Making Mage vs Mage Battles Interesting
Because mages duels are a fairly cool fantasy trope that I have yet to see work well in larp that supports pure mage type characters. So I'm randomly trying to work out how you write a system that allows them to happen as an exercise and ignoring all the other bits of a system this might screw up.
Problems tend to be
- First person to cast wins (features in systems where vocals are interruptable or silencing effects with a duration exist)
- Whoever has a one shot KO spell wins (i.e. Freeze, Paralyse, Sufficently high DD, Basically any Insurrection spell effect ever).
- Long duration status effect calls cause the duel to either looks silly or just break down. (Repels break up fights, long duration strikedowns look kind of silly, blind is a little bit nonsensical at the best of times. ) A possible exception to this might be effect like TT weakness.
- Breaks down to two squishy characters having a normal fight without bothering with spells other than precombat buffs. (Which kind of overlaps to the other issues with vocals can be interrupted)
- Is just two people yelling spell effects at each other and no movement which looks fairly silly and is not that interesting.
- Person with more anti spell buffs/powers wins. OR the higher level one wins in a system where spell resists by level exist
- Spells that don't do any damage can also lead to a fight where no real progress is made due to both people just continually strikedown or repelling each other.
Thoughts on avoiding such things
- No one shot KO spells
- Short non interruptable vocals (reduces the first caster wins and no one bothers with spells issues)
- Short Duration effects only, maybe 5 seconds max.
- More dangerous spells have shorter ranges (probably including touch/weapon blow)? Means that being closer or further apart affects the duel?
- No free combat spells (Else it seems likely two mages can just spam each other forever)
Other Random Thoughts
- Spells are just cooler when they don't include a duration number.
- Is it possible to have a fight where running your opponent out of mana equivalent can be made into the goal in an interesting way. (Spending mana to resist spells is not an interesting way)???.
- Would having spells that require a certain item to be held to cast (could for example be a feather for knockback/repel, a rock for strikedown ext, a weapon for the best known spell of stab), limited to one focus per hand, be thing that makes changing tactics mid battle interesting, also makes disarm into a mage relavent call or an absolute pain?
Systematisation
- Global Hits, else magic has to deal with multiple hit locations and that gets confusing.
- Numbers ideally wish to remain small (all of available mana, spell costs, damage calls and hits) as this makes number counting easier.
- Varying Range of spells promotes different distances being optimal for different spell stratergies.
- More powerful spells require both hands free/holding an appropriate focus?????? (so that using more powerful spells either requires change of focus to then change stratergy or inhibits mixing the spell with melee/weapons)
- Good Calls for spells
- Strikedown (because it looks 90% better than most other status effects)
- Knockback (equals repel of short duration - looks good and is useful in some situations - serves as a create space spell)
- Weakness??? (inhibits doing damage with melee weapons, can still parry, cast and run - serves as an anti close combat mage spell)
- Entangle??? (inhibits movement but not melee and casting capacity - serves as a anti run away and spell spam mage build)
- Needs some set of calls that actually do damage either by melee or by range else no one is likely to end up on 0 hits.
The closest I had to a conclusion
/MageWars
Main thoughts are magic verses magic duels in larp basically don't interest me. Complex stuff with magic works better in tabletop or computer games.
Comments on any of this?
I used to play a lot of Guild Wars. Blowing away someone's mana pool was a class feature of one sort of mage. Have you considered spells that cost you X mana and drain them X+Y mana? Or a call like OVERLOAD, where their next spell costs double mana, harms them etc? More interesting than MUTE because they CAN cast in the next X seconds just with a notable penalty--Jim
- Yes (I have considered it). I'm not convinced that make your enemy do maths in response to a call is that fun an effect for people to take but I'm looking at it somewhat. --Malselene
- It's not so much maths as remembering a damage call for later. Yeah, double mana is confusing, fixed values are better. So for example OVERLOAD = If you cast in the next 10 seconds, take a DOUBLE STUN/Lose? X Mana/Whatever? effect you want in there. MANA BURN = lose X Mana. You could also make it so that you can only have one "Hex" up on you at a time and so only casting penalty to remember. Or you have for example MANA BURN TRIPLE and that makes you lose 3 points of Mana. --Jim
I am a fan of limited power spells and non-interruptable vocals as they mean that mages have a chance in a fight in close quarters without being overpowered. As opposed to "RESIST Double Double" from their opponent. On the 3YGB I was being spammed with BLIND 5 from Flo as 1 NPC. It was cool because I could run off or defend but it still gave her a big advantage. The downside was the repeated confusion as to whether I'd interrupted her spell or not. --Jim
- With respect to limited power spells and non interruptable vocals I completely agree with you. Although I have issues with blind. At CUTT it's just another thing isn't really a problem for warriors and seriously messes up every other class. It also doesn't map well to the safety principles (of don't shut your eyes) and it's always iffy as to whether you can see well enough to run towards the safety of your friends or not. I much prefer maelstrom STUN call which is basically 'can't call damage, can't use skills, walk rather than run, parry as usual' which basically maps to blind and blindfighting 1 but without the questionableness of how actually blinded you should be. --Malselene
- Yep. I dislike BLIND and DISARM for similar reasons (classes with immunity) and think that STUN is excellent. I got to play with it a lot at Strom because of Fire-Breathing.--Jim
From my point of view, an interesting fight would be one where you had the option of controlling the fight with short duration stuns and DD, but equally you could get in close and try and keep them there while you hit them with close-range stuff. So for example. The shooty mage is trying to chain KNOCKBACK on the other PC and find a chance to fire MAGIC DOUBLE at them, and the stabby mage is trying to do an ENTANGLE on the shooty one with their staff, to lock them in place for a beating. If it's mobile, it's fun to watch. -Jim
- I mostly agree with this. But a stabby mage using staff is just doing it wrong. Staffs have no stab capacity. --Malselene
With regards to range, I think a good means for close-range spells might be like Empire Strikedown rules. If you are hit with a magic effect by blow, you take it even if parried. This prevents shields/parry hardskills being the best thing ever for a mage and turning it into the aforementioned 2 squishies hitting each other. You avoid confusion by defining a few status effects only magic can do, rather than having MAGIC STRIKEDOWN etc. --Jim
- Just off the top of my head from glancing at this, and not sure how feasible it would be, but a sort of "auction" for how much mana each mage is putting into their spell while struggling to make their red/blue force lightning overpower their opponent's blue/red lightning, whoever committs more mana wins but also spends that much mana. --Chevron
- I'd rather see a Dollar Auction model. (Key point is that the resource is spent for *both* parties). Only in contexts where mana was functionally a per-encounter resource, not a per-day one, though. --I
- I would find it interesting trying to entice your enemy into blowing their mana by raising the price on something you don't really want to win that much. --Chevron
- Mana auction does kind of seem like it might turn into standing there shouting numbers at each other instead of roleplaying, which would be less than perfect IMO. Might be more fun than some options, but I don't think it's the best. --MorkaisChosen
- I'm not convinced by red/blue force lightning as it seems likely to lead into mage with more mana always wins and also might just end up as two people standing waing their arms at each other. --Malselene
Mind Control Concept
So that thing that is cool in concept but horrific in implementation. Had a thought on it. So please opinion at/break this or otherwise prove a method of using it to stealthily pvp.
This is designed on the assumption of a TT like linear and interactive system and also the assumption that this would be a high level ability. Goal is that
- Get someone to give you the plot item/other item, get them to use skill X or Y on your behalf should be possible.
- Pvping the target should not be made easier.
Casting Vocal of some sort exists that puts two effects onto the target and the caster
- The command effect
- The command effect allows the caster to give simple instructions to the target. These commands cannot cause the target to do damage to any individual including themselves.
- The command effect is broken at the end of the spells duration, by the target and the caster no longer being within line of sight of each other or by the caster releasing it.
- The target does not remember what they did while under the command effect.
- The backlasth effect
- The backlash effect causes the caster to take all damage and injury that the target experiences including dying if the target dies with this still active. (this is never going to be a precise science but the caster should aim to take more damage)
- The backlash effect breaks when the target has returned to a location that they would commonly occupy or would feel safe in as long as they are not under active threat. (I.e. returning them to the usual location for interactive or the like) AND the command effect has also been broken.
- Fluff: the target’s mind is in a heightened state of stress while they are being controlled which causes it to clamp down and almost merge with the invading mind. Until that stress is completely removed by them being returned to a safe location or a normal location that they feel comfortable in this causes the backlash.
The duration is kind of irrelevant to the concept but probably should be fairly short. It would ideally want ref oversight.
Comments?
In SWATT I went for an insurrection-style limited # of words obey with provisos on not being something that will kill them and within a certain time limit. At top levels I do have a possession style thing, but if the person dies or suffers serious injury the caster is subject to similar. --Chevron
- I personally prefer allowing more words because stuff like 'self-defenestrate" exists as shorthand for "throw yourself out a window" and hence I feel less words leads to word lawyering and people standing around in confusion and then claims of 'but they didn't take the effect properly" while more words at least leads to understandable commands. --Malselene
- "Obey my every command" is four words, and seems to get a full slave effect from what might have been intended as a one-command power. --MorkaisChosen
- One word can be pretty interesting. For example, Labyrinthe has Voice of Power, which is obey one word the caster says, but you can interpret it. So "sleep" is a good choice for the caster, because there's not really a way to interpret that without falling asleep. Whereas "obey" you can explicitly give yourself commands to obey (such as "run away from that person who just VoPed? you"). With more words it's easier to be very command explicit. But I might be digressing, because I think this spell idea is trying to achieve subtly different things to a VoP? style effect. --Steph
Should the duration be long enough to allow you to take an NPC from one encounter and make them vouch for you for the next encounter? Or take someone out of the bar to rob their house? --Joey
The returning them to a 'safe place' is kind of problematic because you might reasonably expect they would think of their home as 'safe' but if they live alone and you take them home and break the command effect you could then murder them. I like what I think you are trying to achieve, but I think it needs a different way of doing it. How about let the target choose when to end the backlash effect? --Joey
Also, I like the goal of this mind control effect. --Joey
- I thought about letting the target choose when to end it. But then I could see no reason why they would choose to end it. I was trying to go for even if you took them to a suppposedly safe location but either them or any of their mates were still hanging around rather than clearing off then that would count as 'under active threat' and hence it wouldn't break. Although I guess the wording needs a lot of work. I was thinking short duration as being under someone else command for too long can get dull but then duration wasn't something I really was worried about. -- Malselene
- The backlash ends when the Target feels safe? That gives the target (OOC) control over when to end it but also gives them guidelines on it. --Joey
- Works. Thanks --Malselene
- What is the intention behind having the backlash there? It seems horrendous to ref and makes the spell very weak IMO (not necessarily a problem, but you've said you view this as high level) --Steph
- I'm guessing its to stop it being a certain kill on a person via things like 'don't move' and then shiv them up. --Hark
- Roughly twofold reasoning. Firstly because I find being mind controlled to stuff on other peoples behalf cool compared to being mind controlled into a place with no witnesses and shivved not cool. Secondly because I find it less complicated compared to things that specify exactly what level of not harm people will do to themselves while under mind control which tend to be very long and complicated and never quite make it clear exactly where the line is (i.e. would you attack your friends, would you stand underneath a floating washing machine that could potentially fall on you, would you get into a fight you were certain to win/lose ext) --Malselene
- Possibly also thirdly that lots of people don't like it when they're character is in a situation where they don't have complete control and hence tend to do the minimum they can and if they have at least the guarantee that they aren't likely to end up dead then they might be happier to roll with it and facilitate hilarity. --Malselene