Ritual Path Magic - Basic vs Effect-Shaping

[Moneval]

Hi all.

I'm working on a campaign where I'm planning to use RPM as my main magic system, but am having trouble deciding whether to use the default system, or the Effect-Shaping variant out of pyramid 3/66.

As far as I can see, the basic system seems to fit better with a lot of the expanded stuff for RPM, but I feel like Effect-Shaping more closely matches how I want magic to work, while also removing the burden of tracking energy accumulation. But I haven't really run either variant before, so I'm hoping to hear people's experiences with either/both versions.

If it helps, the campaign is science-fantasy with magic that should ideally have a ritual, occult feel to it, closer to an urban fantasy or pulp magic system than a traditional dungeon fantasy system.

Thanks in advance!

[Varyon]

I haven't truly used either of them, but Effect-Shaping has the benefit of being more reliable and less time-consuming at the table (you don't have to keep rolling over and over to accumulate energy, which is where both of those effects come into play). I will note there's a more fleshed-out version of Effect-Shaping RPM in the form of GURPS Dungeon Fantasy 19: Incantation Magic, written by Christopher Rice (the author of the Pyramid Article with the variant in it). The Paths there are geared more toward Dungeon Fantasy, just as the Paths of the original RPM were geared more toward Monster Hunters, but you'd be able to use the original Paths without issue (or change things up to better match the metaphysics of your own setting). I think it does away with the divide between Greater and Lesser Effects (as DF isn't a "secret magic" setting), so if you liked that dichotomy you'll need to bring it back.

[RyanW]

In my experience, energy accumulation gets a bit tedious with the repeated dice rolling. With non-combat casting, the limiting factor can become how long the players are willing to sit there and watch one person play with their dice.

[Refplace]

I have used both variants but my primary GM (the above Christopher Rice) uses Effect much more than Energy Accumulation.

The main trade off is skill vs. time. Basic as you call it or Effect Shaping takes skill penalties and buying up techniques is not efficient. So you tend to see high skills. Energy Accumulation is much easier to succeed on a given roll but you have to make more rolls. So it takes more game time but also more play time and can feel annoying at the table after a bunch of rolls.

In a campaign concept I prefer Energy Accumulation as lower skills are more realistic if I want widespread magic.
Background spells work well with the energy accumulation method where time is more plentiful. Faster is mostly better for combat and adventuring.

[nudj]

I prefer Effect Shaping for the reasons discussed. I recommend sticking with the pyramid version though. The DF version is a bit broken if you use ritual adept and field caster together with no greater effects. That combo leads to huge 9d area effect fireballs every second, which violates the whole set-up of ritual magic, which is balanced by casting time together with some immediate charms that are prepared ahead of time but are limited and not flexible in the moment.

[Whitewings]

Mechanically, Effect Shaping requires one roll (usually at a penalty) instead of several. Depending on your setting, there are many ways to offset the penalty, and skimping on the ritual requirements increases the penalty. There's an Advantage, Path Adept, which allows the caster to reduce or eliminate various elements, but it's expensive and explicitly notes that it doesn't suit all settings and when available usually has substantial prerequisites.

[Varyon]

Originally Posted by nudj

I prefer Effect Shaping for the reasons discussed. I recommend sticking with the pyramid version though. The DF version is a bit broken if you use ritual adept and field caster together with no greater effects. That combo leads to huge 9d area effect fireballs every second, which violates the whole set-up of ritual magic, which is balanced by casting time together with some immediate charms that are prepared ahead of time but are limited and not flexible in the moment.

I mean, that still calls for taking a -6 for Haste to be able to cast in 1 second instead of 5, and that same -6 worked into an Incantation (a "hung spell") would give you another 60 SP to work with (a bit less if worked into an Infusion, Script, or Conditional Spell). Of course, adding the Greater vs Lesser Effect dichotomy back in would be simple - you just apply the Greater Effects Multiplier to the SP before determining the penalty. Of course, if OP is content with the treatment in Pyramid, picking up Incantation Magic may not be necessary.

[dataweaver]

Originally Posted by Varyon

The Paths there are geared more toward Dungeon Fantasy, just as the Paths of the original RPM were geared more toward Monster Hunters, but you'd be able to use the original Paths without issue (or change things up to better match the metaphysics of your own setting).

Note that "geared towards Dungeon Fantasy" is largely (though not entirely) a matter of changing names:

Arcanum is Magic
Augery is Chance
Demonology is Spirit
Elementalism is Matter and Energy
Mesmerism is Mind
Necromancy is Undead
Transfiguration is Body

Incantation Magic doesn't have Crossroads (one of the limitations of Magic is that it can't be used to do anything regarding magical gates), but does have a Path of Protection. But other than that and the combination of Energy and Matter into Elementalism, the two sets of Paths are basically the same.

Originally Posted by Varyon

I think it does away with the divide between Greater and Lesser Effects (as DF isn't a "secret magic" setting), so if you liked that dichotomy you'll need to bring it back.

[Scriptorian]

Here's a few minor things I've come across when waffling between the two:

One possible plus to Energy Gathering is that it solves the weirdness of Magery and IQ (minus Will and Per) costing the same, since Energy Gathering Magery serves a completely different function. On the other hand, Effect Shaping Magery works basically like a Power Talent, which can be a plus if you want it to feel mechanically unified with other Powers (the case in my setting).

Another thing you lose with Effect Shaping as-written is spell quirks (though I've written a hack to add them back in).

There's a bit of weirdness with Effect Shaping spell design, where you might find that, after you've worked in all the parameters you want, you're still several "energy" points away from the next penalty threshold. Which can result in spells with a longer duration, more damage, etc than the concept actually called for, at no mechanical penalty.

[Varyon]

Originally Posted by Scriptorian

There's a bit of weirdness with Effect Shaping spell design, where you might find that, after you've worked in all the parameters you want, you're still several "energy" points away from the next penalty threshold. Which can result in spells with a longer duration, more damage, etc than the concept actually called for, at no mechanical penalty.

That isn't entirely unique to Effect Shaping. Using the Quick-and-Dirty guidelines for Charms and Conditional Rituals can do this, as the modifier is based on multiples of your nominal Safe Threshold. Even when actually going through the full process, you can have a case where you're 1 energy away from fulfilling the needs of the spell, and then your next gathering roll has MoS 5 and you wind up with an extra 4 energy to invest in it. It's just the nature of using integer values.

Of course, if you want to change things up a bit, bringing a d10 to the table will allow for that. The penalty is equal to -(Energy/10) with rounding (I believe it's Round Down, so that 1-9 energy spells are at +0). You could leave out the rounding, and then if you fail by less than 1, roll a d10 against the decimal value, with success meaning you succeeded after all (treat a 0 as as a 10, and thus an autofail). So if you were casting a 33 energy spell (IIRC this is the cost of the base Fireball spell in RPM), that would be -3.3 to skill. If you have skill 16, that drops to skill 12.7. If you roll a 13, you could then roll a d10, and if you roll 7 or lower (so anything but 8, 9, or 10), you wind up succeeding after all. Now there's no longer a perverse incentive to add an extra 6 energy to the spell, as skill 12.7 has a higher probability of success than 12.1.