Grim Tales Magic Book...
- Thread starter Old One
- Start date
!
Wulf Ratbane
Adventurer
Well, I could use some help.
Crunch-wise I'm fine (of course) but I am having a hard time deciding the best, most useful approach to presentation.
I'm not liking the layout of the skill-based casting at all.
Would folks prefer:
a) Spell effects and modifiers, with increasing DCs, in a TABLE format ("Black Company" style)
b) Sample spells at discreet spell levels, with diminished or heightened effects and DCs for each, in a SPELLBLOCK format ("Arcana Unearthed" style)
I'm also still open to suggestions on the title and ideas on the cover.
Crunch-wise I'm fine (of course) but I am having a hard time deciding the best, most useful approach to presentation.
I'm not liking the layout of the skill-based casting at all.
Would folks prefer:
a) Spell effects and modifiers, with increasing DCs, in a TABLE format ("Black Company" style)
b) Sample spells at discreet spell levels, with diminished or heightened effects and DCs for each, in a SPELLBLOCK format ("Arcana Unearthed" style)
I'm also still open to suggestions on the title and ideas on the cover.
RangerWickett
Legend
Well, it's Grim Tales, so despite it's mild overusage, Grimoire might be a good name.
With EOM, I just listed the options available for each type of spell, with no tables (though in hindsight, having tables at the beginning of each entry is a good idea). Then I ended each spell type entry with a handful of sample spells, which later were collected in an appendix. The way things work in EOM, you spend MP to cast spells, and you build your spell from the ground (0 MP) up by paying for spell effects.
Wulf, would you be interested in the modern skill-based magic system I'm working on for EOM Modern?
With EOM, I just listed the options available for each type of spell, with no tables (though in hindsight, having tables at the beginning of each entry is a good idea). Then I ended each spell type entry with a handful of sample spells, which later were collected in an appendix. The way things work in EOM, you spend MP to cast spells, and you build your spell from the ground (0 MP) up by paying for spell effects.
Wulf, would you be interested in the modern skill-based magic system I'm working on for EOM Modern?
HeapThaumaturgist
First Post
Hrm. Would "both" add too many pages? 
I've had experience with the BC system for a while, and I'll say: It's okay once you know what you're doing and are very familiar with the spell you'll be using AND have the variance charts printed out ... but initially it's very difficult to figure out what you're doing, and each time you work with a spell it takes a long time to figure out what to do with it.
This, it seems to me, leads to people using one or two spell effects almost universally. You get to "build your own spell" but after that it largely stays just that, a spell. Because of prep time, even I was guilty of that, as most of my casters suspiciously used the exact same spell effects ...
I'd like to see the SYSTEM detailed, the ins and outs and how to do the "infinite flexibility" thing ... but I'd also like some way to just grab some good, solid, pre-determined spell effects of differing power and scope without breaking out a calculator. Whether that involves laying out spells with some adjustable variables, or laying out the spell and the system and then in another chapter, say, listing a spell along with a few common builds of it ...
--fje
I've had experience with the BC system for a while, and I'll say: It's okay once you know what you're doing and are very familiar with the spell you'll be using AND have the variance charts printed out ... but initially it's very difficult to figure out what you're doing, and each time you work with a spell it takes a long time to figure out what to do with it.
This, it seems to me, leads to people using one or two spell effects almost universally. You get to "build your own spell" but after that it largely stays just that, a spell. Because of prep time, even I was guilty of that, as most of my casters suspiciously used the exact same spell effects ...
I'd like to see the SYSTEM detailed, the ins and outs and how to do the "infinite flexibility" thing ... but I'd also like some way to just grab some good, solid, pre-determined spell effects of differing power and scope without breaking out a calculator. Whether that involves laying out spells with some adjustable variables, or laying out the spell and the system and then in another chapter, say, listing a spell along with a few common builds of it ...
--fje
Turanil
First Post
Maybe you could have a new thread with a poll for voting, and a longer sdescription of the two methods.Wulf Ratbane said:
As far as I am concerned, option A sounds cool, but only if it is easy to use in game (i.e.: is rule-lite rather than rule-heavy). If it involves complex calculations each time a spell is cast, I prefer option B.
Rodrigo Istalindir
Explorer
Hmmm....
Both?
Personally, I'm fine with either (I've not seen Black Company, so I'm assuming I know what you mean). The advantage of A is flexibility and consistency. The only thing that worries me is that it's more work for the DM to keep the system in check. The interactions with various other elements (talents, feats, etc) make DCs hard to gauge, especially at higher levels. With B, its a little closer to standard and probably a little easier for the DM to plug and chug.
A lot of the questions that come up here on GT deal with how to tweak magic to fit the desired level in the DMs campaign. The flexibility -- what spells to allow, spell burn options, etc -- can be a bit daunting to someone looking to move in the g&g direction. Throwing a skill based system in the mix might make it hard to judge exactly how 'low magic' your campaign is going to end up.
With discreet spell levels, it's a bit easier to add and subtract to get the feel your looking for. It's also more familiar to people coming from stock D&D, which is a plus. I thought the AU/E system was a nice adjustment to the standard system. It added some choices for the player (and I'm much more interested in 'choices' than 'options') without it becoming overwhelming and turning the caster's turn into a 10-minute calculation. (By which I mean the player tries to fine tune things to the nth degreee, not that I think the mechanics will be cumbersome).
I'm hoping the 'skull system' will make a return. It would be nice (whichever system you go with) to be able to adapt it to varying situations.
Hope that make sense...I've not had coffee yet, and I just got a call to go fix a client's server. I'll ramble more later....this is a product I have a great deal of interest in.
Both?
Personally, I'm fine with either (I've not seen Black Company, so I'm assuming I know what you mean). The advantage of A is flexibility and consistency. The only thing that worries me is that it's more work for the DM to keep the system in check. The interactions with various other elements (talents, feats, etc) make DCs hard to gauge, especially at higher levels. With B, its a little closer to standard and probably a little easier for the DM to plug and chug.
A lot of the questions that come up here on GT deal with how to tweak magic to fit the desired level in the DMs campaign. The flexibility -- what spells to allow, spell burn options, etc -- can be a bit daunting to someone looking to move in the g&g direction. Throwing a skill based system in the mix might make it hard to judge exactly how 'low magic' your campaign is going to end up.
With discreet spell levels, it's a bit easier to add and subtract to get the feel your looking for. It's also more familiar to people coming from stock D&D, which is a plus. I thought the AU/E system was a nice adjustment to the standard system. It added some choices for the player (and I'm much more interested in 'choices' than 'options') without it becoming overwhelming and turning the caster's turn into a 10-minute calculation. (By which I mean the player tries to fine tune things to the nth degreee, not that I think the mechanics will be cumbersome).
I'm hoping the 'skull system' will make a return. It would be nice (whichever system you go with) to be able to adapt it to varying situations.
Hope that make sense...I've not had coffee yet, and I just got a call to go fix a client's server. I'll ramble more later....this is a product I have a great deal of interest in.
Wulf Ratbane
Adventurer
I could certainly just move all the tables into the appendices-- it would certainly address the issues of fitting illustrations in amongst the tables-- I simply don't have to have illustrations in the appendices.
In effect, this would make this section look an awful lot like the spell design appendix of Heroes of High Favor: Elves. From a design standpoint, I'm essentially updating Elves to 3.5.
One of the first things I did was to set out, up front, those things that would not change throughout any of the spell mechanics presented in the "Grimoire." (Agreed completely with the "it fits, but it's overdone..." opinion on that....) Spell level and caster level are two inviolable concepts-- again, this is to preserve d20 compatibility.
In the skill based system, you start by determining the base spell level/spell effect, then adding effects (and DC). You could just as easily take any existing spell and convert its spell level over to a flat DC to work it right into the same mechanic.
At the moment what I am leaning towards is a spell book with a consistent format that runs sorta like this:
Minor [Spellname]: The 0-level effect, if any
Lesser [Spellname]: The 1/2/3-level effect
[Spellname]: The 4/5/6-level effect
Greater [Spellname]: 7/8/9-level effect
I'll mention first, the big disadvantage to this approach: It's boring. (It reminds me too much of Rolemaster spell names-- which is probably not a coincidence since it's a Monte Cook inspired nomenclature.)
The clear advantage to such a boring approach is its consistency. I can create a single descriptive [Spellname] and I can, with one spell description, plus a diminished and heightened version of each, give you a full 10 levels of effects. By memorizing just the basic effect, you'll have a pretty good idea of what the spell does by its name alone:
Minor Detect Creature, Lesser Energy Ray, Summon Monster, Greater Protection from Energy
It's also attractive because not all spell effects have a full 10 levels of effects, which would keep me from having to create a spell effect table for those few very restricted spells. Some spells just do what they do and they don't have broad applicability or scalability-- so rather than ignore these spell effects in my tables, I'd be able to include them in the larger spellbook; they just wouldn't likely have minor, lesser, greater spell versions along with heightened or diminished effects.
Comments?
In effect, this would make this section look an awful lot like the spell design appendix of Heroes of High Favor: Elves. From a design standpoint, I'm essentially updating Elves to 3.5.
One of the first things I did was to set out, up front, those things that would not change throughout any of the spell mechanics presented in the "Grimoire." (Agreed completely with the "it fits, but it's overdone..." opinion on that....) Spell level and caster level are two inviolable concepts-- again, this is to preserve d20 compatibility.
In the skill based system, you start by determining the base spell level/spell effect, then adding effects (and DC). You could just as easily take any existing spell and convert its spell level over to a flat DC to work it right into the same mechanic.
At the moment what I am leaning towards is a spell book with a consistent format that runs sorta like this:
Minor [Spellname]: The 0-level effect, if any
Lesser [Spellname]: The 1/2/3-level effect
[Spellname]: The 4/5/6-level effect
Greater [Spellname]: 7/8/9-level effect
I'll mention first, the big disadvantage to this approach: It's boring. (It reminds me too much of Rolemaster spell names-- which is probably not a coincidence since it's a Monte Cook inspired nomenclature.)
The clear advantage to such a boring approach is its consistency. I can create a single descriptive [Spellname] and I can, with one spell description, plus a diminished and heightened version of each, give you a full 10 levels of effects. By memorizing just the basic effect, you'll have a pretty good idea of what the spell does by its name alone:
Minor Detect Creature, Lesser Energy Ray, Summon Monster, Greater Protection from Energy
It's also attractive because not all spell effects have a full 10 levels of effects, which would keep me from having to create a spell effect table for those few very restricted spells. Some spells just do what they do and they don't have broad applicability or scalability-- so rather than ignore these spell effects in my tables, I'd be able to include them in the larger spellbook; they just wouldn't likely have minor, lesser, greater spell versions along with heightened or diminished effects.
Comments?
GlassJaw
Hero
Boring? Hmm, I'm not so sure but whatever.
The heightened/diminished spell effects is one of things I like the most about AU/AE. Once you read over the spells and various effects, you're good to go. I didn't like the Black Company approach where you had to calculate everything. If you don't do that in advance, your game is going to slow to a crawl.
I'll take boring if it makes the gameplay faster any day. The tables are nice if you want to tweak things or create new effects but having spell effects already worked out is a bonus.
As far as a title goes, how about "Grim Tales: Our Magic is Lower Than Yours"?
Similar Threads
