Spellbooks in DCC

One of the things that struck me about the magic system in DCC is the "mythos" of the spells. There are a finite number of "known" spells, they are jealously guarded, and simply knowing that a particular spell exists is a feat. Add to that the fact that each Wizard casts each spell in a manner completely unique to himself, through the Mercurial Magic subsystem. There is also the fact that each time a spell is cast its effect and effectiveness is determined by the casting roll.

If I ever am able to run a DCC campaign, I have an idea regarding Wizards I plan to put into play.

My players will only have access to the casting tables for spells they begin the game with. Spells they gain once the campaign begins, they will need to keep notes on. I envision that each time a spell is cast the wizard's player will note the casting roll and effect. Ideally, these notes will be kept in a notebook of some sort, which will become the "spellbook". Eventually the player will have a complete grasp of what range of effects he can expect when this spell is used.

I don't know if this will work in play as well as I like the look of it on paper. If it does, though, it seems like a very cool way to really engage the player with his character.

Toil and Trouble

On page 314, under the heading General Principles of Wizard Spells, you will find the following quote:

Simply learning that a spell exists is a great accomplishment . . .

That simple sentence has captivated me. Elsewhere in the rules it is stated that there is a finite number of known spells. I'm not sure if spell research is permitted by the rules. It is my understanding (based on my woefully incomplete reading) that spells are "given" by powers beyond the kin of the masses, and that this is the way to gain them. If that is correct, then not only is it an intriguing assumption, it definitely means that a count of "spells known to exist" is conceivable.

At any rate, there are very interesting rules for Wizards learning of spells, in order that they may actually learn them and study them. I think that is a completely awesome idea. Upon attaining each level  a Wizard has the opportunity to learn a new spell. This is not simply a matter of the player perusing the spell lists and saying "I'll take this one". During the course of adventuring at the previous level, the player must make the effort to learn of the existence of spells. In fact, this should be as common to the Wizard as seeking rumors of fabled blades of power is to the Warrior. The judge should, of course, concoct these rumors and have them sketched out. Any spells that the Wizard learns of are eligible to be chosen from to be learned at the next level. But it doesn't end there.

If the Wizard knows of the spell through a tome or some other actual record of the spell, he must expend a certain amount of time and make a roll. If successful, the ordeal is over and he can cast the spell.

On the other hand, if he knows of the spell, but doesn't actually possess a "copy" of it, he must obtain such. It can be written, whispered from a demon's lips, or imparted in any creative way the judge can envision. In any event, it may take a quest of some nature to reach the source of the knowledge. There may also be a cost for acquiring the knowledge. Nobody said the path to magical power was smooth or easy.

If, by chance, no knowledge of a spell is discovered, there are tables to randomly determine certain particulars. There are three tables: Where Is the Knowledge Found, What Is the Cost of the Knowledge, and What Components Are Required. So, for example, I just rolled on the tables and discovered that the spell can be found in the purest drop of water, the price of knowledge of the spell is the Wizard wearing his hair in a topknot, in the custom of a sect of monks. Finally, a mother's love for her child is a required component for the spell to function. Of course, it falls on the judge to weave these random elements into something adventurous.

DCC is rife with tables such as these, but it should be remembered that the tables given are more like examples than holy writ. It would be a simple, and fun, matter to develop other results for these categories.

Men and Magic: Spell Examination

I've added a first run of my spell clarifications to my OD&D House Rules (link under Pages, to the left). They are fairly short, because I'm not trying to tie anyone's hands, just close some potentially bad loopholes.

As for the spells, they are awesome. Even with the (much) smaller lists than later editions, the spells presented are very versatile. A Magic-User is a very useful member of an adventuring party with these spells, and not just as a Flamethower. I can see where Charm and Sleep are much more useful than Magic Missile.

There is a definite lack of direct-damage spells in the lists. There is, however, a wide range of choices which the M-U uses to create a toolbox to help his party deal with unforeseen situations. There used to be a cartoon based on the story Around the World in 80 Days. At the beginning of each episode, the main character would have his side-kick assemble a group of seemingly random things. It would be like "Gather us a table knife, a lump of coal, and a sprig of mint." By the end of the episode he had needed each of the items. That's how I think of OD&D Magic-Users, having to realize what they will need before they need it, and not cornering themselves by limiting their tools. The guy in the cartoon never once said, "Gather us a gun, a bigger gun, a red gun, a blue gun, and a shitpot full of bullets."

The spell descriptions are vague, but rather than focusing on that as a bad thing, I think it makes the spells more versatile and useful. For example, would Move Earth effect an earth elemental? How would Part Water affect a water elemental? Maybe they wouldn't. It depends on the individual referee. The point is, no one's hands are tied. I think it's easier to take the vague wording and put some limiters on it, rather than take a tightly worded spell and tell the players they can do more with it. I think that once we read that tight description, it's how we see it.

I was much more excited about Magic-Users than I have ever been, once I actually read the spell descriptions. It's a fantastic thing.

Men and Magic Examination Pt 3

I've started giving the spells a new, thorough, read-through. Of course, the first thing that struck me was the brevity. The spell descriptions are brief to the point of being terse. Some spells probably need some clarification, but the nature and wording will be specific to the group and campaign. Not so much house rules, more like clarifications, like in the DMG.

For example, Charm Person jumped out at me right away. Its duration is "Until Dispelled", and it can be used to lure NPCs into the caster's service. Obviously, the subject of the charm won't seek dispelling. It would potentially be somewhat contrived to have another NPC realize the situation and arrange for a dispelling. So, it is conceivable that a Magic-User could have an entourage of free, charmed help following him around. I will clarify Charm Person as follows, should I run an OD&D game:

• A Magic-User may have no more persons in thrall than his level plus his Loyalty Base (from Charisma, Men and Magic, pg11);
• The caster may not release a charmed person at will. The spell must be dispelled.

That seems to me to be logical, simple, and effective, without being too restrictive or heavy-handed. Once I have all my spell clarifications worked up, I'll post them, for those interested.

Here is something very interesting
On page 19, it states:

Spells & Levels: The number above each column is the spell level (complexity, a somewhat subjective determination on the part of your authors). The number in each column opposite each applicable character indicates the number of spells of each level that can be used (remembered during any single adventure) by that character. Spells are listed and explained later. A spell used once may not be reused in the same day.  (Emphasis mine)

I know a strict interpretation of this would not be popular. Memorizing a spell more than once so it can be used more than once is a staple of D&D. But was it always? I can't say. I definitely played back in the day, using the LBBs, but I never played a Magic-User back then. I know that when I saw someone else memorizing the same spell more than once it seemed like a revelation to me, because I'd never considered it.

Think about a strict interpretation for a minute, though. I like it, and here's why.

• It makes Magic-Users more interesting. M-U's should be masters of a mysterious power. They should be able to perform a variety of tasks and feats using their magic. A Magic-User that uses all his available spells to memorize Charm Person is pretty two dimensional. 
• From a Vancian magic standpoint, it makes sense. Jeff Reints posted a couple of excerpts from Mr. Vance on his blog (read it here). These serve to really illustrate just what Vancian magic means (hint: it does not mean Fire-and-Forget). Judging from the picture of magic painted by those excerpts, I can't imagine having two (or more!) of a single spell trapped in my head. In a way, it seems to me that it would be twice as difficult to retain them, almost like they could gang up on your mind. Of course, there is nothing mechanical to support that, it is purely role play. Which is the name of the game, after all.

Read Magic
Read Magic is a strange beast, to me. It is hand-waved in virtually every set of house rules known. It basically has to be, right? How is a Magic-User supposed to read his spell book if he can't cast it? Yet, its use is deemed mandatory in the LBBs.

I have given this a lot of thought, because I don't want to just gloss over the LBBs. The whole purpose of this exercise is to re-learn D&D from the floor up, and in so doing gain a deeper appreciation for it. I can't do that if I arbitrarily declare that something simply makes no sense, and ignore it. I will be much better served by trying to understand how it fits and how it is meant to be used, rather than just calling it antiquated and moving on.

So, in that spirit, I must say that I think it is the wording that's the problem. Rather than Read Magic, I believe it should be called Master Magic. A look at the spell's description will help understand why I say this:

Read Magic: The means by which the incantations on an item or scroll are read. Without such a spell or similar device magic is unintelligible to even a Magic-User. The spell is of short duration (one or two readings being the usual limit). Men and Magic, pg 24

 Items and scrolls. For items, it simply reveals the command word, or may be construed to reveal the function of the item. Scrolls contain spells, not merely spell-like effects. Spells in the Vancian sense are essentially alive, chaotic beings of magical energy. They are not merely words anymore than the scales and fangs are the snake.

The way I see it, with a scroll, the spell is being pressed into the parchment rather than the caster's mind. The spell is seething and writhing on the scroll just as it does in a caster's mind. When cast from memory, the caster has already mastered the spell and bent it to his will, which is why there is no casting roll. When cast from a scroll, the spell is almost ballistic, kind of point-and-shoot. There's still no casting roll, of course, but it does need to be commanded from the scroll and given purpose. Read Magic is the spell for that. Considering my interpretation of the role play involved, though, I do believe Master Magic is a more apt term.

Obviously, this isn't the only way to interpret Read Magic. I was just looking for a reason to include it, along with a way to justify it through role play, since it seems so important.