3. Avoid the FR Shadow/Weave problem. Don't nail it down.
I'll second this. FR had some interesting magic concepts, such as chaos magic, that I liked. However, the Shadow Weave was going overboard.
|
+1 for a grimoire. I'd also like to see it contain a variant magical system or two. With the math behind them exposed, so the equivalencies are understood and guides to designing/tweaking your own system are in there. Sort of like Tome of Magic (that was the book with Pact Magic in it, right?) meets the Deities and Demigods section on designing a god/dess.
I'd like to see a spin where its written as if each kind of magic-wielder (divine, arcane, chewing gum) remains convinced that their explanation is the right one and all the rest are flawed or incorrect.
In other words, the book should have 3, 4, 5 or more metaphysical explanations for why and how magic works that totally ignore the way their theory contradicts the others at some point.
In short, no one really understands why magic works but everyone thinks they do. For game design, this makes for a couple of benefits:
1. GMs can pick and choose the explanations that work for them
2. Maximizes conflict between competing schools of magical thought
3. Avoid the FR Shadow/Weave problem. Don't nail it down.etc. etc.
I want a grimoire too.
I completely agree with this.
|
|
+1 for a grimoire. I'd also like to see it contain a variant magical system or two. With the math behind them exposed, so the equivalencies are understood and guides to designing/tweaking your own system are in there. Sort of like Tome of Magic (that was the book with Pact Magic in it, right?) meets the Deities and Demigods section on designing a god/dess.
I'd like to see a spin where its written as if each kind of magic-wielder (divine, arcane, chewing gum) remains convinced that their explanation is the right one and all the rest are flawed or incorrect.
In other words, the book should have 3, 4, 5 or more metaphysical explanations for why and how magic works that totally ignore the way their theory contradicts the others at some point.
In short, no one really understands why magic works but everyone thinks they do. For game design, this makes for a couple of benefits:
1. GMs can pick and choose the explanations that work for them
2. Maximizes conflict between competing schools of magical thought
3. Avoid the FR Shadow/Weave problem. Don't nail it down.etc. etc.
I want a grimoire too.
Classic Magicks Revisited?
Reminds me of 'Book of Magic' for Mutants and Masterminds. Yes!