Seeking Feedback

You are currently browsing the archive for the Seeking Feedback category.

Welcome back!

Just like the rest of life, sometimes it’s time for a do-over. Thus begins a new chapter in the life of Moebius Adventures (MARPG) games.

Dice for various games, especially for rolepla...
Image via Wikipedia

Here’s the scoop. We have a streamlined system. It needs to be tested seriously. So who better to take a look at some of the mechanics than… you! That’s right, it’s time YOU got into the act here.

First, I want to welcome you (back) into the fold. The next series of articles will focus on some core mechanics, character creation, and then how to apply those bits to various genres. After all, MARPG is a cross-genre, universal roleplaying game. Tough to tell that when all we’ve seen so far are examples for fantasy settings.

I WANT your feedback. If you think this sucks and is too difficult, let me know. I’m looking for frank opinions with suggestions on how to make things better. The goal here is to create a solid base mechanic for a variety of settings so gaming groups can pick up the system and play just as easily in a cyberpunk setting as they can in a low-magic fantasy setting. Or if they want to do epic space battles such as in Star Wars or Star Trek or make more intimate “cowboys in space” games like with Firefly, it moves quickly with them.

Like in all roleplaying games, your MARPG character is a set of properties – characteristic values (Mind, Body, Soul), derived characteristic values (Hit Points, Luck Points, Reality Check, and so on), and skills with ranks. All these values do is provide a framework for behaviors, abilities, and experience. They’re just numbers on a page. It’s up to the player and GM to bring the player (PC) and non-player characters (NPCs) represented by those numbers to life.

As a player or GM, in addition to a PC or NPC, you’ll need two d10s. We’re not talking huge sets of dice here.

The basic mechanic is the same for all skill checks, characteristic checks, and combat rolls. You have a target number you have to roll below with 2d10 and modifiers.

The target number comes from the character himself for most actions, with modifiers from the GM for things like weather, fatigue, item quality, etc. In the case of opposed actions, it becomes a battle between the quality of success or failure between opponents.

Bird tracks on a frozen lake
Image by Paul Williams (Iron Ammonite) via Flickr

For example, if a tracker is looking for animal signs and tracks in the woods, it’s a simple skill check. The GM may make the attempt more difficult or easier based on conditions such as how recent the tracks were made, if there was fresh snow, if snow or leaves covered the tracks, and so on.

Let’s say the Tracker has a Tracking skill of 3 ranks. Tracking relies on knowing what to look for and how perceptive the character is, so it’s a Mind-based skill. Let’s say the Tracker has a Mind of 7. By default, without any modifiers from the GM, the target number is 10.

To determine success or failure, you roll 2d10, add modifiers, and compare the total to the target.

In the case of the Tracker, let’s say he rolls a 13. He failed the attempt, so he’s unable to find his quarry.

Roll two 1′s and you have a critical success. Roll two 10′s and you have a critical failure. Compare the total to the target number to determine the Quality of Success (QoS) or Failure (QoF). If your total was above or below the target, your QoS (if below) or QoF (if above) is the difference between the target and the total. If your total is equal to the target, the GM can decide whether the act was directly opposed and it was a draw or if the act was unopposed and it was a success.

QoS = Target Number – Total Die Roll
QoF = Total Die Roll – Target Number

For the Tracker, his QoF was 3. He missed the target by 3 (Total Die Roll 12 – Target Number 10 = QoF 3).

Let’s say he rolled a 3 on 2d10. That would mean he succeeded in finding tracks. In that case, his QoS was 7. He made it by 7 (Target Number 10 – Total Die Roll 3 = QoS 7).

Now let’s say the Tracker is looking for someone deliberately trying to obscure signs of their passing. The Tracker’s opponent uses her Tracking skill at rank 4 and her Mind characteristic value of 5 for an unmodified Target Number of 9. The GM rolls 2d10 and gets a 5, for a QoS of 4. This makes the Tracker’s job harder.

The Tracker’s unmodified Target Number is 10. But since it’s opposed, the QoS becomes a modifier on the skill check making it more difficult. Now the Tracker’s Target Number is 6 (Target Number 10 – opponent QoS = 6). The Tracker would have to make a great roll to get a six or less.

* on the left: German Reitschwert, circa 1530,...
Image via Wikipedia

Let’s add another wrinkle. The Tracker finds the woman he’s been searching for in the woods and a battle begins. Each opponent has a sword and some ranks in the Swordsmanship skill.

The Tracker surprised his quarry and gets to attack first. His quarry can only Parry with her sword or Dodge to get out of the way. The Tracker’s Swords is at 4 ranks and his Body is a 5, for an unmodified Target of 9. His quarry has Swords at 6 ranks and a Body of 5 for an unmodified Target of 11. Both opponents roll 2d10.

The Tracker rolls a 5, for a QoS of 4 (Target Number 9 – Total Die Roll 5 = QoS 4). His quarry has a -4 modifier to her Target to make it a 7. The GM rolls a 9 for a QoF of 2 and the woman takes 2 points of damage…

This pattern of comparing QoS and QoF is repeated throughout the system now for skill checks, characteristic checks, and combat. One mechanic simplifies the rules greatly, while still providing the flexibility and uniqueness of character strengths and weaknesses to appear in sometimes unexpected ways.

In the next article, we’ll talk about character creation and the flexibility available for quickly creating PCs and NPCs for any campaign.

What do you think? Leave me comments here on the blog entry or send me e-mail directly at fitz (at) moebiusadventures (dot) com. I’m looking for negative and positive feedback here – so let ‘er rip!

–Fitz

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]
Technorati FavoritesFacebookTwitterDiggDeliciousShare

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

I suspect that we’ve all had that moment while gaming when our characters finished a battle or encounter and suddenly had a whole lot of loot to determine how to divvy up and carry out. It’s a gaming staple – doesn’t seem to matter whether you’re playing in a fantasy, modern, or futuristic setting. But it seems to happen a whole lot more while playing a fantasy RPG like D&D.

For some time now we’ve lived in a world where computer roleplaying games (CRPGs) have been around. I remember playing Bard’s Tale, Might and Magic, and the Gold Box Forgotten Realms computer games like Curse of the Azure Bonds to name a few. And from then to now, the general pattern is your character or party heads out to find bad guys to fight, you fight the bad guys, and then you collect the loot. You may not be able to haul it all away, so you leave useless items behind and take the good stuff until you can sell it.

Most of those games came out while I was in high school or in college initially. And I have to admit I played the heck out of them and enjoyed myself quite a bit.

But by that point I had already been playing RPGs (especially Dungeons and Dragons, James Bond, and a few other games) for a good 3-5 years. In that few years, I went from being the treasure hoarding munchkin to GMing and trying to achieve some kind of game balance. Though it was fun to kill the monster and take the loot, that wasn’t necessarily the goal any more by the time I left that period of my life.

And yes, we did all the munchkin things you’d expect. It was 1st edition D&D so we were kicking butt and taking names, even going so far as fighting Tiamat in her lair. (And it’s been asked, so I’ll answer here – no, I don’t recall if it was on her home plane or the prime material plane, but we did it nonetheless and got hoards of loot as a result.) We went up against the forces of Orcus. Did we die? Not usually – the GM and the mood at the time typically gave us enough room to survive. Was it Monty Haul? Of course.

That however was a phase. It lasted a while and then we got tired of simply collecting every coin, scroll, potion, sword, wand, etc. just because it was there.

Now if you look at CRPGs you see the same thing happening over and over because there’s no GM there to prevent it. We (yes, I’m just as guilty) stuff our pockets, backpacks, and saddlebags with everything we can get our hands on that is of value and leave the rest. The good thing is that we do run out of room so there has to be a bit of prioritization typically. The bad thing is that typically we have an infinite amount of time to gather, sort, and figure out where to stash everything.

Because I and many other gamers of our generation moved from traditional pen-and-paper RPGs to CRPGs, we’re less apt to take a CRPG approach to our RPGs.

Unfortunately, I’ve seen others that have gone the other way – from computer to game table – that just don’t get that you can’t haul off the kitchen sink and curtains or the other inhabitants of a particular city might take it the wrong way. Maybe you can do that in a dungeon after you’ve cleaned it out – there’s a certain amount of time you have there. But not every situation has the benefit of time.

Have other GMs and groups run into this bizarre trend? If so, have you solved it? And if you solved it, how did you solve it? We’ve tried lots of things, but logic doesn’t seem to work in this case. Or perhaps we just haven’t provided the right object lesson… I don’t know.

Thoughts? Anybody? Anybody? Bueller? Bueller?

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]
Technorati FavoritesFacebookTwitterDiggDeliciousShare

Tags: , , , , , , ,

For me, “perfect” is an unreachable ideal. There is no perfect game, but we can work and strive for as close as possible. If everyone a) stays engaged, b) challenges each other and the GM, and c) has fun – it was a success. Without the interplay between players and between players and GMs, there is no game.

Writer Sitting B&WSo I’m always looking for other perspectives on how to create good adventures. Recently I saw an article in Entertainment Weekly about John Lasseter of Pixar fame. In the article, he stated his team’s formula for making great Pixar movies:

1) Toil to perfect the story.
2) Tackle technical innovation.
3) Take creative leaps of faith.

Why couldn’t we take that approach and apply it to… roleplaying games? If you think of an adventure as an episode or a campaign as a movie series, why not see how they work with RPGs?

1) Toil to perfect the story.

This one for sure applies. Story is the backbone for getting and keeping player interest. Yes, I’ve played games where all you do is clean out dungeon after dungeon. But without a reason for doing that – a reason for taking that path – all you’re doing then is stumbling through the dark killing things that move and taking any loot you find.

Occasionally, sure. I like a good dungeon crawl as much as anybody. But without having a story to explain WHY your PCs should care about these little podunk towns, why they should rescue the damsels or find the lost treasure of Whosit… they’re just going through the motions. As GMs or designers, we need to keep story in mind from the very beginning.

So before designing dungeons or monsters or setting up encounters… Make sure you have a story first.

2) Tackle technical innovation.

Now this one I’m not too sure about. As a software engineer, I have to admit I’m always looking for the next great gadget or piece of software to make my life easier (99% fail in this regard, yet companies like Microsoft are still in business – go figure). But I tend to go old school with my gaming and leave the toys off the game table.

I’ve seen many interesting and detailed discussions about using new technologies like Netbooks or Google Wave, touch-sensitive displays, projectors, and so on. However, I’m most comfortable gaming with a few books, paper, pens/pencils, and real dice.

Some of you may like to go techie when gaming – but so far I’m not one of them.

So maybe this one doesn’t apply in all cases.

3) Take creative leaps of faith.

This one I can definitely get behind. With story, you have the beginnings of a latticework you can add plot, setting, and characters to. But without being creative in how you create and present the end result, even the best stories can fall flat.

One huge creative leap for me is trusting in your players to fill in the gaps. Without the PCs, there is no game. GMs are there to set the stage and the PCs have to give it life in my opinion. So involve them from the beginning – let them fill in the backstories for their characters, let them describe parts of the world their characters would know intimately – get them involved in the creative process.

Another huge creative leap of faith can simply be presenting a heck of an idea in the story. Mix and match things in new ways. Take the Chinese Menu approach – a few things from column A, a few from columns B and C, mix, smooth over the seams, and voila…

Will the Pixar/Lasseter three-rule approach help? It certainly can’t hurt by offering another perspective.

So what are the cardinal rules for you GMs or game designers out there?

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]
Technorati FavoritesFacebookTwitterDiggDeliciousShare

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,

After 15 years or so of working on the Moebius Adventures system as we designed it way back when, it’s nice to have your eyes opened by intelligent players who can provide constructive criticism from a different perspective. Instead of approaching the game as a static memorial to a fallen comrade, it should remain vibrant and alive as Sean would have wanted it. (You can see some of the previous playtest articles here, here, and here.)

Rules TextUsing these simplified and revamped rules, I’m going to go back to my “Wizardry 101″ concept and see how things shape up with a built-in, quick start set of rules for combat as well as how to handle some introductory magical concepts. Once I get the quick start rules module written, I’ll apply it to a slightly tweaked sample adventure and throw it out there so I can playtest some more and ask you kind folks to look at it and provide feedback as well.

Does anyone have any war stories about playtests? I’m interested in first-hand testing as well as testing from outside groups. I hope to learn from these stories and maybe even write up an article on best practices if I get enough feedback.

Anybody? Anybody? Bueller? Bueller? Either leave me a comment here or send me an e-mail at fitz (at) moebiusadventures (dot) com. I’d love to hear from you.

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]
Technorati FavoritesFacebookTwitterDiggDeliciousShare

Tags: , , , ,

Sorry I’ve been a bit lacking in the posts arena lately. I’ve been doing a great deal of thinking about how to move forward.

Question MarksWith the great, constructive feedback from the October 2009 playtest session of the Moebius Adventures system, it became painfully clear it was time to rethink things. Each player at that session had constructive criticisms of various aspects of the rules, from character generation and presentation to skill resolution and combat. Though we had a good time despite the rules, I was left wondering about the future of the game.

Moebius Adventures was born in the mid-1990s when a friend (Sean Bindel) and I took a hard look at the games we’d been playing.

Like many gamers, we’d played with a number of systems in college and before. We had a great time with a campaign set based loosely on the Temple of Elemental Evil from TSR, but we used the Palladium Fantasy Roleplaying Game as our system. Add in some serious time playing the d6 Star Wars RPG, Call of Cthulhu, Mechwarrior, and even a little Dungeons & Dragons, 2nd Edition, and that about summed it up. And after college, we were playing in a Vampire: The Masquerade game and decided we wanted to get back to the fantasy roots we both started with.

The Moebius Adventures system started out as an exercise in discovering what qualities we wanted to see in a RPG rules system. We modeled it a bit after the Palladium FRPG (1st edition) and Dungeons & Dragons and set to work adding our own spin. The result was first published in 1997 and then in revised form in 2007. And it was the edition from 2007 that we playtested in October of this year.

Though painful, I would say it was incredibly valuable to have seen the game through fresh eyes with this recent playtest session. Almost immediately after, I started working on a slimmed down set of rules that would provide (1) quick character creation, (2) quicker skill and combat resolution, and (3) enough freedom to do all that I was looking at for a cross-genre universal system.

I believe I’ve met that goal and hope to do some playtesting in the next few months as I get more details written up and considered.

My problem now is deciding what to do about this predicament. I have a ton of ideas for free-form magic, super-hero abilities, as well as ways to integrate technology for modern and futuristic settings. And I have three entire settings from which to pull potential setting or adventure products from. But without a simple, consistent, and open system to use, I’m at a bit of an impasse. In my mind, I can’t create system-less modules or settings without having some way of modeling a consistent way to describe NPCs, monsters, items, and so on.

Am I simply over-thinking this? Obviously there are many companies and writers coming up with great RPG materials and I’m not the only one who’s run into this.

Can anyone point out some companies that are doing this already and how they’ve overcome this hurdle (that’s most likely entirely in my head)? Any and all feedback would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks.

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]
Technorati FavoritesFacebookTwitterDiggDeliciousShare

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Hi all…

So after last week’s playtest, I decided to go back to the drawing board a bit to see how I could revamp the Moebius Adventures system mechanics to make them a) simpler and b) more consistent. I think I’ve hit upon a solution, but it seems to run counter-intuitive to how most other mechanics go (besides GURPS anyway).

BlueprintsTo make a long story short, part of the issues stemmed from having too many details and part came from a lack of clear explanation on my part. So I’ve stripped the system down to its core three statistics – Mind, Body, and Soul. Mind would wrap anything remotely mentally-challenging – so tasks like reading, arithmetic, arcane magic, and so on. Body is pretty self explanatory – but would enc0mpass strength, endurance, dexterity, and so on. And Soul represents wisdom, faith, life force, etc.

I need some help to see if I’m totally nuts or not. I spoke with a good friend of mine whose concern is that this system focuses on having a low number whereas most focus on having a higher one. I think this is an artificial difference, but that’s just me…

So rather than splitting those three into 12 different characteristics (plus the 4 for Random characteristics like Luck, Beauty, Wealth, and Family for a grand total of 16) I’ve boiled everything back to basics. At most, this means a skill would have one main characteristic. For example – Literacy would be Mind-based. Swordsmanship would be Body-based. Prayer would be Soul-based, and so on… (There are some skills like Healing, which the player would have to choose either Mind – for first-aid type healing using your brain – or Soul – for laying on hands kind of healing. Same for Writing, and several others.)

So a character would be very simply the core stats of Mind, Body, and Soul, some derivative/secondary stats like hit points, reality check, etc., and a list of skills – some from childhood, the rest from backgrounds.

(The design question is all the way at the end of this bloody long post, so my apologies. But I work through the basics, define some mechanics, provide an example, and THEN ask for input at the end. Please bear with me.)

So a fighter character that used 20 points to split among Mind, Body, and Soul might look something like this:

——————————————————————————————

Mind: 5
Body: 10
Soul: 5

HP 40
Skills:
Swords (Body): 3 ranks
Shield (Body): 2 ranks
Combat Sense (Mind): 2 ranks
Running (Body): 2 ranks
Horsemanship (Soul): 1 ranks

——————————————————————————————

A thief character might look like this:

——————————————————————————————

Mind: 6
Body: 8
Soul: 6

HP 32
Skills:
Swords (Body): 4 ranks
Acrobatics (Body): 3 ranks
Archery (Body): 2 ranks
Combat Sense (Mind): 3 ranks

——————————————————————————————

Pretty straightforward.

So let’s take the new mechanic for a spin…

To determine the base target for a skill, take the characteristic and add the # of ranks. You want to roll below that on 1d20 or 2d10. (1d20 is more “random” but 2d10 has a better bell curve for results.)

Everything revolves around the Quality of a roll.
If you roll under the target, you determine the Quality of Success (QoS) by taking the target # minus the the die roll.
If you roll over the target, you determine the Quality of Failure (QoF) by taking the die roll minus  the target #.
The GM can always modify the target # by other conditions. For example, snow would make tracking easier. Crossing a stream would make it more difficult.
If uncontested, a QoS of 1 or higher means success.

If contested, you compare the two Quality rolls and the highest QoS wins. For example…

  • For a Body (Strength) check, if character A has a QoS of 3 and character B has a QoF of 3, character A wins. But if character A has a QoS of 3 and character B has a QoS of 5, character B wins.
  • For a skill check, you may be comparing two different skills, but the principle still applies. If character A has Tracking (Mind) and a QoS of 4 and character B has Concealment (Mind) and a QoS of 6, character A is unable to find the tracks left behind by character B.
QoF comes more into play where Combat is concerned.

To resolve a combat action, take the offensive skill Quality and compare it to the defensive skill Quality. The difference determines the amount of damage done (up to the maximum of the weapon + any bonus for Body of 7 or better or penalty for Body of 3 or less).

Here’s a sample combat between the Fighter and Thief characters. The Fighter has a long sword, which does 8 points of damage as its potential maximum, but also gains +4 to damage for a Body of 10. The Thief has a short sword, which does 7 points of damage as its potential maximum, but he has a Body of 8, which gives him a +2 to damage as well.

———————————————————————————————-

Initiative:

  • Fighter – d20 (14) – target 7 – QoF = 7
  • Thief – d20 (17) – target 9 – QoF = 8
  • Fighter goes first w/lower QoF
Round 1
  • Fighter attacks with sword. Rolls 2 – target 13 – QoS = 11
  • Thief dodges with a roll. Rolls 4 – target 11 – QoS = 7
  • Fighter hits Thief for 4 points (QoS 11 – QoS 7 = difference of 4). Thief down to 28 HP.
  • Thief attacks with sword. Rolls 4 – target 12 – QoS = 8
  • Fighter parries with Shield. Rolls 20 – target 12 – QoF = 8 (rolled 1 or 2 is critical success/rolled 19 or 20 are critical failure – so the Fighter may have dropped his shield during this failed attempt)
  • Thief gets solid hit in. Difference between attack & defense is 16. Short sword does 9 max. Thief does 9 damage to Fighter. Fighter down to 31 HP.
Round 2
  • Fighter attacks with sword. Rolls 15 – target 13 – QoF = 2
  • Thief dodges with a cartwheel. Rolls 19 – target 11 – QoF = 8 (Critical Failure?)
  • Fighter misses.
  • Thief attacks with sword. Rolls 5 – target 12 – QoS = 7
  • Fighter parries with Shield. Rolls 5 – target 12 – QoS = 7
  • Fighter parries (tie goes to parrier).
Round 3
  • Fighter attacks with sword. Rolls 15 – target 13 – QoF = 2
  • Thief dodges. Rolls 10 – target 11 – QoS = 1
  • Fighter misses.
  • Thief attacks. Rolls 16 – target 12 – QoF = 4
  • Fighter parries with Shield. Rolls 10 – target 12 – QoS = 2
  • Fighter parries.
Round 4
  • Fighter attacks with sword. Rolls 16 – target 13 – QoF = 3
  • Thief dodges. Rolls 10 – target 11 – QoS = 1
  • Fighter misses.
  • Thief attacks. Rolls 14 – target 12 – QoF = 2
  • Fighter parries. Rolls 11 – target 12 – QoS = 1
  • Fighter parries.
Round 5
  • Fighter attacks with sword. Rolls 8 – target 13 – QoS = 5
  • Thief dodges. Rolls 20 – target 11 – QoF = 9 (Critical Failure?)
  • Fighter gets solid hit in. Difference is 14. Longsword does 11 max. Fighter does 11 damage to Thief. Thief down to 17 HP.
  • Thief attacks. Rolls 18 – target 12 – QoF = 6
  • Fighter parries with shield. Rolls 10 – target 11 – QoS = 1
  • Fighter parries.
Round 6
  • Fighter attacks with sword. Rolls 5 – target 13 – QoS = 8
  • Thief dodges. Rolls 13 – target 11 – QoF = 2.
  • Fighter gets another solid hit in. Difference is 10. Fighter does 11 damage to Thief. Thief down to 6 HP.
  • Thief attacks. Rolls 11 – target 12 – QoS = 1
  • Fighter parries. Rolls 13 – target 11 – QoF = 2
  • Thief hits. Difference is 3. Thief does 3 damage to Fighter. Fighter down to 28.
Round 7
  • Fighter attacks with sword. Rolls 8 – target 13 – QoS = 5
  • Thief dodges. Rolls 12 – target 11 – QoF = 1
  • Fighter hits. Difference is 6. Fighter does 6 damage. Thief falls.

———————————————————————————————-

So… Deep breaths. After seeing a couple of sample characters, describing the basic mechanic, and providing a combat example…

Does this make sense? Is it too hard? Is the Quality of Success vs. Quality of Failure thing too difficult a concept?

The potential problems that I’ve come up with are… With a characteristic and skill each maxed at rank 10, you have a target # of 20 before modifiers. If you roll a 20 on a d20 or two 10s on 2d10, it’s a critical failure. Is that a bad thing? I don’t think so. Even perfect people fail sometimes IMHO.

I’m curious to hear what people think about this.  If I’m barking up the wrong tree, I want to know early so I can change trees. :)

Thanks in advance.

–Fitz

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]
Technorati FavoritesFacebookTwitterDiggDeliciousShare

Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,

What is Lesser Wizardry? Does it mean you’re less of a wizard than someone who practices something greater? Not at all.

Old BookThink of Lesser Wizardry as the training wheels for a beginning wizard. Lesser Wizardry provides an opportunity for apprentices and students to learn the basics of wizardry without setting their hair on fire attempting to cast a ball of fire at an opponent.

So what is Lesser Wizardry good for? All those little tasks that might not seem like much, but can do many things for a budding wizard:

  • Add a bit of flair to your appearance when you’re out in public, such as providing a well-timed breeze to ruffle your robes to get the attention of those around you or to make sure your clothes are clean, hair combed, and hair shaved so you always look your best
  • Handle those little onerous tasks such as cleaning the dishes or wrapping a gift perfectly every time
  • Make sure you always have a pen handy, never lose your place in a book, or get up on time for an appointment after a long night researching in the lab

Beyond that, there are those little tricks that might make your enemy’s day a little worse with just a little thought from you:

  • Distract an opponent just long enough to slip by unnoticed
  • Ensure that a rival mumbles at just the right time to not speak a spell correctly or when addressing a crowd of her peers
  • Turn a clean, tidy room into a disorganized mess to drive even the most well-adjusted neat freak over the edge

Lesser Wizardry is one of the oldest forms of magic known to the humanoid races. When the first wizards were trying to harness the magical energy of the universe, they were very cautious in their approach and used as little magic as possible. They didn’t want to do any damage for fear of destroying themselves in the process or incurring the wrath of the gods. After a while, it became a game for some wizards to see just how little magic they would need to create a particular effect.

These are the spells that wizards create to simplify things in their lab, ensuring that equipment stays clean and spell components are where they can be easily found. But don’t let that fool you. The most powerful wizards skilled in Lesser Wizardry can drive wizards skilled in other areas quite insane.

One of the best parts of casting Lesser Wizardry spells? No components to mess with! Each and every Lesser Wizardry spell relies exclusively on the focus and energy of the caster. No muss, no fuss.

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]
Technorati FavoritesFacebookTwitterDiggDeliciousShare

Tags: , , , , , , ,

Funny little story…

This past weekend, the gaming group I’ve been playing with decided it was time to put the sandbox campaign we’d been playing on hold and start something new in November. At the heart of the decision was the fact that the campaign just never “clicked” for everybody involved (two players and the GM). And I have to say that some of that lack of “clicking” was definitely my own problem.

Question MarksThe issue was that I just never bonded with the character. Whether it was my understanding of the setting, or the background I’d chosen, or some other hidden factor, I really don’t know. But the emotional bond just wasn’t there.

What was funny to me was that the GM had created a story early in the campaign that I really attached myself to. My emotional bond was to that story – not to my character or the world – but this small thread that even the GM mentioned he had no idea what he was going to do with.

For the next campaign with this group, I not only have to find a solid character concept that works in a party setting – but I really have to focus on finding an emotional bond with the character. Without that connection, I might as well be simply playing a board game and moving a piece around on a game board.

So here’s my question… What are the different ways YOU find to bond with a character? If you don’t find that bond immediately, what do you do? I’m curious and would love to learn from the collective wisdom of the community. :)

–Fitz

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]
Technorati FavoritesFacebookTwitterDiggDeliciousShare

Tags: , , , , ,

This design for an amulet comes from the Black...Image via WikipediaHi all…

Ok, first of all I have to say we’re having a VERY cool discussion on the last post.

I’ve been rattling around some thoughts about how to set these rules in motion… One of the comments that didn’t make it into the comments (gotta love technical glitches) was that if this is more of a framework book (and that *IS* the goal here), it needed to go beyond the traditional fantasy approach to magic. What about technology? What about modern/futuristic settings? And just providing the rules isn’t enough – there has to be enough info/examples that a GM could run a one-shot to figure out how the rules work or just play.

So bumping this up to a higher vantage point, I thought we’d approach this from a very vague guideline and then provide a number of example implementations. My brain has been going insane with some of the many things we could do (from magic in a fantasy sense, to psychic powers, to mutant abilities, to cybernetics and beyond).

That said… Let’s kick this off…

A new field of wizardry (whether arcane, divine, natural, technological, psychic, etc.) is merely a skill for the character to obtain. In some cases (for example with a magical item or a new cybernetic implant), the skill is gained for free and the player can spend XP to enhance specific spells or abilities associated with the skill. In other cases, the player can spend XP to enhance the skill or specific spells.

Each field of wizardry must have a number of qualities. Is it external or internal to the caster? For example, does the magical energy come from force of will, from a set of magical ingredients, or from a higher power?
Once that is decided, we must determine the amount of energy involved.

If it comes from ingredients, how much energy do the ingredients hold? Is it quantity or quality that counts? What’s the difference between a rock used for a spell and a flawless diamond?

If it comes from a higher power, how much power gets filtered down to the vessel (caster/priest) on the material plane? Is it a powerful god? A benevolent spirit? A philosophical ideal? The embodiment of nothingness? A disembodied spirit or the soul of a living being? Weight this on a scale of 1 to 10. This would be an exponential scale.

If it’s the naked will of the caster, how do you measure that? Is it their Reality Check? With a higher RC, they have a better grasp of the reality of what they are doing with magic. An RC of 10 means you could model entire universes (small ones of course) in your mind, while an RC of 1 implies that you don’t even believe it when someone picks your number in line at the deli (the one you chose that they circulate through starting at 1).

Then we have to decide how much of that energy the caster can actually wield before “burning out”. For technological things, this would be like burning through a battery. In the case of a caster, this would be measured by the amount of magic (points/pool) the caster could use or how many spells they could use a day (possibly RC per day? number of spells = skill level or combined # of points in the skill and spells?). For a priest, he or she is guiding a huge amount of the higher being’s power through themselves as a vessel (possibly) and will also get tired. How do we gauge that? Faith + Conviction per day?

Note that these are all very preliminary and incomplete thoughts, so take from them what you will. But I thought I’d dump them out there as food for thought.

I’m interested in, mechanics aside, rough guidelines on how to provide balance. Yes, a well placed bullet or arrow can always kill a focused mage, but that’s not always the best answer.

Thoughts? Concerns? Criticisms? Throw it up here in the comments and let’s see what sticks!

–Fitz

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Technorati FavoritesFacebookTwitterDiggDeliciousShare

Hi all…

This is the beginning of a series of articles/discussions that will ultimately result in publishing a new Moebius Adventures book that includes rules for magic as well as magical races such as elves or dwarves.

Lightning strikes during the eruption of the G...Image via WikipediaAt a very high level, magic is simply an observable instance of the usage of forces existing in a particular world, belief system, universe, or plane of existence. Magic may be used by nature, gods, wizards, priests, spirits, or anything or anyone else naturally or skillfully adept at using a particular type of magic in a particular context.

For example, let’s take the ever popular “ball of fire” spell. This could manifest in a number of ways, but I’ll just list three here for discussion purposes.

  1. A person might be born with the innate ability to draw heat from the air around them to ignite a small fire and control it long enough to throw it short distances. Sort of a Pyro (X-Men) kind of approach to fire abilities.
  2. Perhaps an alchemist has managed to find a recipe for a small bag of combustible materials to be lit and tossed at a target.
  3. Or maybe it’s not a person at all. Maybe in a particular desert during a particular time of year, conditions are so hot as to ignite the very sand. Winds can then blow such a fire storm across the lands, leaving trails of glass in its wake.

What I want to avoid doing is assuming that all magic works the same. Initially in Moebius Adventures, we went the common route of creating 100s of spells in a variety of different schools of magic. This is great if you want a laundry list of possibilities, but not great for having a fluid, more adaptable and creative magic system.

The goal for the revised magic system is to provide methods for defining what the goal is to be (i.e. setting fire to something), a context (i.e. a wizard, alchemist, or magical naturally-occurring storm), and a method (i.e. willpower, knowledge and ingenuity, or the randomness of nature).

How we make these fit together into a coherent whole is a topic for another day.

That said, I’m interested in what YOU think. How should magic work? GMs and Players often have very different views on this topic. :)

Leave me a comment and let’s get the discussion rolling!

–Fitz

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Technorati FavoritesFacebookTwitterDiggDeliciousShare

« Older entries § Newer entries »