Sage LaTorra about creating new Spells in Game:

Sage LaTorra about creating new Spells in Game:

Sage LaTorra about creating new Spells in Game:

Wizard: I’m going to use this place of power to craft a new spell.

GM: Okay, tell me about the spell

Wizard: Well, it’s a bolt of lightning from my fingertips that strikes the creature it hits dead and can never miss.

GM: Hmm, okay, well the best you can manage is a lesser version: a 5th level spell that does damage like a fireball to one creature and stuns them momentarily. Drawing on the place of power gives you the raw energy, but you’ll need a creature of electricity to aid you in the research. An elemental will be best, but even a few lightning-struck villagers will be fine.

14 thoughts on “Sage LaTorra about creating new Spells in Game:”

  1. When you attempt a novel spell at a place of power, give three words to describe the desired effect and roll+Int. On a 10+, the spell works. Name it and, at the end of the session, work with the GM to write it up. On a 7-9, the spell works, mostly. Same as above but the GM will replace one of the words. On a 6-, these three words are incompatible.

    So, I’m this case, they’d pick electricity, arc, and death and then roll. On a 10+, they kill something in the area with their lightning bolt but don’t quite get cart blanche to author the wording of the spell. On a 7-9, the GM replaces death with life and and lightning temporarily reanimates a nearby corpse. They now get to write a spell about electroanimation and can take it next level once they’ve mastered it. On a miss, they’ll have to change at least one word and try again. Also the GM makes a move. :-)

  2. Yeah, at worst say “First, you’ll have to make a rough draft version, and practice casting it for a few days/weeks/months”, give them some fun minor cantrip version of whatever they were asking for for free (“Static shock of infallible insect slaying”) let them come up with some creative uses for it and figure out some cool requirements for the “real” thing in a session or two.

  3. I like that move, Marshall Miller! Me, I’d probably tweak the 6- result – my tastes run away from failure = nothing happened. I might say that a spell is created, just not the one the Wizard wanted or the spell works exactly as described, but not by normal Wizardly principles (cue demonic patrons, sacrificial magic etc.).

  4. Travis Scott Part of it is that you’re defining magic in the world by experimenting. The GM still makes a move. Heck maybe the spell mostly works but you know it’s not reproducible. Maybe this is the DW without acid arrows. Maybe you just get some sparks or an explosion…

  5. Some degree of cost should be important for both 7-9 and miss results. What items or treasures are destroyed or lost in the process? What hirelings (intentionally or unintentionally) are hurt? What goals must you sacrifice, or deals must you make with your enemies?

    Also, what John Zo said. The GM can make doing this on the fly easier by pushing the questions back to the players, ideally the other non-wizard players who are on the sidelines.

  6. Also, Mark Diaz Truman has the details on a revised Ritual move we came up with during our DW game at PAX. It’s loosely based on the Engagement move from John Harper’s The Regiment.

Comments are closed.