Harry Potter (Mechanics)

[Flyndaran]

Originally Posted by evileeyore

I can honestly state I don't remember breakage occurring that often.... but I haven't read the books sine they came out. Also I'm not sure they occur with the sort of frequency I'd expect from using the Gadget Limitation.
...

Young adult book characters often fail to take reasonable initiative every time it makes sense.

[McAllister]

I'll strongly second Varyon's idea that there are core magical Skills used to cast spells. I might even say that individual spells are Techniques; if we're naming the skills after the classes they're taught in, anyone who has points in Defense Against the Dark Arts could try avada kedavra, but if someone has raised the technique up from default... well, that tells you something about them.

I also like the idea of casting from AP. Make the AP cost 2, like an AOA.

Here's an idea: armed wizards resist spells using the same skill that's used to cast them, but at no penalty. I'm not super familiar with ritual magic, but if we're saying that Stupefy is cast at Hex-3 and I don't have any points in the technique, I can try to cast it on you, and now I'm rolling a Quick Contest of Hex-3 vs. Hex. So, in order for a spell to be successful, I've got to be much more skilled, or target a type of magic you're bad at, or be specifically invested in the spell I'm using.

Now add one more option: spending more AP for bonuses to the roll. Wizards absolutely cast spells harder by shouting them louder, and this is portrayed as being more strenuous. If there were ever a situation to spend AP on Extra Effort-like bonuses on the quick contest, this would be the one.

See, it never struck me as a setting where Hermione walked out of class knowing how to swish and flick and having invested 26 points in Wingardium Leviosa. It struck me as Hermione walking out of class, having invested 2 more hours in increasing her Charm skill, and having eliminated her unfamiliarity penalty with that particular spell.

[David Johnston2]

Originally Posted by evileeyore

I can honestly state I don't remember breakage occurring that often.... but I haven't read the books sine they came out. Also I'm not sure they occur with the sort of frequency I'd expect from using the Gadget Limitation.

If you bought a gun as a Gadget it would have Breakable. How often do they actually break?

[McAllister]

I didn't see who posted the post that was just deleted, but it was the right decision.

[evileeyore]

Originally Posted by Flyndaran

Young adult book characters often fail to take reasonable initiative every time it makes sense.

Yes, but those are also 'genre conventions'.

Originally Posted by David Johnston2

If you bought a gun as a Gadget it would have Breakable. How often do they actually break?

In reality or in game?

In game? As often as genre conventions demand.

In an ACTION! game? Almost never. In AtE? Probably every 2-3 game sessions, or rather it should at least jam.

[Praxian]

Exactly, Can Be Stolen isn't just a "It's been stolen forever by some thief" but also "Your opponent has disarmed you!".

Disarming is a technique like in Martial Arts. I'd be more inclined to stick with "Disarming rules" which makes it Technique vs Strength roll to retain wand. "Can Be Stolen" to me is exactly that, a thief goes out of their way to pick-pocket your wand from you.

In a typical game of HP, the social consequences are pretty big for wand-thieves, so like I mentioned even the bad guys focus on duels over thieving as far as wands go.

If you bought a gun as a Gadget it would have Breakable. How often do they actually break?

It would. All things are considered with things like how often you use the "Armoury" skill to do the upkeep on the weapon. I would assume something similar with wands (how often do you oil the wood to keep it nice, etc.)

I'll strongly second Varyon's idea that there are core magical Skills used to cast spells. I might even say that individual spells are Techniques; if we're naming the skills after the classes they're taught in, anyone who has points in Defense Against the Dark Arts could try avada kedavra, but if someone has raised the technique up from default... well, that tells you something about them.

If I could read what he is talking about I'd probably agree. I don't have access to the Pyramid that he referenced though (spent actual cash on the hardback books over electronic mags). As such I'll have to stick with one of the two choices in my original post.

See, it never struck me as a setting where Hermione walked out of class knowing how to swish and flick and having invested 26 points in Wingardium Leviosa. It struck me as Hermione walking out of class, having invested 2 more hours in increasing her Charm skill, and having eliminated her unfamiliarity penalty with that particular spell.

That's exactly what spending points on individual spells is supposed to represent. You spend 2 hours in class, you have a reason to raise a spell up 1 level. One of the catch-all's in my games is you're only ever able to raise a skill / spell more than one level at a time. Can't simply dump 20 points into a skill w/out a REALLY good in-game explanation.

[evileeyore]

Originally Posted by Praxian

Disarming is a technique like in Martial Arts. I'd be more inclined to stick with "Disarming rules" which makes it Technique vs Strength roll to retain wand. "Can Be Stolen" to me is exactly that, a thief goes out of their way to pick-pocket your wand from you.

You're reading too much into "Can Be Stolen" as it literally requiring theft. It does not. It just allows for the Gadget to be removed from the character via means other than destruction of the Gadget.

As a Player if I bought a Gadget that the enemy could remove it from me in combat 'easily' and I got no point reduction for this, I'd be a bit miffed.

There is a reason wand is called out under Can Be Stolen (Quick Contest), it's the best way to remove the character's Gadget and an attack to Disarm is a Quick Contest.

[Varyon]

Originally Posted by Praxian

Disarming is a technique like in Martial Arts. I'd be more inclined to stick with "Disarming rules" which makes it Technique vs Strength roll to retain wand. "Can Be Stolen" to me is exactly that, a thief goes out of their way to pick-pocket your wand from you.

You still need a "can be disarmed" Limitation for your wands. Can Be Stolen (Useless to thief) would work well.

Originally Posted by Praxian

If I could read what he is talking about I'd probably agree. I don't have access to the Pyramid that he referenced though (spent actual cash on the hardback books over electronic mags). As such I'll have to stick with one of the two choices in my original post.

You only need that Pyramid article if you want to use The Last Gasp, which is about physical exertion, not magic (but could be used for such, as it basically works out as fractional FP costs). Ritual Magic is introduced in Characters (p.242), and expanded on in Thaumatology (starting on p.72). For Harry Potter, some sort of spell design system would be welcome (so that you aren't stuck with what's already been made by the GURPS authors) - a decent way to do this would be to build them with Advantages, then apply a -1 per, say, [5] for its cost.

[Fred Brackin]

Originally Posted by Varyon

For Harry Potter, some sort of spell design system would be welcome (so that you aren't stuck with what's already been made by the GURPS authors) - a decent way to do this would be to build them with Advantages, then apply a -1 per, say, [5] for its cost.

That leads you to some sort of Modular Abilities build. Never mind any Eenrgy Reserves though.

[kdtipa]

Something a little different from the focus on breakable and can be stolen...

The books (and movies) give me the impression that the wands decide whether they will follow the person holding them. When a person that is not the correct master of the wand tries to use it, it doesn't work as well. Also, when broken wands are used, there are often dangerous consequences.

I feel like to get the flavor of Harry Potter style magic, you'd need to include those things. Maybe the wand imparts a talent bonus to the correct wielder for casting spells. And maybe the wrong wielder is left alone (no benefit or penalty) if the wrong wielder isn't specifically abhorrent to the wand, all the way to providing a penalty for anyone that the wand "dislikes".

So I think my approach would be to say that Magery is still a normal advantage, but that it has the limitation of only being able to allow spells to be cast if you have a wand. And the wands would have a talent advantage imparted on the wielder that can explain how some wands are more powerful than others. I might even give wands a perception score (to explain how they can know who's wielding them) and a will score (to introduce the idea that a wand might fight against the wielder).