From: jwadsley@vaxc.cc.monash.edu.au
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.misc
Subject: Re: Fantasy Genre...
Date: 30 Jul 92 15:01:00 +1000
Organization: Computer Centre, Monash University, Australia

In article <dlaird.0xwg@terapin.com>, dlaird@terapin.com (Delbert Laird) writes:
> Each spell SUBJECT is purchased with points...The more points spent, the
> greater possible effect.  A base cost FIRE, will allow the player to CREATE
> FIRE (make a small fire).  By adding more points to the SUBJECT, the fire is
> able to damage based on point expediture.
> 
> As far as spell failure, my system thus looks like:
> 
> Character purchases his Magic Skill (I don't know what I'll call it yet) and it
> is equal to his (INT + 5) + Levels....Giving him a base chance of 10 or less. 
> (Attributes are rated 1-20, 10 being the maximum unaltered human).

So INT is 1-10. Magic skill is INT+5+levels. What are levels? Are they skill
levels resulting from training and experience? I assume so. 

> For attack spells, this Skill Value is compared to that of the opponents
> Defense Value and a d20 is adjusted for a roll (similiar to Champions).  If it
> hits, the spell makes contact...If it fails, the GM may determine if it simply
> misses or user ruined.
> 
> For non-attack spells, the Skill Value represents the characters chance of
> successfully casting the spell. (-1 to the roll for every 3 components).

So a good beginning mage has 15 out of 20 chance to cast his spells. Damn good
if you ask me - too good. With a bit of experience he will be 20 out of 20. I
would be tempted to have a subtraction to the chance based on the strength of
the components. Is this what -1 for every 3 components means? Does it mean for
every 3 'levels' of components? This seems a little cheap, depending on your
scale for components. On a scale where 0 (base) is basically alcohol fire or
just warmth, 9 is a torch or burning wood and 18 is molten lead I think -1 per
3 levels is ok. It depends, of course, on the level of play you want. I think
warrior players might be unimpressed if you make dangerous magery too easy to
perform.

What determines defense? Some systems say that all spell effects may be
defended against. IMHO, only emotion and mind affecting spells may be defended
against by non-magical means. Defense against power bolts and physical
effects should require some sort of magical defense spell or special ability.
You can use your Constitution to resist poison spells and your Strength to
resist pushing or telekinetic spells but whether you can throw up resistance to
the magic itself is a matter for thought.

The attack / defense aspect is a part of magic that I have never seen a good
set up for. I like the idea of spells and counterspells. Counterspells should
be rapidly cast so that the defender can recognise a threat and respond. For
example: X tosses a fireball and Y throws up an ice shield in response, which
neutralises the fire.

My favourite concept of wizards includes spell and/or power tossing combats
with spells bouncing off spell shields.

As an aside I would be interested to hear of a game where spell and
counterspell combat is possible. I don't mean counterspells cast before the
combat. I mean counterspells for each spell as it is cast. Eg. Summon Demon
then banish demon, throw rock (telekinesis) then force shield(telekinesis),
fireball then 'fire resistance trance' and so on. If your game makes this
possible then it is a BIG plus for your system.

Hope it's helpful,

James Wadsley.