Hi DW people =)
I’m running a game for my wife right now, and I am trying to create a custom move-set for her spellcasting.
As far as the fiction goes, this is a world where magic is just being re-discovered after a long Dark-Age. So since a lot of the spells have been lost, wizards are trying to re-discover the magic. So on top of the standard Wizard move-Cast a Spell, I’ve added two more moves that she can do. The first one is based on the Mage’s Cast a Spell.
I’d love to know what you think, and know how you might improve these moves.
Thanks!
Improvise a Spell (INT)
When you weave a spell to help solve a problem, describe it and roll +INT.
On a 10+, the spell certainly helps, but choose one. On a 7-9, the spell takes effect, but the choose two. Either way the casting saps your energy. You take -1 ongoing to INT until you have a moment to clear your head.
Your spell won’t last long – you’ll need to hurry to take advantage of it.
Your spell affects either much more or much less than you wanted it to.
Your spell has unforeseen side effects, and might draw unwanted attention.
Your spell required wild somatic components and you have put yourself in a spot.
On a miss, something’s gone horribly wrong. Your spell may well have worked, but you
will regret casting it.
Scribe a New Spell (INT)
When you have successfully improvised a spell with a 7+ and have some quiet time to yourself you may attempt to formalize then spell in your spell book. Describe the spell and set a level then roll +INT.
On a 10+ you scribe the spell in your book, no problem. On a 7-9 choose one. On a miss both.
The spell was more difficult than you thought, add one to the level you set.
The spell’s magic was angry and volatile, it consumed an adjacent spell in your book. Remove one spell of the same level.
Kudos for running a game for your wife at 8:30 AM on a Thursday!
Tim Franzke and I had a discussion about this a while ago when it comes to the Mage and the ability to just make up spells on the fly. The overall consensus was that moves that leave things very open ended tend to end up becoming problematic. What are the limits to her spell casting?
I had a mage in my group that would turn into a huge fire breathing dragon, cause he was a dragon mage. It turned into a pain in the butt since I had to figure out and stat changes, what he could and could not do, etc. Also with Improv Spells now the mage can fix all problems with magic. The mage never needs to roll anything but INT to fix her problems.
I’d avoid it if I were you, or you need to lay out some serious ground rules about what a wizard can and cannot do with magic.
I tend to be a fan of wild magics in a setting and like the improvise a spell move you designed. But I think if you allow magics to go really wild, their converse must be true. The ill effects are proportionate to the grandiosity of the spell attempted. I know that does not sound like being a fan of the characters, but I tend to be a fan of the shared story rather than the characters.
I have yet to use this, but these table have some wicked Lovecraftian ill effects.
http://www.lastgaspgrimoire.com/do-not-take-me-for-some-turner-of-cheap-tricks/
Could you not use something similar to Use Magic from Monster of the Week?
If you go with “Improvise a Spell”, I would change the 7-9 result such that the player picks one and the GM picks another.
I’d also try to work in some sort of notion that the intensity of the thing that goes wrong is proportional to the intensity of the desired effect.
Delos Adamski I agree that INT can now fix everything, but aren’t the spells of the Mage limited to certain domains?
That’s true there are, but when all you have is a hammer, all your problems start to look like nails.
You can do certain types of magic well, and one or two things not at all, but everything else is fair game and that where you end up with mages doing some gonzo crazy things.
Yeah, I had a storm Mage in a game who did try to take advantage of the Cast a Spell, but I just make sure that when I make a hard move on his fails, he understood that he was messing with powerful forces of nature. He destroyed his home town with a tornado, and other things like that.
In terms of my wife’s spells, it has the same sort of effect. In our last session she tried to create an alter-person spell, but when she failed she and her target switched appearances. And, in the fiction, that was unfortunate for the situation.
I’m alright with doling out consequences for spells, I try to make sure there’s a stark difference between a made up Mage spell and a pre-prescribed Wizard spell.
I guess I’m just wondering if I’ve missed anything, or if there’s anything else that might be interesting to add.
I think as long as you can keep up with her, you should be alright. Just remember that once she gets a +3 to INT, she’ll almost never miss. That’s when my mage got out of control.
Yeah, that is a concern, though she’s not so much interested in dominating the game.
Also, I can scale the 7-9 consequences to be concerning to her as well.
For the “Scribe a Spell” move I would suggest something like the level of the spell decides how much of your Int can be applied to the roll.
Its a little odd, but setting a check like this will ensure that she’s not scribing 1st level spell “Time Stop” and then prepping 5 of those at the beginning of the game.
Well I think the intent of the move was that she and I decide together what the level of the spell is that she’s trying to scribe. She may end up inventing a spell she can’t actually memorize for a few levels that way, but she could always try to improvise it, with the risk of chaos.
I was also looking into old 2nd edition wild magic to help with the chaos factor too, though I might roll on something like the mythic chart to help guide the chaos. Or, you know, just do what the fiction demands 😉
I totally understand the “we’ll decide together” approach.
I would recommend against it though as the more you lean on that part of the game the weaker it becomes. The whole game can very easily become “can I convince the GM/other players of such and such”. Ends up feeling like you are manipulating the others at the table instead of playing a game together.
Also, I’d agree with those who said Monster of the Week’s magic system can be a good framework for your magic. It’s open, but not so open that the player is only relying on that one stat.
Good luck!
Yeah, that makes sense. I’ll look at the MotW magic system again, good idea on that one.
In terms of this system, if I were running this with other people than just my wife, I would probably be making my own ruling on what level the spell was based on the current Wizard list.
Thanks for he input 😀
How about making the Mage’s Focus more restrictive? Casting a spell signed to the Focus gives no modifier, spells opposed to the Focus still can’t be used, and anything neither aligned nor opposed applies a -2 penalty instead of -1?
That might help, but you’re still going to get a mage that will just fix all their problems with their focus. Maybe not everyone will do it but I’ve seen it happen enough.
Yeah, like you said, when all you have is a hammer all your problems are nails. But I really want to avoid mechanical restrictions. The main draw for in DW me (and more specifically my wife, who hates rules) is the rules-light gameplay.
When I play with just my wife it’s easier to manage and scale powers, but when playing with a bigger group it would slow down play a lot to analyze each spell.
To that same point, I’d rather create a system that self-governs and is fair so that she can feel like it’s not a chore to create a new spell every time she needs to, but I won’t feel like the game is spiraling out of control.
I took a look at the Monster of the Week “Use Magic” and I found it to be a bit too mechanical. That list of options is something like 10 deep, and too specific. It’s a hard balance. I feel like these open ended powers are so much fun, but hard to manage. It’s a bit like Green Lantern’s power, the more create you are, the easier it is to be victorious.
In terms of mechanics for my “Improvise a Spell” I purposely added the clause where each time the move is used she will accumulate a -1 to INT. Hopefully discouraging misuse. I made the condition pretty easy to get rid of in the fiction, but if I change it to “until you have time to rest” as opposed to “until you have a moment to clear your head”.
When I showed her the moves, the thing she commented on was that she really didn’t want to fail the “Scribe a Spell” move because the consequences were pretty harsh. She doesn’t want to remove spells from her book 😉
(Actually, as a sidebar, my wife is studying math right now too, so we have a bonus rule for her where she has to associate a math problem with each spell and when she casts the spell she has to do the math problem. It makes math more fun and ubiquitous for her. Also, in our world, magic is a bit like math.)
Okay, I’ve re-worked the moves a bit, I’d love to know what everyone thinks:
Improvise a Spell (INT)
When you weave a spell to help solve a problem, describe it and roll +INT.
On a 10+, the spell certainly helps, but choose one. On a 7-9, the spell takes effect, but the choose two.
• Your spell won’t last long – you’ll need to hurry to take advantage of it.
• Your spell affects either much more or much less than you wanted it to.
• Your spell has unforeseen side effects, and might draw unwanted attention.
• Your spell required wild somatic components and you have put yourself in a spot.
On a miss, something’s gone horribly wrong. Your spell may well have worked, but you will regret casting it.
Additionally, the weaving of magical concepts in your head is taxing and confusing. When you make this move, hold 1. For each hold you have you take a -1 towards making this move or “Scribe a New Spell”.
You may spend hold one for one when you:
• Allow an opponent to strike you and cause damage, as well as anything else the GM says.
• Rest for bit, maybe an hour, to clear your head and check your notes.
• Allow the GM to make a hard move, right now.
When you have a nice restful sleep you may spend all your remaining hold.
Scribe a New Spell (INT)
When you have successfully improvised a spell with a 7+ and have some quiet time to yourself you may attempt to formalize then spell in your spell book. Describe the spell and set a level then roll +INT.
On a 10+ you scribe the spell in your book, no problem. On a 7-9 choose one. On a miss both. You may choose either option multiple times.
• The spell was more difficult than you thought, add one to the level you set.
• The spell’s magic was angry and volatile, it consumed an adjacent spell in your book. Remove one spell of the same level.
I guess I also wonder, why is it a problem that she fixes her problems with magic? I mean, she’s a wizard. Why is that a bad thing? I personally love the Mage move as the creativity is endless, but it is still restricting the mage to work within their domain. I don’t remember Gandalf doing much else than using magic to take care of problems. He might have swung his staff once in a while, but that’s something the wizard can do, after all.
Being a creative character and not overusing moves is the job of the player, in my opinion. A fighter can simple Hack & Slash all the time if they want. How is that any different?
Once you start restricting too much, it gets to be more of a burden then an enjoyment to use these spells. I liked your original setup up above for the most part. You may even want to include the ritual mechanics in there somwhere, such as if the Wizard wants to cast a spell, they get a -1 modifier until they roll a 10+ – or – if they take the time to get the right components, etc. they can also learn the spell fully by taking the time to research it correctly. Maybe an even greater benefit is gained by doing it this way. Perhaps a secret within the spell is revealed about the original creator or a special way they can use it in addition now being able to perform it at full strength. Good RP potential.
It’s not so much that they are solving all problems with magic, it’s that they are solving all their problems with one stat.
Yeah, I agree Damian, I love the creativity and the RP potential. My issue was more of a balance. She has access to all of her spells and can cast them as a standard Wizard does, so she has great access to reliable spells. But I also wanted to give her a way of creatively solving problems through magic. However, I wanted that magic to have a cost so that she would rely on the conventional Magic more often.
She has a standard wizard playbook. These 2 new moves would be in addition to the others, as an option.
The purpose of this is to create a world where one can invent magic, but it’s somewhat risky and can be unreliable, but once created and inscribed in her book, it can cast reliably.
Plus, its true, I’d like for her to have to think of some solutions for problems that might require her to use a stat that is not her best. It can add to the drama and allow more room for me to make moves, which is nice in a one-on-one game where there are many less rolls being made.
That’s another reason why I thought the hold system that I added would be nice. It would allow her to trigger a GM hard move, just to spice things up =)
Another thing I might do, is add some mention of damage and range tags to the improvise move, in case she wants to do damage with it. Though I’m a bit worried that the move is becoming a bit bloated… Perhaps we can just cross that river when we get there…
I really like what you’re trying to do, just needs a bit more polish.
A test I apply to new moves is: Do they make an existing move redundant? If so, the move is too powerful. If not, it’s a potential addition to the game.
Improvise a Spell is dangerous in that it can do anything, potentially making all other spells redundant. To offset that you have a) a list of limitations, and b) a cost to the character for use.
Looking at the limitations:
– “Won’t last long” is a common limitation for existing spells (c.f. instantaneous spell like Magic Missile) so isn’t effective as an offset.
– “more or less than you wanted it to” suffers the same problem (c.f. Fireball’s random damage)
– “unforeseen side effects” and “draw unwanted attention” are better
– “required wild somatic component” how is this a limitation to the spell?
– “put yourself in a spot” that’s a consequence that could have a real effect in game
Your earlier cost “-1 ongoing to INT until you have a moment to clear your head” is a real cost to a Wizard, however only requiring a ‘moment’ makes it too easy to clear.
Encouraging improvisation is good for the game, so rather than being too prescriptive about what the spell can do, I’d suggest simply constraining its effects to Wizardly ones (so it can’t be used to replace the Cleric’s healing spells, for example) and using consequences related to its improvised nature to limit its desirability.
Something like:
When you improvise a spell to produce a new wizardly effect, describe the effect it causes and roll +INT. On a 10+ it works. On a 7-9 it works, but some of its energy causes unwanted collateral damage and choose one:
– You suffer 1d8 HP damage (i.e. it’s going to cost you physically)
– Take -1 ongoing to INT until you Make Camp (i.e. it’s going to cost your spell casting)
– It’s a one-off effect that you couldn’t reproduce (e.g. if you use it to replace another spell, you can do that only once)
Because of it’s improvised nature, effects created by this spell are unique and cannot be repeated.
Regarding Scribe a New Spell: creating stable long term spells is very different to improvising something on the spot. I’d suggest dropping the ability to transcribe it into a new spell, tempting though it is. (That ability sounds more like a new magical class, where instead of have learning proven pre-existing spells, the caster builds up a repertoire of personal spells though trial and error. Now, that could be a a fun class to write.)
So, I’m with you most of the way, Michael. Being that I am playing a game with only my wife in this case, the more steep the limitations I put on her, the more I effectively cripple her and thus the whole game. She has 12 HP, so even in our game last night, an enemy got 2 good shots in on her and she was almost toast. So to that end, having a limitation that does any damage to her I wouldn’t want to use, nor would I want to severely limit her modifiers like an overall -1INT ongoing.
When I play with just one player, I have to cut them some slack, or give them some other bonus stuff to make up for the lack of other players.
I’m about to go on a tangent here, so bear with me, but it helps to explain why I’ve created these seemingly overpowered moves.
In a game with lots of people though, yeah, these moves sort of make others redundant and would, ultimately, give this one player too much power. But I think all of this raises an interesting point on the nature of one-on-one gaming in DW. DW is meant to be played with larger groups of about 4 players and one GM. It’s structured to have an interplay between those players and each of their weaknesses can be buttressed by the others strengths (ideally).
So when you play with just one player and one GM you really have to watch what you do. The player is alone and has no other moves to help her. There’s no one to “aid or interfere” her, and hirelings are only so helpful as written in the rules.
So to help out with this, I’ve overcome these problems by adding a BFF system in a previous game. As she played she met characters that were obviously important to her, so I made these NPCs into buffed up hirelings. They each had GM moves associated with them, like a monster, and they each had an actual, mechanical move that the player could leverage. Each time she embarked on an adventure she could bring 2 BFFs with her to help her along.
The BFF GM moves were triggered when she rolled a 10+ while in a sticky situation. Sort of like a reverse-hard move. So when she succeeded her whole little party succeeded.
I’ve linked the document I created for that adventure. This is a super-long tangent that probably should be re-posted as a separate thread, but it explains why I’m going at these moves the way I am.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/xuuj599j8wzimkt/BFF%20NPCs.pdf?dl=0
Essentially, with this magic stuff, I am trying to create a system whereby, like you said Michael, “instead of learning proven pre-existing spells, the caster builds up a repertoire of personal spells though trial and error.”
And since she’s the only player, it really doesn’t matter what kind of spells she learns this way. They could be either priest, or wizard spells, because if she doesn’t cast them, no one will 😉
I understand, Ben Badger. Nice idea with the BFF system.
A Natural (i.e. untrained) Mage would learn spells by trying out new things; how well they succeed when they try a new effect will determine whether they can do it again or if was just a one-off. Would make for an interesting class whose spell abilities are different every time it’s played. A nice thing about the class would be the innate tie between their earlier successes and their later abilities.
Indeed, I actually only just bought Class Warfare after I started this game. The Blue Mage specialty in the book actually has a lot of moves like that, where they see moves and spells that others do, then roll to copy them. They later get an advanced move where they can write those spells in their book.
I guess there are no new ideas =O