Spells: do you prefer Rotes or Dynamic?

[RenleyRenfield]

So most RPGs seem to use "Rotes". In my question here a Rote is a spell that is self contained rule that fits into the larger overall game system. A good example of this is D&D, such as Fireball spell. For the most part, all of what you need to cast Fireball in D&D is in the Fireball spell rule. It may interact with burning rules in the game, but in general there are few to 0 options. You cast Fireball, it does X damage, it hits X area, and it causes X saving throw. It's the same every time, no options. In some cases there is not even a roll to cast the spell, it just is expended and does its thing.

Then I see a few other games use "Dynamic". Dynamic in my question here is closer to Mage the Awakening. Where you get a set of Themes such as Life or Death or Fire or whatever. And you pair that with the effects you want such as Harm, Area, Number of Targets, Duration and so on. The player picks and chooses what they want, this modifies their dice roll to cast the spell. There is always a roll as it determines if this mixed choice spell goes off.

There are variations of each...


So the question is = Which do you prefer?

- Rotes are a "catalog of spells ready to use, but often static or limited in use."

- Dynamic are a "smorgasbord of options that you have to calculate mid-play, but are highly customizable."

And also = which system does each best? (out of any, not just Mage and D&D)

...

I am also up for other systems that wildly differ from these, so what game did that in such a way that it was significantly better play that Rotes or Dynamic?

 

[Wofano Wotanto]

If I want to dig into magic as a campaign focus my preferred fantasy systems use both and integrate them. Ars Magica, Mage, Pelgrane's Dying Earth (when playing archmages with sandestins, which is where the dynamic part comes in), and to some degree Amber Diceless.

 

[UngainlyTitan]

Dynamic can be a lot of fun and I will freely admit that I do not have a lot of experience in this type of game but it can be game breaking. It is asking a lot of the referee to keep up with party capability.
Last dynamic system I played with was EN World's "Elements of Magic" in the 3.x era and I think it was game breaking.

Rote can be easier to balance and anticipate what the players can do in an encounter. D&D is pretty good but I have not played outside the D&D world for many many years.

 

[GMMichael]

Rote is better. Hands down. I don't want to spend five minutes watching one player try to cast one spell.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

I think both can work well, but like, they need to be done right.

Rotes need to be complex and themed enough to feel like actual magic spells. They also need to be capable of failure or lesser effects - one of D&D's biggest flaws is that virtually all its non-combat spells just always work perfectly 100% of the time.

Dynamic needs to have a system simple enough that it takes 30-60 seconds to determine how a spell works, tops, not 5+ minutes. This can exist - one of the alternative designs for Aeon/Trinity's psychic powers was dynamic and worked incredibly fast and well, and was a vast improvement on the default rote approach.

If the game is spell-centric, this calculation changes - dynamic has to be in, in that case (rote can exist as well) and you can go longer. But most games aren't spell-centric.

 

[Distracted DM]

I like the Roll-to-Cast from Rote system best; specifically DCC's.. in theory. I've only played and run a little bit, but I've enjoyed what I've experienced with it so far.
Shadowdark also has roll to cast but its effects aren't variable like DCC's.

 

[Staffan]

If the game is spell-centric, this calculation changes - dynamic has to be in, in that case (rote can exist as well) and you can go longer. But most games aren't spell-centric.

Very good point – it depends a lot on the focus of the game. If this is a game explicitly about playing magic-users, there needs to be enough variance about those magic-users to let each player do their own thing, and having a flexible magic system can be a big help there. If a spell-caster is one character type among many, they can have more narrow and fixed capabilities.

From a flavor point of view, I like it when rote magic is highly specific. For example, D&D has comprehend languages. It lets the caster read and understand, but not write or speak, any language. That's useful, but boring. Exalted on the other hand has The Eye and the Mouth, which summons a disembodied mouth and an eye of golden light, which can read and translate any given text (as long as it isn't coded or the like). However, it comes with some limitations: the mouth/eye refuses to repeat itself – you can tell it to pause, but not go back, and it won't correct you if you mishear something. And it will only help you a maximum of 10 minutes per day. That is a much cooler spell, even if they fundamentally do the same thing.

 

[Tonguez]

Dynamic spells creation is better but dynamic casting is often a bit too labourious
rote is certainly easier and quicker but lacks dynamism

 

[Quickleaf]

So most RPGs seem to use "Rotes". In my question here a Rote is a spell that is self contained rule that fits into the larger overall game system. A good example of this is D&D, such as Fireball spell. For the most part, all of what you need to cast Fireball in D&D is in the Fireball spell rule. It may interact with burning rules in the game, but in general there are few to 0 options. You cast Fireball, it does X damage, it hits X area, and it causes X saving throw. It's the same every time, no options. In some cases there is not even a roll to cast the spell, it just is expended and does its thing.

Then I see a few other games use "Dynamic". Dynamic in my question here is closer to Mage the Awakening. Where you get a set of Themes such as Life or Death or Fire or whatever. And you pair that with the effects you want such as Harm, Area, Number of Targets, Duration and so on. The player picks and chooses what they want, this modifies their dice roll to cast the spell. There is always a roll as it determines if this mixed choice spell goes off.

There are variations of each...


So the question is = Which do you prefer?

- Rotes are a "catalog of spells ready to use, but often static or limited in use."

- Dynamic are a "smorgasbord of options that you have to calculate mid-play, but are highly customizable."

And also = which system does each best? (out of any, not just Mage and D&D)

...

I am also up for other systems that wildly differ from these, so what game did that in such a way that it was significantly better play that Rotes or Dynamic?

BOTH! I'm a big fan of Jason Lutes' work on Freebooters on the Frontier which is maybe 90% smorgasbord and 10% rote. Mage rolls for the names of their spells, then round-to-round creates a creative effect based on that name and a universal table and a heavy helping of GM adjudication.

 

[RenleyRenfield]

Would everyone be willing to have Rote spells, a smaller list of Rote spells, but the ones that are provided are really punchy and interesting?

Or would you rather have all of the core Rote spells (attack, shield, strength, teleport, etc etc etc), at the cost of each spell being more generic in its function?

...

For those who really like Dynamic spells, do you most prefer them be entirely in-the-moment created. Or just that there is a robust system of creating your own Rotes (with in the moment tweaks allowed) ?