MarioTani
Nov 26th, '04, 03:31 AM
Inspired the thread of Sbarron Things I'd like to see more of in fantasy gaming:hail:
http://www.herogames.com/forums/showthread.php?t=23938
I was thinking to ask how much you liked the magic system to be able to adapt to PCs.
In the system I'm using now, I have made only few limitations:
1) Only Elves can use VPP, and they HAVE TO use them
2) Every Spell has to be limited with RSR
3) Every spell has to be attached to an element (there are five of them:
Fire, Water, Air, Earth, Light) or more than one (a principal and some complementary)
4) The spell has to belong to a school of magic and the character can only learn the spells of school of magic he knows (but the player can create their personal school of magic)
there are no other rule limitation I can figure out.
I've chosen to follow this way, for two reasons:
1. There's much less works for me to do
2. Every Player can have the character he wants
So I feel my system is rather flexible.
Some game systems, p.e. DnD, prefer a different approach creating a vast spell list. And it's not a matter of System as even generic system like GURPS have a pre-defined magic system, obviously you can throw away that system and build you own, if you wanna, but this is not the point;).
In FH speaks about "No / Limited Independent Spell Cration" and "Open Spell Creation", and I definitely prefer to use the latter one, but there are examples when the setting require the magic system to be rigid.
Some example could be inspired by novels.
1) Harry Potter. In this setting every student hcan learn the same spells, so an Harry Potter Campaign require the master to previously develop the spells the students can learn. This example is clearly a "No Indipendent Spell Creation" (FH. 243)
2) WoT, there is not much research of new spell in the WoT setting, even if every sister has some minor trick she has developed by herself (the magic pool to track you of Elaine(?), for example). This seem to me a case of Limited Indipendent Spell Creation (FH.243)
They are limitations built in the magic system, and so every PC has to confront with them, every student can learn only those spells, every Aes Sedai can learn only those waves and personalize them in some minor aspect; but there could be occasion in which the setting is not limited, but the single way of casting it is.
One example could be some specific Divine Magic, where the priests have access only to some rituals, and this would a limitation of the first tipe, or maybe they can make only some minor change to the way a spell works.
Moreover with a "closed" system the Players have not to know the Write-up of the spells their mages use, and this is useful to create and atmosphere of mistery around the spells and the magic system.;)
So which approach do you prefer? and Why?
http://www.herogames.com/forums/showthread.php?t=23938
I was thinking to ask how much you liked the magic system to be able to adapt to PCs.
In the system I'm using now, I have made only few limitations:
1) Only Elves can use VPP, and they HAVE TO use them
2) Every Spell has to be limited with RSR
3) Every spell has to be attached to an element (there are five of them:
Fire, Water, Air, Earth, Light) or more than one (a principal and some complementary)
4) The spell has to belong to a school of magic and the character can only learn the spells of school of magic he knows (but the player can create their personal school of magic)
there are no other rule limitation I can figure out.
I've chosen to follow this way, for two reasons:
1. There's much less works for me to do
2. Every Player can have the character he wants
So I feel my system is rather flexible.
Some game systems, p.e. DnD, prefer a different approach creating a vast spell list. And it's not a matter of System as even generic system like GURPS have a pre-defined magic system, obviously you can throw away that system and build you own, if you wanna, but this is not the point;).
In FH speaks about "No / Limited Independent Spell Cration" and "Open Spell Creation", and I definitely prefer to use the latter one, but there are examples when the setting require the magic system to be rigid.
Some example could be inspired by novels.
1) Harry Potter. In this setting every student hcan learn the same spells, so an Harry Potter Campaign require the master to previously develop the spells the students can learn. This example is clearly a "No Indipendent Spell Creation" (FH. 243)
2) WoT, there is not much research of new spell in the WoT setting, even if every sister has some minor trick she has developed by herself (the magic pool to track you of Elaine(?), for example). This seem to me a case of Limited Indipendent Spell Creation (FH.243)
They are limitations built in the magic system, and so every PC has to confront with them, every student can learn only those spells, every Aes Sedai can learn only those waves and personalize them in some minor aspect; but there could be occasion in which the setting is not limited, but the single way of casting it is.
One example could be some specific Divine Magic, where the priests have access only to some rituals, and this would a limitation of the first tipe, or maybe they can make only some minor change to the way a spell works.
Moreover with a "closed" system the Players have not to know the Write-up of the spells their mages use, and this is useful to create and atmosphere of mistery around the spells and the magic system.;)
So which approach do you prefer? and Why?