Here's how I made Magic feel DANGEROUS!

[@Dungeon_Bits]

Following these comments and the playtest I have ran, I have since modified the rule. There was already an optional rule where your table could instead choose to roll a d20 instead of a d100 to suffer only the first 10 backfires, which are simply temporary debuffs that would add difficulty during combat. However, in addition to this, it now works like this: When you roll a 1 on the Spellcasting roll, its worse than simply failing so you can choose to either lose an additional point of Hit Point or gain another Fatigue Point OR if you don’t want to do that then you can take your chances with the backfire table. This way, backfires will likely only occur when spellcasters are pushed to their very limits and can’t afford to lose anymore health. Now, on top of the optional rule to not use the permanent transformations at all, you have an added level of risk baked into rolling the worst you can get. Also, to all of you that explained dice math to me…

[@tamhiding036]

I see some people in giving feedback have mentioned the various 40k RPGs with their perils of the warp, but I would like to point you to Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay 2e. The way magic works there hits the vibe you want of every spell being a bit risky, and some having the chance to straight up kill your character, without being so dangerous most of the time to prevent you casting. (Though you probably should hold spells for serious needs). Basically, you can roll a number of dice to hit the casting value of your spell, based on your magic characteristic. Wizards start at 1, and grand master wizards reach 4. Players won't get access to the juicy spells until they're at level 2 (about 12 sessions of play), for context on scaling. The game works off of D10s, and if ever you roll all 1s (likely when rolling just one dice), you take a willpower test or gain an insanity point. When rolling 2 or more dice, if you get doubles/triples/quadruples of any number, then the bad stuff happens. A double is mostly just an ominous event. Cold winds, ghostly noises, a little damage, that kind of stuff. It won't seriously threaten you, but it's enough to remind you it's a dangerous force you're dealing with. Triples give more serious effects, including summoning a minor demon, or being possessed for a minute. Most of this stuff isn't going to be too dangerous, but it'll throw a wrench in plans almost certainly. Quadruples get serious, including summoning lesser demons, risking permanent disfigurement, or even straight-up death. Each tier has a 5% chance of rolling over to the next one, so you could roll a double and get very unlucky to end up with an effect of a quadruple but it's very unlikely to happen. What I personally appreciate about this system is that it encourages you to treat magic with respect as a dangerous thing. Not just in terms of making you think twice about using it, but encouraging powerful wizards to go easy on the attempts. Sure, you COULD throw 4 dice at that spell that needs a 7. Or you could not risk dying and just roll 2 dice this time. This in turn encourages wizards to consider if they can solve the problem with a smaller spell, much like your system seems to do. All of this is a long-winded way of coming to my final suggestion, which is rather than rolling a 1 being always the bad outcome roll on a table, I would make the risk proportional to the power of the spell. Pulling numbers out of thin air, you could make it something like rolling 3 under your target causes a roll on the baby bad things chart, but rolling 7 under brings out the normal bad things chart, and a 10 under means you pull out the really dangerous stuff. With these numbers it means that safe firebolt at the rat isn't likely to do any long-term harm, but that big cube of fire is running a bit of a risk of teeth fingers or tentacles.

[@Apocagen]

I'm gonna be honest, having a 1 in 12 chance anytime I do any magic to permanently disfigure my character makes me not want to do magic ever. I'd have to see the table for failures but if on average every 12th spell I cast gives me tentacle arms permanently then anytime I'm building a caster I would be kind of be telling myself to not really worry about fleshing out the character themselves because 3 sessions in I'll probably not even be the character I started with.

[@Dungeon_Bits]

@@Apocagen I appreciate the feedback. I’m glad I’m able to have people’s honesty with these things.

[@greenfl4me]

​@@Dungeon_BitsI do want to say that I LOVE the idea you have, and that I think that your system achieves the stated desired goal, but I'd posit a shift in the math slightly. This would be more complex and crunchy, but I think might be interesting in other ways? What if you incorporated more from systems similar to kids on bikes whereby failure isn't a binary? Lets say, if your roll is [10] lower or worse than the listed DC, you roll on the backfire table? That way, if you're casting a bolt of fire, and the DC is 6, there's no possibility for catastrophic failure, even though there's a possibility for harm to occur. Similarly, casting more powerful magic than the player should know at a progression point could GUARANTEE a backfire, but could make for really interesting story moments where desperate mages risk everything for ONE LAST CHANCE of survival, or something like that. I also like the idea of magic schools/teachers being able to explain basics of magic to students without needing to risk permanent self damage, else how would anyone sane even want to teach magic to anyone? I think this could also be more dynamic, too. I don't know much of your system yet (first video I've seen from you! Woot!) The range of failure (listed as 10 above) could be tied to class level or there could be further feats acolytes could take which could modulate that number either up (safety at a cost of the level up bonus) or down (catastrophic failure is more likely due to the mage more willingly giving themselves to the arcane)? I love the idea of this system. I'd love to chat about it with you more in depth if you'd be interested!

[@Dungeon_Bits]

@ Yeah, the system needs change. Change is slow though because I have no means of getting feedback beyond these videos and their comments.

[@dropzonetoe]

​@Dungeon_Bits in the 90's I ran a Dragonlance campaign with critical hits and fumbles for spells. My players were keen on the addition. Until the kender was acid splashed in the face by the evil wizard who max critical and disfigured his character face and made him lose an eye. If I were making this failure list. I would base the failure on the level cast. Easy, lasts 24hrs or less Medium, a month or less, with multiple ways of curing available. Hard, permanent but with to cure Extreme, permanent. It allow wiggle room to not just maim or cripple a pc. But can have lasting issues if they push the spells. Great risk great reward.

[@sebastiankala1093]

I like the idea. But I would make more failure tables, where the first one would not be permanent, unless you roll badly on that table, then you go tu table 2, which is lets say 1 week duration and if you roll badly on that table again, you go on the table 3 which is permanent.

[@ShulgiAdad]

I'm reminded of the psychic (magic) system in Dark Heresy. Granted, I haven't played in over a decade, but if memory serves, every time you use psychic abilities, you have a chance of letting energy or something out of the warp. This could manifest as something as simple as dropping the temperature in the immediate vicinity by a few degrees all the way up having a warp entity grab your psycher and pull them into the immaterium.

[@zellak-pr7pu]

i play ShadowDark but with my own magic system. If the caster crit fails the casting he takes 1d6 / tier feedback damage, also a portal rips open and a demon appears. If the caster passes / survives the psychic blast then the demon flees as he is to tough. If the caster is stunned then the demon attempts to possess him. one attempt then it flees if it fails. Magic is a Chaos power, so dealing with magic is dangerous. ( played a lot of Shadowrun so this a bit like it. )

[@StarlasAiko]

I love the chosen scaling of the spell's power/diffiulty concept and the Bakcfire. I would however still have a magic power currency system similar to mana points, just to show the exhaustion from casting spells (of course regenration would be a lot faster than in typical games. You don't need a whole day to recover from getting a little winded after a light jog, unless you got Chronic Fatigue Syndrome). Also, what I only found in a single game so far, as casting time depending on the complexity and power level of the spell. You add a lot more tactical consideration if your brawlers need to defend the stationary target wizard for three or four combat turns to cast a powerful AoE spell.

[@TheSavageGoose]

I really like the Savage Worlds version, and it sounds like somewhere in the middle, but more towards that tactical side.

[@MemphiStig]

I'm always interested in different magic systems. I've never been a huge fan of D&D's potentially infinite spell lists, and I enjoy exploring other options. I haven't had a lot of opportunity to play other systems, but I'm always curious about other people's ideas. Looking forward to hearing more about Sanctum.

[@MrKaappimorso]

I do like the idea of being able to influence the difficulty of the spell you're casting and not being limited to slots. That on top of not being instantly punished by having to roll for chaos and shit on every single cantrip I try to pull off, risking instant death or permanent mutations just because I wanted to check for magical traps.

[@onetruetroy]

Excellent video that brings up an interesting topic. I zoned out a bit because I was checking out your collection behind you. Sweet!

[@Dungeon_Bits]

@@onetruetroy hey, I’ll take that! Thank you. These are progress logs of a sort, and also people give feedback. I appreciate the comment.

[@AgentSapphire]

This reminds me of shadowrun's system a little bit. You roll to see if you suceed and then you roll to see if the spell drained you. The game has fixed spells though Edit: to clarify i think this is a good thing. Shadoweun has a fantastic magic system.

[@Badass_Torchic]

I suggest you use a curved distribution for varying effects because linear distributions give equal chance to each rolls. For example, 2d6 has higher distribution in the middle, but 3d6 is even more concentrated in the centre. So the worst and best effects can be tucked away to less probable rolls. 👍

[@scottspov6360]

This sounds similar to the system I've been building. Not identical, but similar.

[@whitehawk4099]

When you said that someone describing a system as objectively bad is an objectively bad statement because "taste is subjective" it immediately turned me off. Some things are objectively bad, which you admitted in the very sentence yourself, describing it as objectively bad, which makes you seem like a hypocrite straight off the bat. Not the best thing to say in the first 40 seconds. Taste is subjective is also one of the most trivialising thing you could have said. Certainly taste is subjective, but even if you dislike chili, you can tell the difference between a good and bad chili. It is possible to tell that something is of high quality, even if you don't particularly like or enjoy it. Moving onward more to the subject at hand rather than the preamble, tactics are fundamentally about using your resources to achieve a short term goal. A core part of this is minimising risks. So let's take the wizard example. In the situation you gave, where the wizard cast two spells. the probability that either could have been a 1 is roughly 16%. If that wizard casts 8 spells, it's a 50/50 chance that he experiences transformations. As you increase the number of casts, this means that spellcasters are statistically guaranteed to experience transfigurations over the course of a campaign. With it being a 1/12 chance (as a good caster, it seemed), there will definitely be cases were people get hit by two or three transformations in a row, which would suck tremendously. Surely after a certain amount of transfigurations this would have an effect on the capability of your spellcaster. Which means that your spellcaster becomes progressively worse over time. Not something you are going to enjoy playing. I would not play as a spellcaster in a system as punitive as this seems.

[@Dungeon_Bits]

@@whitehawk4099 the rules include the note that you can roll a d20 instead of a d100 to get the temporary debuffs instead of the permanent cosmetic transformations. Also, these rules have been modified.

[@parmesanzero7678]

The mishap table needs to be informed by how much you failed the roll by, with the worse options not being possible unless you failed a roll by X amount.

[@LeFlamel]

The problem is the nature of tactical games, not the nature of magic. No one is going to cast a DC 12 spell on a flat D12 for any serious situation, because tactics is a game of prediction. People will figure out the optional risk reward for a given spell and reducing your chances further will be seen as pointless. Even if the game gives you options the meta game for tactics games will often boil down to one or very few options. Also, given the 1/12 chance of mutation, spellcasters will become abominations over the course of a campaign pretty much as a rule. Hopefully that's in theme and intended. For context, my system has a 1.5% mutation rate if you are a terrible spellcaster stats wise, compared to your 8.33% mutation rate for what seems like the best spellcaster (d12).

[@Dungeon_Bits]

@@LeFlamel well, something to bear in mind.

[@5argan]

I agree mostly but not totally. Yes, it's a DC 12 on a D12, but even if you fail the spell still goes off so you can still plan with it. You just get a worse/more likely backlash. Still think it needs work but this caveat makes it a lot better to me than it initially sounded.

[@LeFlamel]

@@5argan ah good catch

[@DuffTerrall]

Sooo.... Am i allowd to bring up DCC in this conversation? It seems rather similar, leaning on the structure side over the freeform side but still with the risk element.

[@Dungeon_Bits]

@@DuffTerrall you can say what you like. The unfortunate truth is that there is no such thing as a new idea. Any idea that you marvel at in one game is present in another. The even more unfortunate truth is that people disagree or don’t believe that.

[@slowestpoke8962]

I'm curious, since the given example is so straight forward: 1. What about more complex spells, that are not just "direct Damage"-Spells, like transformation, clairvoyance, mind-reading or teleportation? How do they work? 2. Risking permanent mutation just to cast some small spell sounds harsh. Especially utility-caster seem to have a very disadventagous position, given that they get a mutation 1/12 at the time, regardless of difficulty (They can role a 1 anytime, even if they cast an "very easy" spell). 3. Can I use the "flame"-Spell to do anything other then just Damage something? Like "Use it to heat up the metal chain holding the chandelier above the goblins to let it drop down"-Thing. That is the power of a free-form Magic system. Can this be done with this system? Sorry to be so inquisitive about this, I'm in search of a good magic-system for years. Yours sound kinda what I want but I need some more infos (Perhaps in another video :) )

[@Dungeon_Bits]

@@slowestpoke8962 i appreciate the curiosity. I can confirm there is more than just straight damage spells.

[@slowestpoke8962]

@@Dungeon_Bits Are the rules available anywhere? I would like to read them if possible.

[@Dungeon_Bits]

@ No… In absence of any money made from these vids to help, all I have is time that I spend on this system. All the rules are on a doc still until I can create a genuine play packet that wouldn’t immediately turn someone off after looking at the first page.

[@armorclasshero2103]

Taste is subjective, good game design is not.

[@Dungeon_Bits]

@@armorclasshero2103 I dunno. I see a lot of people defending games that I think aren’t that good.

[@Kinzarr4ever]

How is good game design not subjective? I think what qualifies as 'good' depends on the designer's intentions and goals and whether those goals are met from the player's perspective. You could also say game design is done well if it gives the player the kind of experience the player is looking for and/or the kind of experience the designer wants to offer. The first thing that comes to mind as an example are games that are intentionally very challenging (Elden Ring comes to mind). If you're looking for that challenge as a player, it's good game design from your perspective. If you're not the kind of player who's reasonably able to tackle that kind of challenge however, or if you like most of what a game has to offer but it's challenging to the point of frustration, it's not going to feel like good game design to you, probably. To give another example: I love the combat and the stealth gameplay in Last of Us part 2, but I've personally talked to people who strongly dislike it. So I'd argue the gameplay has been well designed for me as the player/audience but that's clearly not a universal objective truth in my opinion. That's just my views, however, I'd be very interested if you can explain how good game design is not subjective in your eyes, I'm not trying to argue or be disrespectful or anything like that =)

[@armorclasshero2103]

@Kinzarr4ever By definition: In order to be an academic subject to begin with something needs to be able to be objectively analyzed. Liking something is not the same as objective analysis of the merits of something.

[@BookMagic2K]

Gotta say, the permanent transformation idea feels like it's gonna get old and annoying really soon. I'm more in line with the idea of DC20: you either cast your spell or, on a high roll, cast it better. I can see the appeal of unpredictable magic (cough-cough, Wild Magic, cough), but this 100% isn't for everyone. Though i love that in your system you can customize spells and can't really fail casting one. On the other hand tho, this only seems fitting to damage spells, as automatic charm or imprisonment would feel really iffy.

[@ribarnica]

Did you really just suggest that level and point based magic are "unrealistic"? As opposed to all of the realistic magic in the world?

[@Dungeon_Bits]

@@ribarnica (not sure of whether there is sarcasm) I said that I don’t understand how people can argue that points are anymore realistic than other kinds.

[@adimus25801]

Shadowrun.

[@Dungeon_Bits]

@@adimus25801 eyyyy. You’re right. The two games do both have spells. But considering the rest of Sanctum is very different from shadowrun, please send screenshots of your comments left on posts for other games that inevitably have similar things.

[@JohnEllis-vq1lj]

All of this completely ignores what is, to me, a fundamental of magic. It's a scholarly pursuit - you learn spells which have been designed and used for centuries (millennia?), and proven to be stable. If they weren't, nobody woud ever use them. Spellcasters give up time; instead of spending years banging away with swords, axes, whatever, or shooting thousands of arrows into hay bales, they've invested their time into learning. Their ability to cast successfully shouldn't be weighted with randomness. Sure, the mechanics should allow for a tiny chance of failure (what expert auto mechanic has never torqued a bolt too hard, so that it breaks?) - but it should be TINY (less than 3%, IMO). Spellcasting and spell effects should be consistent. You can limit OP by making spells limited by nature in effect and/or by making spellcasting exhausting. The chaos of the "aether" or whatever (actually, the dice), should not play any significant role in a magic system. IMO. :)

[@Dungeon_Bits]

@@JohnEllis-vq1lj maybe. There are plenty of games with ‘dangerous’ magic systems. Ones that get way more love than You would expect.

[@Tysto]

I don’t get the interest in systems with corrupting magic. What source are you emulating? That’s not in LotR. Even in Harry Potter “spell backfire” is something that happens to apprentices, & it's minor comedy stuff. And every 12 spells, you’re almost guaranteed to experience it? Every master wizard would have tentacles for arms! No thanks.

[@Dungeon_Bits]

@@Tysto well, you’ll be glad to hear that the likelihood of experiencing it, and severity, has been lessened since the constructive feedback from this video. Also, regarding emulation, I’m seeing mixed messages on whether do or don’t want the game to be similar to existing IPs. I don’t intend to explicitly emulate any source. I am not making an IP based game. I make based on my likes and the wishes posed from other people in the hobby. And if people aren’t a fan of something, then theres no point being stubborn with it, and I’ll change it to make it more fun.

[@TwinSteel]

🥳🫂👍🏿 Love a good magic system ❤️