[DF] Easy arcane magic for Dungeon Fantasy

[Peter Knutsen]

Originally Posted by Refplace

One of the cool things about GURPS is how many different magic systems we have available to us and each comes with a lot of options for change.

As far as I know, GURPS only has one published magic system that does not require extreme amounts of GM subjectivity.

Designing for objectivity takes time, effort and ability.

[Refplace]

Originally Posted by Peter Knutsen

As far as I know, GURPS only has one published magic system that does not require extreme amounts of GM subjectivity.

Designing for objectivity takes time, effort and ability.

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.

[Pagan]

Originally Posted by Peter Knutsen

You may have "played", but you did not simulate the GURPS Magic system, in the sense of giving it to the NPCs who populate the game world, and having those NPCs interact with the spell magic system in a psychologically realistic fashion.

Realistic for whom? Maybe mages are limited and don't have access to every spell (that's the way mine work). IMC since mages once ruled part of the known world and were overthrown, they are now forbidden by law from owning land (the main source of economic power) and since much of the world is still on a barter system and spells are limited (each magical style has about 100 spells, many perks, some which grant access to advantages) I haven't had that much of a problem. There is a body of sorcerers who are dedicated to making sure mages don't rise to political power ever again (in game magical police) and I don't have to worry about "realistic" behavior but I do have consistent behavior that has the veneer of realism. Which is all I need for a game.

[Peter Knutsen]

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.

[Peter Knutsen]

Originally Posted by Pagan

Realistic for whom? Maybe mages are limited and don't have access to every spell (that's the way mine work). IMC since mages once ruled part of the known world and were overthrown, they are now forbidden by law from owning land (the main source of economic power) and since much of the world is still on a barter system and spells are limited (each magical style has about 100 spells, many perks, some which grant access to advantages) I haven't had that much of a problem. There is a body of sorcerers who are dedicated to making sure mages don't rise to political power ever again (in game magical police) and I don't have to worry about "realistic" behavior but I do have consistent behavior that has the veneer of realism. Which is all I need for a game.

Realistic for those who have the capability to recognize and appreciate realism. Those few.

[Refplace]

Originally Posted by Peter Knutsen

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.

A powers based system of magic is still a magic system. You make the same sweeping statements that another poster does here in declaring things to be bad using the argument that you dont agree with them.
I find that odd for someone who does not like Subjective systems.
All the systems and rules have some level of subjectivity.
However your statement was that there was only 1 that did not require extreme amounts of subjectivity.

What is extreme about RPM?
There is a lot of math and different ways to do something but how much it costs and what you can do seems pretty well laid out to me.

Book/Path only requires GM effort in making or approving new rituals. I do not see the existing ones as requiring extreme effort or judgement.

Several of the systems rely on the basic spells but use them in a new way and with new mechanics. You did not argue they were not different systems, instead saying they all require extreme subjectivity. How so?
We probably have different definitions of the word extreme.

[Pagan]

Originally Posted by Peter Knutsen

Realistic for those who have the capability to recognize and appreciate realism. Those few.

You might want to consider that your "truth" is not the only truth.

And speaking of economics, if by your admittance, the people who want your truth are few, why would SJG cater to those few when it isn't financially responsible. Why not do what they did and give a system that is broad but can be tweeked to simulate many different types of magical systems.

[Bruno]

Aaaand this is now officially another branch of the "Skill based magic sucks!" "No it doesn't!" "Yes it does!" thread.

[vierasmarius]

Originally Posted by Bruno

Aaaand this is now officially another branch of the "Skill based magic sucks!" "No it doesn't!" "Yes it does!" thread.

It's always amusing when "realism" is brought up to support or decry a "Magic" system. I know where the argument is coming from, but come on, guys. If something doesn't make sense, you can literally use the excuse that "a wizard did it." =P

Anyways, magic can work however you want it to work. Maybe it's subjective; that's what the GM is for. At some point he's going to have to decide what he wants his world to look like - either when initially designing his magic system, or during play as he adjudicates it.

[Langy]

Originally Posted by Bruno

Aaaand this is now officially another branch of the "Skill based magic sucks!" "No it doesn't!" "Yes it does!" thread.

I don't have a problem with a skill-based magic system, I just don't like the default one very much. I'm actually in the middle of ripping it apart and replacing it entirely with a system inspired by Ritual Path Magic, Noun/Verb Syntactic Magic, Ritual Magic, Symbolic Magic, and Threshold Magic. It's still skill-based, but in my opinion it solves many of the problems of the default system. Then again, it's also completely untested and not yet ready for primetime. I'll expand more on it later, when it's more ready to be analyzed.