TheRPGSite

Which do you like better? Player-constructed effects, or a laundry list of spells? Is there a reason why in spite of a lot of effort going into cool alternative systems, the latter still prevails in most games?

Freeform as in Ars Magica is cool, but a laundry list is best for those days when your brain just ain't juicin' with ideas.

Plus, freeform leads to munchkiny wrestles between player and GM to get the most bang for the buck vs not ripping the campaign to shreds.

A bit like freeform skills vs lists, really.

In reality Ars Magica is an "eat your cake and keep it too" case. It has a list of spells, rules for creating new spells, and freeform magic. It has it all!

Give me a list of spells with ways to customize the visual F/X to my character and allow me to alter the casting F/X as needed.  

Eldritch Ass Kicking is my favorite uber-free form RPG for spell casting.  

RPGs with point based spell casting like Rifts and T&T work well for me because as GM, I let the players know they can pump extra points into the spells to change the parameters.  

T&T has rather goofy spell names so I like to require Wizards to customize their spells with their own names and their own visual appearance of the spell.   This has always been a blast.

Give me a list of spells with very mutable parameters.

I prefer on the fly spell creation. Ars Magica, Talislanta 4E, and of course my own High Valor. However, examples are very useful and can be a basic list of commonly utilized spells.

I participated for the novelty of a poll.

Give me the tools or a list, just give me spells.

I like both. Lists of spells can inject a lot of flavour into a setting, hell in the case of D&D some spells are pretty much the iconic bits people remember of the setting. And some spells are so iconic and awesome, they are just cool to cast.

On the other hand, I love games where my character can make up new magical effects on the fly. There is no denying that being able to pull a imposable solution literally out of my top hat is very cool indeed.

So as with most things, I don't think there is an optimal solution, it depends on what game I want to play.

I prefer pre-packaged spells, as they are easy to run and rarely get into fuzzy, ill-defined territory (my main beef with freeform magic).

I can appreciate though slight flexibilitations, like the Power Stunts in MSH that allow to mimick a power that you haven't learned yet, or the Shadowrun spell construction system that allows to create new spells in downtime when you have actually the time to think and discuss through the fuzzy areas.

Freeform always runs the risk of destroying a campaign if just one asshole player realizes that he can do something, totally within the parameters of the rules but that the designers never imagined, that lets him build a spell that will completely unbalance the game.

RPGPundit

Quote from: GnomeWorks;343232Give me a list of spells with very mutable parameters.

This.  Broad spells with variables that can be tweaked as needed.

Quote from: Technomancer;343255This.  Broad spells with variables that can be tweaked as needed.

My preference as well and the system I use.  How do I vote then; special snowflake?

On freeform spells, I've never seen them work in play.  Either players dither and don't know what to do, they ask GMs to make lists, or you get uber unbalanced spells.

My system tends towards the laundry list of spells with spell costs in multiple disciplines, but players are allowed to create different versions of spells with different costings, as long as they can justify them.

Quote from: GnomeWorks;343232Give me a list of spells with very mutable parameters.

This more or less sums up my thoughts.

Quote from: RPGPundit;343254Freeform always runs the risk of destroying a campaign if just one asshole player realizes that he can do something, totally within the parameters of the rules but that the designers never imagined, that lets him build a spell that will completely unbalance the game.

RPGPundit

True, but isn't that in part what GM's are for, to say no to such things?

In High Valor, I worked hard to let magic wielding PC's do great things, at the same time the cost is INCREDIBLY high, as all magic has fallout that you will suffer if you don't take serious limitations on casting that magic.

Killing a dragon with a single spell is possible. (of course so is stabbing it with a single dagger blow.) It isn't easy or reliable, and we aren't talking about truly powerful dragons either. Just 'a hypothetical average dragon', of course if a GM is using such a thing he or she is probably doing it contrary to my handling of the game. Yet why should I care if they do take High Valor and let their warbands stomp all over everything in the book? It's their game session after all. It might not be fun for me, or truly how things are described, but well *shrugs* if they're having fun, then so be it.

Quote from: GnomeWorks;343232Give me a list of spells with very mutable parameters.

I'm working on doing exactly that with the Fantasy 3.5 OGL spells:
Flexible Magic System (http://www.inkwellideas.com/roleplaying_tools/flexible_magic_system/index.php?title=Main_Page)

I wold give you a mixed position. A laundary list of spells but guidelines for creating your own spells. This fits with my own principle of Magic as a science. By setting internally logical parameters for spells and how they operate you can have a list of known spells and encourage PCs to create and research their own spells with the parameters you outline ans stick to for all the other spells.

So you get the idea of finding new spells with those great names Etherbright's Primordial Panacea, Micklewish's Measured Mesmerisation and of course my favourite mage Medium Dave's Stony Glance. but you also encourage the PCs to create their own spells and define their own magic and i don't just mean blue fireballs or lighting bolts in the shape of F's etc etc .
One of the great things about Vance was the idiosyncracies of his mages.

D&D almost did this but new spells were ill defined and open to DM fiat and therefore abuse.

Quote from: RPGPundit;343254Freeform always runs the risk of destroying a campaign if just one asshole player...

Hold 'er newt. Don't play with assholes.  Why do people have a problem with this?

Also, given your statements regarding GM authority, I'm surprised this would be any kind of problem for you.

!i!

I voted for a list, because I prefer Palladium and D&D, but I also like old Mage: the Excuse. The difference between the two systems is that characters in Mage are so powerful, that the story can never be about killing someone, because if it is, there isn't much to stop a PC from giving him a heart attack.

Now Mage does include a bunch of bullshitty ideas for how to keep Technomancers safe, but really, if a PC knows where one is, it is pretty easy to whack him.

I like the idea of freeform spells but I haven't played or GMd many games that used them. They seem to support magic being more unreliable/chaotic/experimental... never the same thing twice.
Spell lists are fine though, especially when they have evocative names and interesting rituals attached... if they can open up to variations in power and effect then all the better.

Both Ars Magica and the game that it informed -- Mage -- handled this quandary well.  Not only do you have a relatively freeform system for constructing spells, but you have lists of spells constructed by magicians who have come before.  Not only do these lists provide you with ready-to-use spells, but they also serve as models for creating new ones.

!i!

Does Ars Magica have the same annoying New Agey metaphysical explanations for magic that original Mage had? The stuff about 'belief' changing 'reality'.
That was the stuff that turned me right off of Mage when I was reading my way through it... even though I'd bought it because I'd heard it had this cool freeform magic system.

Quote from: Simlasa;343299Does Ars Magica have the same annoying New Agey metaphysical explanations for magic that original Mage had? The stuff about 'belief' changing 'reality'.
That was the stuff that turned me right off of Mage when I was reading my way through it... even though I'd bought it because I'd heard it had this cool freeform magic system.

Belief does inform reality in Ars Magica, but there is more to it than that. The laws of magic are quite interesting. I forget them mostly, but it includes stuff like:

You can't change the nature of the infernal.
You can't bring anyone back to life.
You can't work magic beyond the lunar sphere.
You can't affect the outcome of a miracle.

People of faith have a strong resistance to magic, as does holy ground. If you were using earth magic to tunnel under a town, if you accidently went under a church you could easily be killed when the spell fails and the tunnel collapses.

Quote from: Simlasa;343299Does Ars Magica have the same annoying New Agey metaphysical explanations for magic that original Mage had? The stuff about 'belief' changing 'reality'.

As Cranewings states, belief does affect reality, but not in anything quite as abstruse as the "Pirsigian" philosophy espoused in Mage.  Ars Magica definitely engages in magic for the sake of magic, and not as an expression of a phenomenological philosophy, and it preceded the World o' Darkness zeitgeist by some years.

In the year before Mage was originally released, I got antsy while working on a Vampire game I was running, and I adapted the AM magic system to the Vampire / Werewolf character creation mechanics.  It worked rather quite well (though with a decidedly less world-spanning perspective of magical traditions), and I was rather disappointed in how bland Mage itself turned out to be.

!i!

Quote from: Silverlion;343266True, but isn't that in part what GM's are for, to say no to such things?

Yeah, but it sure becomes a hassle if the system is set up to require that to be a recurring theme.

RPGPundit

Give me a laundry list, as a fall back the set of tools in my control.  Free form systems are too open to abuse and/or total neglect as players can't be bothered to come up with more than a handful of spells.

Frankly, I'm over the idea of having an intricate logic system in place to explain magic.  It just is, tell me what cool things it can do and move on. I don't need to know how.

My preference is a framework system and laundry list of examples.

Quote from: Simlasa;343299Does Ars Magica have the same annoying New Agey metaphysical explanations for magic that original Mage had? The stuff about 'belief' changing 'reality'.
That was the stuff that turned me right off of Mage when I was reading my way through it... even though I'd bought it because I'd heard it had this cool freeform magic system.

No, in Ars Magica magic is presented as an erudite pursue. The more you study, the more powerful you become. On the one hand this makes your character not want to have adventures, because they're distractions, on the other hand, in order to study your character will need books and magical components that will make him go out and search for them.

Quote from: Ian Absentia;343278Don't play with assholes.  Why do people have a problem with this?

Because it's unrealistic and unhelpful advice.

Seanchai

Quote from: RPGPundit;343332Yeah, but it sure becomes a hassle if the system is set up to require that to be a recurring theme.

RPGPundit

Possibly, I can see that--then again a lot of player's effectiveness rely on a GM's arbitration. I think it will always be that way when you put any capabilities in the hands of somewhat creative and imaginative people.

ok.
I read the OP again and am answering this without too much work presurre breathing down my neck.

Vreeg's #1 rule of setting design is still, "Make sure the system/ruleset you cloose matches the game you want to play in your setting, or else the setting and game will eventually match the system."

A spell list system works well if your setting is one that tries to portray magic as a byproduct/partial byproduct of study.  The idea is that at some level, creating spells is a diificult and high-power affair, and most casters learn these spells, study them carefully, and if they ever become ultra powerful, some days they might actually contribute to this knowledgebase.
The background thought process is that if mage A and mage B have similar spells, they both read 'spellbook 101', much as any other course of study.

Freeform systems are better for simulating innate abilities, ill-understood abilities shared by a few select souls.  if the system is not codified and is wild-esque, a freeform system is often better for giving the players the feeling that they are, to some degree, making it up as they go along.


Obviously, this is a generality, and one can stretch either format to cover almost everything, but the above guidelines infer what each format is better for.  Of course, some setting will want to have both feels, wild and codified, and this is where you can see the systemic dichotomy.  

in this, I want to stress something that may be obvious but needs to be said.  'Vancian' and 'spell list system' are not perfectly analogous.  And where I feel that some spell list systems have enough components to create a semi-freeform corresponding system, traditional vancian magic is less suited for a cross-over attempt.

Back to work.

Quote from: Silverlion;343234I prefer on the fly spell creation. Ars Magica, Talislanta 4E, and of course my own High Valor. However, examples are very useful and can be a basic list of commonly utilized spells.

He's got it pretty much in a nutshell right there.

Quote from: Seanchai;343421Because it's unrealistic and unhelpful advice.

No, suggesting that you stop being such a pussy is unrealistic and unhelpful.  Suggesting that you be more discriminating in the people you play with in a social environment is simple common sense.

!i!

Just to clear up a misconception about Ars Magica:
only weak spells are improvised on the fly. Formulaic spells (which can be built by players) have to be researched, taking seasons of study, and have to be cast as learned.

90% of the spells cast in my last 3 Ars Magica games were formulaic, and 50% straight from the lists. The remaining 10% were improved low level spells, and again, about half were straight from the lists, just not studied.

Kind of like letting a D&D spellcaster use a slot at half level (round down) to cast a spell they don't know...

Quote from: aramis;343553Just to clear up a misconception about Ars Magica:
only weak spells are improvised on the fly. Formulaic spells (which can be built by players) have to be researched, taking seasons of study, and have to be cast as learned.

But players are able to create their own formulaic spells, as well as learning rote spells that already exist, which is the point others have intended to make.

Mage, on the other hand, plays a little faster and looser with the limitations on improvising spells on the fly.

!i!

Quote from: Ian Absentia;343533Suggesting that you be more discriminating in the people you play with in a social environment is simple common sense.

You can be discriminating and still find yourself playing with assholes. Sometimes people are only part time assholes and you don't realize it until too late. Sometimes they develop into asshole. Sometimes there are overriding factors that make an asshole in the group just something you have to tolerate.

So, yeah, absolutely, it's common sense. It's a good idea. It's still unrealistic and suggesting it as a solution to a problem, because of the contextual plethora of assholes, is unhelpful.

Seanchai

Jibbajabba's pref for the win (lists with the ability to research, seek out, be taught, and invent new spells). LordVreeg's analysis is on the money, too.

I do like how some systems let you have variable costs for greater effects, though. Might make especially good sense for elemental magic. For a pip you can make enough wind to blow out a candle. For more you move a becalmed ship. Still more and you can blast people and knock them over.

I also like the idea of RQ 3 sorcery for some reason, but not the execution. And that's highly freeform.

I also like the idea of magic primarily as ritual, summoning, and pacting, but I haven't played a game along those lines.

Quote from: Elliot Wilen;343578Jibbajabba's pref for the win (lists with the ability to research, seek out, be taught, and invent new spells). LordVreeg's analysis is on the money, too.

I do like how some systems let you have variable costs for greater effects, though. Might make especially good sense for elemental magic. For a pip you can make enough wind to blow out a candle. For more you move a becalmed ship. Still more and you can blast people and knock them over.

I also like the idea of RQ 3 sorcery for some reason, but not the execution. And that's highly freeform.

I also like the idea of magic primarily as ritual, summoning, and pacting, but I haven't played a game along those lines.

I used to have a book for Gurps calls, "Authentic Thaumaturge." It included a bunch of whining from the writer about how pagan candles never went out until the Christians came, but the flavor of the book was pretty interesting.

Quote from: Cranewings;343642I used to have a book for Gurps calls, "Authentic Thaumaturge." It included a bunch of whining from the writer about how pagan candles never went out until the Christians came, but the flavor of the book was pretty interesting.

Authentic Thaumaturgy, if you're talking about the one by that idiot Bonewitz, is retarded. Its ostensibly about "real magic", written of course by a guy who's a pagan gandalf-wannabe.

By far the most authentic RPG magical system, both in terms of how similar the way it works and the people who use it are to the "real" magic and "real" magicians I've met in real life, is Unknown Armies. They pretty much have it down. To be a magician, you have to be a mental obsessive; and the more obsessed you are, and the more out of touch you are with the regular world, the more of a "magician" you become.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPundit;343644Authentic Thaumaturgy, if you're talking about the one by that idiot Bonewitz, is retarded. Its ostensibly about "real magic", written of course by a guy who's a pagan gandalf-wannabe.

And his "mechanics" are almost unusable.  Still, it can be some inspirational flavor reading.  However, if anyone is remotely tempted to buy the book, let me point out that it costs $25 from SJG, while Bonewits' book Real Magic is available for half that price, and, while not a roleplaying book, contains all of the same material dealt with in much greater detail.

QuoteBy far the most authentic RPG magical system, both in terms of how similar the way it works and the people who use it are to the "real" magic and "real" magicians I've met in real life, is Unknown Armies. They pretty much have it down. To be a magician, you have to be a mental obsessive; and the more obsessed you are, and the more out of touch you are with the regular world, the more of a "magician" you become.

Very true.  I was always amused to read complaints by people who were upset that you couldn't be a magician and not be a freak in the system -- every discipline of magic was invariably self-destructive (or at least very, very counter-productive).

!i!

Quote from: Ian Absentia;343648I was always amused to read complaints by people who were upset that you couldn't be a magician and not be a freak in the system -- every discipline of magic was invariably self-destructive (or at least very, very counter-productive).

!i!

But then of course the goal (for some) becomes who can create the most freakish character.

Regards,
David R

That seems to be the goal for many "real-life" magicians as well. So again, perfect system!

RPGPundit