I am about to begin a campaign using the Dungeon World rules with some friends. One of my group members has expressed interest in playing “The Mage” and because I have read a few accounts of the class taking over the spotlight in the game, I decided to write a little Defy Danger variant for maintaining magic created by the “Cast a Spell” move. Please let me know what you think. I would love to make it better with your help.
_____________________________________________
If you wish to maintain a spell for longer than a few moments, you must Defy Danger to keep the magic under your control. Defy Danger using +INT.
On a 10+ you maintain the spell, but the concentration saps your mental focus. You take -1 ongoing to INT until you have a few minutes to clear your head.
On a 7-9, choose one:
• You dismiss the spell before it gets out of hand, but due to the effort take -1 ongoing to INT until you have a few minutes to clear your head.
• You maintain the spell, but take a debility of your choice.
• You release the spell, it stays in effect and will continue to serve its purpose for a while longer, but now has a mind of its own and is out of your control. The effects could be strange, or dangerous.
On a miss, something has gone horribly wrong. Your spell may continue working, but you will regret casting it.
____________________________________________
On second thought, I think the 10+ should maybe just be “You maintain the spell… for now” thoughts?
I don’t know the Mage firsthand, but this move seems a bit punishing. A 10+ is a full success… tying that to a stat penalty is big! and all the other consequences, too, are very harsh.
Also, if you’re concerned about the Mage specifically, try and talk to your player. You could propose you try the game with the “standard” playbooks first… I can ensure you that the Wizard is really cool, in and of itself!
Alberto Muti Here is a link to The Mage http://rpg.drivethrustuff.com/product/108623/Dungeon-World-Alternative-Playbooks in the description is a link to the free PDF of The Mage http://www.mediafire.com/view/?i5has0rh422pgaz
And yes, I think the 10+ maybe should just be “You maintain the spell…for now”
Hope that helps!
Is that even necessary? if a character is all about magic, and you make it more difficult for them to use it, it might become frustrating and less fun.
IMHO – in DW, if a player takes over the spotlight, it has more to do with the GM than what’s written on their character sheet.
I agree with Alberto Muti and Robert Slaughter I saw the Mage in action only in one session, but it worked fine. Your defy danger complicates the matters without adding fun. Moreover some of the options overlaps the options of cast a spell.
If you want to change the Mage it would be better to subtract than add. If you really want to limit (I do not think it is necessary) I saw someone suggesting to permit spells only on the aligned elements, and forbit at all the spell not aligned. I do not know how it works, but I think it is a better solution.
I’ll second that; spotlight discipline is a table issue, not a design issue. I play Mage in a regular game, and the only time it was brought up it was the GM apologizing for not giving me enough attention.
I wouldn’t nerf the Mage like this, it’ll just lead to frustration. Going off of experience, spellcasting is literally all the class has, even more so than the Wizard. Which might be another argument for pitching the Wizard.
If maintaining a spell is dangerous in a given situation, just use standard Defy Danger rules. They work fine and don’t punish your player for rolling a character they like (Be A Fan).
I won’t worry about it and just use it as written. I’ve had a Wizard and a Mage in my campaign and neither were “too much”. Although in truth the Wizard did die in his first combat encounter…
Just ask your player, “what are the 3 things magic can never do”
James Etheridge the Mage is like the Wizard but able to perform Rituals on the fly without the crazy requirements. How is the Wizard going to look more appetizing to my player?
Robert Slaughter I generally agree with the spotlight issue being a GM/table issue, however, let’s say the Mage takes “The Dragon” as his focus. We have a druid who can turn into a bear, and make 3 moves. Then we have a Mage in the group who can turn into “form of the dragon” with no hold to spend, he just keeps doing whatever dragons do until… well I guess until GM fiat says stop. I mean spotlight as in “this guy can do everything we can do better” not “the GM is ignoring me” I hope that clears things up.
Even the author of The Mage, Jacob Randolph, said “The Mage is one of the most popular playbooks I have ever written, but it has its flaws – the class is too open ended, and is generally capable of solving problems on a larger scope than any other class can really confront.”
What if this were rewritten:
__________________________________________
If you wish to maintain a spell for longer than a few moments, you must Defy Danger to keep the magic under your control. Defy Danger using +INT.
On a 10+ you maintain the spell for now.
On a 7-9, choose one:
• You dismiss the spell before it gets out of hand, but due to the effort take -1 ongoing to INT until you have a few minutes to clear your head.
• You maintain the spell, but take a debility of your choice.
• You release the spell, it stays in effect and will continue to serve its purpose for a while longer, but now has a mind of its own and is out of your control. The effects could be strange, or dangerous.
On a miss, something has gone horribly wrong. Your spell may continue working, but you will regret casting it.
____________________________________________
Short answer: forbid the Mage. You’re the GM, it’s a non-core class, you don’t have to allow it if you don’t like it (and it kind of seems like you don’t).
Long answer: if you want the Mage’s spellcasting to be able to do everything that Ritual can do, that’s up to you, but by default it doesn’t work that way. Ritual doesn’t require a roll, and explicitly allows any effect so long as you meet the requirements. Cast a Spell can never touch on either of its Opposed Elements, which cuts out huge swaths of potential effects, and always has potentially-nasty consequences, even on a 10+. This last bit is the main reason you don’t really need the move you’re trying to put together; Cast a Spell as written already has the requisite groundwork for you, you just have to use it.
The classes appeal to totally different mindsets, really. The Wizard is a little safer, and adds the concept of spells as treasure for example. The spell book also adds a greater feeling of “scaling up” than other classes have. But it also requires worrying about a long list of spells all the time, which is what I (and perhaps your player) don’t like about it. The Mage is riskier, and carries more thematic limitations, but that comes with less bookkeeping and a unique flavor which I (and perhaps your player) find appealing.
I misremembered the Wizard as having more nonmagical move options when I commented before. My apologies, I should’ve looked it up. They’re both pretty limited to doing spells and not much else.
James Etheridge I actually very much like The Mage. I am only concerned with making sure each player feels that they are playing a viable character without being completely outclassed by a single player at the table and am looking for ways to do that.
I realize there are very wide limitations to what The Mage can do, but the things they can do are also extremely open to interpretation. The move says they cannot cause harm directly, but the player has already asked “well what if I created a giant rock, like a meteor that fell and landed on a town or a monster or something? That isn’t causing direct damage right? That still falls under ‘Reckless Destruction’ right?”
See why I am a little bit concerned?
As written, the player will almost certainly argue that they can do any magical effect without limitation, as long as it falls under their focus. For example if he were to pick The Clock as his focus, his aligned abilities are “Adjust the Flow of Time, Stop Aging and Movement, Erode to Dust” I would not be surprised if this player just said “I want to age this whole army and turn them into dust” and at that point the fighter will snap his weapon in two, and walk away from the game.
My point is, there HAS to be a discussion about what the scope of these powers will be at the table beforehand, or a very clear set of rules that must be negotiated out ahead of time (such as my custom move for dealing with duration, so that my player doesn’t say “Ok, I stop the whole world from aging because I have “Stop Aging” in my aligned abilities”)
Please understand that I am not attacking this class, or anyone’s preference for this class. I am simply trying to head off potential table issues before they come up in game. Thank you for your continued responses and feedback.
Kirby Bridges I like this idea, and it would work well for a creative player.
If your player thinks that dropping a giant rock on someone does not deal direct harm, then yes, a discussion of scope is the least you need to have with them. That said, two things:
1) It sounds like your player has poor spotlight discipline and a bit of a munchkin streak. That isn’t going to change by tacking on limiting mechanics to the class; it’s just going to be more work for you and probably feel unfair to them (again, Cast a Spell already has more drawbacks than your average move). Have a long and clear discussion with them–and everyone else–about expectations for the game, what is and isn’t acceptable behavior. Voice your concerns. Ultimately, this is a problem with the player rather than the character, so put your efforts in the right direction.
2) You have a right to say when moves do and do not trigger. If your player wants to do something off-theme or out-of-scope then feel free to say that their magic doesn’t work that way. Would you allow a Fighter to break a mountain using Bend Bars, Lift Gates just because it’s technically an inanimate obstacle? Same situation.
Your player may need a lot of reminders about where the boundaries are, especially early on. It’s okay and necessary to make those reminders. Your main responsibility is to make sure that everyone has fun, yourself included.
Incidentally, the line between Cast a Spell and Black Magic has always been a bit of a bugbear for me, too. It would be nice if the two moves were better integrated instead of being split up like that. The simplest thing to do is just make every damaging spell into a Black Magic roll.
James Etheridge Thank you. The Bend Bars Lift Gates analogy is a good one that I will likely have to use.
Let me ask you a somewhat related question. Given that The Mage can pick up “Ritual” at level 2 as an advanced move, and they can cast any spell that falls under their focus and also spells that are not aligned with their focus (albeit at -1) excepting of course their “Opposed Elements”, why would anyone play The Wizard given both options? The Wizard limits themselves to the short spell list, and also limit their spell power based on their level? (a good example being magic missiles at level 1 being the only damaging spell vs the mage’s black magic that deals 1d8 + tags at first level and so on)
John Lewis you mentioned you had a Mage and a Wizard in your campaign. Did you feel that the players were happy playing next to one another or did one player feel that the other’s class was significantly more powerful withing the game?
Bear in mind that, of the two, I prefer to play Mage. I’m sure someone who legitimately prefers Wizard could come up with a better list. That said, I can think of the following advantages for the Wizard:
1. The Wizard’s spellcasting doesn’t carry as many risks as the Mage does. Rolling a 10+ means that you succeed flat-out, while the Mage still has bad things happen to them even at this level. The Mage has advances to mitigate this later on–but then, the Wizard’s advances make their move more awesome rather than less bad.
2. The Wizard’s spellcasting is unified, rather than being split up into separate move. The consequence of this is that the Mage has way more “base move improving” advances, while the Wizard has more “give me more stuff to do” advances. Big example: a Wizard can actually make their own Places of Power later on down the line. That’s awesome. The Mage doesn’t get stuff like that. (Except Enchanter, which I personally feel is a bit OP and better handled by Ritual, and consequently never take).
3. Following on from the above, a Mage has to spend twice as many advances to “beef out” their spellcasting as compared to a Wizard, if they want to be able to do both Black Magic and utility spellcasting comparably well.
4. The Wizard’s spellcasting does start off weaker than the Mage’s, but the advancement feels more like advancement. Give or take a couple of focus tweaks, a level 10 Mage casts spells exactly like a level 1 Mage, but the difference for a Wizard is phenomenal.
5. Specific, preconstructed spells have their own sort of appeal. Making those choices and filling out your spellbook is very appealing to the inner strategist and tinkerer. Meanwhile, a Wizard can look forward to finding scrolls or tomes containing new spells locked away in dungeons or clutched in the bony claws of a Lich; the Mage already knows all the spells they will ever know, so they have no delicious arcane knowledge to look forward to.
As has been pointed out, this is in many ways a question of scale. It’s extremely common for everyone involved (including designers!) in a fantasy rpg to assume that magic is functionally unlimited because it’s magic, while mundane/martial abilities are judged against human capability. So if a fighter wants to rend a room full of guys with a single swing, that’s obviously “heroic epic” levels of badass that a player won’t assume they have, but a wizard throwing a fireball in and roasting everyone? Well, hell, it’s magic, who’s to say that’s difficult. As a result, most fantasy rpgs have a problem with magic users outpacing everyone else.
In DW, the answer to the “who’s to say what magic can’t do? ” is “Me, the GM.” You can consult your players and make them help answer that question, but you are empowered to say that an effect is too large in scope to trigger the Cast A Spell move.
“You want to turn that whole army into dust? There’s, what, a thousand of them? Couple hundred years between hale and hearty and dust? There’s no way you can channel hundreds of milennia in temporal energy that fast without tapping into a ley line, let alone avoid absorbing the tiny fraction it would take to kill you in the bargain. If you wany to focus on all of them, you might be able to chip their weapons or crack their armor. Or you can dust one or two of them at a time.”
Adjust the scale based on the general power curve of your game (if the fighter is a hero of legend who can defeat a dozen armed warriors in a blink, the mage is probably a bit more powerful than my example), but ultimately remember that you explicitly have the power to define when a move is triggered.
Or get more creative with it. Ask the player what the downside of turning a living creature to dust is.
Maybe, in the process of changing their fate with magic, you get the rush of memories and sensations they would have had from a natural life. One or two at a time, you can handle. It sucks, and if you do it too much then suppressing those lives in your head starts to make you a sociopath, but you can do it. A whole army at once? If you’re not just gibbering, you can’t keep track of which of the hundreds or thousands of threads of memory is yours. You’ll run into a dozen husbands and wives in town, not understanding why they’re so miserable and why they don’t recognize you. You’ll call the queen by her vizier’s name, because you remember an assassination that hasn’t happened yet. And so on.
James Etheridge Thank you! I appreciate the list for the Wizard, it was very well thought out and informative.
Joshua Heffner Thanks for the advice. I like the flavor of that. It also seems I need to really pull out the GM chops on limiting the scope of magic in the game so that every character feels viable.