and I had the opportunity to join a PbP of it, so I took a look at the rules. I don't remember which edition.

I got maybe halfway through before giving up. It's exactly like Mage. You figure out what you want to accomplish, pick your best words, and try to convince the MC that those things are related. And they probably are, because the overlap between words is outrageous.

Perhaps it's just because I'm a more experienced GM than many, or perhaps it's because I'm an unashamed partisan and also very drunk right now, but I feel you have been misinformed about Ars Magica.

Fuck it. If you can get me players, I will run you an Ars Magica forum game. And it will be fucking epic.

[momothefiddler]

And I don't know anyone else who'd want to play Scientist! Magic Edition.

I want to run that game. That is all.

I'd heard that Ars Magica had this sort of system, and I had the opportunity to join a PbP of it, so I took a look at the rules. I don't remember which edition.

I got maybe halfway through before giving up. It's exactly like Mage. You figure out what you want to accomplish, pick your best words, and try to convince the MC that those things are related. And they probably are, because the overlap between words is outrageous.

Perhaps it's just because I'm a more experienced GM than many, or perhaps it's because I'm an unashamed partisan and also very drunk right now, but I feel you have been misinformed about Ars Magica.

Fuck it. If you can get me players, I will run you an Ars Magica forum game. And it will be fucking epic.

(That needs to be a close-quote instead of another open-quote).

Fine! I'll see who I can find. What version?

[Username17]

Unfuck your quote tags.

But yeah, HERO has an effects based system that works. You can do the number crunching and break the system, but the system works. What it doesn't do is make any really meaningful difference between Ice Magic and Fire Magic. Because it's an effects based system, and both the Fire Mage and the Ice Mage can buy the same effects for the same points costs.

Source based systems are really what people want, but they essentially don't work unless all the players are magically on the same wavelength as each other. Ars Magica works as long as no one ever tries to do anything creative or everyone has literally exactly the same interpretation of all the power words. Since the latter never ever happens, I would classify Ars Magica's spontaneous magic system as a noble but failed experiment.

I think if you really want to do source based magic, you're going to want to give people a large number of fixed effects and then have some sort of WoF or spell preparation system so that the player isn't confronted with option paralysis on individual turns.

-Username17

[Laertes]

(That needs to be a close-quote instead of another open-quote).

Fine! I'll see who I can find. What version?

Fifth edition. All content in the three Houses of Hermes books is allowed at chargen, as is content in the Lords of Men / The Church / Arts and Academe / City and Guilds books should you decide to build a deeply suboptimal character. TMRE and Covenants content will be allowed in play but not at chargen. Ancient Magic content is, as is normal amongst all thinking people (up to and including David Chart) banned.

[momothefiddler]

What it doesn't do is make any really meaningful difference between Ice Magic and Fire Magic. Because it's an effects based system, and both the Fire Mage and the Ice Mage can buy the same effects for the same points costs.

I presume there's a "set something on fire" effect, in a book that big. Is it merely that there's no Ice Mage trait that makes that more expensive or Fire Mage trait that makes it possible to buy, so if the self-titled Ice Mage desires to set things on fire with his mind, he can do that? Or is it on the level of M&M "everything is fluff", where the Ice Mage sets it on fire with ice - or sparks off some sort of self-sustaining endothermic reaction that happens to thrive on wood and give off carbon dioxide... somehow?

Maybe I should just read it.

Source based systems are really what people want, but they essentially don't work unless all the players are magically on the same wavelength as each other. Ars Magica works as long as no one ever tries to do anything creative or everyone has literally exactly the same interpretation of all the power words. Since the latter never ever happens, I would classify Ars Magica's spontaneous magic system as a noble but failed experiment.

I think if you really want to do source based magic, you're going to want to give people a large number of fixed effects and then have some sort of WoF or spell preparation system so that the player isn't confronted with option paralysis on individual turns.

Ugh. The issue (one of many, really, but one of the big ones) I have with fixed effects is that there is no situation where I do something new, except, like, level-up. Because if you have a limited list of things you can do, you're specifically and consciously limiting yourself by holding any of those things (or slots) back for some dramatic or edge case scenario, and if you have any choice in the selection you will only be picking things that are widely useful anyway. I suppose this could be accomplished with some sort of power stunt system, but if you have a robust way of generating flexible power stunts, you could just use that with the powers themselves.

Fifth edition. All content in the three Houses of Hermes books is allowed at chargen, as is content in the Lords of Men / The Church / Arts and Academe / City and Guilds books should you decide to build a deeply suboptimal character. TMRE and Covenants content will be allowed in play but not at chargen. Ancient Magic content is, as is normal amongst all thinking people (up to and including David Chart) banned.

Sounds good. I have one person so far. What's the minimum party size? Max? I'm assuming like 3-5.

[Laertes]

Sounds good. I have one person so far. What's the minimum party size? Max? I'm assuming like 3-5.

Minum three. My real-life max is seven, but online is harder, so five is probably a sensible maximum.

Once we've got players, we then need to talk about what sort of game, including what sort of length, we want to play.

I hope I don't regret this when I sober up.

[silva]

I've only been on this board a few days and I yet still feel dirty agreeing with silva, but yeah, what he said.

It was cyberzombie who said it, not me.

And really, dont buy on the stuff people tell about me around here. It started just because I like apples while most people around here like oranges (and dont like those who like apples). Luckly there are lots of folks around here who dont buy that.

I would hold up Ars Magica as being the holy grail of what you can do with a system where players are allowed to crunch all they like, and it happens in-character, but it doesn't end up breaking the setting. Then again, Ars Magica is like Paranoia in that it's a game apart from most others.

In general, magic is always a problem in RPGs because we simultaneously want it to be the following:
a) (fluff) Mysterious and ill defined, capable of great things
b) (crunch) Clear and well defined, with good guidelines and limitations

Until we resolve this contradiction, magic will always be a problem in RPGs.

Nicely put. I agree.

Fine! I'll see who I can find

Me! Pick me! Pick me!

[Laertes]

Now I totally feel dirty.

[hogarth]

What it doesn't do is make any really meaningful difference between Ice Magic and Fire Magic. Because it's an effects based system, and both the Fire Mage and the Ice Mage can buy the same effects for the same points costs.

I presume there's a "set something on fire" effect, in a book that big. Is it merely that there's no Ice Mage trait that makes that more expensive or Fire Mage trait that makes it possible to buy, so if the self-titled Ice Mage desires to set things on fire with his mind, he can do that? Or is it on the level of M&M "everything is fluff", where the Ice Mage sets it on fire with ice - or sparks off some sort of self-sustaining endothermic reaction that happens to thrive on wood and give off carbon dioxide... somehow?

There is no "set things on fire" effect. There is only "do damage" and that damage could be fire or ice or hamsters or whatever.

[momothefiddler]

What it doesn't do is make any really meaningful difference between Ice Magic and Fire Magic. Because it's an effects based system, and both the Fire Mage and the Ice Mage can buy the same effects for the same points costs.

I presume there's a "set something on fire" effect, in a book that big. Is it merely that there's no Ice Mage trait that makes that more expensive or Fire Mage trait that makes it possible to buy, so if the self-titled Ice Mage desires to set things on fire with his mind, he can do that? Or is it on the level of M&M "everything is fluff", where the Ice Mage sets it on fire with ice - or sparks off some sort of self-sustaining endothermic reaction that happens to thrive on wood and give off carbon dioxide... somehow?

There is no "set things on fire" effect. There is only "do damage" and that damage could be fire or ice or hamsters or whatever.

If it's just fucking M&M, what's the rest of the fucking book? I accept that M&M is something that people who like comics like, but I don't read any and I can't grasp how the physics work and I basically have no clue what anything means as a result and it feels arbitrary and pointless.[/rant]

That said, I recently made an Ice-Dragon-Goddess-thing in GURPS and while a "Fire Dragon God" could technically have bought everything I did, I'd have been left scratching my head (I have a fatigue attack that inhibits vision in a radius - a blizzard. I have a breath weapon that does fatigue damage. I have the ability to engulf someone in a solid block. I have DR/burning. A fire dragon would have very different things, to have the name, but they'd cost the same either way, mostly). I was expecting to hear that HERO is something like that, given the size of the books in the image.

[DSMatticus]

Hero powers are built and priced using game mechanical elements, and the fluff can be whatever. When the Fire Mage builds an attack power and slaps modifiers on it to turn it into a DoT, he names it "set a dude on fire." When the Ice Mage does the exact same thing, he names it "freeze a dude to death."

As you guessed, it is very much like GURPS. And you are also correct that despite the fact that the fluff is completely arbitrary, there is a limited amount of self-enforced concept protection. People who choose to play a Fire Mage do so because they have a particular set of powers in mind that they want their character to use, and those powers probably look nothing like the powers another player's Ice Mage has. So while it is theoretically the case that you could have a Fire Mage and an Ice Mage who are identical, it is unlikely in practice. And there's the added bonus that nontraditional variations on Fire Mages/Ice Mages aren't penalized.

[Stinktopus]

Hero powers are built and priced using game mechanical elements, and the fluff can be whatever. When the Fire Mage builds an attack power and slaps modifiers on it to turn it into a DoT, he names it "set a dude on fire." When the Ice Mage does the exact same thing, he names it "freeze a dude to death."

Fire damage vs. ice damage has always been differentiated by qualities of the target. The Fire Mage doesn't have "fucks up scarecrows" on his sheet, but the monster entry for Evil Animated Scarecrow says "get's fucked up by fire."

Elemental magic really gets differentiated by what extra sorts of effects you can reasonably pull off. In a pure point buy system that doesn't intrinsically enforce thematic appropriateness, you need to reign yourself in to appropriate levels. The Earth Bender is more justified in taking "solid magical barrier" power to levels that stop catapults compared to the air/fire/water Benders.

[Drolyt]

If it's just fucking M&M, what's the rest of the fucking book? I accept that M&M is something that people who like comics like, but I don't read any and I can't grasp how the physics work and I basically have no clue what anything means as a result and it feels arbitrary and pointless.[/rant]

M&M is a crappy d20 version of Champions (Champions is superhero HERO). HERO, like GURPS, can be used for basically any genre and is extremely versatile.

That said, I recently made an Ice-Dragon-Goddess-thing in GURPS and while a "Fire Dragon God" could technically have bought everything I did, I'd have been left scratching my head (I have a fatigue attack that inhibits vision in a radius - a blizzard. I have a breath weapon that does fatigue damage. I have the ability to engulf someone in a solid block. I have DR/burning. A fire dragon would have very different things, to have the name, but they'd cost the same either way, mostly). I was expecting to hear that HERO is something like that, given the size of the books in the image.

HERO is similar, but is effects based. Basically a fire blast and an ice blast would both be based on the blast power, but one would have the fire special effect and the other would have the ice special effect. The main difference from M&M is that there are a lot more options to make exactly the effect you want, so there isn't too much threat of things feeling samey. For example a "set things on fire" power could look like this:

KINDLE
Effect: RKA 1 point
Target: One character
Duration: Uncontrolled
Range: 40m
END Cost: 0
Description: This simple ability allows a character
to ignite any flammable object. He doesn’t need to
have a direct line of attack to ignite a flammable
object — if he can see it, he can ignite it, regardless
of intervening barriers like walls. The object keeps
burning until it consumes all the fuel, it runs out
of oxygen, or someone smothers it. If another
flammable object touches the flames, it catches on
fire as well.
Game Information: RKA 1 point, Constant (+1⁄2),
Indirect (Source Point and Path can change from
use to use to strike from any angle; +1), Reduced
Endurance (0 END; +1⁄2), Sticky (only affects
flammables; +1⁄4), Uncontrolled (see text; +1⁄2)
(19 Active Points); Limited Range (40m; -1⁄4). Total
cost: 15 points.

Which is obviously completely different from a "freeze things" power which might look like this:

ICE BLOCK
Effect: Entangle 5d6, 6 PD/6 ED
Target: One character
Duration: Instant
Range: 600m
END Cost: 6
Description: The character creates a solid block of
ice around the target, trapping him.
Game Information: Entangle 5d6, 6 PD/6 ED
(60 Active Points); Vulnerable (Fire/Heat; -1).
Total cost: 30 points.

Also, special effects matter in the HERO system, because it is common to buy powers that interact with other powers based on their special effect, for example an "extinguish" power that can negate flame powers or a "melt" power that can negate ice powers.

[DSMatticus]

Fire damage vs. ice damage has always been differentiated by qualities of the target. The Fire Mage doesn't have "fucks up scarecrows" on his sheet, but the monster entry for Evil Animated Scarecrow says "get's fucked up by fire."

Bwuh? I actually have no idea what point you're trying to make, because that has like nothing to do with anything I said. Also: Hero actually has rules for slapping vulnerabilities to a particular SFX on characters, so it is doubly confusing.

Elemental magic really gets differentiated by what extra sorts of effects you can reasonably pull off. In a pure point buy system that doesn't intrinsically enforce thematic appropriateness, you need to reign yourself in to appropriate levels. The Earth Bender is more justified in taking "solid magical barrier" power to levels that stop catapults compared to the air/fire/water Benders.

And you are also correct that despite the fact that the fluff is completely arbitrary, there is a limited amount of self-enforced concept protection. People who choose to play a Fire Mage do so because they have a particular set of powers in mind that they want their character to use, and those powers probably look nothing like the powers another player's Ice Mage has. So while it is theoretically the case that you could have a Fire Mage and an Ice Mage who are identical, it is unlikely in practice.

I... know? That's why I said the things I said about how role protection can totally happen organically. The player who chose to play an earthbender is more likely to want earthbender powers and the player who chose to play a firebender is more likely to want firebender powers, and if those are different in the source material the players are drawing from their characters are likely to be different as well.

If the shared toolbox is big enough and balanced enough, then collisions between different characters will be low.

[Dogbert]

Basically we'd be talking about an effects-oriented system, which is completely possible in d20 as MCWoD and M&M have shown us.

Alas, as both systems also show us, the more creative and comfortable with said set of lego blocks players are, the more unpredictable results become, something that can potentially throw out of the window all expectations of what should a caster or manifester be capable of at which level. The consequences of this in a zero-to-hero game with (relatively) solid metrics for challenge ratings and level progression can be disastrous.

As any effects-oriented system, the more open it is, the more it relies on a gentleman's agreement, and the better a GM must be at knowing both when to say yes and when to say no.

Just my two cents.