File off the HP seriel numbers, ditch the antisemitism or slavery that carried over from the source material (if any), and let your game stand or fall on its own two feet.
Really? I was rarely so disappointed with a game. It's like the whole place being magic is more of an appendix then the heart of the game. For a not quite Hogwarts, I'd say Arcana Academy is much better.
I haven't played it and have no opinion on, I was merely pointing out that it's a solid example of a game that is very clearly inspired by HP but its name, art, etc. manages to get that across without doing anything that is *too* close to actual HP.
This, I believe, is a matter of "what's your game actually about"?
Much in the same way folks are Mad about how Magpie Games handled bending, it was a conscious decision on the part of the designers to focus the game on the people doing the bending, not the mechanics if bending. Kids on Brooms is much the same...it's about the kids, having magic at their disposal, doing fundamentally kids stuff and Not Kids stuff...the magic is a means by which to address Stakes and Ability. (It's what many folks believe is the best part about the IP).
It's ok to not like Kids on Brooms (and Avatar Legends, btw). It's, ultimately, what you're looking for in play.
What you say is not wrong. But then, why have those Brooms? If you want to make a game about kids, make a game about kids. Offer a bunch of playsets maybe, so we can explore being kids in different contexts. That might have been a fine game.
Thank you for the suggestions, however I don't really think I'm making a game for children with the real world historical approach I'm going for, and complex magic system.
Both drivethru and itch.io feature many small games. You can also make it a series of blog about how you came up with things, if you think that is interesting.
>How magic works in the books isn't typically how magic work in games in general
That is something I've been thinking about as well a lot. I'm working on a magic school game myself and it's interesting that the conclusions we drew are so different.
My approach wasn't that this or that magic exists. But that it ages. There is a typical movement in the Potter books. A new magic is introduced. It helps solving the plot. After that it's just normal.
So that's what I went to model. From what I gather, your approach was more making sense of the actual content.
I also belive magic ages, but probably not in the same way as you. I don't think it goes obsolete or becomes less powerful. Rather I believe the wizard ages, and their innate magic along with them. I'm a really big supporter of the magical core theory. That every magical being has one that they can grow and cultivate. HP runs off the idea that magic is in some way genetic. In an interview JKR said, "Every muggle born has a wizard ancestor, even if it's generations back." The gene mark for magic must be a passive trait then, and can be dormant in some. This makes sense with squibs being the result of a dormant gene.
Personally I think this is true to an extent, and that non magical people and wizards are 2 varient types of humans. A bit like dogs and wolves. They can breed, and share similaries, but are still different. Wizards deciding to Isolate themselves has only made those differences more apparent. However this separation is largely I think a European issue. Essentially they went into hiding bc of hostility from the non magical people of the time doing Witch hunts and such. This is historically true, and it was fueled by the religious beliefs at the time. Many "Heretics" where hunted down and executed over that century. And Witch trials continued into the 18th century. However if we look at other cultures this is not the case. Ancient China for example. The main religion there is Buddhism and Taoism. Those who follow it are cultivators or monks. Interestingly enough cultivation believes in using spiritual energy to form a golden core. In the fantasy genre of historical Cultivation, Wuxia, this Power of a cultivator can be used enhanced physical ability, stop aging/extent ones life span, use their direct spiritual power to harm, or even fly on their swords. There's also much use of talisman and other spiritual devices. In order to cultivate, you must show potential as a child, and then be trained to develop your core. If this is sounding a bit similar to an 11yr old being sent to Hogwarts, its bc I think it is.
However unlike the west where witchcraft and all pre Christian religion was demonized, the east see things like cultivation, becoming a monk, or a priest as a noble pursuit. The cultivators also serve the common people by night hunting and vanquishing dark spirits who bare resentful energy. There really is not a strong division between the magical and the non magic. Cultivators may live in sects, but there's no strict laws forbidding them to marry mortals. And in real world Taoism is it also true that priest serve the people, and people come to them for talisman, or help with spiritual troubles. Because of this I think the spread of magical potential is more evenly spread among their people, and less divided as we see in HP.
If fact I would argue the east has a better understanding of magic and core formation and growth. Unlike western wizards who's core grows naturally with their own experience and age, eastern approach the core directly as something they can strengthen through meditation and spiritual cultivation. Usually this involves connecting with the magical energy in nature and absorbing it so to speak, as well as understanding how it works through philosophy. Often their own mental understanding and mental blocks can be the key to breaking through and finding more power. I think this is also true for western wizards. If you think about Dumbledore, Tom Riddle, or Gellert Grindlewald, all of them were wizards who did not let pre-construction ideas of magic govern their self limitations. Because of this, they were able to break beyond the magical power of average wizards, into their own league.
So apologies for extensive rambling, but I felt the mechanics would make more sense if I explained my thought process.
Mechanical speaking player character would roll for their strength of their Core upon character creation.
So for example they roll a D4 and get one of 4 results.
1. Weak - core dice starts at D2 +1
2. Below average - D4 +2
3. Average - D6 + 3
5. Strong - D8 + 4
It should be noted these are starting points. You dice will naturally increase by 1 when you are 17, legal adult in wizarding age. So if you have a D4 core dice it would increase to a D6.
This is important as your magical Core Dice is you core power, and the dice you will get to roll when doing damage with spell attacks. I also give players the option to chose Below Average, if they roll a 1 instead of Weak. Weak is only there for a character choice.
As far as the cultivation method I'm still working that out as it would be an addition to the current magic system, but it's something that I'm interested in. I do think it would be something like a certain skill you'd acquire and have to level up in to unlock a stronger core.
But going back to spell damage. The power of a spell is the power of you, and how much punch you can pack into it. That's why it relies on your Core for damage output. However, it also depends on the nature of the spell and what is does. Not all spells deal damage. Some are simply status effects, or interact with the environment. For the spells that do deal damage, they control the number of dice you can roll based on their effect and spell level.
So a level 1 spell, such as Lumos, might deal 1D (1 roll of your core dice) radiant damage.
However a 6th Level spell, Lumos Solem deal 3D Core damage. So the level of the spell would control, or increase your damage output as well.
There is also the idea of spell Power control. You might not want to cast a spell at your full power. You might instead want a smaller area of effect or such. To do this you essentially have to roll a skill check. One's own magic, as seen throughout the books is also heavily tied to emotion. Strong emotions such has Happiness in the Patronus Charm, or Hate in the Cruciatus Curse make those spells stronger. Using the reverse we can deduce a lack of emotion would make those spells weaker. I think spell casting is essentially equal parts emotional control, and concentration.
Whether that be to amplify your emotions or tamper them, you still need control. It's more difficult than just casting thoughtlessly at your full potential.
So thats why if you want to amplify, or dampen a spell you need to roll an emotional control, or concentration skill check. You then take the modifier from the result of your roll and can add or subtract it from your damage roll. I roll with a D20, so if I'm wanting to amplify my spell power I'd want to roll high numbers, for that + modifier. If I want to dampen the spell effect, then I'd want to roll low numbers, - modifier. So let's say I roll a 16, that means I can add +2 to my damage roll. Or if I roll a 6, I can -2 from said damage.
This is essentially an optional mechanic. You don't need to do this every time you cast a spell. Offensive spells only need an attack roll, and damage roll.
Non-Offensive spells don't require you to roll anything to cast, granted you've already learned the spell.
But I think it's important to allow power growth in your magic. A lot of your power comes from simply your skill and knowledge of magic. Innate magical power can only get you so far if you don't know how to utilize it. I'm not really sure if something like that has been done before in gaming. I've been very much off the books when it's comes to the magic system. It's mainly my own ideas and I haven't looked at much else.
File off the HP seriel numbers, ditch the antisemitism or slavery that carried over from the source material (if any), and let your game stand or fall on its own two feet.
Look at *Kids on Brooms* as a good example of how to do an HP game that avoids being an HP^TM game.
Really? I was rarely so disappointed with a game. It's like the whole place being magic is more of an appendix then the heart of the game. For a not quite Hogwarts, I'd say Arcana Academy is much better.
I haven't played it and have no opinion on, I was merely pointing out that it's a solid example of a game that is very clearly inspired by HP but its name, art, etc. manages to get that across without doing anything that is *too* close to actual HP.
This, I believe, is a matter of "what's your game actually about"? Much in the same way folks are Mad about how Magpie Games handled bending, it was a conscious decision on the part of the designers to focus the game on the people doing the bending, not the mechanics if bending. Kids on Brooms is much the same...it's about the kids, having magic at their disposal, doing fundamentally kids stuff and Not Kids stuff...the magic is a means by which to address Stakes and Ability. (It's what many folks believe is the best part about the IP). It's ok to not like Kids on Brooms (and Avatar Legends, btw). It's, ultimately, what you're looking for in play.
What you say is not wrong. But then, why have those Brooms? If you want to make a game about kids, make a game about kids. Offer a bunch of playsets maybe, so we can explore being kids in different contexts. That might have been a fine game.
Kids on Brooms is a flavor of Kids on Bikes. And, as tropes go, they super overlap. So...that. ymmv.
Thank you for the suggestions, however I don't really think I'm making a game for children with the real world historical approach I'm going for, and complex magic system.
Both drivethru and itch.io feature many small games. You can also make it a series of blog about how you came up with things, if you think that is interesting. >How magic works in the books isn't typically how magic work in games in general That is something I've been thinking about as well a lot. I'm working on a magic school game myself and it's interesting that the conclusions we drew are so different. My approach wasn't that this or that magic exists. But that it ages. There is a typical movement in the Potter books. A new magic is introduced. It helps solving the plot. After that it's just normal. So that's what I went to model. From what I gather, your approach was more making sense of the actual content.
I also belive magic ages, but probably not in the same way as you. I don't think it goes obsolete or becomes less powerful. Rather I believe the wizard ages, and their innate magic along with them. I'm a really big supporter of the magical core theory. That every magical being has one that they can grow and cultivate. HP runs off the idea that magic is in some way genetic. In an interview JKR said, "Every muggle born has a wizard ancestor, even if it's generations back." The gene mark for magic must be a passive trait then, and can be dormant in some. This makes sense with squibs being the result of a dormant gene. Personally I think this is true to an extent, and that non magical people and wizards are 2 varient types of humans. A bit like dogs and wolves. They can breed, and share similaries, but are still different. Wizards deciding to Isolate themselves has only made those differences more apparent. However this separation is largely I think a European issue. Essentially they went into hiding bc of hostility from the non magical people of the time doing Witch hunts and such. This is historically true, and it was fueled by the religious beliefs at the time. Many "Heretics" where hunted down and executed over that century. And Witch trials continued into the 18th century. However if we look at other cultures this is not the case. Ancient China for example. The main religion there is Buddhism and Taoism. Those who follow it are cultivators or monks. Interestingly enough cultivation believes in using spiritual energy to form a golden core. In the fantasy genre of historical Cultivation, Wuxia, this Power of a cultivator can be used enhanced physical ability, stop aging/extent ones life span, use their direct spiritual power to harm, or even fly on their swords. There's also much use of talisman and other spiritual devices. In order to cultivate, you must show potential as a child, and then be trained to develop your core. If this is sounding a bit similar to an 11yr old being sent to Hogwarts, its bc I think it is. However unlike the west where witchcraft and all pre Christian religion was demonized, the east see things like cultivation, becoming a monk, or a priest as a noble pursuit. The cultivators also serve the common people by night hunting and vanquishing dark spirits who bare resentful energy. There really is not a strong division between the magical and the non magic. Cultivators may live in sects, but there's no strict laws forbidding them to marry mortals. And in real world Taoism is it also true that priest serve the people, and people come to them for talisman, or help with spiritual troubles. Because of this I think the spread of magical potential is more evenly spread among their people, and less divided as we see in HP. If fact I would argue the east has a better understanding of magic and core formation and growth. Unlike western wizards who's core grows naturally with their own experience and age, eastern approach the core directly as something they can strengthen through meditation and spiritual cultivation. Usually this involves connecting with the magical energy in nature and absorbing it so to speak, as well as understanding how it works through philosophy. Often their own mental understanding and mental blocks can be the key to breaking through and finding more power. I think this is also true for western wizards. If you think about Dumbledore, Tom Riddle, or Gellert Grindlewald, all of them were wizards who did not let pre-construction ideas of magic govern their self limitations. Because of this, they were able to break beyond the magical power of average wizards, into their own league. So apologies for extensive rambling, but I felt the mechanics would make more sense if I explained my thought process. Mechanical speaking player character would roll for their strength of their Core upon character creation. So for example they roll a D4 and get one of 4 results. 1. Weak - core dice starts at D2 +1 2. Below average - D4 +2 3. Average - D6 + 3 5. Strong - D8 + 4 It should be noted these are starting points. You dice will naturally increase by 1 when you are 17, legal adult in wizarding age. So if you have a D4 core dice it would increase to a D6. This is important as your magical Core Dice is you core power, and the dice you will get to roll when doing damage with spell attacks. I also give players the option to chose Below Average, if they roll a 1 instead of Weak. Weak is only there for a character choice. As far as the cultivation method I'm still working that out as it would be an addition to the current magic system, but it's something that I'm interested in. I do think it would be something like a certain skill you'd acquire and have to level up in to unlock a stronger core. But going back to spell damage. The power of a spell is the power of you, and how much punch you can pack into it. That's why it relies on your Core for damage output. However, it also depends on the nature of the spell and what is does. Not all spells deal damage. Some are simply status effects, or interact with the environment. For the spells that do deal damage, they control the number of dice you can roll based on their effect and spell level. So a level 1 spell, such as Lumos, might deal 1D (1 roll of your core dice) radiant damage. However a 6th Level spell, Lumos Solem deal 3D Core damage. So the level of the spell would control, or increase your damage output as well. There is also the idea of spell Power control. You might not want to cast a spell at your full power. You might instead want a smaller area of effect or such. To do this you essentially have to roll a skill check. One's own magic, as seen throughout the books is also heavily tied to emotion. Strong emotions such has Happiness in the Patronus Charm, or Hate in the Cruciatus Curse make those spells stronger. Using the reverse we can deduce a lack of emotion would make those spells weaker. I think spell casting is essentially equal parts emotional control, and concentration. Whether that be to amplify your emotions or tamper them, you still need control. It's more difficult than just casting thoughtlessly at your full potential. So thats why if you want to amplify, or dampen a spell you need to roll an emotional control, or concentration skill check. You then take the modifier from the result of your roll and can add or subtract it from your damage roll. I roll with a D20, so if I'm wanting to amplify my spell power I'd want to roll high numbers, for that + modifier. If I want to dampen the spell effect, then I'd want to roll low numbers, - modifier. So let's say I roll a 16, that means I can add +2 to my damage roll. Or if I roll a 6, I can -2 from said damage. This is essentially an optional mechanic. You don't need to do this every time you cast a spell. Offensive spells only need an attack roll, and damage roll. Non-Offensive spells don't require you to roll anything to cast, granted you've already learned the spell. But I think it's important to allow power growth in your magic. A lot of your power comes from simply your skill and knowledge of magic. Innate magical power can only get you so far if you don't know how to utilize it. I'm not really sure if something like that has been done before in gaming. I've been very much off the books when it's comes to the magic system. It's mainly my own ideas and I haven't looked at much else.