Instead
I finished the last post in a kind of limbo...
I described where I was aiming, then when I got to the point, I sort of left things hanging.
I've been looking over Russell Davis's "Sigil & Shadow" playtest copy, and since it's another game about modern urban magic, it's obviously going to be critically compared to what I'm writing. Generally I like it, I like where it's heading. The characters have magical legacies that grant them automatic abilities and drawbacks, the magic system has powers which cause passive effects that may be transformed into active effects by the expenditure of a meta-game currency... it also has a more freeform magic system using keywords, so that plays in some of the same territory that I've been playing with.
What I'm more interested in at this stage is the way "Sigil & Shadow" defines the morality of the characters.
For every option you pick one or the other, then you decide how well you embody the option chosen ("somewhat", "very", or "totally").
Picking a range of options from five axes is pushing a level of complexity higher than I was aiming for, but it's not overly complex. I think it could work really well. What I do likeabout this method is the fact it doesn't allow neutrality, every choice is important and makes a difference to the character.
The only thing I'd probably change here is wording of the two options in a few cases. "Cowardly" and "Unfocused" feel too negative... perhaps "Focused or Impulsive" and "Brave or Self-Preserving" (no, not really happy with that either... needs some more thought).
I'm going with the elemental affinity concept to determine the nature of the characters. So that means choosing an option each from three axes...
air or earth
(maybe, superficial or deep)
fire or water
(maybe, impulsive or considered)
metal or wood
(I've sat here for fifteen minutes or more trying to think of a pithy pair of virtuous opposites, but it's just not happening)
Each of these must be chosen, but one of the elements must be the dominant driving factor in the mystic's nature. To reinforce this, the dominant element should have some kind of mechanical benefit for the mystic, while its opposite would apply a penalty effect. This needs to be story driven, but I don't want it to feel too heavy handed and metagamey.
My first thought here is that I can filter the whole idea through the fluff and setting fiction. If familiars pick their mystics, and familiars understand magic from the perspective of the elemental forces, then it makes sense that they might sense the elemental forces that a character is aligned to. Every mystic is therefore aligned to an element that has the power to enhance their magic if they embrace their destiny. If a character aligned to fire acts impulsively, they embrace their destiny, and destiny rewards them with a greater ability to invoke the change that familiars seek.
It feels good, not perfect, but still aiming in the right direction.
I described where I was aiming, then when I got to the point, I sort of left things hanging.
I've been looking over Russell Davis's "Sigil & Shadow" playtest copy, and since it's another game about modern urban magic, it's obviously going to be critically compared to what I'm writing. Generally I like it, I like where it's heading. The characters have magical legacies that grant them automatic abilities and drawbacks, the magic system has powers which cause passive effects that may be transformed into active effects by the expenditure of a meta-game currency... it also has a more freeform magic system using keywords, so that plays in some of the same territory that I've been playing with.
What I'm more interested in at this stage is the way "Sigil & Shadow" defines the morality of the characters.
Kind or Cruel
Focused or Unfocused
Selfish or Selfless
Honourable or Deceitful
Brave or Cowardly
Picking a range of options from five axes is pushing a level of complexity higher than I was aiming for, but it's not overly complex. I think it could work really well. What I do likeabout this method is the fact it doesn't allow neutrality, every choice is important and makes a difference to the character.
The only thing I'd probably change here is wording of the two options in a few cases. "Cowardly" and "Unfocused" feel too negative... perhaps "Focused or Impulsive" and "Brave or Self-Preserving" (no, not really happy with that either... needs some more thought).
I'm going with the elemental affinity concept to determine the nature of the characters. So that means choosing an option each from three axes...
air or earth
(maybe, superficial or deep)
fire or water
(maybe, impulsive or considered)
metal or wood
(I've sat here for fifteen minutes or more trying to think of a pithy pair of virtuous opposites, but it's just not happening)
Each of these must be chosen, but one of the elements must be the dominant driving factor in the mystic's nature. To reinforce this, the dominant element should have some kind of mechanical benefit for the mystic, while its opposite would apply a penalty effect. This needs to be story driven, but I don't want it to feel too heavy handed and metagamey.
My first thought here is that I can filter the whole idea through the fluff and setting fiction. If familiars pick their mystics, and familiars understand magic from the perspective of the elemental forces, then it makes sense that they might sense the elemental forces that a character is aligned to. Every mystic is therefore aligned to an element that has the power to enhance their magic if they embrace their destiny. If a character aligned to fire acts impulsively, they embrace their destiny, and destiny rewards them with a greater ability to invoke the change that familiars seek.
It feels good, not perfect, but still aiming in the right direction.
.png)
Comments