[RPM] Misc Questions

[GodBeastX]

One thing that I kinda want to do with RPM that I'm trying to express (Poorly) is familiarity. While I love RPM for the most part, encouraging people to come up with rituals they can do on the fly isn't a bad thing, but something about the lack of a Spell "Set" someone will typically draw from bugs me.

I kind of feel like Mages in the magic system I want to introduce for this setting, should have a list of perks for rituals and if you are casting something without the perk then it's a negative modifier for being unfamiliar.

I'm not exactly sure how to articulate this, so if that was confusing, my intent is to mimic the idea of the geniuses who figure out wonderful formulas for great spells that people mimic because they're awesome, and the people who just follow suit because creating a new spell is a bit more difficult.

It'd also kind of encourage players to use tried and true spells more often I suppose. And it'd also make things like books on spell formulas a bit more interesting IMO.

In a way, I suppose I'm saying, RPM is slightly TOO generic. I have no problem with Generic, I just like a bit more focus in a Mage if that makes sense.

[Ejidoth]

Originally Posted by GodBeastX

One thing that I kinda want to do with RPM that I'm trying to express (Poorly) is familiarity. While I love RPM for the most part, encouraging people to come up with rituals they can do on the fly isn't a bad thing, but something about the lack of a Spell "Set" someone will typically draw from bugs me.

I kind of feel like Mages in the magic system I want to introduce for this setting, should have a list of perks for rituals and if you are casting something without the perk then it's a negative modifier for being unfamiliar.

I'm not exactly sure how to articulate this, so if that was confusing, my intent is to mimic the idea of the geniuses who figure out wonderful formulas for great spells that people mimic because they're awesome, and the people who just follow suit because creating a new spell is a bit more difficult.

It'd also kind of encourage players to use tried and true spells more often I suppose. And it'd also make things like books on spell formulas a bit more interesting IMO.

In a way, I suppose I'm saying, RPM is slightly TOO generic. I have no problem with Generic, I just like a bit more focus in a Mage if that makes sense.

Ritual Mastery is a useful perk for this, but admittedly that gives you a pretty short spell list; once you get to around a dozen perks, just buying a level of Natural Caster starts to look pretty appealing in comparison, and you end up with players switching back to being generalists again.

Grimoires are really where RPM handles the 'it's easier to use magic someone else has already worked out for you' aspect. Having half a dozen or so thematically connected rituals in a commonly available collection-grimoire is a good way to do this, I think. A book of five common spells at +2 costs $700, weighs six pounds, and is a big help to a starting wizard. Maybe throw together a standard 'apprentice book' like this for each Path or magical style you want to encourage in your setting and make them available at half cost or something.

[Pragmatic]

Originally Posted by Ejidoth

Ritual Mastery is a useful perk for this, but admittedly that gives you a pretty short spell list; once you get to around a dozen perks, just buying a level of Natural Caster starts to look pretty appealing in comparison, and you end up with players switching back to being generalists again.

Grimoires are really where RPM handles the 'it's easier to use magic someone else has already worked out for you' aspect. Having half a dozen or so thematically connected rituals in a commonly available collection-grimoire is a good way to do this, I think. A book of five common spells at +2 costs $700, weighs six pounds, and is a big help to a starting wizard. Maybe throw together a standard 'apprentice book' like this for each Path or magical style you want to encourage in your setting and make them available at half cost or something.

I like a limitation on Ritual Adept of "requires a mastered ritual (Ritual Mastery) and/or a grimoire." IIRC, it was priced at -50% to -60%, last I checked.

So, at least until they buy full Ritual Adept, they are forced to specialize.

[Varyon]

Originally Posted by Pragmatic

I like a limitation on Ritual Adept of "requires a mastered ritual (Ritual Mastery) and/or a grimoire." IIRC, it was priced at -50% to -60%, last I checked.

So, at least until they buy full Ritual Adept, they are forced to specialize.

Of course, an issue here is that grimoires are heavy, even if you've got a single rather-sizable collection. If I run something with RPM, I intend to steal the system from here, but with some modifications (namely, I'm going to have the "base weight" of +0 grimoires be based on the energy cost of the spell, allow for down to -2 improvised grimoires, and allow pages to be later added to or taken out of a grimoire).

[Christopher R. Rice]

Originally Posted by GodBeastX

One thing that I kinda want to do with RPM that I'm trying to express (Poorly) is familiarity. While I love RPM for the most part, encouraging people to come up with rituals they can do on the fly isn't a bad thing, but something about the lack of a Spell "Set" someone will typically draw from bugs me.

I kind of feel like Mages in the magic system I want to introduce for this setting, should have a list of perks for rituals and if you are casting something without the perk then it's a negative modifier for being unfamiliar.

I'm not exactly sure how to articulate this, so if that was confusing, my intent is to mimic the idea of the geniuses who figure out wonderful formulas for great spells that people mimic because they're awesome, and the people who just follow suit because creating a new spell is a bit more difficult.

It'd also kind of encourage players to use tried and true spells more often I suppose. And it'd also make things like books on spell formulas a bit more interesting IMO.

In a way, I suppose I'm saying, RPM is slightly TOO generic. I have no problem with Generic, I just like a bit more focus in a Mage if that makes sense.

What I would do if I were you (if I'm reading what you are saying correctly) is not to charge a perk - but to use "Spell Familiarities" (see p. B169). So every two points you've spent in the skills listed under Natural Caster (GURPS Thaumtology: Ritual Path Magic, p. 12) garners you one spell that you are "familiar" with. Spells then give a Familiarity Penalty equal to (Number of Spell Effects x -2). So a character with 40 points in the skill for Natural Caster gets 20 spells he is familiar with and when he casts a spell he isn't familiar with he takes a penalty on his skill rolls of at least -2. You can eliminate these penalties by studying a spell for 8 hours (or less if you actually have Natural Caster). There, now you have a setting feature, no hacking involved, increase the number of Spell Familiarities and/or the penalty as you deem fit. Consider letting characters with Ritual Adept ignore these rules because they are the equivalent of someone with Weapon Master or Gunslinger (who never suffer familiarity penalties for weapons). Does that work for you? Or did I get it wrong?

[GodBeastX]

Originally Posted by Ghostdancer

What I would do if I were you (if I'm reading what you are saying correctly) is not to charge a perk - but to use "Spell Familiarities" (see p. B169). So every two points you've spent in the skills listed under Natural Caster (GURPS Thaumtology: Ritual Path Magic, p. 12) garners you one spell that you are "familiar" with. Spells then give a Familiarity Penalty equal to (Number of Spell Effects x -2). So a character with 40 points in the skill for Natural Caster gets 20 spells he is familiar with and when he casts a spell he isn't familiar with he takes a penalty on his skill rolls of at least -2. You can eliminate these penalties by studying a spell for 8 hours (or less if you actually have Natural Caster). There, now you have a setting feature, no hacking involved, increase the number of Spell Familiarities and/or the penalty as you deem fit. Consider letting characters with Ritual Adept ignore these rules because they are the equivalent of someone with Weapon Master or Gunslinger (who never suffer familiarity penalties for weapons). Does that work for you? Or did I get it wrong?

I love it! Especially since the penalty becomes variable :)

As I said, every single person who has made an RPM character just maxes every single path and gets the "I can do ANYTHING" vibe going every session. And I hate to have tons of mitigators to magic because they are focusing on doing it. I don't like people to choose toys then have to tell them "You can't play with your toys you chose" too often.

There literally is very little difference between different casters, and there was little incentive to focus on a "Style" in my mind, but your options give more flavor IMO.

So I didn't want to stifle the idea of creatively coming up with a ritual, I just wanted to encourage a Subset your caster feels comfortable doing and less about wild cards all over a the game. That way 2 wizards sit at the table and they aren't clones of each other.

Basically to illustrate, it's a difference of:

Generic:

GM: You find yourself barred from the grounds by a large solid stone door.
Player: I'm going to shape the stone to make a hole, shouldn't be too hard, I got every path at high skill.

Focused:

GM: You find yourself barred from the grounds by a large solid stone door.
Player: I could try to shape the stone, but that'll be harder... let me see if I got a ritual that might help us get over this obstacle before I botch something... ... hmmm, could maybe heat the hinges to pull it off, let's try that.

Make people think a little more what could be applicable essentially.

[Christopher R. Rice]

Originally Posted by GodBeastX

I love it! Especially since the penalty becomes variable :)

:-)

Originally Posted by GodBeastX

As I said, every single person who has made an RPM character just maxes every single path and gets the "I can do ANYTHING" vibe going every session. And I hate to have tons of mitigators to magic because they are focusing on doing it. I don't like people to choose toys then have to tell them "You can't play with your toys you chose" too often.

This right here so is important to gaming in general that a lot of GMs don't even think about it. It's about the fun, not the game.

Originally Posted by GodBeastX

There literally is very little difference between different casters, and there was little incentive to focus on a "Style" in my mind, but your options give more flavor IMO.

I've wrote some stuff to help with this and I've posted a lot of stuff on the boards as well. Though it's all over the place. PK has posted a lot of useful stuff too. Not to mention the myriad array of forumite material.

Originally Posted by GodBeastX

So I didn't want to stifle the idea of creatively coming up with a ritual, I just wanted to encourage a Subset your caster feels comfortable doing and less about wild cards all over a the game. That way 2 wizards sit at the table and they aren't clones of each other.

Hmm. Okay.

Originally Posted by GodBeastX

Generic:

See, this is what my players like, the ability to be able to make magic "do as you will."

Originally Posted by GodBeastX

Focused:

Though I do see the point of this.

[Pragmatic]

There's been a few threads about specializing within RPM. Specializing in the various Paths (so, for instance, Energy/Ice would be treated as Hard instead of Very Hard, and all other Energy would default at -2 --or whatever it is), special limitations on Ritual Adept, various Traditions.

[Kalzazz]

I really enjoy the Higher Purpose (X) which gives a bonus to X type spells, most of my characters take it, so they are better at X

Jaina for instance has

Magery 6
IQ 20
Path of Matter 18
Thaumatology 18
Other Paths 17
Higher Purpose Hydromancy 3

She will next upgrade her Path of Magic to 18 so it doesnt drag her Matter down in making Charms

[Angle]

The name of Higher Purpose sounds wierd in my opinion, I'd have called it something like Affinity.