Spells: do you prefer Rotes or Dynamic?

[aramis erak]

So the question is = Which do you prefer?

Rotes... but I don't mind having a construction system for them, as in Arrowflight, TORG 1e, or a few others.

I'm not really averse to more open ended magic, such as Ars Magica and Mage, but only for players I trust and even then, most of the magic is rotes...

 

[Edgar Ironpelt]

I prefer Rote spells, because Dynamic spells are a PITA both to deploy and to adjudicate in the heat of play. Because of this there's a tendency to take a successful Dynamic spell and reuse it, transforming it into a Rote spell over time.

Characters in magic-using fantasy campaigns tend to value Tradition, and it's very Traditional to have Rote spells that date back unchanged to Time Immemorial, that the wizardess learned from her mother, and she from her own mother before.

 

[John Dallman]

One thing in Rote-based magic that I doubt anyone likes is "pre-selected spells." That was the idea, which I first encountered in AD&D1e (PHB, p. 40), that spell casters had to memorize specific spells to have them available to cast in play, and if you wanted to be able to cast the same spell twice, you had to memorize it twice. This is also in AD&D2e and the BECMI D&D Rules Cyclopedia. It isn't explicitly in OD&D, although there's a line on page 19 of Men & Magic that might be meant to imply it: "A spell used once may not be reused in the same day."

Pre-selected spells might make some sense in a game where you did nothing but dungeons, composed of separate and discrete problems. Then the party might spend a game day or two scouting and/or researching each challenge, and that would allow then to pre-select spells for an attempt at a particular challenge.

However, that's a very restrictive model of play, and not really consistent with the early published adventures. I never saw a group play that way back in the old days. If your game has more overland exploration, town adventuring, and general lack of predictability, then pre-selected spells greatly diminish the fun of playing a spell-caster. As far as I know, this idea ended with 3e, and many groups discarded it from earlier editions.

 

[Gorgon Zee]

One thing in Rote-based magic that I doubt anyone likes is "pre-selected spells." ... Pre-selected spells might make some sense in a game where you did nothing but dungeons, composed of separate and discrete problems. Then the party might spend a game day or two scouting and/or researching each challenge, and that would allow then to pre-select spells for an attempt at a particular challenge.
... pre-selected spells greatly diminish the fun of playing a spell-caster. As far as I know, this idea ended with 3e, and many groups discarded it from earlier editions.

I think it depends on where you find the fun in spell casting. It looks like you find the fun in carefully scouting out and working out what the best spell or set of spells is for a given situation. Others, myself included, like the challenge of trying to adapt a fixed set of spells to given situation. Some of the most memorable stories I recall had to do with spells have not been when a spell caster had the perfect spell for the situation, but instead had to deal with something unexpected.

Free selection of spells can also make the game less interesting. If you know you can cast any form of elemental attack at will, then monsters with resistance or vulnerability to each are less interesting because you can, without any effort, counter them. I enjoy the fun of turning around a corner and seeing a fire giant with my fireball-equipped wizard and thinking "well, I guess I'll see what else I can do" rather than "I cast a ball of cold for 5 power points" or whatever. It also incentivized using scrolls and potions for emergencies.

And pre-selecting options is a core part of building a character. In many traditional games, 3E, 4E and 5E among them, you choose options mostly when you level, and so also choosing options every day or long rest is simply a more detailed way of doing the same thing.

If I'm playing a more gamist-style game where the fun is trying to work out how to deal with challenges, I actively like rote magic and pre-selected spells. For a more narrative game, I wouldn't go for freely accessible rote spells -- I'd jump straight to dynamic magic. If the fun isn't in adapting a fixed set of tools, go full-on for the best possible spell! Free selection from a pool of rote spells is sort of a midway point. I prefer the edges!

 

[Bayushi_seikuro]

Rote is better. Hands down. I don't want to spend five minutes watching one player try to cast one spell.

Not just that, but I feel there can be a higher chance of players and GMs disagreeing on whether the PC has the right requirements met to actually pull off the effect. That's why I always had such a difficult time the first time I tried to play Mage in the 90s.

 

[Gorgon Zee]

Rote is better. Hands down. I don't want to spend five minutes watching one player try to cast one spell.

In my experience, unless you are casting boring damage spells, rote spells take much longer to adjudicate. Take the D&D polymorph spell. In Fate, this could be a simple dynamic spell -- you gain the aspect "You are an X". Zero time to cast and not hard to adjudicate. If you turn into a mouse, you don't have to look up the stats for a mouse -- you just are one and everyone has a strong concept of whether you can fit through small holes, if you can manipulate an object and what happens when you get stepped on. Contrast to a D&D game where you need to work out a ton of details. So much so that later editions gave up and created lists of things you could turn into (which will still take 5 minutes to look up).

Rote in a system designed for rote (e.g D&D) is better. Dynamic works better in systems designed for a more narrative experience. I strongly feel the answer depends on the system rather than being a global truth.

 

[Thomas Shey]

I also have to note "dynamic" doesn't have to mean completely open-ended. As an example, OLD spells are dynamic, but you still only have a limited set of options available (unless you're high level and have invested in spell knowledges regularly).

 

[aramis erak]

One thing in Rote-based magic that I doubt anyone likes is "pre-selected spells."

snip

However, that's a very restrictive model of play, and not really consistent with the early published adventures. I never saw a group play that way back in the old days. If your game has more overland exploration, town adventuring, and general lack of predictability, then pre-selected spells greatly diminish the fun of playing a spell-caster. As far as I know, this idea ended with 3e, and many groups discarded it from earlier editions.

Every D&D group I played with and ran for used it until about 1996. I dabbled with spell point systems a few times in one-offs, and preferred games with spell point systems, but D&D popularity was the driving force in group compositions.

I've used it recently, even, running Cyclopedia. My players were not unhappy once they got the hang of it; the cleric was always annoyed when he didn't get one he asked for and was given something else, but then happy when he saw the reason, as it became a clear "use it here" later in the character's day.

The Wizards were unhappy with the costs of copying spells, however.

 

[SubrosaGames]

@John Dallman
Very good point! I had forgotten about this, but you're absolutely right. Loved playing wizards at high level back in the day, but hated that memorization limitation, which might be why I lean heavily towards an open magic system.

 

[SubrosaGames]

In my experience, unless you are casting boring damage spells, rote spells take much longer to adjudicate. Take the D&D polymorph spell. In Fate, this could be a simple dynamic spell -- you gain the aspect "You are an X". Zero time to cast and not hard to adjudicate. If you turn into a mouse, you don't have to look up the stats for a mouse -- you just are one and everyone has a strong concept of whether you can fit through small holes, if you can manipulate an object and what happens when you get stepped on. Contrast to a D&D game where you need to work out a ton of details. So much so that later editions gave up and created lists of things you could turn into (which will still take 5 minutes to look up).

Rote in a system designed for rote (e.g D&D) is better. Dynamic works better in systems designed for a more narrative experience. I strongly feel the answer depends on the system rather than being a global truth.

Agree. In a game run on a higher level than Hack'n'Slash, being able to tailor your spells to the specific situation is key (especially for Machiavellian intrigue / narrative / more complex heavy role-playing emphasis-games like ours). Yes, you can cast that fireball and destroy the crowd, but it might be ever so much more clever to be able to limit the fireball to just the jerk who insulted your wife, while the rest of the people scatter away unharmed.

[EDIT: As an afterthought, I was just thinking, what if the whole crowd deserves to be burned because they laughed at the insult? Well, it would also be nice to be able to fireball the whole crowd except my character, instead of having to cast ten fireball spells because of the radius limit. Of course, this would be illegal and not only would the Magitarii be after me in the name of the Governor, but all everyone in the crowd who resisted my spell would have a vendetta to settle..... So, for high-level gameplay (which is what I was getting to), open magic systems are more fun imho (c.f. Wish, 9th Lvl spell), as long as there are other checks and balances in-game.]