Spells: do you prefer Rotes or Dynamic?

[GMMichael]

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?

I'd think the list would be longer as the spells got more punchy.

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?

More generic, at least in my games, means the player can personalize the spell. Which in turn leads to more punchy and interesting spells. Depending on the player.

 

[Pedantic]

I've got a larger thesis about negotiation in TTRPGs, but I generally don't care for it and systems that force it to happen. I don't want to be in a situation where I'm bargaining with a player for what effects they can produce or what the function of their tools are, I want to present them with situations that they will overcome by using known mechanics. "Dynamic" effects always boil down to a negotiation about whether something should happen and/or what should be possible in exchange for what cost. I'd much rather effects be specified, so players don't need to engage with the GM as an in the moment rules designer, and can engage instead with the GM as the source of information about the world.

 

[Arilyn]

I really like Ars Magica, with memorized spells being safe and predictable and spells characters throw together on the fly being riskier to cast.

I also like short spell descriptions that are open to interpretation like you find in Knave. Lots of opportunity to take a flavourful description, that does not contain mechanics, and let the imagination run free.

 

[grankless]

The less big-ass lists in a game book, the better. The best magic "systems" are where you just do whatever it is you're doing and say it's magic-related.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

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.

100%. Exalted learned from D&D's mistakes and learned from what was cool about scary spells in other games or in myth and legend and fiction, and thus created ultra-memorable and really weird spells that actually feel like spells.

 

[Blue]

I prefer...

The solution that fits the genre/setting, is quick at the table, is codified so not "Mother-May-I", and is equally accessible by all players - in other words some aren't put off by high levels of complexity. And "is quick at the table" is not just mechanically, but also decision paralysis. (And a huge list of rote could be longer to evaluate than Dynamic, or vice-versa.)

Both types can succeed or fail these four requirements. Rote often fits the 2nd and 3rd better, though I've also seen games that are Dynamic by this description but you can practice specifics, so you have flexibility for utility but are mostly doing Rote for the zoom-in of combat.

 

[Li Shenron]

I prefer "rote" i.e. each spell being its own fixed recipe, also because I like how it creates a sort of divide or distance between magic itself and a spellcaster, as in: a spell is what it is and the Wizard who discovers/knows a spell is bound to the spell's rules. Too much freedom, and the Wizard starts feeling too much like a superhero or a deity for my tastes. Maybe it could work better with a Sorcerer concept.

 

[John Dallman]

The systems I like best are Ars Magica, and GURPS' Ritual Path Magic. Both allow you to improvise small effects quite simply, and do larger ones with preparation.

In Ars Magica, those are spells from the book, or which the character has put time into. Given that characters usually one have one adventure per year, setting them up is usually practical as best I recall.

In Ritual Path Magic, the big effects are normally designed as part of preparations for a scenario and one-shot items ("charms") are prepared to cast them. It's possible to improvise quite big effects, if the character is adequately talented, the player can do the calculations quickly and the rest of the party can keep the magician from being attacked while they gather the power. I designed a cribsheet for myself to make the calculations easier.

 

[Tonguez]

Ive been working on a skill based system using base themes and metamagic enhancements - so caster might start with a mage hand cantrip (10 lb, no attack, DC 10), then add metamagics to build that mage hand cantrip up to 100lb Grappling hand (DC16 Athletics) or even a Flaming Fist attack (DC17 Attack).

An Aeromancer might start with gust of wind cantrip then use extend and empower to use the wind to lift themselves so they can fly (using Acrobatics skill v DC 14)

 

[DragonLancer]

Rotes just for the ease and simplicity.

I've played two Mage campaigns in the past and I hated their dynamic put spells together approach.