Goodman Games

Everything you said is spot-on. Depending on the final 'flavor' of the game in November, I may need to make such changes to get the game more playable for the group I'm in.

"Wacky" is fun for a one-off.

"Subtle" is the way to go for longevity...

Also, I should point out I like the light/dark magic concept, too. It's there in the source material -- it'd be nice to have it in the rules, as well.

You'll like what I'm putting together then.

Stop teasing us

Interesting idea. It seems to me that effects of magic should be patron-specific. So if you have an evil, corrupting patron, then it makes sense that you get corrupted. But if you have a neutral or a good patron, then the magic it grants wouldn't be any less powerful, but the danger would just be of a different kind (and I AM in favor of magic being unpredictable and dangerous). Perhaps there could be a "Corruption" table for each patron (but it would have to be re-named--maybe "Consequences"?). Evil patrons could use the existing corruption table. Elemental patrons might have another table with element-specific effects. Nature-based patrons would have nature-themed effects. etc.

I use the existing table only as a guideline. Last time my wizard got "sparks and smoke" coming out of his mouth. Since this was almost the same of a patron taint for his patron, i just ruled that instead down his throat would burn a fire, making his mouth always lit up. It's like when the doctor lights with a strong electric torch the back of your mouth.

I am not really crazy about the corruption system. I would like to see it removed or limited to certain "forbiden" magic.

As pointed out before, without the corruption system the entire Wizard spell casting mechanic comes apart at the wheels. That is the only thing from keeping a Wizard from being a spell casting machine.

Had our first playtest last night (Write up will follow) Party's 1st level mage rolled nothing less than a 14 all night. Ended up routing the attacking Jackles with a horde of summoned attack dogs and Desert Vultures.... Jeez how I long for him to get a 1 if he keep this up!

The slightly disturbing thing is HE wants to get corrupted......

I don't mind bad things happening to a spell caster for rolling a 1 but the phyisical manifestations (scales, horns, claws, etc.) I don't care for. So I guess it is more the flavor than the mechanic.

Maybe the corruption table should become just a spell fumble table, with the lowest (worst) results forcing to take a Patron Taint. It's easier (you need only 1 table + patron taints table) and keeps wizards from either wanting to "become a random monstrosity" or ending up "becoming a random monstrosity". Every corrupted wizard would bear the mystical scars of his patron.
They would fear the "spell fumble" table more, if it just means damage and trouble instead of claw attacks or tentacles.

Not necessarily. You could have consequences written into each spell description. Instead of just “1-11: Lost. Failure.”, there could be spell-specific consequences that get more severe the lower the spell check. For example, a failure of spider-climb could result in webbed fingers for a while (spell check of 8-11), growing extra legs (spell check of 4-7), or even turning into a spider (when a “1” is rolled)! To keep this from being too debilitating, there could be a save to prevent the damage (maybe based on how poor the spell check was). This is just an example, but the point is that there are ways to make spellcasting unpredictable and dangerous without the "evil" flavor of corruption.

Discussion of this kind of thing already exists in the limiting corruption thread starting on page 3.

Some good ideas there.

If you want a safer version of magic how about just putting in the option to use a lower caster die when casting a spell? If your mage is all goody goody and dosn't want to "play with fire," so to speak, then you can just roll a d16 (or d14, if people that that is a better penalty), and then remove the possibility of gaining coruption. Then you could trown in reckless casting, and let a mage roll a d24 to cast a spell, but then has a higher chanch of getting coruption (say, a natural 1-4 calls for a coruption roll). An easy mechanic to account for safe casting, that lets you fluff out the generic spells to be "light" or "dark" when casted.

I like this idea.

There is something to this that I like the sound of...

I have been toying with the following idea for corruption, but it requires more book keeping for the character.

You have a corruption chart with three columns on it. For sake of argument, it is Minor, Lesser and Greater corruption.

(use a d10) + luck so there are 15 results on the chart (-2 to 13 to account for +/- luck for a character).

Minor corruptions are mostly physical manifestations. Most of RP value (scaled skin, purple hair, forked tongue, etc). No real in game mechanical value.

Lesser corruptions consist of effects that provide some in game penalty (or bonus) to a character. This is in the range of +/- 1 or 2 or some minor effect. (i.e. on leg grows 6", now speed reduced by 5' or 10' per turn).

Greater Corruption are major changes to a character. Your turn into an vampire, bullywog (walking frog), etc...

When you roll on the table, you always take the column on the left. If you have already rolled that result, then you take the result one column over. Repeat until you get all the columns on the row, then you roll the d10 again to get a different result.

The odds will support getting multiple minor ones at a low level, but as you start to accumulate them you will get progressively more significant corruptions.

This provides a basis for corruption getting more serious as you acquire more of them.

Andy, I like the way that works.

The third column could be longer, so if you get a duplicate result, you roll a higher die to possibly slither into those higher results...