I have the base model. Which I might expand on in a later post but for now I want to discuss the Magic system becuase it's causing me a headache. To get there however I do need to lay out a few basics.

The system is a level + point one. When you gain a level you spend points on stuff. There are 3 classes Warrior, Rogue and Magic User. The later covers all types of magic use from Priests to shaman, to sorcererors and mystics. Inside each class are archetypes. Archetypes are built by the GM specifically for their game world. So the GM might decide in Roman style game world their Warrior archetypes will be Gladiator, Legionair, Barbarian, Equui etc, their Rogue archetypes might be pirate, slaver, theif. Their MU archetypes might be Oracle, Priest, Druid... whatever. Archetypes are build from points but by the GM and 10 of each are provided as examples (with more in the world book which is really just an implementation of the rule set to demonstrate how it works in a specific instance). The Idea here was to have simple classes but allow a range of flavours and styles within them with a degree of mechanical variance but without a plethora of exception based rules that one sees with exponential boom in niche classes.

Also worth pointing out the genre of play I am drawn to. I want magic to feel unusual and be exceptional, so Conan, Grey Mouser and Fafard, Locke Lamora, The Blade itself, Song of Fire and Ice rather than WoW.

So onto Magic which is what I want to discuss. Originally I planned to have the magic system as a generic one al a Savage Worlds. I would detail things that could be done with magic and the various archetypes would interpret how they would work for them. So I might have an effect that hits someone with a blast of fire. The Priest would do this by calling down a bolt of fire from above, the wizard would chant a spell and summon a fireball, the psi guy might cuase an object to burst into spontaneous combustion.

This would be pretty easy to do. I detail 30 or so effects and how they increment over level. I give a range of flavours from chanted spells to holy miracles and add some minor mechanical tweak for each one, preists have to take a taboo and carry a holy symbol, wizards need to sped x ammount of time in study... etc ...

So that was one option but it was a bit flat.

The next option was to ban PC magic all together. I rejected that pretty much straight away because though I want magic to be mysterious I don't want it to be banned from PC use at all.

So then I thought I could create a method of magic but with some different implementations of that method, I chose 5.

The base method is a Mana system. PCs get Mana which they spend to create effects as they increase in level they gain more mana. More powerful effects cost more mana. Now here it's much the same as the 'SW' option I aluded to above expect I wanted each type of magic to have its own mechanical flavour. So I selected,

i) Hermenetic Magic - Magic as Science - PCs learn spells which are formulae. They can construct their own but there would be an academic feel to it where magicians learnt in some sort of collegit system and spells would be named after famous casters of the past, Rathgar's Icy Portal, Nezzaglub's Flaming Sphere, etc ... obviously inspired by Dying Earth via D&D

ii) Divine  Magic - magic from the gods - PCs can cast miracles calling forth the powers of their diety. Each Diety would have sphere's of influence but rather than spell lists priests would be able to do a range of things in each sphere depending on their level, so a healing sphere would let the priest heal so many wounds per level etc etc.

iii) Animistic Magic - magic from nature - PCs can control the natural world through their knowledge of the underlying spiritual energies that imbue everything. Pcs would learn the 'names' of things and these names would give then power. So a wound could be healed by knowing the name of the material that caused it (steel for example), a door could be rended assunder or a small stool grown to giant size if one knew the name of the wood from which it was made.

iv) Binding Magic - magic from supernatureal creatures - PCs can bind creatures to do their bidding , whether these are demons, faey folk, djinn or spirits depends solely on flavour. The power of creature that can be bound, the duration and nature of servitude etc are all bound (pardon the pun) into the summoners level and the ammount of manna they spend

v) Inner Magic - magic from the inside - (weak name, needs work) Pcs can use inner power to affect themselves, and possibly others, think Shaolin Chi monks, Hindu Yogi and even Jedi Psi masters. through channelling their inner powers the PC can make their skin like iron, walk across water or balance on a willow leaf.

 The idea would be that a GM would have some or all of these in their game world or they could create their own. So in the sample world there are 2 competing ninjaesque clans, a religious brotherhood, a college of wizardry and desert kingdom where Djinns are bound and controlled by the very powerful. The archetype approach means the Ninja clans can support all 3 classes (ie you can have a 'ninja' built as a warrior, or a rogue or a MU, and whilst each will be very different they will have a commonality that gives them a certain feel).

So going down this route is more work. I could just default to the much simpler SW model as I mentioned. Any opinions welcome.

I like your idea for classes and archetypes. It is reminiscent of kits from AD&D 2E (Though much better in execution, I'm sure).

As for your magic-systems, I'm of two minds:

I like the Savage Worlds system of powers and trappings. It's a good way to have a lot of potential magical flavor, without a 50+ page count spell list. That said however, it is a bit limited and there isn't much mechanical meat for people who like that sort of thing.

On the other hand, the multiple magic systems offers more variety, but coming up with extensive lists of special effects for each would be a daunting task for one person. Also, from a player perspective, it is more difficult to learn a game that has several different resource management schemes.

My suggestion is to come up with one list of special FX that all magic using classes draw from, similar to the Savage Worlds idea, rather than giving each it's own list. Keep the mana system and differentiate between different magic-users by giving each type a different mechanic for gaining mana that fits the flavor of the class.

Quote from: Shazbot79;462763I like your idea for classes and archetypes. It is reminiscent of kits from AD&D 2E (Though much better in execution, I'm sure).

As for your magic-systems, I'm of two minds:

I like the Savage Worlds system of powers and trappings. It's a good way to have a lot of potential magical flavor, without a 50+ page count spell list. That said however, it is a bit limited and there isn't much mechanical meat for people who like that sort of thing.

On the other hand, the multiple magic systems offers more variety, but coming up with extensive lists of special effects for each would be a daunting task for one person. Also, from a player perspective, it is more difficult to learn a game that has several different resource management schemes.

My suggestion is to come up with one list of special FX that all magic using classes draw from, similar to the Savage Worlds idea, rather than giving each it's own list. Keep the mana system and differentiate between different magic-users by giving each type a different mechanic for gaining mana that fits the flavor of the class.

Yeah that is basically my option 1 , use a SW type system. but it will mean a loss of colour and differentiation for the game. If definitely would make completing it a lot easier.

I am not too worried about PCs talking a while to learn the system. One of my design aims as i note to is to get a gritter less magical world where magic is seen as well magical as opposed to mundane. The fact that a lot of players will be put of magic if the system looks hard to master (note looks hard and is hard are different things) and instead take a rogue or warrior fits my plans.

I will post up details on the character system, and combat which are both fairly mature at this point at a later date.

Are you trying to make a complete generic system where anything is possible?

As a player, I don't "buy it" when priests, wizards, and monks are doing the same thing mechanically, disguised with flavor text. I feel like there has to be more to it than that.

Sense there are only going to be thirty powers, but they scale up, I'm guessing they will be pretty archetypical magical powers. I think it would help if you designated certain abilities that can only be taken by certain kinds of people.

Quote from: Cranewings;462993Are you trying to make a complete generic system where anything is possible?

As a player, I don't "buy it" when priests, wizards, and monks are doing the same thing mechanically, disguised with flavor text. I feel like there has to be more to it than that.

Sense there are only going to be thirty powers, but they scale up, I'm guessing they will be pretty archetypical magical powers. I think it would help if you designated certain abilities that can only be taken by certain kinds of people.

I want to create a full system with a hundred or so spells for the wizards and a models for creating more spells from formulae elements, a couple dozen divine spheres for the priests, a hundred or so names and rules for accessing others for the animists, a toolset for the GM to create creates of power of all stripes that can be bound by the summoners and thirty or so scalable powers for the Chi masters that grow with level.
However, the work puts me off because I will never get the rest of it out.

Like you I want different types of magic to feel and be mechanically different which is why I shy away from the SW model. However, I also realise that the SW model with 30 scalable powers is much more achievable. I could compromise and have a couple of dozen scalable powers for each type of magic that all work in the same basic mechanical way with some overlap, but remain unique. But like I say I want to have wizards hearing about Arsesus's Smokey Sphere long before they find an actual copy of the spell and I want Demon summoners to long to have the power to bind A Lord of the Abyss so they can command him to grant them a wish or create the perfect ham sandwich.

The class thing isn't an issue for me and lumping all MU types into a single class works fine due to the archetype model meaning you cna have a Caster who has some combat skills and wears armour they just won't be very good at casting or at least will have access to a narrow range of powers. In the same way you can build a Warrior achetype that has access to magic. So I am not worried about the caster class feeling too similar to each other.

Sounds pretty cool.

I think the best thing you could do is split the difference between the two models. A flavored up SW model sounds pretty sick.

The game I mostly have finished now has a really, really simple spell system. Spells cost character points or experience points. Characters start with enough points to buy three spells. Some spell actually impart abilities that are always active.

Any spell a character has can be used at will. There isn't a fatigue system or any limitation on there use unless a spell says something about it.

There are 7 types of psychic powers and 7 types of magic, each with 5 spells. The spells can be taken in any order: no ability is more powerful than the others.

One of the ideas I had for this game system is that characters start out pretty much the masters of their craft. They will never meet an individual more powerful than themselves, just different.

Quote from: Cranewings;462999Sounds pretty cool.

I think the best thing you could do is split the difference between the two models. A flavored up SW model sounds pretty sick.

The game I mostly have finished now has a really, really simple spell system. Spells cost character points or experience points. Characters start with enough points to buy three spells. Some spell actually impart abilities that are always active.

Any spell a character has can be used at will. There isn't a fatigue system or any limitation on there use unless a spell says something about it.

There are 7 types of psychic powers and 7 types of magic, each with 5 spells. The spells can be taken in any order: no ability is more powerful than the others.

One of the ideas I had for this game system is that characters start out pretty much the masters of their craft. They will never meet an individual more powerful than themselves, just different.

Interesting and totally different from what I am after. I am trying to build a world where magic is rare and in the hands of a small number of closed groups. The aim of the method is to make early games in a world largely PC magic free and only to explore the magic system once the PCs have a feel fro the game.

Quote from: jibbajibba;463001Interesting and totally different from what I am after. I am trying to build a world where magic is rare and in the hands of a small number of closed groups. The aim of the method is to make early games in a world largely PC magic free and only to explore the magic system once the PCs have a feel fro the game.

The idea of "30 types of spells" could be pretty sweet for that. If you put certain spells with each group, you could let the players see and track who was learning from who.

Ah, the order of the fox did this? Sense when can they call down fire? Someone must have betrayed out secrets!

Sounds pretty sweet. I tend to favour a sort of core system for magic which you build on with individual mechanical tweaks, rather than individually crafting every spell. For a long while I've fiddled with an effect-based powers system that had spells, monster abilities and racial powers all derived from the same powers list, with the classes having different spells that were pre-constructed using the powers rules; powers also had a power type (god power or magic or psionic or mutant) which automatically gave certain advantages and drawbacks, as well as specifying how other powers (like Immunity: Magic) would work against them.... I guess this is similar to the SW system. I think the different magic types are still individual as long as the rules that modify the frameworks are different enough ??

Another thought might be that you might want to think about the 'in-world' rules of magic, and use that to help frame the rules differences between the styles?
For example, the Bard's Tale/Master of the Five Magics book series has a series of Laws of Magic known to the characters, which describe how they operate ('thrice spoken, once fulfilled...' (Sorcery) ...'the attributes without mirror the powers within' (Alchemy), or 'dominance or submission' (Demonology).
In another example, Ars Magica's magic system establishes a series of immutable rules for what magic can accomplish e.g. it cannot affect the human soul, overcome the power of the divine, or affect spheres above the lunar but with the caveat that each branch of magic can ignore exactly one of these restrictions, giving rise to alternate magics like spiritualism or astromancy (or something) that exist alongside hermetic magic.

This probably isn't helping, but best I could do...good luck...

Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;463260Sounds pretty sweet. I tend to favour a sort of core system for magic which you build on with individual mechanical tweaks, rather than individually crafting every spell. For a long while I've fiddled with an effect-based powers system that had spells, monster abilities and racial powers all derived from the same powers list, with the classes having different spells that were pre-constructed using the powers rules; powers also had a power type (god power or magic or psionic or mutant) which automatically gave certain advantages and drawbacks, as well as specifying how other powers (like Immunity: Magic) would work against them.... I guess this is similar to the SW system. I think the different magic types are still individual as long as the rules that modify the frameworks are different enough ??

Another thought might be that you might want to think about the 'in-world' rules of magic, and use that to help frame the rules differences between the styles?
For example, the Bard's Tale/Master of the Five Magics book series has a series of Laws of Magic known to the characters, which describe how they operate ('thrice spoken, once fulfilled...' (Sorcery) ...'the attributes without mirror the powers within' (Alchemy), or 'dominance or submission' (Demonology).
In another example, Ars Magica's magic system establishes a series of immutable rules for what magic can accomplish e.g. it cannot affect the human soul, overcome the power of the divine, or affect spheres above the lunar but with the caveat that each branch of magic can ignore exactly one of these restrictions, giving rise to alternate magics like spiritualism or astromancy (or something) that exist alongside hermetic magic.

This probably isn't helping, but best I could do...good luck...

I think I have the base rules of magics but the only reason I wanted spells was because I wanted the Wizardly strand which relates to the Hermanetic magic as Science as stuff to feel academic and I think that the D&D style named spells gives that impression. You get the idea that Bigby really researched the ways and methods of manipulating magical 'force' etc.