Spells: do you prefer Rotes or Dynamic?

[TwoSix]

All things considered, I prefer Rotes. Or at least, I prefer a system I buy to have built in the Rotes, as coming up with hundreds of Rotes is a chore I'm not going to do myself.

I like systems that have Dynamic magic, but you can approximate it with player-DM negotiations and a handful of mechanical and diegetic principles.

 

[MarkB]

It depends on the system. Dynamic is tricky in something like 5e D&D where everything is codified and quantified, but in a system like Blades in the Dark pretty much everything is dynamic - you describe what you want to do and suggest a skill to use, the GM sets the general terms of risk and effectiveness, then you roll to see how well you do. Dynamic magic works alongside that just fine.

 

[Thomas Shey]

I actually think I prefer a kind of third-case that you, admittedly, don't see too often: construction system spells, i.e. ones that are fixed in use but put together by the player to suit their needs (or at least that that's an option).

 

[DrunkonDuty]

Both have their place.

For most games I prefer rote lists. It's just quicker and easier. In some games, e.g. Hero System, players can devise their own lists as part of character creation/advancement.

But then some games, e.g. Ars Magica, make on the fly spell creation a thing. And Ars Magica at least does it pretty well, and makes it's a central part of the game play. You can do on the fly with Hero system, but you'd better have the character creation software handy for anything but the simplest options. In other words I don't recommend doing on the fly with Hero.

 

[Umbran]

So the question is = Which do you prefer?

I prefer that which fits the setting and themes of the game I'm hoping to play.

If the game is about using magic, then dynamic magic is probably going to be more interesting and fitting. If using magic is merely one of many ways to get to what the game is really about, then rote magic is probably a more appropriate choice.

 

[FrogReaver]

I don't really dislike either as a player but I think dynamic tends to make for a less interesting game as playing the game well usually just becomes an exercise in how to justify applying your highest level abilities to the situation.

 

[Gorgon Zee]

I prefer that which fits the setting and themes of the game I'm hoping to play.

Also true for me, but I'll amplify may answer to say that for campaigns that tend more to the gamist type, where lots of the fun is working out how to do stuff mechanically and coming up with clever and cool uses for rules, clearly defined spells tend to work better for me. I love D&D 4E, and there the fun is in working out tactics and teamwork; taking the known, very fixed spell characteristics and using them to maximal -- or fun! -- effect.

I also love running Fate, and there I invariably use a more dynamic system. The last time I ran each magical ability had a skill tied to it, and a magician who knew that ability could freely use that magical ability in any way that it made sense to have a skill roll work for it. The magical ability made things possible. So if you had the magical ability to turn into mist, you could choose to tie that to stealth and so make stealth checks with difficulty/opposition based on the fact that you were mist. Tying it to fight would have a whole different effect. This works well for Fate as the magical ability defines is an aspect, whose main purpose is to define a fact, with the permissions and limitations that fact entails. If you have the "ability to turn into a mouse", then if you use it, you are a mouse. No more rules really needed. Don't get stepped on.

Dynamic magic in a gamist game would be a pain to resolve every time. Rote magic in a narrative game works, but seems unnecessarily limiting.

 

[jdrakeh]

In D&D and D&D-alikes, I mostly prefer rote casting, BUT when I published The Front Range Warlock for use with OD&D (1974), I included three optional magic systems, of which two were dynamic (one is simply free-form casting and the other is a system of summoning demons/spirits based loosely on Ars Goetia).

 

[Staffan]

Ive been working on a skill based system using base themes and metamagic enhancements - so caster might start with a mage hand cantrip (10 lb, no attack, DC 10), then add metamagics to build that mage hand cantrip up to 100lb Grappling hand (DC16 Athletics) or even a Flaming Fist attack (DC17 Attack).

An Aeromancer might start with gust of wind cantrip then use extend and empower to use the wind to lift themselves so they can fly (using Acrobatics skill v DC 14)

I would be careful about doing that in D&D, because I think it would be hard to do it without upsetting balance one way or the other. Magic in D&D improves really quickly with levels. At level 3, you can teleport 30 ft (albeit as a bonus action). At level 7 500 ft, at level 9 to anywhere on the same plane with an appropriate receiver, and at level 13 you no longer need the receiver and can go to other planes. Meanwhile, your good skills have probably improved from +5 to +10, or maybe +15 if you have Expertise. The skill bonus is still pretty small compared to the d20 roll. So either you make planar teleportation a possible thing even at low levels, or you make short-range jumps difficult even at high level.

I think the fix is to have level-based effects and then allow a check to modify it a bit.

 

[SubrosaGames]

I am also up for other systems that wildly differ from these, so what game did that in such a way that it was significantly better play that Rotes or Dynamic?

Good question, and we, being old stalwart RPG'ers (since the '80s) developed a best-of-both-worlds system.

In our Immortal Empires RPG (which is a more complex game system for advanced players), we've got magical fighting arts that have "powers" that are "rote" as you say (10 fighting arts x 40 powers each = 400 unique powers). Each of the 400 is categorized into Physical, Intellectual, Spiritual, and Arcane, which is the most badass category.

We also have an open spell system divided into 15 schools of magic for Lesser and Greater (more powerful) magic: Alteration, Benediction, Charm, Conjuration, Curative, Defensive, Divination, Enchanting, Glimmering, Offensive, Shapeshifting, Time, Travel, Utility, and Weather. Each school has tables for potency, range, effects, duration, etc., and the average time to make a spell is about 15-20 seconds. We enhance this by having a "True Spell" system for your most often used spells, which then would then switch to your "rote" category, I suppose.

In addition to our 15 schools of refined magic, we have Original Magic (just willing stuff to happen), Blood Magic, Wild Magic, Candle Magic, and the very powerful Celestial Magic (which mixes picoTechnology with Greater Magic, used for Cyber and Galactic settings).

The core rulebooks also include hundreds of Synergy Talents, which would be "rote" effects for those players preferring a non or less-magical character.

Our magic system is one of the most fun of any game I've played (and yes, of course, I'm biased), but I've also owned a complete set of the Wizards and Priests Spell Compendiums, and a lot of D&D advanced rulebooks for the rest of them. Needless to say, we sold all of that and are more than content with the IE system.

If you'd like to learn more, let me know. Our books are making their rounds in various outlets, Noble Knight, Amazon, local bookstores, etc.