Quote from: MGuy;580923I just got to throw out there that I do not like spell fumbling. The prospect of randomly dying because a simple spell backfired is anathema to me. On that note I do think that there should be a strong connection between setting and rules. Whenever I get done with my rules I'm going to engineer a setting (the best I can) based on how the rules play out. Hopefully I get something close to what I want. If I find anything amiss I'll be changing the rule to make it fit better. I believe in my ruleset you pointed out how the Dark Elves' "save a roll" ability would make them often times do certain things over and over again everyday until they get it "perfect" in setting. I had figured that would be the case after writing it up and having a racial OCD quirk seems "ok" for me. That's the kind of strong connection I'm hoping for.
 
Prior to the discussion that led to this one I had thought briefly about cantrips but didn't give them a second glance. This discussion has actually will help a lot when I redo the spells and write up the Rituals and Rites for my game.

Oh, everyone has different preferences when it comes to fumbles. I love say wild mages in D&D but I can see why people might prefer magic to be reliable. This exact fumble is a bit hardcore for me - I prefer not to have PCs explode due to someone else's bad roll - but what it did make me think about what how much magic systems are built around what's balanced, rather than being an extrapolation from some set of arcane principles. More or less what daniel_ream said I guess.
 
Thinking about it, D&D has a lot of very gamey limitations on many spells, for instance e.g.
 
*you can conjure celestial orcas, but not in the air above people
*invisibility that turns off when you attack
*very firmly defined effects e.g. a horizontal plane of force (tenser's floating disk) is a completely different spell to a vertical plane of force (shield)
*magic missile not working on inanimate objects (e.g. no dropping chandeliers on people or the like).

Quote from: MGuy;580923I just got to throw out there that I do not like spell fumbling. The prospect of randomly dying because a simple spell backfired is anathema to me. On that note I do think that there should be a strong connection between setting and rules. Whenever I get done with my rules I'm going to engineer a setting (the best I can) based on how the rules play out. Hopefully I get something close to what I want. If I find anything amiss I'll be changing the rule to make it fit better. I believe in my ruleset you pointed out how the Dark Elves' "save a roll" ability would make them often times do certain things over and over again everyday until they get it "perfect" in setting. I had figured that would be the case after writing it up and having a racial OCD quirk seems "ok" for me. That's the kind of strong connection I'm hoping for.

Prior to the discussion that led to this one I had thought briefly about cantrips but didn't give them a second glance. This discussion has actually will help a lot when I redo the spells and write up the Rituals and Rites for my game.

I have a large set of optional rules I use that have taken shape due to play.  This is a good thing, especially when these rules are expressions of the setting and style.  Ritual magic is a good example, in that it explains a lot of how lower power casters get things done in my setting.  But again, in Celtricia, 95% of casting is not done in combat, and even for PCs, 70% is not done in combat.

Cantrips and spells cast by lesser casters are a large part of a game, and should be based on the % of the population who can use magic.  Our system is built to have a lot of casters, but with very few even medium power casters, so catrips make sense.  This also creates a social set where social class is partially derived from the ability to 'touch the void'.

But the possible failure of spells changes the dynamic quickly, especially if you set up the system so that taking their time, the increase of reagents, focusing objects, and pouring more ability into a spell all can aid the spell success.  That 'mage vs other' imbalance (a very crude and wide-ranging term) is changed pretty dramatically when spells can fail.