Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Wik" data-source="post: 5065598" data-attributes="member: 40177">Well, in my experience, it turns into one of the following:&nbsp;
<ol>
<li data-xf-list-type="ol">The Players have no idea what they can do, so they freeze.&nbsp; </li>
<li data-xf-list-type="ol">The PC only gets one of the few magical &quot;schools&quot;, and then tries to bend those rules to fit any circumstance - and the system usually lets him get away with it.&nbsp; 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....</li>
<li data-xf-list-type="ol">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.&nbsp; In &quot;build as you play&quot; 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.&nbsp; Which I find boring.</li>
<li data-xf-list-type="ol">Players can create spells to specifically &quot;I win&quot; the situation.&nbsp; While specific-spell games can have this, it usually requires the player to be creative (&quot;I'll use my web spell to anchor that dragon to the ground!&quot;) whereas in a freeform spells game, the player can tailor make a spell effect to suit the situation (&quot;I cast Ground Dragon!&quot;).&nbsp; The end result is the same, but I find the &quot;Use tools that always act the same to produce variable results&quot; works better than &quot;use a variable tool for a variable result&quot;).&nbsp; Hope that makes sense.</li>
<li data-xf-list-type="ol">These situations usually wind up turning the wizard or caster into a &quot;do everything&quot; class, because the freeform nature of the spells allow for it.&nbsp; And why would you design a freeform magic system if it only had a limited scope, right?&nbsp; </li>
</ol>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.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Wik, post: 5065598, member: 40177"] Well, in my experience, it turns into one of the following: [list=1] [*]The Players have no idea what they can do, so they freeze. [*]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.... [*]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. [*]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. [*]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? [/list] 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. [/QUOTE]

Verification