I like the simplicity of your final proposed version in the video. When you were pitching the first version, I didn't have it as absolutely free-form in my head as you seem to indicate the final result. For me, the idea was a midpoint between total freeform and your final approach. If you have a list of "modifiers" or "Effects" which each magical lever you have access to can do, then you can assemble a spell while forming an ever increasing difficulty target. A rune based system may be good for this to have some reason why a specific player has access to only certain modifiers at a given time. So, if you want more area, you increase the target difficulty for the spell. You want it to be a projectile, you increase the difficulty. You want it to be homing... you want another damage type... you want to bypass a resistance... How you let people do the skill check determines how you cap out the reasonable complexity of a spell, and how you scale modifiers. With a 1D20 skill check like DnD uses, modifiers have to remain fairly small so that reasonable spells can be constructed around the 10-15 difficulty check regime. But with an XD6 skill check like Shadowrun uses, you can have some modifiers increase your target number for success, while other major modifiers increase the number of success dice required. I would like such a system where the agony table you roll on is determined by how realistic it was that you succeed based on your stats and the proposed spell. An unlucky fail on what should have been an easy success will roll on a table with mostly temporary effects. But attempting a spell that is so powerful you simply have no chance to ever avoid the agony will move you to tables that are increasingly more likely to cause permanent impacts on how you play going forward (loss of limb, physical disfigurement...). This way if you decide a situation is so dire that you need to try an impossible spell and just deal with the agony doesn't mean "Well, I create a magical nuclear weapon, since I take 1 agony effect either way" instead when you are going over, there is still the question of how far over you are willing to risk going. ---Maybe having the agony table be determined not by comparison of target to expected result, but to actual result.... then if you should have been able to succeed easily, the difference between your unexpected failure and the target is naturally small. But if you were guaranteed a failure, you still hope to roll very well to reduce the penalty somewhat.
This sounds super interesting. Can't wait to see/try this at some point. Keep up the amazing work, my friend.
Thank you 🥹
I hope people like it!
Mate, what a great video. 🤝
Dang! Thank you very much!
I like the simplicity of your final proposed version in the video. When you were pitching the first version, I didn't have it as absolutely free-form in my head as you seem to indicate the final result. For me, the idea was a midpoint between total freeform and your final approach.
If you have a list of "modifiers" or "Effects" which each magical lever you have access to can do, then you can assemble a spell while forming an ever increasing difficulty target. A rune based system may be good for this to have some reason why a specific player has access to only certain modifiers at a given time.
So, if you want more area, you increase the target difficulty for the spell. You want it to be a projectile, you increase the difficulty. You want it to be homing... you want another damage type... you want to bypass a resistance...
How you let people do the skill check determines how you cap out the reasonable complexity of a spell, and how you scale modifiers. With a 1D20 skill check like DnD uses, modifiers have to remain fairly small so that reasonable spells can be constructed around the 10-15 difficulty check regime. But with an XD6 skill check like Shadowrun uses, you can have some modifiers increase your target number for success, while other major modifiers increase the number of success dice required.
I would like such a system where the agony table you roll on is determined by how realistic it was that you succeed based on your stats and the proposed spell. An unlucky fail on what should have been an easy success will roll on a table with mostly temporary effects. But attempting a spell that is so powerful you simply have no chance to ever avoid the agony will move you to tables that are increasingly more likely to cause permanent impacts on how you play going forward (loss of limb, physical disfigurement...). This way if you decide a situation is so dire that you need to try an impossible spell and just deal with the agony doesn't mean "Well, I create a magical nuclear weapon, since I take 1 agony effect either way" instead when you are going over, there is still the question of how far over you are willing to risk going. ---Maybe having the agony table be determined not by comparison of target to expected result, but to actual result.... then if you should have been able to succeed easily, the difference between your unexpected failure and the target is naturally small. But if you were guaranteed a failure, you still hope to roll very well to reduce the penalty somewhat.