Quote:
Originally Posted by Refplace
For some that is a desired feature but I am with you in that I prefer more prebuilt stuff. Trouble with that of course is the more examples and such you put out the less adaptable the sysem will be to more settings.
OK so what do we have thats published?
College magic (my term for the Basic system most people use and think of) has a huge list of pre-built spells.
Ritual magic, Threshaold Magery and a bunch of lesser varitions exist for that system.
Noun/Verb magic can do its own thing but also uses the above ssytem as examples. I call it a separate system.
Path/Book magic is an entirely different system but lacking in examples and could use additional spells. But it is pretty solid and not that hard ot make new spells.
Ritual Path Magic from Monster Hunters is another separate system and gives enough detail that it requires little GM adjudication. It gives us flexibility but enough mechanics so its easy to build spells on the fly. When it gets its own book it will probably be a lot better and more detailed.
So easy in fact that there are a couple of javascript editors to handle the math for you.
Realm Magic requires a lot of GM oversight but allows power and flexibility.
Words of Power is simple yet another system, first seen in Witch World.
Divine Favor is a system built around powers.
Alchemy, Herb Lore and Material magic gives us more.
Symbol magic is yet another system.
Sounds like 4 full systems with good workups and a bunch more that are variations or just flexible systems.
And several of these were originally written for a specific setting.
|
No.
One objective system, which is crappy for other reasons, and the rest are subjective systems, with subjectivity being crappy in itself. (Divine Powers isn't a magic system, any more than Psionic Powers is.)
And don't talk down to me about "math". I'm not talking about arithmetical complexity. I'm talking about subjectivity. About the requirement for massive amounts of GM interpretation.