The Laws of Magik (Legis Magicae)

For all intents and purposes, magik represents an alternate view of reality, separate from science. However, like physics, magik is bound by several "natural laws" defining how it works and restricting its use.

The 3 Primary Laws (Legis Prima) are always in effect and must be obeyed by any spell cast.

I. LEX DEMERGO  "The Law of Equivilance"
Nothing can be gained through magik without first giving up something of equal value in return. The essence of this law is that all magik has a price, represented in the game by it's Spell Cost.

II. LEX NOMINIS  "The Law of Names"
Names have power. The target of a spell must be named by the caster, and to cast a spell directly on a sentient being requires knowing that person's "True Name". The Naming in a spell is a statement of intent to the universe that channels a caster's will. What this mean,s essentially, is that all spells require a somantic (verbal) or inscripted (written) element.

III. LEX AEQUITIS  "The Law of Reciprocity"
This law is summed up succinctly by the phrase "once done, threefold repaid", and thus is commonly reffered to as "The Threefold Law". What this means is that the Spell Cost of any casting intended to do harm to another is tripled.


The Secondary Laws, on the other hand, may be utilized at the discretion of the caster to decrease the difficulty or reduce the cost of a spell.

IV. LEX IUNCTIO  "The Law of Correspondence"
As Above, So Below. By employing symbolic associations, magi are able to increase the potency of a spell. These associations are dileanated by Tables of Correspondences, such as one might find in any volume on ceremonial magick.

V. LEX DESIDERO  "The Law of Contagion"
Once Joined, Always Linked. An object once owned by or a piece of the target of aspell is considered inherently linked to the target and thus creates a "bridge" for the spell, allowing spells to be cast at any distance from the target and also reducing the Target's defences or natural resistances to the spell. Such items are called Fetishes.

VI. LEX ILLECETRA  "The Law of Sympathy"
Like Attracts Like. employing symbolic physical respresentations of the target or intended effect of a spell, referred to as Foci, reduces the spell's Cost. This also includes ritual actions, such as spinning in a circle to raise a "whirlwind spell" (Conjuration+Aeromancy).

It's rumoured that there are 3 additional Laws, lost to time, that allow a magus to ignore the 3 Primary Laws, or "cast without cost".

Quote from: Popillius_Scipio;602555I used to think as you do, that colorful, well-researched, baroque names are cool, but after putting a few designs in front of my players and getting questions like 'Which one is Ad Captandum again?  Is that the one that gives bonuses to my roll or my opponent's?' I realized that simpler language was the reason why D&D's spells are named things like 'comprehend languages.'

Yeah, I've gone back and forth on this one. However, I should make the additional caveat here that this is the second "advanced" system of magic for my RPG, the other "basic system" is essentially a "multi-power" superpower witha  few restrictions. My goals with this particular magic system was to demand a bit more work (study) on the part of the player, so that the (relative) complexity of the system represents the amount fo commitment that the character must put into learning and using magic.

That said, I think I am going to go with English terms for the various tiers of the Arcana ( or at least have the translations handily identified in the chart).

Quote from: danbuter;602687Just wanted to say this is a cool idea. Please post more (especially some descriptive examples).

Thank you. As soon as I get the rest of the basics typed up, I'll go into more detail with examples and pre-made spells.

So, continuing...

SPELLCRAFT

Crafting a spell essentially involves answering 3 questions:

I. What is the intention of the spell?  (ART + DOMAIN)
II. What is the target of the spell?   (ARCANA)
III. How is the spell powered?  (TECHNIQUE)

I. What is the intention of the spell?
  The first thing for a caster to decide is what the spell does (the ART used) and how it accomplishes this or manifests (the Domain used). Generally, the appropriate Art and Domain for the desired effect are self-evident. However, Domains in particular are not meant to restrict a magus so much as encourage creativity and inject flavour. Thus it should be possible to achieve the same ends via a variety of different methods as appropriate to an individual magus' Domains.

For example, if three Magi; one possessing the Domain Arachnomancy, one possessing the Domain Ailuromancy, and one with the Domain Aeromancy; each wish to accomplish the same feat, say scaling the side of a steep building, each would use the Art Apportation. But while the Anachromancer might cast a "spider-walk" spell granting them wall-crawling abilities; the Ailuromancer may grow cat's claw and imbue themselves with a feline sense of balance before scaling the buildingside; whereas the Aeromancer could make themselves light as air and simply float to the top of the edifice.

II.What is the target of the spell?

A spell's intended target determines the Arcana used for the spell. Each Arcana is divided into five tiers, named for the Court Cards of the Tarot (Page, Knight, Queen, King) and the Ace. The most appropriate tier is chosen for the target of the spell, which denotes the Spell Cost.

(Please note that this crappy looking excuse for a chart is due to the restrictions of the forum software)

_______________SWORDS__________________CUPS
Ace (3)_____Sollertia (Knowledge)_________Alucinare (Dreams)
Page (9)____Dimicare (Armourments)_______Effigia (Craftwork)
Knight (18)__Volucris (Avians)____________Aquatilis (Marine Life)
Queen (27)__Mentis (Mind)_______________Memoriae (Heart)
King (81)____Tempastatis (Heavens)________Moenia (Home)

_______________WANDS__________________COINS
Ace (3)_____Claresco (Senses)_________Nummarius (Wealth)
Page (9)____Thyrsus (Plants)___________Fabrillis (Device)
Knight (18)__Beastiae (Animals_________Machinae (Machine)
Queen (27)__Prodigi (Spirit)____________Corpus (Body)
King (81)____Silvae (Forest)____________Sceptrum (City)

Occasionally, especially in the case of Conjuration spells, there is no discernible target for the spell, rather an independent effect. In such situations, the Spell Cost is based on the Echelon of Intensity for the desired effect. This includes Elemental manifestations.

III. How is the spell powered?

Once a spell's Art, Domain, and Arcana are determined, and the Spell Cost calculated, the caster much chose a Technique to power the spell. Each Technique features a unique method of paying the Spell Cost.

Invocation, or "Channeling", is the most commonly employed class of Technique, wherein the magus act as a conduit for eldritch energies, drawing them into themselves and reshaping them by their will. The 3 Techniques classified as Invocations are Exousia, Thaumoturgy, and Thanoturgy.

Exousia is the safest and simplest form of Invocation, whereupon the caster draws upon their own personal energies to power a spell. Using this Technique, the magus simply pays the spell cost in Arete on a 3:1 basis (every 3 points of Arete spent converts into 1 point of Dynamis). The only downside to this Technique is that for every point of Dynamis generated in this manner, the magus takes a point of Fatigue. If the Fatigue accumulated from casting the spell exceeds the caster's Stamina, then they suffer Attribute Loss (see Injury & Healing).

Magi who know the Technique of Exousia are also capable of using Periergia ("Petty Magic") to cast Cantrips.

Thaumoturgy is the Technique of tapping into the ambient magikal energy of the universe, Dynamis, drwing it into themselves, and reshaping it to the form they desire.

Drawing upon Dynamis to power a spell is represented by the drawing of cards from the Tarot deck. A magus can draw a number of cards per Panel (turn) up to their rating in the Arcana used for the spell. (So a Magus with a Swords Arcana rating of 5 could draw up to 5 cards per Panel to power any Swords-based spells). These cards are laid down face-up in front of the caster, and are henceforth referred to as the caster's Hand.

If any Major Arcana are drawn, their number is compared to the caster's current Paradigm. If the card is equal to or lower than the caster's Paradigm, then the card is kept in the caster's Hand and is worth 9 Dynamis. If the Major Arcana is higher than the caster's Paradigm, then it is discarded into a separate pile and the caster takes Stress equal to the card's number.

If a Pip card (Ace - 10) is drawn, its Suit is compared to the Arcana of the spell. If the Suit matches, then it is kept in the caster's Hand and is worth 1 point of Dynamis. If a Pip card is of a suit different to the Arcana of the spell, then it is put in the discard pile and costs the caster 1 point of Stress.

If a Court card (Page, Knight, Queen, King) is drawn, its Suit is compared to the Arcana of the spell. If the card's suit matches the spell's Arcana, then it is kept in the caster's Hand and is worth 3 points of Dynamis. If it also matches the tier of the Acana used by the spell, it is worth 9 points of Dynamis. If the Court card is of a different Suit than the spell's Arcana, it is placed in the discard pile and costs the caster 1 point of Stress.

Once a Thaumoturgist accumulates enough Dynamis to cover the cost of the spell, they may cast the spell by naming the spell's intended effect and target. When Dynamis is spent to cast a spell, those crds in the caster's hand and the discard pile are shuffled back into the deck.

Thanoturgy is an alternate means of powering a spell that draws upon the supernatural energy exuded by death and the dead, Misama.

Miasma is more potent than Dynamis but carries a far greater amount of risk to the caster. Many consider Thanoturgy an abhorrent practice as it essentially uses the souls of once-living beings as "batteries" to power a spell.

Drawing upon Miasma to power a spell follows much the same process as that of Thaumoturgy. A magus can draw a number of cards from the Tarot deck per Panel up to their rating in the Arcana used by the spell, though they must do so in a graveyard, mortuary, or other resting place of the deceased. Places where exceptionally violent deaths, especially multiple murders occur, are also a potential source of Miasma. Additionally, particularly unscrupulous Thanoturgists may also ritually sacrifice victims to gain Miasma, though like any murder, this act would carry harsh Arete penalties.

If a Pip card is drawn and it's Suit matches that of the spell's Arcana, it is worth 3 points of Miasma. If the card is of any other Suit, it is worth 1 point of Miasma.

If a Court Card is drawn, and it's Suit matches the Arcana used for the spell, it is worth 9 points of Miasma. Otherwise the Court card is placed in the discard pile and costs the caster 9 points of Stress.

If a Major Arcana is drawn, it is compared to the Paradigm of the magus attempting the spell. If the card is lower than the caster's Paradigm, it is worth 9 + its rating in Miasma, but also costs the caster 3 point of Stress. If a Major Arcana drawn is equal to or higher than the caster's current Paradigm, the caster developes a Derangement (see Sanity Rules). If the Major Arcana is more than twice the value of the caster's current Paradigm, they develope a Deformity instead.

Okay, so, going from there, I hope that explains it all a bit better. I'll try and get a wide variety of examples of the whole thing put together from here on out. One thing I'm thinking of doing is standardizing the Praxi (Schools or Traditions of Magik), each aligned with 3 Arts and 3 Techniques, and having certain magikal "Talents" that a character acquires upon raising their Paradigm: maybe a list that a player can choose from, I guess somewhat like D&D's Feats, but more focused...stuff like "Astral Perception", "Ghost Sense", etc.

I'll also write up a bit of the cosmology of the game to explain in more detail how a spell actually works in the game's universe, which mainly involves synchronizing energies from the Astral Plane with the target's Aura.

Still not sure on the values assigned to Spell cost and the cards drawn yet.

All right, after rereading the original and then going through the new stuff in pages two-three, I think I've got a better idea of what's going on.

A caveat before I begin -- something I've learned after years of trying out new systems, is that the simpler something is, the better.  If a person sits down to play your game and doesn't know anything about it, they will fall back on what they know, and with D&D's hold on the P&P RPGer's mind, there's a very good chance that's going to be the fireball-chuckin' wizard -- your system clearly allows for that, and I understand your design goal -- make it slightly opaque and thus flavorful, but that could very easily be a barrier to involvement.  There's a phenomenon I'm very familiar with from my own design work, and that's the phrase 'That's stupid.'  This casual dismissal dooms many games, and I feel your magic system might be at risk for seeming like too much work.  One of the reasons I suggested the less airy language (apart from making my job of critiquing and suggesting changes easier).  That said --

What I understand from what I read is that magic in this system is a hyperfocus on the old Mage: the Ascension idea of paradigm defines magic, with the paradigm now being important enough to have it's own stats, rather than just a stern suggestion from the GM.

Which I think is good, and a highly laudable and lofty goal for a system of magic.  What I really want to know before I say good/bad, is how exactly it works.  Don't mean to be a prick, but I'd like to suggest simpler language still.

Perhaps some Q&A will help grease my runners:

I want to cast a spell.  I see I need ranks in a 'magic skill' to do that, which seem to be based on the Trumps.  This I like -- because each rank means drawing one of the lower level trumps is good, n'est-ce pas?

So, need skill.  Then I outline what I want to do.  Let's go with 'conjure a block of muenster cheese.'  I want there to be a permanent block of real muenster cheese that I and my dinner companions can eat.  Since I can't just create it out of thin air, I'd either need to spend magic points on it (soul-stuff or 'dynamis' I think?), or teleport a block of cheese from elsewhere due to the law of equivalency.  So, assuming I'm not a dirty cheesenapper, I want to create cheese out of the clean magic potentiality of the universe.  How much would that cost me?  Is cheese out of nowhere expensive?  What determines this cost?

Third, now that I know what I want to do, I create the roll out of conjuration + cheesomancy.  As I am a cheesomancer, with levels of cheesomancy, this is super easy for me.  If I were a dairymancer or a foodomancer, it would be harder.  How much harder?  What's the level of specificity?

So I spend my magic points and make the 'roll,' though in this case it's drawing cards from the deck.  How many do I draw, and how do I know if I've succeeded?  Are there partial successes?  If I don't draw well enough, could I accidentally get a wheel of brie, or maybe lower quality muenster?

And this all relates to Tarot how?

Quote from: Popillius_Scipio;605953All right, after rereading the original and then going through the new stuff in pages two-three, I think I've got a better idea of what's going on.

A caveat before I begin -- something I've learned after years of trying out new systems, is that the simpler something is, the better.  If a person sits down to play your game and doesn't know anything about it, they will fall back on what they know, and with D&D's hold on the P&P RPGer's mind, there's a very good chance that's going to be the fireball-chuckin' wizard -- your system clearly allows for that, and I understand your design goal -- make it slightly opaque and thus flavorful, but that could very easily be a barrier to involvement.  There's a phenomenon I'm very familiar with from my own design work, and that's the phrase 'That's stupid.'  This casual dismissal dooms many games, and I feel your magic system might be at risk for seeming like too much work.  One of the reasons I suggested the less airy language (apart from making my job of critiquing and suggesting changes easier).  That said --

What I understand from what I read is that magic in this system is a hyperfocus on the old Mage: the Ascension idea of paradigm defines magic, with the paradigm now being important enough to have it's own stats, rather than just a stern suggestion from the GM.

Which I think is good, and a highly laudable and lofty goal for a system of magic.  What I really want to know before I say good/bad, is how exactly it works.  Don't mean to be a prick, but I'd like to suggest simpler language still.

Perhaps some Q&A will help grease my runners:

I want to cast a spell.  I see I need ranks in a 'magic skill' to do that, which seem to be based on the Trumps.  This I like -- because each rank means drawing one of the lower level trumps is good, n'est-ce pas?

So, need skill.  Then I outline what I want to do.  Let's go with 'conjure a block of muenster cheese.'  I want there to be a permanent block of real muenster cheese that I and my dinner companions can eat.  Since I can't just create it out of thin air, I'd either need to spend magic points on it (soul-stuff or 'dynamis' I think?), or teleport a block of cheese from elsewhere due to the law of equivalency.  So, assuming I'm not a dirty cheesenapper, I want to create cheese out of the clean magic potentiality of the universe.  How much would that cost me?  Is cheese out of nowhere expensive?  What determines this cost?

Third, now that I know what I want to do, I create the roll out of conjuration + cheesomancy.  As I am a cheesomancer, with levels of cheesomancy, this is super easy for me.  If I were a dairymancer or a foodomancer, it would be harder.  How much harder?  What's the level of specificity?

So I spend my magic points and make the 'roll,' though in this case it's drawing cards from the deck.  How many do I draw, and how do I know if I've succeeded?  Are there partial successes?  If I don't draw well enough, could I accidentally get a wheel of brie, or maybe lower quality muenster?

Thankyou, this response is actually really helpful, and I'm going to take a long hard look at it before making a  response (which is my way of saying I can't give a worthwhile reply until tomorrow, due to time contraints). Also, over the last two days there's been a huge part of me that thinks that I've amassed too much crunch and debris atop my intitial idea, and I've thought of scrapping it and going back to basics. There's parts of the system I really like, aesthetically, but I also agree that the simpler it is in play the better. One over-riding thought I've had, comparing it to the base system I've desigend this for, is that the reason I designed that system the way I did was so there would be no point duringa  game I'd have to look up rules for any reason. I think that the magic system I've outlined here contradicts that.

anyways, I'll get back to you on this post presently.

Quote from: BillDowns;606134And this all relates to Tarot how?

Um, really? drawing cards from the tarot is the resolution mechanic, and elements of symbolism regarding the tarot are incoprporated into it, along with aspects of the system being freely adapted from Tarrocci, the card game the tarot deck was designed to be used for.

Quote from: Popillius_Scipio;605953Perhaps some Q&A will help grease my runners:

Okay, so  let me start by answering your FAQ with regards to the system as presented, and then I'll get into the revisions I'm planning to make this simpler and more intuitive...

QuoteI want to cast a spell.  I see I need ranks in a 'magic skill' to do that, which seem to be based on the Trumps.  This I like -- because each rank means drawing one of the lower level trumps is good, n'est-ce pas?

Essentially, yes. The "ranks in magic" represent your character's ability to exert their Will over 'reality', and their capacity to face the supernatural without losing their sanity, but that's just setting justification for "magic skill".

QuoteSo, need skill.  Then I outline what I want to do.  Let's go with 'conjure a block of muenster cheese.'  I want there to be a permanent block of real muenster cheese that I and my dinner companions can eat.

Indeed, a Conjuration spell. Incidentally potentially the most 'expensicve' type of speel for reasons I'll explain in a bit. And since in this system, the cost of a spell also to a certain extent dictates how long it will take to complete, potentially a very lengthy spell.

QuoteSince I can't just create it out of thin air, I'd either need to spend magic points on it (soul-stuff or 'dynamis' I think?), or teleport a block of cheese from elsewhere due to the law of equivalency.

Well, yes and no. The Law of Equivilancy basically just states that magic takes a toll on the user, it has a personal cost. You can't get something for nothing. One part of bbeing a clever spellcaster is ameliorating this cost. For example, it would cost less to simply teleport some cheese there, like a dirty cheesenapper, which would use the Art of Apportation rather than Conjuration. But in that case its not the physical displacement that the Law of Equivilance applies to rather the energy demand it places on the caster, re: magic points.

So, not Raiders of the Lost Ark "sandbag-for-statue" equivilancy, rather Constantine "magic drains you" equivilancy.

Otherwise, yes, you could pay this with dynamis/'magic points', or a number of othe rmethods. These are the Techniques, of which I've only detailed Invocation thus far.

Think of them as methods of paying a bill at a restuarant.

You could pay cash or use a debit bank card, meaning you pay the cost directly (Invocation aka "Channeling").

You could use a credit card, meaning a third party agency covers the cost for you, and you now owe them a debt (Evocation aka "Summoning")

Or you could try to convince the waiter to give you the meal for free via personal charm or some extraordinary bluffing (Incantation or "Enchantment")

 

QuoteSo, assuming I'm not a dirty cheesenapper, I want to create cheese out of the clean magic potentiality of the universe.  How much would that cost me?  Is cheese out of nowhere expensive?  What determines this cost?

In this case, being a Conjuration, there are two costs, one based on the Arcana that cheese best fits and the other based on the cheese's Echelon Rating.

So, first you'd find that Arcana tier that best fit the object being created. Simple foods, such as plants or animals, would use Wands as their Arcana (Thyrsus or Beastiae), but as cheese is a processed food, the spell would use Coins: Machinae.

As 'Machinae' is associated with the Queen tier, the spell has a base cost of 27. For every other Art besides Conjuration, this would be the whole of the cost.

Next, you'll need to determine the Echelon Rating for cheese. In the Phaserip system, non-living objects are rated based on their Material Strength (MS). Food has an MS of Feeble (2), but that's assuming an object up to 2" thick. Assuming this is a big chunk of cheese, enough to feed a party of adventurers, the GM would probably bump the MS up to Puny, but that's still only 3 points. Cheese is pretty cheap to creat on-demand. For something made out of steel, for example, the MS would start at Uncanny (30).

So, altogether the spell has a cost of 29.

QuoteThird, now that I know what I want to do, I create the roll out of conjuration + cheesomancy.  As I am a cheesomancer, with levels of cheesomancy, this is super easy for me.  If I were a dairymancer or a foodomancer, it would be harder.  How much harder?  What's the level of specificity?

Actually, a 'cheeseomancer', 'dairymancer' or 'foodomancer' would all pay the same cost. The caveat here is that there is a set list of domains ("O'Mancies") in the game, 100 in all, so there's not generally as much crossover potential between motifs. OTOH, where specificity does play a part would be in part of the rules I haven't mentioned yet, contests between magic users or magical combat. Simply put, specificity provides an advantage over an opponent, but plays no role in non-opposed magic.

QuoteSo I spend my magic points and make the 'roll,' though in this case it's drawing cards from the deck.  How many do I draw,

The number of cards you draw is based on your character's aptitude in the Arcana being use dby the spell.

The 4 Arcana (Swords, Cups, Wands, and Coins) are basically a magic user's skill in casting specific types of spells, or affecting certain types of targets. A magus has a number of points to divide between their Arcana based on their Courage Echelon Rank + their current Paradigm/'magic level''. So an apprentice or neophyte is likely to have a score of 1-3 in any given Arcana, while an experienced master wizard potentially has more than one Arcana rated at 10.

The important thing to note here is that both the apprentice and the master can cast the same spell, the only difference is that it will take the apprentice much longer and there is a higher risk of a mispell.

For example, a pyromancer with a Wands 2, and one with Wands 9, can both cast a 'fireball' spell, but it would not likely be a useful combat tactic for the magic user with Wands 2 as it could take them upwards of 10 rounds to gather the Dynamis ('magic points') necessary to execute the spell.

So with the cheesomancer example, the Arcana used is Coins, so the number of cards drawn is based on your character's rating in the Coins Arcana.

Quoteand how do I know if I've succeeded?

The spell succeeds when you gather a hand of useable cards adding up to the spell cost, so in this case 29 points of Dynamis.

every turn between the one where the caster first draws cards until they play their hand and cast the spell, the magic user is focusing all their attention and concentration on the spell, presumably chanting an intonation.

QuoteAre there partial successes?  If I don't draw well enough, could I accidentally get a wheel of brie, or maybe lower quality muenster?

Yes. Basically, a mispell occurs if a caster draws no useable cards on their first draw. This simply means the caster failed in their attempt, and may try again the next round.

A "fumble" occurs if the caster draws no useable cards AND a Major Arcana higher than their Paradigm/'magic level'. this will likely incur a disastrous effect of the GM's choosing, as appropriate to the spell and the severity of the Major Arcana.

A partial success occurs when, after gathering at least 1 point of Dynamis on the previous round, the caster subsequently draws no useable cards and a Major arcana higher than their Paradigm in a single round.

(to be continued...)

It definitely looks interesting but it makes me wonder why not just stick with Mage the Awakening/Ars Magica/Mage the Ascension? It just seems too complex for no good reason.

Quote from: Marleycat;606790It definitely looks interesting but it makes me wonder why not just stick with Mage the Awakening/Ars Magica/Mage the Ascension? It just seems too complex for no good reason.

Yeah, well, as I mentioned earlier, this is meant is the "advanced" system for the game, there's already a much simpler system that's based upon the existing rules for super powers in the game. This system is meant to appeal to those who want a system that models "real world" occult magick, as opposed to the various Vancian and super-power esque systems out there. But I agree, its nowhere near streamlined enough yet. But I think it's getting there.

The biggest problem, I think, is that this system assumes the player comes from a similar reading background as I do, namely someone very familiar with ceremonial magic traditions, Jungian psychology, and Classical magic traditions of Greece and Rome up to agrippa. As such, a lot of the correlations and connections that are instantaneous in my mind, assume a common language of symbolism that it would be naive and arrogant on my part to assume. I could present an overview of all this as a preamble to the system, but even then I'm getting to the point where a player has to read almost a book's worth of info before they can play, which is asking a lot more commitment than the average player, IME, is willing to invest.

Anyways, yeah, I'm going to keep working on revising this, even if I do find the current structure very aesthetically pleasing. I think by finding a new/easier/more intuitive method of calculating the spell's cost, that alone will reduce a fair portion of the crunch.