Discworld RPG: Doing stuff and casting spells

Another Octobereview! We're looking at the Discworld Roleplaying Game (powered by GURPS), by Terry Pratchett and Phil Masters. Last time, I read the hefty character creation rules.

This time, I'm reviewing Part 5 of the book (pp 164-219), which is all about doin' stuff and castin' spells.

Part 5: Doing stuff

These chapters have a running example of criminal mime cultists in over their heads and summoning a horrible Thing. I quite like it. I doubt PTerry had much if anything to do with writing this book,* but it feels really right for the canon.

* The first version of the GURPS Discworld book was back in 1998, but I don't know to what degree he was involved to begin with, and then to what degree any of that text got passed on down the lineage of books to this one.

On p 164-191 we get that standard GURPSy core of the rules. It all seems solid; nothing jumped out at me as being Discworld-specific. Then we get to...

The magic system (messin' with reality)

I'm a sucker for reading and comparing magic systems. The Discworld RPG magic rules (p 191-217)  seem like about the softest magic system that a crunchy rules engine could have. Spells aren't codified by default, and the Skill/MP/power guidelines are very vague compared to the rest of the GURPS framework. The GM's rules/rulings balance shifts dramatically here!

The chapter structure is a little messy, going from 'general magic rules' to 'wizardry rules' to 'general magic rules' again to 'witch rules' to 'general magic rules' a third time.

This order is, I think, due to the designers' decisions to make witchcraft and wizardry ultimately the same kind of spellcasting, with surface differences.*

* Mostly just whether they name their spells (p 210).

I like this magic system as a TTRPG component. I'm sure it makes things easier at the table, too. But I don't think this is a particularly good fit for Discworld.

Witches and wizards

On the Disc, witch magic and wizard magic are very different. The canon is inconsistent over the course of the series, but generally...

• Wizard magic is formulaic and codified (spells are mostly named, are discrete entities, and wizards have specific magical rituals). Witch magic mostly isn't (spells are completely improvisational, with the exception of 'tricks' like Nanny Ogg's man of straw).
  
• Wizards need skill, but they and/or their staves also have expendable 'juice'. Witches don't have any resource like that (apart from a few examples with broomsticks early in the series).
• For witches, casting a spell is a matter of skill and consequences and unstated costs, and is such a big deal that Not Using Magic is essentially the entire apex of their art. Witches use very little magic, very sparingly, and almost never do some 'big' work of magic. It is very unusual for them to do anything like casting a spell.
  
• For wizards, casting a spell is, if not something they do every day, then something close. It's still unwise to use much magic, but there's nowhere near the level of aversion that witches have. The main risk seems to be the Dungeon Dimensions.
  

Even this book admits that there is a fundamental difference in kind, e.g., regarding the Dungeon Dimensions, "Witches are also tempting, but their magic tends to be subtler and less prone to making holes [in the fabric of reality]" (p 269).

The witch rules (p 196) just don't capture the idea that a witch's capacity and willingness to perform magic are tied up in costs, personal accountability, and consequences. A generic spellcasting flub table doesn't cut it here. "Not all magic is magic" is a Discworld trope, but it shouldn't apply to the actual spell rules as this book tries to. The bits in the series about the importance of the hat, tradition, style, disposition, and so on clearly refer to the overall art/trade of witchcraft, not to the relatively tiny bit of witchcraft that is 'casting spells'. It's a mismatch.

The other bits of witchcraft (medicine, community, herbalism, headology, respect, fairness, narrative, social work, etc) are much more important to them than magic is in the canon. There's a box for Headology on p 274, but apart from that, the book misses the mark. It has all these detailed rules for medicine, socially influencing people, knowing about bees, influencing narrative, etc, but it doesn't seem to understand that those things should be 95% of being a witch and only 5% should involve magic, whereas being a wizard on the Disc is probably 50% magic at least. In GURPS terms, almost none of a witch's points should come from magic skills.

This RPG mentions some of the witch "spells" we see in the books (delay a cut; draw heat from a bonfire to melt snow; cast a spell by putting in a lot of exacting research witchcraft work; make tiny changes). But it doesn't draw the right lessons from them.

And 'Riding the narrative' as a rule for witches to specifically get MP back just doesn't map onto the books at all. It's never been about running out of numeric mana.

Discworld witches aren't generic RPG spellcasters.

What would I have liked to see? The magic system as presented is fine for wizards (perhaps it could be more codified). Witches, though, should have something else: a system where you can't get something for nothing, where you have to be the fulcrum, where you get occasional opportunities to make a difference with subtle bits of magic and you still have to decide whether or not to make use of them. Enormous magical effects aren't necessary; actual full-on witch spells* are such outliers in the series that the book could have just ignored them and it would have felt "right".

* Like the big one in Wyrd Sisters.

If you're going to say witch magic can create the same major effects that wizard magic can, then the main thing is that there needs to be some huge specific disincentive for a witch to use more than the faintest trace of magic.

Could you make that fun? I don't know. But it's necessary for a Discworld feel.

Other bits of the magic system

There are lots of additions. Simple rules for using HEX, for witches' cottages, and so on, all of which I like just fine. I think it's a bit of a cop-out to say that a wizard's staff can be mended quickly just by sort of pushing magic into it, though.

It's interesting that there are only a few general magic constraints on the Disc (iron being unaffected, and needing to know a true-name). Both of those get mechanical support in the rules. But we also know that witches need solid bedrock under their feet to do magic; no rule is provided for that.

Counterbattery Magic (p 199) lets spells collide. It's a great rule and is supported by the books (Sourcery, The Light Fantastic).

Overall the magic system seems more powerful and useful than I would have expected. GURPS has translated magic into an effective tool in many situations, instead of something to be avoided. Later on, 'Uses and Abuses of Magic' (p 273) advises about adding layers of punishments for players who want to use that tool widely.

Gameplay

Page 218 provides pretty good basic running-the-TTRPG advice.* I don't really like the notion that "players don't have to know the rules, but it helps", especially with a system like GURPS that dumps so much stuff onto the character sheet; I guess it works for some people. It's always going to happen sometimes, but I don't think a rulebook should be encouraging it.

* I think the authors' definition of railroading is a bit off, and as a result the corresponding advice isn't as helpful as it could be.

It does state an important notion: "A strength of tabletop RPGs is that they aren't computer games; the GM's brain is more powerful than any computer and should be capable of adaptation and adjustment, even on the fly". I'd go one step further. The only absolute advantage that tabletop RPGs have over all computer games is that the GM's and players' brains are more flexible and creatively adaptable than any computer. That's why it's an important aspect to lean into!

The remainder of the book could be summed up as "all the setting stuff". I write about it next time!