DnD magic is just fine, if you're playing in "D&D world". For any other world, it is a barrier to emulation. OSR TTRPGs with settings/genres different from "D&D world" need to adjust accordingly.
Well I want to start off by saying thank you for a fantastic video.
One thing I think plays in to the way magic is portrayed in a number of ttrpgs is the needed work to have a magic system where spells are not fixed formulas is the amount of work involved.
One thing I learned working on my own game is that even a simple spell or ability that does one or two simple things is a pretty good chunk of work all by it self. Simple ideas like lightning lash or heated hands need a good bit of work to fill them out beyond guy gets hit it hurts him.
Making D&D magic feel more Vancian/Magical
A simple thing I do at my table; and have been thinking about doing as a blog article. is spell slots are directly tied to your INT score for Magic-Users.
1. E.g. A wizard with an INT of 12 can hold twelve 1st level spells, or two 6th level spells or any combination there in.
2. Spells are not fungible, no two spells are identical in the setting and only one instance of a spell can be memorized, meaning you can't have twelve light spells or magic missiles.
3. Players roll to see what spells they have in their spell book at first level, and can only get spells from learning and adding them to their book, not from leveling.
In effect this makes magic users are both way weaker (but also more powerful in some ways) but more magical feeling, more arcane and odd. it also is a way of emulating Jack Vance better without really a major overhaul of the D&D spells themselves, as the DM just includes or excludes what feels right for the setting.
The Pundit Style of Magic
I'm currently running a playtest of a modern day OSR monster hunter game I've dubbed Be Not Afraid. for a year now plus change. while the game is not directly centered around magicians (As the game is more about playing everyday people or the those graced by the divine) I do have it as an option to pursue being a chaos magician. as a placeholder for this I've used Invisible Collages magic for this purpose. This is what I've gathered so far.
1. Players are very receptive to the ritual nature of the magic, they think in terms of prep and conditions for casting and trying to time shit for when they need it, it leads to a more methodical use of magic at the table I quite enjoy.
2. The magic itself is rather evocative and never not interesting, outside of basic bitch sigil work every time magic has been used at the table it was typically pretty eventful.
3. More so For the Invisible collage than say Lion & Dragon, the book is a bit uptuse to use at the table itself, it's one of those things you almost need to memorize or have a player tell you in advance what they plan to cast or do because finding stuff and understanding on a first pass what needs to be done I find hard. This could be more a formatting issue but it does niggle at me.
4. Attainment is a super interesting mechanic, what I love about it the simple principle of doing magic makes you better at magic (combined with the rituals required to get over certain thresholds) makes it an interesting mechanic, I have something quite like it called Conviction in my game setting.
What I don't care for is maybe more of a setting based issue, but the idea of the sum total of one's magical power being tied up in one stat seems a bit odd, I do understand the way occultism is lensed through a Masonic universalist viewpoint. it mechanically makes sense to make it a single streamlined stat but it really doesn't make sense why a rando chaos magic user is better at Voudon magic than a dedicated Bokor Priest who's done that their whole life. (I know Voudon/Voodoo isn't in your system but I was using it as an example)
I had an idea for a magic system I might do, by breaking up a stat like Attainment into the theories and practices, each theory and each practice goes from 0-100 like Attainment. adding together the bonuses, it means a player could super specialize on being super good at Runic Divination or CyberSigils. or more generalize and pick up a lot of +1 in everything.
EDIT: I don't really have a lot to say on Lion & Dragon / Baptism of Fire's magic system other than to say like how standard D&D magic perfectly fits a setting like Mystera, so does the magic of those games, combined with the good layout makes it breezy to use at the table and they are purpose fit those game settings.
Thank you for the video. I've long felt that D&D magic doesn't fit anything other than the feel of D&D worlds, and it's also why strap-on additions (e.g., Incarnum, Name Magic, etc.) always felt weird to me. For that matter, D&D psionics has never been something I love, and its hardwiring into Dark Sun is one of the few strikes against that setting for me.
D&D magic has been around long enough to go full circle, with magic from some serious literature seeming to emulate it. The best example is Zelazny's second amber series - Merlin (of Chaos and Amber, not Camelot) "hangs" a limited number of spells before use which are one shot only. I don't know for sure that D&D inspired this, but I do know that the author got into RPGs late in his life, so it's certainly possible. I'd probably be contemptuous of anyone else that did this, but everything Zelazny wrote is gold.
Quote from: Mishihari on December 29, 2024, 04:38:11 AMD&D magic has been around long enough to go full circle, with magic from some serious literature seeming to emulate it. The best example is Zelazny's second amber series - Merlin (of Chaos and Amber, not Camelot) "hangs" a limited number of spells before use which are one shot only. I don't know for sure that D&D inspired this, but I do know that the author got into RPGs late in his life, so it's certainly possible. I'd probably be contemptuous of anyone else that did this, but everything Zelazny wrote is gold.
The Merlin series started before Zelazny played any RPGs, though he was aware of them as a thing. Furthermore, he had the idea for the character long before he wrote the books. It's not clear from his notes and his other writings, but I suspect that the idea came from his widespread reading of other authors. Zelazny believed that a writer should read fiction and non-fiction pretty much continuously as part of learning how to write. Plus, he was often experimenting in his published writing.
Quote from: kosmos1214 on December 28, 2024, 05:58:20 PMWell I want to start off by saying thank you for a fantastic video.
One thing I think plays in to the way magic is portrayed in a number of ttrpgs is the needed work to have a magic system where spells are not fixed formulas is the amount of work involved.
One thing I learned working on my own game is that even a simple spell or ability that does one or two simple things is a pretty good chunk of work all by it self. Simple ideas like lightning lash or heated hands need a good bit of work to fill them out beyond guy gets hit it hurts him.
Thanks!
Quote from: Socratic-DM on December 28, 2024, 05:59:30 PMMaking D&D magic feel more Vancian/Magical
A simple thing I do at my table; and have been thinking about doing as a blog article. is spell slots are directly tied to your INT score for Magic-Users.
1. E.g. A wizard with an INT of 12 can hold twelve 1st level spells, or two 6th level spells or any combination there in.
2. Spells are not fungible, no two spells are identical in the setting and only one instance of a spell can be memorized, meaning you can't have twelve light spells or magic missiles.
3. Players roll to see what spells they have in their spell book at first level, and can only get spells from learning and adding them to their book, not from leveling.
In effect this makes magic users are both way weaker (but also more powerful in some ways) but more magical feeling, more arcane and odd. it also is a way of emulating Jack Vance better without really a major overhaul of the D&D spells themselves, as the DM just includes or excludes what feels right for the setting.
The Pundit Style of Magic
I'm currently running a playtest of a modern day OSR monster hunter game I've dubbed Be Not Afraid. for a year now plus change. while the game is not directly centered around magicians (As the game is more about playing everyday people or the those graced by the divine) I do have it as an option to pursue being a chaos magician. as a placeholder for this I've used Invisible Collages magic for this purpose. This is what I've gathered so far.
1. Players are very receptive to the ritual nature of the magic, they think in terms of prep and conditions for casting and trying to time shit for when they need it, it leads to a more methodical use of magic at the table I quite enjoy.
2. The magic itself is rather evocative and never not interesting, outside of basic bitch sigil work every time magic has been used at the table it was typically pretty eventful.
3. More so For the Invisible collage than say Lion & Dragon, the book is a bit uptuse to use at the table itself, it's one of those things you almost need to memorize or have a player tell you in advance what they plan to cast or do because finding stuff and understanding on a first pass what needs to be done I find hard. This could be more a formatting issue but it does niggle at me.
4. Attainment is a super interesting mechanic, what I love about it the simple principle of doing magic makes you better at magic (combined with the rituals required to get over certain thresholds) makes it an interesting mechanic, I have something quite like it called Conviction in my game setting.
What I don't care for is maybe more of a setting based issue, but the idea of the sum total of one's magical power being tied up in one stat seems a bit odd, I do understand the way occultism is lensed through a Masonic universalist viewpoint. it mechanically makes sense to make it a single streamlined stat but it really doesn't make sense why a rando chaos magic user is better at Voudon magic than a dedicated Bokor Priest who's done that their whole life. (I know Voudon/Voodoo isn't in your system but I was using it as an example)
I had an idea for a magic system I might do, by breaking up a stat like Attainment into the theories and practices, each theory and each practice goes from 0-100 like Attainment. adding together the bonuses, it means a player could super specialize on being super good at Runic Divination or CyberSigils. or more generalize and pick up a lot of +1 in everything.
EDIT: I don't really have a lot to say on Lion & Dragon / Baptism of Fire's magic system other than to say like how standard D&D magic perfectly fits a setting like Mystera, so does the magic of those games, combined with the good layout makes it breezy to use at the table and they are purpose fit those game settings.
That's some really great analysis of how magic works in the Invisible College!
Quote from: HappyDaze on December 29, 2024, 12:40:40 AMThank you for the video. I've long felt that D&D magic doesn't fit anything other than the feel of D&D worlds, and it's also why strap-on additions (e.g., Incarnum, Name Magic, etc.) always felt weird to me. For that matter, D&D psionics has never been something I love, and its hardwiring into Dark Sun is one of the few strikes against that setting for me.
Spread the word, share the video!
Quote from: Steven Mitchell on December 29, 2024, 08:29:13 AMQuote from: Mishihari on December 29, 2024, 04:38:11 AMD&D magic has been around long enough to go full circle, with magic from some serious literature seeming to emulate it. The best example is Zelazny's second amber series - Merlin (of Chaos and Amber, not Camelot) "hangs" a limited number of spells before use which are one shot only. I don't know for sure that D&D inspired this, but I do know that the author got into RPGs late in his life, so it's certainly possible. I'd probably be contemptuous of anyone else that did this, but everything Zelazny wrote is gold.
The Merlin series started before Zelazny played any RPGs, though he was aware of them as a thing. Furthermore, he had the idea for the character long before he wrote the books. It's not clear from his notes and his other writings, but I suspect that the idea came from his widespread reading of other authors. Zelazny believed that a writer should read fiction and non-fiction pretty much continuously as part of learning how to write. Plus, he was often experimenting in his published writing.
If I had to guess, he may have been inspired somewhat by Vance.
Didn't Ars Magica release their magic rules into an SRD?
They released the older edition for sure. I have that on the mighty to-read and may play pile.
My idea for magic is for it to be variable.
Casting a spell to bend a spoon you're holding is easier than a spell to lift an army tank out of the mud from a mile away.
Both are telekinesis.
Let the GM set the target number for each time you cast a spell.
The target number can even change every time, even for the exact same task. Why? It's magic. It waxes and wanes based on mysterious patterns that nobody knows about.
Fixed effects for fixed costs with exact numbers shouldn't be a thing.
Quote from: weirdguy564 on December 29, 2024, 09:21:42 PMThe target number can even change every time, even for the exact same task. Why? It's magic. It waxes and wanes based on mysterious patterns that nobody knows about.
Can't say as I or any of my players would like that. In most heroic fantasy game settings, magic is generally well understood and fairly predictable (even when it is not, such as "chaos magic"). When it stops following those rules, it's generally a
big problem that PC-types have to go fix.
Quote from: weirdguy564 on December 29, 2024, 09:21:42 PMMy idea for magic is for it to be variable.
Casting a spell to bend a spoon you're holding is easier than a spell to lift an army tank out of the mud from a mile away.
Both are telekinesis.
Let the GM set the target number for each time you cast a spell.
The target number can even change every time, even for the exact same task. Why? It's magic. It waxes and wanes based on mysterious patterns that nobody knows about.
Fixed effects for fixed costs with exact numbers shouldn't be a thing.
Yes, and that reduces the number of spells you need. You don't need multiple healing spells, just multiple difficulties on the check necessary to cure stuff. You don't need dozens of attack spells, you just need different difficulties depending on the strength of the spell you want to cast, and maybe variations on the type of damage it does (ie. fire vs cold vs lightning).
Quote from: RPGPundit on December 30, 2024, 08:46:27 AMQuote from: weirdguy564 on December 29, 2024, 09:21:42 PMMy idea for magic is for it to be variable.
Casting a spell to bend a spoon you're holding is easier than a spell to lift an army tank out of the mud from a mile away.
Both are telekinesis.
Let the GM set the target number for each time you cast a spell.
The target number can even change every time, even for the exact same task. Why? It's magic. It waxes and wanes based on mysterious patterns that nobody knows about.
Fixed effects for fixed costs with exact numbers shouldn't be a thing.
Yes, and that reduces the number of spells you need. You don't need multiple healing spells, just multiple difficulties on the check necessary to cure stuff. You don't need dozens of attack spells, you just need different difficulties depending on the strength of the spell you want to cast, and maybe variations on the type of damage it does (ie. fire vs cold vs lightning).
The Genesys magic system from Realms of Terrinoth does that. Magic is splint into categories of effect (I think 7 or 8...) and each type of caster can only use 5 (IIRC) categories. This is the "wizards don't heal" block as typically seen in D&D. However, you can "build" your effects within each category with the total giving the Difficulty and possibly impacting the Strain of the casting. It's a nice little system.
I think Spheres of Power is a must here
Quote from: HappyDaze on December 30, 2024, 02:27:59 AMQuote from: weirdguy564 on December 29, 2024, 09:21:42 PMThe target number can even change every time, even for the exact same task. Why? It's magic. It waxes and wanes based on mysterious patterns that nobody knows about.
Can't say as I or any of my players would like that. In most heroic fantasy game settings, magic is generally well understood and fairly predictable (even when it is not, such as "chaos magic"). When it stops following those rules, it's generally a big problem that PC-types have to go fix.
I think this is root of the problem. Most fantasy game settings magic is well-understood, predictable, and fits with a scientific world view.
This is different from magic in most literary settings like Middle Earth, Narnia, Amber, etc. -- where magic has a wondrous and/or mysterious quality to it.
Though being random and arbitrary isn't the same as being wondrous and mysterious. To be mysterious, there has to be hidden things to be learned from magic - so the waxing and waning should be something that the players can find out more about - though there could still be further mystery to it.
Quote from: jhkim on December 30, 2024, 02:19:17 PMQuote from: HappyDaze on December 30, 2024, 02:27:59 AMQuote from: weirdguy564 on December 29, 2024, 09:21:42 PMThe target number can even change every time, even for the exact same task. Why? It's magic. It waxes and wanes based on mysterious patterns that nobody knows about.
Can't say as I or any of my players would like that. In most heroic fantasy game settings, magic is generally well understood and fairly predictable (even when it is not, such as "chaos magic"). When it stops following those rules, it's generally a big problem that PC-types have to go fix.
I think this is root of the problem. Most fantasy game settings magic is well-understood, predictable, and fits with a scientific world view.
This is different from magic in most literary settings like Middle Earth, Narnia, Amber, etc. -- where magic has a wondrous and/or mysterious quality to it.
Though being random and arbitrary isn't the same as being wondrous and mysterious. To be mysterious, there has to be hidden things to be learned from magic - so the waxing and waning should be something that the players can find out more about - though there could still be further mystery to it.
I've been toying with the idea lately that in order to keep magic in a fantasy game (for lack of a better word) "magical", you simply cannot let PCs have access to it. As soon as you put magic in the hands of PCs, you have to make it obey consistent game rules, and that necessarily disenchants the game world. Maybe the most you can do is let the players get hold of magical artifacts they don't even really understand the use of, but giving them the spell rules I think always cheapens the magic to a degree. On top of that, I don't think you can ever really have a "low magic" game world if your players can easily access magic, and if you can make a magician at character creation, that's easy access as far as I'm concerned.
I've been considering trying to put this into a practice and run a fantasy campaign where PCs simply cannot be spellcasters, but I strongly suspect the expectation of being able to play a wizard is so entrenched in fantasy gaming that I would not be able to get players for it.
Quote from: ForgottenF on December 30, 2024, 03:57:27 PMI've been considering trying to put this into a practice and run a fantasy campaign where PCs simply cannot be spellcasters, but I strongly suspect the expectation of being able to play a wizard is so entrenched in fantasy gaming that I would not be able to get players for it.
There's
The One Ring and
Pendragon, but those are very specific flavors of fantasy. It's an experiment I've wanted to try as well. If you want something in the d20 vein, I think
FantasyCraft is going to be the best starting point.
Quote from: ForgottenF on December 30, 2024, 03:57:27 PMQuote from: jhkim on December 30, 2024, 02:19:17 PMQuote from: HappyDaze on December 30, 2024, 02:27:59 AMQuote from: weirdguy564 on December 29, 2024, 09:21:42 PMThe target number can even change every time, even for the exact same task. Why? It's magic. It waxes and wanes based on mysterious patterns that nobody knows about.
Can't say as I or any of my players would like that. In most heroic fantasy game settings, magic is generally well understood and fairly predictable (even when it is not, such as "chaos magic"). When it stops following those rules, it's generally a big problem that PC-types have to go fix.
I think this is root of the problem. Most fantasy game settings magic is well-understood, predictable, and fits with a scientific world view.
This is different from magic in most literary settings like Middle Earth, Narnia, Amber, etc. -- where magic has a wondrous and/or mysterious quality to it.
Though being random and arbitrary isn't the same as being wondrous and mysterious. To be mysterious, there has to be hidden things to be learned from magic - so the waxing and waning should be something that the players can find out more about - though there could still be further mystery to it.
I've been toying with the idea lately that in order to keep magic in a fantasy game (for lack of a better word) "magical", you simply cannot let PCs have access to it. As soon as you put magic in the hands of PCs, you have to make it obey consistent game rules, and that necessarily disenchants the game world. Maybe the most you can do is let the players get hold of magical artifacts they don't even really understand the use of, but giving them the spell rules I think always cheapens the magic to a degree. On top of that, I don't think you can ever really have a "low magic" game world if your players can easily access magic, and if you can make a magician at character creation, that's easy access as far as I'm concerned.
I've been considering trying to put this into a practice and run a fantasy campaign where PCs simply cannot be spellcasters, but I strongly suspect the expectation of being able to play a wizard is so entrenched in fantasy gaming that I would not be able to get players for it.
Well, I heard from a pretty credible source that originally Gary Gygax didn't want to let players play magic-users in D&D.
Quote from: Armchair Gamer on December 30, 2024, 04:37:53 PMQuote from: ForgottenF on December 30, 2024, 03:57:27 PMI've been considering trying to put this into a practice and run a fantasy campaign where PCs simply cannot be spellcasters, but I strongly suspect the expectation of being able to play a wizard is so entrenched in fantasy gaming that I would not be able to get players for it.
There's The One Ring and Pendragon, but those are very specific flavors of fantasy. It's an experiment I've wanted to try as well. If you want something in the d20 vein, I think FantasyCraft is going to be the best starting point.
OK, but D&D is also a very specific, limited flavor of fantasy. I agree with Pundit that while D&D has inspirations, it really is doing it's own thing. Especially in magic, it is creating its own subgenre that doesn't emulate anything else.
It's a subjective things, but I feel like magic can remain fairly magical even with PC magic-users as long as the GM keeps up mysterious elements to it - secrets that are beyond player knowledge, but that they can make some progress on. It has worked for me in some campaigns like Call of Cthulhu, Amber Diceless, and RuneQuest - as well as various homebrews.
For example, in my RuneQuest-based vikings game, there was a PC viking shaman who learned more about the spirits of the new land as well as engaging in dream quests for their own spirits. In Amber games (both ones that I played and GMed), it was common for the GM to reveal new secrets about the structure of the universe - revealing strange new shadows and powers and such. Call of Cthulhu similarly would often have new secrets being revealed (often horrifying ones, of course).
One of my favorite RPG's is Pocket Fantasy. It is super rules lite.
Magic consists of six known combat spells. These don't change.
Out of combat a wizard can cast anything they want, but the GM sets the difficulty number for the spell, or may even make it impossible. The only rule is summoned things have a duration of 1 day.
A wizard gets two combat per fight, every fight. Out of combat they get two spells per session.
Turning in re-roll tokens can be used to cast additional combat and non-combat spells.
If a wizard wants to cast a spell on a farmer's house to repair the roof, go for it. Difficulty is simple. 3-6 on a 1D6. Want to conjure up a small castle out of thin air to sleep in for the night. Ok, not a big deal as a GM I wasn't planning to mess with the party during the night, so why not? Average difficulty. A 4-6 on a 1D6.
But running from the litch they just woke up the party needs a heavily barred door open, and right now! Ok, I am not going to let my Players escape every fight. They've already teleported to safety the last three boss fights. This is getting to be a habit. A bad habit. Not this time. It's a very difficult spell because of the rush, and the winds of magic are not cooperating, plus the stars for it are out of alignment or some other BS. Either way, using magic to bypass a danger isn't the GM's plan. The difficulty is set to max, or even denied.
That's a magic system with a variable difficulty number that works for me
Quote from: Armchair Gamer on December 30, 2024, 04:37:53 PMQuote from: ForgottenF on December 30, 2024, 03:57:27 PMI've been considering trying to put this into a practice and run a fantasy campaign where PCs simply cannot be spellcasters, but I strongly suspect the expectation of being able to play a wizard is so entrenched in fantasy gaming that I would not be able to get players for it.
There's The One Ring and Pendragon, but those are very specific flavors of fantasy. It's an experiment I've wanted to try as well. If you want something in the d20 vein, I think FantasyCraft is going to be the best starting point.
Interesting suggestion. Why would you pick that one?
My first instinct would be to go for something very rules-light and open-ended, on the grounds that if your players can't use magic to solve their problems, they need to be able to leverage their creativity to the utmost. Plus, if you're trying to keep magic abstract, seems like a more abstract game would complement that.
I've generally written off FantasyCraft in the past, just because it seems too fiddly, too many moving parts for my taste. However I do think you'd want a game with a skill system for such a campaign, and cutting out player magic would trim down the system significantly.
Quote from: RPGPundit on December 30, 2024, 05:41:35 PMWell, I heard from a pretty credible source that originally Gary Gygax didn't want to let players play magic-users in D&D.
If Uncle Gary couldn't hold the line on it, that doesn't bode well for my chances.
Quote from: jhkim on December 30, 2024, 06:26:26 PMOK, but D&D is also a very specific, limited flavor of fantasy. I agree with Pundit that while D&D has inspirations, it really is doing it's own thing. Especially in magic, it is creating its own subgenre that doesn't emulate anything else.
It's a subjective things, but I feel like magic can remain fairly magical even with PC magic-users as long as the GM keeps up mysterious elements to it - secrets that are beyond player knowledge, but that they can make some progress on. It has worked for me in some campaigns like Call of Cthulhu, Amber Diceless, and RuneQuest - as well as various homebrews.
For example, in my RuneQuest-based vikings game, there was a PC viking shaman who learned more about the spirits of the new land as well as engaging in dream quests for their own spirits. In Amber games (both ones that I played and GMed), it was common for the GM to reveal new secrets about the structure of the universe - revealing strange new shadows and powers and such. Call of Cthulhu similarly would often have new secrets being revealed (often horrifying ones, of course).
I think Call of Cthulhu's approach, where no one really begins the game as a magician and you have to learn little bits of magic as the campaign proceeds, is one that's worth trying to emulate in a more conventional fantasy milieu. I also like the idea that several games have played with, where spells have to be found and equipped or attuned, and then you need a sufficient attribute or skill level to use them. That's what I'm using in my own game, if I ever get around to finishing it.
Somewhat unrelated, but another thing I'd like to try doing is medieval-style fantasy with only psionics. A compromise I've considered related to this topic is a campaign setting in which psychic powers are relatively common and available to PCs, but magic of the more traditional flavor is the province of a few NPCs only. Outside of the Lone Wolf books, I don't think I've seen that approach taken.
EDIT: I just realized that arguably Carcosa takes the same approach I just mentioned, but that's more science fiction/fantasy than medieval fantasy.
D&D may be the 800lb gorilla, but its magic system is awful.
There. I said it. I don't like Vancian magic.
I'm more used to magic having an energy point system. Palladium books for example.
Along with 50 years of D&D we have 49 years and 11 months of this complaint. I like the retro criticism though.
Maybe you can do a video on how you can make combat more realistic with parry and dodge rules next.
QuoteWell, I heard from a pretty credible source that originally Gary Gygax didn't want to let players play magic-users in D&D.
You mean like his own character, Mordenkainen? Or his son's character, Tenser?
Quote from: weirdguy564 on December 30, 2024, 10:23:25 PMD&D may be the 800lb gorilla, but its magic system is awful.
There. I said it. I don't like Vancian magic.
I'm more used to magic being an energy point system. Palladium books for example.
I always loved Earthdawn's magic system...at least until I tried running a game with full-on Thread Weaving. Very cool, but a shit-ton of book-keeping.
I've been messing around with a magic system in an RPG I've been noodling around with developing, where there are variants of some spells. Stronger versions of the spell use the prefix, "Bi-" or "Tri-" to identify them. Stronger variants require greater magic abilities to cast, have a greater cost, but require the same roll result to cast successfully.
Quote from: ForgottenF on December 30, 2024, 03:57:27 PMI've been toying with the idea lately that in order to keep magic in a fantasy game (for lack of a better word) "magical", you simply cannot let PCs have access to it. As soon as you put magic in the hands of PCs, you have to make it obey consistent game rules, and that necessarily disenchants the game world. Maybe the most you can do is let the players get hold of magical artifacts they don't even really understand the use of, but giving them the spell rules I think always cheapens the magic to a degree. On top of that, I don't think you can ever really have a "low magic" game world if your players can easily access magic, and if you can make a magician at character creation, that's easy access as far as I'm concerned.
I've been considering trying to put this into a practice and run a fantasy campaign where PCs simply cannot be spellcasters, but I strongly suspect the expectation of being able to play a wizard is so entrenched in fantasy gaming that I would not be able to get players for it.
I think there are limits to how much you can "get away with" for most players, and that does necessarily take out some of the mystery of magic. Plus, it's just a plain hassle for the GM in many cases, whereas I'm always looking for ways to put things back on the players--where it doesn't hurt too much.
That said, there's no reason to take things to the infinite conclusion, either. Oh well, magic isn't perfectly mysterious, so we'll make it utterly bland--so "scientific" that's it is more rigid and symmetrical than real world science. I think there's a happy excluded middle to play in.
Some of the things I'm doing along those lines:
- Magic is somewhat siloed by definition (in my setting/rules). Yeah, a PC can get access to the Faerie magic tradition, but when he does, it rules out his mind/body/soul being able to perform Celestial, Primeval, or Wizardry traditional magic. To reinforce this, there are
ZERO cross-over spells in the traditions. There are some similar effects, but done with at least slight differences in both flavor and utility. When you get some magic, you are automatically excluded from doing a lot of other things that magic can do.
- Take a note from Runequest. Make "common" magic that anyone can learn (within the constraints above) is not always the most powerful. It's useful, but not all encompassing.
- Magic accessible to players is not all the magic. There are specialty spells that not just anyone can learn, though during play a character will stumble across some of these spells and might get lucky enough to learn a handful of them. That doesn't translate to a later character. The GM can afford to take some risks here with custom spells, because each one is so niche, for player purposes it often dies with the PC.
- Not coincidentally, this makes magic not very attractive to some players, who will naturally gravitate towards characters who can do a wide range of things through mundane means. This makes the magic that is left seem a little more mysterious to the party as a whole, if not the players of the casters.
Quote from: Calithena on December 31, 2024, 12:14:59 AMAlong with 50 years of D&D we have 49 years and 11 months of this complaint. I like the retro criticism though.
Maybe you can do a video on how you can make combat more realistic with parry and dodge rules next.
Lion & Dragon and Baptism of Fire both have parry rules.
Quote from: Calithena on December 31, 2024, 12:18:49 AMQuoteWell, I heard from a pretty credible source that originally Gary Gygax didn't want to let players play magic-users in D&D.
You mean like his own character, Mordenkainen? Or his son's character, Tenser?
He eventually got over it.
Chaosium released a supplement with rules for sorcery and alchemy inspired by occultism, Enlightened Magic.
Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on December 31, 2024, 10:51:49 AMChaosium released a supplement with rules for sorcery and alchemy inspired by occultism, Enlightened Magic.
I've never read it, but I'm willing to bet that Invisible College is better. And in fact, it's better than anything Chaosium has done since at least 2014.
Quote from: RPGPundit on December 31, 2024, 04:49:32 PMQuote from: BoxCrayonTales on December 31, 2024, 10:51:49 AMChaosium released a supplement with rules for sorcery and alchemy inspired by occultism, Enlightened Magic.
I've never read it, but I'm willing to bet that Invisible College is better. And in fact, it's better than anything Chaosium has done since at least 2014.
I think you should read it before making any conclusions.
The basic conceit is simple. There are two magic systems in the book, sorcery and alchemy. Both have three ascending circles and all spells have an elemental association.
The first circle of sorcery is casual and allow the sorcerer to perform simple spells that affect 1 target and last no more than one round or 10 minutes depending on balance. This circle is mostly useful for sensory spells. The second circle of sorcery is ritual and allows the sorcerer to target people outside visual range using magical connections. The effects here are more powerful, including remote scrying. The third circle is even more powerful, allowing you to manipulate politics, control the weather, or cause heart attacks. Sorcery is subtle and doesn't allow you to transmute matter.
Alchemy has three circles, but these determine the type of target rather than the power level. The first circle involves creating materials in a lab that can be applied to a target to create the desired effect, or to alter the target in the lab for a more powerful effect. Effects are purely limited to physical phenomena, including transmuting led into gold or transforming someone into a duplicate of someone else. The second circle involves creating a work of art that produces a desired mental effect in witnesses, such as sharing a dream or making them more or less agreeable. The third circle involves the alchemist meditating and then casting the effect by touching or gazing at the target to affect their soul. This circle allows the alchemist to see the bonds between people, cause or cure insanity, or give souls to inanimate objects.
I found it pretty flavorful myself. It's not quite authentic to real occultism, but I liked it.
Quote from: ForgottenF on December 30, 2024, 10:07:36 PMInteresting suggestion. Why would you pick that one?
Well, again, this was assuming you wanted to stay in the d20/modern D&D framework, and
FantasyCraft is one of the only versions I'm aware of that doesn't assume magic as a fundamental part of PC abilities.
You could go rules-light/OD&D, as you suggest, but once you hit the AD&D level of the game, I think PC spellcasting is too baked into most versions unless you're willing to do a lot of additional work.
Quote from: ForgottenF on December 30, 2024, 03:57:27 PMI've been toying with the idea lately that in order to keep magic in a fantasy game (for lack of a better word) "magical", you simply cannot let PCs have access to it. As soon as you put magic in the hands of PCs, you have to make it obey consistent game rules, and that necessarily disenchants the game world. Maybe the most you can do is let the players get hold of magical artifacts they don't even really understand the use of, but giving them the spell rules I think always cheapens the magic to a degree. On top of that, I don't think you can ever really have a "low magic" game world if your players can easily access magic, and if you can make a magician at character creation, that's easy access as far as I'm concerned.
I've been considering trying to put this into a practice and run a fantasy campaign where PCs simply cannot be spellcasters, but I strongly suspect the expectation of being able to play a wizard is so entrenched in fantasy gaming that I would not be able to get players for it.
You can have magic using player characters and still keep magic mysterious. Professor DM made a great video featuring how magic works in his campaign.
1) All magic users must have a mentor. Spells are learned only from this mentor.
2) Players do not get to see the spell lists. Magic users understand only magics that they have been taught. They do not know exactly what other powers there may be until their mentor instructs them.
3) The DM gets to decide which magics are introduced to the game and when. Any problematic spells can be altered or removed from the game.
4) Mystery is maintained by the players not knowing what powers exist or exactly how they work. If the players cannot simply look up spells in a rulebook then they will be eager to find out what magics exist as they advance and learn more from their mentor.
5) The DM is encouraged to alter standard spells and add in non-standard ones. The rules on how everything works should be kept in the DM's notebook, not in a document the players can peruse.
6) When a magic user is taught a new spell by their mentor don't just give the player the stat block. Give them the basics of how the spell works and how to activate it. Let the player discover other aspects through trial & error. Max range, # of targets, saving throw, and other limitations can be discovered in play.
7) Without access to the entire spell list, strange magical effects abound! NPC casters hurl magic power that is actually mysterious.Players can't be sure if the spell that was cast is a standard spell or something strange cooked up by that particular wizard.
I like these ideas and may implement them in my next fantasy campaign.
Quote from: Steven Mitchell on December 31, 2024, 06:48:05 AMQuote from: ForgottenF on December 30, 2024, 03:57:27 PMI've been considering trying to put this into a practice and run a fantasy campaign where PCs simply cannot be spellcasters, but I strongly suspect the expectation of being able to play a wizard is so entrenched in fantasy gaming that I would not be able to get players for it.
I think there are limits to how much you can "get away with" for most players, and that does necessarily take out some of the mystery of magic. Plus, it's just a plain hassle for the GM in many cases, whereas I'm always looking for ways to put things back on the players--where it doesn't hurt too much.
That said, there's no reason to take things to the infinite conclusion, either. Oh well, magic isn't perfectly mysterious, so we'll make it utterly bland--so "scientific" that's it is more rigid and symmetrical than real world science. I think there's a happy excluded middle to play in.
Having totally non-D&D-esque magic is not an unplayable extreme or an infinite conclusion, though. The implied spectrum here is where one extreme is by-the-book D&D magic and the other extreme is totally non-D&D magic.
I don't think there is such a linear spectrum. D&D-esque magic is only one tiny corner in the broad map of all the possible magic systems. There's nothing wrong with having systems close to D&D, but there are also lots of different possible and playable games that have magic completely unrelated to D&D.
Examples include Lion & Dragon, Stormbringer, Ars Magica, and Amber Diceless are all far apart from each other while also being quite different from D&D.
The 4th edition _Fantasy HERO_ sourcebook had a great section of developing campaign-specific magic systems, which is useful even if you aren't using the HERO system in play. It's about characterizing what magic is like, and how things work. For example, I played in a T'ang dynasty China game that had weird Taoist and Buddhist magic - and also an urban fantasy game with more fae/spirit magic.
Quote from: Exploderwizard on January 01, 2025, 12:55:10 PM2) Players do not get to see the spell lists. Magic users understand only magics that they have been taught. They do not know exactly what other powers there may be until their mentor instructs them.
3) The DM gets to decide which magics are introduced to the game and when. Any problematic spells can be altered or removed from the game.
On 2: Players should have an in-game "common knowledge" of the general uses/effects of magic in the game world. Especially if they have a mentor.
But a general idea/common knowledge is very different from being able to read the spell list. Still LOTS of room for how things actually work in play.
On 3: This should be handled by a random chart. If the PC occasionally wants something specific, there should be another chart that you roll to see if the Mentor knows it.
I have become very pro random table about stuff like this lately, as it gives the GM a useful degree of separation from determining himself what happens to the PC.
A lot of what Professor DM says are very good ideas, but they must be filtered through the fact that he essentially homebrews everything he plays.
I dont know if you know that but there is other novel that have magic more like D&D. but that novel were launched after D&D. like harry potter or brandon sanderson novels.
Quote from: antonioGUAK on January 05, 2025, 03:16:49 AMI dont know if you know that but there is other novel that have magic more like D&D. but that novel were launched after D&D. like harry potter or brandon sanderson novels.
I haven't read Sanderson, but the magic in Harry Potter doesn't have anything like slots that are memorized once per day and forgotten after being cast.
A lot of fiction both before and after D&D has practitioners cast spells with similar effects -- like fireball, lightning bolt, etc. But the structure of casting and magic is different.