A post on an entirely extraneous game mechanic like this, for me, forces the issue of what these types of rules bring to the game. I am personally conflicted on things like this. Using this in game does not add a new narrative tools, not really, it could potentially slow the action done and it is more details with which to argue. Why do we need spell mishap tables and do we need to invent new constraints on players ability? Does adding these sorts of specific constraints improve the versatility of the playing experience? Do we need more rules?
Yet at the same time, I like these things that add to the “realistic feel” of the game. Saying I cast a spell, has an empty feel to do it, if you can describe the process by which a spell is cast and by extension how that spell can be miss cast you make the game world richer. The gaming group paints a better picture for the collective imagination when the process by which a character acts is more detailed then swing and miss. Also these details give the players more tools with which to exploit the world. When there are more strings attached to in game concepts and items; the more likely a player can unravel it and that is a good thing. So I am torn on what the net result of these types of things will be on the game. Further study is no doubt needed.....
Go to Comment
Okay, about this post: It is well written and straight forward. Chaosmark assumse so much about the nature of magic and casting that this almost seems like a system specific expansion. We may as well pull back the curtain and post some casting time and spell per day numbers. Yet the general concepts are developed enough, each type of casting, that player can easily envision them and use them. A well organized and useful post
This is great, number 27 got me. Have you read
I recommend Clockwork Fagin. It reminds me of number 30.