Quote from: DwightB-I-N-G-O!!!   And none of it really even intersects with D&D, which remains quite inflexible.

Bingo indeed. You've just applauded the reason why you are wrong.

The magic in Vance works different from the magic in Zelazy's Amber. Which works different from the magic in the Belgariad. Which works different from the magic in Black Company. Which works different from the magic in Thieves' World. Which works different from the magic in Wheel of Time. But I wouldn't hesitate to call any of those "traditional fantasy". To do so, they must all conform to a more general definition.

A definition which defined fairly at all (i.e., apparently "not as defined by Dwight") would include magic as it exists in D&D.

QuoteWTF? Why?

I'm guessing because then it might be more properly termed "dark fantasy" or "horror".

Quote from: Caesar SlaadI'm guessing because then it might be more properly termed "dark fantasy" or "horror".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fantasy_subgenres

I feel like a mechanic talking to cavemen about cars.

Quote from: Caesar SlaadBingo indeed. You've just applauded the reason why you are wrong.

The magic in Vance works different from the magic in Zelazy's Amber. Which works different from the magic in the Belgariad. Which works different from the magic in Black Company. Which works different from the magic in Thieves' World. Which works different from the magic in Wheel of Time. But I wouldn't hesitate to call any of those "traditional fantasy". To do so, they must all conform to a more general definition.

A definition which defined fairly at all (i.e., apparently "not as defined by Dwight") would include magic as it exists in D&D.

Yep, and notice that he doesn't bother to provide what I asked - his POV of "traditional fantasy" magic.

Quote from: Caesar SlaadI'm guessing because then it might be more properly termed "dark fantasy" or "horror".

Yep, that's what I meant.  I was trying to differentiate horror-style witchcraft black magic from traditional fantasy-type magic in tone.

Unsurprisingly, the amazing Dwight talks out both sides of his mouth on this one.  First he claims that "tone" is important in establishing traditional fantasy, then apparently wants to argue that the tone can include all the various subgenres that do not have the same tone (a subgenre not having the same tone being sort of the point).

Quote from: Caesar SlaadWhich works different from the magic in Black Company.

I dare someone to write a system that out of this that's fair, balanced, and not utterly incomprehensible. Really, almost any game mentioned uses magic in such a dramatic capacity - isn't it the ultimate deus ex machina, after all? - that any fair, balanced system is going to be...well, really fucking difficult, I would think. After all, in most dramatic fantasy I can think of, there's a really big gap between "initiate" and "master," which is seldom well-explored.

One nice thing about abandoning tradition is you don't have to shoehorn the ultimate powers of wizardry into something you can do at 1st level and at 20th level and everywhere in-between and not be pissing off the Fighter sitting next to you.

Because whatever twisted an Elf into Orc, forged the Rings of Power, bound ringwraiths to  Sauron's will, and powered the Lidless Eye certainly isn't in any way dark-toned magic.

In closing, and translated for you: Ug. :hitrock: Behold, Fire. :hibachi: Make Wheel go vroom, vroom! :steeringwheel:

Even though I think D&D magic isn't a very good representation of literary or mythical magic prior to the release of D&D, this issue really only touches tangentially on the OP.

It matters in two cases that I can see...One, if you want to emulate a certain "feel" from what you think of as "traditional" fantasy. Two, if you want to introduce newbs to RPGs and you think the D&D magic system isn't intuitive enough to be grasped by people who are at least familiar with "traditional" fantasy tropes.

Frankly I think (2) is a bit silly. D&D magic may feel a bit funny but it's very easy to understand. If anything, when I first learned it 30-some years ago, I thought it was a little strange but I took it for an interesting attempt at systematizing what is, after all, unsystematizable. I.e., it was a model of a theory of magic. It might not have captured the essence of Tolkien or Mallory--but it wasn't so far out there that it felt like not-fantasy. I was intrigued. I only noticed "problems" later--from the unlikelihood that certain spells would ever be memorized (and thus used), to the steep power curve mages had to climb.

And also, yes (1). From literary, anthropological, and occult sources, I started to see how D&D magic didn't match a lot of outside accounts, in terms of how magic gets used and affects the world--and how this was connected to the theory and model of magic in the game.

But if D&D isn't traditional (enough), then either the OP needs to be restated as "why is 'D&D' fantasy desirable", or your response could more usefully address why you prefer your particular vision of "traditional" fantasy--which, note, almost by definition must be based on some canon of non-gaming material, and I would argue pre-D&D material--as opposed to "non-traditional fantasy", which deviates from that canon in some significant way.

Traditional fantasy is the easiest damned thing in gaming to do, especially if you are rushed for time and have to rely on stock tropes by the bushel to fill in the blanks as you go (i.e. your typical adult gamer).

Why does someone need to justify their personal taste? The imaginative/"fluff" part of gaming is all about what personal buttons the mental images push. Whether we like something because we grew up with it, or because it appeals to our id, ego or whatever speculative psychological explanations you can come up with, it doesn't matter. If someone gets a warm fuzzy feeling from playing a Gandalf-like wizard rather than a spiky-haired tiefling, or the reverse, more power to them.

But I think that so many of us have got the warm fuzzies from a certain "traditional" style over the years, that it's more than legitimate to desire a new version of the game to continue to support the same tropes, at least as one of the possible play styles.

Quote from: EngineWhat is "traditional?" Why is "traditional" better, without discussion of any other issues, than nontraditional? Or do you just happen to like it more?

If I used the phrase 'traditional fantasy', I'd use it to mean 'things that non-gamers will recognise'. So knights, dragons, demons, some creatures from Greek mythology, vampires, werewolves etc, but not orcs, drow, creatures from HP Lovecraft etc.

I wouldn't say it was better, but I would guess that it's easier to find people to buy it.

EDIT: this is probably a confusing use of the phrase, because more people seem to use it to mean "like older editions of Dungeons & Dragons".

I threw as much "traditional" or vanilla fantasy into our campaign setting as I could.  Why?  Its an accessible, shared ground, a good baseline for new players, and easy for us all to have at least some exposure to.  I don't want to spend 5 hours everytime my new replacement elf race pops up explaining how it isn't an elf.  I want to use those common points of reference to game, explore, and build new things.

You know what makes D&D magic work for me?  Memorization is obviously ridiculous.  It's unrealistic.  It doesn't simulate or emulate anything, not even Jack Vance's work.  It makes no goddamn sense.

Games with magic systems that make sense and are logical and follow some thread in fantasy literature suck donkey balls.  Every single one of them.  Why?  Because they lack mystery and wonder.  A sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable because we are all cavemen compared to "sufficiently".

I think earlier someone mentioned dream logic. Or maybe that was in Balbinus' thread (here or on rpg.net) about how to have players feel like "real" magicians. It's kinda crazy but it sort of makes sense in a symbolic way. Even if you don't yet understand the symbols or the links. It's the puzzle that's there, the sense that it makes sense somehow but it's beyond you exactly how.

There is "that's stupid" doesn't make sense and there is "that's odd" doesn't make sense, the later bring the mysterious and puzzlement about the magic. The difference being subjective. The gonzo aspect of memorization doesn't actually strike me a lot as "that's odd" thought I don't put into the "that's stupid" category either. It's just a push for me. The numerical certainty of the spell slots and pre-selecting them and a lot of the spells to (the statblocks and the specifics are very...well....you know?) doesn't really work for me though.

It's pretty transparently a consession to a game, and I don't even find it that interesting. It is largely, and I'll use the pejoritive term to explain why, "shotgun magic" or "fire and forget" magic.  That's why the magic of D&D Fantasy doesn't do much for me. Others might be able to shake that, or just not really give damn. It's subjective that way. They are fine with the Edgar Suit...hell I can live with the Edgar Suit if I put in my mind that this isn't really a game about Fantasy(magic). The magic is just this cheap backdrop, and don't look at it very closely or you'll spoil the mood. :shrug: But I do like games about magic too, it kinda is the point of Fantays afterall , and when I want that I go looking somewhere else. You can dress D&D up a little bit but it gets...messy.