Magic in Cortex, Savage Worlds and Witch Girls Adventures

This is part two of my deep delve into the magic systems of some of the games I like, in particular Cortex, Unisystem and Savage Worlds.


So. I am currently re-doing the magic system for an RPG and trying not to plagiarize myself from other games and it has me thinking.


Why don't Savage Worlds or Cortex have better magic systems?


I'll be 100% honest here, I am not a huge fan of Savage Worlds, but I do see the attraction and why it is a good game. So it is likely that there is something out there and I just haven't found it yet. I do however own every Cortex book there is (and I love the Supernatural RPG) and I usually left feeling a little underwhelmed when it comes to magic. This seems a touch odd really, given the people that worked on it and games that have come out for it. Ok, to be fair, none of the games are trying to be the next Mage or WitchCraftRPG.

Reading over both games I am struck with many of the similarities (yes there are lots of differences too, but I want to talk about them in general) they share. No surprise really. Both are products of post-d20 game design and both take the best aspects (in their author's opinions) of games that came before. Both attempt to fill the same need that GURPS, True 20 or Unisystem fills for others. Maybe that is why I am not all "ZOMG THIS IS TEH BEST GAEM EVAR!!!!" about them. Yeah they are really, really good. But they are missing something critical for me. A good magic system.


Now Savage Worlds presents a system that is designed to be used with Magic, Psionics, Mad/Weird Science or Supers. It does work and it has a nice streamlined design that I do like. In fact it really is the first game where I felt Mad Science was a great option (I disliked it in both Mage and Buffy). Cortex is more of toolkit approach in the core where the author actively supports you building a system on your own. Why thank you Jamie! I think I might just have to do that. ;)

I have made attempts over the last year to port the Ghosts of Albion magic system over to varying degrees of success (and failure). The process is simple really. Pick an attribute (typically a mental one), add an Edge (SW: such as "Arcane Background") or Asset (Cortex), combined with a skill (Savage Worlds suggests "Spellcasting" or "faith") and compare that to some target number, usually modified by the spell difficulty. Not really that hard. The system out of the box for Savage Worlds is most similar in concept to WitchCraft, where Arcane Background functions as The Gift. Then this allows you to buy more powers (Edges) that are used as spells. In Ghosts of Albion spells are not Edges, Assets or Qualities, they are things you can buy or acquire, typically via the Occult Library Quality. This frees up those character creation points, but makes for very specific effects. "Fireball" does just that, but a "Fire Manipulation" power can be at low levels effecting a normal flame or a fireball at higher ones. Arcane books then in this system then become more how-to-guides and training rather than recipes for spells. Good for WitchCraft RPG and Witch Girls Adventures, bad for Charmed, Buffy and Ghosts of Albion.


So I have to take a different approach.


So should "Spells" be Powers? Yes. I think that much is clear. Given the point economies of both systems spending a ton of points on individual effect spells will take forever. Of course that is if I am doing something like Charmed. If I stick with something like Supernatural then maybe that is fine.

There needs to be a trait (Edge, Asset, Quality or even Attribute) that grants power to perform magic. Like the Gift or Magic. It is tied to a skill, called Spellcasting or Arcana maybe. The skill then can be how you increase your personal power. Of course the Magic trait can also have levels to represent raw power and even something like Mana/Essence points. Currently neither game offers something exactly like this. But Witch Girls Adventures does.


Witch Girls Adventures is fun game I picked up over the summer and have been having quite a bit of fun with. So before I build a new magic system, let's see how one ported over might work.

WGA has a Magic attribute that typically starts out at d8 for most characters, though some have d10. Remember, this is a magic heavy game. Let's translate that to a Magic Edge/Asset. The first level you can buy is d4 and it can move up. WGA also has the Spellcasting skill. Let's move that over as well.
The basic Cortex formula then is Magic + Spellcasting and compare vs Target number. It's a simple system. WGA also various spells/powers that can be bought or learned. We can also use the basic Zap Point mechanic.


Savage Worlds is a bit different. It's power system compares your level (Novice, Seasoned, Veteran…) and then subtracts power points. In WGA every spell has a level, 1 to 6 typically, and those might correspond to SW levels. So Novice can be levels 1-2, Seasoned 3, Veteran 4, Heroic 5 and up. The power Points loss is equal to twice the WGA level. You can still take the different magical "Schools" and break them out into skills. It might even make sense to create a Magic Attribute (just like WGA) and have it ranked d4 and up and purchase the magical skills (WGA schools) just like one does normally in SW. A magic roll then is a Skill roll (plus the Wild Die for Wild Cards) compared to the TN, and then add in any raises. I would also give magic using characters power points equal to twice their Magic Attribute die. So a d4 has 8, a d8 has 16 and so on, just like Witch Girls Zap points.


I like this for Cortex, but not convinced it is any better or worse than what Savage Worlds already has now. What is does give Savage Worlds is more variety to its magic system. Like Unisystem, Savage Worlds has carved out a niche for itself and it works well in that niche. It's Pulpy with "Bigger Than Life Heroes!" and maybe not the high magic hijinks one would see in Ghosts of Albion or Mage.


I have a couple more ideas to test this out, maybe finally bringing to life that Charmed RPG I have been dying to do for years.

Wait? Is it 1982 again? More anti-D&D crap.

So the old "Dungeons and Dragons causes violence" meme has reared it's ugly head again.  This time from the particularly lazy journalism of Ms. Laurel J. Sweet and the Boston Herald.  Ms. Sweet put forth that golden chestnut that somehow playing the game Dungeons and Dragons is somehow linked to violent murder. In particular the ones Amy Bishop is accused of.

Now let me be clear here.  What ever Amy Bishop did or didn't do in her personal life is unimportant when dealing with the fact that she murdered three people, supposedly because she didn't get tenure.  We could just as easily blame the University tenure track or the pressures of a publish or perish environment.  I am sure people will blame the gun companies too.
Here is a novel idea.  Let's blame Amy Bishop.  She is the one that pulled the trigger after all.  Apparently she kept pulling till the gun jammed.

But my ire is not directed at Amy Bishop.  We have a court system, juries and a judge for her.  No mine is on the lazy, so called journalism of  Laurel J. Sweet.  Yeah I linked her name again.  Wonder why.

To make the claims or even allusions she is making are either laziness, a misguided attempt to push copy or a hidden conservative agenda.   She published not just one, but two articles on this.  At the risk of giving her exactly what she wants here are the links.  Use a browser that blocks ads if you wish to make a statement:

http://www.bostonherald.com/news/regional/view/20100215oddball_protrait_emerges_suspects_family_pals_offer_clues/srvc=home&position=0
and
http://news.bostonherald.com/news/regional/view.bg?articleid=1233150

So. why do I get so worked up about these things?  Well frankly stupid people piss me off, but smart people enabling stupid people to do more stupid things is worse.

See here is how it works.  Lazy journalist looking for a good byline writes fluff piece about D&D leading to murder.  Next thing you know some shit-for-brains religious fuck-wit then quotes the article as "expert testimony", then that person gets quoted as "reading up on all the latest literature", then it is used as "evidence" in a Wikipedia article and you get a snowball of stupid rolling down hill.

Next thing you know someone is digging up old Pat Pulling again and TLN is showing "Mazes & Monsters" in heavy rotation.

Ok to be fair I have no idea if TLN has ever shown "Mazes & Monsters".

It irritates me because it is lazy, and stupid.  Obviously the Boston Herald is trying to push copy and Ms. Sweet is only too happy to help.  But it is bad journalism.

I had my run ins with the D&D Satanic Panic of the 80's.  I was lucky to have had parents that were smart enough to know better than to listen to fundies and to trust their children.  Later on I dealt with Jack Chick personally and, if I may be so bold, came out the winner in that one.

The time I now spend playing D&D with my own children has been fantastic.  I have met some of the coolest people through this game and others like it.  It is a great past time full of great people who deserve better than being painted by the sloppy brush of Laurel J. Sweet.

Agree with me?  Why not let Laurel J. Sweet know yourself.  Reasonable, intelligent emails only.  Or even just something to convey your disappointment in a polite manner.

Don't give her anything else to write about.

Delay

So I have a post on magic in Cortex, but that is going to be delayed a bit.

I burned my hand this weekend making Pad Thai so typing is slow.
I am also not feeling too well today (cold).  So the post will be on it's way.  Just later than I wanted it.

Witches for D&D4

So a pause on my Cortex/Savage Worlds magic discussion for something that has been in the back of my mind for a while now.

Witches in D&D 4.
I go back and forth a lot on this.  Part of me feels that i don't need to do this, the Warlock sorta does what I would want in a witch, but not everything.  I am also of the frame of mind that characters in D&D4 play a certain role in the game and maybe the witch is not a good fit.

But then I come to the point where I am combing classes as hybrids, multiclasses and very specific feats to get what I want, and that is not what I want either.

So I am left with the conclusion that I come to time and time again in D&D.
If I want a witch I am going to have to make her myself.

I am currently doing that now for Spellcraft & Swordplay and looking to do it for Basic D&D clones and Advanced ones as well.  I already did it for 2nd Ed AD&D and 3.x D&D and each one felt a little different.
A witch in 4th Ed would have to feel different too.

Like the effort I went through for these previous editions I have to think about what role the witch would serve in this new game.  Here are my thoughts.

1. New Warlock pact
This is the easiest.  I come up with a new Warlock pact that is "witchy" enough for me.  The pros are there are already some very witch-like elements to the warlock and I am not inventing something new, just modifying something already out there.  I could call it something like an Occult Pact.  The would be warlock makes a pact with ancient Occult (hidden) beings that can be good, evil or otherwise.  The pact is something like a devotion so I have the "religion" angle and there are still reasons for clerics and wizards to mistrust them.  One of the criticisms of my 2nd ed witch book was there were really no wicked witches in it.  This I felt, after some reflection on my part,  was a reasonable criticism. With 4e then I have my cake and eat it too with the Dark, Infernal and even the Star pacts covering the wicked and/or mysterious witch.
While there are a lot of pros to this solution, there are some cons as well.
First, the warlock-as-a-witch is stuck in the striker role.  Not too bad really, but the witch in my mind has always been more of a controller.  Yes, yes I am using the new terms from the new game in the past tense.  It is easier to say that than say I have always seen the witch employing certain techniques like charm, mass blindness, controlling others, and polymorphs, all powers that the current Arcane Controller (wizard) does now.
It is enough of a mismatch that I am considering option 2.

2. Witch as her own Class
I have been thinking of the witch as her own class for some time now.   There are a lot of reasons to do this.  First it allows me to do what I want with her.  I can make her a controller for example.  Would I keep her Arcane?  I am thinking not, we have an arcane controller, the wizard, so maybe she should be something else.  The 4e Blackmoor book has the Wokan, which is an update of the old Wokanni class witch had been called the witch in previous editions of Basic D&D.  It has it's own power source.  So taking that as an example, maybe what I really want is a new power source.  The Occult Power source sounds cool.  Either that or Eldritch.  In any case these are ancient magics that bridge the gaps between Arcane, Divine, Primordial and Shadow.
The witch then is an Occult Controller.
I can also move the warlock over to become an Occult Striker.  We already have two Arcane Strikers, the Sorcerer and the Warlock.  This would limit the Paragon paths for the Warlock though.
I would still need an Occult Leader and an Occult Defender.  The Witch Knight from my 2nd Ed book and the Witch Guardian from my 3rd Ed book would combine to make an armor wearing, sword wielding Occult Defender.  No ideas yet on an Occult Leader.
The Pros are obviously I get exactly what I want.  The cons now though are pretty big.  Not only do I need to create a new class, but a whole new set of classes, paragon paths and associated magic items, feats and rituals.

Do I really want to do all that work?
Well. Chances are I am going to eventually.  But I don't need to do everything.  I am not planning on publishing this, so I am free to borrow what I need.
I have looked at several other witch classes for 4e and while they are ok, they don't really work for me.
But the 4e Blackmoor book seems to cover some of my bases.
I already decided that the Monk comes from Blackmoor, I guess I will be using the other classes as well.

The Arcane Warrior is perfect (nearly) as my Occult Defender, Witch Knight.  So I can use him as is.
There are two controllers, the Elderkin and the Idolater that also could work.  But that makes three controllers.  The Wokan is an interesting witch-like character, but it is also not perfect.  It is a "hybrid" role, which I don't care for, but I see the logic in.

I do have this other product, The Witch, from Svalin Games by Richard Lewis.  It's not a bad product, it's not perfect either.  But it does something rather interesting.  It makes the witch a Leader.  I could live with that.  A lot of her powers are Intelligence based, I would change that Charisma or Wisdom to be honest.  Most likely Wisdom.  While I can live with her in the Leader role, the Controller is still my preferred choice.

So where does this leave me now?

Well I can use all the above classes as part of an Occult Power grouping.  Each would need tweaks and edits to make them work well together.  And I might end up rewriting the witch all-together anyway.  But this is not a bad place to start I guess.  It does allow me to get more bang out of my Blackmoor buck and I like that.

Think I am going need to print out my PDFs and do some edits in pencil for these.  That's the other thing.  None of this (except the warlock) in in DDi and that is a pain.

The Future of D&D?

Could this be the future of D&D?

Surfacescapes

http://vimeo.com/7132858
http://www.koboldquarterly.com/k/article4080.php

http://www.etc.cmu.edu/projects/surfacescapes/

Surfacescapes uses Microsoft Surface (an input device and software) to emulate an hybrid table-top / CPRG environment for playing D&D 4th ed.

Granted I don't have 10 grand to dump into gaming right now (but I bet if I added up all the money I have spent in the last 30+ years...) and I am not sure how this would advance, but the ideas are limitless really.  Pre-configured adventures and monsters.  DDI already has some of this now.

I am going to keep an eye on this one.

This could be D&D 5th edition folks.

Cortex and Unisystem

I have a few posts about Cortex coming up and I am actually putting them on hold to put this one up first.

Cortex is a system I have talked about off and on. I like it. It has some neat things going for it. I have described it before as the funky love child of Unisystem and Savage Worlds and that is still a fair comparison. Cortex though is closer in nature to Unisystem I think. Like Unisystem, Cortex is designed to be a universal core rules system. Like Unisystem it has some very cool licensed properties; Supernatural being my favorite, but I have to admit I like Demon Hunters too.

So. Why don't I like Cortex more? Well. For starters I am not a fan of its thin magic system. Or rather, it's overly thin magic system. I will discuss that in a later post, but mostly outside of magic and dealing with normal humans, Cortex and Unisystem are roughly equal. In fact there is a lot overlap between the games.

Attributes are roughly the same. Strength = Strength, Dexterity = Agility, Constitution = Vitality, Intelligence = Intelligence, Willpower = Willpower and Perception = Alertness. Even the ranges are roughly the same. 1 = d2, 2=d4, 3=d6, 4=d8, 5=d10 and 6=d12, with the proper human mins and maxs lining up. Cortex even assumes the human average to be about d6, similar to Unisystem's 3. With the point buy systems Cortex's Veteran is roughly equal then Experienced Heroes in many Unisystem games. Life points are calculated differently, so I would stick to the system used in each game rather than a full conversion.

Skills are likewise roughly equal. Cortex has more skills and offers skill specializations, something that might work very nice ported over to Unisystem as a bridge for the Cinematic to Classic gap. I like the Skill Specializations. Nice way for more powerful characters to spend their points. I like it quite a lot to be honest, so much that I would consider it for a Cinematic/Classic Unisystem hybrid. Have Cinematic skills up to a certain point (say maybe 3) and then anything after that (4 and up) have to be specializations.

Unisystem characters get Qualities and Drawbacks. Cortex characters get Traits and Complications; and they get a few of those. This is fine really when dealing with normal humans. In the core rules there are still a few to choose from and there are others in the other, licensed material cores. In this respect it is closer to Savage Worlds. All three games have some overlap here, but each has something here and there to offer the others. Demon Hunters and Supernatural can get a boost from the likes of Buffy, Angel and Ghosts of Albion, while Unisystem gamers can get a different feel for their games from Demon Hunters and Supernatural. Adding Battlestar Galactica to the mix extends this even more. Ghosts of Albion/Angel/Buffy, Supernatural and Demon Hunters all live under the same basic idea; the supernatural is real and you need to fight it, though they all differ in approach. Mixing the games up a bit would be perfect for that Urban Fantasy genre that is so popular these days, with a perfect balance of fluff and crunch and rules-lite cinematic fun. While conversions are easy, some would be harder to convert. For example, a Cortex Vampire costs d6, in Unisystem Vampires are 15 pts. Granted they are different sort of vampires. But something like a Slayer or Protector would cost quite a bit in Cortex, and for the current games they have not really appropriate. I'd have to go through all the Demon and Supernatural creation rules (in Angel and Ghosts respectively) to see if they would convert fine to Cortex.

Magic though is an issue. Not surprising (and really nothing against the other games) I like Unisystem's magic the best. But looking over Cortex's base system, there is a lot of room to improve on what they have, adapt something else or grow something new! The magic system in Ghosts would work fine more or less as is. I would need to create a "Spellcasting" skill, to represent basic understanding and then specialize it out into various forms; say Kabalistic, Solomonic, FamTrad Witchcraft to go one route or even Alteration, Necromancy, Illusion for another or even more basic, Arcane, Divine, Psionic. Lots of choices really. Just need to sit down pen to paper one day and do it. But this one sounds the best to me so far, though I have a lot of ideas.

Cortex has at least one thing going for it that I do like over Unisystem; the step-die mechanic. Not that I don't like Unisystem's 1d10 (or even my 2d6 variant), I do. But the die + die gives a nice set of probability curves over die + fixed numbers.

So now all that is left is to test my conversions. So what is a good choice? Well I need a good Unisystem character that could also exist in a Cortex world. Sounds like a great excuse for me pull out Vampire Tara! In my Unisystem games Tara and Willow are still alive and together, and in one adventure they came across a vampire version of Tara, from another reality. Well. Amber Benson played a vampire named Lenore in Supernatural. Sounds like a perfect choice. You can see her Unisystem stats here, http://edenstudiosdiscussionboards.yuku.com/forum/viewtopic/id/3558. You can use these stats for Vampire Tara or Vampire Lenore as you like.

Vampire Tara
Agi d10 Str d12 Vit d10 Ale d12 Int d6 Wil d10

Init d10 + d6 LP 20
Endurance d10 + d10

Traits Allure d4, Amorous d4, Sharp Senses d6

Skills Athletics d6/Acrobatics d10, Drive d6/Horses d8, Influence d4, Knowledge d6/Occultism d12, Melee Weapons d6, Perception d6, Science d2, Unarmed Combat d6

Comparing these stats to those of "Kate" in the Supernatural Corebook I am fairly pleased. Conversions seem to work out very nice.

So, given this, maybe I should run a Vampire Willow and Tara game using Cortex. I think it could be really fun and work. Play a couple of vampires on the run various hunters, sort of the opposite of most Unisystem fare, but not quite World of Darkness.

Tolkienesque Fantasy

So. I had this dream last night. It was basically a 60s British sit-com called “Tolkienessque Fantasy”.

The idea is that all the things that Tolkien wrote about were actually real. There is a real “Middle Earth” and Hobbits and all that. He would “go down there” and report his findings in books. Silly? Yes. It gets sillier.

So you have Professor Tolkien circa 1960-1965, and he has two college students. William, his studious grad student, Polly, a ditzy undergrad and his secretary/housemaid Donna, who for reasons I am not clear on, was called “Dondo”. Polly and William were both very Mod.

So this lot would adventure every week down to Middle Earth. William would approach Professor Tolkien about some minor detail about Middle Earth history (I suppose there are courses in Middle Earth history at Oxford in 1961) and Tolkien (who seemed very Hobbit like) would declare “I don’t know. Shall we go down to ask Bilbo?” and off they would go on one madcap adventure after the next.

Did I mention that all my dreams are usually this detailed?

Anyway, I thought it might make a fun game model. It’s one part “The Hobbit”, one part “The Chronicles of Narnia”, a tiny part “Doctor Who”, and a little bit of “Are You Being Served?” and “Faulty Towers”. Approach Middle Earth from a modern frame of reference. Played totally as a farce mind you. This wouldn’t be Tolkien’s Middle Earth, or even Jackson’s or Bashi’s. Maybe it would be Rankin-Bass, but there is an obvious cartoon element here.

So if I ever get the desire to run a 60s game and don’t want to get into all the drug culture or psychedelica of the time, I might try this.