Magic is a get out of jail free card for poor writers and a power-trip for hoople-headed gamers who are unable to take on NPCs without a little extra help.
As far as I'm concerned, the less magic there is in a game the better. Sometimes it is nice to have a little bit just for the atmosphere but in general I like my games to be rich in possibilities and human emotions.
Anyone agree?
Yes and no. Basically you can assume yes except that
1. Magic expands the range of tactical options in skirmish-level combat, especially pre-modern.
2. Well, there is no "2" since you've covered it in the bit about atmosphere.
But "1" looms pretty large since modelling one-on-one combat in a detailed and interesting fashion is fairly difficult. Add more figures and terrain and it gets better, but magic does very nicely as well.
OTOH we may have a bit of disagreement in practice since I'm unabashedly fond of well-done technological gadetry, which aren't much different from magic when you get down to it.
I'll agree with the caveat that magic should be the realm of NPCs. I am still not used to running games with PCs who have a lot of magical power.
I've never played a PC without powers in any genre except horror and I never would. Not even Traveller, unless I can have some psionics. :)
Granted, I use a pretty wide definition of the term that includes stuff like virtual reality hacking in cyberpunk games, but you get the idea.
Basically, I come to RPGs for fantasy. I have no interest in playing "mundanes" with no superhuman capabilities.
Quote from: Mr. AnalyticalMagic is a get out of jail free card for poor writers and a power-trip for hoople-headed gamers who are unable to take on NPCs without a little extra help.
As far as I'm concerned, the less magic there is in a game the better. Sometimes it is nice to have a little bit just for the atmosphere but in general I like my games to be rich in possibilities and human emotions.
Anyone agree?
Well, I don't agree that the less magic the better.
I do agree that
sometimes (well, lots of times, actually) it's nice to to have less magic. I came into the hobby not as a fantasy fan, but a sci-fi fan. I like the intense feel of personal wherewithal and tenacity against all odds.
I like magic, and I like the emotional entanglements they can create. Especially if the power tempts the person to use it and has limitations, or setbacks..
I'm not entirely certain that a lack of magic is entirely conducive to the initial complaints of the OP. You could just as easily make the same complaint about poor use of science and technology. Great Christ, just look at the incredibly poor uses of quantum mechanics throughout science fiction. It's enough to make an educated man weep bitter, astigmatic tears.
Appropriate implementation of any "spooky" trope can work, in moderate, well-considered doses. So place the blame squarely where it belongs: with piss-poor writers, unimaginative GMs, and jackass players.
Quote from: Caesar SlaadWell, I don't agree that the less magic the better.
I do agree that sometimes (well, lots of times, actually) it's nice to to have less magic. I came into the hobby not as a fantasy fan, but a sci-fi fan. I like the intense feel of personal wherewithal and tenacity against all odds.
Well, I guess I don't really care how much magic there is, as long as My Guy gets to blast fools with it. :)
Quote from: joewolzI'll agree with the caveat that magic should be the realm of NPCs. I am still not used to running games with PCs who have a lot of magical power.
Yes, I'd agree with that. I'm less bothered about magic when it's kept to NPCs. For example, in this week's game we took on a pirate ship which was under the protection of a rune casting wizard. One of us went off and found another NPC sorceror in order to neutralise the rune caster and it worked pretty well.
I just have a problem with PCs being given lists of powers.
I like magic best when it's doing something poetic or symbolic: heightening or highlighting something in the fiction. Kewl powerz is all very well, but magic is something else again.
Quote from: Mr. AnalyticalAnyone agree?
No. 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.
Quote from: Mr. AnalyticalMagic is a get out of jail free card for poor writers and a power-trip for hoople-headed gamers who are unable to take on NPCs without a little extra help.
As far as I'm concerned, the less magic there is in a game the better. Sometimes it is nice to have a little bit just for the atmosphere but in general I like my games to be rich in possibilities and human emotions.
Anyone agree?
Mr. Analytical, weren't you just criticizing how how low-powered magic is (http://www.therpgsite.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1913&page=3) in the Decipher LOTR game?
I know the bit about "a foolish consistency" but, man, you're making my head spin. :p
While I normally lean towards fighter-y characters, there's something to be said for the fun of setting your opponents on fire with your dread sorcery. I don't like lots of 'cheater' magic, though. "So what if we run out of rations? We don't need to eat or sleep, because I cast Tenser's Transhuman Transmogrification." "I cast Protection from Lava and we swim through your obstacle, Mr. DM." That sort of stuff gets annoying real fast.
I like the really amazing magic, as Hardisson does.
Quote from: jrientsI don't like lots of 'cheater' magic, though. "So what if we run out of rations? We don't need to eat or sleep, because I cast Tenser's Transhuman Transmogrification." "I cast Protection from Lava and we swim through your obstacle, Mr. DM." That sort of stuff gets annoying real fast.
And I actually also love that sort of use of magic- the really tactical format. In a game, thats kind of how I want players to use magic, as a way of trumping or bypassing obstacles. I really like when it does something unexpected. I don't think of it as cheating at all. :)
Once in a game, I had this high level outsider as the big bad guy at the end. Just as I unveiled him, the players surprised me by hitting it with a bunch of debuffs (to wreck it's saving throws) and followed it up with a
dismissal spell. It was a really textbook takedown of a plan!
As a DM, I suppose I could have been pissed because they pretty much took the toughest encounter in the game and hosed it in two rounds. But they did it through smart play, and gathering clues (they pieced together that they would be facing an outsider- and then they planned for it).
So yeah- I like amazing magic, used specifically in a codified way that interacts with the rules of whatever game.
Low magic and freeform magic be damned.
Quote from: Mr. AnalyticalMagic is a get out of jail free card for poor writers and a power-trip for hoople-headed gamers who are unable to take on NPCs without a little extra help.
As far as I'm concerned, the less magic there is in a game the better. Sometimes it is nice to have a little bit just for the atmosphere but in general I like my games to be rich in possibilities and human emotions.
Anyone agree?
Nope, it's part of the game and part of the fun.
Quote from: mattormegMr. Analytical, weren't you just criticizing how how low-powered magic is (http://www.therpgsite.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1913&page=3) 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.