Spells: do you prefer Rotes or Dynamic?

[Staffan]

Mind Control and super strength can solve most issues. If you can't beat it to death, you can try to mind control it. And vice versa.

And Emma Frost completes the trifecta of broken superpowers by having both mind control/telepathy, super strength/invulnerability, and the most OP power of all: money.

 

[AnotherGuy]

A Dynamic system makes more world-building sense and is better for strategic playing.
A Rote system is great for unique spells, rituals and things like protective scrolls.
You can easily combine both systems within the same RPG.

I would imagine Sorcerers work solely on a Dynamic System, while Wizards would have access to both.

 

[Shardstone]

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.

This is a terrible comparison. These games are different by orders of magnitude. Its like comparing Knave and PF2E lol

 

[clearstream]

Dynamic works better in systems designed for a more narrative experience.

(Emphasis mine.) What does "narrative experience" mean in this context?

I ask because there is the potential that the assertion is true just because of what one counts as "more narrative".

 

[Gorgon Zee]

This is a terrible comparison. These games are different by orders of magnitude. Its like comparing Knave and PF2E lol

That was literally my point; different games favor different answers. Also, I was not comparing systems, I was contrasting them.

 

[Gorgon Zee]

(Emphasis mine.) What does "narrative experience" mean in this context?

I ask because there is the potential that the assertion is true just because of what one counts as "more narrative".

A long-winded answer is tempting, but I’ll go with: Narrative games are ones where you spend more time narrating, as opposed to gamist games where you spend more time enacting rules.

 

[SubrosaGames]

So what about having a 'catalog' of spells. But under each spell is a list of modifications the character can perform with that spell?

It makes each spell longer and more fussy. But it prevents the overly vaguesauce of "pick a concept + powertier and roll with modifiers and just guess at what its effects do" that some ad-hoc spell casting game have...

We do this with the True Spell system, which takes oft-used spells you find you keep making from the open spell system. After a prescribed number of successful casts without critical failing, the spell becomes a True Spell and is then basically a rote spell with -25% cost (which usually lowers the casting Target Number down a whole category as well). The True Spell can then be tweaked a little per cast with minimal cost; true spells can also be anchored on items or places (instead of only yourself) and with a trigger word or scenario go off automatically.

Thus, in effect, you make your own catalog (spell book) of True Spells that suit your needs.