Things that don't translate to the table top

[Celebrim]

I don't think you can really system something and then also keep it mysterious.

Early in the current campaign (now almost in its 5th year) I had intended to change the way magic items worked by giving most of them (at least all those worth 2000 g.p. or more in RAW terms) one or more subtle quirks which could only be learned by experimentation. I developed a quite lengthy list of quirks and several of the initial magic items I handed out had such quirks. These quirks included everything from strange cosmetic effects and displays when used, to small alterations in function, bizarre side effects, and even random chances of alteration or replacement of the normal function. What I discovered though is that while the system worked well in theory, once I had 6 players and each began to have multiple magic items it began to be unworkable. It was impossible for me to keep track of, and even if I shared the burden it was clear that it would just lead too much mental overhead. But of course, for a computer all of this strange weirdness would be easily trackable and would I believe serve to keep magic items adequately weird and mysterious.

Likewise, a similar system could be placed in effect for all arcane spellcasting and in a perfect world I could implement both that and my desires regarding layering all locations in a campaign world at a very fine scale with a variety of overlapping auras that influenced spell-casting, so that literally the player had only a vague idea of the full extent of what would happen when a spell was cast and at the least did not know exactly what might happen (good or bad). But such a system again requires too much headspace in play.

I still take pride in my ability to create evocative magic items, but I've been forced to rely on different techniques for doing that.

 

[nomotog]

Early in the current campaign (now almost in its 5th year) I had intended to change the way magic items worked by giving most of them (at least all those worth 2000 g.p. or more in RAW terms) one or more subtle quirks which could only be learned by experimentation. I developed a quite lengthy list of quirks and several of the initial magic items I handed out had such quirks. These quirks included everything from strange cosmetic effects and displays when used, to small alterations in function, bizarre side effects, and even random chances of alteration or replacement of the normal function. What I discovered though is that while the system worked well in theory, once I had 6 players and each began to have multiple magic items it began to be unworkable. It was impossible for me to keep track of, and even if I shared the burden it was clear that it would just lead too much mental overhead. But of course, for a computer all of this strange weirdness would be easily trackable and would I believe serve to keep magic items adequately weird and mysterious.

Likewise, a similar system could be placed in effect for all arcane spellcasting and in a perfect world I could implement both that and my desires regarding layering all locations in a campaign world at a very fine scale with a variety of overlapping auras that influenced spell-casting, so that literally the player had only a vague idea of the full extent of what would happen when a spell was cast and at the least did not know exactly what might happen (good or bad). But such a system again requires too much headspace in play.

I still take pride in my ability to create evocative magic items, but I've been forced to rely on different techniques for doing that.

You could wing the vagueness. You know rather then presetting the unknown just make it up on the spot because well it's unknown. Though there would be that extra temptation to wing things in one direction or another.

 

[S'mon]

But some of the indirect things you lose through lack of detail are less obvious and surprising. For example, one of the things you end up losing is the sense that magic is, for lack of a better word, magical. One would expect based on how magic works in stories, for magic to be a numinous fearsome thing which is as easy to control as a angry viper and must always be wrestled with and never fully safe and controlled. But in RPGs it almost never works like that and the more spotlight the RPG has on magic the less magic is like that. In D&D, many DM's have complained how the D&D magic system makes magic into an easily accessible science with predictable results. But it does so not because giving magic quirks and randomness and an aura of numinous awe is impossible, but because - if you are going to have PC spellcasters of any significant skill - doing that shifts such a huge burden of 'knowing' on to the DM as to make the system basically unusable. A system like D&D shifts much of the burden of understanding and knowing on to the player. Spells for example are traditionally in the player's handibook, and more or less fully described to them in ways that make the effects mostly predictable. You could make magic work in different ways, but only by greater detail and putting greater burden on the DM.

Perhaps surprisingly I found that the way 4e D&D uses the Arcana skill for detection and manipulation of magic goes a long way towards making it feel more mysterious & magical. Instead of cast spell-auto effect, in 4e most magic use outside of combat involves making an Arcana check vs a DC, as the PC pits their own magical powers against the opposing force, trying to eg breach a ward, close a portal, detect &
identify the source, etc. This feels a *lot* more like literary/comic-book/cinematic
magic than the traditional D&D fire-and-forget system. Of course in combat it's the opposite - big flashy reliable effects.

 

[Neonchameleon]

One of my hobbies is to look at video games/movies/books and wonder can you make an RPG about that. I have a lot of fun with it mostly because a lot of ideas don't translate well, so lets talk about that.

Alternate paths: I love them in video games and one imagines that the freedom to solve a problem in multiple ways would be perfect for an RPG, but I only spare a token amount of time to add them to my encounter ideas. The game is just too open and it's virtually guaranteed that no matter what I think of the players will think of something different, or nothing at all.

Alternate paths are easy. You just need two things
1: To throw away any sort of detailed plot
2: To give up on simple pass/fail outcomes of scenes.

Each scene follows on from how the last ended - but the outcome of each scene can be just about anything. It's fairly easy and I'm going to recommend Play Unsafe for guidance.

Perhaps surprisingly I found that the way 4e D&D uses the Arcana skill for detection and manipulation of magic goes a long way towards making it feel more mysterious & magical. Instead of cast spell-auto effect, in 4e most magic use outside of combat involves making an Arcana check vs a DC, as the PC pits their own magical powers against the opposing force, trying to eg breach a ward, close a portal, detect &
identify the source, etc. This feels a *lot* more like literary/comic-book/cinematic
magic than the traditional D&D fire-and-forget system. Of course in combat it's the opposite - big flashy reliable effects.

Yup. 4e Arcana and Rituals with uncertain outcomes and time taken to cast feel far more like non-D&D magic to me than either Gygaxo-Vancian casting or 4e magic. Chances for failure and uncertain effects matter. Utterly reliable fire and forget feels like technology.

 

[nomotog]

I think I have seen a few cases of skill based magic, but they do tend to try and systemic the checks quite a bit. It ends up being more a way to do custom spells then to preserve mystery.

 

[Neonchameleon]

I think I have seen a few cases of skill based magic, but they do tend to try and systemic the checks quite a bit. It ends up being more a way to do custom spells then to preserve mystery.

In a lot of cases yes - especially when there is binary pass/fail resolution. What works much better is the system in WFRP 2E (to pick the first example that came to mind - WFRP3E, Marvel Heroic Roleplaying, and Monsterhearts also have their own versions). In WFRP 2e you roll a number of dice up to your magic stat when you try to cast a spell. You add up the dice to compare with the target number to see if you cast it properly. On all 1s you burn out for a day. And any double is backlash (a triple is worse and a quadruple makes you hope you can escape the blast radius). This means that you want to keep your magic small for risk of backlash, you never quite know what is coming, and you can take magical backlash even if you successfully cast the spell. Magic in this model is rare, dangerous, and will turn in your hand if you try to use it.

 

[Man in the Funny Hat]

Existential ennui. But then, what would be the point?

 

[GrahamWills]

A general structure that you often see in books or television, but doesn't translate well to tabletop games: "...3 days earlier..."

In TV and the movies, we often start in media res, in some highly dramatic scene. Then, the action jumps back some significant time, and unfolds again until we catch back up to that dramatic scene. I've seen this done *once* successfully in a game, and the time jump back was a matter of minutes, rather than hours or days, and the setup made the route to the end point blatantly obvious.

But, in general, you have little control of how action unfolds in play, so that returning to the envisioned spot is often difficult without severe railroading.

I've done this a few times, and some of the successful approaches I've had are:

[1] Make the initial scene high on internal detail, low on external detail. An easy example is combat. Describe in detail the foes, the blows and the combat details, but be fuzzy on the surroundings -- so that the combat can occur anywhere there is a "biggish room with some beams running near the rafters"

[2] Cut away from the initial scene just before the reveal. So, when the fight is just about won, say "their leader tumbles to the floor, dead by your blade, and you stride purposefully towards his backpack, knowing the prize is in it ... (pause) Three days earlier ..."

[3] Run the intro scene with throw-away characters. You play the guards as they fail to stop the villains gain access to the keep. Jump back to your players' main characters as they try and track down the villains. When they finally meet up with the villains, they are damaged to the extent the guards were able to (or delayed, or whatever ...). This means no need to synch up continuity, so is a nice easy approach if your players are OK with that sort of idea.

Most importantly, be prepared to have the players disrupt the continuity. If that happens, do not railroad. Instead retcon and just let the players know they surprised you! If they arrest the opponents, before the final fight actually occurred, let the players know they did really well, and make the now-invalidated scene a dream or vision -- it "could have been ..."

 

[Grogg of the North]

I would say chases don't necessarily translate well. For example, I ran an encounter where the PCs were in this big, icy maze. As the PCs entered into the maze a bunch of winter wolves appeared. The idea being that the PCs had to find the exit while being pursued by the wolves. Killing them brought a small reprieve but, the wolves would reappear and continue to chase them. In execution it wasn't as dramatic or tense as I was hoping. Stopping every few seconds to ask the PCs which path they took or to wait for the sorceress to drop walls of fire to slow down the pursuit just didn't have the right feeling.

 

[Darth Solo]

You posted you "only spare a token of time" to research.

There's your issue.

It takes many hours of research to translate ideas to rpg ideas. You need to create player choice into a scenario or sequence of scenarios. That takes time. Just from what you have posted, you aren't putting in the effort. That happens often with GMs when they don't focus.

You might take an idea and pile additional ideas onto that idea, building until you have one concrete scenario, rather than spreading ideas across multiple campaigns. Make that next campaign ridiculously complex for the players and they might appreciate the multiple layers of drama.