From: CX6L@MUSICA.MCGILL.CA (CX6L)
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.misc
Subject: RE: What do you look for in a magic system?
Date: 7 Jan 93 17:42:58 GMT
Organization: McGill University

In article <93006.123635DK6TOPER@MIAMIU.BITNET> Dan Karipides <DK6TOPER@MIAMIU.BITNET> writes:

>This is an informal survey concerning what role-players like in a
>RPG magic system.  (I am currently working on my own system--aren't
>we all--and would greatly appreciate you opinions.)
>I would prefer comments like, "I demand a magic system be..." as opposed
>to "I like GURPS magic."  Email responses are fine, or you may post your
>response if you feel that it is net-worthy.

     First, a preliminary disclaimer. I like magic to be a science,
with laws and limitations. I like magic to be, in principle, capable
of being learned by reasonably intelligent folk, and perhaps even to be
explained and clearly understood. I like formulaic spells, which give
effect "x" for ritual "y" 99 times in 100. I like magic to be a solid
and well-understood brick used to build the walls of the world in which
it dwells, not one of many competing factions. Finally, I prefer a good
mixture of **very** commn lower-powered magic and less common but very
powerful strategic magic.
     One thing I demand is that the system in question have a *lot*
of pre-designed spells, arranged in a systematic way, so that players
can jump right into the game without *having* to improvise, and get a
clear idea of what magic can do, and how it works. However, I also
expect the system to be clear enough that one can, by example, design
new spells which are both balanced and interesting. Finally, I like
the system to be extendable to full, off-the-cuff improvisation for
skilled mages, should the GM so desire it. Clear rules for PC spell
research, magic item fabrication and alchemy are indispensible.
     An important point is that I like discrete spells, not general
classes of power that *require* heavy elaboration and expansion to be
useful. In this context, I like division of spells by either philosophy
(eg - wizardry, thaumaturgy, enchantment . . .) or college (fire, air,
protection . . .): preferably both. Yet I like to see a logical pattern
underlying all of the spells regardless of their classification.
     Mechanically, I **detest** systems where spells are "forgotten",
or where you have a daily repertoire that must be memorized. A system
where spells can always be used, provided some cost in fatigue, spell
points or what have you is met, is the best. I especially like a system
where lesser and related spells must be learned to learn more powerful
ones, so that you can use a variety of spells of varying power and
effect at any time.
     In combat situations, I prefer magic to be fast, reliable and very
nasty. I want it to be every bit as reliable as a weapon and a suit of
armour, and intuitive enough that it rolls off of the wizard's finger-
tips even as he is being grappled: none of this silly "Oh look! A mage!
Throw a handful of sand at him, will you, to screw up his spell?"
     It is important that the full tactical, strategic and economic
impact of the spells and abilities presented be considered. A "plant
growth" spell can wreck the Medieval economies seen in many games
(think wheat . . .); a commonly available "cure disease" spell will
radically affect population growth and city size; "create food" spells
for the besieged, and "flight" spells for the besiegers, reduce the
relevance of castles; and quick, reliable healing changes the attitude
towards warfare. A magical world will *not* much resemble Medieval
Europe, despite present trends to the contrary in fantasy gaming.
     Lastly, the magic system has to be integrated into the other
systems of the game. Magic items have to have a monetary value and
a level of power that is commensurate with the other tools and weapons
of the world. Mega-powerful items must be avoided: they are rarely
the source of much fun. Magical creatures and beings should have all
of their special abilities definable in terms of existing spells and
magical powers: there is nothing I hate more than the creature with
magical power "x" that cannot be explained or duplicated by spells,
despite 1000 years of spell research.
     In general, make sure the full impact of each ability is thought
through in full, and that for each spell, you can answer the questions:
1. "Why did this spell get researched? What are it's uses?"
2. "How would this spell change the world if it were moderately common?"
3. "Is this spell hard enough to learn, given its power level?"
4. "Is this spell synergistic with other spells? With more mundane
    abilities?"

-Kromm.