Quote from: mattormegMr. Analytical, weren't you just criticizing how how low-powered magic is in the Decipher LOTR game?

  Yeah but my problem with that is the magic system says "Thou shalt wield mighty magics and lightening will spring from thine fingers with enough power to cleave in twain even the mightiest of warriors" and then when you cast the bloody thing it does about as much harm as stubbing your toe and it tires you out for your troubles.  With the stupid mook rules you might as well stand at the back and throw rocks.

  That's a problem with the game in and of itself, my problem with magic is of a higher order and is such that I wouldn't even play LotR to start with.

  My point was that even if you're foolish enough to like magic in your games you should still think Decipher a merry collection or arses :-)

Quote from: Mr. AnalyticalYeah but my problem with that is the magic system says "Thou shalt wield mighty magics and lightening will spring from thine fingers with enough power to cleave in twain even the mightiest of warriors" and then when you cast the bloody thing it does about as much harm as stubbing your toe and it tires you out for your troubles.  With the stupid mook rules you might as well stand at the back and throw rocks.

Like I've said elsewhere, in actual play spellcasters don't miss fatigue rolls very often. The fatigue Target Numbers for spells are simply too low. Plus, they did a good amount of damage, judging by how I kept having to adjust encounters to really challenge the PCs. I quickly dispensed with the "mooks" and found that the PCs - made precisely "by the book" - could handle challenges far greater than was suggested by the example adventure in the GM screen.

Quote from: Mr. AnalyticalYeah but my problem with that is the magic system says "Thou shalt wield mighty magics and lightening will spring from thine fingers with enough power to cleave in twain even the mightiest of warriors" and then when you cast the bloody thing it does about as much harm as stubbing your toe and it tires you out for your troubles.  With the stupid mook rules you might as well stand at the back and throw rocks.

  That's a problem with the game in and of itself, my problem with magic is of a higher order and is such that I wouldn't even play LotR to start with.

  My point was that even if you're foolish enough to like magic in your games you should still think Decipher a merry collection or arses :-)

Color me foolish then, at least part of the way.

It really depends on the type of genre, and what kind of story we're trying to tell. I run a very low-to-no magic fantasy game sometimes, and magic would just plain ruin it. I can't say the same for a game that attempts to emulate the "Dying Earth" of Jack Vance.

I think that the core point I'm getting to is that, in my opinion, the question of magic and its place in gaming deserves a resounding answer of "maybe" rathern than a black and white, yes or no response.

PS: The only thing that makes Decipher a merry collection of "arses" is their lack of support for their RPG line. I never had any of the problems you describe with their magic system, but based on what your views on magic anyway, I could certainly understand why you'd feel that way.

The problem I have with magic as it is done in most games, is that it seems pretty mundane. I like magic to be mysterious. It really doesn't matter if the spells are of high or low power, if I use magic in a game, it's always a source of wonder, fear, dread etc.

Regards,
David R

Well, woulnd't D&D without magic sort of be like a porn movie without the moneyshot?

I mean, magic;s Ok as long as it's used consistently, as in the players shouldn't be the only ones to have it and there should always be people with more magical experience and power.

It's all in how it's handled, Digby. A poor GM and asshat players will ruin a game magicly or thru some other fashion. A good GM can keep the magic playing field leveled. F'rinstance, if some players are being total dicks with magic and basically getting ridiculous, the local authorities might call in a few spellslingers from the wizard's guild to put them down.

Quote from: ColonelHardissonNo. I play RPGs as an escape, a diversion. I like larger-than-life characters, hard-charging action, colorful settings, and strange and wondrous occurrences. If it's a scifi game, I want stupendously advanced tech - ringworlds, faster-than-light travel, terraforming. If it's a fantasy game, I want horrendous monsters, scurrilous villains, and high magic. I don't have much use for in-depth roleplaying; I'd rather spend that energy interacting for real with friends and family. I'm not pissing on people who enjoy intense roleplaying and character development. If that works for them, cool. But I play RPGs for the stuff I can't get in real life, magic being one of those things.

Funny, but I agree with all this- except the magic part. My fantasy games are more of the Sword and Sorcery variety- not neccesarily grim and gritty, but magic is definitely for NPCs. I don't really like magic using characters in the fantasy fiction I read (The Grey Mouser is the exception to this, but he's an idiot, so it's okay) and I can't really create the type of game I want when the PC's have access to it. But I do like wonderous sights, horredndous monsters and larger than life villains.
I don't see how low magic equates to in depth roleplaying, though.

Personally I generally agree, magic is vastly overused and typically is not very magical.

In the Norse sagas, there is tons of magic, a Norse game with no magic would work fine but including it is actually closer to the source material.  But it is never much explained, rationalised, put into a system.  One guy can carve runes, one can see the future, a man has a magical halberd but no explanation of where from.  Magic is in the world, is mysterious, but it is not mundane.

Most settings that need magic at all, need it like that IMO.  Something strange, unworldly, rules breaking, something which unbalances the odds and the effects of which cannot easily be predicted (except when they can be, that rule gets broken too).

But most don't need magic and I think it is a form of laziness.  Magic makes plots easier, without magic you need people to have motivations, passions, things they will die for or even kill for.  With magic, well, you can just handwave.

Now, with some settings it's pretty much needed.  A modern day occult game needs PC magic most likely, otherwise the concept is dead in the water.  But historical settings rarely need magic and when addding magic would be useful I think it's rarely best to add the kind of magic we see in rpgs.  I ran a Renaissance game in which one scenario revolved around magic, an angel had been bound in human form so it could be sacrificed for the summoning of a greater power.  The PCs had to find the angel, which did not know its own nature, and then free it to its divine state (which involved killing the form it had taken, a small boy).  That I think worked, magic was in the world, was real, but the rules of it were hard to follow and the price for being involved was high.

My problem with magic is its mundanity, not with magic per se.  There is no mystery, no wonder.   When you can look at your sheet and say "I can do 43 points of damage twice per day and levitate 30 kilograms" that isn't magic, it's just dull.

When you look at your sheet and say "if we go to the sacred ground on the right day and perform the right sacrifices, something may come through but whether it will help us or not I cannot say" then you're getting closer.

UA gets closest in some ways, in that at least magic works according to symbolic logic, not reason.  Magic as pseudoscience doesn't work at all for me.

The other thing is that I find often people can struggle to come up with a plot that doesn't require magic at some point.  But it's easy.  All you need is vanity, greed, lust and ambition and you can spin a million plots, you can add magic if it then helps somehow but the first place should always be human desire and passion and going first to the magic can get in the way of getting to that good stuff.

Oh, it's offtopic but the Decipher magic didn't work at all for me because the descriptions were undermined by the game mechanics.  A lightning bolt that was described as being able to kill a seasoned warrior in fact at maximum damage only lightly wounded him.  To me that's as clear an example of a broken rule as I can think of, a game mechanic that directly does not deliver what the text says it does.

Quote from: BalbinusIn the Norse sagas, there is tons of magic, a Norse game with no magic would work fine but including it is actually closer to the source material.  But it is never much explained, rationalised, put into a system.

One of my little projects in progress, a game based on Finnish folklore and mythology, features a fairly freeform magic system that's influenced by the likes of Ars Magica and revolves around the various "Words" mastered by the characters: for example, with the Words of Fire and the Words of Iron someone might make a blade burst into flames. And best of all, it remains faithful to the source material. After all, absolutely everyone in Kalevala is capable of sorcery and witchcraft.