Goodman Games

I created special Corruption and Mercurial Magic tables for The Transylvanian Grimoire. They're not as gonzo as the DCC tables and fit more with what you'd see in Conan, LotR or Buffy.

I like using those.

But the DCC tables are fun for wilder magical effects.

I played in a pbp awhile back where my wizard rolled the 'repair' spell as one of his starting spells. The mercurial magic roll was the plague of rats result... Therefore, the wizard found small twigs, broke them in two, and if he ever found himself in an unexpected situation where he needed a bit more defense, he used repair on the twigs to get his rat armor. Effectively I viewed the spell as "Rat Armor" with the physical components required being a broken item to put back together...

gambler1650 wrote:I played in a pbp awhile back where my wizard rolled the 'repair' spell as one of his starting spells. The mercurial magic roll was the plague of rats result... Therefore, the wizard found small twigs, broke them in two, and if he ever found himself in an unexpected situation where he needed a bit more defense, he used repair on the twigs to get his rat armor. Effectively I viewed the spell as "Rat Armor" with the physical components required being a broken item to put back together...

Heh. I would certainly have allowed this also (why not?), but it sounds like the "bag of rats" trick that some players used in D&D4E notably. The bag of rats trick, for those not familiar with it, is a trick that is used when a spell has a consequence if a creature is attacked, so the spellcaster carries a bag of small creatures, e.g. rats, and takes one out to unleash his magic upon it, simply to benefit from the spell's useful, secondary effect. The bag of rats trick was pretty much banned from all games, for those who even considered using it, because it was so... metagamy, I guess. And counter-intuitive. A lot of GMs (myself included) simply allowed the secondary effect to be available to the spellcaster withouth having to slay a creature.

In this particular case, I'm not surprised that the "rat armor with broken item component" spell is pretty much what this spell became. DCC has a different feel though, with the unpredictable magic being an important part of the game, such that this kind of abnomaly is quite within the game's arena.

gambler1650 wrote:I played in a pbp awhile back where my wizard rolled the 'repair' spell as one of his starting spells. The mercurial magic roll was the plague of rats result... Therefore, the wizard found small twigs, broke them in two, and if he ever found himself in an unexpected situation where he needed a bit more defense, he used repair on the twigs to get his rat armor. Effectively I viewed the spell as "Rat Armor" with the physical components required being a broken item to put back together...

That's awesome!
---------

Incidentally, I just finished writing a module that I'm alpha testing to figure out what the recommended number of levels should be and the first run is with a 5th level wizard traveling solo. The reason I bring this up is that we generated a 5th level wizard from scratch and the player has a tradition of avoiding spell casters in any RPG... I figured this might yield some good data. She had the same complaint that most of the other wizard players have had (from my meager experience). For the record, she really likes the idea of Mercurial Magic, but she complained that after rolling for Mercurial Magic; the Manifestation effects seemed to be redundant and just added an extra layer of unnecessary complexity. That makes 4/4 wizard players over several games. I try explaining that the Manifestation effects are much more specific to the individual spells, but in my heart I have to agree. As much as I love the Mercurial Magic effects, adding on the Manifestations really does seem like spinning the same wheel twice... having both adds more the my plate of things to which I must pay attention at the table. Given a choice I think I'd dump the manifestation effects, but I haven't had the time to run that experiment yet.

So far I've only ever had to deal with one wizard in each group, but I can honestly say that I'm not looking forward to the day when I have 2+ wizards or elves in the same adventure group and must then keep track of 2 different effects for every spell in the game... for each wizard. It can be challenging enough with NPC bad-guy wizards that I'm using against the players.

I know my sample set is small and that it might just be my approach to explaining things to players; but this reaction seems remarkably consistent. I'd love to hear what others think about any of this.

I have little experience with spellcasters (both game I play/judge are level 1), but I admit to having paid no attention to manifestation yet. I've also designed a few spells for patrons in the game I judge, and didn't bother doing manifestation tables at all. It takes long enough to design a patron as it is!

Off-topic: I mean, man, does it take forever to design a patron!! This is clearly the first point that really bugs me up to now in DCC. I know, there exist stuff online, I've bought the "Angels, Demons and Things Between" reference, but the problem is that those patrons, like those in the core book, are so specific that you have to be lucky for them to fit a given story element in your homebrew. At least, that's my experience. Case in point: take the King of Rabbits. If you don't build a story around it, it certainly won't "happen" to fit your story, for sure. (Original creation by the way, it's just not usable for me.) You might argue that this is the point, strange creatures, blah blah blah. I know. Still, I like to have a story in my games, and I like for creatures, gods, patrons and NPCs to fit that story, strange or not.

So I designed two patrons, for the 2 different books found by the wizard player in my game. I'd say it took me probably about 10 hours per patron. And I didn't even do the level 2 and level 3 spells, since he can't cast them yet, I only determined what they're going to be. And I ditched the spell manifestations altogether. The patron entries have short 1 paragraph patron descriptions, a patron taint table, an invoke patron spell and a level one patron spell. The only saving grace is that it's relatively fun to do, but the problem is that designing one spell in DCC is actually as long as designing about 10 spells in any version of D&D; and designing one patron is as long as designing four DCC spells plus one patron taint plus the background, so it's longer than designing 40 spells. That's why I ditched the manifestation and two of the four spells that I can design later: really, I don't have that much time on my hands.

And the thing is: patrons are really core to DCC. I feel like leaving them aside would be like leaving magic aside in D&D, it's a big chunk of the game's flavor. So the choices are: use one of the predesigned patrons, or design one myself but this means hours upon hours of design, only for one patron.

Which makes me make this recommendation if one book is upcoming: please include "generically-themed" patrons that can be used under most circumstance. Examples of these within the core book of the Angels etc... PDF: the water or wind patrons, or the angel patron.

Skyscraper wrote:I have little experience with spellcasters (both game I play/judge are level 1), but I admit to having paid no attention to manifestation yet. I've also designed a few spells for patrons in the game I judge, and didn't bother doing manifestation tables at all. It takes long enough to design a patron as it is!

Off-topic: I mean, man, does it take forever to design a patron!! This is clearly the first point that really bugs me up to now in DCC. I know, there exist stuff online, I've bought the "Angels, Demons and Things Between" reference, but the problem is that those patrons, like those in the core book, are so specific that you have to be lucky for them to fit a given story element in your homebrew. At least, that's my experience. Case in point: take the King of Rabbits. If you don't build a story around it, it certainly won't "happen" to fit your story, for sure. (Original creation by the way, it's just not usable for me.) You might argue that this is the point, strange creatures, blah blah blah. I know. Still, I like to have a story in my games, and I like for creatures, gods, patrons and NPCs to fit that story, strange or not.

So I designed two patrons, for the 2 different books found by the wizard player in my game. I'd say it took me probably about 10 hours per patron. And I didn't even do the level 2 and level 3 spells, since he can't cast them yet, I only determined what they're going to be. And I ditched the spell manifestations altogether. The patron entries have short 1 paragraph patron descriptions, a patron taint table, an invoke patron spell and a level one patron spell. The only saving grace is that it's relatively fun to do, but the problem is that designing one spell in DCC is actually as long as designing about 10 spells in any version of D&D; and designing one patron is as long as designing four DCC spells plus one patron taint plus the background, so it's longer than designing 40 spells. That's why I ditched the manifestation and two of the four spells that I can design later: really, I don't have that much time on my hands.

And the thing is: patrons are really core to DCC. I feel like leaving them aside would be like leaving magic aside in D&D, it's a big chunk of the game's flavor. So the choices are: use one of the predesigned patrons, or design one myself but this means hours upon hours of design, only for one patron.

Which makes me make this recommendation if one book is upcoming: please include "generically-themed" patrons that can be used under most circumstance. Examples of these within the core book of the Angels etc... PDF: the water or wind patrons, or the angel patron.

Oh good! I thought I was the only one having these problems! Kudos for diving in and writing up your own, it takes a wile, but at least you can file it away for use later on. I haven't had a chance to pick up "Angels, Demons and Things Between" yet, because all my spare $$ went to the Dwarven Forge Kickstarter

While it may be off topic, the heart of your post is the reason I'm writing Liber Arcanum. The 6 patron offerings are centered on the following universal themes: Battle, Exploration, Air, Fire, Water, and Earth. Along with a bunch of pre-done reversed spells. As much as I love the idea of reversing things on the fly, I just don't want to deal with figuring it out at the table while everyone else is waiting for their initiative turn...

On a creative level it has been one of the most rewarding things I've done in quite some time; even more than the CCD, but I'll freely admit to the fact that there were several points where I was just sitting at my desk, with nothing but a blank page and the hope that eventually something interesting might happen. For me the hardest part were the patron taints... Aristemis aside, there are 5 others with 18 uniquely themed taints for each; for a grand total of 90! It took the better part of 2 weeks of bashing at the keyboard for about 5-6hrs a day, and in the end I decided that the Elemental Lords and Ladies represented an earlier stage in the development of "Modern Wizardry"; as such they don't offer unique spells at all, just a dedicated source of specific spell knowledge and element specific powers & boons. If I hadn't I'd likely still be working on their spells instead of moving on to the necessary play-testing.

{end shameless plug }

Every time, all the time. They make wizards different from each other even when they have the same spells, plus they are awesome even when bad. Magic is supposed to be crazy.

I love the concept of Mercurial Magic, but in practice it's just one more detail I need to juggle in my campaign so usually I ignore the rule unless my wizards ask to use it.

Seems like true "Appendix N" style is the notion that each spellcaster is a little different from each other spellcaster, which certainly fits the Mercurial Magic model. I don't see my wizards attending a Harry Potter type school to learn magic in a factory setting, but instead each one works out the wrinkles of each spell in secret.

I love mercurial magic and so far it has tempered some spells while boosting others in unique ways. It can be difficult to remember to implement at first but there isn't a lot of new spell learning going on each session to make it too arduous.

In my game the players love it for good or ill and it requires little to no management on my part. Once they learn the spell I have them roll and tell them what the effect is then they run with it in fun and unique ways.

We've rolled for mercurial magic. I think it's fun.

People have to use Mercurial Magic! I rolled up a magic user recently and Mercurial Magic totally makes the character. The best combination so far is another character in the party who kills millions of people in another dimention every time he cast Hold Portal! talk about moral dilema.

Rythwold wrote:People have to use Mercurial Magic! I rolled up a magic user recently and Mercurial Magic totally makes the character. The best combination so far is another character in the party who kills millions of people in another dimention every time he cast Hold Portal! talk about moral dilema.

Yeah, that, one can't do anything but leave you wondering.

Skyscraper wrote:

Rythwold wrote:People have to use Mercurial Magic! I rolled up a magic user recently and Mercurial Magic totally makes the character. The best combination so far is another character in the party who kills millions of people in another dimention every time he cast Hold Portal! talk about moral dilema.

Yeah, that, one can't do anything but leave you wondering.

WIZARD: "Listen, that damn dwarf walked in on me when I was sitting on the can three times last week. You would think that if he could smell gold he could smell what was going on in here! But, no! And he can't read the damned "Occupied" sign either. So, I am sorry that millions of your people have to die, but I would really, really like some privacy, okay?"

Raven_Crowking wrote: So, I am sorry that millions of your people have to die, but I would really, really like some privacy, okay?"

I found that Mercurial Magic has really spurred my imagination regarding spells as a DM.

For example one of our Wizards rolled that an ingredient was required for the Spider Climb Spell. So I determined that he carried around a bag of dead dried spiders, and he must EAT one each time he wishes to cast the spell, pretty disgusting, and awesome, and fits right in with the DCC mindset.

Without the Mercurial Magic, I know I wouldn't have thought of that eerie concept...

Blood Axe wrote: I dont imagine a great wizard like Gandalf casting spells and thousands of mice coming from his robes

But I can pretty easily imagine a somewhat-great wizard like Radigast the Brown casting spells and thousands of mice coming from under his robes. In fact, isn't that in one of the LOTR movies now? LOL.

Blood Axe wrote: If its fun, and you like it, use it!

To me taking away Mercurial Magic is veering pretty far from this game's aesthetic, but I'm a terminal homebrewer myself, so yes, do what works for you!

I think where Mercurial Magic would truly come into its own for someone with a more structured and less freewheeling approach to this magic system would be to base mercurial affects around "spell schools", "races", etc. This is all alluded to on p 320 (pdf p324) of the rulebook. It'd be a bit of work though...

I do not use mercurial magic, but this is unique to my gaming group. The wizard player is very role playing focused but not much for mastering detailed rules. MM is too much to manage; we tried but kept forgetting it. The threat of misfire and corruption keep him on his toes well enough for me. I really like the rule and if the particular player was more into it I would use it.

Exedor wrote:...MM is too much to manage; we tried but kept forgetting it....

I'm curious -- what makes it too much to manage?

It seems to me, once you've determined it, it's just a note on your spell print-out or character sheet. And after a bit of use, just becomes what the spell is.

I've gotten at least one player to rename his spells based upon their Mercurial Magic and/or Manifestation.

GnomeBoy wrote:

Exedor wrote:...MM is too much to manage; we tried but kept forgetting it....

I'm curious -- what makes it too much to manage?

It seems to me, once you've determined it, it's just a note on your spell print-out or character sheet. And after a bit of use, just becomes what the spell is.

I don't want to put words in Exedor's mouth, but my guess is that it is "too much" because it's just one more thing to remember in combat. A dude casts a spell, he's making sure he's got the right modifier, flipping through the book to find spell tables, maybe dealing with spell burn (which stats to burn? What does the PC have to do to SB? Maybe roll a few dice for that), rolling on the spell table and determining the effect -- maybe there are choices to make on that, likely rolling dice for that too, people's saves (bad guys? good guys!?), maybe a few of them, describing what the spell actually does ("three of the four squirrelwigs turn inside out!"), also there's a bunch of module environments in DCC that tweak spells. Heck, even the really "on top of it" players in my group forget MM sometimes. It's not overwhelming or anything, but I can certainly understand deciding that one more random roll or bizarre effect to adjudicate is more trouble than its worth.

I use them and love them. So do my players, even when the effect is negative...they roll with it quite well. We roll them for every spell, but not until the first time the spell is actually used...which makes for interesting events in the middle of combat, at times. Then that mercurial magic effect is permanently linked to that spell.

jozxyqk wrote:I don't want to put words in Exedor's mouth, but... [one million words] ...one more random roll or bizarre effect to adjudicate is more trouble than its worth.

Well, if you put it like that...

I see your point, but I just think mercurial magic is too cool to ignore. When I play a spellcaster, I'm looking for creative ways to use the spell; yes, I'm the guy casting ghost sound inside of obscuring mist. Some of the MM results make the spells better than they are straight up, and it'd feel like having a 6d6 fireball and deciding to just always use it as a 3d6 fireball, to leave it out of the picture.

My group has not found MM to be overly cumbersome at all. And we never really need to flip for spell charts as I print off the spell sheets for each spell a PC has, and they make their own little "spellbook." MM is only rolled the first time the spell is used, then it is the same after that. The player notes on the spell sheet what the MM effect is, as well as the manifestation it takes (also rolled at the first use of the spell). We really haven't found this to be a tedious process at all.

DM Cojo wrote:...MM is only rolled the first time the spell is used, then it is the same after that. The player notes on the spell sheet what the MM effect is, as well as the manifestation it takes (also rolled at the first use of the spell)...

This is my understanding of things as well, but I know some people roll manifestation each time -- maybe some are rolling Mercurial effects each time, too!