Usually, a game is already fairly balanced between magic use and "conventional" efforts, so adding a spell failure mechanism, especially one as deadly as the one described, will distort that balance. So you would need to compensate, either by adding a similar failure mechanism to mundane efforts or by increasing the power of magic.
Also, I think adverse effects should be roughly proportional to the power of the spell used: Weak spells should have weak effects, while strong spells should have strong effects. One possibility is to randomly choose a spell of the same level as the one attempted. Relative effects such as doubled or half duration or strength can work too. In any case, effects that are irreversible should not be serious. Making the caster die is out, and permanent, irreversible memory loss is just as bad -- it effectively makes the character unusable as a player character.
That said, permanent (but relatively harmless) effects can add colour: Wizards are recognizable by the changes they have undergone as a result of failed magic, such as green hair, zebra-stribed skin, an extra foot of height or vestigial wings. You can have these effects add compensating benefits, such as increased strength for the extra height, slow fall for the vestigial wings or such, so the disadvantages are balanced by advantages. But neither benefit nor disadvantage should be unbalancing: Adding full-size wings that allow full flight ability is crossing the line, as are reducing the character to one-foot height, even if this allows the character to slip through openings barred to normal-sized people.
Unless, that is, the main focus of your campaign is silliness.
That's fine. This was partially a thought experiment, not tied to a specific game system, and I'm not terribly concerned about "game balance." But say a game system had a table like this, or even ramped up the bad permanent consequences -- it would change how magic is used. Each spell would be a "do we want to risk it, or can we handle this without magic" decision. Eberron-style worlds, where half the "technology" is run on magic, is out because no one would be foolish enough to consistently risk the bad consequences. In short, it adds flavor to the world, which is the heart of this column.
Of course, if a player wanted to play a traditional AD&D magic user, introducing this table would basically squash that idea.
My quibble is this:
Quote:
Originally Posted by torbenm
Also, I think adverse effects should be roughly proportional to the power of the spell used: Weak spells should have weak effects, while strong spells should have strong effects.
As the phrase goes, you are entitled to your opinion. But, this implies a mechanical, Newtonian flavor to magic -- if you only add a little power, you only move a little bit, and in my mind, that's not what magic *is*. In my games, magic is often an all-or-nothing, chaotic maelstrom, and the risk is merely tapping that, no matter what you're trying to do. Or in other words, small details can spiral out into something totally not expected.
In my games, magic is often an all-or-nothing, chaotic maelstrom, and the risk is merely tapping that, no matter what you're trying to do. Or in other words, small details can spiral out into something totally not expected.
While this is, indeed, very flavourful, I would expect players that roll instant death on a trivial use of magic will not be very amused. To make players choose magic at all, it would have to be very powerful, and even then players would only use it in critical situations. And it is not very much fun to play a character that for most of the time does nothing useful, even if he or she saves the day when the party in in really deep shit (until this goes wrong and the whole party is destroyed as a result).
Look, also, at how risky magic is portrayed in literature: You hardly ever see magicians randomly drop dead from trivial uses of magic. Some examples: In the Eragon books, a magician can, indeed, die from casting a spell, but that is only if (s)he forgets to limit its scope, and that implies that the magic is very strong indeed if the magician dies of it. I doubt that mechanism is very suited for games, though. In many stories, magic is gained by summoning demons or spirits, and these can get out of your control. But the risk is limited by the power of said demon or spirit, so the summoner can usually limit the risk by summoning only lesser spirits or demons. I can't offhand think of any example from literature where casting a low-power spell carries a great risk (other than detection by a malevolent power).
That said, I think risky magic carries a great gaming potential -- if the magician can manage the risks, and if the magician can't make plot-destroying magic even when taking great risks. If the party is facing the Big Bad Guy and his many minions, it is not very fun if the magician decides to take the 20% risk of dying to kill all opponents instantly.
Linear Mode
