A better alignment system? Or not.

TL:DR version:
Want to improve the alignment system?
 a) Change;
Lawful vs Chaotic
to
Honorable vs Capricious

Settled!

------

If this whole post comes of sounding like a Myerr-Briggs test, that's because of the way the Myerr-Briggs test, and indeed EVERY personality test in existence, is structured. Of course you fit into one of those binary categories, that's all these tests are: identification of specific traits. You could conceivably have a test going "Let's profile you by the color of your hair. Aha! You have black hair. Therefore you fall under the category of "Hair: Black"."

For the purposes of role playing games, personality traits we are really concerned about are those personality traits which people are interested about that character and relevant to medieval fantasy's context. So everything in the Myerr Briggs test is out, for instance. People aren't generally interested if the Drow are introverted or feeling or intuitive or prospective. Folks who play D&D are more interested to know that Drow society is characterized by astounding cruelty. These are terrible people so it's okay to kill them because they are really really baaad.

This topic is all about semantics and theme. What matters to the whole discussion about alignments categories is that the categories sound right and are thematically appropriate for a medieval fantasy.


First Good vs evil,

then Lawful vs Chaotic

-----

Good vs Evil

Oddly enough, the exact qualities of Good and Evil can be unusually subjective. So how about we look at some more specifically defined qualities that are normally associated with good and evil and work from there?

a) Cruel vs Kind
I'm not going to insult you by trying to explain what these mean.

b) Selfish vs Altruistic
Nor this.

You may have noticed that being Kind and Altrustic overlaps a little. They kind of do. When a person is both kind and altrustic, it's difficult to differentiate their acts of kindness from their acts of altruism when they are acting on both at once.

However, selfish but kind people are really really common in reality. By reality, I mean outside of fiction. In fiction, most stereotypical rogue protagonists are selfish but kind. They're looking out for #1, but when they see cruelty they turn in disgust. If it's not too much trouble, they may even help out the person who is suffering. A lot of people in real life would self identify themselves as selfish but kind. Acts of altruism are always hard to perform, but it's easy to sympathise with those in sufferring. The most common thing for selfish but kind people to do is to pray for those who are suffering: no personal cost to self but "My thoughts and prayers are with you".

Altrustic folk who lack kindness are those who are willing to sacrifice themselves for the good of society, but will not blink at eye at sacrificing others for the greater good. Or purging society of unwanted elements. The needs of the many outweigh the needs and rights of the few. Tony Stark in the comics is well known to sacrifice the few for the greater good of the many.

-----------

Law vs chaos
Yuck, must we try to do Lawful vs Chaotic? Really? Fine, let's try.
a) Conforming vs Independent, or Establishment vs Anarchy
b) Measured vs Impulse
c) Civilised vs uncivilised
d) Honorable vs Capricious

a) Conforming vs Independent
When you see the terms lawful vs chaotic, this is probably what you are thinking of: The person with a propensity to obey the set rules and norms of society vs the person who forms own opinions and morals and doesn't give two shits about what everyone else thinks. By the book vs whatever I think works best.
The trouble is, in current popular culture/fiction there are so many bad connotations to being a conformist and so many positive connotations to being an independent thinker that everyone will choose to pick independent over conforming. Even Captain America, the so-called gold standard for the Lawful part of lawful good (compared to Wolverine who is often considered chaotic good), is now best known for this quote:

This nation was founded on one principle above all else: The requirement that we stand up for what we believe, no matter the odds or the consequences. When the mob and the press and the whole world tell you to move, your job is to plant yourself like a tree beside the river of truth, and tell the whole world -- "No, YOU move.” 

Sounds pretty non-conformist to me. Rules of society? Law and order? That's not the American way when you believe you are in the right, apparently.

So there two are completely out.

Structure vs Impulse, or Establishment vs Anarchy
Here's the other thing folks think of for D&D's law vs chaos. The person who plans and wants stability, structure and order vs the person who does crazy things on impulse and doesn't think things through. The Joker of course is the poster child for this type of chaos:

Introduce a little anarchy, upset the established order, and everything becomes chaos, I’m an agent of chaos , and you know the thing about chaos? It’s fair.

Alternatively, there's V from V for Vendetta.

Eve: All this riot and uproar, V... is this Anarchy? Is this the Land of Do-As-You-Please? 

V: No. This is only the land of take-what-you-want. Anarchy means "without leaders", not "without order". With anarchy comes an age or ordnung, of true order, which is to say voluntary order... this age of ordung will begin when the mad and incoherent cycle of verwirrung that these bulletins reveal has run its course... This is not anarchy, Eve. This is chaos.

...I'm not really convinced people reaaaallly care about all that for D&D. Anarchy vs establishment depends largely on context; in settings where questions of rule of society vs independent freedoms are interesting to look at. D&D isn't really about law vs chaos its iterations being of much interest because Law vs Chaos has very little effect on the world of D&D, in spite of the pantheon supposedly following the alignments strictly. 

Heroes in D&D are crushing fantasy monsters and creatures of mysterious origin which do terrible things to ordinary folk. D&D's villains are selfish and power hungry or become liches because they fear death. Villains in medieval fantasy are dangerous because they have awesome magical powers or command evil armies of undead or savage orcs who want to murder the common folk.

Villains in medieval fantasy settings are not villains just because they are part of the 1% who keep the rest of the populace in servitude.  Villains in D&D are not mundane politicians of the established order who must be overthrown by inciting the local populace. Revolutions are a bit past medieval and renaissance, moving into early modern history territory.

Anarchy vs establishment just isn't one of the typical themes in medieval fantasy like D&D.

There's certainly a case for the argument that we don't need an alignment system at all. After all, characters are more interesting when they break alignment. I argue that it's the inconsistencies and the idiosyncrasies of human behavior that make people interesting.

For example, Han Solo. We're reminded time and again that he looks out only for himself. It's the exceptional time when he decides to come back and help at risk to his own self that makes him more interesting. Certainly more interesting than someone who always puts his life on the line every time.

Folks who are almost always kind are more interesting when they take special joy in seeing someone suffer. Perhaps that someone "had it coming" or had committed acts of unspeakable evil. Or perhaps it is a mother who steps-in to protect her daughter from a psychopath with remarkable savagery.

Someone who looks out only for #1 is a lot more interesting if there is someone in his life who he would lay down everything for, and whose death he will avenge at any cost with the untold fury.

---
b) Measured vs Impulse
Only interesting in differentiating disciplined monks from savage barbarians. Being "measured" and careful and controlled vs not thinking things through and being passionate and flying into rages. Other than monks or barbarians though, I'm not convinced these are important enough descriptions for everyone else.

c) Civilised vs uncivilised
Same here. Comparing urban, civilised folk to those who live in the savage wild. Kinda relevant to medieval fantasy themes, but not by much. It doesn't really say enough about the character's actual personality and view on life.

-----------
Then again, maybe I'm overthinking the purpose of good vs evil in D&D.

Functionally, I think what we really want are just categories which help players and DM quickly understand the type of NPCs they are dealing with. We want to use categories because people use categories such as "bad guys" and "good guys" to label others around them. For the purpose of D&D and the power fantasy, players want a quick shorthand of which sentient races are okay to kill because they are evil. It's really that simple.

Drow? Cruel, evil culture of men-hating women. All evil, very few exceptions. Kill on sight... unless they're named Drizzt or worship a good god (see Solaufein). Leave those ones alone.

Kuo-Tuo? Not just evil, they're insaaaaane. Murder 'em double quick.

Sprites? Whoa, they're good guys. Just protecting their homes. Leave em alone or make friends.

And so on. So at least for the purpose of the Monster Manual, I think the "good" and "evil" labels are too useful to let go of, if simplistic. In a word, these labels immediately the the DM what the mythos and established lore say about these creatures or if they are meant to be dangerous enemies or potential allies for the players.  Effective and simple is a good thing, right?

Law vs chaos still seems useless though.

Or is it? I've left one out: d) Honorable vs Capricious

---------

d) Honorable vs Capricious
Probably one of the better ways to tell if an alignment system is working well or not if people CARE about the labels and connotations that the name of the alignments implies. Good vs evil is the primary example: If you ask a person to describe themselves as either good or evil, most will choose good. Most folk don't appreciate being called evil and would like to think of themselves as good people at their very core.

Lawful vs chaos though... if you ask a person if they are chaotic or just plain crazy, they may not be so inclined to disagree. As I mentioned earlier , being willing to bend the rules in the right circumstances is often seen as desirable in current culture.

If you ask a person to describe themselves as either honorable or capricious instead of lawful or chaotic, I figure you're more likely to get more people wanting to identify themselves as honorable. Being described as dishonorable and capricious sounds like people trying to say you are undependable and untrustworthy. Or having no principles.

Really, the terms honorable and capricious actually carry very very similar meaning to lawful vs chaotic as per D&D tradition. My housemate points out the *nuance* is different. Sure. I think that different nuance is just enough to make it relevant.

-----------

On another note, I've kind of hit writer's block on the whole isekai idea. It's a case of too many options and having difficulty pinning down the one which will make the most sense for the setting and the target audience since the concept is so fresh.

D&D no Isekai

Hold the phone! Forget about making a medieval fantasy RPG like D&D awhile. I've an idea of a completely new genre of role-playing.

Ever heard of Isekai? It's a sub-genre of Japanese fiction (anime, manga, light novels, etc.) where a normal person is transported to another world (usually medieval fantasy). Usually the person has some sort of advantage including their understanding of modern medicine and technology or even having overpowered abilities they never had in real life. (Otherwise the hero would die in an unfamiliar fantasy world very quickly)

Examples: Sword Art Online, Overlord, World Customize Creator, The Rising of the Shield Hero, Grimgar of Fantasy and Ash, KonoSuba: God's Blessing on this Wonderful World, and plenty more.

So the idea for this RPG system is that players will play as themselves, but transported to a fantasy world. They probably (but not always) have some advantages which allow them to thrive in this new unfamiliar world and thus able to go on dangerous adventures. Every campaign, the fantasy world will work under different rules and cultures. So expect a lot of discovery and experimentation.

Lots of variation options means that I'll need a very flexible and rules-light system. I'm thinking checking out how Night's Black Agents varies it vampires. Character sheets can be as simple as writing a bit about yourself.

Some variation ideas:
1. Advantages (egs. video game qualities, P&P rpg qualities, specific powers, items from modern world)
2. Player's physical bodies (own body or a local person/monster)
2. World setting (MMORPG, generic fantasy, gothic horror, historic)
3. Magic and world physics rules (realistic, no guns,
4. Monsters


My housemate isn't too excited though. "Why would I want to play as myself? Don't I do that enough already?" Hahaha... gosh, that sounds like a good point.

Hrmmmmm.

Apparently, isekai stories are often a form of wish fulfillment because the protaganist has an overpoweringly huge advantage. I'm not sure how well that would work in a P&P role-playing game: conventional wisdom holds that players need to be challenged in order for the struggles to appear to be meaningful.

Ironically, I find quite a few people are essentially playing as themselves in most P&P role-playing games, personality-wise anyway.

Too much innovation?

Hrm. The less than positive reaction to response to some of the changes I tried in my last session got me thinking. I've tried to change up quite a few things to improve the game. But I think I need to stick to changes which have an important benefit. Too many changes, especially changes which make the game more difficult, will likely not be well accepted by players.

I'm probably going to see a lot of flak for removing constitution, charisma and wisdom for instance. The benefits of the alternate ability scores is a somewhat subtle. So I should seriously consider whether I really need alternate ability scores.

On the other hand, removing the experience budgets has a huge impact on time spent prepping for the game and is a frequent complaint by GMs, so revamping the CR system is a change that should stay. I don't think players will really mind rolling extra damage dice anyway.

I guess the TYPE of change matters. For instance, changes which make the playing the game easier for players may be better appreciated than changes with more subtle benefits. For instance, players are less likely to complain about more flexible spell casting systems which so happens to also solve "linear warriors, quadratic mages".

On the same note as revamping the CR system, I think removing the need for counting squares has a very significant side-benefit: reducing the preparation load of the GM (no need to draw map grid). "Maps" are easy enough to prepare on the fly, complete with props and environmental terrain. Just use a couple of playing cards to denote the combat zones, and have some general props prepared beforehand (tokens for trees and the like). Sensory pleasure-seeking players would love it.

I suspect the endurance/HP system needs to be axed though. Creating tension and improving how the players play the game and thus increase their enjoyment of the game may be a bit to subtle. I'll probably keep the danger associated with hitting zero HP though: roll death save as soon as you are reduced to zero HP.

Hrmpppph. It's really a pity though. The endurance system would have fixed some issues in my spell system as well. (I wanted sorcery-style spell casting slots to refresh every minute. But if I did that, it would make healing spells too powerful. Unless healing spells only recover endurance...)

I'm feeling a little disappointed though. I've already got a lot of interconnected systems which work well together.

Guh. Maybe I'm overthinking things again.

Counting squares suck: Can we do better?

Angry DM has this to say of counting squares of movement in D&D and it's ilk:

One of the biggest slowdowns in D&D and Pathfinder is the act of counting squares. And, the thing is, it’s totally f$&%ing unnecessary. I mean, D&D 5E did away with the worst of it. But it still happens. Here’s what I mean. 

When a character moves, the player (and the DM) often think that the actual path is important. That is to say, you have to show every square through which the PC moves... 

...What really f$&%s things up is when GMs force a player to show the exact path in the hopes they can ‘spring’ something on the player. Like “oops, you went into the WRONG SQUARE and now I get to make opportunity attacks. Hahaha!” At which point, the player will take back the move and try to find a better path. That’s how it ALWAYS plays out. 

So, skip that s$&%. If there is a safe path between the starting space and the destination, assume the character takes it. Let the player declare “I want to move there,” and if you – the GM – can perceive a safe path, it just happens. Simple as that.
Simply put, assume that a character is smart enough to take the most direct safe path available....

Point being, counting squares is less of the player making a decision and more of the player making a calculation. That's not the intention of the combat rules: we want players to be making tactical decisions, not mental arithmetic.

Player: "1, 2, 3, 4... no... 1, 2, 3,4,5! Does that work?"
DM: "No, this square is difficult terrain so it takes double movement."
Player: "Ok, then. Let's try 1, 2,3, 4,5...6! Does that work?"

We shouldn't even want players to be counting at all; just eyeballing it, considering tactical options, and making a call. Is there a way of keeping the tactical decisions without the kindergarten simulation?  Yes, actually. We don't really need squares at all.

Sly Flourish describes how to run D&D combat using narrative combat rules aka "Theatre of the Mind".

13th Age uses a combat positioning system which is a close to narrative combat rules, but with some added structure. 13th Age has this nice quote to rationalise why relative positioning is better than 5-foot squares typically used in D&D/pathfinder:

Whereabouts
Each creature has a general, relative position on the battlefield. Combat is dynamic and fluid, so miniatures can’t really represent where a character ‘really is.’

Which is a better representation of combat. While it's true that combatants who are cannot move around as freely, it's kind of silly to think that their movement is limited to 5-foot squares during the round. What would actually be happening is dynamic shifting and striding, giving ground and pushing aggressively with each stroke of the blade.

Heard that, simulationists? 13th Age's semi- narrative combat simulates combat positioning better than Pathfinder does. Come at me bros. 😉

However, these "Theatre of Mind" systems are not without their own issues.

1) Placement of environmental props
One of the issues with both Sly Flourish's system and 13th Age's system is that it's a little tricky to place props on the battlefield such as cover like trees and rocks or "The altar of Bhaal, upon which sits the sacred artifact you're all fighting for" since relative positions are abstracted out.

"If I go after the artifact instead, am I in reach of this monster? What about that monster?"
"Can this monster move into a position which negates my cover?"

Things like that. If the players need to keep asking questions about relative positions, it gets just as bad as counting squares. We'd prefer if players knew the relative distances immediately with a glance  without needing to count squares or pester the GM.

Environmental props make the battlefield more interesting by allowing different tactical options. I'd rather we don't lose this element of the game for the sake of brevity. In the future I hope to make a big list of environmental props that make the battlefield interesting.

2) Party more vulnerable to superior numbers
The other issue is that the vulnerable back-line party members (egs. wizard) can get more easily overwhelmed by superior numbers because each fighter in the front-lines can only hold back one enemy. This is because the area and positioning of the party's fighter at the front-lines has been abstracted out. That fighter does not threaten "squares" around her because there are no squares. Instead that fighter only threatens the monsters which is currently engaged with her. Once the fighter is engaged by one monster, all other monsters can ALWAYS walk right past and pounce on the back-lines.

Credit to my friend, that simulationist DM, for pointing this out to me. (He ALWAYS plays ranged characters. Never melee.)

---------

I'm going to try to improve on these systems to eliminate these weaknesses, as I often do. In summary, I try to find a middle ground and incorporate "combat zones" using 13th age's system. So the fighters engage a whole combat zone, and there can be interesting props within each combat zone.

----------

Combat zones
Flavour and tactical consideration in combat: When two combatants lock blades in melee combat, they will not usually standing stationary. Often they will be shifting and striding, yielding ground then pushing back, trying to outmaneuver their opponent and expose their weaknesses. However, combatants will not hesitate to capitalize on any openings, such as foolishly turning their back to the opponent threatening to strike them. The threat of danger prevents combatants from moving carelessly.
The areas within which the battle takes place is abstracted out into different “Combat Zones” by the GM. Usually there should be at least 3 Combat Zones in each encounter; the PC’s back-lines, the middle ground, and the enemy back-lines. However, it is far more common for there to be many different combat zones, say 3x3 combat zones with different combatants starting in different zones.

Enemy combatants within the same combat zones are considered “Engaged” with each other, and may suffer Opportunity Attacks if they take careless actions while their enemies are within reach. When making a ranged attack against a target currently engaged with an ally, the target is considered to have partial cover (+2AC).

An opportunity attack is Reaction where a combatant makes a melee attack roll in response to an engaged enemy taking a careless action. In order to make an opportunity attack, the combatant must be ready for combat (not incapacitated, not surprised, movement is not hindered, etc.) and must have a melee weapon (including natural weapons) equipped. The most common three types of careless actions which may induce opportunity attacks are
a) Taking a Move action to move away from the combat zone
b) Casting a spell with a range further than “self”
c) Making a ranged attack
d) Moving to engaging an opponent equipped with a Reach weapon

Disengage If you are currently engaged by an enemy, you may take the Disengage action to avoid taking opportunity attacks from enemies currently engaging you. Be warned that if there are enemies you are disengaging who are not themselves engaged or hindered in some manner, some of those enemies may decide to take the “Pursue” Reaction to follow you immediately.

Pursue If an engaged enemy tries to move away from you outside of your turn, you may use your Reaction to "pursue" by making one free move action to follow that enemy.  You must not be engaged by another enemy in order to pursue an enemy and your movement must not be hindered in any way.

Intercede If another creature in the combat zone you occupy is attacked, you may use your Reaction to "Intercede" and receive that attack on behalf of the creature. Note that it is possible to intercede for Opportunity Attacks.
(Note: Should list the status conditions which do not allow "Intercede" action egs. incapacitated, stuck, prone, surprised)

Peeking fire. While behind cover, a combatant may use both his move and standard action to attack with "peeking fire", raising the defense bonus provided by the cover by one category by +2. Note that this bonus defence is considered a cover bonus so it is is negated if the combatant is engaged by an enemy as per usual rules.
Note that spells and cantrips are illegible for the "peeking fire" action.

Fully Hunker. While behind cover, a combatant can use their action to "fully hunker", so that enemies blocked by the cover have no line of sight to shoot her. An enemy who does not have line of sight of the combatant cannot target her with ranged attacks or spells. Likewise, the combatant does not have line of sight to those enemies and cannot target those enemies. Combatants that are engaged in melee cannot "fully hunker".

Fail Forward, Traps, Investigation Ability Checks Part 2

Part 1 was here.

Just wanted to report on the results of testing the foreshadowing of traps system and investigative ability checks.

The players were not listening carefully enough to catch the "hints of danger" from my descriptions that there were "beads of water hanging in the air" to realise that there was a giant spider web in front of them. I only tried putting "hints of danger" in my description once though; perhaps if I used that repeatedly they would catch on very quickly? More testing needed there.

(As an aside, gosh, the giant spider web was easily defeated by a player having an enemy guide walk ahead of them to show the way! Cunning challenge-seeking players being clever as usual. The fact that they didn't walk into it themselves may have contributed to the lack of crying and moaning. Perhaps the players felt it was fair they didn't notice it too.)


Presenting a trapped dungeon as a puzzle to be solved through ingenuity and "spot the pattern" worked quite well though I think. The players had fun finding solutions to navigating through the maze filled with traps safely, and the cunning challenge-seeking player very quickly realized what the pattern was. If they couldn't figure it out we could have defaulted to dice rolls to undo the traps I suppose.

However, the players reacted extremely hostilely to the investigative ability checks. They hated having the rolling of dice taken away from them! Should have realised sooner that all players have a bit of submission-seeking/hobbyist in them so they hate not getting to roll the dice. I didn't realise it because I'm ambivalent about rolling the dice myself; just because I roll the dice myself doesn't give me the feeling that I'm actually playing anything. I'm not in control of the dice outcome at all! But submission/hobbyist players feel differently.

Core engagement 9: Prankster

GM EYES ONLY:

In the player’s section, I told the players there are 8 core engagements (aka aesthetics of play) that are relevant to medieval fantasy role-playing games. This is not true. Apart from the 8 core engagements I mentioned earlier, it is worthwhile for the GM to recognise one more that is specifically relevant to role-playing games and not listed in the original research article; the Prankster. It was pointless to ask players to try to recognise if they are a prankster because it is not something which players will admit to. As a reminder, the different core engagements are the Prankster, Submission/Hobby, Narrative, Discovery, Expression, Fantasy, Challenge, Fellowship, and Sensory Pleasure.

The Prankster

The prankster specifically enjoys getting an emotional reaction of annoyance out of people. He wants to prank people and play a joke on them, hence the name. There are many ways in which the prankster can do this, such as by recognising what other players want in their games and do something that threatens to ruin that core engagement for the other players. Alternatively, they may recognise what preparations the GM has put in and recognise what campaign the GM wants to run and mess it up. A crafty prankster will walk on a thin line, doing just enough to annoy but not enough to really make people mad and thus get thrown out of the game.

Recognising a prankster is tricky. Sometimes hobbyists just want something interesting to happen because they are bored, especially if their desire to kill monsters and collect loot isn’t being met. The prankster is different in that what he wants is to get a rise out of his players and GM. Recognising that a player’s wants are not being met rather than a prank is being played can be important in managing the game.

If an action has no purpose or benefit to the player except to annoy someone else at the table, it’s a prank. Body language can help in recognising the prankster. There is nothing the prankster likes to see more than the shocked and annoyed expressions on the faces of players and GMs who are being pranked. For that reason, the prankster will be admiring the results of the chaos he has sown and thus be looking with anticipation at the faces of the people he is trying to play a prank on.

Keep in mind that a prank really is just a joke that is made at the expense of someone else. It is up to you if you want to tolerate pranks. Some people even appreciate the occasional prank. That person does not have to be you, but it can be if you so choose. The same advice goes for other players who are being pranked. Once you have identified there is someone who enjoys pranking other people at your table, it may be time to very calmly take a break, then have a sit down with all the players. Ask them if they tolerate pranks and remind them that a prank is just a joke made at the expense of others.

Sometimes players don’t want to be pranked, and as the GM you can override pranking actions by disallowing the action completely. Try not to override actions which provide a legitimate benefit to the PC as that may be an indication that it isn’t just a prank. Sometimes players are okay with pranks and get in on the fun as well.

If you no longer want to carry on with the game because you feel the work you put into being a GM is not being respected or for any other reason, you have that right. Try to be civil about it. Alternatively, some folks find it more useful to lie that there is a clash in schedule. If you do decide to carry on with the game, you may find it more useful to use the Dungeon Crawl campaign format as it is easier to run and the work you put it is less likely to be wasted. You may consider recycling your materials for another group of players.

Interestingly, sometimes pranksters become GMs themselves. As a GM, the prankster will try to trick and fool players into doing things with unwanted consequences or play pranks on the players in other ways. As a matter of fact, many elements in traditional medieval fantasy role-playing games are specifically placed in the game to allow the GM to prank their players: traps, mimics, animated objects, deck of many things, and especially that darn monster that looks like another monster but explodes if attacked. These campaigns can be a lot of fun for the right crowd; every time one player gets pranked, there are 4 other players at the table who are giggling at his expense. Of course, every player gets their turn to be pranked. It makes for an interesting way of running a campaign as some players really do enjoy dealing with unusual and unexpected turn of events as well as a GM who doesn’t take his campaign very seriously.

Spell-balancing math

MATH MATH MATH this post is full of math! Basically showing my thought process of how to balance spell power vs warrior damage.

So how should a spell like Magic Missile be balanced? The 1st-level spell slot is used by both level 1 and level 2 wizards, so we need to balance the 1st-level spell slot against both the level 1 and level 2 fighter.

Hold on, D&D's terminology is confusing. Let's revise the terminology.

Level refers to character level. In D&D, someone may be playing a level 3 Fighter.
Level Circle now refers to the advanced spells. So someone may cast a 1st-Circle spell like CBurning Hands or Magic Missile, using a 1st-Circle spell slot.

Levels refers to the advancement of the player character. Circle refers to more advanced spells or spell slots.  Okay?

So let me repeat my previous statement. The 1st-Circle spell slot is used by both level 1 and level 2 wizards, so we need to balance the 1st-Circle spell slot against both the level 1 and level 2 fighter.

Fighter damage = (weapon+MODIFIER)*Level
A level 1 fighter with a longsword will do (d8+3)*1=7.5 average damage (4 to 11)
A level 2 fighter with a longsword will do (d8+3)*2=15 average damage (8 to 22)

A 1st-Circle spell slot is used for both level 1 and level 2 wizard.
To balance against both a level 1 and 2 fighter, we take the average level of the fighter: level 1.5 Fighter
Damage of a level 1.5 Fighter = (7.5+15)/2 = 11.25 average damage is the number we compare against

So how much damage should a 1st-Circle compared to a level 1.5 fighter with a longsword? About double should be about right since spells are a limited resource. But here is the kicker: the wizard isn't allowed to do double the longsword damage all in one hit. Reason being, PCs sometimes have the same spells levelled at them. One-shotting someone with a spell is much less funny when you're on the receiving end. So the damage potential of spells has to be spread out, either in an AoE or through some common D&D tricks.

The D&D trick I'm thinking of is Magic Missile. Unlike every other damage spell, Magic Missile always hits. By virtue of always hitting, Magic Missile has about doubled its average damage (longsword hit-chance is about 60%). So we can have magic missile do 11.25 average damage, or about 2d10.

What about AoE spells like Burning Hands? Burning Hands has about the same chance as hitting as a long-sword attack, but it's considered more potent by virtue of hitting more targets. We can consider the AoE attacks to hit at least 2 targets. So again, we can just use 11 average damage or 2d10.

--------

Magic Missile
1st-Circle Evocation
Casting Time: 1 action
Target: Varies
Range: 4
Components: V, S
Duration: Instantaneous
Effect: 2d10 Force damage missile, +1 missile per Circle
Creates a magical force missile for each Circle used, each of which does 2d10 force damage. Each missile can be assigned to the same or different targets, before the damage rolls are made.

Burning Hands
1st-Circle Evocation
Casting Time: 1 action
Target: Small cone
Range: -
Components: V, S
Duration: Instantaneous
Effect: 2d10 Fire damage per Circle; Finesse save halves
Objects in the zones that aren’t being worn or carried will also be damaged.
-----

You know what? Rather than making players remember all the different spell damages, why don't we just keep it to 2d10 damage for every spell?

Well, every spell except Cure Wounds, which is a very different kettle of fish.

Incidentally, there's a certain classic D&D spell of the 9th-Circle spell called Power Word Kill;

Power Word Kill
You utter a word of power that can compel one creature you can see within range to die instantly. If the creature you chose has 100 hit points or fewer, it dies. Otherwise, the spell has no effect.

Since we know that spell gain power linearly (2d10 per Circle) in our system, we can balance Power Word Kill in the same way. Spells gain about 2d10 damage per Circle, so a 9th-Circle spell should do about 9*2*5.5= 99 damage. Just 1 short of 100! So Power Word Kill stays the same.

Is it a coincidence, I wonder? Probably not. 2d10, our benchmark for Magic Missile damage, actually does the same average damage as the 5E version of Magic Missile; 3(d4+1).
2*5.5= 11
3*(2.5+1) = 10.5

10.5*9 =94.5, just a little under 100. So although Magic Missile in 5E does scale linearly with spell slots, the average power of the spell slots is sort of designed to do so.

Sort of. Meteor Shower is a big exception. 2*(20d6) = 40x3.5=140 average damage. Yikes.

-------

But waaaaaaaait. Didn't I decide that Strength, Finesse and Cognizance only increases the damage, not the actual hit chance? Shouldn't it be the same for spells as well?

Whoops. Ok. So It looks like I should be introducing modifier damage into the spell damage equations. This goes against D&D traditions once again, mind you, but somehow I don't think D&D purists will really mind.

And so, aim is about 11.25 damage per circle. We're expecting a modifier value of +3. Erm... 2d6+3=10? A little low. 2d8+3=12? Now a little high. 1d12+3=9.5 is far too low.

Can only apply modifier once, otherwise modifier contribution becomes too important.... OR DOES IT?

Warriors apply their modifier once for every level in my game. If spells apply modifier only once per circle, then spells will apply modifier only once every 2 levels since PCs gain a new circle once every 2 levels.

Thematically, it makes more sense that spells are more dependent on modifier than weapon attacks. A weapon is still very dangerous in the hands of someone who is weak. A spell in the hands of someone without the right aptitude for it... much less so. So fine, let's apply ability score modifier twice for spells.

In that case, there's a clear case for 2[d4+Mod] = 11 average damage assuming a modifier of 3.

What about Power Word Kill? Hrm. At level 17, Players would have a modifier of +6. 18*(2.5+6)= 153. So about 150 Power Word Kill threshold is about right? Maybe.

--------

Since the spell-casting ability score doesn't affect hit chance, status affect spells need some other way to depend on the spell-casting ability score. Probably the duration of the status affect.