There have been discussions of the inherent nature of magic (see 'Jedi Fascism'), and while it is probably not something that comes up at game tables all that often, what effect would that have if codified?  In 1e AD&D, psionics were incredibly rare, but also wildly underpowered.  

What character generation differences would there be in a game where 'mundane' magic use was as uncommon as psionics?

Oddly, D&D 3e inverts that dynamic.  Sorcerors are magic users whose talents are entirely innate, but are rather low on the social totem pole, as they're derided and distrusted by the populous as dangerous, and looked down on by the magic using community as not having earned their power.

Meanwhile, wizards tend to be more aristocratic, highly wealthy and powerful, and just generally a whole lot better off in society.

Even wildly underpowered magic is still bloody amazing.

Do you mean what would happen in a world where magic use was uncommon due to rarity, cost (in chargen as well as the cost to the character in play), societal pressure?

Quote from: J ArcaneOddly, D&D 3e inverts that dynamic.  Sorcerors are magic users whose talents are entirely innate, but are rather low on the social totem pole, as they're derided and distrusted by the populous as dangerous, and looked down on by the magic using community as not having earned their power.

Meanwhile, wizards tend to be more aristocratic, highly wealthy and powerful, and just generally a whole lot better off in society.

Which is odd, as pointed out elsewhere, since the Sorcerer has Cha for their stat.

So, what would justify the societal difference in opinion?  They can both fireball the local village into oblivion.

Quote from: PelorusEven wildly underpowered magic is still bloody amazing.

Do you mean what would happen in a world where magic use was uncommon due to rarity, cost (in chargen as well as the cost to the character in play), societal pressure?

Yeah, exactly.  On the one hand, what are the implications for the campaign, and on the other hand, what are the mechanics that would have to balance that out?  Clearly, no one much bothered with psionics in 1e, since the benefits were very small compared to the difficulty of getting them.  The Complete Psionics Handbook treated them as another kind of magic, which was continued in 3.x more or less exactly.  Psionics in the latest edition have been put off for a year, so a comparison is unlikely until then.  However, magic retained it's level of power and ubiquity through all the versions.  The overall power seems to have lessened in the latest version, but the ubituity is the same.

What would balance the decrease in ubituity of access to magic/magic users?

Quote from: StormBringerWhich is odd, as pointed out elsewhere, since the Sorcerer has Cha for their stat.

So, what would justify the societal difference in opinion?  They can both fireball the local village into oblivion.

I suspect the inspiration is a combination of Protestant work ethic, and too many X-Men comics.

Wizardry requires a lot of work and a lot of money.  Wizards tend to be aristocratic types as a result, and are liable to be both resentful of the Sorcerer for having it so much easier, as well as being in the social position to enforce that resentment.

Sorcerers are also, basically, mutant freaks.  Normal people aren't just born with magical powers.  Must humans and other non-monstrous humanoids, beyond the occasional neat trick, have to learn that shit, or get it from a god.  IIRC, the 3.0 class description also tied into the whole pubescent thing, with the sorcerer's powers often manifesting at a young age, but also being highly unstable or uncontrollable, often leading to accidents that left them homeless, orphaned, and/or exiled.

Quote from: J ArcaneI suspect the inspiration is a combination of Protestant work ethic, and too many X-Men comics.

Wizardry requires a lot of work and a lot of money.  Wizards tend to be aristocratic types as a result, and are liable to be both resentful of the Sorcerer for having it so much easier, as well as being in the social position to enforce that resentment.

Sorcerers are also, basically, mutant freaks.  Normal people aren't just born with magical powers.  Must humans and other non-monstrous humanoids, beyond the occasional neat trick, have to learn that shit, or get it from a god.  IIRC, the 3.0 class description also tied into the whole pubescent thing, with the sorcerer's powers often manifesting at a young age, but also being highly unstable or uncontrollable, often leading to accidents that left them homeless, orphaned, and/or exiled.

That is what I suspected as well.

So, what would be the easiest way to codify something like that?  Was basing the Sorcerer's powers on Charisma not the best idea in the first place?

Quote from: StormBringerThat is what I suspected as well.

So, what would be the easiest way to codify something like that?  Was basing the Sorcerer's powers on Charisma not the best idea in the first place?

I think the issue is that they somewhat muddled what Charisma meant with 3E, originally it was personality, how likable you are--now its "force of will" plus, some remnants of personality still drug into the mess.

I'd simply change attributes, since its an inborn talent, I'd probably go with Constitution. (It still uses energy from somewhere, can you channel it well?), rather than Charisma.

 In a non D&D system, I'd probably examine how this is random--closer to psionics in AD&D1E or 2E's wild talents (Complete Psionics), and simply examine the nature of a society where some people are inborn with talents, and hone them (class/skills around it), and some people don't and just have a power or two that they can do occasionally.

As a setting, I might look into these people being chosen of a God, or some other force (Birthright's divine right to rule comes very close to what I'd see for an interesting campaign) the land itself is urging them to exist, either to heal ancient damage done by a Wizard's War, or to lead the people, or something like that.

Quote from: StormBringerThat is what I suspected as well.

So, what would be the easiest way to codify something like that?  Was basing the Sorcerer's powers on Charisma not the best idea in the first place?

Well, I think the Charisma thing is twofold:  1) it gave the game another class for which Charisma was something other than a "dump stat", and 2) it gives the Sorcerer the potential for that same "wandering con man" feel one gets from the Bard.

As for codifying the societal element, well, I wouldn't.  At least, not beyond the class description.  It seems to me more of a roleplaying thing, that would be better left to the individual players and GM to implement as they saw fit, than trying to codify it systemically.

Quote from: SilverlionI think the issue is that they somewhat muddled what Charisma meant with 3E, originally it was personality, how likable you are--now its "force of will" plus, some remnants of personality still drug into the mess.

True, Charisma is a bit of a goofy ability score in the first place.

QuoteI'd simply change attributes, since its an inborn talent, I'd probably go with Constitution. (It still uses energy from somewhere, can you channel it well?), rather than Charisma.

I would shoot for Wisdom, but that kind of overlaps the Cleric.  On the other hand, using Intelligence for Wizards and Sorcerers doesn't seem like that much of a problem to me.

 

QuoteIn a non D&D system, I'd probably examine how this is random--closer to psionics in AD&D1E or 2E's wild talents (Complete Psionics), and simply examine the nature of a society where some people are inborn with talents, and hone them (class/skills around it), and some people don't and just have a power or two that they can do occasionally.

That is the main question.  Should it be something random, kind of like a bonus, or should you be able to declare that you have them by choosing a class?  How would that be different than "I am a fighter, so I have 18 Str"?

QuoteAs a setting, I might look into these people being chosen of a God, or some other force (Birthright's divine right to rule comes very close to what I'd see for an interesting campaign) the land itself is urging them to exist, either to heal ancient damage done by a Wizard's War, or to lead the people, or something like that.

But wouldn't that lead to the 'Jedi Fascism' bit?  The few, the elect, the chosen to lead the common man with their superior genetics?

Good ideas, of course, but it's the ramifications of those ideas that I am pondering.

Quote from: StormBringerBut wouldn't that lead to the 'Jedi Fascism' bit?  The few, the elect, the chosen to lead the common man with their superior genetics?

Good ideas, of course, but it's the ramifications of those ideas that I am pondering.

Possibly, however, that's generally how that works--of course if they were chosen to sort of set things right, they might come off as more introverted, less "ruling" and more about doing good in secret.

The real problem "Jedi Fascism" comes from the fact that people with power tend to use that power to rise to control, the morals don't matter so much, because good or evil, power says they can influence MORE aspects of life. Which gives them an edge (like money now..)

If the nature of the power is somehow constrained or directed to more monastic sorts--that is the people chosen tend to be more interested in exploration/study/blah blah, rather than utilizing that power for control. It might make a difference.

The fact is your trying to avoid the fairly common human nature aspect, without some framework for why--either divine guidance, or simply a natural inclination that comes with the powers. (Which of course sort of makes the "random powers" point moot.)

Quote from: SilverlionPossibly, however, that's generally how that works--of course if they were chosen to sort of set things right, they might come off as more introverted, less "ruling" and more about doing good in secret.

Or, perhaps, the power only works in certain circumstances.

QuoteThe real problem "Jedi Fascism" comes from the fact that people with power tend to use that power to rise to control, the morals don't matter so much, because good or evil, power says they can influence MORE aspects of life. Which gives them an edge (like money now..)

Yes, but the random psionics of 1e only slightly addressed that, and the choosing to use magic in all editions didn't address that at all.  I suspect J Arcane is correct, trying to hard code that into a ruleset would be a disaster, but what would some sensible limits be?  While it would be in a meta-game context, some kind of restriction could simulate a divine limitation on power fairly well.

QuoteIf the nature of the power is somehow constrained or directed to more monastic sorts--that is the people chosen tend to be more interested in exploration/study/blah blah, rather than utilizing that power for control. It might make a difference.

That would definitely take some serious backstory for a particular race or class.  My concern is how easily that sort of thing could be ignored, or similarly, how difficult it would be to enforce fairly.  That is one reason why I was looking for something of a mechanical way to enforce adherence to a code or behaviour.

QuoteThe fact is your trying to avoid the fairly common human nature aspect, without some framework for why--either divine guidance, or simply a natural inclination that comes with the powers. (Which of course sort of makes the "random powers" point moot.)

So, one method might be to put a player in a different state of mind immediately, by making the 'powers' unavailable to humans or their stand-in race.

Thinking about it a bit more, I'm reminded of older editions of D&D where, if you think about it, it sort of embraced the concept of innate power leading to the ruling class, in that eventually, the players were just plain expected to take on a leadership role of some point.  This was an effect independent of class, by and large, as every class got it's own opportunity to build a personal empire.

In that scenario, I'd think that having some kind of divine mandate would potentially lead to MORE problems, because it seems to me that the sense of being justified by their divine inspiration was part of the problem with Jedi in the first place.  Top that off with them being the paramount military and police force in a single galactic government, and well, that's just problematic in all sorts of ways.

Better perhaps to leave it to the checks and balances of a more organic world, where a leader will live and die by how he managed his people and how he relates to his neighbouring kingdoms.  If you're an evil fascist bastard, then maybe your people rise up and gut you like a trout, or the neighboring wizard who's NOT an evil fascist bastard decides you need to be taken out.

Quote from: J ArcaneThinking about it a bit more, I'm reminded of older editions of D&D where, if you think about it, it sort of embraced the concept of innate power leading to the ruling class, in that eventually, the players were just plain expected to take on a leadership role of some point.  This was an effect independent of class, by and large, as every class got it's own opportunity to build a personal empire.

Back in the 'name level' days.  But that kind of power was still mundane, really.  The Thief still had to sneak around to stab people, the Fighter still had to stick their neck out to hack opponents, and so on.  While these kinds of power can be had in greater or lesser degrees among various people, magic is outside of that, really.  Is magic inherent to the person (Jedi/midichlorians) or is it something that anyone can learn (Earthsea/true names)?  What are the implications, and what is a reasonable method of limiting that power?

QuoteIn that scenario, I'd think that having some kind of divine mandate would potentially lead to MORE problems, because it seems to me that the sense of being justified by their divine inspiration was part of the problem with Jedi in the first place.  Top that off with them being the paramount military and police force in a single galactic government, and well, that's just problematic in all sorts of ways.

If the divine mandate is unchecked, certainly.  I think the idea was that these individuals are 'chosen of the gods' or 'divine champions' or some such, where the divinity in question is watching them more closely.

QuoteBetter perhaps to leave it to the checks and balances of a more organic world, where a leader will live and die by how he managed his people and how he relates to his neighbouring kingdoms.  If you're an evil fascist bastard, then maybe your people rise up and gut you like a trout, or the neighboring wizard who's NOT an evil fascist bastard decides you need to be taken out.

But in that case, isn't it just a power struggle among the elites?  It still relegates the average person to the background, especially if the ability to wield magic is some kind of genetic or divine anomaly.

Quote from: StormBringerSo, one method might be to put a player in a different state of mind immediately, by making the 'powers' unavailable to humans or their stand-in race.

Alternately you could make it unavailable to anyone who has the mindset to be an adventurer

"You have vast magical ability...and you..grow crops?"

"Uhuh."

"Why you could..."

'The crops won't grow themselves.."

"I..."