Freeform Spellcasting

[Tinker Gnome]

Have you ever run any games with a freeform spellcasting system? If so, how did it work out? The main complaints I hear about them is that either the players do not know what to do, or they take forever to make up the spell, or they make up game breaking spells. The positive things I have heard about freeform spellcasting systems is that it allows the players(and the GM) to be creative and not be stuck with pre-made effects.

 

[Aus_Snow]

To my mind, 'freeform' and 'system' are incompatible terms.

But anyway, no. I have used toolkit systems for magic/psi/powers, however. If that counts, according to whatever your definition of 'freeform' magic happens to be. . .

 

[Tinker Gnome]

To my mind, 'freeform' and 'system' are incompatible terms.

But anyway, no. I have used toolkit systems for magic/psi/powers, however. If that counts, according to whatever your definition of 'freeform' magic happens to be. . .

When I say "Freeform" I mean a system that allows a PC to make up their own spells using a system that determines how difficult it will be for the PC to cast the spell. So, the more complex the spell, the more difficult it would be to cast. The "system" does have guidelines, but it is still far more flexible than a spell list system. So, if the PC had the Fire "Domain" so to speak, then they could do anything they wanted to with fire, provided they can actually pull it off by following the system. Things like increasing the range, shape, or targets affected would increase the difficulty in casting the spell.

I am sorry I am not very articulate over the net.

 

[Aus_Snow]

When I say "Freeform" I mean a system that allows a PC to make up their own spells using a system that determines how difficult it will be for the PC to cast the spell. So, the more complex the spell, the more difficult it would be to cast. The "system" does have guidelines, but it is still far more flexible than a spell list system. So, if the PC had the Fire "Domain" so to speak, then they could do anything they wanted to with fire, provided they can actually pull it off by following the system. Things like increasing the range, shape, or targets affected would increase the difficulty in casting the spell.

Gotcha. 'S just terms anyway. That's 'toolkit' to me, 'freeform' to you. Still works fine. And yep, I've had good experiences with such systems. There are actually a surprising(?) number of them out there, so you shouldn't have any trouble finding one that suits you. Unless you're making one yourself, of course, in which case, I guess it'll be perfect! (for you)

I am sorry I am not very articulate over the net.

Nah, I was just being difficult. Not really trying to be, but yeah, comes natural. Don't mind me.

 

[Wik]

Personally, I hatehatehatehate freeform magic systems. One of my favourite systems (the d6 system) tried to tackle it, and it just made things super confusing. I'd much rather see a "loose spell" system... I can't think of an example, but I know I've seen them out there. A system where you get a basic spell outline, and the PC can layer on additional effects depending on how many extra power points/skill check difficulty he wants to suffer from - and if he has certain feats/skills, he can add on additional effects.

For example, you could have a base spell like so (I'm making up the system as I go, so the actual numbers mean crap):

MAGIC MISSILE
Costs 2 power points
Check Difficulty: 5
Effect: Range 20, Damage 1d6+1.
Modifiers:

1. Double Range (+1 power point, +2 Difficulty)
2. Double Damage (+2 power points, +3 difficulty)
3. Per additional target, up to 3 targets with one casting (+2 power points, +2 difficulty)
4. Blast 5' centred around target, does damage to all in radius (+3 power points, +2 difficulty)
5. Nonlethal Damage (+1 power point, +1 difficulty)
6. Successful hit stuns, blinds, or deafens target for 1d4 rounds (pay per effect) (+3 power points, +3 difficulty)

So, my mage could cast Magic Missile to hit two guards for 2d6+2 nonlethal damage, which could cost a total of 7 power points, and the casting check would have a difficulty of 11.

 

[Tinker Gnome]

Personally, I hatehatehatehate freeform magic systems.

Why do you dislike them so much?

 

[jdrakeh]

I actually prefer the type of spell casting system that you describe as it adds an element of surprise that 'static list' systems generally lack. The complaint about players not knowing what to do when being confronted with actual options can be a valid one. I've run into that a lot. I've found that many platers just become so accustom to picking predefined spells from a limited list that when they have the opportunity to create any spell that they want, they lock up because they have absolutely no idea what to do.

 

[Garmorn]

I have played with the Harn Master system. It just give you the basic rules. It also requires the player create 3 spells before been considered a Master in the Guild. It was very difficult to use. You had to be careful to keep to elemental thinking not modern science and the rules had very little guidance on power levels.

I tried to replace it with the Hero system. Worked well for spell casting but the players did not like how complicated the system was.

 

[Kobold Avenger]

Freeform magic works for Mage (the Ascension and the Awakening), though it requires a deep understanding of the system. One of the the biggest problems I found, is when different people have different interpretations of what the parameters of the magic rules involved are.

 

[Wik]

Why do you dislike them so much?

Well, in my experience, it turns into one of the following:

1. The Players have no idea what they can do, so they freeze.
2. The PC only gets one of the few magical "schools", and then tries to bend those rules to fit any circumstance - and the system usually lets him get away with it. For example, a necromancer uses his powers to speak with dead, cast a grave bolt that deals damage, develops resistance to poisons through a special disease spell he makes, makes ghostly illusions, etc....
3. In spell-building systems (such as in d6), the work can take a long period of time, meaning the PCs have to make spells in between sessions... and these spells are often horribly broken due to system flaws. In "build as you play" systems, there always winds up being an area where spells tend to fall - spells tend to take on a certain shape due to how the system is put together. Which I find boring.
4. Players can create spells to specifically "I win" the situation. While specific-spell games can have this, it usually requires the player to be creative ("I'll use my web spell to anchor that dragon to the ground!") whereas in a freeform spells game, the player can tailor make a spell effect to suit the situation ("I cast Ground Dragon!"). The end result is the same, but I find the "Use tools that always act the same to produce variable results" works better than "use a variable tool for a variable result"). Hope that makes sense.
5. These situations usually wind up turning the wizard or caster into a "do everything" class, because the freeform nature of the spells allow for it. And why would you design a freeform magic system if it only had a limited scope, right?

Nah, for all those reasons (and probably a few more), I much prefer spells that can be expanded by player decisions, as I described above.