To your particular questions:
Herremann the Wise said:
1. Magic is mysterious and potentially deadly for the caster. The art of playing with one's soul as it were.
I like this in concept but wonder how it can be effectively handled in a game. It seems like the D&D approach where certain classes depend on magic wouldn't work because such classes would have no choice but to use magic and therefore the negative effects ("playing with one's soul") can't really be much of a bother because if they were, the magic user would be quickly dead or nerfed into uselessness.
3.x D&D did a version of this with the Alienist prestige class (a class I played that was an awful lot of fun to roleplay). As you advanced further along the 10 class progression, the more your character's being was polluted by the Far Realms and the more penalties your character would suffer. Handled at a character development level rather than an in-game casting level is a softer option but one that can work for a more orderly transition into madness.
Haltherrion said:
In a system designed from the ground up to allow people to dabble in magic as much as they risked but let them be useful without magic, it could be another matter but even then, you'd need to be prepared to kill the character if they pushed it too far and this can be difficult.
In the end, the dangers of magic must be real to the player. I think if you can include as many things as possible that emphasize this that don't result in terminating the character the better. However, if the player does something incredibly dramatic knowing precisely the risks and fails, the GM has to be ready to pull the trigger. The ultimate character penalty must always be there for this system to really work.
Haltherrion said:
It reminds of the post apocalyptic games that models radiation as irreversible damage. Yes this may be realistic but what does this mean as a game? If I push my character for legitimate in-character reasons do I make him unplayable at some point?
I think that if you play such a character and pay the buy-in of doing so, then you know where the roleplaying ride could end. In extreme cases, I think such a character requires the buy-in of other players in the group as well. The trick is making this fun for everyone without derailing the game. A character that is unplayable obviously fails; you need to be able to do this in such a way that the character is flawed but still playable.
Haltherrion said:
Where does that leave me with respect to other players who might be a little more weaselly about skirting the edge? I die, they get my gear and I get to start over with a level 1 character? That seems like a stiff penalty for playing my character "well".
I agree. Playing the character well should never result in such a penalty.
Haltherrion said:
Herremann the Wise said:
2. Magic is not easy to cast (not automatic at the very least). Miscasting is a reality and a dangerous one.
I like the concept in principle but balancing for a game is tough. Take your typical combat system where I, the player, get to do something every 10 to 20 minutes as we cycle through combat. Me, mage: I try to cast a spell, oops it failed. I wait another 20 minutes well the non-casters get to do their stuff before seeing if I fail again. Darn, the dice aren't with me and I fail 4 times in a row... gee, golly, 90 min to 2 hours have gone by and I've done diddly. This isn't really a lot of fun... Hmm this reminds me of my last talisman game were I could roll much more than a 2...
There needs to be a few options here. Failure at casting in combat needs to be looked at within a particular context so you don't have numerous turns where you do absolutely nothing.
I think it might be possible to do this with the following being my personal preference:
- The core concept of casting a spell or performing a ritual is a caster check, which is basically your caster modifier +d20. This result is then used to determine every factor relating to the spell or ritual.
- From the caster's point of view there are two DCs they are looking at - a Double DC so to speak: eg. DC 10/23. The first number is to successfully cast the spell, while the second is to specially cast it and gain a heightened effect.
- This gives you three things that can happen when the caster casts the spell: a) Heightened effect; b) Normal effect; c) Failure to cast.
- A spellcaster has a selection of spells they can cast in combat. Most importantly, they are not artificially constrained in casting these as per an
x times per day mechanic.
As long as they can perform a casting check, they can cast spells! You still need to have a system whereby spells/rituals are restricted (such as casting time, catastrophic effects of failure, penalties to casting or the casting of a particular type of spell, fatigue or exhaustion, constitution check to avoid one of these effects and so on.)
- Amongst a collection of "1st level spells", some are difficult or even very difficult to cast. Others however are far easier to cast. Part of the art of spellcasting for the player is attempting to maximize their effectiveness. If you know that you need to get a spell off, then you are best to play it conservatively and cast an easier spell. And certainly, once your casting gets to a particular level of accompishment, some spells cannot fail. Alternatively if you know that only a hard to cast spell will be effective, your character might be willing or hungry to make the attempt, or alternatively they will conservatively back away and look for a different solution if such is how they roleplay the caster. It is always the player's choice what their character casts with full knowledge of whether a particular action is more likely to fail or not.
- Where it would be interesting to link in the "cost to your soul" of casting is with a heightened effect. You get the spell off with augmented effectiveness but in so doing, you go further along the path of no return. Thus you don't fail to cast and cop a further kick in the nads. You get a special casting but it will eventually cost your soul.
I think this system gets the player more involved, placing them more in the role of their magic caster which is exactly what I want as a player. I really should formally write this up (I've been working on a selection of magical notes for several years now).
Haltherrion said:
Herremann the Wise said:
3. Casting magic can be wearying for the caster - eventually exhausting them or worse if they seek beyond their limits.
Well, again interesting in concept but can be dull for the magic caster. Mage: "I need a rest to be useful again." Warrior: "Naw, I'm good, let's push on... hey another batter, cool!" Mage: "I guess I'll read a book while you guys spend an hour resolving the next battle cuz I can't do anything but toss darts and darts don't do a lot."
I think as long as you know the risks and play accordingly to the situation presented by the GM, then this means the choice you make as a player is a very meaningful one. All too often (particularly in 3.x) the wizard can "nova" purely because they can. If you can build a reason for them to manage their spells more effectively (because their spells potentially no longer run out), as well as provide them with something meaningful and magical to do when they
are fatigued or exhausted (with the obvious being magical equipment back up), then hopefully you can have the best of both worlds, avoiding the
x-minute workday in the process.
In comparison with Vancian casting where a caster can normally blow the spells at the height of their limit first, you instead change how a caster thinks by getting them to work more to the conservative average of their ability when casting with moments of risk/reward by pushing themselves. A caster can of course go for a riskier selection of casting if the player wants to or wants to roleplay them that way. The choice is there, options abound.
Thanks again for the thought-provoking comments.
Best Regards
Herremann the Wise
