Skip to Content
 

Magic System Design help

12 replies [Last post]
Fhizban
Fhizban's picture
Offline
Joined: 01/11/2009

i am trying to decide for the right magic system in my wargame. i have two systems ready, one of them is tested and approved but rather boring. the other one is more or less untested but very cool (in my eyes). maybe you have an idea:

(please note that my game uses dice to represent the troops, the dice are used as status indicators but also get rolled).

Core Rules: You roll the dice in a unit and count all the magic results you get (this mechanic is also the same for attacking, defending, moving etc.). then you decide what to do with the magic results.

*** System A: The conventional approach
There is a reference card with spells written on it. the spells have a cost each and you an freely decide wich spells to cast as long as you have enough results left.

Pro: Tested, works
Con: Boring & magic is too powerful

Why is magic too powerful?
No matter how my i nerf the spells, they are always more powerful than the regular actions (attacking, defending, moving) the players can do. i had testers who used an all spellcaster army and won a few times, even against superior armies - reyling on magic alone. why? because you can choose what to do with your magic results instead of relying on further rolls. basically you can turn magic results into anything you need at the moment (attack-spells, defense-spells, movement-spells etc.), while a non-magic army has to rely on what they roll. i dont say this system is broken or unbalanced - but due to its nature, magic is always a bit too powerful.

*** System B: The innovative approach
Instead of reference cards with spells, extra spell dice are used with spells written on each side. you have to bring spell dice into play and attach them to your spellcaster (of course the spells are explained on the reference card too, as there is no space on the die :-).

then, when you roll for magic you also roll the spell die. the result is the currently castable spell. but you can also spend 1 magic results to "nudge" the spell die one face into any direction, resulting in a different spell you are now able to cast.

Pro: very creative and fun to use
Con: Not so well tested, feels even more random, you have to bring the spell die in addition to the spellcaster itself into play.

example: you roll a unit of 2 fire mages and 1 fire tome spell die to cast spells. you score a total of 7 magic results and a firestorm (cost 10) result on the fire tome die. you decide to pay 1 result and nudge the die one face to the right, now showing a fireball (cost 4) result. you cast the fireball and resolve its effects. now you nudge the die one more by paying one point and it shows a "warriors pride" (cost 1) result. with your last magic result you decide to cast this spell as well. then ends your spellcasting action.

feedback? this way!

NomadArtisan
Offline
Joined: 12/12/2011
How simple is your combat

How simple is your combat system?
I'd suggest keeping the magic system as simple as the combat system. Also, perhaps magic being too powerful isn't with the magic system you're using, but with spell diversity. What if certain types of magic users only get access to certain types of spells?
So a single magic user couldn't have both offensive and defensive spells perhaps?
Maybe you had to choose the spell before you roll, and then you have to roll that spell's difficulty or greater.
Perhaps you just have magic 'points' that you spend to cast spells, and once a magic user runs out of points, they can't cast anymore for the rest of the battle. So you could make magic strong but limited. If you made an entire army of spell casters, you'd do very well early, but once you ran out of magic points, you'd have nothing so it would be unwise to do so.

Orangebeard
Offline
Joined: 10/13/2011
Spell Dice

Hi Fhizban,

I agree with NomadArtisan that a simple solution might be the best solution. I have a couple of ideas that might help, but I am not sure how effectivtly they address the power of the spells. On the other hand, it sounds like you hit the nail on the head with your analysis of A & B options...

System C ?
Require that the player declare which spell they are attempting to cast before rolling dice. They are allowed to choose one spell and each spell has a threshold level that must be met by the roll. For example, Wall of Flame has a threshold of 8; if you can roll 8 or more magic results, then the spell is cast. This MIGHT be the system Dragon Dice uses, but I haven't played that in ages...

System D ?
I love the idea of "spell dice", but assuming they are six sided and players are allowed to nudge the dice, the player should still get a favorable result 5/6 times. What if you get to roll 1 spell die for each caster in your group and can select any 1 spell to cast from the results. I am afraid this might require a re-design of caster die, so that casters have spells rather than "results". More casters would obviously provide more options, and a magic heavy army would feel the loss of casters, but they are still subject to to random outcomes and can only cast 1 spell per phase

System E ?
Instead of caster dice, could it be reduced to a single Wizard or Sorcerer die?

I love dice games - can't wait to see where this one goes! Good luck with your design!

Fhizban
Fhizban's picture
Offline
Joined: 01/11/2009
@Orangebeard thanks for your

@Orangebeard

thanks for your feedback, your system D sounds very interesting. i dont mind redesigning the wizards in the game, as they have not been added yet.

it would also remove the necessity to have additional "spell dice", and a way to balance the more powerful spells would be that you have to roll the spell result 2,3,4 or even more times. (so rolling a single "meteor spell" result is not enough, you need at least 3 to cast it).

the way i thought initally was to have both caster dice and spell dice. the casters are just the medium while the spell dice provide the actual spells. players would then select the right spells to use.

but this could be simplified by using your system D. good idea.

PS: yes my game is inspired by dragon dice, but there is so much unique stuff in there that i think it plays way different than DD.

anymore comments?

Tribalxgecko
Tribalxgecko's picture
Offline
Joined: 01/03/2012
I think a combination of

I think a combination of Orangebeards system and yours sounds good. Though a couple of questions come up, since I am not too familiar with dice games..

Say you have a unit of 3 fire mages...what is on the actual dice? Does one face have the unit icon and the other 5 sides have a corresponding spell? Thus, when you take an action with that unit you would roll all 3 fire mage dice and see what spells turn up? What happens if a face/ unit icon side comes up?

Fhizban
Fhizban's picture
Offline
Joined: 01/11/2009
@tribal

@tribal

well it goes too far to explain the whole system here, but basically you have the attributes on the die sides as well as a portrait of the creature it represents. attributes are attack, defense, movement, magic and special abilities.

when rolling for attack, only the attack die sides count, when rolling for defense only the defense die sides count etc. the portrait is a wildcard and counts towards whatever you are currently rolling for.

...

so in the new magic system the die sides will not show "magic points" but instead "spell icons".

so our unit of 3 fire mages would show each: a portrait (wildcard), maybe 3 different spells, plus one side with a movement symbol and maybe a melee attack symbol on it.

when the three are rolled during a spellcasting action, you only count the spell icons showing up, the others are considered duds during a spellcasting action.

you then have to look up the corresponding spell on a special card, called StatCard and check its effects (its not possible otherwise, this is a drawback of dice games).

well, if you need multiply results to cast some spells (like 3 results for a powerful meteor spell), we could say the portraits also count as "joker" (like: a portrait counts as any spell icon you rolled during this spellcasting action).

so if i roll just 2 meteor results and 1 portrait, i could say the portrait counts as a meteor result as well. bringing it to the required 3 and enabling me to cas the spell.

...

thoughts:

its good that we get rid of the overhead spell dice, so wizards dont have to carry additional spell dice with them. it also nerfes magic a bit more as you cannot choose wich spells to cast and you have to use multiply dice with the same spells on them if you want to cast powerful, multy result spells (like our said meteor, wich requires you to roll 3 meteor results so it can be cast). actually, we could still use the "spell dice" and attach them to spellcasters, providing them with one additonal result, broadening their repertoire and supporting the "you need multiply results of this spell in order to cast it" mechanic

hmmm more ideas anyone?

Fhizban
Fhizban's picture
Offline
Joined: 01/11/2009
Eureka!

did a quick test with my "sticker-dice" and i think the magic system is fairly complete now. its a miracle how input from other people stimulates your brain and helps you to find a solution!

GODS & MINIONS - MAGIC SYSTEM (alpha)
===========================

* Spellcaster dice show special spell icons on their sides that allow you to make use of powerful spell effects during your turn.
* instead of attacking or moving a unit, you can roll all its dice and count the spell icon results
* most spells can be cast, just by rolling them (these are called level 1 spells)
* some spells are more powerful (level 2+ spells) and require that you roll the spell icon multiply times (2 results for a level 2 spell, 3 results for a level 3 spell etc.)
* as a base rule, to use the level 2+ spells, you have to put more than one wizard into a unit
* but, you can also sacrifice spell results to "support" the spell results of other dice you just rolled
* no matter how powerful the spell result you sacrifice is, it always counts just as +1

Example:

The player rolls 3 fire mages and gets:
1 meteor spell icon (level 3)
1 firestorm spell icon (level 2)
1 warriors pride spell icon (level 1)

possible things the player could do now:
A. cast the warrior pride as its level 1 and castable without further support. then sacrifice the meteor icon to support the firestorm by +1, enabling him to cast the firestorm too.

B. sacrifice both the warriors pride (+1) and the firestorm (+1) to support the meteor by +2 and enabling him to cast this level 3 spell.

....

the main advantage is that you can use any results to fuel your more powerful spells, making them easier to cast. otherwise the player has to roll multiply matching results, making the system too random. the way it works now, i could also imagine spells that work already at level 1 but can be further empowered by supporting them.

phew - that where two long posts. anyone read that and able to give feedback?

kos
Offline
Joined: 01/17/2011
Looks good

Your system looks good. The player cannot cast every spell every turn, but does have a level of choice about what they want to cast.

It is interesting that your system requires multiple casters of the same type to cast high level spells. This mechanic in itself could drive the game's backstory towards the development of mage clans/guilds who always travel around in packs. More mages = more power AND more flexibility.

The downside is that a single mage would be very weak, because whenever he rolled up a level 2 or level 3 spell it would be wasted.

I was originally going to suggest that rather than spell levels, all spells power up with multiples. In such a system a 2x spell may need to be more than twice as effective as a 1x spell (to account for the difficulty of rolling multiples).
E.g. Say 1x fireball does 1 damage to 1 target, then 2x fireballs does 2 damage to 2 targets, and 3x fireballs does 3 damage to 3 targets.

All the best with your game.

Regards,
kos

Fhizban
Fhizban's picture
Offline
Joined: 01/11/2009
@kos thanks for the

@kos

thanks for the feedback!

I thought never putting too many high level spells on a single mage or otherwise he would not be able to cast anyhting, maybe each mage should have at least 1-2 level 1 spells on it, so there is always a chance to roll something you can cast.

as written in my last paragraph im also thinking about powering up spells with multiplies, but i dont think i can apply this to every spell in the game.

so far so good, the only thing is the number of spell icons the players have to memorize - but thats the fault of dice games!

NomadArtisan
Offline
Joined: 12/12/2011
I like the system you have,

I like the system you have, does it fit your back story?
Most games, especially fantasy/fighting games, that have wizards and mages usually represent them by a single powerful piece, so I think it's throwing me that you chose to use units. Nothing wrong with that at all, however I had an idea for in case you choose to have magic users become stand alone 'characters'.

The difficulty of a spell would be represented by how many (or few) symbols for that spell are on the dice.
So lets say a wizard has access to 'Shock' a weak spell, 'Lightning Bolt' a solid but medium spell, and 'Earthquake' a very powerful spell. Shock would be represented on 3 sides of the magic user's die, Lightning Bolt on two of the sides, and Earthquake on only one of the sides (you could even change these numbers around and have the spell symbols share sides for more chances of casting).
So when you wish to cast a spell, declare the spell you're going for, and roll the magic user's die. If it scores a symbol of the spell, then you cast, otherwise it is failed. This would also allow a single magic user to cast powerful spells, but not consistently so, and might open up some design options as you're not required to purchase multiple magic users.

Tribalxgecko
Tribalxgecko's picture
Offline
Joined: 01/03/2012
Ahhh, i get it Fhizban. Glad

Ahhh, i get it Fhizban. Glad that that setup is working for you. As I was reading your post a though / question occurred to me.

Does a unit have to be made up of all the same dice? For example do all of the dice have to be fire mages, or can you have a unit with fire mages, warlocks, and an elementalist for example?

The reason I ask, is because you could build a combo sort of magic system in this fashion using what you have already. It is more work, but it is something you could introduce only as you introduce new spell casting classes. For example, a spell called Volcanic Eruption, that would require a spell from the fire mages and a spell from the elementalist, all within the same unit, to be rolled in order to access it. They would be slightly more powerful do to less chance of rolling them, but could be an interesting possibility. Just a thought anyway ;)

Fhizban
Fhizban's picture
Offline
Joined: 01/11/2009
@Nomad @Tribal Thanks again

@Nomad @Tribal

Thanks again for the input, im quite outfitted now. i consider adding the ritual magic idea (multply spellcasters work together to access more powerful spells) in a possible expansion.

larienna
larienna's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/28/2008
(I just read the first

(I just read the first post)

This is a problem I had when I was creating a sorcerer duelling system when I was teenager. If a player have access to all his spells, he will always cast his strongest spells first and then continue with his weaker spells untills there is no spells left.

It somewhat make sense in real life that a wizard have access to all the spells in his book and can cast what ever he wants, but game wise it is not really working.

There are various methods to limit what spell can be used, and people have come up with various methods so far:

Random selection: Like magic the gathering, you do not have access to all your spells, but only a portion of it.

Rock-Paper-Scissor: There is a RPS relationship in the magic system which prevent the strong spell from always be efficient.

Limited resources: Spells cost mana and it might be less a waste to cast 2 weak spell than 1 strong spell that won't be used at it's full potential.

Save it for later: Players might be required to set some spells aside and keep them for later use for when it's really going to be needed (but that occasion could never happen).

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I have been toying with various option for my master of magic board game. All options seems to create many problems. I ended up discovering that a deck building system could work perfectly for the game.

My deck building system was stlightly different than other deck building games. Cards an be removed from the deck to make other cards of the same name more powerful (so less opportunity to cast, but stronger spells). All spell cards are also used as a commodity to research new spell. So the stronger the spells you acquire, the more research they will grant you.

But in you case, I don't think deck building would be a good solution because you are not learning spells during a battle. But you could have a random selection of cards that cycles a lot, like deck building games, where the randomness would represent the opportunity to be able to cast a spell.

You could also be allowed to place cards in battle that would powerup other cards (like if they were enchantment or power sources).

Syndicate content


forum | by Dr. Radut