Campaign Building Blocks: General Musings

[Cancer]

Re: Campaign Building Blocks: General Musings

 

Well, I've been in campaigns where, as it worked out, INT and INT-based skills weren't worth much. Playing an INT specialist scholar-detective type was ... unrewarding. In effect, the character turned into a coin-operated Clue-O-Mat who was pulled out of the backdrop when a puzzle was trotted out, and got stowed away for the other 90+% of the playing time since he didn't take the combat optimization. The presence of an INT-based magic system makes for a form of insurance against that in a campaign from the point of view of a player who's had that experience.

[Ragnarok]

Re: Campaign Building Blocks: General Musings

 

Well' date=' I've been in campaigns where, as it worked out, INT and INT-based skills weren't worth much. Playing an INT specialist scholar-detective type was ... unrewarding. In effect, the character turned into a coin-operated Clue-O-Mat who was pulled out of the backdrop when a puzzle was trotted out, and got stowed away for the other 90+% of the playing time since he didn't take the combat optimization. The presence of an INT-based magic system makes for a form of insurance against that in a campaign from the point of view of a player who's had that experience.[/quote']

 

Several thoughts here...

 

1) It sounds like your GM didn't really know how to handle INT-based characters. Especially if you (or whoever it was) was uninvolved in combat. That's just poor GMing, and not a fault in the concept.

2) It sounds like the tone of your game didn't favor INT-based characters in the first place. There are certainly ways to integrate INT junkies into combat, but...90% combat? Sounds like a mismatch.

3) The only reason having INT as the spellcasting characteristic would help is if the player wanted to be a detective/spy caster. In your example, the only advantage of having INT would be to cast, regardless of espionage character concepts. If that player doesn't want to be a caster, then it doesn't matter at all what the casting characteristic is anyway.

 

More and more it seems that your post was motivated by a singular bad experience in a game that clearly did not allow for the balanced use of INT. Sorry, but that's hardly enough to motivate me to dump my initial concept.

[Lezentauw]

Re: Campaign Building Blocks: General Musings

 

I could see using PRE for spell casting if that's what you want. Personally I like EGO for that sort of thing if INT isn't going to be used. It gives EGO a bit more to do in a campaign that may lack a lot of mental powers and since I see EGO as a better representation of willpower or force of will or whatnot I think it's fitting. Just a thought.

 

The magic system I have created, I use Int to represent the knowledge and learning the spells. Then I used Ego to actually cast the spells, like as wolfe stated, it does have a better representation of willpower

[Ragnarok]

Re: Campaign Building Blocks: General Musings

 

The magic system I have created' date=' I use Int to represent the knowledge and learning the spells. Then I used Ego to actually cast the spells, like as wolfe stated, it does have a better representation of willpower[/quote']

 

For the learning, I guess I could see INT. But in my setting, casting has nothing to do with how smart you are, it's just how well you're able to manipulate the powers. Ideally, I want a system in place that ties in the casting stat with being impressive, and also rewards players with a high casting stat with more spells.

 

Casters should be really intimidating and impressive people. That screams PRE to me.

[Nolgroth]

Re: Campaign Building Blocks: General Musings

 

Re: Magic. I've always seen EGO as mental toughness akin to BODY. I've always seen PRE as the projection of will power in much the same way as STR is the projection of physical power. As to how spells are learned, it all depends on the special effect of how spells are cast. Complex formula with precisely memorized steps? INT is your stat. Intuitively projecting force of will? EGO or PRE. Again, I prefer PRE as the representation of how you project your will. EGO is how tough you mentally. Just my $0.02.

 

Re: Worthiness of INT as a non-Magic stat. I use INT for a lot of things. Not the least of which as the "default" to Deduction. Deduction is the general skill I use for recall and memory. So when a player "looks" at me (hard to do online but you get the idea) and asks, "This person seems familiar. Did we run into them in an earlier adventure?" I answer with "Roll a Deduction check." If they choose, they can use INT (with a -2 penalty) instead. Usually only used if Deduction is at the Everyman level. Same thing with recalling numbers (phone numbers, launch codes, coordinates, etc) that they hear and do not have the ability to write down. For that purpose alone, INT is a valuable stat.

 

RE: Starting Stats. I can see where you got the "start at 5, buy to 8" by looking at my guidelines. I actually intended to have a starting range of 5-15, with most people being in the 8-15 range. Sorry about the confusion that may have caused.

[Ragnarok]

Re: Campaign Building Blocks: General Musings

 

1) Yay, somebody who agrees with me!

2) Definitely. For an INT-heavy player, I would also try to make sure that something cool is achieved in the campaign that only that character could do. That way, they cease becoming a plot progression vending machine. So yeah, INT is definitely valuable.

3) No worries. I went back and fixed the stat guidelines to make it 5-15. I think I'll drop CP down to 90 though, to keep them on par with a skilled Legionnaire. I've also changed it so that you must pass an INT roll to learn a new spell, but PRE is still the determiner of how many spells you can have.

[Daltwisney]

Re: Campaign Building Blocks: General Musings

 

I too have been working on a magic system for a local FTF game (actually 2 systems, but they are very similar in 75% of the details). I am actually trying to incorporate all 3 'mental' stats into the system. Due to campaign underpinnings (some of my players read these boards) I can't provide some of the 'why' details, but the basics are as follows:

 

1) EGO is willpower, the higher your EGO, the higher your capacity for magic. Thus EGO controls how many 'spell slots' you can have.

2) INT is mental agility, and still governs the learning and casting of spells. Spells are highly complex formulae, and the more precisely and quickly you can invoke these, the more power your spells will have.

3) PRE is projection of will. It effects the power of cast spells, but in a static manner. All spells have a PRE Min, and exceeding that PRE Min will raise the power level of the spell. Conversely, having a PRE lower than the PRE Min makes the spell more likely to fail, as it imposes penalties to the INT-based Magic Roll.

 

Most spells are built at minimum DC, and improved through PRE > PRE Min, and successes on the Magic Roll. If a Spell is built at above minimum DC, the value of the PRE Min (which is a Limitation) drops for each increase in DC. There is also an AP Cap (I think it is 30 atm, but is not finalized).

 

Spells slots in one system represent 'memorized' or stored portions of spells, in the other, they govern the maximum number of different spells that can be in a character's pool at one time. Both systems use a VPP to 'hold' ready spells and one uses an END Battery to represent Mana, or casting reserves.

 

I guess the point of this is that I think your PRE based system will work just fine, and if that is what makes the most sense to you as you envision Magic working in your game, then it is the correct path.

[Lezentauw]

Re: Campaign Building Blocks: General Musings

 

I will have to say, that this is the first time that I have ran into a Stat min for spells. It is not a bad way of doing things to increase the power of the default spell. I am still kind of leaning towards the Enhanced Success and Reduced Success options in APG for RSR.

 

I do like how you are using 3 stats for Magic Dalt. It is an interesting way to incorporate 3 stats, and yet use the default INT as the casting characteristic.

[Daltwisney]

Re: Campaign Building Blocks: General Musings

 

I stole the PRE Min idea from Nolgroth (no idea where he got it)

 

I wanted to make all 3 stats have some effect without making it overly complex, and it adds a little variety. You can have a limited capability for magic (low ego), yet have powerful spells (high Magic Roll, high PRE), or conversely, a versatile selection of spells (high Ego), with less power (lower PRE or Magic Roll), and everyone's favorite, the pocket Nuke (High Ego, High PRE, High Magic Roll, yet can't lift a loaf of bread).

 

Just need to balance the starting points so there is no clear overall advantage to Magic vs Melee. (Situational Advantages are fine, of course)

 

One other note, since I have 3 ways to add damage (PRE, Casting Successes, CSLs), I created another Limitation - Effect Cap, which scales in value by how much you can improve the spells base effect. (Most spells are not PC created, and many have Limitations which a point-conscious player might not take - for example, why add an Effect Cap if the spell will still cost 1 point?)

[Ragnarok]

Re: Campaign Building Blocks: General Musings

 

Interesting. Let me know when you've come up with the finished product.

[Nolgroth]

Re: Campaign Building Blocks: General Musings

 

While I am sure I am not the only person to ever use PRE minimum, I do not think there is a specific example of where I got it. I simply equate PRE to STR in utility. They share the same mechanic for doing "damage" (Normal attack, Presence attack) after all. Makes sense that PRE would be useful for determining hard line requirements for spells in the same way that STR does for weapons. I have taken it a bit further, so that PRE adds to all spells. In Geoffrey's case (character, now retired in my current campaign) I have not seen any overt abuse. Spells that do damage are still limited to the campaign maximum for DC (before PRE adds).

 

In retrospect, maybe making PRE Adds to Effect an Advantage between +1/4 and +1/2 might be appropriate, as I have it affect all spells. On the other hand, PRE for the purpose of spell casting, costs END. Maybe a +1/4 Advantage applied to the individual spell might be good on the balance.

[Daltwisney]

Re: Campaign Building Blocks: General Musings

 

In retrospect' date=' maybe making PRE Adds to Effect an Advantage between +1/4 and +1/2 might be appropriate, as I have it affect all spells. On the other hand, PRE for the purpose of spell casting, costs END. Maybe a +1/4 Advantage applied to the individual spell might be good on the balance.[/quote']

 

If it is an across the board thing I wouldn't bother making it an Advantage. (Unless you need to boost the AP of Spells for some reason)

Rather, I would make a Limitation (PRE does not add to Effect). This would parallel the HKA and STR Does Not Add To Damage and (in my mind anyways) be more intuitive. The cases where it might come up in your game are slim: mostly fixed effects, like Invis or Desolid, or any spells you might allow to be built above the 1 DC threshold, but not improved.

[Daltwisney]

Re: Campaign Building Blocks: General Musings

 

Interesting. Let me know when you've come up with the finished product.

Not quite finished (well, not polished anyways), but ready for me to run a one-off playtest with my local group.

 

2 files attached, the first is the 'rules' portion, the second contains some spell builds (on pages 2-4).

 

Notes:

 

• Several Spells (mostly those with fixed effect) have both "PRE Min Does Not Add To Effect" and "Effect Cap +0 DC". In theory, one could build a Spell that can have its effect increased by CSLs or Spell-Casting Successes, but not PRE, so both options are valid. In the case of fixed effect Spells, the apparent 'double-dipping' is acceptable to me as a matter of consistency (All Spells have a PRE Min and an Effect Cap).
  
• None of the Spells listed have the "Requires A Skill Roll (-1/5 AP) Limitation listed, mainly because I originally built them in a VPP and had the Limitation on the VPP. The only Spell whose cost changed was "Invisibility", which gained a point outside the VPP. I will remedy this later.
  
• The Defense Spell "Jabarrah's Flaming Freedom" left out some notes, mainly that it is a Damage Shield that does not add to the character's attacks, but only affects Entangles and persons grabbing the character.
  
• None of the Spells list their Active Cost. It is there in HD, just not output in the "Spell Book". I have an additional sheet to be filled out with memorized spells that includes both the Spell-casting modifier and the 'points' for +1 DC.
  
• I did not include the base VPP or End Battery, both of which are tailorable by the player as far as points go. The END Battery has a Recovery (usually) equal to the total END, which only activates after 4 hours of relatively undisturbed sleep or meditation.
  
• Most of the game setting is not finished yet, but just as a point of reference, most human society is pantheistic, there are many 'gods', but none grant power to their followers ala the 'typical' D&D Cleric archetype. Priests MAY be spell-casters if their chosen deity permits, but they learn magic the same as anyone else.
  
• I am probably increasing the initial "spells known" to 10 instead of 6, to increase variety, and because I ended up with a whole lot more sample spells than I thought I was going to.
  

Comments and questions welcome.

 

EDIT: I just noticed that both the PRE Min and Effect Cap Advantage/Limitations are screwed up. The values appear correct, but the descriptions are all whacked. I'll have to check them in the HD file tomorrow and figure out what happened.

 

EDIT: Fixed. The character I exported them from wasn't built with the correct template, so it garbled the info from the Prefab, which was.