[MRQ2] - Counter Magic leads to rules railroading

[mman]

Hi,

It's my fist post here, so be gentle please

I'm used to run rather low magic campaigns, but now I'm GM:ing 2nd age Glorantha, which cannot be described as low magic at all, and all of a sudden I have a problem with magicks...

The source of my distress is Counter Magic common spell. It states (if my memory serves) that it counters any spell of lower magnitude. If the magnitudes equal, both spells are dispelled. Higher magnitude spells will take effect and Counter magic is dispelled.

From the GM point of view I think the spell is mostly useless:.

Example 1:
We have one PC with a couple of offensive common magic spells of magnitude 2.
Now when creating an NPC that uses Counter Magic, the GM has two choices:
- Either the Counter Magic is of magnitude 2 or more, and the player's spell will have no change of affecting the outcome of the fight.
- On the other hand, drop the Counter Magic to magnitude 1, and then comes the question: why bother with the Counter Magic at all if it doesn't have a change to affect player's spells in any case?

Let's see the other side of the coin:

Example 2:
PC has Counter Magic at magnitude 3. The GM knows that the player uses the spell a lot to protect herself from incoming magical attacks.
When planning an NPC's, again the GM has two choices:
- The NPC's have magic strong enough to penetrate the player's Counter Magic, effectively canceling all the player's investment in Counter Magic.
- The NPC's magic is not strong enough, so why bother the NPC to wield any magic at all. Also canceling the player's investment in Counter Magic as no one is using any spells against him.

Example 3:
PC has Divine Magic and her pact is at 75%, resulting in Magnitude 7 for her divine spells. No NPC could ever have any protection from his Counter Magic against her spells as long as Counter Magic is not at magnitude 8!! How much more interesting it would be if Counter Magic could have a slight change to counter higher magnitude spells, even if at 1% change?

Of course there are some clumsy ways to avoid the above (Give the NPC counter magic the same magnitude as player's strongest spell...) but I find this problem mostly as a dramatic problem. There is no excitement to the GM over whether the magic will penetrate the Counter Magic or not, as it had been decided already when the GM designed the NPC character.

It seems that it is impossible to make a scenario where either the PC or NPC is protected by Counter Magic and still to experience some dramatic moments of uncertainty, celebration or disappointment when spells interact in unexpected ways with arcane protections...

It would be much more fun if the Counter Magic (and other similar spells) would be chance based. E.g. an opposed rolls of magic skills or something, but that would invalidate the whole magnitude thing and would take one important aspect of sorcery and pact away...

Any thoughts on this?
(Hopefully I have just missed something that will invalidate this whole post =)

 

[rust]

There is still a random element in all three of your examples.
The casting of a Common Magic spell requires a successful
Common Magic skill roll, the casting of a Divine spell requires
a successful Lore (Specific Theology) roll. So the moment of
uncertainty, celebration or disappointment you are looking for
is the moment of the skill roll which decides whether the spell
will work at all.

 

[Deleriad]

I would say there are several issues to consider here.

1) Do you design the world relative to players? Personally I don't. If someone has countermagic it is because there is a reason for it based in the world. E.g. they belong to a cult that teaches it and have had some way to afford it. The magnitude they would know would again be based on the world, not relatively to a player. This does mean that it's perfectly possible for NPCs to have countermagic that is useless against PCs. In my book, that's not a problem. The NPC may still try to cast it and fail. That's usually a happy moment for PCs.

2) There is also a cost to countermagic. It's a cost in both MPs and combat actions. Even if you counter a spell then your ability to counter future spells has been reduced and, if your hard pressed in combat then your ability to defend yourself or assist a companion has also been reduced.

3) Generally speaking, common magic is not meant to be powerful enough to protect you from divine magic. A really good common magician might be able to hold off a weak divine magic but not for long.

The key though to me is that Legend comes from games with a long tradition of not designing NPCs in relation to PCs. This is quite different from the ethos you get in d20 and so on where the aim is to design challenges. If a PC has countermagic 3, which is enough to protect them from most common magic, then in my book it is odd to suddenly find common or garden NPCs suddenly learning dispel magic 3.

It is a different mindset and Legend doesn't really do much to make it clear.

Edit: or shorten this to "I agree with Simulacrum "

 

[Simulacrum]

My main observation is that you seem to be designing NPC spell load-outs and abilities with your PC's specific abilities in mind, rather than tailor them to what fits that particular NPC. I appreciate we all GM differently - I only do that so far as a check on whether the PCs can actually complete the Adventure I have put in front of them, rather than find they need a specific spell or else it's an auto-fail.

I see your point (a bit) if you tend to only get one or two encounters per session where the PC will switch on the countermagic. But normally they won't cast it until they are aware of the threat in case they waste it, by which time it may be too late. Likewise in magic-rich (and bear in mind spirit-rich) glorantha they may well need to carefully husband their Magic Points, and can't just bang up the countermagic at their maximum magnitude every time - or there's nothing left for healing, spirit bane, protection, bladesharp, or whatever.

So that's my main thing - I never really encountered this because spells are just one threat type. From my point of view it's OK if a PC wonders into a battle with the countermagic up and are immune to the trollkins' Disruption spells. They made a choice to learn Countermagic, and as a result may not know Protection, for example, hence get clobbered by sling bullets instead.

 

[Simulacrum]

Simultaneous posting - can snip mine to 'what Deleriad said'.

 

[strega]

snip a bunch of stuff that was posted while I typed.

The best way of dealing with this is to ensure that the spellcaster is not alone. No self-respecting necromancer is going to be without a bunch of zombies or skeletons to protect him and most wizards will hire some sword or bow wielding defenders/cultists to dealing with any wild barbarians that wish to kill them.

PC spellcasters can keep the enemy spellcaster busy while a party member advances and stabs their enemy if they don't have anything protecting them.

 

[mman]

Thanks for all the replies.

Good points all in all and nice to hear different opinions. Frankly I didn't think about the spell casting roll itself to be part of the "effectiveness" of Counter Magic.

The examples I gave were on a theoretical side of things, and I don't expect such situations to come in to play, hopefully ever.

If someone has countermagic it is because there is a reason for it based in the world.

I agree. Completely. And that is the way I run my games too. Though I do scale the NPC enemies up or down to set the appropriate challenge level. In the end I'm there to create a story that is entertaining, challenging and just believable enough. Not a simulation that has all the details correct.

In that sense rigidity of Counter Magic bugs me. The fact that the spell penetration is not chance based do not add unexpected twists and turns into the game. It makes too easy as GM to foresee things when you know the players' spells and magnitudes, and so to railroad the game either by consciously or subconsciously. In that sense think it would add a lot to have chance based spell penetration, still respecting magnitudes.

...and that's probably what I have to do. A houserule =)

It's a funny thing how writing on forums can clarify your head and reoreder your thoughts.

 

[Loz]

Hi mman,

Frankly I didn't think about the spell casting roll itself to be part of the "effectiveness" of Counter Magic.

Magic of any form is treated in exactly the same way as skills. There's always a chance of success and always a chance of failure. Therefore the randomness you're looking for is built into the core mechanics. You can have Countermagic at whatever level you like, but if you botch the roll, it won't work. Conversely, you can attempt to level a spell at someone with working Countermagic and, if your casting roll fails, then, again, so has your spell. It really doesn't need to be much more complicated than that.

Also remember that its an Instant spell: you have to keep casting it for each offensive spell being levelled against you. As its Progressive, the higher the Countermagic you cast, and the more you rely upon it, the faster you run out of Magic Points. An average character with 12 MP could therefore cast Countermagic 3 four times, or Countermagic 4 three times. He has to be successful with each roll and, if he's in a situation where offensive spells are flying thick and fast, then he'll soon be out of Magic Points. And, of course, his Countermagic attempts may fail, too.

So although the spell may look like it will rail-road on paper, in practice, its a very different situation. Its always worth playing through anticipated situations like this a couple of times just to be sure that you're not jumping to the wrong conclusion.

 

[Hopeless]

Just a quick query but is it really against canon to say that Countermagic 1 would effects a higher magnitude spell even if it only lowers it a magnitude or so?

The idea is that it might say one thing in the book but this is your campaign and is it really rulebreaking to make something a mite more useful?

For example in the game I'm running the PCs have come across a dagger with countermagic 10 but it was being used to imprison an undead foe and at the end of that adventure they returned the undead foe to his coffin with dagger impaled and kciked his decapitated head into an abyss!

However I see no reason why countermagic os lesser level being so ineffective?

 

[Vortigern]

Essentially 'Common Magic' is, in my view, not -supposed- to be all that great when compared to other more specialized magic styles. The down side to countermagic being that it is a progressive, meaning action and magic point intensive, common magic spell. It allows someone who isn't really a 'Sorcerer'/caster type of person, in a high magic setting, to have some basic level magic defense/troubleshooting.

The limiting factors on it prevent it from being overly competitive with say 'Neutralise Magic', the Sorcery version. Which I would think is how it should be. The specialized/dedicated caster should be better at it than the guy who isn't. Neutralise Magic is more magic point and action economical because it is a Sorcery spell and not a common magic spell. Which is as it should be.

Making a common magic spell that much better I would find very dubious because of how I would balance it against the other magic styles... which is on the bottom.

 

[Harshlax]

I would agree with vortigern and just add that Divine Magic has 4 possible defensive spells just as effective as Neutralise Magic to devout casters:
Absorption, Dismiss Magic, Reflection, and Shield.

All of these should be more effective, at less cost to Countermagic. Also, consider Countermagic Shield as an alternative to maybe make those magic points last a little longer, this was the only form of "common magic" (Spirit Magic in RQ3) countermagic in previous editions.

And of course Spirit Magicians have access to Guardian Spirits, also costing a mere 1mp to release/command and block spells of magnitude 1 per 3POW of the 3d6 POW spirit.

 

[jwpacker]

Just a quick query but is it really against canon to say that Countermagic 1 would effects a higher magnitude spell even if it only lowers it a magnitude or so?

As you say, it is your world, so nothing is gonig to be irrevocably broken if you do it this way. You'll give characters with a little magical protection the chance to mitigate the effects of variable magnitude spells, which still winds up costing them MP and CA to cast in a defensive manner. I'd make sure to rule that Countermagic of a magnitude less than the total magnitude of a fixed spell has no effect at all on the spell, lest you make Countermagic 1 entirely too powerful.